Some conservative's hope for Bush's Loss. (NOT BUSH BASHING I PROMISE)

[millwx]

Which Republican Group will have the best/worst showing for George Bush. Who will punish him and who will reward him for his policies.

1.  anti-government conservatives
2.  social conservatives
3.  neoconservatives idealists
4.  Buchananite Paleoconservatives
5.  libertarians
6.  pragmatic Nelson Rockefeller-style Internationalists

and for what reason

1.  Bush increased Government size and spending
2.  Bush tainted the America's  international Reputation
3.  To create Gridlock between Congress and President
4.  To allow the Republican Party to regenerate and come back stronger than ever
5. To set up Bill Owens and/or other Republican for a stronger (Reagan-esqe) Presidency from 2008  through 2020

I am a combination of GOP type 1, 6, & 4 in that order.  I hope Bush loses for reasons 1, 2, & 3 in that order.

I am a combination of 1, 5 and 6.  Bush is the antithesis of #5 and nearly as bad on #1... I passionately hope he loses, and he is one of the primary reasons I've dropped my Rep registration.

[millwx]

millwx- Who do you now support? Are you backing Kerry or some other candidate?

I am backing Kerry, but solely out of support for the defeat of Bush.  Of course, in my state, it's largely irrelevant.  I could (maybe should) support who I can in good conscience.  I most approve of Badnarik.  However, I find that most Libertarian supporters are less than even-handed in their Libertarianism, and, thus, so are the candidates they choose to represent the party.  In short, I absolutely do not agree with Badnarik on all issues.  Nonetheless, he's the candidate I'm most aligned with.  Still, I'll vote Kerry.  My hope is that that in 2008 the Republicans will then put forth someone more reasonable.  I'm doubtful, but that's what I'm hoping for.  The alternative frightens me... If Bush wins re-election, the Reps will tend to run another clone out there in 2008... perhaps even Jeb Bush... or at least someone of that ilk.  And who will he run against?  Probably Hillary.  Good God, that's a choice from hell.  Kerry keeps Hillary out and runs an outside chance (I admit, unlikely) of prodding the Reps to change direction a bit.

[millwx]

Actually, the party looks to have a lot of good options, unlike 2000... Romney, Hagel, Pawlenty (?), Allen, Ehrlich (?)... (?) denoting questions regarding their political intentions.

Your definition of "good" options varies wildly from mine.  Allen and Ehrlich are also severely libertarian-challenged.  Romney and Hagel are better, but "good"?  Ehhh... I dunno... mediocre... I might vote for them depending on what the competition is.  I don't know Pawlenty... whoever that is.

[millwx]

As an Ayn Rand Crazy type I used to support that breed of Republicans that believed that Government should take as little in taxes as possible and then spend it wisely when they did.

I would like any current Bush supporter to explain to me why the $500,000,000$540,000,000 seniors drug bill is anything other than a $ Half Trillion+  give away to the drug companies.

If the Dems threw away that kind of cash bribing the Unions (a Standard Dem practice via so called "prevailing" wage rules) the GOP correctly would pop a valve.

The GOP is now similar to the Dems - they just use taxpayers money to bribe different people.

Amen!  As I said in another thread... the Republicans aren't "conservative" any more, they're right-wing liberals.  They just like big govt intrusion and huge entitlement programs for different groups than the Dems do.

[millwx]

Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  

"That government which governs best, governs least [socially and fiscally]."

I'd tend not to call them socially liberal.  By the way some people classify it today, I suppose, yes, they are.  But, programmatically (e.g., entitlement programs) they are not terribly "liberal".  They do, however, oppose current or additional laws instituting greater social restrictions.  To that end, under some traditional definitions of conservative, they are socially conservative... i.e., favoring less govt interference.  But I understand your point.  By many people's definition, they are socially liberal.  Personally, I disagree.  But I guess that's more philosophical than anything else.

[millwx]

Entitlements and social programs are on the fiscal side.  the socil side is stances on non-fiscal issues (USA PATRIOT Act, Abortion, etc).  Favor of a welfare state is a fiscally liberal attribute.

If you want to lump the programmatic side of social policy into the fiscal side, then I suppose it'd be correct to classify them as "fiscally conservative, socially liberal".  Although, I still have a difficult time calling smaller govt (which is what their social stances amount to) anything but conservative.  I think the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" have really gotten bastardized over the past 20-30 years.