It’s always “well, we’re just too conservaitve”. So the party moves leftward, and loses WORSE.

Well. obviously we did not move far enough left I guess, did we?

I wonder if in 2012 we can just go ahead and nominate Joe Liebermann as the GOP candidate.

You couldn’t buy an intelligent conversation about conservative philosophy and its practical applications from a group of Republican politicians. Most of the people who can actually get elected as a moderate or conservative are dumb as stumps and distinguished from the TV weatherperson only by the fact that they read/memorize different lines. There are exceptions and there are smart, thoughtful people holding office as Republicans but they can only get elected in the safe districts. The more purplish a district tends the mushier the candidate must be to contend in the middle. The same is true for the Democrats but they handle it differently; they lie. They take a position that will get them the middle and never refer to that position again until the next election. If we try to put up a hard R, s/he scares Hell out of the mushy middle of the electorate and the faux moderate Democrat wins. If we go for the mushy candidate, we get a maverick, a crook, or an embarrassment because the candidate has nothing to base his/her positions on and is inconsistent or hypocritical.

Look at McCain. He’s not the sharpest stick in the stack, but armed with the courage of his connections, good looks, and a war hero image, political office was a natural alternative to actually working. AZ was deep Red in those days and if one wanted to hold office in AZ, one ran as a Republican. I believe that is the sole basis of the man’s “Republicanism.” His political philosophy, like most of the “moderates,” is do what it takes to stay in office and whatever you can to position yourself for the next move up. That really is all that guides them.

because I feel like that’s exactly what progressives like McCain want to do. It’s redefining, revamping, and reinventing the wheel. However, sticking to conservative principles (or returning?), but working on ~image~ for our little tent will do wonders for garnering support.

Means a lot, truly )

We really ARE “The Big Tent” by default now. Pres. Obama did it for us. He’s narrowed the Democratic Party into something that is to the left of the mainstream. That leaves us as the “coalition of the normal” defined very broadly of course. We definitely need to be who we are, no need to moderate anything, but we’d better be ready for the Obama blowback and for those who come with it.

I don’t believe that generational discrepancies are to blame for the young conservatives’ shift to the center/center-left. Issues of morality, and of consciense, do not fundamentally change just because we were born in the era of the Spice Girls. This shift is billed as an acceptable–nay, desirable–change in the hearts and minds of the American people, but I have to ask myself, any time I feel myself getting squishy: what has changed? Has the issue at hand changed, or have I allowed myself to be duped into thinking that past sensibilities are no longer “relevant”? The murder of the unborn child will never, ever stop being among the most despicable acts of human kind, but society (and I am hardly one to blame society for what ails me) has accepted abortion because of skewed dialogue over “rights” and “privacy”.

Being pushed out of the party is not a relevant complaint here. Conservatism envelops economic AND social issues. You can’t ignore half of an argument or ideology just because it’s convenient for you to do so in order to villify those who embrace a fully conservative viewpoint.

I read from your post that you are pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell harvesting, pro-gay marriage, anti-business and, from your veiled reference to the environment, believe in global warming. What in any of these positions qualifies as either “moderate” or Republican???

Because letting you run the party has killed the party.

This trendy slang – social liberal but fiscal conservative – is a poison.
1) Every so-called “social liberal” ALWAYS ends up voting for fiscal liberalism. They’ve no conviction to stand against social forces when those forces are calling for unbridled spending. The social liberal didn’t come to social liberal ideals because of a rational examination and a courage to stand against the passing popular–no, the social liberal is such because of a weakness to stand against the easy and licentious.
2) If the social liberal but fiscal conservative actually had a conviction to fiscal conservatism, then they would vote for the Republican party regardless of the social issues–But it is the social issues that they really care about. And these are phony social issues they care about. Social issues today are not about rights from a creator, they are about licenses granted by government–each group trying to carve out favors, privileges and dispensations for themselves, not the greater society. The underlying philosophy of fiscal conservatism is diametrically opposed to that underlying the current social movements–that a man ought to be as free as possible from the shackles of government intervention and control. Let us be free with our wallets and we will be free with our lives.

So no. I do not care for the social liberal to set the policies of a conservative party–they will sell out to the liberals one every issue too often, too soon.

The arguments for gay marriage are specious at best and require hefty mulitple doses of government intrusions into private lives… and businesses.

In nature, homosexuality is expunged in hetrosexual species, typically through banishment from the herd/pack or outright killed as a waste of resources. As humans, with higher reasoning powers, it doesn’t take much thought to treat a fellow human being with decency while not condoning or actively supporting their activities that go against the nature of our own species.

All these premises that the left concocts lead to nihilism. If you want to claim to be moderately conservative or Republican, okay, but just because you jump off the cliff into societal suicide doesn’t mean the rest of us have to follow.

of the GOP as a vehicle to promote a conservative agenda.You progressive Republicans are the opposition.When we retake control,and we will,you will have the same options you have now.You can vote for the conservative Republican,the liberal Democrat,support another candidate,or write in the name of someone you can support.The GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 because it lost its conservative identity.You would obviously prefer a GOP with conservative views on fiscal policy,and Democrat lite on all other issues.Sorry,but we don’t need a GOP with the same identity crisis moderates have.Our party needs a political philosophy by which to formulate its positions on critical issues.Moderates have no such philosophy-you cherrypick your stance on the issues based on what the MSM brands as “current” or “cool”.Hopefully in the near future the GOP will be able to articulate a conservative philosophy that will have great appeal to all generations.I suggest you contact Meghan McCain and start your own party.You can advertise a plus-size tent that will be large enough to accomodate all the moderates who favor abortion,gay marriage and cap and trade,who also think for some reason that they are fiscally conservative.Then we will have no reason to call you anything so perjorative as a RINO or a squish,and you will feel no identity crisis in terms of calling yourself a Republican anymore.And everyone will just call you a moderate-whatever that is!

nt

I am opposed to gay marriage.
I am opposed to racial preferences.
I am opposed to abortion.
I am opposed to embryonic stem cells research.
I support School Choice.
I am opposed to Gun Control.
…

What I just described above are the moderate positions on the issues of gay marriage, abortion, racial preferences, school choice, gun control, etc.

So what makes you think you’re a moderate? You hold no moderate positions.

Those other constituencies are largely composed of wild-eyed moderates who aren’t going to raise Hell about anything. The gays and their backers, especially the celebrities, raise Hell about everything.

I think all Republicans agree with your assessment of where government should be on these issues ( just enough gov to keep from being a true Libertarian, but not to be intrusive in our daily lives) you have outlined. Where the arguement tends to be on this post and with many post on this site are with the social issues.

I consider myself a social conservative, however my positions by some would be overly conservative and liberal by others. Social issues tend to be much more personal than the issues you outlined therefore much harder to reach consensus. The Republican party should not run from these issues, however there should be a big tent for discussion and civil debate of these issues. If we let there be a healthy discussion of these issues we will be the better for it.

In closing;
A) we didn’t lose in ’06 &’08 on social issues, we lost because our elected GOP leaders lost their way on fiscal, limited government, and law and order issues.

B) jumping on modgopgal, as an example is exactly what I am talking about. I don’t completely agree with her but to resort to name calling is worse than having the discussion at all.

C) eveyone likes to quote Reagan, however they quickly forget he had the 80/20 Rule, If you agreed on 80 % of the issues, he would support you, knowing not everyone agreed on all issues.

I agree, but think we need to combine your points with Amy’s.

The issue with social liberal/fiscal conservatives is that they always feel so bad. They pity the poor, so they say, “just this once,” to new welfare spending. Then they pity homosexuals and say, “just this once,” to gay marriage and the subsidies that come from it. Then they look at the environment and get misty eyed and say, “you know, just this once,” and increase taxes on oil and pass mandates about where people can and cannot drill.

On the other hand, I agree with you that the SoCon message is not conservative. It may emphasize tradition, but it doesn’t call for a limited government.

The conservative response to the gay marriage debate is that you resent government’s intrusion in the institution of marriage, not that you want government on your side of the intrusion.

I for one refuse to pigeonholed a “social conservative”. The problem with this mentality is that is lost. Conservatism is not static. It is often defined by external threats. The new Left lost in the ballot box. They could not win with riots. They insidiously started this culture war Saul Alinsky style, while old school Republicans were asleep at the switch.

Just like the battle for the judiciary. The liberals were stacking the deck by focusing on litigation and judicial appointments decades before conservatives knew what hit them. We lost a generaltion because we failed to recognize the new fronts in their assault; we failed to adjust.

What old school Republicans fail to realize is that the liberals started this culture war and it is this influence on the culture that allows them to denigrate such things as Federalism and Constitution with impunity because the new generation of youth and the new immigrant classes don’t care.

You can’t talk about following the Constitution when kids are not taught to respect tradition and history. You cannot talk about the wisdom of the founding fathers when all kids know is that they were sexist salveowners. You can’t talk limited government when the majorities of families are broken and kids need federal loans to subsidize their education, mothers need welfare to support their kids and lonely family-less seniors need Medicare to stay alive. The Federal government feeds off of broken families

Reagan was a man for his era. While certain conservative principles remain eternal, the threats are not and strategies and tactics must change too. Yes. the was no “social conservatives” back then because it was not an issue. Republicans and many Democrats of the past would be outraged by the assault on our culture. JFK by modern definitions is a Right Wing Radical and a social conservative.

The whole “social conservative” versus libertarian conservative is blown way out of proportion. They each need each other and it is the preservation of our culture that we all fight for.

Liberals started this war. The media has spun it against “SocCons” and naive moderate Republicans have taken the bait.

The debate between libertarian conservatives and the Christian Democratic party that the Republican party has become is far more pressing. I think that the abandonment of small-govt. principles, as well as the ballooning of the social/cutural conservative agenda into a more “proactive” one, are largely to blame for the current crisis, and not a debate between “moderates” and conservatives, as clearly evidenced by McCain’s abortive campaign for President.

In that “odd silence” you must include yourself…since you know…you haven’t ever written a single diary since you have been here. And the only things that consistently draw you attention are the diaries and articles that mention social issues.

If you are such a staunch fiscal conservative why don’t you write some good diaries about the budget…or the latest bailouts. That would serve not only your cause of being a staunch fiscal conservative but it would also win you allies here.

But instead you choose to not write diaries to promote your fiscal conservatism…no no no..you spend your time on social crusades to spin the wheel towards your social liberal goals.

Your priorities show greater than anything else what you are…you are a social liberal first…and a fiscal conservative only as a defense mechanism.

Please stop waisting our time and either put up or shut up. Write a fiscon con diary…or forever hold your peace!!

There is a very narrow situation where industry subsidies are warranted…very narrow.

What needs to be addressed is that the government is out of control. There is NO constitutional mandate for the federal government to be messing with social issues. Roe V. Wade is very bad law, specifically because the federal government has no business telling the states what to do on such an issue.

The reality is that the issues fiscal conservatives and social conservatives have are resolved by the same root solution…federalism and adherence to the Constitution. The problem is that most “fiscal conservative, social liberal” are not fiscal conservative across the board. They cave on most spending issues, and pay lip service to concerns like yours about industry subsidies. Meanwhile, they vote continually for expansion of the federal government…then they claim that social conservatives are the reason they keep losing elections.

The GOP cannot win without social conservatives…period. They cannot win without fiscal conservatives either, but I have never heard the argument that fiscal conservative positions are bad for the party. The anti-social conservative drum is beat daily.

Frankly, we would be better off without the moderates and faux-conservatives at the elected and leadership level. If there were a consistent message from the GOP, a conservative message like that of Fred Thompson, a message that was taught in votes and actions as well as words, the GOP would gain ground every time, the country would be better off for it, and the democrats would need to move right to compete.

As it stands, the only political party with a clear message is the democrats, and therefore people may be convinced to agree with them. You can’t convince someone you are right if your message wanders.

of who a large percentage are racist themselves.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see that in the context of the story that used* “boy president” refers to his naivety not his race.

But then again I guess some just aren’t as post racial as others…no matter how liberal they become.

* Why are you draggin mud from one diary to another…this diary didn’t even use the words boy president…so maybe you should be more careful in the future.

liberalrepublican implies Obama haters have a “subtext” of racism that everyone really knows about, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Oh wait, he then said it’s not racist. Then tell us, what is that subtext, liberalrepublican, that is ‘demographic’ but not racist?

welcome to support its candidates that is.That does not mean that the GOP has to somehow dilute its conservative message to get them to join us.We have to articulate the message better, so that every ethnic group understands just how the enactment of conservative principles benefits all Americans.

…which you would know if you had read my diary twice.

See if you can guess how this fiscally, socially, all-around conservative girl feels about it )

doesn’t expliciley state he prefers you eat beef.

But nice comment, truly.

you could use that in your diary about fiscal conservatism…make sure you actually list out the Republicans who voted for this stuff…and also you should check for correlation too their ACU ratings and find out if they are socially liberal or socially conservative….should be really easy to prove your point that socons are the *real* issue with the party and the cause of all of this ridiculous spending.

Again waiting with baited breath.

I notice you have a lot of outrage against taxpayer money going to industry … but it’s not exactly something that puts you at odds with the Left, which is not too fond of industry in the first place.

Where do you stand on entitlement spending? Welfare spending? Money spent on industry subsidies are as nothing compared to the money that goes to social programs.

How come you’re just focused on industry?

more dependable than moderate liberal-Republicans.

Zell Miller readily comes to mind.

President Reagan built his winning coalition around this inconvenient truth.

the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the authoritative statement of the Church’s actual teachings, allows for the death penalty:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Link: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm

So, your statement should read that “the Catholic faith still has not changed previous positions allowing it.”

There are recent statements, including several by the late great Pope John Paul II, that have focused on the last clause in the belief that there are other possible ways of effectively defending human lives against unjust aggressors. They point to the security of modern prisons and the availability of Life Without Possibility of Parole as a sentencing option.

This is where I have to stick with the death penalty – - as long as there are bleeding heart governors out there with the ability to wield the pardon stick there is no guarantee that LWOPOP means what it says. Fix that and you can take the death penalty off the table.

Sorry if this isn’t fully related to the topic of the thread but I must always and everywhere correct faulty statements regarding the Catholic Church and Her teachings.

I only ask because that is the subject matter.

I see you believe in federalism when it comes to homosexual civil unions.

It seems that though you believe in a safety net that helps people survive when they are down on their luck you don’t believe it should be a way of life that lasts for generations. You don’t define yourself by your asthma. And you don’t define yourself by your being a widower. Seems to me that you are pretty conservative.

So I wonder to what conservative principles you object. You can get a good list from the 912 project. They call them values instead of principles, but hey, that’s conservatives for you. We are a big tent. We can understand different words.

* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Gratitude

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” –Alexander Hamilton

Study at Redstate University

Although I grew up with some federal assistance, I have a different perspective on dealing with safety nets. Like many other things, I think it’s an issue best left to each individual state to deal with. I don’t think it’s fair for someone in Texas or Florida to pay taxes that are used for assistance in Illinois or Indiana. I also think it would help with the bureaucratic mess we have today.

From allowing gay marriage

To requiring a church to marry two gays

To requiring all churches to marry gay couples

To requiring all adoption agencies to adopt out to gay married couples

To requiring all adoption agencies to adopt out to gay unmarried couples

and that’s without bringing polyamory and bestiality into the picture.

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” –Alexander Hamilton

Study at Redstate University

Can someone be conservative and still fear global warming? I know here in New Jersey Christmas was 30 degrees Warmer than Easter. Something is certainly going on.

It’s called weather. That’s what’s going on. “As unpredictable as the weather …” mean anything to you?
PS: In case you never got the memo, not fearing “global warming” is not incompatible with caring about the environment. In fact, I’d bet the typical Republican has more respect for the environment than the entire Sierra Club, and certainly a lot more than Al Gore.

Can someone still be conservative if they are against abortion but support it if the mothers life is in danger …

That would be 99.9% of all conservatives.

… or in case of rape?

There’s something of a close to even split here.

Can someone still be a conservative if they want college costs to be lower? Or healthcare costs to be lower?

Umm … who the heck are those conservatives who want college costs or healthcare costs to be higher?

Do us all a favor … why don’t you go out and actually talk to a conservative or a Republican and find out what we think and how we think first before writing something like this?

Big Tent refers to Republicanism, not conservatism. The two are not synonymous.

superb answer