Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
At the end, Obama will have done one very good thing for the Republic that will keep its thinking more within the libertarian ambit: his programs will have shown a new generation of Americans that socialism doesn't and can't work, and he will have inoculated the United States against its blandishments. Apparently, the herd-sheeple will have to have their noses rubbed in it to appreciate the rottenness.
Those of us who appreciate liberty and small government, of course, already voted against Obama, owing to our clarity of vision, and will take the next opportunity to do so again. By then we can wake the echoes with the call, "Had Enough?"
|
UG...the extremist libertarian positions you espouse (as well as the ignorant "socialism" rheotric) have always been representative of a small minority of voters.
We'll not see a significant number of Libertarians in elective office any time soon.
The Republican party, however, has a bigger problem.
The party is commited to remaining ideologically pure....even if it is a death wish since the country is so ideologically diverse.
An upcoming NY election for an open seat in the House is only the most recent example...where the Democrat has a good chance of winning a seat that has been Republican for 100 years, because the Republican candidate is "not conservative enough" for the purists and a true ideologue entered the race and is now splitting the vote on the right.
But it goes back to the 06 and 08 elections when Democrats won 50+ House seats, mostly in historically republican distrcts, by recruiting and running moderates, while the Republican ideological test required that they run the most conservative. Most of those new 50+ "Blue Dog" Democrats are fiscal moderates, bordering on fiscal conservatives.
As a result, the Democratic party has become a big tent party, which presents opportunities as well as challenges....and it means those on the far left will have to chose to be either more accommodating and flexible or risk losing that majority status.
What the Democrats have in their favor is that as long as this is the face of the Republican party....
... Republicans will never attract the swing centrist voters. Limbaugh, Beck, Palin are great for the base, but a losing face for a party that wants to govern.
Unlike the riff on the right between social conservatives/fiscal conservatives/die hard libertairians, the Democrats keep expanding their tent... in 06, for example (after electing moderate Democratic Senators in AR, CO, NH, PA, VA, WY - most are either fiscal moderates and/or pro-gun or anti-choice - not your "typical" liberals) the Democratic caucus in the Senate chose a Majority Leader (Harry Reid) who is pro-gun and anti-choice. He would not have been my choice.. but there is that flexibility that is required.
I can't imagine a scenario where a pro-choice, pro gun control Senator could become a leader of the Republican party....Limbaugh, et al would not allow it.
With the country as divided as it is, I think the Democrats have maxed out or close to it. In 2010, I expect the Democrats will lose some of those House seats they won in 06 and 08 and one or two Senate seats......unless the Republican "ideological pure" death wish continues.
The Republican party has some major "rebranding" to do if they want to regain majority status anytime soon....and I dont see how they can do that without taking on the wingnuts in their midst.