Ron Paul is close...so long as he's in congress and everyone shuts him down when he gets nutty. But he's a libertarian, and they aren't what a democrat or most people would consider socially liberal, go far beyond what republicans would consider fiscally conservate straight to privatizing almost all government functions, and similarly go way beyond what either would consider sane in regards to most every other issue from anti-trust to foreign policy. Ron Paul might be able to do well for a while, becuase I think a lot of people agree with the positions he doesn't like. But if he got the nomination they're going to start asking about the positions he'd actually take on things, and even many Republicans will wind up voting for Obama. P. Lotor might have made a good call with Gary Johnson as he seems like a budget-slashing marijuana-legalizing type without going overboard per: http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm But this is his first time running for president, he hasn't been a senator or congressman, and he's yet to write a book or anything to my knowledge. So his views at a national level aren't so well known beyond what's in that link. (At least not to me). As for the OPs other question, yes, there are a lot of independents with leanings in the libertarian direction, hence why politicians with libertarian leanings have been doing passably well as long as they run as Republicans.
Ron Paul is fundamentally against gay marriage and abortion. He is nothing close to a social liberal.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Libertarians aren't necessarily social liberals. They just don't believe govt has any business in those matters. I'm a conservative and a small L libertarian. I am not a social liberal. I don't think the govt has any place in social issues. See how that works?
He's mostly a "let the states do they want" guy on those things. Dunno if I would really call him a "social liberal" but he's better than the types who want a constitutional amendment banning abortion or gay marriage or something.
Libertarians tend to come in all shapes and sizes. A lot of liberals were calling themselves libertarian around 2005 - 2006. These types of people tend to make up their own mind when it comes to morality.
No... I am as morally sound as any social conservative. I dont kill , steal, rape, I earn my keep. Just because I am not against gay marriage or I believe that the theory of evolution.. or I dont believe that jews are the chosen ones.. or that I will go to hell if i dont become a christian... this doesnt make me a moral anarchist... doesnt mean i have to submit to mob mentality morals when it comes to personal decisions that do not impact anybody other tham myself.
Ron Paul would not stop any gay people from getting married so it doesn't matter whether he condones it personally or not. He believes all government should be out of marriage, that it is between the couple and their church. Well you got me on baby murder. Ron Paul is strongly against that, and just like regular murder believes it should be stopped. So if baby murder is your issue, Ron Paul is not your guy.
Absolutely, which is why he is close to what the OP is looking for. (really the closest candidate running with half a chance) While he may have conservative personal views on many social issues he would not use the force of government to impose his views on the people. Lol "small L" that looks like a big L : P
Isn't it ironic how the same advocates of "individualism" seem to shun leading a lifestyle that differs from the norm? I have my disagreements with Libertarians, but at least they're more consistent than a lot of conservatives.
No. It isn't. They're something else entirely. At least if they actually get their way. Poke around the internet on minarchy (A Libertarian's version of "big government") and anarcho-capitalism. That said while I don't agree at all with what they are for, I often agree with what they are against. So I wouldn't mind having maybe 20% of the house and senate as Libertarians. Enough to act as a rudder that can give a thumbs up or thumbs down to various bills coming out of the Republican and Democrat blocs, but not enough to pass anything of their own contrivance or to block the main parties when they agree. Just keep 'em out of the executive branch.
A lot of crazy answers. The question is simple. Looking for a fiscal conservative and someone who is not opposed to gay marriage, or abortion. Anyone?
Yes, see link above. and just for the record, Paul invited Johnson into the race. I believe to get him some national exposure in case Paul wins the nod (to avoid the Palin pile-on effect)...look for Johnson to be asked to VP a Paul ticket. And what a brilliant ticket it would be!!! Real hope for real fiscal, structural changes -- no social engineering included!!!
That guy is far too slick. Reminds me of Burt Lancaster in the Rain Maker or a sleasy TV evangelical, always with the smirk. I'll take the guy who steps on his tongue but knows his own heart.
Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are your 2 best bets. As the elections continue, Jesse Ventura may also enter the race as an Independent.
He hasn't a snowball's chance in hell. His whole conspiracy theorist thang will make Christine O'Donnell look like Stephen Hawkings and Madame Thatcher rolled into one. He ended his political career with that "reality show". Additionally, I do not believe TEA partiers and Independents will vote a third party this cycle -- the stakes are too high.
I'm against abortion but I'm willing to tolerate Roe vs. Wade. What does that say about me. Is it only social liberals who approve of abortion in the last trimester? How...liberal. I think gay couples should have all the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual couples. It doesn't interest me whether it's called marriage or civil union.