A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

National Review Online ^ | 10/25/06 | David Boaz & David Kirby

[Blackirish]

As the Republican base fragments and Christian conservatives consider a “fast” from politics, the polling data point to a mid-term Republican thumping. Less than two weeks from now, Republicans will begin their post-mortem soul searching. And as the corpses of their House and Senate majorities grow cold, so should Karl Rove’s 2006 campaign strategy.

[Dominic Harr]

I won't pretend to be unbiased, but it's hard to believe.

There's plenty of blame to go around, of course.

But when the creos make fun, they're more of the 'feeling sorry for us' variety.

When the evos make fun, they're more of the 'dang, what idiots!' angle.

I could be wrong, but that's my impression.

[Beagle8U]

Its madness to stay home or vote for an Aardvark party that is sure to lose, which means RATS control the agenda and everything that goes on.

Sorry, I'm not a child and I don't use their tactics to reach a goal.

[Dominic Harr]

I got here late Dominic, how did this turn into an evo/creo thread?

Heck if I know!

I spend most of my time confused, these days.

Ever since my daughter started dating . . . :-(

[x]

Republicans should reembrace the libertarian principles of the party. They should return to Reagan’s fiscal conservatism and Goldwater’s social tolerance.

Boaz and Kirby are themselves libertarians, so there's no surprise in their recommendations.

They may be right, but 1) social issues are a lot more complicated and divisive than they were in Goldwater's day, and 2) globalization has advanced a lot since the Reagan years.

Hands-off "social tolerance" means something different now than it did in 1964, just as a hands-off laissez-faire economic policy can be expected to have different consequences than it would have had in 1980.

[jwalsh07]

I can empathise but 6 grandchildren later the confusion gets worse!

[Ichneumon]

And some of you are absolutely worthless to the cause of conservatism.

Jim, with all due respect, you don't have the kind of crystal ball it would require to make that kind of "absolute" presumption about the ways that "some of us" contribute to the conservative cause as we go about our lives.

[Ichneumon]

But I do thank you for allowing me the right to control the use and conetent of my own private property not to mention my first amendment rights to freedom of assembly and association.

Jim, that's not at all what I was saying. I guess I wasn't clear enough, though, since you read it as the exact opposite of what I was saying. -- I was acknowledging that you *don't* need mine or anyone else's permission or approval, and instead you somehow got the impression that I was saying that you did or that I was granting you such. I wasn't.

In any case it appears you're not interested in considering any suggestions or concerns, so I'll trouble you no more in that regard.

[Gradient Vector]

"Sorry, I'm not a child and I don't use their tactics to reach a goal."

They aren't children's tactics they are smart tactics. I'm a conservative who leans libertarian, and I don't really care how our government gets there but I'd like it to become more conservative. The republican party pays no attention to those who want small less intrusive government, if it takes them pulling out of the party to teach them its a bad idea so be it. The moderate republicans are just as stubborn as the conservatives. They'd rather get amnesty than win just as much as we'd rather close the borders than win.

Like mineral man suggested I am voting my conscience and this election there is only one federal candidate and hes conservative and republican.

[Jim Robinson]

Sorry, but those among you who are campaigning for the Democrats to take power, ie, for the Godless America-hating, constitution-hating, cowardly Marxist party of abortion, homosexualism, feminism, whacko environmentalism, high taxes, gun control, socialized health care, stripping our national defenses, surrendering to our enemies, expanding global government, liberal activist judges, banning of religion, etc, etc, are totally useless to our causes.

[Jim Robinson]

So pull out already. Buh bye troll.

[Fiddlstix]

Sorry, but those among you who are campaigning for the Democrats to take power, ie, for the Godless America-hating, constitution-hating, cowardly Marxist party of abortion, homosexualism, feminism, whacko environmentalism, high taxes, gun control, socialized health care, stripping our national defenses, surrendering to our enemies, expanding global government, liberal activist judges, banning of religion, etc, etc, are totally useless to our causes.

Well Said!

[RadioAstronomer]

man springing from apes rather than the biblical account of creation; atheism; homosexualism; feminism; whacko environmentalism, etc) may be controversial, but not science itself.

Man springing from apes? Did you know we are still considered a great ape?

Guess what. Evolution is one of the premier sciences out there and this anti evolution nonsense makes the republicans look just plain pig ignorant.

[onyx]

HUGE BUMP!

[onyx]

I'm bookmarking that one, Jim!
I think we might have reasons to repost it. :)

[Ichneumon]

Sorry, but those among you who are campaigning for the Democrats to take power, ie, for the Godless America-hating, constitution-hating, cowardly Marxist party of abortion, homosexualism, feminism, whacko environmentalism, high taxes, gun control, socialized health care, stripping our national defenses, surrendering to our enemies, expanding global government, liberal activist judges, banning of religion, etc, etc, are totally useless to our causes.

Err.... Wherever did you ever get the impression that I was for any of those things? I'm not. I'm against them (as well as against "campaigning for the Democrats to take power"), and I've been pretty clear on that in all of my posts. So how did I get lumped into that mess with your "some of you" comment? Nor do I know anyone here at FreeRepublic who does support that list, except for the briefly passing trolls we all see before they get zotted within minutes. So who exactly is being referred to by "some of you"? If you're under the impression that anyone who supports science is automatically in favor of all those things you list, you're very much mistaken.

[Beagle8U]

"They aren't children's tactics they are smart tactics."

I was talking about staying home or voting for a third party that has zero chance of being elected.

That isn't conservative or smart, its childish.

I try to sway people to vote for a party that has a good chance of giving them what they want, then work to make it better.

If you want to try to sell to voters that protesting and voting for suicide is a good plan, do that.

We'll see who brings more voters to the polls.

I'm not attacking you, but I think its an insane plan to farther conservative goals.

[jwalsh07]

Guess what. Evolution is one of the premier sciences out there and this anti evolution nonsense makes the republicans look just plain pig ignorant.

There is scarcely a politician in America running on "evolution". There are however many a dissembling science types supporting and producing commercials of the Michael Fox genre that are filled with lies, half truths and garbage.

Does that irk you at all?

[nopardons]

BRAVO !

[Dominic Harr]

I can empathise but 6 grandchildren later the confusion gets worse!

Ha!

That's my future, I'm sure.

[GradientVector2]

Who said you don't get banned for being conservative? I get called a troll for suggesting that the conservative might leave the party if not paid attention to and you ban that? Your a liar and coward you won't have debate with anyone without banning people.

BTW Jim Robinson nobody forgot you called Bush a coke head in 2000 during the primaries, and supported Buchanan. Now you ban anyone for talking about what Bush is doing wrong. Your a sell out.