The anointed frontrunners in the race for the Republican nomination make up for in name recognition what they lack in commonalities with Republican voters. Mitt Romney formerly supported a right to an abortion. Now that he's trolling for votes among the Rebubbalicans, he notes that he, like Ronald Reagan, evolved on the abortion question. Rudy Giuliani supports abortion on demand. John McCain, the candidate that strangely elicits the most venom among conservatives, alone among the big three boasts a consistently pro-life voting record. All three candidates have supported citizenship as a reward for illegal immigrants. Romney supported gun control in his sucessful run for Massachusetts governor and Giuliani enforced one of the nation's strictest gun control ordinances as mayor of New York. Their positions on gay marriage seem to fluctuate with what voters they're trying to impress.

The Republican frontrunners are less Republican and more frontrunner. It's not that they disagree with the base on an issue here, an issue there. They disagree with the base about the issues most salient to the base. The base, thankfully, is starting to wake up. At this weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference, the first one I've missed in more than a decade, "Rudy McRomney" buttons, with a slash over the amalgamated candidate's name, sold well. "I feel very angry and betrayed," direct mail guru Richard Viguerie declared at CPAC. "We should withhold support from all major Republican [presidential] candidates today." Amen.

Mitt Romney won the straw poll at CPAC. Assuming the poll's legitimacy, it's telling that the top vote-getter received just 21 percent of the ballots cast. Four out of five participants chose another candidate and two of three conference-goers chose not to participate. It's an open field. Conservatives don't have a candidate yet. Should one emerge the mathematics would add up to the wrong answer for the three Republicrats dominating the field. 1. There are more Rebubbalicans than Republicrats in the Republican Party. 2. Three Republicrats would split a smaller pie than the one Rebubbalican would get to gorge on.

Have to agree. Flip flopping and pandering at its finest. But (for now) what is a voter to do? Romney, sensing McCain's vulnerability with regards to the illegal immigrant/border issue, is starting to sound strong on enforcement and trying to run away from the dreaded 'A' word (amnesty). I can be bull$hited. Even if he doesn't mean it totally, he may continue to have his feet held to the fire thus maintain a position. Better than a guy who works with Ted Kennedy and essentially tells you he's A-Ok with allowing the law to be broken.

www.ronpaulexplore.com

The only republican running that is consistently anti-war, anti-abortion, anti-illegal immigration, and pro-liberty.

Interesting. Looks like a good man.

From what I can tell from a brief look at the results of a Google search, he has the correct opinion on abortion (e.g., http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html).

I suspect there are some consequences of his libertarianism that I would disapprove of, but he appears to be immeasureably superior to the current lot.

Such as?

As a libertarian, it wouldn't surprise me if he were a supporter of gay marriage, legalizing drugs, etc.

He is not a supporter of gay marriage, nor a supporter of a constitutional amendment banning it.

He is of course quite sensibly a supporter of drug legalization, as making drugs illegal amounts of subsidies for drug dealers.

amounts to*

'Supporter' is ambiguous. He may be personally against it or find it distasteful, but nevertheless believe that gays should not be prohibited from getting married.

It is only sensible if liberty is more important than virtue. 'Subsidies' for drug dealers must be weighed against the morality of legalizing drugs. For an excellent piece on the incompatability of conservatism and libertarianism, see http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=021307B

I've read the article. It's alright. Its not as good as this one:

http://emp.byui.edu/DavisR/202/Libertarians.htm

Though Kirk makes a fool out of himself in it.

In any event, the only way to deal with drug users is to dismantle the welfare state. There is no other option.

Currently, we make drug empires rich and push up street crimes, while doing nothing to push down the actual rate of drug consumption.If we legalized it in the context of a welfare state, we would just have legions of poor smoking up on the public dole.

What we ought do is simply legalize it and also abolish the entitlement state. Those who chose to use drugs could simply fail and drop out of society. More likely, they would reform their ways because of the enhanced importance of family, church, and other non-governmental organizations for their community & welfare.

Dan,

Don't forget that Guiliani actually supports welfare "entitlements" for illegal aliens (I am not talking about emergency care). He is worse than Hillary Clinton on immigration.

Ben-T, the abstract idealism of libertarianism that has and will always make it a failure in practical politics is telling in your claim that: "What we ought do is simply legalize it [drug use] and also abolish the entitlement state." The many (conservative) questions this raises for me include: 1) which comes first abolition of the welfare state or drug laws?; 2) How does one dismantle the welfare state?; 3) How does one deal w/ those serving sentences that are for or partly for drugs?; 4) How long will it take to see the wonderful effects you predict if this drastic change to American life is enacted by law?

I could go on w/ questions and arguments against the prudence of drug legalization anyway, like Ralph offers but the practical impossibility of your hopes is what I consider hamstringing to libertarianism. The frequent arguments about drug legalization reflects the radicalism of the libertarian and isolates them from erstwhile allies.