Wait, IF? That was the basis of their election wins through the past decade. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, but the GOP isn't, and hasnt' been for quite some time, anything like libertarians would like.
On one hand, neither party has practiced any sort of fiscal conservativism but the Democrats easily win if you look at social issues from a libertarian stand point.
Without the issue of gay marriage George W. Bush is a one term president.
I didn't even read this dumbass screed/block of text, but off. Is any of it? Any whatsoever, relevant to NY-23?
In other news LMFAO at the GOP:
Hoffman's lead is at 5 points with 18% undecided. The undecided have doubled from 9% to 18% since Scozzafava withdrew. The democrats could conceivably win this thing.
Hoffman is on Beck's radio show right now.
"not really worth the national attention it's receiving"
then why are all the Repug and "rogue" heavy hitters across the country weighing in to pillory and purge a Repug moderate in a solidly Repug district?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-02-2009 at 11:41 AM.
Republicans have riled up the base since at least 1992 by pandering to the religious right. No argument here.
But there's a difference between politics and policy. Many libertarian-leaning conservatives have held their noses and voted Republican, mainly because their areas of agreement with the GOP outweigh the areas of disagreement. It's been tolerable so far---especially for people like me who do not care that much about social and cultural issues---because the social conservative agenda has not really accomplished much. (And because the Democrats suck so much.)
The ideological pairing of libertarians and conservatives is nothing groundbreaking.
"Without the issue of"
scare-mongering, bogus-Iraq-war president
"George W. Bush is a one term president."
Hmmm...
Why didn't the liberals complain about Hillary not being from NY?
them. If they want a liberal, they should be voting democrat anyway.
The republican party needs a good cleansing.
Is there an echo in here?
People are dropping from the republican ranks because they are tired of liberal republicans.
lol- To a T.
Maybe they're tired of social conservatives who only pretend to be fiscally conservative.
I think libertarians have more problems with high taxes, keynesian economics, government expansion and intrusian, government owning 30% of our economy and Obama is "just getting started".
I agree the republicans should not assume they can get the libertarian vote, especially if they load their bills with pork again like in 2002 to 06. However I don't think most libertarians have a problem with conservative religious right as they do with conservative's strong defense. Libertarians and pro-life conservatives can both be in agreement that only the conservatives will appoint strict cons utionalists.
Raich notwithstanding, right?can both be in agreement that only the conservatives will appoint strict cons utionalists.
A big tent republican can be libertarians, blue-dogs, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and neo-conservatives. That coalition would win every election.
Why didn't it last year?
McCain fit none of those. He got his push from NH and pushed out Guilianni. Then he let the two real conservatives split the vote while he snuck in sounding like a conservative. IMO of course
Night be your opinion, but I agree.
McCain was a sure loser until Palin came along, and he still lost.
Giuliani himself was too liberal for conservative Iowa and NH, and shot himself in the foot by skipping the early primaries. Your characterization of Romney as a real conservative is laughable (he presided over, and later bragged about, Massachusetts' universal healthcare scheme), and Huckabee never had a chance. Why not?
Too conservative.
We disagree. A conservative can take the vote, and none were too conservative in the field. I think the major problem was open primaries. The wrong balance of people voting. That belief is what prompted Operation Chaos, because the wrong republican was nominated.
Huckabee never had a chance b/c he is hte 2nd coming of George W Bush.
Religious conservative and liberal spender.
I think either Huckabee or Romney would have done better against Obama than McCain did. However, it's hard to win against a minority turning out in greater numbers than maybe anytime in the past, and voting along racial lines.
Racialism is a hard thing to conquer.
Closed primaries shut out independent voters (and candidates) and perpetuate the the fecal duopoly of R and D.
Women voting in favor of Obama 57%- 43% was decisive; blacks voting for Obama 95%-5% was a footnote.
What you guys are still missing is that 60% of the people still claim to be either "conservative" or "Republican". A lot of us conservatives have dropped the Republican label because a lot of the ones currently in office have been as fiscally irresponsible as the Democrats. Whatever label they go by however, these people for the most part are politically active and vote and will vote for the "lesser of evils" which for the most part will still be a Republican candidate...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote