I find it very odd, those who claim the political right are the ones who refuse the capitalist ideal of keeping costs to a minimum.
They complain of high costs to buy the units but don't think of ways to buy at a better price.
Very low quality right wingers.
For about some it's about government controlling every aspect of daily life. Telling what you can eat - or if that fails, taxing their fantasy-du-jour foodstuff beyond reach. Telling you have to buy stuff you don't want.
For others it's about value. CFLs might save electricity but you have to turn (most of) them on about a half hour before you want to see anything. Then when they burn out (at about 25% of their "rated" life for many) you're mandated to take them to a haz-mat disposal site because they're full of stuff that can kill.
For others, no point in buying the cheaper ones - they still cost several times that of an incandescent and burn out before any payback. The really good ones are priced out of reach. So where's the value? It comes with elimination of costs that are not immediately apparent. Good deal to pay 10X the cost of an incandescent when the cost of getting to where it is to replace a lamp is 100X the cost of the purchase. That's the real saving; the reduced power consumption is just gravy.
LEDs will become popular when ways are found to make them last without making them prohibitively expensive. That WILL happen but not by government mandate. It'll happen through competition. Competition that will be lessened when people are forced to buy them without regard to how they'll last or how much they cost.