Green Room

Video: The libertarian view of why Romney lost

posted at 10:10 pm on November 7, 2012 by

Three suggestions from Nick Gillespie. The GOP’s newfound alarm about losing Latinos and young voters should lead to some movement on his first two, but I don’t know about the third. Social conservatives will be on high alert for signs that the party is tacking towards the center on their core issues.

Speaking of which, read Fr. Robert Sirico’s take on why “one election cannot fix what ails us.”

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Been saying this for 2 failed presidential elections now. The social cons will be the death of the republican party. Why the hell does the GOP pander to a group that has no one else to vote for?

thphilli on November 7, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Speaking of WEED,a brilliant idea!
(sarc)
——-

Tweet of the Moment: Rep. Kingston On Weed, Coping With Obama Win
November 7, 2012 | 3:41 p.m
***************************

Last night’s win for President Barack Obama has left some Republicans feeling slightly depressed, but Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., has an idea on how to take the edge off — at least in Colorado.

Kingston tweeted this nugget of advice, referencing Colorado’s just-passed amendment “allowing for the legal, recreational use of marijuana.

Jack Kingston ‏@JackKingston

In legalizing pot, the voters of Colorado have proven they know how to deal with four more years of #Obama

https://twitter.com/JackKingston

Oh jeez. Well, if that’s the logic, what are voters in Georgia to do? The southern state hasn’t legalized marijuana.
==================================================

http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/11/rep-jack-kingston-who-handidly.php

canopfor on November 7, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Been saying this for 2 failed presidential elections now. The social cons will be the death of the republican party. Why the hell does the GOP pander to a group that has no one else to vote for?

thphilli on November 7, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Exactly!

I support same-sex marriage, but I also oppose a constitutional amendment legalizing it across the country. There’s nothing wrong with accepting more socially-libertarian voters into the GOP by compromising with a state’s rights narrative. In other words, someone like myself shouldn’t be alienated just because I support marijuana legalization and same-sex marriage – even though I’m registered as a Republican! Let the non-gun social issues be handled by the states and stop forcing litmus tests on social policy.

Aizen on November 7, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Reason can always be counted upon to retrofit reality to their theses.

Been saying this for 2 failed presidential elections now. The social cons will be the death of the republican party. Why the hell does the GOP pander to a group that has no one else to vote for?

thphilli on November 7, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Because many of them would rather vote for a Democrat than a socially liberal Republican. And even if they wouldn’t, SoCons make up a large part of a random Republican’s base. Without them, there is no starting proposition from which to expand. (This is a broad generalization and differs from region to region, but is certainly true in the one national election.)

Being convinced of the immorality of abortion is doesn’t magically make you economically literate. It’s basically the same reason the Dems oblige the Greens.

HitNRun on November 7, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Libertarians…. try having economic conservatism without social conservatism. It won’t work. Social liberalism leads to economic liberalism. There is a reason why Europe is fiscally liberal and culturally liberal. They go well together. And it is no surprise that the same young people who want you legalize pot also want you to pay for their munchies.

terryannonline on November 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Does anyone else think its kind of funny that the D.C. Republican pundits (NRO, Weekly Standard, FNC, etc.) who are now lecturing the party on how we need to moderate our tone on immigration are the same pundits who backed Romney early in the primaries?

It was Romney who unleashed the attack ads basically portraying illegal immigrants as cartel members. It was Romney who attacked Perry over Texas tuition for children of illegal immigrants. It was Romney who attacked Newt for simply suggesting “we aren’t going to round up 10 million people and put them on buses.” It goes on and on, Mitt did this throughout 2008 as well.

If all of these navel-gazing pundits and politicos had spoken up during the primaries when Romney was setting the field ablaze over illegal immigration, maybe it would have led to a better discussion. But they were so concerned about preserving Mitt’s tenuous coalition that they didn’t want to risk hurting his candidacy by criticizing him. So to every Republican pundit and politician who supported Romney in the primaries but is now talking about how “the party” (i.e. not themselves) needs to moderate its tone on illegal immigration, kindly shut the **** up.

Lawdawg86 on November 7, 2012 at 10:54 PM

A society that thinks we NEED abortion just in case someone acts irresponsible with their sex life will probably thinks there is nothing wrong with irresponsible spending.

terryannonline on November 7, 2012 at 11:00 PM

On the 3rd point.

1. It’s time to abandon the opposition to gay marriage. Not calling for individuals to flip flop, but the institutional Republican Party needs to at a minimum drop its opposition to gay marriage. This is a “wrong side of history” issue. Look at the poll trends. For years, social conservatives held up gay marriage’s winless record at the polls. Well that’s over now. Deep blue states like Maine and Maryland passed gay marriage. Bluish Minnesota voted down the ban. And it hasn’t gotten much play, but an Iowa Supreme Court justice easily survived his retainment vote unlike his peers from a couple of years ago. In four years, this will be a 40/60 issue at best for Republicans. We must win the suburbs to win national elections, and this issue is hurting us there.

2. The Republican Party should not and cannot abandon it’s pro-life stance. What it must do is be smarter about it. The focus needs to be on what we can do with abortion now. Yes, ideally in the future we will have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court strike down Roe and we can go about banning abortion on a state by state basis. Until then, it’s time to turn the tables on the Democrats. From now on, when we talk about pro-life issues, we’re talking about what we’ll do in the next term. That’s not outlaw abortion. That’s not being against issuing Plan B to rape victims. It’s curtailing partial birth abortion. It’s backing parental notification laws. We must campaign on chipping away at abortion. Engage the Democrats where super majorities oppose their extremist stances on the issue. Abortion should’ve been a winning issue for Republicans this fall. But instead of talking about Barack Obama’s pro-infanticide stance, we got to talk about rape being God’s will. This is an issue where we can and must beat the Democrats. But it’s a touchy issue that can be easily demagogued. We must be smarter.

LukeinNE on November 7, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Because many of them would rather vote for a Democrat than a socially liberal Republican. And even if they wouldn’t, SoCons make up a large part of a random Republican’s base. Without them, there is no starting proposition from which to expand. (This is a broad generalization and differs from region to region, but is certainly true in the one national election.)

Being convinced of the immorality of abortion is doesn’t magically make you economically literate. It’s basically the same reason the Dems oblige the Greens.

HitNRun on November 7, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Well then the Republican party is dead. If the “base” of the party is willing to vote Democrat if the Republican party attempts to attract new voters by SHOCKER, actually meaning the small government message, then the party is finished. And social cons are a rapidly RAPIDLY declining group. If they are going to hold 50% of the nations major political parties hostage, then we are looking at decades and decades of Democrats controlling government.

thphilli on November 7, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Libertarians…. try having economic conservatism without social conservatism. It won’t work. Social liberalism leads to economic liberalism. There is a reason why Europe is fiscally liberal and culturally liberal. They go well together. And it is no surprise that the same young people who want you legalize pot also want you to pay for their munchies.

terryannonline on November 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Yeah, Colorado and Washington are notorious their huge amounts of government-handout-dependent dropout dirtbags living in public housing and receiving foodstamps, welfare, and all other manner of government redistribution.

Oh wait, thats actually Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama that have the highest amounts of welfare scum. So-con bastions.

Washington and Colorado are two of the most hi-tech, educated, wealthy, clean, and low-crime states in the country. Again, the total opposite of the deep, bible thumping South, and the decimated god-fearing, union-loving Midwest.

Daikokuco on November 7, 2012 at 11:49 PM

Social liberalism leads to economic liberalism. There is a reason why Europe is fiscally liberal and culturally liberal. They go well together. And it is no surprise that the same young people who want you legalize pot also want you to pay for their munchies.

terryannonline on November 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM

And also, you mouth breathing idiot, crack open a 20th century history book. Europe was fiscally liberal BEFORE they were socially liberal. See: 1950s Europe. So your retarded hypothesis that social liberalism leads to fiscal liberalism is unfounded moron-spittle.

Daikokuco on November 7, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Reason made good points, but failed in the major reasons why Romney lost. He didn’t offer a real contrast to Obama when it came to fiscal mess we are in.

V-rod on November 8, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Social liberalism leads to economic liberalism. There is a reason why Europe is fiscally liberal and culturally liberal. They go well together. And it is no surprise that the same young people who want you legalize pot also want you to pay for their munchies.

terryannonline on November 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM

France in the 1970′s were cracking down on abortions and women contraception, yet they were very socialist at the time.

V-rod on November 8, 2012 at 12:40 AM

So, the GOP is going to be the Open borders party again. Yes, bring in more people that are entitled and haven’t gone through the Americanization process.

Oil Can on November 8, 2012 at 1:10 AM

You know what the problem with abandoning all these things are? They are what actually sets Republicans apart from Democrats. They are what drives people to the polls to vote Republican. Republicans talk a very good game on fiscal conservatism but other than cutting taxes they never carry through. For the rest they simply want to manage the deficit spending increase and direct it to their cronies instead of the Democrats.

Abandon these issues and the Republican party simply becomes the Democrats who are stingy. The Cheap Democrats. Does anyone think large numbers of people are going to flock to this?

Rocks on November 8, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Immigration-fine.

Pot-fine.

Gay marriage-don’t care. Get the government out of marriage.

Abortion-no can do completely. Rape, incest, life of mother-fine. Otherwise-no.

Will this make any of the demographic groups shift to the Republican Party? I have my doubts.

drewwerd on November 8, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Libertarians…. try having economic conservatism without social conservatism. It won’t work. Social liberalism leads to economic liberalism. There is a reason why Europe is fiscally liberal and culturally liberal. They go well together. And it is no surprise that the same young people who want you legalize pot also want you to pay for their munchies.

terryannonline on November 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Washington has no income tax. Two years ago they voted down an income tax that would have only applied to people making more than $200k a year. This year they voted to legalize gay marriage. So there goes your theory.

Mark1971 on November 8, 2012 at 2:45 AM

I love people who think we are going to out liberal the Democrat party and get people who ONLY care about those issue to vote Repub just because we changed our minds..

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 4:00 AM

Yeah, Colorado and Washington are notorious their huge amounts of government-handout-dependent dropout dirtbags living in public housing and receiving foodstamps, welfare, and all other manner of government redistribution.

Oh wait, thats actually Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama that have the highest amounts of welfare scum. So-con bastions.

Washington and Colorado are two of the most hi-tech, educated, wealthy, clean, and low-crime states in the country. Again, the total opposite of the deep, bible thumping South, and the decimated god-fearing, union-loving Midwest.

Daikokuco on November 7, 2012 at 11:49 PM

And yet the people who won the election for Obama were single women- Why? Because single women tend to rely on government programs and be more open to government programs. For the first time in history there is more single women than married. WHY? The destruction of the tradtional family- a social issue. If you don’t see any correlation between social issues and fiscal issues, you aren’t looking hard enough. Oh and BTW, economic growth is coming into the south see Tenn, Texas etc., and the midwest is hardly “god fearing” so cons since it votes blue..

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 4:04 AM

Why should we listen to people who are like Gary Johnson : run in your party and then for another party.

Sams88 on November 8, 2012 at 4:18 AM

And yet the people who won the election for Obama were single women- Why? Because single women tend to rely on government programs and be more open to government programs. For the first time in history there is more single women than married. WHY? The destruction of the tradtional family- a social issue. If you don’t see any correlation between social issues and fiscal issues, you aren’t looking hard enough.
melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 4:04 AM

I don’t think many would disagree with you there. It’s a matter of whose job it is to maintain or enforce personal moral choices and to what degree (because all law essentially restricts our behavior). What is the role of government?

Government without question reflects the mores of a society, but as a byproduct–not cause. You can intact all the laws in the world but you wont change a single heart if it’s within the person to do it, or the general consensus of the population has already shifted. Ours has. Now we can argue when/where that change began, where the fault lies all day but it has little to do with government. We’ve long ceased being what we were. The same assumptions no longer work.

Knowing this, you have to decide if it’s worth sticking to old personal convictions (however righteous that cause may be)and lose elections, ushering in more statist policies limiting all our freedom. Or, to possibly put aside said positions to rally around a winning candidate/movement which would allow for maximum freedom for all, and the ability for you to do more on the local level without the state in your ever-loving face all the time.

Choices.

(apologies if the video said as much and I’m being redundant…getting ready to watch it.)

Bee on November 8, 2012 at 5:23 AM

And yet the people who won the election for Obama were single women- Why? Because single women tend to rely on government programs and be more open to government programs. For the first time in history there is more single women than married. WHY? The destruction of the tradtional family- a social issue. If you don’t see any correlation between social issues and fiscal issues, you aren’t looking hard enough. Oh and BTW, economic growth is coming into the south see Tenn, Texas etc., and the midwest is hardly “god fearing” so cons since it votes blue..

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 4:04 AM

This.

Obama won the “Julia” vote, the “Sandra” vote, and the “Lena (Creepy First Time Ad)” vote.

“Julia,” “Sandra,” and “Lena” are not libertarians. They are fiscally and socially liberal, and demand tax dollars and programs be created to fuel their lifestyle.

I think SoCons can make an able compromise with libertarians, provided libertarians actually value churches as a valid competing non-governmental free associating organization.

This coalition would oppose things like the HHS Mandate which forces church members to violate their beliefs for government directives, and fight to implement laws that prevent church-run adoption agencies from limiting their pool of valid applicants to just couples containing one man and one women.

That stance would most likely result in an electoral majority. It leaves the issue of marriage itself alone while preventing legal and social overreach, and pits people primarily against the trial lawyer base of the Democrat party.

Libertarians cannot win over a nation of “Julia,” “Sandra,” and “Lena” voters. Lest anyone think I’m only picking on women: Democrat “men” love these kind of women. They are the kind of women that show up in Kennedy/Dodd waitress sandwiches and under Clinton’s Oval Office Desk.

BKennedy on November 8, 2012 at 6:24 AM

Daikokuco on November 7, 2012 at 11:51 PM,
listen to me you pompous ass, much of Europe shifted far left on social issues in the 19th century as socialist parties adamantly opposed Christianity all across Europe. Now your too dumb to know this since you have convinced yourself how smart you are, but thats fine, fools like you burn out when faced with reality.

rob verdi on November 8, 2012 at 6:56 AM

Systemic problems in both parties aside, the left won because the combined media outlets helped the Obama administration buy votes for four years. It really is as simple as that.

LizardLips on November 8, 2012 at 7:30 AM

There are untapped fiscal cons, classical liberal people that are in the Democrat Party waiting to be woo’ed. But they are driven away by the religious right.

oddjob1138 on November 8, 2012 at 7:34 AM

Systemic problems in both parties aside, the left won because the combined media outlets helped the Obama administration buy votes for four years. It really is as simple as that.

LizardLips on November 8, 2012 at 7:30 AM

This comment should be posted a million times

rob verdi on November 8, 2012 at 7:35 AM

Every election cycle we lose after running a moderate the Libertarians and beltway moderates tell us the Rep. party needs to be more moderate to win. Please let us nominate a true conservative next time. By the way, Reagan’s compromise (amnesty) on illegal immigration was a spectacular failure and is the reason we are in this mess now.

paraff on November 8, 2012 at 7:45 AM

Because the 1% Losertarian model is sooooooo superior.

Steve Eggleston on November 8, 2012 at 7:52 AM

Libertarians…. try having economic conservatism without social conservatism. It won’t work. Social liberalism leads to economic liberalism. There is a reason why Europe is fiscally liberal and culturally liberal. They go well together. And it is no surprise that the same young people who want you legalize pot also want you to pay for their munchies.

terryannonline on November 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM

“social liberalism” and “economic liberalism” are totally unrelated, don’t be ridiculous. Let’s call social conservatism what it is — deeply religious people with strong convictions trying to shove it down everyone elses throat. I respect that you have your feelings on issues, and that you believe in sobriety and whatnot, but its not the governments place to tell anyone what they can or cant put in their bodies, who they can or cant “marry.” Don’t want to recognize gay marriage? Then join a church that doesn’t or move to a state that doesn’t.

I don’t understand how you don’t see how hypocritical it is to say you want a smaller federal government, but at the same time support drug prohibition that has allowed the federal government to trample states rights, throw billions of dollars at a “problem” and ruin millions of peoples lives.

I suppose you are for alcohol prohibition as well?

Timin203 on November 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Libertarians cannot win over a nation of “Julia,” “Sandra,” and “Lena” voters. Lest anyone think I’m only picking on women: Democrat “men” love these kind of women. They are the kind of women that show up in Kennedy/Dodd waitress sandwiches and under Clinton’s Oval Office Desk.

BKennedy on November 8, 2012 at 6:24 AM

Uh what do you think the republican party is? It’s a shaky coalition between anti-abortion / pro-god big government types, pro-progressive war / foreign policy a la Woodrow Wilson, and small government types (libertarians)… And it’s collapsing.

SoCons and NeoCons ruined the republican brand, and honestly have little in common with libertarians.

It’s like the coal unions and the environmental groups in the dem coalition.

Timin203 on November 8, 2012 at 7:57 AM

I’ve flirted with libertarianism for a very long time, but I always run into it’s inherently self absorbed stupidity.

We’re on the fast track to fiscal insolvency, potential national bankruptcy and they’re worried about…having the legal right to get loaded.

And they will support uber liberal candidates that suck the bone marrow out of personal freedom, but don’t care because the far left also wants to get loaded.

GeeWhiz on November 8, 2012 at 8:09 AM

I’ve flirted with libertarianism for a very long time, but I always run into it’s inherently self absorbed stupidity.

We’re on the fast track to fiscal insolvency, potential national bankruptcy and they’re worried about…having the legal right to get loaded.

And they will support uber liberal candidates that suck the bone marrow out of personal freedom, but don’t care because the far left also wants to get loaded.

GeeWhiz on November 8, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Ugh. It’s not about weed. It’s about freedom. That’s just an issue that has broad, non-politcal support. That’s like saying, “I don’t support the 21st amendment, because there are more pressing issues then the right the get loaded.”

And yeah, a lot of libertarians voted O in 08. I doubt many voted at all in 12, or they voted for Johnson…

Personal freedom is the driving force behind libertarianism, just like it supposedly is for conservatives.

If the pothead loser living in his parents basement doesn’t have the right to light up… then what makes you think you have any rights? I mean, honestly, if the most fundamental right (what you injest into your own body) is a-ok for the federal government to impose upon, why can’t they impose on any “right” you hold dear? What’s the difference?

Timin203 on November 8, 2012 at 8:14 AM

Because the 1% Losertarian model is sooooooo superior.

Steve Eggleston on November 8, 2012 at 7:52 AM

I consider myself a libertarian, and I agree with this. We already have our own party and we barely get 1% of the vote. We are in no position to give advice to Republicans who can draw 48% of the vote.

Ars Moriendi on November 8, 2012 at 8:16 AM

I consider myself a libertarian, and I agree with this. We already have our own party and we barely get 1% of the vote. We are in no position to give advice to Republicans who can draw 48% of the vote.

Ars Moriendi on November 8, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Yeah, because a large number of libertarian leaning people vote republican because we’re constantly told “a vote for the libertarian is a vote for the democrat” so we try to suck it up and deal with the lesser of two evils instead of voting 3rd party. After this election, I know I for one am done voting for candidates I don’t really agree with on many / most issues. I regret voting Romney over Johnson.

Timin203 on November 8, 2012 at 8:18 AM

I don’t get the sudden support for immigration reform. McCain was a huge amnesty supporter, and what did he have to show for it?

Reason’s right that Reagan gave them amnesty, and yet this has done nothing to help the GOP overall.

Obama is president, and Republicans only control the House. Any move on immigration will be seen as a Democrat move. Amnesty will only increase their voter base, not ours.

Esthier on November 8, 2012 at 8:38 AM

thphilli on November 7, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Look, if you want to be a liberal with a budget, please – by all means do so. I’m sure the Democrats would love to have you.

psrch on November 8, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Because the 1% Losertarian model is sooooooo superior.

Steve Eggleston on November 8, 2012 at 7:52 AM

How’s that 48% model working for ya? So close, yet so far away from victory…

By all means, keep putting up soc-con heroes like Santorum or Huckabee. Keep deceiving yourselves and watch that 48% model erode more and more each time you face the voters.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

social liberalism” and “economic liberalism” are totally unrelated, don’t be ridiculous. Let’s call social conservatism what it is — deeply religious people with strong convictions trying to shove it down everyone elses throat.

Not even remotely true sweetpea. I am not even religious in the least. I would just like things to stop being miraculously found in the Constitution and let the state’s decide the way it was meant to. What works in Massachusetts won’t work in say Alabama. A ‘government” who can find rights to give you can find rights to take away from you.

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 9:23 AM

By all means, keep putting up soc-con heroes like Santorum or Huckabee. Keep deceiving yourselves and watch that 48% model erode more and more each time you face the voters.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Blah, Huckabee and Santorum the socon boogie man.. Neither one of them were fiscally conservative so try again..

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 9:24 AM

I consider myself a libertarian, and I agree with this. We already have our own party and we barely get 1% of the vote. We are in no position to give advice to Republicans who can draw 48% of the vote.

Ars Moriendi on November 8, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Why I draw a very-distinct difference between libertarians and the Losertarian Party.

Steve Eggleston on November 8, 2012 at 9:26 AM

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

The Pubbies will eventually catch up to your 1% ceiling. Meanwhile, Rom…er, the US burns, and the circuses are packed.

Steve Eggleston on November 8, 2012 at 9:27 AM

I don’t think many would disagree with you there. It’s a matter of whose job it is to maintain or enforce personal moral choices and to what degree (because all law essentially restricts our behavior). What is the role of government?

Government without question reflects the mores of a society, but as a byproduct–not cause. You can intact all the laws in the world but you wont change a single heart if it’s within the person to do it, or the general consensus of the population has already shifted. Ours has. Now we can argue when/where that change began, where the fault lies all day but it has little to do with government. We’ve long ceased being what we were. The same assumptions no longer work.

Knowing this, you have to decide if it’s worth sticking to old personal convictions (however righteous that cause may be)and lose elections, ushering in more statist policies limiting all our freedom. Or, to possibly put aside said positions to rally around a winning candidate/movement which would allow for maximum freedom for all, and the ability for you to do more on the local level without the state in your ever-loving face all the time.

Choices.

(apologies if the video said as much and I’m being redundant…getting ready to watch it.)

Bee on November 8, 2012 at 5:23 AM

I would disagree with you and say that government took the lead on destroying the traditional family because they found out they could have bigger power over the individual with government programs and being daddy. Those people are NEVER going to vote Repub BTW, you can’t out liberal a liberal all you do is alienate your base and move more to the left like the other party. I find it funny that socialism is becoming the norm in this country, but “socons” are being told they have to shut up to win because they are “extreme.”

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Blah, Huckabee and Santorum the socon boogie man.. Neither one of them were fiscally conservative so try again..

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Hey, those are the folks the soc-cons have latched onto in the primaries both in 2008 and 2012 as their champions. Bring someone else into the mix if you like but I’ll wager that while their soc-con credentials would make them the darlings of their like-minded fellows, they’ll also be a heckuva drag on them come Election Day. Keep on losing election after election whilst you “fight the noble fight” if you like, the Left is settling these matters in the meantime and you’ll never change things back. Pity that the economy and everything will tank in the meantime.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM

The Pubbies will eventually catch up to your 1% ceiling. Meanwhile, Rom…er, the US burns, and the circuses are packed.

Steve Eggleston on November 8, 2012 at 9:27 AM

You may be right. Of course GOP politicos are still politicians and like any group of politicians want to win elections. Both parties have changed numerous times in the past to keep pace with the culture and I fully expect the GOP to come around this time as well. They’ll suffer some defeats in the interim from some angry soc-cons leaving the party but new coalitions can be formed. If you guys think that you’re the only game in town than you’re sadly mistaken.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

y

Keep on losing election after election whilst you “fight the noble fight” if you like, the Left is settling these matters in the meantime and you’ll never change things back. Pity that the economy and everything will tank in the meantime.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Y’all keep saying this but the last two elections were lost running moderates on social issues and evangelicals still voted for them so I am not sure what y’all are crying about. One of two things happened to YOUR candidates: either they couldn’t articulate that they were moderate or it had nothing to do with social issues and everything to do with the electorate changing to more “give, give, give me what can the government do for me mentality.” Either case YOUR candidates will continue to lose as well … MEh!

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 9:49 AM

By all means, keep putting up soc-con heroes like Santorum or Huckabee. Keep deceiving yourselves and watch that 48% model erode more and more each time you face the voters.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

The 48% model didn’t depend on us “putting up soc-con heroes like Santorum or Huckabee.” Those two lost in the primaries because we were told they “weren’t electable.” We put up Romney instead, precisely because we were told that “he’s the only one who can beat Obama.” And guess what? He didn’t. Period. End-of-story. So do you think that Romney is even remotely comparable to Santorum or Huckabee in his morals, let alone his “conservatism?” Bwahahahaha!

gryphon202 on November 8, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, we lost this election because we fell hook-line-and-sinker for the same conventional wisdom that caused us to lose in 2008. I believe it’s just that simple. We went moderate and lost with McCain, and then went moderate and lost with Romney. This is NOT the way to get conservatives back in the game.

gryphon202 on November 8, 2012 at 10:01 AM

I do make a distinction between “social conservatives” and what I call “nanny-state conservatives”. I have no problem with social conservatives as I define them… as people who have high standards in their moral values, and practice them faithfully in their family, community and church, encouraging others to follow their example. However, when they seek to use the rule of law to force others to follow the moral guidelines they follow (outside of basic protections of life, liberty and property), that’s when they become “nanny-state conservatives”… and as far as I’m concerned, enemies of individual liberty.

The only things social cons should be pushing politically is to a) protect the unborn, b) protect children from morally objectionable things, and c) encouraging personal responsibility and less dependency on welfare. Otherwise, if you want society to change for the better and for the more conservative, it’s got to start at the grass-roots level, in your communities and your neighborhoods, and not be forced upon everybody by overly restrictive laws, such as those banning things completely from adults.

TMOverbeck on November 8, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Socons are petty tyrants just like environmentalists. They do not belong inside a political party that takes freedom seriously. They do belong inside today’s Republican party because the Republican party does not take freedom seriously, not on social matters and not on fiscal matters (see Bush’s prescription drug handout, TARP, and accepting the idea of “too big to fail”).

Grames on November 8, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I’ve flirted with libertarianism for a very long time, but I always run into it’s inherently self absorbed stupidity.

We’re on the fast track to fiscal insolvency, potential national bankruptcy and they’re worried about…having the legal right to get loaded.

GeeWhiz on November 8, 2012 at 8:09 AM

No. We’re worried about a pervasive mindset and philosophy that holds to the notion that whether or not free men getting loaded is a matter for the law to decide.

If you want to see the genesis of big government, look no further than such a philosophy…

JohnGalt23 on November 8, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3