I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Democrats have traditionally been about large government and nanny-state policies. Something weird happened in the Bush lea

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Democrats have traditionally been about large government and nanny-state policies. Something weird happened in the Bush leadership where we got the traditional conservative laissez-faire policy toward military and the private sector, but also large government/nanny-state policies indicative of Democrats. The result was actually something coming very close to an outright fascism. I know that's one of those words people throw around a lot, but we were coming close to that definition with the level of power the federal government was wielding domestically, and how much power they also gave back to private sectors, doing things like prosecuting citizens criminally for tort offenses. So, no, Bush !== Obama. Obama is actually playing right out of the traditional democrat handbook, but the world has changed, and the New Democrat (TM) is an individual that wants the social freedoms traditional progressives offered without the nanny-state. Obama's losing the NDs in droves. Libertarians keep trying to Co-opt this group, but it's not going to happen. We have a two-party state, and it's statistically infeasible to have anything but. I'd rather morph the group that didn't seat Bush into what I want than try to bootstrap a whole new party. Party politics is far too entrenched in this country for anything else to happen.