One way to help please the libertarian-leaning types would be for Bush to stop spending money like a horny, drunken Democrat sailor.

he spent that way last time and it didnt seem to matter so much come election time.

That had mostly to do with the fact there was a war on. I'll be hard pressed to hold my nose and pull a lever for another candidate like that in '08 though.

Are you defending his spending habits? If so, then it's another example that the Republican party is becoming less fiscally conservative. If not, then you should surely understand at least partially where I'm coming from.

no, not defending. in fact, as i was just saying in this thread, i was very upset about the spending myself.

however, i dont think it matters that much - baby boomers getting old, and old people vote for "free" stuff. bush passed a 500 BILLION dollar medicare package aimed right at winning him florida, and it looks like it worked. i expect more of the same, from both parties, for the foreseeable future.

the republican party isn't "becoming" less fiscally conservative. it is completely irresponsible when it comes to spending, has been for a while. in essence, the republicans have become spend happy democrats.

im not defending or criticizing the party's actions, my point is only that "libertarians" aren't exactly a lynchpin in a 2008 victory.

No, but republican voting libertarians ARE a lynchpin in 2008. Bush 1 found that out the hard way. Bush 2 may leave the republican party learning that lesson over. Not understanding who actually comprises their party is the mistake both parties are making right now. The 2008 election may turn out to be a case of who makes the fewest mistakes winning. Then again, maybe the democrats will smarten up in the next four years. Like Mr. Unabrewer, I will not hold my nose and vote for similar spending policies in 2008.

no disrespect, bvbigbro, but you live in kansas, so who cares if you vote for another candidate? similarly, why do the dems care if they lose a few voters in NY? significant numbers of the 'libertarian minded' base are where, oregon and vermont? maybe new mexico? (where it will make a difference anyway.) while those states will be in play in 2008, the important states are those like michigan, florida, ohio, wisconsin, nevada, arizona, missouri, even nevada with its ongoing population boom. the voters that will decide those elections in 2008 arent "libertarian" minded, they're looking for something else.

whether im right or wrong, only time will tell. but i just dont think that catering to "libertarian leaning republicans" or "republican voting libertarians" is all that important. in the end, most will still find a way to vote as they did last time around. most of the ones that don't just wont vote at all.

perot didn't win 19% of the vote by attracting libertarians. he it by attracting people like my mom, because he "just seemed more honest." compare the reform party's turnout 4 years later, in an election where they didnt get to take part in debates.

i also think it's a mistake to group all libertarians together in this discussion as being concerned about spending and only spending. other big issues include guns and personal liberties. for many, those will be the deciding issue to them.

What's so flawed about this analogy is that the AFC DID start as a separate league (remember the AFL?). They managed to fight their way into the mainstream.

Just because we've had two stable domininant parties for a long time now isn't a good enough reason to believe that that will always be the case.

If the Republican Party continues to evolve as the party of big-spending social conservatives, then we very well might see a split in the party.

However, I don't necessarily think that this new party would automatically be Libertarian. Foreign policy & national defense is what binds the Republicans together right now. The Libertarians have drastically different views. The Libertarians will probably always be a fringe party, but there's no reason a different, more powerful 3rd couldn't emerge from a split GOP.

James: "i also think it's a mistake to group all libertarians together in this discussion as being concerned about spending and only spending. other big issues include guns and personal liberties. for many, those will be the deciding issue to them."

Agreed, and that's why I usually say "libertarian-leaning Republicans" in cases like this. Plenty of Libertarian lean Democrat when pressed, as was mentioned on Volokh.

Kris: "However, I don't necessarily think that this new party would automatically be Libertarian. Foreign policy & national defense is what binds the Republicans together right now. The Libertarians have drastically different views. The Libertarians will probably always be a fringe party, but there's no reason a different, more powerful 3rd couldn't emerge from a split GOP."

David Brooks said just that in a NYT article this week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/19/opinion/19brooks.html?

No disrespect taken or intended, but I may not be in Kansas in 2008. YOu may also note that Kansas has a democratic governor.

There is a significant libertarian leaning base of republicans everywhere. How do you think Arnold got elected? It wasn't bible thumping. How do you think Reagan got elected? How do you think Bush 1 got unelected? What do think produced a republican congress in 1994? Don't forget, had he been able to conceal his insanity for a couple of more months Perot would've been president. He would have been elected to do precisely what Bush 1 refused to do. I was alive then, and it was Bush's "read my lips no new taxes" crap that got him canned. It was precisely libertarian leaning republicans the canned him and almost elected Perot.

Take a look at the states you mentioned as being in play. None of them are particularly socially conservative. Given that terrorism and the Iraq war are unlikely to be the major issues in 2008, what do think will be on voters minds in those states?

Another thing to consider: I know a fairly large number of libertarian minded people who went Kerry this time. Unfortunately for the republicans they tend to vote regardless of the overall voter turnout. Thus, they may very well be even more important if voter turnout is lower in 2008. I freely admit this is weak, these are only people I know, but from the time I've spent west of the Mississippi the last few years, there is no state in the west that is safely democratic. A Reagan republican could clean up out west just like the Gipper did.

Do you really know anybody who is interested in gun rights and personal liberties who thinks govt. spending is too low? Come on now, us tightwads are the same people who believe vigorously in gun rights and civil liberties. What will they (we) get from the Bush republicans? A national ID card? USA Patriot Act II?

My point is that the country as a whole is socially to the left of GWB and fiscally to the right of the current democratic party. If either party can position themselves there, they will have a significant majority.

i don't think libertarians had anything much if at all to do with the events you ascribe to them. reagan won b/c of union support. arnold got elected b/c he's a celebrity and is practically a democrat. he appointed a half democrat staff. any "libertarian" or fiscal conservative (terms you seem to be using interchangably) that supported arnie over mcclintock needs to get his head checked.

ny has a republican governor, as does maryland, as does massachusettes. so what if kansas has a dem? so does montana. i'm really not seeing your point. none of those states is anywhere being "in danger" of voting any differently than they traditionally have.

i think that the problem here is that you are using terms like "libertarian" and "libertarian minded" way too loosely, or at least way more loosely than i am. i don't think "fiscal conservative" equates to "libertarian" any more than "penny pincher" equates to "homeless guy."

Ah, complacency towards the voters. That has served the republican party so well over the years. Saying Arnold is practically a democrat nicely sums up the danger the republican party faces. Namely, ceasing to be republican. The party of the past has been a fairly big tent. If it ceases to be, it will become a regional party.

As for Massachusetts, Maryland and new Jersey, you might note that they all went Reagan in 1984. You might also note the supposedly safe republican states like Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Lousiana, Arizona and Florida all went Reagan in 1984 and Clinton in 1996, and back to Bush in 2000. The tradition of voting you refer to is shaky at best. All of these states are capable of voting for a Clinton Democrat.

Yes, we are throwing terms around too loosely, but I suggest that fiscal conservatism is core to libertarian or libertarian leaning republicans.

"you might note that (insert any state here except for minnesota) went for reagan in 1984." the relevant election year is 1980, not 1984.

Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Lousiana, Arizona and Florida as "supposedly safe repugblican states?" heh, now i know you're playing with me.

Actually, 1984 is correct. Many went Reagan as well in 1980.

i wasn't saying that reagan won those in 80, i was saying that the 84 election was irrelevant to our discussion. he was an incumbent.

although it's cool that libertarians have their own little group now instead of just being the whiners of the right (which to me it still seems kind of like they are), they do hurt a conservative when it comes to getting into office. it's looking like more and more people are moving right, and quite frankly, 50 years from now, i'd rather see democrats as the crazy fringe, and the libertarians as our opponents. that would be fun to see.

btw, thanks for adding me to the moral-politics chart! looks like you and i are pretty damn close on the political ideas james.

I was a registered Libertarian for a while. It's the party's "legalize drugs" platform that turns me off. When you have a former party leader run off to Canada to escape drug charges, well, that says it all.

Libertarians will never be anything more than a fringe group and therfore ineffective and meaningless. If you have to do it, I'd recommend going Libertarian in philosophy only and voting Democrat or Republican in REALITY.