The only sigh needs to be that the RNC is exactly opposite of what it should be. It is big government social cons, when it should be small government social moderates.

lorien1973 on October 26, 2009 at 7:10 PM

It may be that the two coincide in the RNC, but social cons are not “big government.” Gay marriage, for instance, is an imposition by the state on an institution that is inherent to humanity, not only to traditional religion. Abortion is abridgement of the civil rights of the baby. Both are small government issues.

Um… how about the libertarians that say “LET’S GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE WAR!”

terryannonline on October 26, 2009 at 10:31 PM

The vocal minority defines the group?
There are many valid reasons for prefering a foreign policy that focuses on non-involvement in the problems of the rest of the world.

As a libertarian, it is my belief that the War on Terror is not one these. Our enemy has declared his willingness to take his fight to us. He will continue to attack us, whether we respond or not. In such a case, taking the fight to the enemy is the only rational response.

Not everyone sees it that way. That’s life in a democracy.

I don’t care if people want to do things in their bedroom that I don’t do, but if they then want to control which guns I can have we have a problem.

NTWR on October 26, 2009 at 7:28 PM

It is possible to believe that something is wrong, without concurrently believing that it is the responsibility of govt to do something about it.

The Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. However the Bible also teaches that sin is between God and man, not man and government.

WHile it does concern me when others sin, I have no right to use the coercive power of govt to force others to live up to my moral standards. So long as what they are doing is consensual, I have no legal right, or moral authority to do anything about it.

The limit of my power in this area is the power all free men and women have. The right to voice my opinion.

The liberals have historically owned the high ground of the media.
This allows them to magnify the flaws of Republicans while hiding their own shortcomings. Since most people, regardless of their political philosophy get their information from the news, this creates a disgust with Republicans that often suppresses the Republican vote.

Secondly, our Republican leadership is doing everything in it’s power to tell conservatives to stay home, their help isn’t wanted.

While it’s true that there are more conservatives in the Republican party, it’s also true that conservatives have no party that wants and supports them.

Republican Bob McDonnell is cruising to victory on an 11-point cushion.

You say that like VA is a nomimally blue state. It isn’t. With the exception of Fairfax County (lots of DC and federal workers live there and the county is growing), the state is by and large moderate to conservative, emphasis on the conservative. When Bill Clinton crushed Dole in 1996, Dole still managed to eke out a 4% win in VA. 2006 and 2008 were a combination of Bush fatigue and “Ooh, look at the pretty candidate”. Also, 2008 increased the black vote to pretty much its maximum level. Absent the particular set of variables that I’ve set forth above, an average Republican will beat and average Democrat for governor in Virginia. This year, we’ve got a decent Republican candidate versus a short bus Democrat one, so the results are pretty much what you’d expect. I predict Deeds loses by 12%-15% next Tuesday.

I will offer one caveat about VA: the voters tend to support the opposition party of the sitting president for governor.

I think at this moment the American people are probably more Libertarian type. Sigh.

terryannonline on October 26, 2009 at 7:09 PM

That Party is way too tiny to even consider this conclusion. Unless, of course, you meant a small ‘l’ libertarian. They are two different things.

Good news, but a tad underwhelming when you look at the numbers.

Classic Allahpundit!

crosspatch on October 27, 2009 at 1:02 AM

Run for office and I will support you. Segregating your personal and policy stances is the key. It distills down to Sarah P’s statement made in support of Hoffmann:

I support limited government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and individual incentive. ( Not exact quote). These four planks are all that are needed to describe a party. Forget the forty plank strategy that is sure to tick off practically everyone or put them into the ‘lesser of two evils’ dilemma.

That is what MAKES them so powerful. Neither the libs nor the conservatives have enough votes to win by themselves. It is the independents who decide the election.

If you have 47% of the electorate voting for the conservative candidate and 20% voting for the liberal, it is how the 37% of the moderates break that decides the election.

I don’t like the term “moderate”, though. I don’t align completely with the “conservatives” on all issues nor do I align with much of the liberal agenda but I don’t consider myself “moderate” at all.

I favor a strong defense, support private enterprise, favor limiting the federal government, believe issues such as gay marriage and abortion should be left to the various states to decide. I believe a solution to the immigration problem should be reached and would favor something like making work permits available for $1000 and denial of citizenship to children of permit holders born in the US. Arrest or unemployment would result in revocation of the permit and deportation. Voluntary repatriation within 3 months after the loss of a job would allow the permit holder to return upon proof of employment. After completion of military service or 10 years here with a clean record, consistent employment, payment of taxes, and demonstrated command of english, one could BEGIN the process of citizenship.

But I am also pro choice at the federal level and believe the decision on allowing it or not allowing it should be made by the states. I am also against such things as teaching “intelligent design” or any creationism of any sort (ANY religion’s creation belief) in the public schools so I am not in alignment with many conservatives on some issues. I don’t consider myself “moderate” because I am not particularly moderate in my belief in these things.

I believe our current welfare system helps people to death. It treats a symptom but does not address the causes of poverty and gives a disincentive for self reliance. These programs perpetuate poverty through the generations.

I generally see “liberals” as “dangerous” in economics, defense, and the social fabric. I see “conservatives” as dangerous in certain social aspects. There isn’t a party that reflects my views entirely but the Republicans “suck less” in general according to my values.

A “conservative” candidate coming out strongly about teaching creationism in the public schools would lose my vote unless my district had school choice and vouchers so I could pull my kids out of the public schools and place them where I want them placed. We are Christians and we believe in creation but church is the place for that teaching, not the school. What if my district eventually is populated by people of a different religion? What if they want to teach their religion in the school? What if they want to teach that the world was created by a turtle or something and they are the majority population? Religion should be kept out of the school because there are so many of them. If one religion is allowed in, then they all need to be allowed in and soon the school is teaching various religions and has no time to teach math.

The “moderates” are powerful because neither of the mainstream parties has enough people to carry an election and which way the moderates break decides the winner.

JellyToast on October 26, 2009 at 7:15 PM

Drat, you beat me to it!

Um… how about the libertarians that say “LET’S GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE WAR!”

terryannonline on October 26, 2009 at 10:31 PM

A small, very loud group of one subset of libertarian thought.

Don’t confuse volume with consensus.

Mighty broad brush, that;
Care to defend it with examples, and proofs?

massrighty on October 26, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Um… how about the libertarians that say “LET’S GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE WAR!”

They are the self-indulgent Right version of liberalism. Whatever feels goods.

terryannonline on October 26, 2009 at 8:10 PM

Mighty broad brush, that;
Care to defend it with examples, and proofs?

The only sigh needs to be that the RNC is exactly opposite of what it should be. It is big government social cons, when it should be small government social moderates.

lorien1973 on October 26, 2009 at 7:10 PM
I could live with this. Fiscally conservative, and socially conservative-libertarian is better.

Well put Lorien.

portlandon on October 26, 2009 at 7:16 PM

Me three; I think a re-energized conservative base, focused on fiscal and small-government issues, is the way to build back up.

Then, when we’re in charge, we can decide what to do on the social policy side.

There’s a reason Democrats tend to campaign as Republicans.

BadgerHawk on October 26, 2009 at 7:07 PM

Living, as I do, in the belly of the beast (the bluest of the blue states,) I meet a lot of “secret conservatives.

Push, poke, prod; you’ll find many people who believe as we do, but don’t want to admit it: the result, I think, of 40+ years of media ‘branding.’

Conservative = bad.
Conservative = repressed.
Conservative = interested in taking away your rights.

Lots of folks are one conversation away from showing their true colors, and joining us in the light.

So, yes, there’s lots of “running to the right, in order to capture the real mood of the electorate.

Keep reaching out, conservatives: there’s more of us than anybody thinks.

Sorry, guys…no reset button for presidential elections and we don’t have any parliamentary no confidence votes.

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 26, 2009 at 9:52 PM

If we take back the House in 2010, I lay odds a lot of reset buttons are going to get pushed in the White House.

Yes we can!

Sorry, guys…no reset button for presidential elections and we don’t have any parliamentary no confidence votes.