[Darkwolf377]

When we added to the question “also known as libertarian,” 44% still claimed that description.

Yeah...suuuuure they are.

Zogby is a joke if he believes this is an accurate reading of the public's true feelings and positions. 44% Libertarians? Gimme a break.

[Defender2]

Old FRiend, I do not even want to touch this one. (Chuckling)

[AZRepublican]

Oh GOP isn't losing libertarian voters, they vote on specific issues and individules. If GOP candidates wants them they have to run like true Republicans.

[Anti-Bubba182]

This has to assume the GOP and not the Democrats are losing the most to the Libertarians.

I could never figure why anyone votes libertarian. You might as well stay home.

[onyx]

Libertarians don't vote for Libertarians?

[prov1813man]

Unless I read it wrong, what this article seems to presume is that libertarians and conservative evangelicals abandoned republicans to vote for democrats. This makes no sense at all. I presume what happened is that libertarians voted libertarian and "conservative evangelicals" stayed home.

While both the actions were, objectively, votes for dims and terrorists, they still indicate a need for more, not less conservatism from the republican party.

[Wormwood]

They’re going to need to stop scaring libertarian, centrist, and independent voters with their social-conservative obsessions and become once again the party of fiscal responsibility.

Repeated in bold, in case anyone missed it.

[KantianBurke]

"But in 2004, presumably turned off by war, wiretapping, and welfare-state spending sprees, they shifted sharply toward the Democrats. John F. Kerry got 38% of the libertarian vote."

I don't buy it. You mean to tell me that if one is disgusted by Bush due to his many liberal policies, 38% of Libertarians will thus vote for a candidate that will make things that much worse? Sorry. No sale.

Other than that, the GOP needs to get back to its libertarian positions of smaller govt and reduced spending.

[B Knotts]

President Bush and the congressional Republicans left no libertarian button unpushed in the past six years: soaring spending, expansion of entitlements, federalization of education, cracking down on state medical marijuana initiatives, Sarbanes-Oxley, gay marriage bans, stem cell research restrictions, wiretapping, incarcerating U.S. citizens without a lawyer, unprecedented executive powers, and of course an unnecessary and apparently futile war. The striking thing may be that after all that, Democrats still looked worse to a majority of libertarians.

Some of these criticisms are legitimate, but I take special exception to two:

1. "stem cell research restrictions." by which the dishonest author means embryonic stem cell restrictions - in fact, there are many pro-life libertarians who object to Mengalian experimentation on human life

2. "gay marriage bans" - certainly, at least some libertarians recognize the statist nature of the homosexual rights movement; it has not been shy about pushing things like "hate crime" statutes which punish thought instead of the crimes themselves, and "anti-discrimination" laws which restrict religious freedom and freedom of association.

These guys aren't fooling anyone who knows a thing or two about libertarianism. It is a shame that the libertarian movement has been hijacked by people who seem primarily interested in drug legalization at the expense of every other issue.

[Sunsong]

If Republicans can’t win New Hampshire and the Mountain West, they can’t win a national majority. And they can’t win those states without libertarian votes. They’re going to need to stop scaring libertarian, centrist, and independent voters with their social-conservative obsessions and become once again the party of fiscal responsibility. In a Newsweek poll just before the election, 47% of respondents said they trusted the Democrats more on “federal spending and the deficit,” compared to just 31% who trusted the Republicans. That’s not Ronald Reagan’s Republican Party.

I think there's a lot of truth in this article. But do the "social conservatives" even care. We shall see...

[pissant]

Piss poor analysis.

[HitmanLV]

Libertarians aren't really a natural part of the GOP constituency, and shouldn't be treated as such or relied upon in any way.

[goldstategop]

We need them. Like it or not there are a lot of small government voters in this country. And they've demonstrated they'll vote for whoever leaves them alone.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[DesScorp]

And now the Libertarians are going to get what they voted for...liberal Democrats in charge. They shat where they eat, now it's time to chow down. Enjoy the higher taxes and social engineering, Libertarians.

[fish hawk]

Don't let the door hit them in the ass on the way to the Democrats. They suck, from Pat Buchanan on down.

[no dems]

Libertarian voters likely cost Republicans the House and the Senate

No, the corrupt, inept, GOP lawmakers cost the GOP the House and the Senate.

If the Dems do a half-way decent job in the next two years of cutting spending, cleaning up corruption, putting a halt to the "run-away" pork barrel projects and put a crimp in the style of the lobbyists; the GOP might not see a return to power for a long, long time.

[hinckley buzzard]

libertarians tend to be younger and better educated than the average voter

Proof once again, if any more is needed, that book learning is no substitute for maturity of judgment.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

The GOP isn't just losing libertarians -- it betrayed them. Who in the GOP could possibly think the party has anything to offer them?

The Bush Jr. Whitehouse is by far the worst I can recall so far as individual rights and freedoms are concerned. The Bush Jr. Whitehouse likes big government and only wants it to grow bigger.

Small "l" libertarians are where the future's at. The GOP is dead; it just doesn't know it yet. The Democratic party is dead too, but at least they have some inkling of their impending irrelevance.

I've given up on the idea that either party will embrace both social liberalism (in the classical sense) and fiscal conservatism (in the modern sense). But that's where the center of mass is in the electorate at large, and sooner or later, they're going to find a political vehicle for advancing their interests and values.

We're moving towards a future with three parties -- one for fiscal liberals, one for social conservatives, and one for the rest of us. The first two are going to be permanent, persistent, vocal minorities. The last is going to be a robust permanent majority.

Maybe it's wrong, unfair, or a product of general ignorance and stupidity. Whatever. That's the future, like it or not. Me, I don't mind. YMMV and probably does.

[ilgipper]

i would agree to the extent that they have abandoned their fiscal conservatism in the past four years. No small government issues, no reform....just more growth of the Federal government.

[Sam Cree]

If Republicans care about libertarian voters, which I doubt, then they need to get series about lower taxes and act as if they are really the party of limited government. That's probably all it would take. 'Course, it doesn't look as if Republicans care very much about those two issues either.

"Libertarian" voters who vote Dem are just plain ignorant though...the same as "liberals" who vote Dem.