Libertarians were the huge losers in the Bush/Kerry election. The choice was big spending Bush, or even BIGGER spending Kerry, plus tax increases (on the rich! how would that get more jobs?).

If you look at three Bush policies: pro-War, pro-Tax Cuts, pro-God, you find out that Kerry had huge support on economic issues — anti-Cuts.
See http://tomgrey.motime.com/1100218857#372506

In such a tri-issue group, one would expect that agreement on two issues would lead to support for that candidate. But there were two groups for which this seemed to not be the case:
pro-War, anti-Cuts, anti-God (Liberal Hawks; almost like Sullivan, whose support for the War wasn’t enough; more like Roger Simon & Michael Totten). War/ terrorism is the big issue.

The other group are the “moral value” pro-lifers, especially Catholics. Who are:
anti-War (pope was against), anti-Cuts, pro-God.

In the coming Dem meltdown, faction fighting, etc., it would be good for anti-God small gov’t types to think about adjusting the Dem position to measure results of gov’t programs. Like reading scores, house ownership rates, etc — so as to say Bush isn’t doing enough, but to get used to judging policy more on reality measures rather than rhetoric.

Libertarians were the huge losers in the Bush/Kerry election. The choice was big spending Bush, or even BIGGER spending Kerry, plus tax increases (on the rich! how would that get more jobs?).

If you look at three Bush policies: pro-War, pro-Tax Cuts, pro-God, you find out that Kerry had huge support on economic issues — anti-Cuts.
See http://tomgrey.motime.com/1100218857#372506

In such a tri-issue group, one would expect that agreement on two issues would lead to support for that candidate. But there were two groups for which this seemed to not be the case:
pro-War, anti-Cuts, anti-God (Liberal Hawks; almost like Sullivan, whose support for the War wasn’t enough; more like Roger Simon & Michael Totten). War/ terrorism is the big issue.

The other group are the “moral value” pro-lifers, especially Catholics. Who are:
anti-War (pope was against), anti-Cuts, pro-God.

In the coming Dem meltdown, faction fighting, etc., it would be good for anti-God small gov’t types to think about adjusting the Dem position to measure results of gov’t programs. Like reading scores, house ownership rates, etc — so as to say Bush isn’t doing enough, but to get used to judging policy more on reality measures rather than rhetoric.

There is an undeniable net migration of population South and Southwestern. And likely better economic growth in the first Bush term, some of which is due to politico-economic factors, like low taxes, right-to-work laws, and cheap land (and low services). And certainly local economic conditions are related to the political environment. The high tech boom of the 90′s focused around high-education, high service areas as a contrast.

Certainly a libertarian should be looking at the way federal policies might be affecting where recent growth is occurring before drawing conclusions as to the importance of local political conditions. These factors would include
increased military spending, water subsidies for the SW, the change in tax law to make the sales tax deductible, immigration policies, a continuing health care subsidy that probably favors retirement areas, etc. And the particularized pork that a Republican Congress generated.

There is an undeniable net migration of population South and Southwestern. And likely better economic growth in the first Bush term, some of which is due to politico-economic factors, like low taxes, right-to-work laws, and cheap land (and low services). And certainly local economic conditions are related to the political environment. The high tech boom of the 90′s focused around high-education, high service areas as a contrast.

Certainly a libertarian should be looking at the way federal policies might be affecting where recent growth is occurring before drawing conclusions as to the importance of local political conditions. These factors would include
increased military spending, water subsidies for the SW, the change in tax law to make the sales tax deductible, immigration policies, a continuing health care subsidy that probably favors retirement areas, etc. And the particularized pork that a Republican Congress generated.

But then again, the fact that booming populations occur mainly in southern and western areas, perhaps there are climatic factors at work rather than economic ones.

But then again, the fact that booming populations occur mainly in southern and western areas, perhaps there are climatic factors at work rather than economic ones.

I would expect the two to be very closely correlated.

I would expect the two to be very closely correlated.