« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Even Democrats can’t win a Secular American majority

So why should Republicans imagine we could?

The reason: No “secular American majority” exists. The vast majority of Americans still believe in God.

By Mike “gamecock” DeVine, Charlotte Law and Civil Rights Examiner for Examiner.com

In his brilliant A Republican Party for a Secular America, David Sage correctly cites the 2008 rejection of the GOP “in its current form” by the American people at the ballot box, but then attributes that rejection to Republican mimicking of Reagan’s social conservative agenda, while agreeing that “conservatism” sells.

David’s sagacity measures 67% on the Gamecock meter. Let me work backwards.

Given Americans’ aversion to granting three consecutive terms to the same party in the White House and their penchant for throwing out the party in said House during economic hard times, even unabashed and unapologetic marketing of conservatism might not have sold this year.

We will never know, because we didn’t even try to sell conservatism before Palin was chosen. And when McCain said me too to President Bush and Senator Obama to the very non-conservative Paulson panic prevention plan, conservative sales went down the drain.


But what of this supposed tipping point aversion to appeals to Judeo-Christian values and the current form of the Party of Lincoln?

The Democratic Party regained majority control of Congress mainly due to Rahm Emmanuel’s “blue dawg” democrat strategy that recruited pro-life and family values Democrats all over the county, not just in Dixie. Barack Obama campaigned as a Christian, opposed gay marriage, and even insisted that the party platform be changed for the first time since 1972 to acknowledge respect for pro-lifers. (I know: Rev. Wright, Minister Farrakhan and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, but you see my point.)

Moreover, this year, California one of the most liberal states in the country, along with Florida and Arizona, joined 40+ other states in rejecting gay marriage. Polls show that Generations X, Y and the Millenials, are all more pro-life than Baby Boomers.

Now we get to the crux of the matter: Their may not be enough non-secular whites to win a majority, but why would we want to, especially when we don’t have to?

Yes, economic and national security conservatism sells, and it sells best to people of faith. They generally go hand in hand. The problem has been that Blacks have been held captive for 40 years by an exploitive Democratic Party whose Big Lie message has been that America is inherently racist.

Ironically, the election of a self-described African-American may be what finally un-clogs the ears and opens the eyes of many Blacks to the universal message of the GOP.

The Big Lie of the left is now exposed. Don’t listen to a Caucasian rooster. Listen to blacks on the left and the right:

Juan Williams:

There is no other nation in the world where a 75% majority electorate has elected as their supreme leader a man who identifies as one of that nation’s historically oppressed minorities.

Jason Whitlock (pictured above):

Barack Obama had just won the presidency, and the realization that America loved them back stampeded my parents’ emotions like a wedding proposal from the perfect lover you assumed would never settle down.

Donald E. Robinson:

Shortly after leaving the voting booth, [the] 70-year-old community activist…had a thought: “Why do I have to be listed as African-American? Why can’t I just be American?”

I especially like Whitlock’s “America loved them back”!

Fellow conservatives, we, like Whitlock and Williams, have long realized race was no longer a serious impediment to advancement in America and that it is the left’s fault that more haven’t realized same as Blacks have blindly voted 90+% for Democrats despite their failures to deliver on their promises.

That is now past, and maybe, human nature being what it is, it took the election of one of their own to bring home the “love back”. James Taranto echoes gamecock on the prospect that Blacks will now be freed of their Democratic past and cites the example of Catholics post-JFK and Deep South Southerners post-Carter.

It may be too optimistic to hope for major changes minority voting patterns in four years given that Obama will be running for re-election. But the work must begin in earnest now to recruit blacks and Hispanics to run as Republicans in 2010 to join these examples in elected office.

Blacks will now get to see one of their own as President as they live their lives with the realization that their lot in life is mainly determined by what they do, not who gets elected. They will also become more open to the fact that liberty, not government controls, is the best path to prosperity.

As Obama supporter, John McWhorterstates, they will be able to have “an honest discussion about the role racism does not play in black communities’ problems.”

Add to the above the fact that a disproportionate number of minorities serve in a US armed force that liberal democrats loathe, and the general aversion to weakness abroad that most Americans share, and you have the makings of a Reaganite-like coalition.

Why?

The overwhelming majority of Blacks and Hispanics are Bible-believing Christians and part of a faith-based American majority.

Despite all the odds against the GOP generally; inherent non-conservative flaws of John McCain; inept McCain campaign; lower GOP base turnout; and October financial crisis surprise, we only lost by 5% in a still mostly 50/50 nation.

We could win in four years just by getting back to 2004 levels of support, but with the “change” wrought by Obama, we may finally have the opening to build the conservative majority in government.

The market for conservative sales may just have gotten a lot larger.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – The Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • StephC
  • aceintx

    Is that really a word…or a legal term?

    :>)

  • aceintx

    nt

  • gamecock

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sagacity

    and thanks ace

  • aceintx

    nt

  • Nelsen

    Great Arcticle. I think we are all going to find out that you are right in the near future.

  • gamecock

    sawbuck

  • aceintx

    nt

  • DavidSage

    First of all, Obama absolutely did not campaign as a social conservative. He opposed Proposition 8 in California, and he also vowed to to overturn the current Federal Defense of Marriage Act, which he called an “abhorrent law”.

    Obama also campaigned as an unabashedly pro-choice liberal, even crossing the line to supporting what I consider infanticide. He has never given even a hint of support to the pro-life position. If there was truly a majority coalition opposed to abortion, they never had a better opportunity to vote against a candidate than they did against Obama.

    Also, the overwhelming majority of African-Americans just aren’t going to be a part of the Republican/Conservative coalition any time soon. I would love it if they would join us, but it’s just not going to happen in the near future.
    Blacks may agree with us on a few social issues (gay marriage), but at the end of the day, they are the most reliable Democrats voters you can have. It is a conservative fantasy that they are suddenly going to drop the Democrat Party. No Republican has ever done more to reach out to blacks than George W. Bush, and he has absolutely nothing to show for it. Even if you have African-Americans completely on board with social conservatism, what about economic conservatism? I hope in a generation or two, this will change, but for the next two decades, count on at least three-fourths of African-Americans to vote Democrat no matter what. We cannot expect them to make up a meaningful part of the conservative coalition anytime soon.

    The point of my original blog post was, America is changing in regards to moral values. I really don’t know how anyone can make a valid argument that states otherwise. Behavior that was once considered shameful is now openly celebrated. I certainly don’t welcome or celebrate this development, and hope and pray a religious revival finds this nation. That being said, do we as conservatives abandon a governing role in this nation altogether because the “moral majority” no longer exists?

    A political party is just not capable of preventing the moral “slide” of a nation. That’s really something that needs to come from the bottom, up.
    How then do we attempt to win over secular voters? Are we going to be a political party that only appeals to people of faith? How do you win elections if a majority of Americans don’t share a Judeo-Christian faith?

    Social conservatism is a hard sell among non-religious voters. I know there are always exceptions, but most people who aren’t associated with a traditional faith aren’t going to be predisposed to opposing something like abortion. Where then do we find common ground with this type of voter?

    Twenty years ago, something like gay marriage would have been unimaginable in even the most liberal states, now it’s a reality. I really don’t see this march towards “progress” slowing up anytime soon, to think this slide is suddenly going to stop and reverse course is naive. As a party, can we find a majority in this type of environment?

    These are questions we need to answer as a movement.

  • gamecock

    Federalism is the answer to some of your points, and I wholeheartedly agree that we are Slouch-ING towards Gomorrah and that people of faith in churches and other isntitutions are the only defense, not government.

    But we aren’t to Gomorrah yet and we can’t give up on the black and hispanic vote and ever hope to win a majority without surrendering to the Left.

    Obama’s election presents the posibility that as blacks embrace full Americaness now, tjhat they will act like other groups whose member acheived the pinnacle, and diversify their views.

    The broken promises of the left will now be more stark.

    Blacks don’t like higher taxes, higher gas prices, etc. Think blacks would like better paying jobs drilling oil, etc that they will see Obama depriving them of?

    Sage, you just want to give up before we try?

    I don’t and won’t.

    And I won’t surrender to the left.

    See this:

    http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/11/13/obama-sharpton-jackson-oped-cxjm1113mcwhorter.html

    and this and weigh back in

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjRlMDEyZDcyYTNlODliYmRhZWRkNjc2OGE2YjViOWI=

  • StephC

    This, to me, sums up why the conservative movement always becomes a nonstarter. Too much apathy, too much hopelessness, and too much looking to the political parties for the answers. The answers aren’t with the politicsal parties but with the people who are encreasingly disenfranchised while those same parties continue maintaining the status quo.

    Not all battles are fought on battlefields filled with armor and soldiers. Some battles and the requisite battlefields are of a more intangible nature. We start at the bottom and teach people what they don’t know, one by one, then by two’s and so on. We have a great medium for doing that if we just have the courage of our convictions.

  • johninca

    The GOP lost not because of conservatism, but because of Bush incompetence, a lousy economy and the Iraq War.

    Four years of Obammunist tyranny should put Republicans back in the game.

  • StephC

    I don’t care if Republicans are put “back in the game.” I want to put conservatism “back in the game.” If the Republican party wants to represent that, fine. If they don’t, so long.

    Keeping conservatism tied to a political party is like a wife being forced to stay married to a chronically cheating husband. Or vice versa for you nonsexists out there.

  • DavidSage

    I truly do hope that these groups stop buying into the Left’s propaganda. It’s just right now, in the foreseeable future, the Republican Party can’t expect Blacks to form a governing coalition with conservatives. They may vote with us on a ballot proposition or two, but they aren’t going to join the Republican Party, at least in this generation.

    I personally think the election of Obama just sealed up the black vote for another 30 years. To Blacks, the Democrat Party brought them into the Promised Land with an African-American President. Don’t expect them to leave the Democrat Party anytime soon after an emotional connection like that.

    In the same way that occasionally I’ll agree with an issue or two from the other side, I have no plans to leave the Republican Party over it. To blacks, it’s the same way, they may disagree with something like gay marriage in the Democrat Party, but they still agree with Democrats on most issues. For example, blacks tend to be very liberal on most economic issues. I hope in time that will change, but it’s not something we can count on in the next several election cycles.

    It’s not that I want to “give up” in regards to values, I just think it’s a losing proposition for political parties and politicians to fight cultural wars if a majority of those particular constituents do not share those same values. There’s no question that already large swaths of America have become adamantly secular, like the Northeast, Northwest, and West Coast. Rick Santorum-type Republicans simply cannot win these areas, and many in our Party won’t tolerate any Republican that isn’t a pro-life, social conservative. I think ratcheting up the social conservative message of the Republican Party in order to turn out the “base” is just going to make these secular areas even “bluer”.

    We need to find a way to win these parts of the country and not simply write them off because I think it’s much more likely that Indiana is going to become more like Illinois, than Illinois becoming like Indiana.

    I think it’s a poor political strategy to just go from election to election banking on a big base turnout to squeak out a win. This mythical “base” doesn’t seem like much of a loyal base if they couldn’t be bothered to get out and vote against Obama. Rather than trying to cultivate a base that I think is already tapped out, why don’t we work on trying to cultivate a majority.

    To sum it up, I like your optimism Mike, and I don’t relish fighting with social conservatives because I believe in all the same things and I’m certainly not abandoning these principles in my own life. That being said, the Republican Party needs to make some changes if it wants to start winning elections and not just running to make a point. I think making the same plays and just hoping the other side screws up really bad is not a long-term solution to creating a governing majority in this country.

  • gamecock

    and that is more easily done via the GOP that a new party

    agreed?

  • emgbane

    You raised some interesting points, but many of them seem to go far beyond politics. Regarding President-Elect Obama, you are correct about his record, but he did not run on his record. He ran away from his record. He simultaneously favored Proposition 8 and opposed Gay Marriage. Is that a coherent position?

    I also find the suggestion that Blacks are wedded to the Democratic Party interesting. Most Blacks do not even bother to vote. They do tend to live in one party Democratic towns, but before 1964 most Blacks were Republicans.

    Republicans will not get Blacks to join the party by pandering to them. Blacks will join the party as they come to find benefit in Republican governance. Do Blacks living in the south reject their Republican Governors? I imagine that Mike Huckabee enjoyed Black support. When I looked at the Republican Convention most of the Black delegates I saw appeared to be from Southern States. I recall seeing many Blacks in the Texas delegation.

    I really think the best thing the Republican party can do to reach out to Blacks is to encourage Black Republicans to become more visible and more active. Blacks prefer to go places were they see other Blacks. When they see other Blacks they feel welcome. I can?t tell how often I hear people say oh the Republican party is just old white men. That may be the face of the Party, but if we could change the face a little bit that would go a long way to increasing Black support.

    I am not suggesting identity politics, but it might be helpful to form some clubs, and provide some financial support to help people with more limited income attend party building events. How about some blatant party building during Black history month? Hold events reminding people of the roots of the Party. Show pictures of significant Black Leaders who were Republicans, remind people that the party of liberation was the Republican Party. Smear the Democrats by reminding folks that they were the party of slavery, the Klan, segregation, and white supremacy. The NRA would do well to run an ad during Black history month reminding people that the NRA was founded by Union Soldiers that encourage the arming of Blacks during the reconstruction period.

    Republicans have a proud history they just need to remind Blacks of that history and while they are at it they can remind Blacks of the Democratic Party’s shameful history. If we have to stroll down memory lane every year why not turn it to our advantage.

    Personally I think the Republican Party should be more concerned about reaching out to single women than to Blacks. Women are the majority of voters that is a demographic we cannot afford to lose. It is probably the underlining problem with the Black vote. If you lose single women, and most black women are single then you will keep losing Blacks.

    How can the party become more appealing to single women? I have no idea.

  • jayx588

    can’t be an answer to any of these questions. I know the analogy is suspect, but consider interracial marriages. Loving v Virginia was made over majority opinion.

    Federalism must be considered under the auspices of Constitutional rights, or rights the majority cannot merely strip away, either as a whole, or via a majority within a particular state.

    I’m not arguing gay marriage is Constitutionally protected. I am arguing that the “states rights” argument needs to be dropped by socons because it just doesn’t sell to people who are non-religious, like me.

    Think about it this way: what if we advocated for a federalist approach to religious free speech in schools? Liberal northeastern states could theoretically ban students from wearing religious paraphernalia under the pretenses of federalism.

  • gamecock

    beats a one size fits all from federal judges

    If I don’t like the school, I move. I don’t sue.

  • emgbane

    I really don?t think your view of Blacks is correct. Blacks are not a group. Black is a skin color, it is a benign physical trait. People vote their beliefs and their economic interest. I don?t think republicans can win national election with blue state support until republicans grow their local parties and elect leaders at the local and state level. When those leaders bring about positive results that will start to translate into growth at the national level.

    Republicans need to start having answers for cities. Imagine a place like Detroit. Why on earth do people keep voting for incompetent Democrats? Do Republicans even attempt to contest elections in that city? If we don?t compete, we can?t win. I don?t think social issues are the overriding concern. I think the party has not had a local strategy. Of course, it is an uphill climb because we have to over come corruption, but Giuliani won in New York City. We need Republican mayors and council members.

    The Republican party must reach out, it must look for talented people at the local level and encourage them to run for office.

  • jayx588

    Social conservatives, such as the ACLJ, Christian Legal Society, Alliance Defense Fund, and Liberty Legal Institute would disagreewith you.

    *”The briefs from the conservative religious organizations depict the school environment as an ideological battleground. The Christian Legal Society asserts that its law school chapters ‘have endured a relentless assault by law schools intolerant of their unpopular perspective on the morality of homosexual conduct or the relevance of religious belief.’

    The American Center for Law and Justice brief, filed by its chief counsel, Jay Alan Sekulow, warns that public schools ?face a constant temptation to impose a suffocating blanket of political correctness upon the educational atmosphere.? *

  • gamecock

    I am an attorney that has worked with many of those orgs.

  • StephC

    I’d prefer it, yes, but I’d rather have a cohesive conservative message that draws people in rather than beg a party for a place under the table to catch crumbs.

  • gamecock

    of local control vs federal judge control. Even many lawyers that don’t practice in the field miss the nuance.

    Sekulow has been successful in framing the issue as free speech, not freedom of religion, years after I did. What laymen (liberals) confuse is free speech with a supposed freedom to NOT HEAR religious speech.

    Currently there is a 5-justice majority that reverses O’Connor’s 10 point tests under the establishment clause. Hearing free religious speech is no longer considered an establishment, nor interfering with free exercise.

    If you have more questions, I am available.

  • mbecker908

    This guy you should charge.

  • jayx588

    obviously in Morse v Fredrick they didn’t favor local control.

    My point is that the Republican selling point of states rights doesn’t hold. Most libertarians don’t actually believe in a sovereign state authority outside of the federal government. It’s more a means to greater individual liberty.

    People argue for states rights in regards to school vouchers, not because they believe inherently that the states are wiser than the feds, but because they recognize that argument as a means so that they personally can decide whether or not to send their children to private schools.

    Libertarians in the early 20th century are different than modern age libertarians, and that’s where Republicans are getting confused.

    States rights advocates in the 1960′s, like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, argued for states rights because they were racist, and the the Civil Rights Act of 1965 reversed the Jim Crow laws of that era, and the fed. govt insisted on judicial dept oversight.

    Now, most libertarians in the west aren’t libertarians because they want greater state authority in our lives. We want greater personal autonomy rights. You can see this as a generational trend as it was the older folk in CA that pushed prop 8 over the edge, not via racial lines.

    If the Republicans are serious about regaining libertarians as a voting block, they need to rethink what they mean by injecting “federalism” and “states rights” in every argument they make.

  • jayx588

    Your construction of my argument is deceiving. I’m not contrasting judicial tyranny vs local autonomy. I’m contrasting mob tyranny vs individual autonomy.

    I guarantee you, my generation (Y generation) views states rights in a different light than your generation does.

    Whether or not you disagree in theory is irrelevant to my point. My point is that the right can’t just inject “federalism” and “states rights,” hoping to regain the libertarian vote. The positions themselves must change.

    If socons as a voting block have issues with the Republican Party shifting on the idea of social issues via personal autonomy, then Republicans must choose between the two voting blocks. It’s obviously going to be socons, but I merely make the point that the party must choose one of the two voting blocks. It can’t have both.

  • David_Hinz

    President-elect Obama campaigned on a platform of being an empty suit and not being President Bush.

    He was elected, accordingly, on both of those merits.

    Hopey/Changy will now have to put forth a governance philosophy.

    BTW I understand that while touring with President Bush, he spent more than an hour in the Oval Office searching for the EASY button.

  • emgbane

    The 1967 Loving decision changed the law in 16 states, meaning it was already allowed in 34 states and DC.

  • johninca

    …from principled conservatives. And I would agree, but for the minor reservation that this kind of talk only elects liberal Democrats.

    One need only look at the Minnesota and Georgia Senate races, where third party votes have endangered Republican seats enough to revive Democrat hopes for a filibuster-proof Liberal dictatorship.

    Enjoy that vote for Chuck Baldwin, Alan Keyes, or your friendly local libertarian. It just might be the one that puts Obama and his congressional liberal thugs right over the top.

  • GregInFla

    and made the outcome look much more like an Obama landslide than it actually was. Missouri would be easily in McCain’s win column as well. And now we all will have to suffer through it.

    51% is a nation divided; 52% is a mandate for change. Huh?

  • gamecock

    wants to contact you, so please e-mail me

    mikedevinelaw@yahoo.com

    Faith-based Conservative Federalism

  • gamecock

    that was significant

  • gamecock

    One can VOTE WITH THEIR FEET and move to a like-minded community. When there is only a one size fits all approach from a King or 5 lawyers, one’s liberty is less. Moving to another locale is useless.

    Libertarians feign that their love for fed courts is more liberty, but they have a very narrow focus.

    more detail later

  • SteveLA

    game

    You miss one point about your desire for local control, the narcotic called Federal dollars.

    Any state, local school or whatever is free to forgo Federal dollars, and then teach what they want, well not really, but as long as schools take Uncle’s money, they get hooked into the game.

  • gamecock

    to abortion and marriage definitions. No law stops persons from living together now, and with respect to abortion, there is that third person.

    The tide of public opinion also happens to be on the so-con side in any event. 40+ states explicitely reject gay marriage and those under 40 are more pro-life than those over 40 save for over 65.

    more later

  • gamecock

    the mob of human history and California that want marriage to stay the same. Mob?

    Our republic establishing self government was deemed an improvement over One King. Super majorities of our good people created minority rights. You see, unless one is ruled by a dictator, majority will prevail.

    The real key was federalism to our miracle of Liberty. Capital L liberty is the right of the people to rule themselves.

    Majority vote is fair. And if you don’t like it then use your free speech and then let’s vote.

    more later

    But it is you that mischaracterized my argument by less than clearly changing the subject. I hate to break it to you though: you speak for a tiny minority.

    I speak by 60+%.

  • gamecock

    abortion. Personal autonomy would be threatened if law required women to either spread their legs or not. It doesn’t.

    And marriage is a definition. Your concept of personal autonomy would open up that institution for re-definition in 3 billion ways, ie the number of adult persons with autonomy, on Earth.

    try again

  • gamecock

    they take the fruits of your labor and spread it? After they prevent you from digging in the ground for oil? After they regulate your ability to use what property you have left?

    eh?

  • WOSG

    That is now past, and maybe, human nature being what it is, it took the election of one of their own to bring home the ?love back?. James Taranto echoes gamecock on the prospect that Blacks will now be freed of their Democratic past and cites the example of Catholics post-JFK and Deep South Southerners post-Carter.

    It may be too optimistic to hope for major changes minority voting patterns in four years given that Obama will be running for re-election. But the work must begin in earnest now to recruit blacks and Hispanics to run as Republicans in 2010 to join these examples in elected office.

    We don’t have to wait. For all the history-making thunder about Obama’s victory, lets not forget the african-Americans elected statewide in Texas the same day – Michael Williams energy commissioner, and 2 Texas Supreme Court justices.

    We will need more to join their ranks. it will indeed be time to show the african-American community that they have ‘arrived’ as full partners in both parties.

    But it is ALSO the time to use Obama’s election as a mark in the ground that we no longer need affirmative action quotas and that simple, clear “There shall be no discrimination on the basis of race” equal opportunity should be the way to go.

    If we nominate Gov Jindhal in 2012, it will be our first non-white Republican nominee. he will also be the first Republican Catholic. The future of the Republican party lies in appealling to more of both groups, while keeping our base happy as well.

  • WOSG

    Patronage, pork & earmarks are evil and are a big part of the corrupt system that we have.

    We need to recognize that it all is tied together.

  • Doc_Holliday

    libertarians back into the fold. No compromise on the war and borders, but back to limited government and freedom.

  • gamecock

    http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law–Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2008m11d13-Court-presumption-of-guilt-against-white-Americans-must-end-here

  • jayx588

    so it overturned majority opinion in 16 states, correct?

    While we’re on that trend, why don’t we add a dose of states rights arguments, and say that Loving was a horrible judgment because it overstepped the boundaries of federalism?

  • jayx588

    So, I?m going to attempt to re-align our discussion back onto federalism and the U.S. Constitution.

    In regards to your posts about majority vote being ?fair? and public opinion polls; if you really have a background in law (as you say you do), then you very well know that it doesn?t really matter what the majority says when it comes protected rights.

    I don?t really understand your little tiddle about the ?republic? and the ?one king? because the phrasing is hard to follow, but I?m going to go ahead and assume that you?re stating that unless there is a dictator, majority rule will prevail.

    I?m going to go ahead and refer to your stated law background, and refresh you on the fact that the United States is not a direct democracy, but a constitutional republic. Google the difference. Thus, the majority actually doesn?t always rule.

    A good resource to look at when researching the US Constitution is John Locke?s second treatise of government. Read up on natural rights, and society?s duties towards an individual?s natural rights.

    What else?oh, and I?m going to refer to your stated law background again when discussing personal autonomy. I?m not quite sure what you have in mind when you yourself use the term ?personal autonomy,? but traditionally, personal autonomy means the right to rule over your own body. And as you learned in law school or whatever gave you a legal background, rights entail duties. Thus, the government would have the duty to respect that right, if such a right of personal autonomy existed.

    Finally, marriage is not merely a definition. Marriage has separate properties, usually dealing with tax law, that other civil partnerships are not afforded. Thus, marriage is not merely definitional.

    Now, AGAIN to your law background, you should know the difference between de jure and de facto. Just because marriage in some states (like California) entails the same rights as a domestic partnership does not entail equality. See Brown v Board of Ed. if separate but equal doesn?t ring a bell.

    Now as for your remark about “democrats taking the fruits of my labor” I do agree. I’m a fiscon, and my libertarian ideology towards the economy is the only reason why I have hope the Republican Party will shape up for 2010.

  • gamecock

    I actually agree with you on a lot and think you do too, but that you have either bought into a bill of goods smearing social conservatives or don’t understand the threat dems are to personal autonomy.

  • gamecock

    Why should I charge again?

  • gamecock
  • GregInFla

    The google election vote map on the site here was the coolest vote-tracking tool I’ve seen. It made it so easy to look at breakdowns by nation, then states, and then counties, for all the races. Thanks RS!

  • Achance

    in Alaska. The Alaska Independence Party is an amalgam of upper and lower case L libertarians, capital C conservatives, and with a little of the black helicopter crew for seasoning. Their candidate got over 13K votes in the Senate race. Stevens lost by a little over 3K.

    Frankly, I wouldn’t want most of them in the Republican Party at any leadership level, but I sure would like to attract enough of their votes to keep the AIP off the ballot. Libertarians and hard-right conservatives went for Jack Coghill, Hickel’s Lt. Gov, in ’94 and thus elected Tony Knowles, sentencing us ultimately to two terms of Democrat misrule.