Sunday, November 09, 2008

The Leave Us Alone Coalition

Foobarista of foobarista left a comment at my post Republicans Stayed Home. This is what foo had to say:

The reason McCain lost is the Republicans lost the "Leave Me Aloners".

The problem was that small-government Republicans got swept aside by those who got used to the comforts of Washington. "Compassionate Conservatism" didn't help. Even people like me, who thought the WoT - including Iraq - were necessary had a hard time dealing with Bush's general incompetence in all things domestic.

He kept Congress funding Iraq by rolling over on everything else, which will likely end up being far more expensive to the country than the war itself, both in terms of government size and helping get Obama elected.

Now, given the choice between social-con big government and live & let live big government, any who isn't a bible-thumper chose the latter. (although I personally voted for McCain since WoT is a "voting issue" for me)

Now, the biggest danger for Republicans is to go for the Mike Huckabee "God, Guns & Butter" strategy, which will leave the large Leave-Me-Alone coalition in the Democrat camp for lack of anywhere else to go.

Obama may still overreach with his "communitarian" stuff like mandatory "volunteerism", etc and drive the Leave-Me-Aloners away, but I suspect he's smarter than that.
That describes my relationship to the Republicans to a T. It is really sad that there is no Leave Me Alone Party in America. I think it might get a few votes.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values


Stop Common Purpose said...

Communitarians want to create a post-modern, post-democratic feudal society run by a small number of rich and powerful people with everyone else working as peasants. In order to achieve their objectives they must destroy the middle class and the nation state.

More about this evil and dictatorial philosophy here: Communitarian philosophy

Tom Cuddihy said...

There is actually a Leave Me Alone party, simon. It's called the Libertarian party.

As it turns out it can't get any effective share of the vote, probably because it insists on cutting off anyone who doesn't buy into every single plank in the party platform.

I agree with foobarista that Obama is much smarter than we thought. He's not going to overreach. In fact, I suspect he will move rapidly to enact several apparently innocuous things that will move the goals of the Ayeristas forward.

My prediction: first on the Agenda: hate crimes legislation. Easy and perfect for cowing Republicans in the senate entirely. They wouldn't want to be labeled RACISTS, would they? It will be far-reaching, and while apparently harmless, will allow later interpretation by liberal judges to eventually take down the 1st, 2nd amendments. But those lawsuits won't be filed till some time in 2012.

Also on the agenda, clearly: suppression of conservative voices, likely through the FCC mandating onerous new requirements on radio stations with a talk format.

I suspect in his first term that he will actually be fairly friendly on taxes and the economy--he doesn't want to make waves. But he will likely enact some sort of cap-and-trade on carbon, perhaps at an extremely low initial rate. The important thing is to establish the precedent.

His main goal, however, will be to help fill as many important electoral process positions at the state level, throughout the nation with the Acorn-friendly types that are riding roughshod over Ohio and Minnesota right now, and to do this without attracting MSM attention. See no evil.

This will help him win expanded Democratic leads in 2010 and again in 2012 as he shoots for reelection.

By the way, don't expect any unfiltered press conferences along the way. Also debate rules in 2012 will be so restrictive that if Palin or Romney or whoever wants to debate him they will be answering questions he writes.

The real taxes and destruction of the Constitution will not start until sometime in 2012, once he has his judges and state assistants in place.

M. Simon said...


I used to be a card carrying Libertarian. I know all about them.

They are so stupid on Foreign Policy and the Military that I just couldn't stand them post 9/11.

The Obama regime will be a time of war.

1. Afghanistan can't be won without dealing with opium. Ironically it is the one war he promised to win.

2. The Drug War is now a shooting war at our Southern border.

3. Iran's economy is tanking - expect them to start a war.

He will not get a 2nd term. Moving his policies forward will be done by another President.

And his policies will not end the economic crisis. He will make it worse and longer lasting. Even doing nothing is not an option. Some Bush tax cuts expire on 1 Jan 2009.

And already there is a war between gays and Blacks, Hispanics and Mormons. And he is not yet in office.

He has too many promises to keep. Too many groups with disparate demands to appease.

He has avoided decisions as much as possible his whole political career. He will now have to make 50 or 500 decisions a day. The learning curve will be steep.

He is deep in it.

Plus I only mentioned the big obvious problems I know about.

Did I mention Russia? Or the possible implosion of China?

He is in a world of hurt and in three months he will own all the crap coming our way.

In 3 1/2 years people will be nostalgic for Bush.

Tom Cuddihy said...

I hope and pray that you're right, simon. But I fear that Obama is not nearly so foolish. The appointment of Rahm Emmanuel should tell us that. He will put a leash on the morons, and I suspect Iran will see it is in their interest to provoke a clear situation that REQUIRES confrontation by Obama. If they continue to stick to the edges, supporting Hezbollah, AQ Iraq, the Taliban, etc, they can make significant steps towards their murderous goals while delaying a reckoning until they are ready.

By most estimates, they only need till 2011 to get several missile-ready warheads.

Tom Cuddihy said...

oops. that should say "not in their interest".

Left out a crucial word.

M. Simon said...


You are probably right.

BTW what is the Democrat Party these days? A coalition of the oppressed and formerly oppressed.

And who was doing most of the oppressing? Socons.

See my comments at Freedom Agenda

And how might we win them back? Republicans need to champion the Legalization of Marijuana. It would prove our bonafides.

We would become the party of Cultural and Economic Liberty. Where we should have been all along. Because Liberty is indivisible.

Micha Elyi said...

Bush, said the foobarista, "kept Congress funding Iraq," a war the foobarista acknowledges was necessary, "by rolling over on everything else."

Sigh. Any time there's something that the President really, really wants -- for whatever reason, even for the purpose of fighting a necessary (the foobarista's own word) war -- there's an opportunity for members of the House and Senate to arm-twist the President into signing onto "everything else."

I wonder if the foobarista and others of like opinion have forgotten that the President of the US isn't a Putin-like boss who can sweep aside legislators who make trouble for him. A US President can't really enforce party discipline on legislators and the Republican majority in each house of Congress was so slim from 2001 to 2006 that there was little chance of corralling that herd of cats by political tough-dealing. So, all in all, I credit Bush with getting a lot out of the incredibly weak hand that was dealt him. A weaker man would have caved in on the Iraq war and retreated American forces in disgrace, maybe never even went into Afghanistan with ground forces.

Oh, as for the Libertarian Party, I agree with M. Simon's assessment that "they are so stupid on Foreign Policy and the Military." In fact, when I say that, I put at least three more letter-ohs on the word "so." An LPer friend of mine once pointed out that every political party in America is burdened by several thousand kooks in its membership and a drawback of the LP is that its total membership is barely several thousand people nationwide.

Finally, isn't Grover Norquist the one who put the phrase "Leave Me Alone party" into circulation?

M. Simon said...

You are correct about Grover Norquist.