Social Conservatives Need Allies Too

108 responses so far

• 1 HollywoodBill // Jan 29, 2009 at 12:22 pm

  The biggest mistake Reagan made was giving legitimacy to the social conservatives. His three legged stool approach may have gotten him to Pennsylvania Avenue, but he might have gotten there without them. Barry Goldwater understood that the religious zealots would be the death of the GOP. His phophetic words will come back to haunt us. The bottom line is that the voters are making the decision about the role that the social conservatives are going to play in the composition of the GOP. Right now it doesn’t look good for the religious zealots. The GOP lost the Northeast and the Pacific Coast a couple of elections ago. Now the Great Lakes states and the Mountain West are voting down the Republicans. The Big Tent has morphed into the Revival Tent. The GOP has turned into a group of moralizing busybodies that appeals to fewer and fewer people. And the Palinistas refuse to accept that they also were to blame for the November loss. But as of right now, whatever the GOP is selling, the public isn’t buying.

• 2 Oneon1isto // Jan 29, 2009 at 12:49 pm

  Joe, I think the key question here isn’t “what other policies are you concerned about?” but rather “where do you rank your preferred policies?”. It’s the trumping of religion over the governing policies of economics, foreign relations, science, crime and education that makes your latter views largely irrelevant, unless social conservatives can begin to unpack the laws of God versus the laws of Man.

• 3 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 12:54 pm

  Hollywood Bill: Or was the biggest mistake the social conservatives made giving legitimacy to Reagan? That was the position of plenty of social conservatives at the time, and is the position of plenty of social conservatives now… I’d be careful what you ask for. Free trade and bellicosity are hard sells in ANY political climate, however justified.

• 4 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 12:56 pm

  Oneon1isto: I’m not sure what you mean by my latter views. On what?

• 5 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:03 pm

  I think I know what you mean, rereading your comment. For “unpacking the laws of God vs. the laws of Man”, see the last 18 years of issues of First Things. They’re on the firstthings.com website, so they don’t cost you a thing!

• 6 HollywoodBill // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:06 pm

  joe–Reagan won 44 states in the 1980 election. He won 489 electoral votes to Carter’s 40. The social conservatives tend to be in the South and the Bible Belt. Reagan could have lost the entire South and still have won the election. Since that fateful election, the religious zealots have believed that they have been the one and only reason why Republicans win elections. They constantly whine how they receive nothing for their support. Thanks to Reagan, they are entitled to a seat at the table. However, they don’t deserve the surf and turf while the rest of us are eating the rubber chicken. They are more trouble than they are worth. It is time that they realize that like everyone else, they are just a part of the production and not the stars of the show.

• 7 Fitz // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:08 pm

  Thomas J. Marier is largely correct. Social conservatives are the most important, solidified, and active part of the Republican coalition.

  Unlike many posters I realize that the Republican Party would be no were without social conservative voters. Weekly Church attendance is the number one predictor of if people vote republican.

  No serious person can claim that strong foreign policy devotees or low taxes/less government devotees make up a coherent voting block that can get out the vote or change minds the way social conservatives do.

  The idea expressed by many that somehow social conservatives are really an embarrassment and yokel hayseeds plays right into the sophisticate leftist playbook. Social conservatives are not nationally pushing against evolution, or against science or for a flat earth or what not. These are dower little memes that dont tap into reality in as much as they flatter cultural leftists and libertines so they dont have to weight their conscious.

  I hope the New Majority Blog keeps strong social conservative voices within its pages. Otherwise it is domed to irrelevance. Most social conservatives know we need to be militarily strong to keep us safe. They want less taxes so they can afford single breadwinner families and multiple children. Most importantly they realize that larger government means more powerful government. They rightfully fear State power because it is all intrusive and (currently in time) run by aggressive secularists with no respect for principles of natural law or subsidiarity.

  David Frum and the rest of the New Majority coalition must have a real sense that social conservative concerns are what make the republican majority a viable majority. Abandon that and its back to Rockefeller republican irrelevance.

• 8 mpolito // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:13 pm

  Excellent article. I personally am reluctanct to move left on any issues on a national level. Obviously, a candidate has to play politics to some degree in a given state/district, but that does not neccesarily entail an overall leftward shift.

  Bill- Social conseratives are not to blame for the November loss. The economy is. In fact, McCain was to Bush’s left on social issues (see Federal Marriage Amendment and stem cell research) and he lost. As for the Midwest and Mountain West, remember that the following states passed gay-marriage bans (each by upwards of 56%) between 2004 and 2008: MI, WI, OH, CO, NV, and OR. These states are not exactly embracing SF values. Let me give another example: Chris Shays (former GOP rep) from a district one over from mine in CT. He was literally as moderate as one could be (with the exception of the Iraq war) and this got him through in 2006, but he finally lost in 2008. His loss demonstrates that you can be as moderate as anything, but if voters want a Democrat, they’ll go for the real thing. Even Shays’ moderation did not prevent him from being swept away.

• 9 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:17 pm

  Hollywood, I’m not sure that what you’re saying is contradicting what I said in my post. I sympathize with your concerns, but I heartily disagree that conservatives who want a robust foreign policy and tax cuts were eating rubber chicken from 2000-2008.

• 10 sinz54 // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:18 pm

  I want to make two points, which I am forced to split into two posts because this blog has a problem with long posts: First, the notion that the GOP lost the 2006 and 2008 election because social conservatives didn’t turn out in sufficient numbers is a myth. Exit polls showed that turnout compared favorably with 2004. McCain because of massive defections of Independent and Swing voters, groups that he used to score well with. David Frum’s article today “Base? What Base?” shows that the GOP base has now shrunk so much that it could have huge turnout and still the GOP would lose.

• 11 HollywoodBill // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:21 pm

  There’s one little problem Fitz. The social conservatives are incapable of winning elections outside of the South and the Bible Belt. Pennsylvania threw out the unacceptable Rick Santorum. Santorum did the impossible. He lost his third bid for reelection. Ohio dismissed the dream candidate of the Ayatollahs Dobson and Perkins, Ken Blackwell in his gubernatorial bid in 2006 by giving him only 37% of the vote. He couldn’t even carry the Republicans. The Republicans are gone in the Northeast, the Pacific Coast, and with this election, the Great Lakes States and the Mountain West. The electorate is talking to us. Social conservatives are unacceptable except in the South and the Bible Belt. And that’s not enough to win national elections. Oh yeah, one last thing. Sarah Palin is 100% unacceptable on the national stage.

• 12 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:24 pm

  Mpolito and Fitz, thanks for your kind words. I think referring to Rockefeller Republicans confuses the issue. He was running pre-1973.

• 13 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:28 pm

  Hollywood, it’s untrue that social conservatives are incapable of winning elections outside the South and the Bible Belt. Check out the Senate vote on the Mexico City Policy. Keep in mind that Rick Santorum’s opponent claimed to be pro-life at the time, and social conservatives had a beef with Santorum over his support of Arlen Specter.

  Oh, and I consider “Ayatollahs” abusive, so watch it.

• 14 sinz54 // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:29 pm

  My second point is that if social conservatives are still dissatisfied with the GOP as it stood in 2008, then what more can reasonably be done to make them feel better about the party? The 2008 GOP platform was already as hard-right as could be on social issues, even suggesting that the Fourteenth Amendment be extended to protection of the unborn. They had Bush, a born-again Christian and social conservative, in the White House. He got two socially conservative justices, Roberts and Alito, onto the Supreme Court. But all this was still not satisfactory? Do they want the GOP to nominate only more born-again Christians, and keep driving away moderate and Independent voters? We’re a democracy, and a minority like evangelical Christians cannot hope to get constitutional Amendments passed to their liking, no matter which party runs the White House and Congress. (The requirement that a Constitutional Amendment must be approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures, virtually guarantees that any socially conservative amendment will get stopped by the Blue States.) In short, the reason that social conservatives are unhappy is that they have set their sights way too high. They need to come up with a set of clear, attainable, MODEST goals that can be met in a country in which they are a minority, and over half the states are now Blue.

• 15 sinz54 // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:31 pm

  Joemarier: What are we supposed to check out? The Senate defeated the pro-life amendment on the Mexico City policy by a 60-37 vote. That’s a ratio of two to one AGAINST the socially conservative position.

• 16 sinz54 // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:36 pm

  Fitz, in Texas, social conservatives have been lobbying against the Gardasil vaccine, against all medical science. The Gardasil vaccine has been shown to be effective against human papilloma virus (HPV), which causes 70% of cervical cancer. The only reason social conservatives are against the vaccine is that it takes away one of their main arguments against premarital sex: HPV virus can pass through a condom and cause cervical cancer, therefore don’t have premarital sex. I guess that social conservatives believe that HPV and cervical cancer should remain out there as deterrents to premarital sex. If a vaccine were discovered to prevent lung cancer, would social conservatives lobby against it too on the grounds that lung cancer is an effective deterrent to teenage smoking?

• 17 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:43 pm

  Sinz, the GOP platform has been a dead letter for a long time; I tend to think that it should be more focused on what we can reasonably accomplish in the near-to-medium term, so that it can be something that the presidential candidate can, you know, refer to it in the acceptance speech as something worth reading. The rest of your post makes a good point, one I hope to expand upon in the future.

• 18 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:47 pm

  Re: the Mexico City vote. I was only making the point that prolifers can and do win outside the South and the “bible belt”, unless you define “bible belt” as “places where pro-lifers win,” which makes the argument circular.

• 19 Oneon1isto // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:49 pm

  Joe: sorry, should have been more specific about latter views. I mean to say that you list some very good issues (some tongue in cheek, I realize) that also are of importance to you. Like low taxes, fighting radical Islam, etc. I think an internal monologue most social conservatives need to have is how these issues relate to their religious views. What would you be willing to give up to vote for a economic conservative who had a weak pro-life stance? Or is pro gay-marriage? What’s grating for many about social conservatism is the constant reminder that religion and the issues social conservatives seek to tackle trump other options, even when the majority governing responsibilities lie outside of the religious litmus test. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on how you relate your religious convictions with (as I said in my previous post) the laws of man or more importantly, the current trials of the country. They don’t always align, and when they don’t, what do you do?

• 20 senorlechero // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:52 pm

  Mr. Marier, Great Post. I look forward to seeing more of you here. Fitz and Mpolito…you are right on and I’m with you.

• 21 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:58 pm

  Re: Gardasil: social conservatives aren’t arguing against the vaccine, they’re arguing against mandating it. A certain skepticism about government mandates in the name of “science” does conservatism well.

• 22 Fitz // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:00 pm

  Hollywood – Rick Santorum was defeated by the son of the popular Catholic and pro-life democrat Casey, His son himself ran as pro-life and only in a banner year for the democrats did Santorum lose.

  The Republicans are not gone in the Great Lakes States and the Mountain West. The electorate is talking to was simply saying, we are war wary and are looking for change. Nothing about the social conservative plank makes it unelectable outside the west coasts and northeastern seaboard In those states we can simply run moderates.. The Numbers on the marriage amendments show that.

  sinz54 – It is unfair to point to Texas, social conservatives and their lobbying against the Gardasil vaccine “against all medical science.” – #1. The issue is more complicated involving parental consent to medical issue and public financing, and (by the way) everyone knows we teach children not to smoke aggressively. I’m sure the Texans dont dispute the science of the vaccine. #2. More Importantly = It’s simply not a national issue. I could point to a thousand democrats in the universities who want to legalize prostitution or polygamy or get ride of God in the pledge or eliminate Mother & Fathers Day. Its all true and their all serious, but its not an excuse for democrats to jettison their far left or a reason behind lost elections.

• 23 HollywoodBill // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  Social conservatives can even win in the highly gerrymandered congressional districts in CA. But they haven’t won statewide since1986. The Harold Stassen of California politics, Tom McClintock, has lost six times in statewide bids. In Colorado, Representative Marilyn Musgrave was thrown out. In Arizona JD Hayworth lost in a district that was 60% Republican. Even the name Goldwater, a social conservative, didn’t help in a gubernatorial bid against Napolitano in AZ. The social conservative Republicans are unelectable in large sections of the country. By 2010 it is expected that Montana and Arizona are going to be Democratic. And the trend is going national. The only area that the GOP showed ANY growth in the last election was in Appalachia. No coalitions are forever. That is exactly why a NEW MAJORITY is necessary.

• 24 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:11 pm

  Good question, One. As I said in the article, I generally go with the most socially conservative electable candidate, which has always been a Republican in the districts where I live. With regard to the other big issues and how they relate to my faith (Catholic), I appreciate your interest. It’s a huge topic.

• 25 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:18 pm

  Thanks for largely avoiding the ad hominem, Hollywood, but you still need to ask yourself why and how people on the winning side will leave for the losing side.

• 26 Fitz // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:28 pm

  People would be more convincing if they simply stated the truth. This would also help republicans get a clearer bead on our strengths and weaknesses. That truth is that the cultural left dominates our opinion forming institutions. (Universities, the Media, Hollywood) As such they have effectively been able to portray traditional values as somehow narrow, bigoted, unsophisticated and silly.

  They are none of these things. What the republicans need is an aggressive strategy of portraying the Left as the protagonists in this little play. The ones who are forcing their values on an unwilling populace. This all has the added benefit of being the truth.

  The federalist approach of simply saying activist judiciary is not strong enough rhetoric. It is countering a moral paradigm (womens rights gay rights) with a procedural paradigm (follow the law, let the people vote)

  A moral charge needs to be met with another moral charge. So charging the left with family breakdown , responsibility for a broken underclass, moral decay will be extremely effective. We also need to realize that they wont give up on same-sex marriage. So we can use that to our advantage and continue to portray them (rightly) as the aggressors.

  Remember this move forces them to violate religious liberties (taking away adoption from Catholic Charities) to Changing marriage certificates and birth certificates (partner A, B progenitor A, B) To re-educating and aggressively propagandizing school children.

  My point is that all this can make very effective political hay. These issues are not going away and can win us everything from sympathy to new voters. We just need a more sophisticated and aggressive vocabulary and a renewed approach to the foreign policy and less government sides.

• 27 InTheMiddle12 // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:33 pm

  Chris Shays was as moderate as they come in CT and he lost, and not just because of the war and wanting change. I think you’re leaving a large piece of the calculus out. Many in the evangelical base that Rove manipulated into voting GOP have awoken to realize they were used and that their vote is worth more. Many of this group are maturing spiritually beyond the one issue (abortion) and recognizing life also is for the living and that the democrats have more, for many of them, attractive policies that the GOP. The deciding small percentage of the electorate that decides elections are in the middle, like me. And they’re looking for vision, compassion, strength, justice amongst other stuff. Those values translate left and right, right and left. When the GOP comes up with a broader candidate and after the Dems mess up, which every part does, things will swing again. I’d give it 8 years, maybe 12-15.

• 28 Oneon1isto // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:35 pm

  Joe, it is huge. I’d like to see some follow up articles from you or similar minds on this topic. As you state, part of the 51% needed to win will undoubtedly be social conservative. However, (and you mention this also) part of the reason social conservative voters share part of the blame for the ‘06 and ‘08 losses is because their turnout was so anemic. I’d argue this is because the candidates weren’t socially conservative enough. This was a huge issue for McCain before Palin got on board. And herein lies the essence of the current quandary the moderates/libertarians find themselves in with social conservatives. If a candidate is too socially conservative but enough to draw in big numbers of social conservatives, he/she generally turns off the libertarians and moderates. If a candidate isn’t socially conservative enough, they lose out on y’all. I think some issue-specific soul searching on the part of social conservatives is integral to breaking this cycle and gaining back a majority.

• 29 Oneon1isto // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:38 pm

  Fitz: So you believe conservatism as it stands is really just lacking sufficient PR in the fight against liberal opinion forming institutions? I believe the trials of the party are more than losing a PR war. The issues are more than skin deep.

• 30 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:59 pm

  Fitz, rather that go all pointy fingers and using propaganda as a means of winning back voters. Why not try to actually have policy and an agenda they can relate to? The reasons the Conservatives lost in 2006 and 2008 go way deeper than “message”. The 2008 GOP campaign was a major turnoff for the center ground. The rallies with people shouting “kill him” and other such stuff and ‘He is an Arab” was a big turn off. The politics of guilt by association and the untrue attack adds did not help either.

• 31 dragonlady // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:03 pm

  Social conservatives need to wade into cultural institutions (media, education, nonprofits, etc) to make the case to folks. Culture is more of a grassroots phenomena than a gov’t imposed ideology. We can ask gov’t though, to incentive these values. On abortion (not to debate the issue, just providing examples), was not anyone shaken during the campaign who saw the Fox interview with a fully grown women who survived an abortion? She was born alive and she said if the abortion doctor was in the room, he would have tried to kill her again. Yet the Freedom of Choice Act the Dems want to pass would allow for that. Or for the fact, some cultures abort fetuses based on their female gender–even if you are pro-choice, do you really want your tax $ going for that (aka rescind Mexico City policy)? So why not take the fight to the folks (vs looking to govt) so a consensus can be reached on reasonable limits to abortion? Most moderates and independents would be amenable to this. Try to persuade and educate folks at the grassroots level first.

• 32 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:06 pm

  Thanks all for the good comments! Keep it going, and I’ll read on.

• 33 Fitz // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  Oneon1isto & suey & All – I dont want anyone to get the wrong idea. there is plenty wrong with the whole republican party on substance & PR. this is true of social issues as well as other important planks. I stand by my comments, but allow me to clarify. Because of liberal cultural predominance they are able to frame the issue for those who are not involved intellectually. That being: moderates and swing voters and the like. We need to find a way to counter this dominance effectively. Both positively and negatively, through both persuasion and attack. Most of all we need to out-flank the cultural left on portraying ourselves as the more sophisticated and reasonable. There are multiple opportunities to do so as dragonlady says and I point out below.

• 34 jsinger008 // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:31 pm

  To answer Mr. Marier’s question — no, it’d not wrong and I’m with you all the way! I think both Fitz and “dragonlady” are on to something important when they speak about the power of ideas. In the end, those of us sympathetic to socially conservative ideas who think seriously about these ideas believe they are GOOD ideas. In other words, there are sound philosophical and empirical reasons for being against abortion, supporting gun rights, or more generally wanting a moral calculus to be part of scientific issues.

  Has anyone bothered to read some of what the President’s Council on Bioethics wrote? Dr. Kass, who is one of my favorite socially conservative thinkers, practically gave the American public a college course in modern-day ethics with respect to some of his Council’s reports:

  http://www.bioethics.gov/bookshelf/index.html

  And he and the Council were often treated shabbily by the MSM which doesn’t have the time or inclination to dive into Homer, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, etc. So I think the real work for social conservatives is to continue making their case to the American people and to the party, and to keep their case grounded in the philosophical and empirical tradition emboddied by Dr. Kass.

• 35 HollywoodBill // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:43 pm

  Here we go again. GOD, GUNS and GAYS. It was a loser in 08 and will continue to be. The GOP must have a 50 state strategy if it ever expects to win nationally again. The social conservative agenda isn’t playing anywhere except in the South. It is time to change the game plan. But there will be no more social conservatives on national tickets. That mean NO to Palin.

• 36 Fitz // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:59 pm

  HollywoodBill Your aggressive stance against any social conservative plank is the loser. You have to go with the base you have. Social issues are not what drove people top vote for Obama. Indeed his moderate approach and sometimes downright social conservatism is what made him as attractive as it is. What people are trying to tell you is that we need to counter the spin you are falling into. Its not like a pro-choice Republican like Gulillani will somehow sweet all 50 states. But thats what you seem to be saying. Given the aggressiveness of the media and universities on cultural issues its important that we play them with sophistication. Thats what we are doing when it comes to same-sex marriage by roping them in and (rightly) exposing them as the anti-democratic aggressors.

  Now I agree that Palin wont work. She simply lacks the Curriculum Vitae & Gravitas to win over urban sophisticates and the suburbs. However she has many strong points and did attract women. Her persona on cultural issues is perfect it effectively neutralizes the idea of social conservatives as haters & puts a human face on things. This is why the left came after her so aggressively; shes their worst nightmare an attractive pro-choice woman in a high profile position.

  Take the same Palin and add better schooling and you have a 50 State winner.

• 37 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:00 pm

  If we truly want to build a New Majority, then we need to stop focusing on the election results at the presidential lever and start focusing, instead, at the Congressional level. Given a particular set of circumstances, you can get a social conservative elected POTUS. But it is different story at the congressinal level. Take a look at what the Dems did. They recruited several social conservatives like Shuler and have regained the majority. Second, enough with Shays lost and that means that moderates don’t win not matter what. Shays was the victim of an increased AA turnout in Bridgeport because of Obama. If I want to make the case the moderates win but conservatives lose outside the South, all I have to do is mention two names (Susan Collins – did just fine in 2008) and Santorun (he wasn’t just defeated. ; he was humiliated). Third, let’s not limit our analysis of social issues state initiative toy marriage. In 2008 there were two initiatives to ban abortion. One in South Dakorta and one in Colorado. The Personhood Amendment in CO was defeated 73%-27%.

• 38 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  If we truly want to build a New Majority, then we need to stop focusing on the election results at the presidential lever and start focusing, instead, at the Congressional level. Given a particular set of circumstances, you can get a social conservative elected POTUS. But it is different story at the congressinal level. Take a look at what the Dems did. They recruited several social conservatives like Shuler and have regained the majority. Second, enough with Shays lost and that means that moderates don’t win not matter what. Shays was the victim of an increased AA turnout in Bridgeport because of Obama. If I want to make the case the moderates win but conservatives lose outside the South, all I have to do is mention two names (Susan Collins – did just fine in 2008) and Santorun (he wasn’t just defeated. ; he was humiliated). Third, let’s not limit our analysis of social issues state initiative toy marriage. In 2008 there were two initiatives to ban abortion. One in South Dakorta and one in Colorado. The Personhood Amendment in CO was defeated 73%-27%.

• 39 HollywoodBill // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:14 pm

  The social conservatives couldn’t even get an abortion amendment passed in South Dakota for the second time. Colorado’s Prop48 which defined life as beginning at birth, was stunningly defeated. California’s Prop8, the second time on the ballot lost by 4 points in 08. In 2000, it lost by 13. Eventually enough generational replacement will happen. Embryonic stem research has been widely approved with government funds in a few states. Creationism in schools? Don’t think so. The GOP must rebuild to win elections–not promote a theology. Bush’s aggressive socially conservative stances are not acceptable. And now, we know what to look for. The GOP is losing the libertarian Western states. But, fiscal conservatives and social moderates can and do win. Pete Wilson and of course Arnold even won in California. But we are working on a NEW MAJORITY out here. All three GOP candidates for Governor of California in 2010 are social moderates. The GOP is destined to be in the wilderness for a long time if it continues with the same losing propositions.

• 40 Oneon1isto // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:14 pm

  Fitz et al: Ok, here’s my olive branch to your PR/cultural institution argument. If you intend to wage your values culturally, and not through force of government, then you leave the libertarian side of me cheering. Your counter-argument might be: “well, the liberals have waged it through the courts, and they’re winning the war on legislation too as more gay-marriage acts come to pass, and Roe remains solid! Where’s your outrage at them?” And you’d be right. But you’ll notice though that the liberal arguments carry a strong libertarian, small government message: no differentiation between married couples actually rips government from the bedroom, something that most moderates will agree with. The upholding of Roe likewise has a strong libertarian, small government argument attached to it: keep the government away from our bodies and our doctors. This appeals to me. It may be morally iffy to justify abortion with a libertarian stance, but there you have it. I’d rather have a gray law than one that’s codified in colors of black and white. Perhaps your PR battle argument can start with trying to ascertain some strong libertarian arguments that favor your socially conservative values.

• 41 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm

  Keep in mind that the CO personhood amendment was put up by a group that was cut off a year earlier by National Right To Life for being morons. I wouldn’t read too much into that result.

• 42 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:21 pm

  Joe. What’s the excuse for South Dakota?

• 43 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:31 pm

  Don’t got one. I’m not a fan of ballot initiative politics in general. We elect people to make decisions.

• 44 Oneon1isto // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:35 pm

  Joe, they don’t give you a banhammer, or at least comment removal rights?! You should get onto David about that.

• 45 HollywoodBill // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:39 pm

  joem–It is irrelevant what you think of ballot initiatives. They were put in place in California by a Republican Congressman, Hiram Johnson, who later became Governor. They are the closest thing to a demcracy that the people can have. If you don’t like them, then put it on a ballot and see if the public will vote to get rid of them. It is the will of the people speaking in its clearest voice.

• 46 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:48 pm

  The will of the people speaking in its clearest voice? You say that like it’s a good thing! No, I prefer the muddled mediation of an ordinary politician. That’s just how Burkeans like me roll.

• 47 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 5:02 pm

  Joe. Here is my proposal for addressing the social issues:

  Abortion – Remove the HLA from the national platform. If individual states want to include it in their state platform, fine. Replace it with a statement that the party of pro-life but intends to promote a culture of life by placing reasonable restrictions (no abortions beyong the first trimester unless the life of the mother is in danger; parental notification; waiting periods); encouraging adoption; education, i.e, sex education, contraceptives.

  Stem Cell – Funding of research as long as it does not involve creating life for the sole purpose of destrying life.

  Gay Marriage – We uphold the traditional definition of marriage as one man and one woman. However, we do not support efforts to amend the Constitution and believe that this is a state issue. We recognize thaty couples are entitled to basic rights (hospital visits, inheritance, etc). Would this work? Or would there be a massive walkout by the social conservatives?

• 48 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 5:31 pm

  Some would walk out, some wouldn’t. But who would walk in? As I said earlier, who is going to leave the winning side for the losing side, and why?

• 49 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 6:04 pm

  I can’t really understand the problem. The Social conservatives have nowhere else to go. They are not going to go to the Dems. So there is no real point in tracking right and loosing in the center which is the battleground in any election. Of course they could split and found a right wing third party but that would mean a permanent Dem majority.

• 50 HollywoodBill // Jan 29, 2009 at 6:09 pm

  You nailed it suey. And followed the words of Margaret Thatcher to boot! We have found out in CA that while some socons do sit out some elections, we more than make up their absence with the valued Independent voter.

• 51 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 6:13 pm

  Bill, well I did come from the UK originally and was a great fan of M Thatcher, in my opinion the best PM the UK ever had.

• 52 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 6:14 pm

  Ah, but Suey and Holly, they could go to the Dems — specifically, to pro-life Democratic candidates (some of whom aren’t actually prolife: see Casey Jr., Bob). And the possible third party you speak of would not be a right-wing or left-wing party: it would be a SEPARATIST party, a la the Bloc Quebecois in Canada. And that’s where the REAL fun begins.

• 53 HollywoodBill // Jan 29, 2009 at 6:21 pm

  The GOP cannot be held hostage by a group of religious zealots. If the socons walk, then they walk and the Dems win. George W Bush was unacceptable as a leader. He is probably going to rank as the worst Republican President of the Century, the Dem position being held by Jimmy Carter. But the thought of another social conservative in the White House is not even remotely a possibility. If the GOP is so stupid as to put up a Palin or a Jindal in 2012, they are going to see how large a loss is possible.

• 54 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 6:30 pm

  There is a strong possibility that Barack Obama will ask Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to serve as his Secretary of Commerce, Democratic Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.

  Whhdathunk it. If right a masterstroke by Obama as it would give the Dems the 60th vote.

• 55 joemarier // Jan 29, 2009 at 6:36 pm

  Yes, and the religious zealots would rather not be held hostage by the GOP. So they form a separatist party, and both sides fight to peel off enough votes from that pool of 15-20% to get that 40-45% for a win. Now, how has the Labor Party in Canada traditionally done that? If we’re going to make absurd predictions about 2012, let me say that there’s a possibilty that in my lifetime, we’ll end up with a left-wing, pro-life President. Don’t you see what I’m trying to avoid here? (I’m not being entirely serious, because I don’t know enough about Canadian politics)

• 56 senorlechero // Jan 29, 2009 at 6:58 pm

  Cherkote…I just read your proposal, and as a hard core social conservative I would almost agree with it. I’m not ok with the line abouty marriage….”However, we do not support efforts to amend the Constitution”. I think a national debate on the issue, in the form of a constitutional amendment, would be great. Really, you did a good job with this comment, and I for one appreciate the spirit of discussion as opposed to the bashing of most of the comments.

• 57 dragonlady // Jan 29, 2009 at 7:44 pm

  Chekote, as a social conservative, I think your proposal is very reasonable. I would add to the pro-life platform championing support for special needs children. And the restrictions on it you cite are similiar to European laws, like in France. And Hollywood Bill you’re wrong on Americans not being “value voters.” They’ve voted for traditional marriage in most states that put it on the ballot (CA, FL, OH, OR) as well as parental consent/notification to abortion in states like CO, FL, and AZ. Hardly bastions of evangelicalism.

• 58 senorlechero // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:28 pm

  I wonder if suey’s comment will last? It seems to me that lefties can say whatever they want about conservatives and the posts stay up. But small amounts of snark or name calling by conservatives, or questioning Frum and friends motives for their posts will get a comment deleted post haste.

• 59 senorlechero // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:44 pm

  In the middle……..you are not in the middle if you think the “democrats have more, for many of them (evangelicals), attractive policies that the GOP” Democrats have nothing attractive to evangelicals. Your terminology is decidedly left….”maturing spiritually” and “justice” for example.

• 60 0Tolearance // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:31 pm

  Great post, Thomas.

  People with faith have put a lot of blood and sweat, and time into the Republican brand over the years…we run the phones, volunteer at the fundraisers, and more. “Moderates” act like we’re aking for so much…not really, jsut protecting some eternal basic truths. There is nothing fanatical about defending the traditions of our great country and Christianity is a major part of that. The right to pray or protect our children can never be compromizedd. But I do think that we shouldnt put all hope in the Republican party…unlike certain factions with no principles that they are loyal to, social conservatives believe in their values more than just one party. And absense may make the heart more founder.

  Let’s see how a more “moderate” – sorry “centrist” Republican party will win without us.

  Oh wait…they can’t!

• 61 TruthTeller // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:52 pm

  Forget “conservatism,” please. It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

  “[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”

  Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

  John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
  Recovering Republican
  JLof@aol.com

• 62 HHomer // Jan 30, 2009 at 5:47 am

  Inthemiddle12 has it right, the relationship between Christians and politics needs to be more sophisticated. Jesus’ example was to help the poor and heal the sick so to really promote Christian values we need to focus on policies that address these. This would enable the GOP to reach out to all people who follow Christ’s message and not just the evangelicals. Surely this is a better way to a New Majority than moving ever further to the right.

• 63 suey // Jan 30, 2009 at 6:44 am

  HHomer, You are right. What has always disturbed me about the role of the Fundamentalist Evangelicals in the GOP is that they are way too much old testament and little new testament. If as you say they did actually put the teachings, nature and character of Christ and the influence of the Holy Spirit into the process then maybe the majority of the country would see the GOP as a vastly different animal.

• 64 senorlechero // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:42 am

  HHomer…it would be nice if you knew something about what the Bible says if you are going talk about “Jesus’ example”.

• 65 senorlechero // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:50 am

  Same comment to you Suey. You have a deep missunderstanding of evangelicals. First of all, there is no disconnect between the old and the new testaments. Neither teaches believers to allow on a secular govt. to be theri charitable vehicle. I cannot grasp where you would find anything in the Bible to support your call for big govt programs to “help the poor and heal the sick”. You two are examples of reading your feelings and ideas into scripture instead of letting scripture speak for itself. I can only assume that your comment is directed toward Christians views that homosexuality is a sin, which means you ignore both Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching on it,

• 66 sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:52 am

  Chekote: I liked your proposal, EXCEPT the part about leavingy marriage up to the states. A civil marriage is a CONTRACT. And allowing one state to issue such a contract which other states may refuse to honor creates a legal and practical nightmare. It would mean that a marriedy couple would be effectively locked out of visiting (let alone moving to) a state where their marriage contract is not recognized as valid. This may even be unconstitutional. Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” That provision prevents one state from declaring that a driver’s license that was issued in another state is invalid in their state, for example. And it might also mean that a marriage license issued in one state must be considered binding in all other states. Therefore, while you could allow the ISSUING of marriage licenses to be left up to the states, the entire nation must HONOR a marriage license issued by any state. A marriedy couple from Massachusetts should not lose their rights of marriage if they happen to be visiting Mississippi or Idaho.

• 67 Chekote // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:52 am

  suey. M. Thatcher is my hero. I have an autograph copy of “The Path to Power” is one of my most cherished possession. What are doing supporting Obama? He is a far as you can get from M. Thatcher.

• 68 sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:59 am

  Suey: In my experience, many religious people really do try to help the poor and the sick and the disadvantaged–through private faith-based charities. But sometimes, you folks on the Left interfere with that, just because you don’t like the religious bent. Example: In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was running the state’s most successful adoption program for orphan children for decades. Then gays and their Left allies sued Catholic Charities to force them to place orphan children withy couples. Catholic Charities protested that this would be against their Catholic teaching, and offered to pay fory couples to adopt through some other agency. The Left said that wasn’t good enough; Catholic Charities must provide adoption services to gays, or else be found in violation of the state’s antidiscrimination laws. Rather than violate their own religious beliefs, Catholic Charities shut down their adoption program, depriving orphan children of this important service. So the next time that you Lefties say that they don’t want to trample on anyone’s private religious views, remind them of this case.

• 69 Chekote // Jan 30, 2009 at 9:05 am

  As a secularist who has participated in GOTV, I can tell you that the most dedicate voluteers are the social conservatives. If the social moderates want to have more say in the party platform, the need to get involved. Start manning the phones or contribute to a GOTV fund that will hire students to stuff envelopes, make phone calls, etc. Sitting on the sidelines and whining about the influence of Perkins, Dobson and the like in not good enough.

• 70 Chekote // Jan 30, 2009 at 9:07 am

  sinz. Personally, I do not believe that the GOP stance ony issues hurts the party. I think its hardcore stance on abortion and stem cells hurts more. Great point about the legal implications ofy marriage as exclusively a state issue.

• 71 joemarier // Jan 30, 2009 at 9:41 am

  Thanks, everyone, for keeping your comments productive. I’m still reading. One quick question to throw out there; is anyone concerned about Democrats running more socially conservative, more isolationist candidates like Heath Schuler?

• 72 HollywoodBill // Jan 30, 2009 at 9:47 am

  OTolerance, as usual, the Social Conservatives like to think that they are the only players in the game and always the only reason for the victory. Baloney. In 1980 Reagan won with 40 states and 489 electoral votes. In 84, Reagan won 49 states and 525 electoral votes. GHWBush won 40 states and 426 electoral votes. They may have played a major part in GWBush’s victory but Bush43 is hardly a reason for the Republican Party to rejoice. The social conservatives demand a lot for their so called help. They want veto power over all judicial appointments and constantly demand that everyone fight for their ridiculous cultural issues. As a result, they have alienated virtually all the regions in the country except the South and turned the GOP into a Revival Tent instead of a big tent.

• 73 suey // Jan 30, 2009 at 10:14 am

  Chekote, I am well to the right of the Democratic spectrum. There are many to the left of me. The liberals in this country are as broad if not broader a tent than the right. I was a Conservative in the UK. I believed that the unions had grabbed way too much power and were a drag on the economy and progress. I believed in the power to organise but not to abuse that power. Also the Labour party in the UK is truly a Socialist entity. I am not a Socialist by any means. When I moved to the USA I naturally gravitated to the GOP though I would have put myself on the left of the conservative movement here due to USA politics being aligned well to the right of UK politics. I was pretty happy until Bush2. I just could not stand his way of government. I was appalled by Iraq and Katrina, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rove turned me off big time. So I left the GOP and became an independent. When Obama came along I liked him as an individual and made it my business to meet him and ask him some questions that were important to me. I was impressed by his answers and his intelligence. So I signed on and the rest is history. I like smart government that actually works for the people, labels are less important to me. I will be Obama’s fiercest critic if he screws up.

• 74 suey // Jan 30, 2009 at 10:21 am

  Senor I was an Evangelical Church Deacon and biblical teacher for many years so I think I understand where they come from. I like to see faith actually being put to practical use for good. To use the Bible old or new testament as a political weapon of intolerance is to me an anathema.

• 75 haloagain // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:54 am

  senorlechero:

  Jesus didn’t teach about homosexuality. I’m not even christian and I’ve read the gospel enough times to know that. why would you claim he did around 8:50 am? could you quote that saying of jesus? give me a chapter and verse?

  also, the sermon on the mount negates A LOT of the old testament. Like the passage in Leviticus about stoning your neighbor to death for not worshiping on the sabbath. Jesus said well, that’s not ok now. I’ve got some new rules for you folks. listen up.

  where are we supposed to take your comments? if you know the bible well, then you are being intellectually dishonest. If you do not know the bible well, then you are speaking on subjects that you don’t understand.

• 76 Chekote // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:59 am

  Well, I am uncomfortable with using religious texts as a basis of pulic policy. Today, the Bible. Tomorrow, the Koran. I fiercely believe in separation of church and state mostly because I grew up in Italy and have seen first hand some of the hypocrisy and abuses of the Catholic Church. I believe the founding fathers “got it right” in not establishing a state religion. They even went so far as using such subjective language as “Creator” instead of God. This in the 1700s. Just think how revolutionary that was. I don’t like the use the teachings of Jesus to justify a legislation banning abortion or legislation expanding anti-poverty programs. Jesus was about personal responsibility and not government intervention. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods”.

• 77 Fitz // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:01 pm

  HollywoodBill – I hate to pick a fight but you keep coming back to blaming SC for the 2008 loss. This is ridiculous. Values voters were widely credited for the 2004 win, so what. McCain was as light on the social issues as you can imagine.y marriage, stem cells & abortion were not even mentioned in the campaign. Who disputes this?

  People were war wary and wanted change – no one says 2008 was a refutation of the social conservative message. Indeed McCain probably lost votes by not highlighting Obamas Hypocrisy on same-sex marriage (a huge majority winner even in liberal states) and his extreme voting record and promises on abortion.

  You seem to forget that extremism plays both ways. The far cultural left is for partial birth abortion,y marriage, and against the born alive infant protection act.. There against parental consent, waiting periods and informed consent. No one is leaving the republicans because they think there creationists-(since there not). Its a matter of framing and whos the aggressor on cultural issues. McCAin could have done quite a bit better by exploiting the extremes of the left I dont see it working the other way around.

• 78 haloagain // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:08 pm

  I agree with Chekote. Our country is becoming more and more diverse; we encompass many religions in our great nation, more so now then ever before. The teaching of Jesus have can an important place in our hearts, but not an important place in public policy when soon most of the public will not believe in Jesus as lord and savior. If you feel that Jesus would condemn abortion, then council your friends and loved ones to find alternative options. But to legislate against abortion based on Jesus’ teachings forces others that have no allegiance to Jesus to nevertheless bow to his will.

• 79 joemarier // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:08 pm

  Chekote: Agreed that the founding fathers got it right not to establish a religion. Where I disagree is that the government must mandate secular values everywhere it touches. And “Render Unto Caesar” is government intervention. It’s modified, limited acquiescence to government intervention, rather.

• 80 Fitz // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:09 pm

  Haloagain your comments to agosenorlechero reveal a common theme. #1. This is not a thread about Biblical exegesis, it is about building a winning majority with the base we have. #2. Agosenorlechero comments seem well within conventional Christian understanding both contemporary and historical. There is a clear Christian sexual ethic subscribed to since (before) Jesus and upheld to this day by the vast majority of Christian denominations No sex outside marriage. And marriage is between a man & woman. Simple & timeless

• 81 haloagain // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:20 pm

  Conventional Christan understanding and “the teachings of Jesus” as senorlechero mentioned should not be conflated, yet your first point is well taken. I digress.

• 82 Chekote // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:25 pm

  Fitz. Highlighting Obama’s position ony marriage or other social issues during the 2008 presidential election would have resulted in the Mac and the GOP looking even more out of touch with reality. With the financial systems melting down and people’s 401K fading away, the only people who cared about social issues were the single issue voters. And those voters are extremely well versed in the issues they care about. Heck, Obama got a majority of the Catholic vote. He got 2/3 of the Latino vote which is strongly pro-life. Again, if we are to rebuild a new majority we need to focus on election at the congressional/local level not at the presidential level

• 83 joemarier // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:33 pm

  Both Catholics and Latinos are not consistently prolife. Active Catholics will generally vote more prolife, but they didn’t in 1988.

• 84 Chekote // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:34 pm

  joe. Social conservatives are free to practice their values in this country. I don’t believe that Catholic hospitals should not be required to distribute contraceptives or perform abortions. I don’t see why Boy Scouts or other private clubs/organizations should be forced to accept openlyy leaders. But it seems to me that social conservatives are free to practice their values. How is the government interfering as you suggest?

• 85 joemarier // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:41 pm

  Chekote, I could come up with a list, and you would probably agree with some, and disagree with others. But there’s a book called “The Naked Public Square” that deals with the question in some detail. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.

• 86 Chekote // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:44 pm

  joe. No, I haven’t. I will check it out.

• 87 joemarier // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:53 pm

  Chekote: Awesome! My job here is done!

• 88 Chekote // Jan 30, 2009 at 1:02 pm

  joe. In the spirit of reciprocity I ask that you read the following article basically making the case for secularism: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2980287.ece

• 89 joemarier // Jan 30, 2009 at 1:31 pm

  Read it. Interesting. Being a good John Courtney Murrayite, if he replaced the word “secularism” with “religious pluralism”, then I’d agree. I’d also say that that last paragraph on the greatness of secularist China has been overtaken by recent economic events. Also, nobody with a sense of basic decency ought to be seen as praising China’s policies on religion.

• 90 joemarier // Jan 30, 2009 at 1:43 pm

  I’d suggest tinyurl previews for links, by the way. But there’s no official policy on ‘em. I just think they look prettier.

• 91 HollywoodBill // Jan 30, 2009 at 1:59 pm

  Fitz, you really need to read more carefully before you rail against other posters. McCain gets full credit for the loss. He was at the top of the ticket. But the Socons also were part of the loss. They just refuse to admit it. As far as they’re concerned, Palin was invincible–an idiotic stance if there ever was one. Social conservatives really only win in one region of the country. There are some isolated Congressional districts throughout the country, but by and large, they are a losing factor in statewide races. They usually get around that 35% mark and that’s the maximum. We have all learned a lot under George W Bush. But the socons are going to have to admit their large liabiltiy in huge sections of the country. A 50 state plan is essential for a NEW MAJORITY.

• 92 sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:18 pm

  HollywoodBill: The importance of the SoCons to GOP strategists was that the Karl Rove playbook for winning an Electoral College majority boiled down to “Red States + Ohio”. And the SoCons could and did deliver the winning margin in Ohio in 2004. But now there is evidence that Ohio is tipping Blue. A new winning playbook must include ways to peel away at least a couple of Blue-tinged states from the Dems.
  And in that new playbook, Moderate or Swing voters are going to figure more heavily than SoCons.

• 93 Fitz // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:21 pm

  Hoolywood & All – I think were talking past one another. I would not advocate nor so SC advocate a hard core approach across all fifty states. We have showed are willingness to accommodate on any number of issues. And we have shown a willingness to take different approaches in different regions. It seems to me you are reacting not so much to social conservatives and their issues as you are against the way SC are portrayed by the elite press and others.

  A willingness to stay in coalitions that elect the likes of Swarzanagger or Guliinai in certain regions shows are ability to be flexible. What were looking for and as I note below is more aggressiveness when it comes to highlighting the extremes of the cultural left. You seem to be angling for an all or nothing approach to the SCs. Sure Sarah Palin has a big fan base, but she was no were before the establishment picked her for her appeal (before the crash) and I think she was a net positive before the crash.
  Anyway like I said , I think were talking past one another and that at this point we would need to talk issue by issue to realy make effective headway. Something the New Majority should be doing anyway on this blog. Such an approach would be quite helpful.

• 94 HollywoodBill // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:39 pm

  Sinz54–You always have great stuff. You are so dead on about the importance of the moderates or swing voters in the next election. Ohio gave Blackwell 37% of the vote statewide in his gubernatorial bid in 2006. He couldn’t even carry all the Republicans. And here in California, we haven’t elected a social conservative statewide since the 1986 gubernatorial election of Deukmaijian. And he was up against Tom Bradley as in Bradley Effect. What is galling about the socons is their constant whining that they are the reason for the GOP’s national victories and must get all the benefits of winning. They are entitled to a seat at the table. But no special orders. 2010 is going to tell us a lot about whether their demands can even be accomodated on a national ticket. But the GOP must be competitive in all 50 states if there is to be a NEW MAJORITY.

• 95 senorlechero // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:29 pm

  haloagain, You are correct that there is no record in the bible of Jesus teaching anything about homosexuality except as he taught on all sin, that everything in the “law” is true and valid. He did not teach anything that contradicted anything in the old testament. Jesus taught that he was the “fullfillment” of the law, not the negating of it. This is not the place to go into it, but you are correct in saying that Jesus taught it was not ok to stone someone for sinning any more, but that doesn’t mean he taught it was OK to sin. In fact he taught the opposite of that, that forgiven people should “no longer sin”. Paul directly taught against homosexuality and Paul claimed that authority as being directly taught to him by the risen Lord Jesus Christ. And since you would have us remain silent (politically) on abortion what about other killing? Should we remain silent about cruelty to animals? How about the death penalty? How about murder? I wonder if your restrictions to our right to vote our beliefs applies to those issues as well. Or does it only apply to those who disagree with the laws being passed to make killing babies more easy and publicly funded?

• 96 joemarier // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:56 pm

  Well!… We’ve almost hit 100 comments in the thread. I’m so proud. So, how did you all like the article, anyway?

• 97 senorlechero // Jan 30, 2009 at 7:46 pm

  Article? What article? lol Write another one soon please.

• 98 Chekote // Jan 30, 2009 at 7:53 pm

  Joe. I like your article and it obviously generated a great discussion. However, you are not the SoCon that social moderates object to. You understand politics and the fact that someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is NOT your enemy

• 99 Chekote // Jan 30, 2009 at 7:54 pm

  100!!!!!!

• 100 Jane_Dewey // Jan 31, 2009 at 10:56 am

  The American people view social conservatives as hypocrites who are obsessed with gays, guns, and abortion beyond all reason and at the expense of any other policies. There is more to pro-life than just abortion.

  When you have a family to feed, youre going to vote for the party who you think will help you the most. From my experience with Republicans who claim to be social conservatives, theres usually some preacher who leads a double life taking drugs and frequenting male prostitutes.

  Or theres the apple pie and American flag girl-next-door who married her high school sweetheart and has four kids, and now vehemently opposes abortion, mostly because of the guilt she feels having an abortion herself. And then theres the abstinence only education push, and what seems to be glorifying teenagers who have premarital sex and get pregnant out of wedlock. Theyre made to be heroes simply because they didnt have an abortion.

  Or theres the country folk who want to use their rifles for huntin who oppose any sort of gun control laws aimed at high crime rate areas in the city, where people live and work and move among each other in close quarters. If those country folk have ever lived in a city, they would understand the differences between rifles for huntin and gun control laws needed in inner cities.

  When a party claims to possess family values and social conservative views, then they are putting themselves on a pedestal and passing judgment on the rest of society. Most Americans have moved past the debate about the morality of homosexuality. Gays have lived among heterosexuals since the beginning of time. Seeing two gays holding hands or kissing is not going to make someone heterosexual turn gay. Thats a backward way of thinking. Just as many people are equally repulsed at the thought of two overweight people having sex.

• 101 Fitz // Jan 31, 2009 at 1:38 pm

  joemarier – Well congratulations. You seem to know that social conservatives are a indispensable part of the republican coalition and that their policy preferences are reasonable and obtainable. In this thread you seem to have several instances of ostensible republicans who have an Ax to grind against social conservatives on a personal opr philosophical (rather than a political) level.

  As the Obama administration continues it will inevitably overreach on FOCA or they agenda, or feminism, or education of the youth. With this will come the inevitable backlash of the moral majority in this country (like we have seen with same-sex marriage) The hard won gains of years of pro-life and social conservative activism wont be given up easily. These same people will man the telephones, walk the streets and get involved in local and national politics. Foreign policy and small government conservatives just dont have the passion to make the difference.

  Its important that you keep writing insightful columns about the reasonableness of social conservatives. From defending marriage to waiting periods and parental consent for abortions the S.C. have wide popularity on a variety of fronts. It perennially important to keep reminding the rest of the republican base that social conservatives dont live in bubble . The cultural left is indeed the aggressor on all these fronts, and they to have an radical agenda that turns off moderates.

• 102 Chekote // Jan 31, 2009 at 4:53 pm

  Fitz. My mother taught me that “Everybody is useful but no one is indispensable”. So please don’t make the mistake of thinking that the GOP will never be able to win without the SoCon.

• 103 Chekote // Jan 31, 2009 at 5:00 pm

  Jane. I have lived both in NYC and rural Texas so I understand your point about gun control. However, you need to be aware of something. Criminals will always get guns. I lived in Europe where gun control laws are very strict. Guess what? The mafia never experienced a gun shortage. Also, there is a little thing called the US Constitution. The right to bear arms is part of the Bill of Rights, and thus just as valid as freedom of speech. Disclosure: Never held a gun in my life and no plans to do so.

• 104 0Tolearance // Jan 31, 2009 at 11:34 pm

  “They want veto power over all judicial appointments and constantly demand that everyone fight for their ridiculous cultural issues. As a result, they have alienated virtually all the regions in the country except the South and turned the GOP into a Revival Tent instead of a big tent.”

  “Ridiculous cultural issues?” What – faith in God, respect for the dignity of human life, belief in the role of religion in shaping national ethic? I always considered those…I dunno – principle (aka ‘moral character’ for the non-secularists).

  McRINO lost this past election because: 1) the economic crisis in October made running on a Republican ticket difficult 2) His campaign advisors were incompetent 3) He lacked the enthusiastic support of many conservatives, especially considering his prevous attacks on social conservatives 4) He was outspent by a ridiculous margin by a ruthless enemy obsessed with regaining party. Of those reasons, I’d say 1, 2, and 4 were most important: whoever heard of a viable Republican presidnetial candidate running out of money – during a PRIMARY??? The only way you can blame social conservatives for that mess was by not turning out ENOUGH – and that enough of them DID show up to vote Republican should put to rest any doubt of their ability to negotiat or compromize.

  I just pray that our country holds together long enough for 2012 when our party finally reunites around the ONE candidate who can save us from the Communist messiah Obominatoin we’ve just elected – just hope she is not so disgusted by the drive by politics and media that she turns away…

• 105 jarhead // Feb 1, 2009 at 5:05 am

  You are wanting to “peacefully annexing Mexico”???? Why? Have you ever been to Mexico City or the rural towns in Mexico? (take a weapon and surgical mask) Have you been to any of the enclaves that Mexican nationals live in here in America? (take a weapon and surgical mask)

  The truth is Mr. Marier that Mexican’s are annexing America one city at a time. Get a clue home slice?

• 106 joemarier // Feb 1, 2009 at 6:48 am

  Jarhead — I actually don’t want to annex Mexico. That was a little joke. One of the first things that ran on this site was a little commentary by Newt Gingrich about the possible security threat from Mexico, so I had it on my mind when I wrote the piece. The US Bishops have been pushing for a massive anti-poverty effort in Mexico for a while now, and I’m as clueless as anyone on how to accomplish that short of my joke suggestion. Also, J, I actually live in a largely Hispanic neighborhood. And, my dad’s a retired Marine. ***This thread’s going to be bumped off the front page soon, so I’m probably not going to be doing much monitoring. I’m thinking my posts will become the Oldest Established Permanent Floating So-con Throwdown on Newmajority.com, so keep an eye out, and keep commenting.

• 107 Fitz // Feb 1, 2009 at 12:20 pm

  Chekote (wrote) “Everybody is useful but no one is indispensable”. i agree with your mother. That is why I am merely against the direction this thread has taken about up or down on the SoCo’s. Yes, in any practical sense I do believe they are indispensable but that is not the same as unreasonable. The question is how to use those issues most effectively to win back power. Right now you see a huge push by Obama to capture the religiously moderate center with style rather than substance. It can work.. Please (ALL) read this to get an idea about the stakes involved.

  http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/ending_or_winning.php

• 108 aw // Feb 12, 2009 at 6:37 pm

  How hard is it to keep your religion out of politics? Sure, you may believe that if you’rey you’re going tol and homosexuality is evil, but not everybody does! Additionally, it’s none of the government’s business who you marry! I am not gay, but I can tell how infuriating it must be for those who are not to have the right to settle down and live with whoever they want just because some people think it’s evil to be born so that they are naturally attracted to different people than most.

You must log in to post a comment.