I do find there to be some cognitive dissonance between libertarianism and the anti-abortion position and wonder why I don’t hear those views aired in Republican circles where both parties find themselves.

That’s probably because very few Republicans are really libertarian and they prefer to think of the libertarians as too far from the mainstream to deserve much attention. Libertarians, on the other hand, figure they can invade a Democratic party as easily as the Republican party if they are more concerned with the social side of libertarianism than with the economic side of libertarianism.

I would agree to some extent about the abortion issue. The Supreme Court decision preceded by 5 years the founding of the Moral Majority and its influence in the Republican Party began a bit later. The influx of socially conservative Christian movements into the Republican Party and the importance of those voters to electoral victories certainly moved the party rapidly toward the pro-life position. I doubt that the country club Republicans who dominated party affairs prior to the late 1970′s were particularly concerned about the issue.

I do find there to be some cognitive dissonance between libertarianism and the anti-abortion position and wonder why I don’t hear those views aired in Republican circles where both parties find themselves.

Also, I think the reason that abortion appears to be a litmus test for Republicans is that the Democrats generally are satisfied with the status quo on that issue – very few of them are pushing for fewer abortion restrictions (as opposed to fewer restrictions on abortion funding). Democrats generally seem to see abortion as a non-issue except when someone passes or proposes new abortion restrictions. On the other hand there are many Republicans who are anything but satisfied with how accessible abortion is and how tolerant the law is of things like late term abortions. If abortion were only available in the first trimester with parental consent required for minors you might well see it as more of a litmus test among Democrats than it is now, and less of a litmus test among Republicans than it is now.

On the other hand, we see Democrats receiving the full support of their party and the incumbent President of their party whose policy positions are more in tune with moderate to conservative Republicans than with the traditional base of their party. When a moderate Republican runs in a primary, the party generally opposes him and will try to substitute a conservative loyalist. IMHO, the Republican Party base has more consistent views on the issues and will get out and vote for their candidate because they are confident that the candidate will support their values. The Democratic Party tends to support and nominate candidates that support the corporate interests that pay for their campaigns. As a result the policy views of those candidates can differ substantially from those of the party base. That tends to suppress the vote unless the candidate is very charismatic or the Republican opponent is seen as a villain. In more conservative states, that policy difference is not so dramatic.

I recognize what Charles is saying about Republicans and Blue Dogs, but I’m wondering why that is – why is a portion of the Democratic party more closely aligned with the Republicans while there really is no portion of the Republicans more closely aligned with the Democrats (except when it comes to taking our money to fund government leeches like Haliburton and Planned Parenthood – then solid majorities of both parties are completely in harmony with each other)?

But yes I see your point, Democrats haven’t made anywhere nearly enough attempts to just shove it through.

I find Chris Floyd’s take on the Obama presidency more astute than that of Will Wilkinson when he says “But Obama is not “failing”; he is doing exactly what he set out to do: be the president. That’s it. That’s all he wanted to do. And he’s doing it. The panic now emanating from the White House is not that of a man watching a chance to realize his deeply held ideals for a better world slipping away from him; it’s just the flopsweat of a guy trying to stay perched on top of the greasy pole for another term….Obama…stands for nothing; thus nothing he tries to do will stand. He was already hollowed out when he came into office, with a “brand” not an agenda, not a program — and, as becomes increasingly apparent all the time, not a clue.”

Republicans even voting against things they supported just to take a swipe at Obama. They voted against troop funding, they voted against a bipartisan fiscal responsibility committee charged with cutting the deficit.

Obama has certainly screwed up a few things, but any party will have problems getting 100% support on every issue within their own party. Certainly Obama’s biggest problem is the amount of time he spent trying to work with republicans rather then working with his own party.

The Democrats still have some time to make a few gains, they have 3 viable paths to pass health care still at least one of which does not involve the senate, Cap and Trade is likely dead but it is still being worked on(this is actually party the baby of a republican funny enough so theirs still a chance), card check is dead for now(democrats never really pushed it much), their will be a jobs bill and because this will contain money for state governments their will likely be a few republicans on board.

I wouldn’t say all is lost for the Democrat causes, The MA election was a wake up call for the Democrats. Polling the day after showed some rather surprising results, 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown support the public option for example.