The Republican Party is always careful not to offend religious conservatives for fear that they might “stay home” during a particular election and deny the GOP the votes it needs to win, whether at a national or state level.
Frankly, I’ve never understood what the fear is about. For the most part, the GOP has towed the social conservative line on the issues of concern to it — abortion, gay marriage, “indecency”, etc.
If anyone should be annoyed with the Republican Party it’s people like me who believe in limited government and who think that the government should stay as far away from the economy as possible.
What if people like me stayed home every November ?
[I]t was the Republicans’ big-spending, big-government ways that helped ensure their defeat in the 2006 midterm elections. It wasn’t evangelical Christians or so-called “values voters” who deserted Republicans. Roughly 70 percent of white evangelicals and born-again Christians voted Republican in 2006, just a fraction less than in 2004.
It was suburbanites, independents, and others who were fed up not just with the war and corruption, but also with the Republican drift toward big-government who stayed home, or even voted Democratic, on election day 2006. That night, more than 65 percent of voters told a pollster they believed that “The Republicans used to be the party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders they used to oppose.”
So far, the Republican presidential candidates have offered little to these small-government conservatives. Fred Thompson gives an occasional nod to entitlement reform. John McCain has been critical of pork barrel spending. Ron Paul opposes pretty much all government programs. But by and large, the candidates have not offered a platform for curtailing the size, cost, and power of government.
Can anyone think of a single major government program that any of them, with the exception of Rep. Paul, have called for significantly cutting or eliminating?
Yea, me neither. That’s why, his faults notwithstanding, I still plan on voting for Ron Paul in the Virginia Primary in February. Barring a sea-change in the Republican Party within the next three months, he’s not going to win the nomination, but he’s the only one who recognizes that the GOP has lost its soul.
As for November, well I haven’t decided yet. I can’t think of a single reason to vote for Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or Huckabee. There’s no way I can vote for any one of the Democratic and remain true to what I believe. So that leaves me with limited options —- vote Libertarian, leave the Presidential ballot blank, or stay home.
And, you know what, sleeping late on Election Day 2008 and renting a few movies that night might not just be a bad idea. If enough people who agree with me do the same, then the GOP may find that 2006 was nothing compared to what will happen to them in 2008.
H/T: Jason Pye
November 27th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
As an 80% libertarian, I’m with you. Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate that you can use the word ‘integrity’ and not smirk. Locally, none. Big gov’t Republicans work just as hard as Democrats at funding pet projects and everyone winks and nods. The numbers, and ability to print an unending supply and call it inflation to avoid collapse, are only bigger for the Federal gov’t.
The Democrats have a woman, black, metro-lawyer, and socialist all singing the same tune: “We’ll take more of your earnings, make sure everyone’s afraid of individual rights, and expand the empire for the bankers and lobbyists.” What’s to choose from?
Staying home or voting Libertarian seem to be the only alternatives I have should Dr. Paul not be recognized as the only balance against the egotistical, politically motivated preeners on stage.
Faith and hard work in the ideal of freedom from gov’t interference in daily life will eventually become a social norm.