Greetings and Salutations. The Republican Party needs to gain the support of conservatives individuals who are not already Republican voters, such as Libertarian Party voters. How should the Repubs go about doing this?

CP

Good day CP

I think that the Republican party losing the perception that it stands FIRMLY against a woman's choice is one way. If what I know about Libertarians is true, they are fiscally conservative while championing individual freedoms.

I would tend to believe that Libertarian's sentiments of "keep what you earn" and smaller rather than larger govt is more similar than not to the republican party. For instance, Bush's favorable stance on schools "Vouchers" would be appealing to Libertarians in that parents would have a CHOICE, much more than the govt run/teachers union lock on public schools.

seeing the need for people to have more in the decision making in what effects them than more govt telling them what is GOOD for them.

these are but only a few though

I guess I'm especially qualified to comment, since I'm one whose heart belongs to the Libertarian Party, but who usually works and votes with the GOP for pragmatic reasons, and I can tell you some things about the Bush Administration and the Republican Party that bug me and IMHO need to be fixed.

How about actually shrinking the size of government instead of growing it? I understand that the present circumstances are not normal, but still Bush is so far a bigger spender than Clinton. Can't Bush ever bring himself to veto a spending bill? Just one?

Actually fighting for their strict construction constitutionalist judcial nominees and defeating the Democrat filibusters would help a lot, since the integrity of the Constitution is a big issue for both libertarians and conservatives. Janice Rogers Brown in particular, since she seems to actually be a libertarian, and I'd like to see her make it to the Supreme Court.

Not wavering on Second Amendment rights is important. Any perceived weakness on this issue makes libertarians, conservatives and concerned gun owners of any persuasion very nervous.

(All three of the above would help a lot with conservatives as well as libertarians.)

Softening their stance on the War on Drugs would help. Ending federal interference with state medical marijuana laws might be a good first step.

It'd help also if they'd stop abusing the Patriot Act by using it against criminal suspects other than terrorists, thus giving the impression that it's more a federal power grab than a legit anti-terror weapon. Personally I think it's both -- but it shouldn't be both. Stop the power grab aspects, and you'll ease libertarian misgivings about this administration. Ideally I'd say fire Ashcroft and replace him with Bob Barr, who is equally conservative but much more sensitive to civil liberties.

Abortion is an issue that libertarians are divided on. The official LP position is that the feds should not be involved with abortion pro or con, and that's one I would endorse. And it might even be politically realistice for the GOP to go along with.

What's more, I don't think making the above changes would hurt with other Republicans or with swing voters. The second three could even help with them.

WE could start by voting down the Medicare prescription for the elderly bill. This is the costliest entitlement in our history. And worse yet, it fixes nothing! Medicare is headed for the scrap heap and all this bill does is hasten its demise. Along with costing billions, stifling future drug research, bringing drug cost-controls into play.

There's plenty more wrong with this program, but this is more than enough to can it. Trick is to find a way of doing that without letting the Dems turn it into a 'see, they don't care about the ederly' cry.

This is my first post on this forum..

Very interesting dialogue. I do think, on this issue, Karl Rove's logic is as follows..

"Who are the conservatives going to vote for? the Democrat?" Especially if it's Howard Dean. I've seen a picture, in fact of Karl Rove at a Howard Dean rally.

I'm guessing they think they have the conservative vote locked up. (I do hope they consider the fact that they just may not show up at all)

So, with the pushing forward of the Prescription Drug Bill and much of the other spending this President is doing, he's hoping to win over the Reagan Democrats and the moderates who don't mind it if the government spends a little on their constituents.

With the AARP endorsing this bill, that was a big deal for GWB.. The seniors are the largest voters in the nation.

If he economy continues to rebound and grow, unemployment will shrink and shrink, and that is another issue the Democrats won't be able to campaign on.

It looks like the only arrow in their quiver is going to be the War on Terrorism.

Which will certainly win them the anti-war crowd which is about 10% (at the MOST) of the population.

Also something to consider.. GWB is out earning all the Democrats like 10 to 1 in campaign contributions. And he is still leading in the polls. Even after all the slings and arrows they've been throwing at him for months now.

Anyways, I'm glad I found this site. I'm going to see if I can persuade some more conservatives to come over.

DW.

Libertarian voters are definitely not locked up for Bush. Most have grave concerns about these three issues:

1) The USA PATRIOT Act, and abuse thereof. Ashcroft appears at best unconcerned about civil liberties.

2) Government growth. The Bush administration is spending like the proverbial drunken sailor, and Bush has yet to wield the veto pen.

3) Foreign policy. Libertarians incline toward the isolationist, as do paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanan, so this idea of going out and policing the world doesn't sit well.

I'm not just talking about those who are customarily Libertarian Party voters. Remember that according to Rasmussen Research (formerly DBA Portrait of America) 21% of Republicans are libertarians on the issues vs. 7% of Democrats and 16% of Americans regardless of party affiliation. *

If Rove wants to take libertarian-inclined voters for granted, that could be a big mistake. They could well stay home, vote LP or even vote Democrat.

(* This is as complete an account of that poll result as I can find. Unfortunately the original Portrati of America site is no longer up.)

Izdaari, I agree with your analysis regarding Libertarians, but I don't think that most independent/conservatives fall into that category. In other words, I think there are few who are not going to vote for Bush over the Patriot Act. In a sense, most are far more worried about Al Qaeda than John Ashcroft so I don't see a lot of political benefit to attacking the Patriot Act.

In fact, as much as I dislike some of President's moves (such as excessive discretionary spending increases), they make a lot of sense politically. As others have mentioned however, I do sense that Bush, Rove et al takes conservatives, especially economic conservatives, for granted. Depending on the Dem nominee, that might be a problem in November.

Jeff

To answer the question....

1. Start by amending his 2.4 trillion dollar budget that does not include the war in Afghaninstan or Iraq, medicare, or discretionary spending.

2. Remove his faith based initiatives. I do attend a church, but giving religions I consider nothing more than cults my tax dollars scares me. The best way is to just leave religions out of federal funding.

3. Make the tax code easier to comphrehend. Offer tax payers the ability to give 1-5% of taxes paid to go towards the deficit, no questions asked. Once deficit has been paid down, establish a flat tax to go with the balanced budget amendment, and eliminate the 1-5%.

4. Eliminate wasteful spending - the tunnel in Boston, Byrd's numerous highway bills, Alaska's pipelines, increased funding for the arts (NEA)... the list goes on.

5. Repeal sections of the patriot act.

Certainly can't gain their support using economic policies. Bush regime spends like a drunken sailor. Thats definitly not conservative, traditionally.

Maybe thats why Bush Co. are focusing on limiting gay people's rights, abortion, and war for that matter.

Like Thomas Jefferson said,

Maybe we should work way harder in the primaries. I can't bring myself to vote Democratic, for many reasons, so I have to vote GOP in the general election ... but I'd be happy to have a choice in the primary.

Maybe eventually the general election will be a formality (no time soon obviously) and we can work the primaries to get more than 2 choices: slightly left of center and slightly right of center.

I see what your're saying, but there is no way I could vote for Bush, the people working under him are soo, corporatist, I just cant do it. They're straight from big industry, and now in positions where they make policys for those industrys.

I'm going to pick the lesser of two evils, atleast Kerry won't be as authoritarian as Bush, targeting protester groups as terrorists and not even letting people protest, they get arrested!
This is not America! so heartbreaking.

Hmm, well how can our party attract third party conservatives and Libertarians when the parties actions are begining to drive away conservatives and Liberatarians from WITHIN the party?


Is the Republican Party Fiscally Conservative? They say they are, but in practice as recent years show, absolutely not.

Forget Homeland security and look at how the rest of the budget has screamed out of control under Republican stewardship.

Is the Republican Party for Smaller Government? They say they are but in practice as recent years show, absolutely not.

Look at all the expansion in the government outside of Homeland security under Republican Control.

Is the Republican Party for State's Rights? They say they are but in practice as recent years show, absolutely not.

Constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marriage? A massive increase in the department of education instead of disbanding it and allowing the States to control the destiny of there schools are just two areas they have opposed states rights recently.


As I look deeper and deeper into the ACTIONS of Republicans in Congress rather then the RHETORIC I am finding it harder and harder to distinguish them from the Democrats. All elected officials seem to care about anymore is doing whatever it takes to get the campaign contributions to get re-elected.


The way the Republicans are acting they will likely drive me from the party to a third party in the near future.

I could never vote for Kerry, you can't believe what he says now because his voting record as well as his stated opinions flip flop all over the place.

But Bush, claims to be for Homeland Security and yet the biggest threat we have is our boarders and he does nothing about it.

He claims he supports the rule of law, but his new immigration proposal rewards law breakers over the law abiding by giving preferential treatment to those with jobs (that they obtained illegally).

Just to name a few.


Will Libertarians and Conservatives within the Republican party have to leave for the Republican Leadership to realize they are alienating us?

Will Libertarians and Conservatives within the Republican party have to vote for Kerry as a protest vote to wake up the Republican leadership?

At this point I am beginning to think that voting for Kerry and Gridlock would be better then allowing the Republicans to continue to act like Democrats.

SoCaliente_1 @ Nov 16 2003, 05:15 PM:


That may attract Libertarian voters, but in all probability, it will repel at least as many Conservative voters, as well. If the Republican Party ditches its pro-life stance, a lot of Conservatives may feel that they have been betrayed and bail the party. Remember what happened to Alfonse D'Amato? He lost his Senate seat due (in part) to the fact that he didn't seek the New York Pro-Life Party nomination as well as the Republican nomination.

Granted, New York is hardly representative of the nation as a whole. Still, unless he or she happens to be overwhelmingly popular (like Rudy Giuliani), a pro-choice Republican, in my opinion, stands a fairly slim chance of a Presidential nomination.

Also, without wanting to start a fight, as a pro-lifer myself, I want to point out that what I stand against is NOT a woman's right to make choices. As far as abortion is concerned, I just believe there is more at stake than just a choice.

SoCaliente_1 @ Nov 16 2003, 05:15 PM:


Potentially.

I'm more of a "States' Rights" Conservative myself, and I'm a little bit put off by the idea of federal vouchers. I don't know what the Libertarian position on states' rights is, but a lot of traditional Conservatives object to any sort of federal intervention in public schools. So this is another area where Republicans might risk a few votes if they continue in that direction.

Now, most of us would probably agree with the concept of school vouchers. Few would disagree that our public schools are a mess right now, and in my personal opinion, vouchers might be a good way to encourage diversity in education and to force public schools to become more efficient and competative (as long as we don't start making conformity standards for schools to receive voucher cheques). However, I (and a lot of my Conservative acquantances) would prefer that the states create voucher programs themselves. I would argue that the federal government has no Constitutional power to meddle with education (see Amendment X), and that leaving it to the states forces them to compete with each other for the best (and least costly) system.

Why not just remove all NGO (Non-Governmental Organizations) from the budget? It would be an effective way to not discriminate (for or against religion) and to ensure that we are not financially supporting anything that would like us to hand over our sovereignty.

This is a good question, but the answer is not simple. The trick is to attract more voters than those you turn away, and it must always be remembered that any serious modification of the party's stance will do both.

Those with libertarian leanings, such as myself, are generally very opposed to religious values being used as a guide for public policy (and that, despite the fact that I myself have very deep religious convictions--I just don't think everyone ought to have to follow my ideas). It would therefore be tempting to say that the party could attract new voters by distancing itself from "the religious right". But at the same time, doing so will alienate a large number of them, some of whom are already threatening to form a third party. I, personally, would be willing to take that chance, but it could well backfire on us. (Just as taking the stand in the first place, in order to attract those who would like to see their Christian values made into the legal guidelines of the nation, may well have backfired on us already by driving away more people than it attracted. It is extremely hard to say.)

Well they should start by putting their very best person up for election. If the be GWB, than they are going to have a tough time. It is really this simple.

As a registered Republican, I've been disillusioned with the Republican liberal spending. I had thought that Republicans were in support of limited government.

What would it take to convince me to vote Rep? If they can show that they are for fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free market instead of governmental regulations.

My vote for now will be for the Constitution Party.