Posted on 12/10/2006 10:04:01 PM PST by neverdem
Are you serious? Sarbanes Oxley? Medicare reform? No Child Left Behind?
How would three more Senate seats fix these disasters? Shoot, President Bush couldn't even get a VOTE on social security reform. Pathetic. But that's right, keep blaming someone else. That's been working great for y'all the past few years.
There was lots more local activism when the dems were in control under the BJs in the late 90s early years of Bush.
Then we won...we became complacent and disappointed at the RINOS and now lots of us are licking our wounds. Then again the majority of Americans could care less. They are status quo types and don't bother to consider that most critical decisions affecting their lives are coming out of the judiciary and other social institutions - all non elected.
It's gonna get ugly soon and the activism you refer to will re-emerge.
I'd count "Small Government Republicans" in this group too. I know one, he is very smart, LOVED Reagan, but was pissed at the largesse of the Republicans these days. He stayed home and didn't vote. I tried to convince him otherwise, but thats what he did...
This post is spot on. I am a stong libertarian but voted republican this election because of the lessor evil principle, but I understand the outrage libertarians feel. The expanded medicare pill program, the NCLB (what ever happened to eliminating the Department of Education), George Bush doing Americore ads, the Federal Government growing at 2-3 times inflation over the Bush term. Good riddence to Dennis Hastert. Under his leadership the Federal Government grew at 2-3 times inflation, earmarks exploded, tax cuts are not permenant, and the only time the House (and Congress) acted fast was to suck up to the Big Daddy government interests of the Religious Right. The republicans should be loosing libertarian support because they lied and ran as small goverment pols but did not act accordingly.
Here's a novel idea, why doesn't the GOP run a real conservative instead of McCain/Romney/Guilliani RINO's?
Nah... just blame it on the 1% of voters who still think having PRINCIPLES still means something...
Just a second, this thread was doing just fine up until now, and then you had to go and make the most obvious and truthful statement of all.
This is such a loser issue for social conservatives and by extension Republicans and the Democrats know it.
The fact of the matter is that the federal government funds all sorts of medical research - some pans out and some doesn't. It is very transparent that social conservatives picked out this one area of research for religious reasons although they claim otherwise.
If theocons oppose stem cell research just because they think it is not promising or "clinically proven" then why is this the only research area that they are making such a big fuss about?
If social conservatives really cared about stem cell research because it isn't promissing then they would have spoken up about lots of other research as well.
Ronald Reagan perfectly brought together social conservatives, fiscal libertarian Republicans, and pro-defense patriots.
Seems the GOP has forgotten how to do that.
Paging Mr. Newt. Are you available to assist us?
The article states that libertarians, in at least two cases, voted for Libertarian Party candidates by margins large enough to ensure Democratic victory. This assumes that the Republican Party is the natural home of libertarians, and if the candidate in Montana had not got nearly 3% of the state vote, most of those votes would have gone to Burns, the Republican.
It is hard to imagine a committed Libertarian 'punishing' the Republicans by voting Democratic. Less so by voting Libertarian, though the outcome of either is close to the same. (Donkeys in Charge.)
Do you actually know what the word "Marxist" means? Libertarians are the total opposite of Marxists.
It is funny how many prominent social conservatives throw out the world "Marxist" at the drop of a hat when the truth of the matter is that social conservatives are very compatible and open to Marxist ideas but the just don't realize it.
Good!
These threads are ludicrous. Conrad Burns campaigned all over Montana bragging about the pork he brings back from Washington and how valuable his seniority was to his voters. And people are surprised that Libertarians didn't support him?
Burns obviously knew there were more votes to be won on the left by bragging about pork than libertarian votes to be lost. And he almost won, so he was probably right. But it's ridiculous to blame the libertarians for not voting for someone whose views are antithetical to their own.
I did not leave the republican party. The republican party left me.
Their being a bunch of geldings didn't help either.
It's not social conservatism that lost the '08 election, as the left would have you believe. It was fiscal liberalism. "Compassionate Conservatism" is what the Democratic Party used to be. The Republican-controlled Congress have spent our money like they hate the stuff, and President Bush dutifully signed it all.
People with libertarian views, such as myself, have nothing but the highest respect and admiration for religious conservatives. I don't have any beef with prayer in schools, I am against abortions, and I think that if you want to do research on fetal stem cells you should do it on your dime. The WOT is the right thing to do insofar as the C-in-C has a coherent, actionable strategery for victory (which he doesn't).
For many, the choice between Republicans and Democrats is no longer any choice at all. When social convictions are not a voting issue, it all boils down who is going to limit government and preserve our freedoms. There are precious few Republicans who fit that description.
In the interest of full disclosure, I voted for George Allen and Eric Cantor on November 8th. If the GOP wants my vote in '08, they're going to have to earn it by fielding a strong small-government conservative. So far, neither McCain or Giuliani fit that description.
The message is not the messenger [Zogby]. 44%, or 24%, or 14%- it is a sufficiently significant block to address on merits.
Only by their utter ignorance of the actual state of stem cell science. Adult stem cells and human umbilical cord stem cells have demonstrated clinical utility in over 70 therapies the last time that I looked. Embryonic stem cells have only shown a reliable trait in growing teratomas, i.e. tumors. Embryonic stem cells not only have to overcome that problem, they also have to overcome the problem of immunologic rejection if they aren't perfectly matched. I don't recall an issue with so much emotional appeal supported by such an ill-informed electorate.
Republicans losing our Libertarian base? What will we do for pot now?
Libertarians are not conservatives. Having to pander to them also costs the GOP a huge number of social conservative votes in every election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.