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.

[Gradient Vector]

"When the Libertarian platform is just fine with queer marriage, sex with children,abortion, legal drugs etc, just how exactly do you think they will team with conservatives and take over the world?"

They wouldn't take over the world. They'd only join up with conservatives not social conservatives. They wouldn't get more than 15-20% of the vote, but that 15-20% would come more out of the republicans than democrats. This is why the republicans need to take them seriously to avoid it.

[Godebert]

"It doesn't have to be an 'us v. them' kind of thing."

Yes it does. If you are a "social liberal" you aren't Conservative, you're a liberal. You don't need to be "born again" to understand that murdering babies in the womb is wrong.

[VadeRetro]

What is antiscience?

On FR, the following topics are controversial:

1. Biology (contains actual biological evolution)
2. Geology (supports an old Earth)
3. Paleontology (supports the above two)
4. Astronomy (supports an old and mechanistic universe)
5. Cosmology (too often does not mean somebody's preconditions)
6. Physics (too mechanistic)

The actual objections to the above are more varied (sometimes fantastical) than my brief paraphrases can accurately portray. At any rate, let's say the common thread would be an unwarranted skepticism to anything we've learned in the last 200 or so years.

[Dominic Harr]

Okay, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing this is about the Crevo threads?

I've been on them before, on several occasions. You may or may not have noticed. Arguing pro-evolution.

But I've got to be honest, the amount of rude, mocking, aggressive behavior from the evo side makes me uncomfortable. Yes, the creo side does it too. But to me, the evo side is much snider, much more abusive about it.

I've got a feeling I'm going to be sorry I jumped into the middle of this. But I do think the Evo side tends to be ruder. We feel we're right, and that it's obvious to us, so anyone who doesn't agree/see it our way is .

[Gradient Vector]

"Don't forget promising to sign the "assault weapons" ban extension. He dodged a bullet when it didn't pass."

I didn't but to be fair the house republicans stood tall, so i can't blame all republicans just one in the white house. I tricked myself into think GWBush was a conservative, he said openly that he had much in common with Gore in 2000. We should have listened.

It doesn't matter he was better than Gore or Kerry. Although in the primaries in 2008 I will be picky, I won't vote for anyone in CFR.

[Beagle8U]

"
The worst part of this mess is there no alternative. The democrats are worse, "

The RATS are much worse, but there is an alternative, work within the Republican party to make it more conservative.

[VadeRetro]

I've got a feeling I'm going to be sorry I jumped into the middle of this. But I do think the Evo side tends to be ruder.

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

[jwalsh07]

You wouldn't know that from Free Republic where the fundies have purged so many conservative-libertarians in their attempts to "purify" the party.

Yup, the republican party was oh so much better off when they could spend so much more time at the country club as a minority party while the democrats stacked the courts with gun grabbing, property stealing, unborn baby killing "limited government" types.

[Beagle8U]

"They wouldn't get more than 15-20% of the vote, but that 15-20% would come more out of the republicans than democrats. This is why the republicans need to take them seriously to avoid it."

So basically you're saying they could throw a tantrum and get RATS elected?

Clever.

[jwalsh07]

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

And here I thought I was going to find a good ole fashioned libertarian/conservative slugfest.

[Jim Robinson]

I doubt that. The socialist/leftist/liberal attacks on our rights to freedom of religion and limited government intrusion, ie, the government forcing the theory of evolution and other socialist dogma on our school children (man springing from apes rather than the biblical account of creation; atheism; homosexualism; feminism; whacko environmentalism, etc) may be controversial, but not science itself.

[Gradient Vector]

"So basically you're saying they could throw a tantrum and get RATS elected?

Clever."


The moderates to do it. Look at Harris in Florida or that guy in Arizona the party wouldn't fund. Tancredo isn't allow in the white house.

Its all madness, because there are so many issues all republicans in common but the party wouldn't throw it all away for amnesty and a welfare state. So be it, they are abandoning us not the other way around.

[Gradient Vector]

Wow that was the word post I've ever sent. Let me try again.

The moderates to do it. Look at Harris in Florida or that guy in Arizona the party wouldn't fund. Tancredo isn't allowed in the White House.

Its all madness, because there are so many issues all republicans have in common but the party would throw it all away for amnesty and a welfare state. So be it, they are abandoning us not the other way around.

[wagglebee]

What is antiscience?

I think that's what the left is saying that Limbaugh did when he called Michael J. Fox on his demands that the government spend billions of taxpayer dollars to destroy embryos.

[VadeRetro]

... the theory of evolution and other socialist dogma ...

This is probably where you're having the problem seeing the problem.

[Dominic Harr]

If you are a "social liberal" you aren't Conservative, you're a liberal.

Hi:

Well, as I said, I'm a social liberal, political conservative.

I'm 'live and let live' until it directly affects another person. If you can show me something directly affects another, I flip from liberal to conservative. For exampl, I can see the arguement for making abortions illegal. I believe it's a human being from first conception.

But I'm not Christian. I'm pro-gay marriage. And, I'm pro-legalizing soft drugs like pot. Not everything, not hard drugs. I'd be happy to discuss that in some other thread, some other time.

To me, this is all about politics. I don't really see much purpose in debating social issues like is pot use good or bad. I *do* like to debate if the govt should ban the substance. As a 'personal responsibility' question. That's just me, that's how I roll.

Like my tag line, I'm a 'political' conservative. the 'ant' to a political liberal's 'grasshopper'. 'Conservative', as in conservative estimates. I mean 'careful'.

Flame away!

[nopardons]

Unless YOU are a damned retread, YOU, on newbie, have no knowledge of "purgings" here.

FR has rules and if you keep breaking them, you get banned.

There isn't 15% of the American populace, who are Libertarians. If that was so, their steady and constant slide of votes, since its inception as a party, would not be so dramatic.

[MineralMan]

The GOP is what it is. If it gets too far out of touch with a good-sized proportion of its members, it will lose elections. As long as it wins elections, it will feel reaffirmed and do whatever it thinks best.

That's reality. The drift towards the center has been fairly slow and has gone unnoticed by many Republicans. That seems to be ending. There's a lot of dissatisfaction going around these days. Will it cause the GOP to lose control of the Congress? I don't know.

If it does, there will be a retrenching of the party. If it retains power, the drift may continue. We'll know more in a couple of weeks. The polls right now are useless in figuring out what will happen.

Me? I just keep voting my conscience, as I have always done. Sometimes you win...

I had enormous respect for Barry Goldwater, and worked, as a young guy, on his campaign. He lost miserably. He was too far to the right for the electorate, apparently, even though he was a great thinker on many issues. The beginning of the centrist shift happened after that, and continues to this day.

I think that Conservatives need to be cautious not to create another Barry Goldwater candidacy. That, I believe, would set the party back for another 20 years or so. Somehow, the shift needs to be more subtle, but the direction is going to have to change, from a move toward the center, to movement in the other direction.

Again, this will be a telling election.

[Jim Robinson]

I have no problem. You're the guy doing the complaining.

[VadeRetro]

Then I'll stop wasting my time.