Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Myth of the 'Values Voters'
Reason ^ | January 2007 | David Weigel

Posted on 12/14/2006 8:37:44 PM PST by neverdem

The Republicans handed libertarian votes--and the elections--over to the Democrats.

At the Democrats’ official election night party in Washington, D.C., all eyes were on Florida—for about 10 seconds. At 8 p.m. network exit polls confirmed that Rep. Katherine Harris, for this crowd the arch-villain of the 2000 election, was lopsidedly losing her bid for a Senate seat. The partygoers cheered the news. Then they turned their attention to races that carried at least a whiff of suspense.

They shouldn’t have dismissed Florida so quickly. Less than two years earlier, the Sunshine State had shown the first symptoms of the malady that would defeat the GOP in races from California to New Hampshire. Republicans had convinced themselves that socially conservative “values voters” were the key to maintaining and extending their power. It was in Florida that the strategy started to crumble, reminding any politician who cared to listen that a lot of voters just want the government to leave them alone.

The town of Pinellas Park, not far from Harris’ old House district, contains the hospice where Terri Schiavo died. The battle between the brain-damaged woman’s parents, who wanted to keep her on life support, and her husband, who wanted to remove it, had bubbled up into Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature before. But in March 2005, emboldened by the GOP’s 2004 victories, Tom DeLay’s House and Bill Frist’s Senate elbowed into the controversy. President Bush broke off a stint in Crawford, Texas, to sign emergency legislation to keep the feeding tube attached.

It was one of the worst political miscalculations of the decade. Immediately after the Schiavo push, approval numbers for Bush and his party started to plummet. Polls showed not just Democrats but Republicans and independents opposed to the Schiavo intervention. Republicans responded by assuming the polls were wrong. The country had re-elected them, hadn’t it? Of course voters were foursquare behind the idea of legislatively re-attaching a feeding tube to a brain-dead woman.

The president’s ratings reeled into the 40s, then the 30s, and never really recovered. The numbers for the GOP Congress fell even further. And on election night, voters turned out the most socially conservative Congress in decades while taking a two-by-four to socially conservative initiatives in the states. A ban on all abortions was defeated in South Dakota. Missouri legalized stem cell research. And while seven states passed gay marriage bans, Arizona became the first state ever to reject one. In most of the states where the bans did pass—South Carolina and Idaho being the exceptions—voters elected Democrats to major statewide offices anyway. The ballyhooed effect of gay marriage bans on conservative turnout, credited by some for George W. Bush’s 2004 victory in Ohio, fell utterly flat.

These defeats wouldn’t have come as a surprise if not for the consensus, minted hours after the 2004 polls closed, that Republicans were building a permanent majority on the backs of conservative evangelicals. The TV networks’ exit poll showed 22 percent of voters naming “moral values” as the key to their ballots. In the hands of a Republican caucus defined by the born-again Tom DeLay in the House and the big-government conservative Rick Santorum in the Senate, this was a mandate; it encouraged them to indulge their invasiveness on privacy and other civil liberties issues. The party didn’t just support national ID cards and warrantless wiretaps. With impunity, it campaigned against Democrats for opposing those measures.

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 got multiple adrenaline boosts from the GOP’s scandals, starting with the corruption allegations against DeLay, which the leadership took pains to overlook until he was actually indicted. 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.

That strategy ended on November 7, with the defeat of many hot-button ballot measures and with heavy losses in House, Senate, and state races. The liberal Northeast was scrubbed almost clean of Republicans: From Pennsylvania through Maine, the Democrats picked up nine or 10 House seats. (At press time, one race in Connecticut was going to a recount.) And the rout continued in the Midwest and the Plains. Four years earlier Kansas had elected an ultra-conservative attorney general named Phill Kline, who used the power of his office to snoop into the medical records of patients at abortion clinics. He was crushed, 58 percent to 42 percent, by a Republican who switched parties to challenge him. And while Kline went down, Republicans lost an eastern Kansas House seat in a district that had voted for Bush over Kerry by 20 points.

There were lessons in the races the Republicans did win too. In the Mountain West, Republican candidates had their margins slashed dramatically. Idaho’s 1st District, which gave Bush 70 percent of its vote, handed only 50 percent to a doctrinaire conservative. Wyoming’s sole House seat gave its Republican incumbent a win by less than 1 percentage point. In state after state, Republican support plunged.

“The libertarian West,” Hotline Editor Chuck Todd wrote in a post-election column, “is a region that is more up for grabs than it should be. And it’s because the Republican Party has grown more religious and more pro-government, which turns off these ‘leave me alone,’ small-government libertarian Republicans.”

The decline isn’t entirely the Republicans’ fault. They just created an opening for their opponents to exploit. The Democrats in the libertarian West, tenderized by the wipeouts of the 1990s, reassessed their positions on the Second Amendment, public land, and taxes, and reintroduced themselves to voters. In the Bush years, they gave stronger support to civil liberties than most of their Republican competitors. At one Montana debate, GOP Sen. Conrad Burns lambasted Democrat Jon Tester for wanting to “weaken” the PATRIOT Act. Tester shot back that he didn’t want to weaken it: “I want to repeal it.” Tester won the election.

Of course, the PATRIOT Act isn’t a “social issue.” That’s part of the point. The Bush-Rove iteration of the Republican Party, with its tight focus on social issues and its coordination with religious groups to turn out votes, fell dramatically short with an electorate for whom other subjects had more salience. In future elections, that skeptical segment of the country will only grow larger. The libertarian states of Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada are growing as the Deep South and the Rust Belt stagnate. And young professionals in Republican killing fields like Virginia and Ohio are getting more socially liberal, not less.

Election-night spinners tried to argue that the new congressional class consists of “conservative Democrats.” But while the newly elected Democrats include several relatively libertarian supporters of the Second Amendment, even their most conservative members, such as Pennsylvania’s senator-elect Bob Casey Jr., support the morning-after pill and some stem cell research.

The GOP’s fundamentalist myopia, combined with its sorry record on spending and corruption, has made Grover Norquist’s “Leave Us Alone Coalition” a bloc that’s up for grabs. In Norquist’s formulation, the coalition includes “taxpayers who want the government to reduce the tax burden, property owners, farmers, and homeowners who want their property rights respected.” Voters like these are now willing to entertain alternatives to a Southern-dominated, religious GOP.

They proved that in Pennsylvania, where Casey felled Rick Santorum—the only senator who actually flew down to Florida to join the Pinellas Park circus—in an 18-point landslide. On Election Day, the Philadelphia Inquirer found a voter willing to explain why Santorum lost. “I don’t know what happened to him,” said Roby Lentz, a Republican. “He quit representing me when he showed up at Terri Schiavo’s bedside.”

David Weigel (dweigel@reason.com) is an assistant editor of Reason.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: authoritarianright; biggovernmentfreeper; getacluepaternalists; liberaltarians; libertarians; moralabsolutes; nannystaterepublican; republicans; smallllibertarians; socialconservatives; valuesvoters
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-165 next last
You can pyss and moan about this analysis, and that a fair number of the losses were by RINOs, especially in the northeast, and in many places they lost to dems claiming to be conservative on certain issues. Regardless, small 'l' libertarians are between 10 - 15 percent of the electorate, if you believe these links.

GOP Is Losing Its Libertarian Voters

Libertarianism in One Country - On the Brink and beyond.

Libertarian GOP defection?

1 posted on 12/14/2006 8:37:49 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
libertarians are between 10 - 15 percent of the electorate

hmm... And here I thought Liberaltarians were only 2% of the electorate.

2 posted on 12/14/2006 8:51:47 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks (The Passion for historical reasons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


3 posted on 12/14/2006 8:52:23 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Excellent post. Thank you.


4 posted on 12/14/2006 8:54:55 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"It (trying to save Terry Schiavo) was one of the worst political miscalculations of the decade."

No hyperbole there. If libertarians think they are better served by Democrats, they have a rude shock coming. Was it really sooooooo terribly hard for libertarians to compromise with the social conservatives to try and save someone, like Terri Schiavo? Is that really asking too much? I hope not. Libertarians and "values voters" have much more in common than libertarians and Democrats. We are, for the most part, on the same team.


5 posted on 12/14/2006 8:55:19 PM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Well put Cicero!


6 posted on 12/14/2006 9:00:28 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks (The Passion for historical reasons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So how come the libertarian Republicans fared the worst?


7 posted on 12/14/2006 9:10:36 PM PST by dangus (Pope calls Islam violent; Millions of Moslems demonstrate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

The Schiavo incident was a debacle because it was a pre-ordained defeat. It didn't enliven "values voters"; quite to the contrary the message was: "We'll put on a show for you guys because we have to, but let the rest of the world know we find you a tiresome burden." It stank of craven, cynical and incompetent pandering, just like the Senate impeachment trial of Bill Clinton.


8 posted on 12/14/2006 9:13:52 PM PST by dangus (Pope calls Islam violent; Millions of Moslems demonstrate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
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.

sure, because what good is having your cake if you can't eat it too, right? we're unimportant, but to blame? stick it.

9 posted on 12/14/2006 9:15:57 PM PST by Libertarian4Bush (the underwear goes UNDER the pants! that's why they call it under-******-wear!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dangus
"So how come the libertarian Republicans fared the worst?"

Who are you thinking of?
10 posted on 12/14/2006 9:17:38 PM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
re-attaching a feeding tube to a brain-dead woman..

Minor point: She was not brain dead and no one claimed that she was. She was brain injured and now she is just plain dead. The valid point in this analysis is that many of the "swing voters" are people who want the government out of their lives. If that is what they want, they made a big mistake in 2006.

11 posted on 12/14/2006 9:19:06 PM PST by outofstyle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

dangus wrote: "The Schiavo incident was a debacle because it was a pre-ordained defeat."

Agreed, but it was hardly one of the worst political miscalculations of the decade. I doubt very, very few voters even considered it during the election.


12 posted on 12/14/2006 9:23:58 PM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dangus
So how come the libertarian Republicans fared the worst?

I wouldn't call them that. They typically were described as moderates or centrist RINOs, like Jim Leach, author in the House of the ban on Internet gambling, IIRC.

13 posted on 12/14/2006 9:27:27 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: outofstyle
""swing voters" are people who want the government out of their lives. If that is what they want, they made a big mistake in 2006."

Well I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I suspect many feel the same. We keep getting told that the democrats are going to spend more, democrats are going to expand govenment more, the democrats are going to intrude into your life more and for a long time that was true and for a long time we believed it even when it was no longer true.

Now the last congress has managed to out spend, out expand and out intrude damn near every previous congress in nearly every possible way.

So forgive me if the "democrats are going to be worse" mantra falls a little flat.
14 posted on 12/14/2006 9:28:29 PM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
"I doubt very, very few voters even considered it during the election."

I did. It wasn't the straw that broke the camels back, just one of the myriad of straws that left me too lethargic to do anything that fine November morning.
15 posted on 12/14/2006 9:31:37 PM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ndt

Even values voters expect an agenda, I imagine.


16 posted on 12/14/2006 9:32:28 PM PST by ClaireSolt (Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The battle between the brain-damaged woman’s parents, who wanted to keep her on life support, and her husband, who wanted to remove it, had bubbled up into Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature before.

The real question, the one lost between the socialists who look forward to making life and death decisions and the religious zealots, was is how the government decided Schiavo's wishes. I didn't think libertarians would favor that decision being made by a judge, using such things as a pollster, a priest who had never met Schiavo but commented on the depths of her faith and hearsay.

The Republicans didn't err in intervening, they erred in not articulating the constitutional rights that were assaulted. The question was who has the right to decide, not what was decided.

17 posted on 12/14/2006 9:32:44 PM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
[ I think it's correct to say that the Democrat sweep was brought about partly be libertarian defections. ]

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..

18 posted on 12/14/2006 9:33:11 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ndt
So forgive me if the "democrats are going to be worse" mantra falls a little flat.

No forgiveness required. The mantra obviously failed to convince. However, I think we will, in fact, see serious 2nd amendment assaults, activist judges who will uphold unjust affirmative action policies and a further expansion of eminent domain. I agree that voting republican is not as joyful as in times past. But you may be more enthusiastic next time around.

19 posted on 12/14/2006 9:38:54 PM PST by outofstyle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Libertarian4Bush

Cicero wrote: "Frankly, they were STUPID, with a capital S."

Libertarian4Bush wrote: "stick it."

A bit more civility would go a long way toward healing the party (if not making discussions here more enjoyable). As I mentioned before, libertarians and social conservatives probably share similar opinions on 90% of the issues and only disagree on 10%. I'm a dreaded religious fundamentalist, but I'd rather let a libertarian smoke a joint (under Oregon's medical marijuana law, for example) than use the federal government to strong arm them.


20 posted on 12/14/2006 9:39:53 PM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dangus; neverdem
"So how come the libertarian Republicans fared the worst?"

Republican Incumbents Who Lost in the House:

Jim Ryun (KS) - ACU rating 98
J.D. Hayworth (AZ) - ACU rating 98
Richard Pombo (CA) - ACU rating 97
Chris Chocola (IN) - ACU rating 95
Gil Gutknecht (MN) - ACU rating 94
Charles Taylor (NC) - ACU rating 92
Mike Sodrel (IN) - ACU rating 92
Melissa Hart (PA) - ACU rating 91
John Hostettler (IN) - ACU rating 90
Don Sherwood (PA) - ACU rating 87
Anne Northup (KY) - ACU rating 86
Clay Shaw (NC) ACU rating 82
John Sweeney (NY) ACU rating 77
Jeb Bradley (NH) ACU rating 71
Charles Bass (NH) ACU rating 71
Curt Weldon (PA) ACU rating 70
Sue Kelly (NY) ACU rating 65
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA) ACU rating 60
Nancy Johnson (CT) ACU rating 47
Jim Leach (IA) ACU rating 43



Vacated Republican seats lost

DeLay (TX) ACU rating 95
Beuprez (COL) ACU rating 93
Green (WI) ACU rating 88
Nussle (IA) ACU rating 86
Ney (OH) ACU rating 86
Foley (FLA) ACU rating 78
Koly (AZ) ACU rating 74
Boelert (NY) ACU rating 40


Democrat Incumbent seats lost

None.


+++

Republican Incumbents Who Lost in the Senate:

Burns (MT) - ACU rating 91
Allen (VA) - ACU rating 92
Santorum (PA) - ACU rating 88
Talent (MO) - ACU rating 93
DeWine (OH) - ACU rating 80
Chafee (RI) - ACU rating 37


Democrat Incumbent seats lost

None.

Those are some rather impressive American Conservative Union ratings for libertarian Republicans.

21 posted on 12/14/2006 9:43:07 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

True. I should've referred to them as those opposed to the Republican Party's social policies.


22 posted on 12/14/2006 9:43:15 PM PST by dangus (Pope calls Islam violent; Millions of Moslems demonstrate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt
"Even values voters expect an agenda, I imagine."

No doubt, and as voting citizens they deserve a party that listens to them. Honestly I can't see how the value voters could be much happier with the GOP then the libertarians.

Despite the historical alliances, the value voters and the libertarians really do not have that much in common.

In the end, you cant serve two masters and I wonder if this is not a watershed moment for the GOP Constitution and Libertarian parties.
23 posted on 12/14/2006 9:44:58 PM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
"More likely, especially in marginal races, the shift was brought about by a portion of multi-millions of Legal and Illegal Aliens VOTING."

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

24 posted on 12/14/2006 9:47:19 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dangus

I agree. I'm so sick of these political theatrics.


25 posted on 12/14/2006 9:47:28 PM PST by fragrant abuse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Come to the dark side.
26 posted on 12/14/2006 9:48:06 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy

"they erred in not articulating"

They erred in not articulating anything. Period. Republicans, at least those who are conservative, wrongly assume that truth and what is right is apparent to most. They forget that most of the American public no longer knows right from wrong because we now have 2 generations of moral relativists.

I read an opinion piece this week on President Bush being the worst president in American history. What the Associated Press journalist who wrote the piece will refuse to recognize is that President Bush has overseen the worst, most ignorant, nastiest citizenry in American history.

I don't agree with the President on some issues, but in considering the mentality of the voters themselves, I really fear for this country.


27 posted on 12/14/2006 9:48:10 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ndt

ndt wrote: "So forgive me if the "democrats are going to be worse" mantra falls a little flat."

I think that's an excellent point. I'm old enough to remember this country under Democrat control. However, many voters were children or not even born during the reign of Tip O'Neill. And, we older voters COULD be mistaken. The Democrats might do a good job, but I'm highly skeptical. The point is, the argument that "Democrats are going to be worse" is not one that means much to many voters. The Republicans needed to give voters something worth voting for than simply claiming the other party was worse.


28 posted on 12/14/2006 9:50:49 PM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

Thanks for the ratings & links.


29 posted on 12/14/2006 9:56:55 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
"The Republicans needed to give voters something worth voting for than simply claiming the other party was worse."

Uh...it appears to have worked rather well for the Democrats.

30 posted on 12/14/2006 9:57:33 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
..."It (trying to save Terry Schiavo) was one of the worst political miscalculations of the decade." ...

I guess the libertarians have no interest in stopping murder. Protecting Schiavo was not supposed to be a political calculation, it was supposed to be stopping a murder - some call that good government, you can call it political if you like. The worst part was how half-a$$ed the republicans acted in the Schiavo matter!

31 posted on 12/14/2006 9:59:15 PM PST by DaveyB (Ignorance is part of the human condition - atheism makes it permanent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ndt

ndt wrote: "Despite the historical alliances, the value voters and the libertarians really do not have that much in common."

Not true at all! As a religious fundamentalist who associates with other, very conservative Christians, I can tell you we share a great deal with the libertarians. Our differences are very minor. Please don't fall into the MSM depiction of religious fundamentalists as people who want to use the power of the federal government to force everyone to submit to our religion. I'm sure a very, very small minority of Christians would try it, but the vast majority of us believe in letting you make religious decisions for yourself. That gay-bashing church everyone constantly hears about in the news is NOT representative of 99.99% or more of Christians (they aren't even Christian in my book). If you doubt me, attend some Bible-believing churches and see for yourself if they put their faith in government over God.


32 posted on 12/14/2006 10:03:06 PM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
I don't agree with the President on some issues, but in considering the mentality of the voters themselves, I really fear for this country.

I do too.

33 posted on 12/14/2006 10:06:59 PM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB

Well, I for one am so glad that there haven't been any more Terri Schiavo type cases in the nation since Terri died, or at least I think that no one has had their life support pulled since then, 'cause surely all those politicians and media people would have been all over those cases too just like they did in Terri's case.

Right?

/sarcasm


34 posted on 12/14/2006 10:08:49 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy

Dolphy wrote: "The real question, the one lost between the socialists who look forward to making life and death decisions and the religious zealots, was is how the government decided Schiavo's wishes."

The religious "zealots" were also aware of the issue of how the government decided to follow Schiavo's wishes. Just because we feel it's morally wrong to murder someone (that's what it was if she didn't want to be killed), doesn't mean we don't also understand the political implications of "right to die" cases. We DO have the capability to think beyond simply quoting the Bible.

Getting back to the article...what difference does it make if I wanted to save Terri because I thought killing her was morally wrong, and you wanted to save her because of the political implications?


35 posted on 12/14/2006 10:11:57 PM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

I agree. I am a Libertarian - the 100%, card carrying, stay-off-my-lawn type. I vote a Libertarian/Republican ticket, and likely always will. Democrats have none of my values in common with me. I should know, my sister is a card carrying-Democrat.


36 posted on 12/14/2006 10:14:53 PM PST by arderkrag (I MUD. What's that? Find out: www.mudconnector.com, or if you mud, try out: 24.227.13.66 port 7000.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dangus

They didn't, RINOs did, on the whole. In fact, libertarians now occupy more seats in local municipalities than we ever have. Moderate principles lose elections, that's the way things work - No one wants a candidate who can't decide where they are. And RINOs are in no way adherent to Libertarian priciples. Economically strong and socially strong conservatism wins elections.


37 posted on 12/14/2006 10:14:54 PM PST by arderkrag (I MUD. What's that? Find out: www.mudconnector.com, or if you mud, try out: 24.227.13.66 port 7000.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
And here I thought Liberaltarians were only 2% of the electorate.

LOL you thought wrong.

Social issues should be fought at the state/local level. The 2008 election is all about economic & foreign policy conservatism. The GOP needs to return back to it's Calvin Coolidge economic roots and McKinley's muscular foreign-policy pro-American approach.

38 posted on 12/14/2006 10:16:04 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Why can't Republicans stand up to Democrats like they do to terrorists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
The 2008 election is all about economic & foreign policy conservatism.

Oh really?

Gonna leave Conservatives behind?

Good luck Ross.

39 posted on 12/14/2006 10:25:22 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks (The Passion for historical reasons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
As a religious conservative, I'm perfectly happy to support tax cuts and budget cuts.

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.

40 posted on 12/14/2006 10:26:30 PM PST by elmer fudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Promoting pro-American sovereignity & fiscal conservatism is leaving conservatives "behind?"

Limit gov't & put American interests ahead instead of globalists. Then the social issues will take care of themselves.

41 posted on 12/14/2006 10:28:07 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Why can't Republicans stand up to Democrats like they do to terrorists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

Luis Gonzalez wrote: "Uh...it appears to have worked rather well for the Democrats."

Agreed, but I don't agree with you (from your previous posts on other threads) that the Republicans need to sacrifice conservative goals in order to appeal to the moderates. The Republicans need to articulate why conservatism is much better for this country. I believe small government IS better, but the problem is, IMHO, many Republican leaders don't. I suspect the moderates would have voted Republican if they had something worth voting for. Saying Democrats are worse is NOT an effective way to win elections. Take just one issue, Social Security. What rational person wouldn't prefer a reform that gives you the OPTION of owning your own retirement funds, guarantees you'll never have less than what the present program pays, and promises no changes for existing recipients who don't want to participate? THAT is something that should sell very well to conservatives and moderates.

BTW, I'm not saying you are wrong for wanting to compromise on the issues. I think many conservatives would just like to see a few issues actually swing our way when we vote for people who profess to support us. It's not like a ban on partial birth abortion, for example, was all that earth shattering, or do you think we were reaching too far?


42 posted on 12/14/2006 10:29:04 PM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Thank God Liberaltarians are only 2% of Republicans.

Have fun getting elected with out us.
43 posted on 12/14/2006 10:31:57 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks (The Passion for historical reasons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB

DaveyB wrote: "The worst part was how half-a$$ed the republicans acted in the Schiavo matter!"

Agreed. If any of them truly thought it was murder, they basically stood by and let it happen. Rather than take a stand, they tried to pawn it off on the judicial system, and the judges weren't interested in playing.

My point was simply that libertarians who wanted to save Terri because they thought her opinion in the matter (right to die) wasn't clearly established, effectively wanted the same result as social conservatives who wanted to save her for moral reasons. In other words, we are natural allies against the liberals, but you wouldn't know it from reading many of the posts in these threads.


44 posted on 12/14/2006 10:37:06 PM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
"Our differences are very minor. Please don't fall into the MSM depiction of religious fundamentalists as people who want to use the power of the federal government to force everyone to submit to our religion."

I'm not falling in any trap, I'm speaking from my own experiences. I can appreciate that you specifically are more open to the idea of personal liberty. Sadly, that is not the common theme, not on this forum and not among the evangelicals I know.

Check out the scores from the Republican Liberty Caucus link

3 out of 4 personal freedom votes went against the proposed "libertarian ideal".

The defense of personal freedom in the GOP has atrophied. No, it's even worse than atrophied, the conservative movement has become antagonistic to personal freedom to the point that "civil liberties" has begun to take on a negative connotation to many who call themselves conservatives.
45 posted on 12/14/2006 10:39:21 PM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Getting back to the article...what difference does it make if I wanted to save Terri because I thought killing her was morally wrong, and you wanted to save her because of the political implications?

I hope you aren't taking offense where none was intended. I most certainly don't consider all of those who defended her right to live a zealot or incapable of considering the constitutional questions that were raised.

46 posted on 12/14/2006 10:40:23 PM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag

arderkrag wrote: "I should know, my sister is a card carrying-Democrat."

My sympathies. It's funny how nearly every extended family has one.


47 posted on 12/14/2006 10:40:53 PM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Frankly, people who demand spending cuts in wartime strike me as brain dead.


48 posted on 12/14/2006 10:41:10 PM PST by ClaireSolt (Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Thank God Liberaltarians are only 2% of Republicans.

You obviously don't get it. Most Libertarians do not belong to the LP or any other political party. They comprise a large swath of voters who just want the government to stay out of their lives. You know, the large swath of voters that told the GOP to take a hike.

Have fun getting elected with out us.

You need us more than we need you. Bush is perhaps the most pro-life President in modern political history and abortion is still around. Do you think by running solely on social issues the GOP can win? Look, tell the party bosses to stop putting so much emphasis on abortion and gay marriage. We know the GOP is pro-life and defenders of the family. Do they have to make it a central issue all the time?

The GOP needs to focus on the meat-and-potatoes for now. Once people have money and the economy's booming the social issues will take care of themselves.

49 posted on 12/14/2006 10:41:19 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Why can't Republicans stand up to Democrats like they do to terrorists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

EEE wrote: "Social issues should be fought at the state/local level."

I bet a majority of Americans, myself included, agree. It's the liberals who believe in a living Constitution (meaning, we'll interpret it to mean whatever we want).


50 posted on 12/14/2006 10:47:49 PM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-165 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson