Republicans...

<p>What ever happened to the libertarian wing of the republican party? Where are the fiscal conservatives? What happened to a small federal government and state's rights? </p>

<p>It seems like the recently the libertarian wing of the republican party has been virtually silenced by the overwhelming voice of the "moral majority", "religious right", or whatever you want to call them, they've taken over the party, and to me at least I find the politicizing of any one persons moral beliefs to be intrensically wrong. If you're religious then great, but don't push those beliefs on others. I don't care if your bible says gay marriage is wrong, or that drugs are bad, women can't have abortions, or anything else; mine doesn't and it's certainly not the federal governments job to tell me otherwise.</p>

<p>If the party would just uphold it's pricipals, I would be a republican in a heartbeat</p>

<p>"(politicians) take an oath on a bible to uphold the law, not an oath on the law to uphold the bible" - Judge Murdoch</p>

<p>/rant</p>

<p>That faction joined us democrats a long time ago;)</p>

<p>They've pretty much taken me in at this point, although I'd gladly defect if the republicans could shape up and embrace the philosophy they claim to uphold.</p>

<p>I would gladly defect as well...but oh well you gotta deal with what you have</p>

<p>You sure that you aren't confusing the Bush administration for the majority?</p>

<p>There are still plenty of libertarian republicans.</p>

<p>they arn't representative of the party anymore though, it's the republican party which is calling for the amendment against gay marriage, not just the Bush administration, when that flies in the face of a principal of "states rights" where each state would decide for themselves...Same for stem cell research...I didn't say that there arn't any libertarian republicans, but that they are by no means the prevailing force within the party anymore, rather the republican party seems to be dominated by the socially conservative faction of which I cannot stand. It's not just Bush, Delay was just as bad as are most of the figureheads of the republican party. No it may not be the whole party, but they seem to be the controlling force. If however, it turns out to be strongly due to Bush influence and such I will gladly defect to the republicans once I see them upholding those ideals, but I don't see that happening anytime in this decade, or maybe the next.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Sure - but they vote for the Bush wing of the party to represent them. I think the lines are much more blurred than you think. There are liberatarian-minded people in both parties and there are moral-minded people on both sides as well (Democratic Virginia governor Tim Kaine is anti-abortion)</p>

<p>I'm fiscally conservative, but I'm socially liberal :)</p>

<p>I am part of it, and HELL no we did not join the Democrats.</p>

<p>well the republicans control both congress and the white house, yet the past 6 years have been FAR from fiscally conservative, with the debt careening out of control. They've cut taxes (although poorly aimed) but have increased spending at the same time. And the recent judicial appointments don't give me much hope for the upcomming abortion decision from ND.</p>

<p>well simply put just look at the Christian Coalition voting in heavy numbers. The Republicans in the past few years could win with CC as a crucial part of their coalition. Party politics is all about winning. You want to win then you got to embrace the philosophy of the voters in your coalition. So the Republicans are going on a platform that the CC likes. Unfortunately, too many people are disgruntled with teh REpublicans so that's not gonna work for now.
Anyways so if the moderates voted heavily the Republican party would be more center right and fiscally conservative. Ideology can sometimes be overrated. After all, it's the election that decides everything.</p>

<p>The reason that fiscal conservatives (neo-liberals is ironically the term for us) are still Republicans is because Democrats' proposed economic policy is worse than the Republican's, and the Democrats' are for even bigger government.
Most people don't realize that Bush is in fact more liberal than people give him credit for and is more like a moderate leaning right then a conservative.</p>

<p>Neither party is fiscally responsible.</p>

<p>Where is there a "Theodore Roosevelt" politician? Someone who actually represents the American People, not catering to his or her own party.</p>

<p>It died in the 1980s when republicans realized that the religious right had much more votes than the libertarian right.</p>

<p>im what drew said. for real.</p>

<p>republicans scare me</p>

<p>
[quote]
Where is there a "Theodore Roosevelt" politician? Someone who actually represents the American People, not catering to his or her own party.

[/quote]

I agree! Since I have never been as liberal as a Democrat, but not as fiscally conservative as the Republicans I always tell friends, when the subject comes up, that I'm an Good Ol' Progressive like Theodore Roosevelt. </p>

<p>Really, the Bush administration has to repair the economy. Of all nations to be indebted to, China is the worst nation to have a 1-up on us. Up until Katrina I was a proud Republican, but with that and the waterfall of controversies that followed, I've become rather disillusioned with both the Dems and the Rebs. So I am social conservative and fiscally liberal (until the debt is resolved)</p>

<p>I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative (highest amount of freedom on both sides.)</p>

<p>Same here (go libertarians!), but am registered Independent because neither party seems to quite understand this. I think it's because most anyone who gets into politics eventually would have a hard time dismantling the power they recieve.</p>