We need to be very aggressive and engage the Democrats, expose the fiscal and morally corrupt policies they stand for. Winning means forcing the other side to lose. We need to break their back financially, in the courts, and in the public square and offer them nothing in regard to compromise.

Obama and his team are very vulnerable due to the shaky economy. Now is not the time for compromise but to put the nation first and fight every single liberal earmark, program, policy, and confirmation hearing.

We need a fighter who weaves in and out of the opposition, avoiding their clumsy swings while delivering the strategically placed jabs that force his opponent to change their game in response. The judges are rigged, so he can not just trade punches; he must deliver an obvious advantage (minimum 3:1 ratio) or he will always lose to the judge’s split decisions.

Even if he is not the best choice, it is great to see Steele proactively reaching out to communicate and listen to the base at a place like Red State. That is a positive sign some leadership may be starting to get back on board with real conservatism. (we just have to keep them on board for the next four years). I hope whoever ends up in charge is quick and accurate with their left jabs.

I support Blackwell, and so far Steele has only reinforced my decision.

But I think this discussion misses the point. We need to consider what compromises we need to make within our own party. A political party isn’t a group motivated by single issues, and people will never all agree. One thing this electoral loss is proving to me, at least, is that we seem to have forgotten the things we (almost) all agree on.

Maybe we do need an inclusiveness chairman. There are a lot of persuadable potential Republicans who are put off by perceptions about our party that are, for the most part, untrue…but are also unopposed. I’ve told people in Maryland I was a Republican, only to get responses that made me feel like I had espoused membership in the drown-puppies-and-kittens party…only to then have them agree with the Republican platform! There are also a lot of persuadable potential Republicans who disagree with one half of our fiscal/social conservatism balance. Since our party members in power have totally ignored the former half, and at times overemphasized government’s role in the latter half, forgetting the social movement it parallels needs to persuade people before political action should be taken**, I think we have a LOT of work to do. I think we need to stick to our beliefs, but we also need to consider how to best package those beliefs for people who aren’t traditional members of our voting block. Based on his experiences in Maryland, I think Steele would be a good choice.

Regardless, I appreciate the thoughtful followup.

** But then, I’ve always viewed social conservatism as something that should be a mostly cultural movement rather than a mostly political movement. I would rather have people believe something than have something legislated. Our fiscal conservatism is in the most danger presently, and needs the most attention.

Remember Mick.

I personally think that if you really believe in your principles then you will not betray them. The far left Democrats can do the compromising from now on. What Republicans should be doing is peeling off Blue Dog Democrats.