Today's elections will be a nice test of your predictions. Enjoy the hilarity

Where I see a real problem, frankly, is in what appears to be a fusion of far right social conservatism with libertarian-type government reduction.

Let's be clear here. Far right conservatism and Libertarian type government reduction types never cared a bit about expansive government deficit spending prior to January 2009. Be it foreign wars bloating spending, or supposedly libertarian issues like warrantless wiretaps, torture, habeas corpus for US citizens or a plethora of other issues that would cause small government conservatives or rock ribbed libertarians to hit the streets in protest.

Search Reason's hit and run blog about any of these issues and you'll find they have abandoned civil liberties long ago. Face the facts, most Libertarians now could not even explain the concepts of civil liberties because they are no longer a part of the “libertarian party”.

The two are attempting to form a party, any party, ideology be damned, that can put them back in power. And if it takes social conservative flocking to Palin types while small “L” libertarian types who really have no concept of what being a libertarian means, that's all good.

It's an attempt to take a 21% hard core conservative constituency and mix it with a 10% libertarian constituency, then hoping that you can get a 9% bat shit crazy constituency to hold their nose and sign on to win some elections.

It won't work. But it will make for some hilarious bedfellows and a dying GOP.

This criticism rings hollow as most of the Democratic agenda in Congress is coming straight out the liberal playbook with threats against moderate members to go along if they know what’s good for them.

Seriously? Two words. Joe Lieberman. Endorses the GOP nominee for president and even speaks at the convention. Promises to filibuster, not just vote against, but filibuster the number 1 domestic legislation for Democrats this year. And on top of all that, announces he'll support one or more Republicans in the coming mid terms.

So surely he lost his seat as Chairmen on the Homeland Security Committee right?

Right?

Jonathan Wells is a 28-year-old who either ignores or has no clue of the total disarray of the Democratic party

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV: What Ousted GOP Candidate Endorsing Dem in Messy NY Race Means (Guest Voice): What Ousted GOP Candidate Endorsing De… http://bit.ly/3x7Xp6...

When a Scozzafava backs the Porkulus and more
Give a little whistle. Give a little whistle
When your start to wonder what your party's standing for
Give a little whistle! Give a little whistle
Not just a little squeak
Pucker up and blow
And if your whistle's weak, yell “Doug Hoffman!”
Take the path to principle and if you start to slide
Give a little whistle!
Give a little whistle!
And always let your conscience be your guide

Apologies to Mr. Cricket. And probably everyone else, lol

Where I see a real problem, frankly, is in what appears to be a fusion of far right social conservatism with libertarian-type government reduction. Yes, it's true that one must have principles, but the principles being espoused (in NY and tea parties) are very different from the Republican party I grew up with. But then, the GOP I knew would never have indulged themselves in a case like Terri Schiavo, either — so clearly the changes are not merely reaction to Obama and Bush.

The Republicans have been morphing over time, and while it may not be clear to observers where they'll end up, I doubt the Republicans really know where they'll end up, either.

Finally — you said: “…a political party must have a set of core principles that it must expect its members to adhere to the majority of the time…”

Can you share what positions you would allow someone to vary on? How far can one stray from the core, and still be acceptable to you and your movement?

You made all the key points, and made them well.

This is not a “purification” of the party. Scozzafava was a left winger on both economic and social issues running in a moderate district. Most of the concern trollers are Democrats who want to see conservatives marginalized; it's a form of humor to see them warning us about it.

Gallup puts conservatives at 40% of the population, Republicans in the 20s. By becoming more conservative, Republicans can tap into that larger demographic and grow the party nicely. And by standing for something, they can attract many independents who place value on principle. We just need to do some house cleaning and redesign. I'd like to see some resignations from the dunderheads who gave a million bucks of Republican money to a Democrat, for example. That's not motivated by ideology, but the need to address basic competency.

Let's see? It didn't work for Goldwater. It didn't work for McGovern. In both of those examples, the shrinking was followed by movement to the center and success in the next election cycle. Goldwater ('64) to Nixon ('68) and McGovern ('72) to Carter ('76).

There's a reason most successful politics involves running to the center. That's where most of the voters are, though there may be ideological or party strongholds in particular districts/states.

UPDATE (3:30 PM). Tom Jensen at PPP reports that he had a poll in the field this morning that was showing very good numbers for Hoffman, although how much emphasis we should give to unweighted, small-sample polling conducted on Halloween morning, I don't know. I would say that if Hoffman wins, it will tend to because of factors that were already in place before Scozzafava's withdraw.

Finally, after all the wordplay we cut to the chase, namely the “workable ideas and solutions.” When the the GOP starts making a genuine effort to formulate and advocate said “ideas and solutions”, then I will be happy to give them credit. Until that happens, why should anyone expect other than the negative dynamic they appear to be so in love with?

Reagan was originally a Dem so he is just a really really sneaky RINO

BR>
I wonder how many social conservatives actually know that.