[justlurking]

This is something “fiscal conservatives” and libertarians fundamentally do not understand: there is no such thing as fiscal conservatism separated from its “social” aka moral roots.

And you don't understand that fiscal conservatives and libertarians don't accept your premise. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but neither side will agree.

This is what Rand Paul means by "agreeing to disagree". Your choice is to work on the things you agree about, or lose because you refuse to set aside your differences.

[Mr Rogers]

Since the hard-core libertarians aren’t going to lift a finger to help me on issues I care about, why should I help them?

[ziravan]

What Rand Paul proposes IS a losing strategy. Some things you can compromise on. Some things you can’t.

I’m not now nor will I be a member of the GOP-e. I see no reason to become a member of the GOP-libertarian wing. Either way is a compromise too far.

The libertarians have far more to gain by joining conservatives than the other way around. I’m tired of being told that if I just sacrifice my values, I can win. Maybe but at that point I couldn’t care less about your hollow victory.