In the interest of full disclosure, mowo is not without my influence, though she is definitely of her own opinions and directions. And, she did this unbeknownst to me, and the 2nd against my request, as she is now stubborn like me. She Was a bleeding heart liberal when I met her, bad as they come as she thought she knew it all, and within 3 months she was able to see through the Left’s whole facade (she just had to want to see… and I didn’t quite reveal my leanings all at once). And, believe me when I tell you, the deep value system is a work in progress, as we disagree still over things like discussing birth control with the daughters.

However, the R’s now likely have her vote forever… lest they get too, well, arrogant, like I think someone else here said. Notice that it’s the same mistake He makes. And, I wonder really just how many such so-co chanting has brought to the team from the other side… to not try is to rely on their failure.

Generally speaking, the fact of the matter is that we are likely screwed 6 ways to Sunday regardless (remember I am just an alarmist with low expectations who doesn’t know what he’s talking about)… as the possibility that government will ever shrink is, well… purely theoretical to this point in time. As far as 2012, right now it seems somewhat of a hedge bet. I have to hope things get bad enough that people will just, sigh, and defer to an R. For if they do not, it’s hard to see with the current field and opinion just how the majority would be drawn to any.

To my righteous brothers:

(A) Nationally speaking, in the 2010 and 2012 elections, social conservatism (which does not own immigration, education, or capitalism) will not be the primary, secondary, or even tertiary issue, unless it’s a negative.

(B) A CK nugget from above, “With only a few exceptions, the entire Republican Party is made up of RINOs.”

(C) He no longer thirsts for conquest. You, are to show the way. Not impose it. That would not please Him.

1. Social conservative positions enjoy the support of a majority of Americans. Over 51% now consider themselves prolife. Over 80% oppose gay marriage. How does abandoning these majorities help the Republican party. It is the Democrats who now have to hide their true positions behind such bogus rhetoric as “reducing the number of abortions” or “a path to citizenship.” Why do you think Mr. Obama never ran as the pro-abortion, pro-infantcide? Why do you think he came out for traditional marriage? If our opponents are afraid to challenge our social conservative positions, why in the world are we in a hurry to abandon them?

2. McCain and Palin did a fine job at minimizing these issues and they lost. Period. I watched all four of the debates and I can remember only a few times that the Republicans took a firm stand on social conservative principles and it cost them votes. I can only remember one question that even challenged Mr. Obama to address a social conservative position. Why were his supporters in the MSM afraid to raise the issue if their positions are so politically appealing?

3. Social conservatives principles are much more than abortion and gay marriage. Two of the issues you mentioned as a key to a Republican victory – immigration and education – are social conservative issues.

4. The left has this country on the brink of socialism because they have been waging a campaign designed to promote social liberalism since the 1960s. How can we expect to reverse the direction of the country and defeat the Dems unless we counter their social liberalism? Ideas do matter and socialism only flows from secularism and humanism.

5. Social conservative issue are our bridge into the African American and Hispanic communities. Hispanics are predominately Catholic and socially conservative. African Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage. Why not build on this common ground? Instead you guys would have us scrap the common ground and then try to gain entry into their voting blocks by talking about balanced budgets.

We are on the same team but if you want to win you guys better wise up and stop worrying about what the MSM will say if you support traditional values.

And I’m not saying you are mean spirited – you clearly are a very principled [guy/gal] who wants to do the right thing. I agree that character is key – but at least short term, not much you can do to instill character in other people’s kids so that they don’t have an unplanned pregnancy (or don’t get an abortion if they do), or to make other people’s kids not be gay (or not want to get married if they are). Plus, (televised) blabbing too much on anti-gay stuff beyond “I believe marraige is between a man and a woman” makes a pol seem like they don’t have their priorities straight (pardon the pun), and can be perceived as creepy and even a little, well, gay. No point in running the risk of getting Santorum-ed. Gay people are here, they’re queer, and most of us are used to it. This will get more true numbers-wise every year. I know a majority of people are against gay marriage, but the federal constitutional amendment thing is a non starter. (I don’t expect R candidates to come out against it, but am begging them not to get wrapped up in it to begin with.)

On the abortion thing, it’s awful, it makes me sick, I don’t deny that “abortion is murder” but (A) as a woman I wouldn’t vote to outlaw myself from getting a first trimester abortion, even though I can’t imagine a situation short of Rosemary’s Baby where I would consider it and (B) my Christian concern for other people’s kids is frankly overridden right now by my animal/survival priority of protecting my own kid’s future. It’s great, heck it’s preferable if an R candidate is a SoCo (I am a big Sarah booster), I just think they should focus on the economy, defense, education – priorities most of us can agree on and where there’s an opportunity for the Prez to make a big difference. An R Prez who eschews “litmus tests” during the campaign could still wind up appointing a strict constructionist who would overturn Roe. If done right, education reform and a better economy could lead to fewer abortions, and maybe, eventually, a majority of the population in many states who agree they don’t want elective abortion to be available anymore. Still unclear on how to prevent or reverse gayness though.

We’re on the same team, buddy. Just offering my humble perspective cuz I’ve had enough of these jokers and wanna win next time!

The backburner position you stated @73 is not even a “let’s hold the line” position. You actually argue that conservatives should concede ground on social conservative issues in order to not appear mean-spirited. Why would you even think opposition to gay marriage is considered mean-spiritied? An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose it yet you would surrender the issue. Your fear is of the MSM who characterize the position as mean-spirited.

Fiscal restraint and personal responsibility is as much a character issue as it is a financial one. Yet, you hope to create fiscal restraint and personal responsibility without addressing the issue of character. Good luck with that one.

Your proposal is unacceptable to me. You might argue that I have no choice because I could not possibly vote for a Democrat and this would be true. However, you don’t just need my last minute sigh and vote – like I gave McCain. You need me to be fired up, to talk to be and get out the vote, to donate money above all. To get that from social conservatives you will have to do better than what you propose. Otherwise you can side with the RINOs and see how that works out for everyone – McCain redux.

Distraught is right. If we want to save our nation, we need to be practical. This does NOT mean putting “RINOs” in the general election – R candidates who self describe as pro choice, pro gay marraige will fail. But SoCo issues need to be backburnered so we can focus on preventing/reversing the massive grabs for our liberty and our wallets that the Dems are steamrolling. Backburner means “I’m pro life, but I recognize that the state of the law (i.e. federal protection for first trimester abortion and federal ban on “husband notification” requirement) is what it is. I would sign a bill that further restricts late term abortion except in emergency situations. If I have the opportunity to appoint a SCOTUS justice, I will appoint the person who I think is the best person for the job, best knowledge of and fidelity to the law, who has displayed the most consistent good judgment. I wouldn’t impose any litmus test that required the candidate to agree with every point of my political agenda.”

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but I don’t think the government should get in the way of consenting relationships between adults, and I think that the legal rights that go along with marriage should be available to gay couples. Federal and state governments shouldn’t deny legal rights to gay couples, but I would leave it up to churches to decide if they wanted to join gay couples and call it “marriage”. My legislative priorities are protecting the freedom and security of the American people and reining in government spending so that we don’t burden our grandchildren with a debilitating national debt.” DONE. Getting bogged down in SoCo issues beyond this (at least for right now) makes the R brand look mean spirited and backward, and it hurts us in national elections.

It is something that cavemen could, and mostly likely did, do, and requires no language or theory, just impulse and observation. Science is not so restrictive, just well-defined. Further I thought a height measurement boring, and a speed, difficult.

Thanks for the discussion.