. . . .and, in return, religious blacks, Latinos, jews, etc. to switch to the GOP.

OJ: kindly orchestrate this part FIRST, then we'll talk. Oh, and please don't blame the fact that it hasn't happened already on the the notion that amoralists are still "here".

OJ,

Though I agree with your many great critiques of 'libertarianism,' the fact remains that their ideals are held by much more than 1% of the people.

While you rail against libertarians as if they were all Pim Fortuyn followers, the truth is that a good number of them are regular everyday Americans that would be much more happy to vote "R" this year if the pigs had just spent a few billion less on Farm and Highway Pork, or frankly, had Bush had the good sense to veto the same. (or vetoed the vile McFein Bill)

Both 'mainstream' liberatarians and religious conservatives have many more reasons to stick together than to split apart, and Bush's missteps are part of the reason for this split - to the extent that it is happening.

Again - none of these people need vote Democrat for us to lose. They merely have to stay home.

Bruno:

No normal American even remembers that there was a highway bill, but he does want the road he drives on fixed by the government.

John:

Gotta dump the Nativists and other Darwinists for that.

If the libertarian support for Bush dropped by 31% between 2000 and 2004 (as the article contends), while Bush gained about 15 million more votes (or about 35% more) overall in the same period, how can anyone with a straight face contend that Bush's (and Rove's) strategy of tiangulation is politically wrong?

The GOP has increased its stake in the government in each of the last three elections (although losing 4 Senate seats in 2000 was not good), and it is much more likely that the 2008 election will be 55-45 for the GOP than another nail-biter.

sam is right - these guys are writing to a very small group, libertarians who don't normally object (too strongly) to the GOP's social views. Even in the blogosphere, how many are there? 100? 500? And are they claiming that 41% of "libertarians" voted for Kerry? Nonsense.

Libertarians don't do comedy, they just are funny.

Only the Libertarians would consider working with the Dems. As opposed to libertarians, who have figured out that the Party by that name are a bunch of clowns, and who recognize that just because both major parties are to be found wanting on "libertarian issues", one can be much worse than the other when it comes to accomplishing a libertarian's ultimate goals. (Unless, of course, your ultimate goal is to be liked by those who hate Republicans, and don't have the guts to just leave the circus and join the freak show (The Green Party) and be done with it...)

I thought Libertarians (also known as the Slightly-Silly Party) are supposed to be in favor of open borders.

Steve Sailer is right and these guys are wrong: since 1992, people have increasingly been voting by values. Whites are almost wholly values voters, latinos -mildly to moderately less so and Black folks, according to Sailer's data, could almost really care less (the only time, ever, EVER, in my life I've seen African-Americans get passionate about any moral values issue was gambling in South Carolina about 5 years ago).

So I think oj is correct when he says we'll get the Latinos and religious jews, but I wouldn't hold my breath about anybody else; still it would definitely be a net win.

Being against racists who hate you is a worthwhile value too.

"President Bush’s record on federal spending, the war in Iraq, expansion of entitlements, executive authority, the federal marriage amendment, and civil liberties have held little appeal for libertarians." The problems with Libertarians are they are unreliable and whinny. They are absolutists. Bush's spending may be record high in absloute term, but our GDP grows much faster than spending. Thus in terms of percentage to GDP, federal spending is lower. But libertarians ignore that. Their dire predictions how medicare drug coverage will grow thru the roof, but latest facts show the expenses are less than expected because of competitions from private sectors. Besides the plan shut up the Democrats who want the federal govt. to control drug prices. Hell with the libertarians.

Emma - blacks pulled out Ohio, along w/Nixon's Silent Majority.

Now that NJ has ruled on gay marriage, it might get very interesting.

I think libertarians are overrepresented on the 'Net and among the pundit class, and tend to overestimate the attractiveness of their "package" among the general population. A lot of people have "libertarian" views on economics and the role of government, but it does not follow from that that they're going to also be in favor of gay marriage, abortion, and drug legalization.

People who can't buy the liberal cant any more, but who haven't the guts to admit it, claim to be libertarians because it sounds high-minded to their colleagues in the faculty lounge or at the water cooler.

They're basically mealy mouthed lefties who realize that liberals won't keep us safe from terrorist attacks and who wouldn't mind a few more bucks in their pay check and who, in the privacy of the voting booth, will think twice before voting for the Dem and pull the Republican lever.

If you recognize yourself and will vote against the Dems, please make sure you get to the polls and VOTE, if not don't bother yourself.

When it comes to electoral patterns, why should we listen to a guy who once wrote an article called "The Coming Libertarian Age"?

There are two types of libertarians: The first are generally reasonable folks who are willing to compromise. They are realistic enough to know that they can't get everything they want whenever they want it. They are on good terms with conservatives, with whom they politely disagree from time to time. I call them Friedmanites.

Then there are the mind-manacled cultists who rail against government and see potential fascism around every turn. They are absolutists with a creepily technocratic vision of the world and, like Marxists, they believe their ideology explains the world and everything in it. They view selfish behavior as virtuous and their proclaimed love of freedom is largely a cover for their narcissism. I call them Randites.

The Randites seem to have the upper hand right now. Reason magazine ran an article a while back on the top 50 libertarian figures of the last half-century, and they included Madonna and Dennis Rodman. Their explanation was that such individuals push the boundaries. I'm not sure what that has to do with smaller government, although it certainly works if your conception of a perfect world runs roughly alongside that of the glory-hogging wide receiver who pounds his chest shouting: "Me, me, me!!!"

there are actual young white single men of middle and upper class background and then grown but juvenile men.

Libertarians--right...

I used to subscribe to Reason and read it every month. But then I realized that virtually the only thing they really cared about was legalizing drugs. And most of the rest was just loopy stuff.

Let's be brutally honest. We're talking about grown up, seemingly educated people, who read Ayn Rand and think, wow, what a great novelist.

Nuff said.

...if only Atlas Shrugged were 300 pages longer....

...if only Atlas Shrugged were 300 pages longer....

Wasn't it the only Reader's Digest Condensed Book to take up the entire volume? And isn't even the Cliff's Notes over a hundred pages?

Libertarians care about one of 4 things: drugs, guns, gay sex and porn. Everything else is window dressing.