Former Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.), who is hoping to win the Libertarian Party's presidential nod and cause problems for John McCain, gets a puff profile here from the New York Times. But the thrice-married father of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act and congressional opponent of medical marijuana makes for a strange libertarian indeed.
More. Barr also had an terrible record on free trade (voting against it, that is) while in Congress. As David Boaz told the Times, if Barr should head the LP ticket, "I think he's going to have a problem." That seems clear: only unhappy GOP social conservatives - and New York Times liberals hoping for "Barr to block" - will wish him well.
49 Comments for “Whose Marriage Was He Defending?”
posted by Charles Wilson on
It would be interesting to find out what his positions are on these issues now. I think Barr has changed, at least to some degree. In any case, it’s going to be interesting to watch what happens, given the other things going on this year.
Ron Paul, an anti-gay libertarian, continues to get 5%-15% of the votes in their primaries, and the indications are that he’s going to stage a floor revolt at the Republican convention.
The Republicans are going to be in a tough spot on that. If they stand back and let it happen, then between Paul and the Huckleberries, their party is going to look like the freak show that it has become.
If they railroad Ron Paul and try to keep him in the closet (a favorite thing for Republicans in more ways than one), then it could go as far as him bolting the party for the Libertarian ticket. If not him, then certainly his supporters. If that happens, Obama is going to win in a walk.
And then there’s the congressional side, which is shaping up to be an disaster on the scale of 1974, 1958 or (who knows?) maybe even 1932. Yesterday’s loss in Mississippi-01 by 8% is the third special election defeat in a row, and occurred with a strong candidate in a district that Bush won by 25 points in the last election.
There are other signs, too. In Muskogee, Oklahoma, they elected a 19-year-old reformer as the mayor. Non-partisan race so it’s not like the Democrats can claim it, but along with everything else it sure indicates that there’s a desire for change.
But the old guard can take comfort knowing that Hillary Clinton kicked ass in West Virginia. Yay, hillbillies!
posted by akn on
Barr basically falls back on federalist principles when asked to explain his libertarian candidacy in the context of his past anti-gay, pro-war on drugs positions. From an interview with the Village Voice:
VV: So, if different states legalized drugs, or legalized same-sex marriage, it wouldn?t be a problem for you, just so long as it was not at a federal level?
BB: Yes. I believe that those are precisely the type of issues that ought to be up to the voters of the states. There may very well be some aspects of those laws that do bring them within certain aspects of federal jurisdiction, but fundamentally those are states rights issues.
[Full interview, in which he explains at length his renewed fervor for federalism, here: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/05/bob_barr_libert.php%5D
Outright Libertarians, not surprisingly, have maintained their support for Dr. George Phillies. [http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2008/05/outright-press-release-on-bob-barrs.html]
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yesterday’s loss in Mississippi-01 by 8% is the third special election defeat in a row, and occurred with a strong candidate in a district that Bush won by 25 points in the last election.
Interestingly enough, the candidate that won, Travis Childers, is pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-gay marriage.
And he had to specifically repudiate and state publicly that Obama had NOT endorsed his campaign.
In short, in order to win this seat, the Democrat had to explicitly take positions that run completely counter to the party and are much more in line with Republicans.
That sets up two possibilities — he’s lying through his teeth and intends to go Democrat once he gets to Washington, which will nicely ensure he serves one term or less, or he’s actually going to show some spine and buck Pelosi.
My money’s on the former.
posted by Charles Wilson on
In short, in order to win this seat, the Democrat had to explicitly take positions that run completely counter to the party and are much more in line with Republicans.
Once again, a correction is in order. Can we be surprised? The Democratic Party is not pro-gay marriage. I’m not even pro-gay marriage in the sense that I think it should be the law of the land. My position on that one is that government should get out of the marriage business, and recognize only domestic partnerships. “Marriage” is a philosophical concept, and ought to be left to individuals.
The Democratic Party isn’t anti-gun. I’m not anti-gun, that’s for sure. I’m fine with personal ownership of firearms, but I think it’s the government’s duty to regulate it.
Childers does dissent from the Democratic Party’s platform when it comes to abortion. On that, I disagree with him. It’s something I can live with. Unlike North Liar Forty, I don’t demand purity. I’ll take what I can get. That’s what politics is all about.
posted by Patrick on
Stephen, I love it when avowed, dyed-in-the-wool Bush-haters try to spin what the GOP convention will be like, who’s on the speakers’ list, how former candidates will be treated, or who is Sen McCain’s best choice for Veep. Like some do right here.
And then try to prognosticate the natl election results or political campaign environment leading up to Election Day!
They wouldn’t know what motivates a Republican if it was written on their nose for them. LOL.
Barr is the candidate for Libertarians because the party is in dire need of leadership, money and a talking head. Barr provides all three… it’s the party nomination that’s up for sale every year.
As a moderate GOPer, I can attest that Ron Paul isn’t going to bolt from the GOP convention… and his voters won’t stay home (unlike fervent Clinton or Obama supporters) on Election Day just in spite… they’ll be there, voting GOP and not for Barr.
At the 2004 GOP convention’s platform committee I remember a vocal Libertarian from Ohio getting up and demanding a party plank on legalizing dope, hookers and decrminalizing drugs.
He was laughed out of the room but not until he took nearly 13 minutes of valuable time hectoring all on the wisdom of his view. God save the Republic from Liberatarians… and Bobbie Barr.
Sort of the ex-Congressman who just can’t quite give up the stage lights and attention.
posted by avee on
Barr basically falls back on federalist principles when asked to explain his libertarian candidacy in the context of his past anti-gay, pro-war on drugs positions…
But of course, the Defense of Marriage Act doesn’t just say that states need not recognize other states same-sex marriages; it forbids the federal government from recognizing state-sanctioned same-sex marraiges, like those in Massachusetts. So much for federalism.
Also, despite his other failings, it’s unfair to call Ron Paul “anti-gay.” He stated (in an interview with ABC’s John Stossel) that he has no problem with gay marraige. He opposes anti-discrimination mandates across the board.
posted by Mark on
Just goes to show you that the GOP has become a toxic brand name and those with more conservativeviews need to hitch their wagon to the Democrats. Interestingly, conservativeDemocrats are given a warmer welcome by liberal Democrats than GOP dissidents like Ron Paul are by the GOP.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Interestingly, conservativeDemocrats are given a warmer welcome by liberal Democrats than GOP dissidents like Ron Paul are by the GOP
This has generally been the case in the Democratic Party. It has always been a wider tent, and has a history of fighting its internal battles in public. That’s why I laugh when I see the wingnuts predicting that the Clinton-Obama contest will yield a schism. In their dreams!
posted by Charles Wilson on
or who is Sen McCain’s best choice for Veep. Like some do right here
Actually, no one has yet discussed McBush’s likely veep. We know he can’t pick Huckleberry because the wingnuts think he raised taxes too high in Arkansas. He can’t pick Romney because the Baptists will go even more batshit than North Liar Forty and Michigan Matt, even though it would cause the Mormons to dump a dumptruck full of money into the Republicans.
I’ve heard that it might be Kay Bailey Hutchinson, but from what I’ve heard about that woman, well, let’s just say that one screaming crazyass on the G.O.P. ticket is plenty. So, who’s the guy from Minnesota? Looks like it’ll be him.
The other thing about the guy from Minnesota is that apparently he’s not 72 going on 90. That’ll help.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Mark offers: “Just goes to show you that the GOP has become a toxic brand name”.
I guess that’s why McCain is leading in most states over Obama and Clinton even though this is supposed THE year for Democrats… I think former democrat staffer Chris Matthews called 2008 a “cake walk” for the Democrats… maybe not now, eh?
I guess that’s why the Democrat leadership is trying to shun Hillary and shut her down because they just know they’ll be winning on election day because the GOP is so toxic… no, they’re doing it because she’s landing some mighty blows to Obama’s character -and there’s even more damage to come it seems.
The truth is that the Democrats have hitched their star to a man who can’t get elected in a natl campaign… and they are worried that McCain and the GOP will carry the entire Independent vote, many of the Reagan Democrats and nearly a 1/3 of each Democrat candidate’s base if the other guy/gal wins. On top of that, the GOP coattails may help struggling races.
The schism is there. It’s deep. It’s visceral. And there’s a lot of it that’s pure racial hatred hiding behind the skirt that’s blocking the view right now.
posted by Mark F. on
Clinton and Obama both have about a 4 point lead over Mc Cain nationally, according to the Real Clear Politics poll averages. All polling indicates Obama could win.
posted by Patrick on
Nice try Mark F, why don’t you quote CNN or MSNBC or JonStewart… RealClearPolitics is run by 4 former Democrat pollsters; what do you think they’d be saying? LOL
Respectable and non-partisan polls like Rasmussen has had Senator McCain up by 3-4 points over BarryO since February. This week, BarryO is tied with McCain mostly because voters have sympathy for the untenable position of having to roll in the alligator death-throes (Hillary’s unrelenting campaign).
Again, nice try. I think you should have used JonStewart behind door #2 (just kidding).
posted by Patrick on
Michigan Matt, “and they are worried that McCain and the GOP will carry the entire Independent vote, many of the Reagan Democrats and nearly a 1/3 of each Democrat candidate’s base if the other guy/gal wins.”
Could this be right? Are you sure?
posted by Patrick on
OMG, KingCharles is here… let’s try to keep this thread unfouled, ok Kingie? Try. Really try… for all those little kids with MS and the Moms you publicly scorn and berate.
posted by Patrick on
Michigan Matt “The schism is there. It’s deep. It’s visceral. And there’s a lot of it that’s pure racial hatred hiding behind the skirt that’s blocking the view right now.”
I work in a large corporate office with a diverse client base, very progressive and diverse staff and enlightened management team (which I am part).
In our offices, the Obama people come to work with political buttons on their coats. We have a policy of no politicing on company property/time/events and the HR folks are hopping mad that they have to keep correcting the Obama staffers. I’m told it’s like 40-50 a week get “the memo” reminder with the policy highlighted.
By contrast, the Hillary people all stick together from floor to floor, eat lunch together and, I understand from my sec’y, it’s much more a social network. Which is neat. They don’t even discuss politics at lunch unless it’s something special.
The McCain people, mostly but not all in management, have the better cars, the right clothes, better art on the walls, more fit, don’t smoke, seem adjusted to the right things and mix well with others irrespective of politics. They seem civil and generally are proud of the US, not one of those BlameAmericaFirsters.
And then there are the couple of Libertarians. Aloof. Alone. Incredibiliy arrogant and willing to debate the time the sun sets with a flea or a cat. And they all park in the lot, farthest from the door… like they need a long walk in to work to muster up courage to be around fellow workers.
It’s strange to watch those things in a company with 2,700 employees in this office complex.
Telling, too. Has anyone else noticed that Obama supporters tend to be bad drivers?
posted by Charles Wilson on
Respectable and non-partisan polls like Rasmussen has had Senator McCain up by 3-4 points over BarryO since February. This week, BarryO is tied with McCain mostly because voters have sympathy for the untenable position of having to roll in the alligator death-throes (Hillary’s unrelenting campaign).
Let me interrupt Pat’s desperate wingnut screech with some facts. In the midst of the intramural warfare among the Democrats, McCain has remained mired in the mid-40s. Today, he’s either tied or behind both Clinton and Obama in a variety of polls.
The professional pollsters have been saying that the current situation is not going to last, and that Obama will make significant gains as soon as the Democratic race is over with. Which it will be quite soon.
Patrick, as a 50-year-old Democrat I know what it’s like to be on the losing side of an election. It sucks. And you know what? It only gets worse. Ha!
posted by Charles Wilson on
By the way, the Republicans have the cure for Election Axiety Disorder. Ha!
posted by tristram on
[i]Also, despite his other failings, it’s unfair to call Ron Paul “anti-gay.” He stated (in an interview with ABC’s John Stossel) that he has no problem with gay marraige. He opposes anti-discrimination mandates across the board.[/i]
Avee- you need to read RP’s entire statement on gays from that interview and then look at the statements he has made and votes he has cast throughout his career. He is a far-right Christian fundamentalist on social issues – particularly as regards recognizing the humanity and dignity of gays on a personal or political level.
posted by avee on
Calling Ron Paul a Christian fundamentalist is just plain ignorant. YOU need to watch the video of the interview (via this IGF post).
posted by tristram on
Yo avee – I watched the video and it does nothing to contradict my characterization of the man. But sayonara – I read some of your other posts, and it’s clear that you’re drinkin’ the Cool-aid.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Patrick, it seems that your observations compared to the skreetching of this site’s racist, baiting nutjob are reconcilable… although you might not prefer to be in that company for long.
It’s apparent to all that both McCain and BarryO or McCain and Clinton are in a near statistical dead heat. Professional non-partisan pollsters like Rasmussen call it an “insignificant lead”… but if you listen to the foaming gayLeft slave boys down on the Democrat mas’tas plantation, you’d think BarryO is swimming in the majority stream on his way to the WH. It’s called gayLeft spin and delusion by most.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
You have it about right. The race will be close… in a year that nearly every pundit since 2005 have called “The Democrats’ Year”… for McCain to be even with BarryO or Clinton suggests the Democrats may indeed be in serious trouble. Especially because the evil truth they’d all like to avoid is that there’s a deep-seated racist base in the Democrat Party who will not vote for Obama -no matter how “white” he tries to be or how willingly he throws his 20+ year spiritual advisor and racist Rev under the bus. And the schism is going to bring votes to McCain no matter who wins. Obama’s radical views are going to bring Independents to McCain.
You can bet the Democrats are deeply worried. You can bet the gayLeft foamers here will defend their Party no matter what… but you gotta ask, with an unpopular war in 2 countries, a GOP president breaking 1:3 unfavorable, contempt for Congress at an all time high… why are the Democrats only able to hold even with McCain -using their second best candidate? Why isn’t it a 75-25% blow-out? If you listen to some of the gayLeft foamers here, you’d think that was the reality on the ground… not the truth.
Interesting observations. Thanks.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Patrick writes: “OMG, KingCharles is here… let’s try to keep this thread unfouled, ok Kingie? Try. Really try… for all those little kids with MS and the Moms you publicly scorn and berate.”
What do you mean, “little kids with MS and the Moms you publicly scorn and berate”? Did Obama, the once again condescending liberal (Hold on a minute there, sweetie) do something else?
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080515/POLITICS01/805150376/1022
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Patrick, no need for explanations… I found out who and what you were talking about above. Thanks anyway.
posted by avee on
So tristram, why don’t you show us some quotes that show that Ron Paul is a “far right Christian fundamentalist.” Or is anyone you disagree with automatically a “far right Christian fundamentalist”?
posted by Richard on
The GOP has long since promised lots of things to its libertarian and religious fundamentalist factions, but has delivered little.
The Libertarian Party seems ready to make some of the big mistakes the Reform Party did a few years back when decided that the only thing that they really wanted was someone with money and celebrity status.
Also, the cited ‘evidence’ on employees and their presidential preference simply does not match my own reality.
posted by Richard on
Until we show respect for civics — which includes election law reform issues — the Libertarians, Greens, etc. presidential candidates are going to be knick-knacks or spoilers.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I guess Michigan-Matt has taken me off of his “ignore” list. Ha!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Patrick, don’t you love how CharlesWilson screams for attention? Baiting, hoping demanding like a 3yr old brat for that focus from others?
He can’t even tell the difference between ignoring him, like I do, and talking with others… you’d think a guy sitting in his Mom’s basement pounding out hate would notice the comments aren’t addressed to him.
Nawh, he thinks it’s ALL ABOUT HIM. True to form.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Michigan Matt, the fake “moderate.” Just can’t quit me, can ya, cowboy? Ha!
posted by Mark F. on
Considering the close polls and the hatred for Bush and the GOP , it is ridiculous to say Obama can’t win. In fact, the prediction markets (people betting real money) currently favor Obama. Of course, Mc Cain could win, but it’s absurd to say Obama can’t.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Here’s a wingnut attack dog who thinks Obama has a 60% chance of winning this year. Look, we’ve come to one of those times of change. The public is getting ready to puke out a blood hairball known as the Republican Party, and it’s not going to be pretty. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of people.
posted by Craig2 on
Oh.My.God.
I’ve just read Barr’s Congressional record, especially the bits on medipot and the War on Drugs. “Libertarian?”!!!??! When he dreamt up the Defence of Marriage Act???!!!
*How*, exactly?
Craig2
Wellington,NZ
posted by Richard on
It may be different in NZ — perhaps you have better ballot access laws or a better voting method.
Yet, in America incumbent lawmakers tend to get involved with a third party after their career has pretty much gone as far as it can go. I suppose it is not too unlike a political mid life crisis.
Third parties are often short on people who are even theoretically electable, much less have some type of celebrity status, and thus are ready to worship the grond such former lawmakers walk on.
This basically happen with the Reform Party, and caused it to dissolve into two factions that are still involved in a lawsuit.
Many Libertarians are just so happy with the national buzz that Ron Paul or these other men have created, that do not really care too much about ‘principle’.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Third parties don’t win elections in the U.S., but they are more influential than commonly believed. Perot’s Reform Party is probably responsible for Clinton’s subsequent and successful effort to eliminate the budget deficit.
Nader’s third party, along with Republican election fraud, was responsible for Bush’s installation in 2000. And, earlier in the 20th Century, most of the F.D.R.’s New Deal came from the Progressives, as did popular election of U.S. senators.
This year, I’m not going to be surprised if the Libertarians keep McCain’s percentage somewhere in the low 40s, or maybe even lower. Even since McBush sewed up the Republican nomination, Ron Paul has regularly gotten as much as 16% of the Republican primary support.
A significant chunk of those voters will be up for grabs. I don’t think any more than a handful of them will go for Obama, but it’s easy to imagine that a bunch of them won’t vote at all, and that the rest will wind up in one splinter party or another.
It’s a much more serious problem for the Republicans than the schism between Clinton and Obama. That one will be over ‘n done with in a few weeks, and by July they’ll be old friends. Not so with the Ron Paul crowd, which continues to be shit on by the Republicans.
You don’t have to win or even do very well as a third party to have a big impact in the U.S. system. Get 5% — or less — in the right places, and you can do a hell of a lot of damage to your opponents. And if you have a big number, like Perot’s 19%, you can even accomplish things like having an incumbent president come in third place in his home state.
posted by dalea on
The split in the Democratic Party is not racial. It is mainly along ethnic and gender lines. Hillary’s groups are women, older people, Hispanics, Asians, rural voters, Lesbians and Gays and military Dems. Obama has African Americans, college students, the ‘creative class’ and a few Dem machines. The problem is what has been seen as sexism from the Obama camp.
In West Virginia, polls showed close to 1/2 of Hillary’s voters go to McCain if Obama is the nominee. This is a very real and profound split in the party. Check out blogs like MyDD, Confluence, Talk Left, Taylor Marsh and NoQuarter to see the plans to organize a write in for Hillary next fall.
posted by Craig2 on
Actually, we introduced proportional representation* down here for our general elections back in 1996. It’s worked quite well, given that our third and fourth parties have had to realise that they’re no longer repositories for protest votes and have to behave responsibly.
If a party polls less than five percent without winning a constituency seat, it dies.
And until recently, we didn’t have a conservative Christian party elected as a result. Even when we did, there was a sufficient centre-left majority (with some help from about five centre-right social liberals) to insure the passage of our civil union laws**.
And we are familiar with the spoiler roles that strong US third party candidates can play in presidential elections ie Perot (1992) and (ugh) Nader (2000).
Craig2
Wellington, NZ.
*Our own Christian Right tend to be satellites of your groups, so it’s relatively easy for us to devise rebuttals.
**And we also managed to get an attempted same-sex marriage ban bill voted down back in December ’05 when that wasn’t the case, so the latter question is still open.
posted by Charles Wilson on
This is a very real and profound split in the party.
In your dreams, wingnut.
posted by RIchard on
Which does beg the question why third parties run for president, instead of working on election law reform initaitives or another public office where they might win?
Also, the ‘spoiler’ issue is more complicated then most people are ready to accept. If Nader had not been on the ballot in Florida ’00 would enough of those people voted for Gore? Maybe, maybe not.
I suspect that the libertarians and Christian fundamentalists are simply tired of the GOP jerking them along like some type of well paid hooker. Which is pretty much what the party has done since the 1970s.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
dalea writes, correctly, “In West Virginia, polls showed close to 1/2 of Hillary’s voters go to McCain if Obama is the nominee. This is a very real and profound split in the party. Check out blogs like MyDD, Confluence, Talk Left, Taylor Marsh and NoQuarter to see the plans to organize a write in for Hillary next fall.”
Not only that dalea, but all one has to do is listen to the leading Democrat Party talkingheads like Bob Shrum or Beckel or Davis or others to hear them work overtime to deflect and discount the discord between Clinton and BarryO supporters. It’s amazing they have to go so such ends to claim that “The Emperor Has Clothes! The Emperor Has Clothes!” -in this case, “there’s no discord, everything will be patched up, move along, nothing to see”… while yet another group of anti-Obama Democrats pop up in state after state… Michigan, Ohio, WV, PA, Indiana, IL, Wisconsin, et al.
Of course, Bob Shrum was noting that he wrote the famous 1980 TeddieK “The dream lives on” speech where Kennedy and his supporters tried to screw over JimmineyCricket, the rightful and hopelessly forlorn loser in the ’80 election. I remember watching that convention and JimmineyCricket trying to chase TeddieK around on the stage after Cricket gave his angry, stern “acceptance” speech… Kennedy would have nothing to do with his Party’s nominee or the incumbent pres.
TeddieK did nothing for Cricket. Cricket went on to a stunning loss that Cricket is still angry about to this day.
But to listen to the whacked Democrat Party apologists here, there’s no split. Nothing to worry about.
We’ve heard that before but they haven’t because they never learn history’s lessons… just like with appeasement, the new Left policy of “engagement” with our enemies.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard offers: “I suspect that the libertarians and Christian fundamentalists are simply tired of the GOP jerking them along like some type of well paid hooker. Which is pretty much what the party has done since the 1970s”
Richard, you can’t actually mean that? It’s beyond even a simple litany of the excesses the GOP has given over to the very groups you think haven’t gotten squat.
Teri Schivao… the RR wanted that. Partial birth abortion bans… the RR wanted that. Tax cuts, corporate gains cuts, broader deregulation of markets and an long examination of the Flat Tax… liberatarians wanted those things.
And how can you even say that after the RR’s opposition to the repeal of DADT or attempts to pass a federal DOMA?
The GOP has given those farRight fringe groups tons of social conservative policies and fiscal policies and… in doing so… driven moderate, progressive GOPers like me to the limit.
Really Richard, do you even read or think about the stuff you write?
It’d be like me saying that the anti-war crowd in the Dem Party hasn’t gotten squat from the Dems… except, I ‘d have to overlook the Party’s likely nominee in August. LOL. Nawh, nothing.
posted by Charles Wilson on
The GOP has given those farRight fringe groups tons of social conservative policies and fiscal policies and… in doing so… driven moderate, progressive GOPers like me to the limit.
You are not a “moderate, progressive” anything. You have repeatedly expressed your disdain for gay people on the Internet, and you have repeatedly lied about it.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Nope, solidly in the moderate column and happy to admit I have voted for lots and lots of Democrats in my lifetime. I consider myself a GOPer, but I have voted for Democrats in non-partisan and partisan elections because my Party’s nominee was from the FarRight fringe… exactly opposite on the political spectrum of Charles Wilson, the farLeft gay racist whose racist attacks got him banned and barred and blocked (after he used a series of sockpuppets) from the DemocratUnderground blog.
Go figure? Yeah, I always thought that site was filled with the more radicalized farLeft fringe types… MoveOn, CodePink, FreeBinLaden, BlameAmericaFirst, PatriotismSucks, BDSyndrome whackjobs.
But even Charles Wilson got booted and banned and finally blocked after a series of sockpuppets were uncovered… wow, that’s saying something about the guy. Not even his own kind can stand him.
Now… someone was saying something about Michigan-Matt isn’t moderate?
posted by Richard on
MM; I have been around the block awhile and have a rather extensive professional and layman’s background in government and policy.
Yeah, the GOP has certainly learned how to talk the talk that pleases libertarians and fundamentalist Christians. Often using eerily similar language to appeal to both groups, which is rather odd.
Yet, actual policy has been rather limited, especially in terms of the federal level.
Libertarians tend to feel that the government did not really get smaller (in terms of taxes/economic regs) during Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II. They also have been increasingly uncomfortable with the GOP cultural war policies and the war on terrorism.
Christian fundamentalists note that Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, and much of the pandering to the right-wing on cultural issues, rarely goes beyond an election cycle.
I know many libertarians and Christian fundamentalists and many of them frankly feel like they have not been getting what they want from the GOP.
Teri Schivao ended up being taken off the feeding tube. They got the partial birth abortion ban, but addresses few abortions and abortion is still legal.
The GOP has been able to stall and set back federal gay rights legislation, but most of the young Republicans (and Democrats) I know are largely supportive of gay rights.
The Federal Marriage Amendment and the Iraq War have both really upset many libertarians. Most Libertarians I talk with feel that the tax cuts are really too small, and narrow, that, at best, the GOP is simply going slightly slower then the Democrats off some giant cliff to socialism.
Maybe, both groups are too extreamist for the nation. But, many of these voters are very, very frustrated with the GOP and thus we seen a slight increase in interest with the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party.
Part of the problem is that the GOP has a great coalition — since the 1970s — to win elections, but has a horrible time in government because these various factions have very different views on what government should do and often dislike other GOP factions.
The Democrats are still struggling to get a working coalition to win elections, but tend to do better in government because they know how to control their various factions.
Thus the Democratic primary is a contest between two centrists.
The leftist Democrats may be just as unhappy as the libertarians and Christian fundamentalists, but they believe that leftists Democrats will not win.
The fact that the GOP has done very well, federally, since 1968, has given GOP factions (i.e. libertarians and Christian fundamentalists) greater expectations then many DNC factions whom lost major federal elections in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004…
The frequent result, is that the centrists have much more control of the Democrats, and in calming the various factions frustrations.
Obama’s anti-war speeches meean little when his foreign policy advisor’s are increasingly centrist and conservative.
Obama’s and Clinton’s policy differences are not unimportant, but their campaigns are both rooted in centrist politics.
posted by Richard on
Notice that quasi-libertarian Ron Paul did much better in his campaign then the leftist Dennis K.
Libertarians are probably as frustarted with the GOP as leftists are with the Democrats. But most leftist didnt really flock to Dennis as libertarians did to Paul.
American leftists are often taught that they are an electoral liability to the Democrats, that needs to be controlled where as libertarians and Christian fundamentalists have been treated as part of a winning ‘New Right’, and thus not only expect more from the GOP but also more likely to defect to a third party.
Christian fundamentalists have been threating to do so for decades, the Constitution Party is one such attempt and the Reform Party became one.
Libertarians are a tad bit harder to organize, and not unlike Communists, can have really, really, really bitter and academic arugments over what their philsophy translates into, whats is proper justifications and limits.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Notice that quasi-libertarian Ron Paul did much better in his campaign then the leftist Dennis K.
Which only shows that the Republican Party has a significantly higher whack-job component than the Democrats do. If I were on your side of the fence, I’m not entirely sure that’s something I’d be bragging my head off about.
Yeah, the GOP has certainly learned how to talk the talk that pleases libertarians and fundamentalist Christians. … Yet, actual policy has been rather limited, especially in terms of the federal level.
There is a simple reason for this: The Republican Party has never really held any principles other than doing whatever it takes to make big business richer. Everything else is, and always has been, window dressing.
The problem with that cynical standard operating procedure is that the manipulated have a way of becoming the maniuplators. This is what has happened with the Christian Right, which now controls the Republican Party.
The big business wing thought it could control them, sort of like the German industrialists thought they could control the Nazis. Well, insofar as the Christian Right is concerned, they now hold veto power over the Republican Party on candidates, appointments, and policies. Hell, even big business is scared, and deciding that they’d just as soon take their chances with the Democrats.
It’s not the Republican Party, it’s the Christian Nutcase Party. And, yet, you still have the Log Cabinettes supporting all of this even though the Christian Nutcase Party becomes nastier toward gay people with each passing year.
When you look at this for what it is, the reality is just mind boggling. What will it take to get so-called “independent” gays to wake the hell up?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, when you write something like this with a str8 face, “Thus the Democratic primary is a contest between two centrists”, and Obama and his advisors are described even by insider Democrat Party loyalists as the most liberal of liberals within the Party… you clearly need to get a new set of spectacles.
You can talk all day about “I know many” and “I hear some say” but it’s just anecdotal evidence. Now, if it was evidence backed up by seasoned political insight, it might carry more weight.
But frankly, when you’re arguing that the GOP of recent past didn’t carry the whacked out FarRight’s waterpail far enough, I’d remind you the GOP Congress carried it so far they marginalized the swing and independent voters to the point where the GOP lost Congressional control shilling for the FarRight, the Libertarians and others.
Instead of what? Instead of catering to their formerly traditional base of Wall St economic and fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, farmers, anti-tax, small govt proponents and people who want the future to be better for their kids… not just for the govt.
When I read someone say the GOP didn’t give the Libertarians or ReliRight what it wanted… or they didn’t carry those groups’ water pails long enough, far enough and with enough water… it flies in the face of the terrible gamble that the GOP took with Libertarians on the FlatTax, with the ReliRight on social issues or the neocons on faith-based initiatives.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Charles offers: “Which only shows that the Republican Party has a significantly higher whack-job component than the Democrats do. If I were on your side of the fence, I’m not entirely sure that’s something I’d be bragging my head off about”
Umm, Charles, you and Richard ARE ON THE SAME SIDE of the fence. You’re both hardline Democrats from the farLeft fringe.
That’s why taking advice on what independent gays should do from you is like asking Hitler if he has any useful tips on which nursing home is best for an aging Jewish uncle. Silly.
posted by Brian Miller on
I’m a Libertarian, Michigan-Matt, and I cannot remember a time when the Congressional GOP “shilled for the Libertarians” as you claim. That’s probably because it never happened.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Sure you can Brian, you just need to take off the partisan recruitment blinders you normally wear for the Libertarians and reflect for moment… like on the Flat Tax… like on downsizing Education Dept, Energy Dept, etc… like on shrinking the growth in govt as a budgetary goal… like, oh well, your memory is probably jogged a bit now, eh?