Posted on 12/14/2006 8:37:44 PM PST by neverdem
It's mentioned twice.
"Early in the 2006 cycle, Democrats spotted the opening they’d been given. They recruited candidates for every Republican seat in districts that had voted for John Kerry over George W. Bush, and they started to criticize the conduct, and sometimes the very fact, of the Iraq war."
"They maintained leads as the incumbents cupped their hands over their eyes and ears and refused to consider any shifts in their approach to Iraq."
Use the edit function in your toolbar. Click on Find. Type in Iraq, then click on Find Next.
See comment# 122, like the rocket. Iraq was mentioned twice.
I guess I should have used quotation marks. It was a quote from that link, the last line of that article.
Later read/pingout.
I don't understand what you mean. Don't confuse small 'l' libertarians, about 10 - 15 percent of the electorate, with those who are registered with and vote for the Libertarian Party, probably less than 2 percent.
The Republican Party has had a pro-life plank since 1980, but mainstream libertarians and conservatives have remained united because there is so much more we agree on than disagree. Nothing happened in the last two years to change that equation.
Cultural conservatives were as unhappy as libertarians about the last Congress, because the fact is it didn't do much of anything for any conservative constituency.
I thought he was showing part of it was. I thought his main point was just counting on the base of social conservatives, as Rove seems to have assumed, along with appealing to Latinos with amnesty, will get more than 50 percent. I've seen credible analyses attributing frustration with Iraq, scandals, drunken sailor spending, hesitancy on border security and defacto amnesty all combined to make the loss. Check the link in comment# 112.
That, I will buy into.
I hope whatever new Iraq policy Bush is cooking up right now works, or we could really get clobbered in 2008.
Your analysis suggests that swing voters are libertarians. I don't think that's true in any sense in which I understand the term libertarian. I have always understood that term to mean a principled opposition to government interference in personal decisions, except where absolutely necessary.
The folks who swing vote may share some common ground with libertarians on some issues; but I don't believe it is based on principle.
Take the abortion issue, for example. It's my belief that most of the swing support for abortion comes from women who want to keep it open as an option when they get pregnant. It's not any principled opposition to gvt interference. It's wanting to be able to make a particular convenience-based decision about lifestyle on a particular issue and not to have to feel any shame or guilt about that decision. This lack of libertarian predilection is highlighted by the fact that these same voters, swing women, strongly tend to support nanny-state-type interventions by the government.
Frankly, the number of principled small-government libertarians who are NOT also social conservatives is very small. And most of them post here on Free Republic (gross overexaggeration alert for polemic purposes alert :). That group was NOT the swing vote in this election. It isn't big enough to swing anything. There is virtually NO consituency in this country for smaller government in this country outside of social conservatives and think tanks.
Instead, the swing voters were folks who correctly perceived that something has gone wrong in Washington over the past several years but incorrectly concluded that giving Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Murtha, and Charlie Rangel control over our foreign and domestic policy was the way to fix it. Some of them were scared by all the crazy rhetoric about Christians emanating from the media. Some of them didn't like Iraq and bought into the media drumbeat of failure. Some were annoyed at our congress' drunken spending spree. Most of the swingers I talk to, and it's quite a few, really don't spend much time thinking about or trying to understand what's actually going on in politics. They just wanted things to be different and voted that way. They are not libertarians, large or small 'l' and it greatly confuses the discussion to characterize the issue that way.
LibertarianSchmoe wrote: "There are plenty of things that I think are immoral that I don't think should be criminalized."
I agree with all of that, and I bet many social conservatives would join me. Remember, we didn't start the government's war on morality by using the courts to hammer our perspective on everyone else. I, for one, would absolutely love the chance to resolve these types of issues at the local and state level.
Take gay marriage. We didn't create that fight! Yes, some social conservatives want a Constitutional ban, but they are only reacting to an attack by the leftists. Why? We know it's only a matter of time before the courts force ALL states to approve of gay marriage under the full faith and credit clause. We either react to the attack or we'll have our choice taken away.
It's not like we hate gays, despite what the MSM reports. I have no problem with those who say homosexuality is OK as long as they respect my right to say it's sinful. Unfortunately, it won't be long before my right to free speech will be made a hate crime (or at least, that's where it looks like things are heading).
Another good one is abortion. I have no problem with allowing the states to decide, but that choice was taken away by a liberal court a long time ago. Again, we conservatives are only trying to return the issue to the states. Like I've said all throughout this thread. We (libertarians and social cons) are natural allies!
neverdem wrote: "I guess I should have used quotation marks. It was a quote from that link, the last line of that article."
I just thought it was a funny quote. As you know, everyone is a partisan. It's our natural state. What I really enjoy is the Democrat definition of bipartisan. That means we do whatever they want. LOL!
colorado tanker wrote: "Cultural conservatives were as unhappy as libertarians about the last Congress, because the fact is it didn't do much of anything for any conservative constituency."
You got that right! Everyone keeps trying to dissect the election, but our loss wasn't due to any one issue or political faction. The reasons why people voted are probably as diverse as the number of voters. Frankly, our majority didn't deliver what it promised. Combine that with an unpopular war and the MSM cheerleading for the other side, and it's amazing we didn't lose more. Nevertheless, I highly doubt the Terri Schiavo incident, by itself, drove away any significant number of libertarian voters. Hopefully we can unify and go forward in 2008 as one team.
Exactly, the only thing that impresses is winning the battle. There are many libs out there that think that impeachment is like Nixon. Clinton was proof that although you may be impeached, you do not have to leave office. Republicans went to Nixon and asked him to step down. He did. All good Republicans do, Democrats do not. People know a half assed attempt to that of true conviction. If the Republicans stick it to values voters, they will have a long time coming, if we get the chance, to be in control again. Dems know this and they are using it to win. It may be a sham, but Republicans chop their nose off to spite their face and the Dems use it against them. We all get on here and insult one another. Just keep it up and the other side, who will not defend us as a nation, will continue to take control. Is it so hard to be for the right to life? Hillary will pretend it isn't too hard, that is, to the right audience.
Agreed!
Yes. Socialists like yourself tend to bring up such arguments whenever anyone suggests cutting the size of their darling government programs and Republican socialists still suck!
Absolutely. If you need to get a good quality product for a reasonable price you're extremely unlikely to get it from a government monopoly.
The links in comment# 1 say that small 'l' libertarians are 10 - 15 percent.
That's the swing voters. But it's really made up of groups like soccer moms, who waffle back and forth between parties depending on whether they feel more scared of muslims or those scary Christians on election day or whether the issue de jour is the sacrament of abortion or state provided childcare or whatever. There are other swing groups but soccer moms are one of the biggies.
You can call these folks "libertarians" if you like. But except for a tiny portion of them, they have as much in common with Frederick Hayek as does Crusty the Clown. They are for big gvt when it suits them and for being left alone when it suits them. More than anything else, they don't want to think about politics and they think its mean when politicians say bad things about each other. Doesn't sound much like a coherent political philosophy to me.
And although I don't agree with some aspects of libertarianism, one thing folks I call libertarians have in common is at least a good try at having a coherent political philosophy.
Gingrich on Iraq: Forget the 'Establishment'
Reagan and the Art of Leadership
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
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.