Well, let's say that values voters represent maybe 60% of the Republican base and libertarian voters represent maybe 10%.
Do you think Republicans can win by p*ssing off the values voters? I don't.
I think it's correct to say that the Democrat sweep was brought about partly be libertarian defections. Frankly, they were STUPID, with a capital S.
There's no way that conservatives can form a majority coalition unless the fiscal conservatives get together with the right to lifers and religious conservatives and agree to support each others' bottom lines. Otherwise, frankly, they will hand the country over to the Democrats.
As a religious conservative, I'm perfectly happy to support tax cuts and budget cuts. Are libertarians prepared to reciprocate and agree that we need judges who will throw out Roe v. Wade, even though most libertarians probably like the idea of free sex without much restraints? But if they want their tax cuts, they will have to support the bottom line issues of the religions conservatives. And they might consider also that Roe v. Wade was bad constitutional law, passed by powerdrunk liberal justices. Put it back with the states where it belongs.
They gain nothing by going off in a snit and letting the Democrats take over the country because they are too stupid to see where their own advantage lies--in a cooperative coalition of conservatives, giving up on less important matters if necessary in order to get what is most important to them.
Excellent post. Thank you.
Well put Cicero!
sure, because what good is having your cake if you can't eat it too, right? we're unimportant, but to blame? stick it.
More likely, especially in marginal races, the shift was brought about by a portion of multi-millions of Legal and Illegal Aliens VOTING..
The success of that is and will be noticed more by democrats than republicans..
2008 awaits (Jaws Theme).. Republican denial on this is a gross delusion..
Speaking as a 'l'ibertarian, I would have a lot more reason to support the Republican party if we had ever seen any of those phantom budget cuts. Ironically from a budget perspective we seemed to do the best with a Republican congress and a democrat in the White House. Not that I'd want to go back to the days of the assault weapons ban and selling our nuclear secrets to the Chinese, but it would be very nice to see more welfare reform and spending cuts.
I think that's the real reason the Republicans lost. After decades of promising to cut the size of government, when they finally controlled both houses of congress and the presidency they did exactly the opposite and expanded it like European socialists.
If you want to find a fiscal conservative who will actually stick to his guns, find a right-to-lifer. It's a myth that there are ANY significant republican politicians who are actually (rather than pretend) fiscal conservatives without being social conservatives.
Rather, the split is between RINO's like Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee, McCain and DeWine (who are neither social nor fiscal conservatives), on the one hand, and Coburn, Allard, and the like, who are both.
On the other side, if you are looking for democrats politicians who are social "do whatever you want to whomever you want and we'll celebrate your choice" (all Dems are that) and ALSO fiscal conservatives, you will be looking for a long time. Many POSE as fiscal conservatives; but all that means in reality is they want to raise taxes.
The other split-out is the big-business republicans, who, by and large lead the charge amongst Republicans for bigger government, as that provides more handouts and contracts. They are annoyed by the social issues because they just don't care about them and don't want R's spending political capital on anything but more contracts. They are not libertarian or fiscal conservatives at all and will be the first defecters from the R's when the dems promise more goodies.
Ironically, the business R's have been the one's who have successfully suckered the libertarians into thinking that the social conservatives have lead the charge for bigger government. It's been the goodie bag congress has been holding that has lead that charge; that, and the business R's lining up for handouts. So they have managed to both lead and be the principal beneficiary of the obscene growth of government and to split the small government folks, whoever they are, off from the social conservatives, by accusing the social conservatives of doing what the business R's actually engineered.
It is probably fair to say that the voters don't quite split out like that. But if you are trying to find actual fiscal conservatives who are "do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want and we will celebrate with you'ers", you will be looking for a very long time.
The supposed socially moderate but fiscally conservative wing of the Republican party is an invention of business R's afraid of the growing power of the evangelical, an invention that by and large took down the Republican party this year.
The GOP became my party in college, back when it was the party of Jesus and small government. I didn't care much for the Jesus side, but I was willing to work with those who did care for the sake of smaller government and less intrusion in my private life.
Somewhere along the way the GOP became the party of Jesus and big government, and I found my support waning. The leadership got drunk on power and lobbyist dollars, decided that they actually liked big government and intended to start spawning as much of it as they could.
I'm an easy voter to win back: Stop spending like a bunch of drunk sailors, get the corruption under control, balance the budget, and make the tax cuts permenant. Return to the values of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and I'll come back in '08.
Great points, but to bad many in the GOP are going the opposite way. They are trying to alienate the social and the fiscal conservatives.
Simple compromise - let the social issues be hashed out at a state/local level.
I agree with your points Cicero... but let me pose one or two to you.
Will socially conservatives give Rudy some consideration despite his "pro-choice" and "pro-gay rights" history GIVEN his support of staunch originalist justices like Roberts and Alito? I think Rudy will correctly say: these divisive issues should be decided at the state level and that's where the Supreme Court should put it and that's where the originalist justices who he supports would hopefully push such decisions. Roe was terrible "law" and it should be over-turned and returned to state jurisdiction. Same thing with many divisive legal issues.
I really hope conservatives (I consider myself one) rally around Rudy because on the most important issues (WOT, defense, economy, taxes, judges, education policies) I think he's the best prospect we have -- and he'll be the best communicator we've had since Reagan.
JMHO.
Social issues should be decided at the state level?
THAT IS WHY STATES RATIFY AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUION!
Lest anyone should use the federal courts to take the decisions of the states away... Now, if the liberal-tarians and RINOs would just get out of the way at the federal level and pass amendments on to the states, there would be no more issue...
I might be an atheist, but I'll take the social conservatives any day over the phony civil liberal-tarians... I am tired of this Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Republican party who can only throw crap at the Christians and equates them with the Taliban...
You want to win this war? Get somebody who has a track record of military victory, not another lawyer with a fancy Madison Avenue designer label... or I'll vote with my feet...