1.) I agree that Mike is good at talking about “fiscal conservatism”. But as Baron illustrates on other issues (pro-life, drilling for oil), talk is not enough. The data from NTU, CFB and CAGW are clear that Mike voted like a fiscal moderate. If he had voted like a fiscal conservative– and this was not such an important issue right now– I’d be spending more time with my wife and kids (and quite happy to do so).

2.) My opposition to Planned Parenthood funding is not only counter to Mike’s voting record, but may be the reason for the Pence Amendment in 2007. Why weren’t Republicans talking about this before I brought it up in 2006?

3.) You’re assuming that I’m taking votes mostly from Mike. In 2006, the polling data indicate I got much more from Hill. Presumably because Iraq is less important (and perhaps because fiscal conservatism and the economy are more important), the polling data this time are more mixed. So, it looks like I won’t be able to help Mike out this time.

4.) Mike doesn’t seem to be running an active campaign this time– and according to the polls I’ve seen, he’s down by double-digits. If it looks like a blow out in November, then a vote for me, even by a pragmatist, will not be “wasted”. In fact, a “protest” vote for me would be far more valuable than voting for a major-party candidate who loses by 10%. In any case, I hope voters will be more principled than pragmatic.

Chris, I would argue that philosophical identification of an exit poll is probably not evidence that they would have voted for one candidate or another of the main party candidates. (And how many though that they were saying libertarian rather than liberal?). The only poll question that I would deem valid on this point (Eric, this goes for your point 3 as well) is, “If the race were only between Sodrel and Hill, who would you have voted for?”

What we do know is that the philosophical thinking of a Libertarian candidate is relatively closely aligned with the Conservative philosophy. You could argue that they are Democrats that have become disillusioned with their party, but if they are disillusioned with the socialism of their party they would probably not be voting for the Democrat candidate anyway.

The larger problem with the Libertarian Party is that by leaving the Republican Party (or the failure to join into the Republican Party if they are disillusioned Democrats) they fail to provide the energy and leadership to move the Republican Party in a libertarian or conservative direction. This is a far more achievable goal than making a third party viable.

Hypocrisy everywhere.

If you’d like to throw out polling numbers and statistic because they don’t reinforce your view, then maybe it isn’t the polling that is incorrect. I’ll bookmark this page for when this blog upholds exit polling as truth.

Secondly, I’ve been very encouraged by the reception that the Republican establishment has given to Ron Paul and his brand of conservatism. (Sarcasm Heavily Implied.) There is no way to move entrenched parties back to a set of values it once held, when those who polluted the well now control access to it. Pat Buchanan has been been tilting at windmills for two decades.

Thirdly, a Libertarian and true Conservative is closely aligned with a modern Republican in words. However, the Bush administration is the classic example of doing one thing and saying another. The spending of Bush, along with socialistic programs such as the Paulson Plan are reasons enough for True Conservatives not to vote for John McCain, who really doesn’t differ from Bush.

Please, dear God please, will someone start defending Bush and the socialistic program they are about to push through Congress. Because you will be putting party over the principles you claim to hold dear.

Capitalism without failure is like Religion without heaven.

So,

If the Republican Party isn’t doing what you want, aren’t you just encouraging their bad behavior by continuing to vote for them?

I can understand someone joining the inner circles and trying to reform the organization from within, but what about the millions of Americans who DON’T get involved, continue to vote the same way, and then complain about the same results?

If I were a Republican incumbant, I’d figure that I could do whatever the hell I want; because no matter what socialist programs I promote, I can always count on conservatives to vote me back in.

It’s kinda like the free market…if I don’t like the service at Wal-Mart, then I just stop going to Wal-Mart.

I argue that Democrat and Republican candidates steal Libertarian votes because they wet themselves in fear that “the other guy” might win when in fact there is very little difference between them.

The differences are almost always nuance, not wholesale change like investigating the Federal Reserve, eliminating income taxes rather than tweaking them 5% one way or the other, privatizing social security instead of just figuring out who’s taxes to raise to pay for it.

I’ve heard many people argue that Newt’s brief revolution in the 90s doesn’t happen without Perot’s 19%. I don’t hear either one of the candidates admitting that government and the FED caused our current economic problems and even the Republican is offering more government agencies, more regulation and such as the fix. No thanks.

Sean, I know the glass is 5% full not 95% empty.

I present for your analysis the difference between an Obama Presidency and a McCain Presidency as the difference between a Clinton Presidency and a Bush Presidency:

Clinton: Gets Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bush: Gets Samuel Alito and John Roberts.

Any difference there?

But have you seen any government with more than two major political parties that has been a stable government?