If there are SoCons in those locals who want to change that dynamic they should have the freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to lobby the government to do so and the Central Government should have no right to say what they can preach from the pulpit or how they can campaign for an issue or a candidate. And yes…they should be allowed to fight for a Constitutional Amendment to regulate Gay marriage since it is the gay rights movement who are centralizing the authority over this issue in the first place.

it’s the Federal Government asserting itself into those issues that has prompted SoCons to push for Constitutional Amendments but the group as a whole are the ones right now working to stop Obama from nationalizing the entire financial system, the auto industry and the medical system and it is the anti SoCon “moderates” who are working overtime to help Obama carry out his agenda.

They are the Snowes and Collins who vote with the Democrats 60% and 70% of the time.

which are organizations formed and financed with the sole purpose of undermining, sabotaging, and destroying the Republican Party Platform and openly work to drag the Party to the left and miss no opportunity to attack Conservatives and the Party as a whole in order to bolster moderate “cred” with the MSM and curry favor with the Democrat Party Leadership.

They are the Tuesday Group on Capital Hill who meets every Tuesday to strategize how to undermine the conservative agenda, advance the Democrat agenda on spending, taxation, abortion and nationalizing large segments of the American economy!

slither out of their hidy holes every Sunday to make the rounds adding credibility to Democrat talking points and feed the MSM anti Republican propaganda templates.

It’s the Arnold Swatzenegers and Charlie Crists who have fought SoCons and worked to eliminate their influence in the party while claiming they were fiscal conservatives only to get in office and tax and spend their states into oblivion…So, not only have we eliminated the SoCon eg of the Stool but now we’re actively engaged in knocking out the one leg both SoCons and Libertarians agree on.

As for admitting my arguments are subjective, I can only assume you were responding to my good natured jibe to eburke:

I try to be as cryptic and PC as possible when discussing this stuff…

I was being sarcastic and admit nothing of the kind. You said noone can define RINOs and what we mean when we use that term and I set about doing just that. I’ve done so at Red State for nearly a year and a half. RINO’s and squishes are a definable group based on their organizations, affiliations and their leadership and to try to obfuscate the obvious definition is to play the same game the Dems play in changing the meaning and definition of language to confuse and conflate the issues those words define!

When others’ most basic rights are being violated so directly and blatantly, it is very much your place to “impose that view on others.”

Obviously, you don’t believe what you say you do.

Marriage and drugs have nothing whatsoever to do with protecting life. Whoever originally lumped them in the same category was an idiot.

I would generally agree that conservative thought should lend itself toward shrinking the size of government generally. However, we do understand that men aren’t perfect and that government has to acknowledge and respond to that fact. Hence, the occasional use of state and local governments even though it may slightly increase the size of the government. While we probably agree on most issues, this is a conservative and Republican site, not really a libertarian site.

Now, I agree that states should stay away from most of these issues, but “should” is not the same as “must”. depending on circumstances. There are appropriate times for states to do things that the federal government must not.

On your below question about abortion, I understand that not all people agree with my personal belief that it is murder. It is not my place to impose that view on others.

Provide some critieria behind your objections.

where the rubber meets the road is where we have our dificulty and where the rub is!

You are right when you say there has to be a pragmatic calculation when one is faced with the principle vs the achievable dynamic is concerned when developing and advancing policy. The issue most at hand is the extent of the “pragmatism”. If by “pragmatism”, you mean we work to stop the government from growing and advancing any more for instance but we realize we can only stop it or shrink it less than we’d like then I’m with you…

What we see now however isn’t stopping growth of government as an example…what we are told is pragmatic is surrendering the fight completely to the enemy and joining the pigs at the trough so we get our fill too…

The second dynamic is what needs to be stopped and the first needs to be faithfully adhered to….that’s the source of the fight for me.

On Abortion
Adoption is the Only Option. That’s the mantra. Say it 100 times a day. Say it 100 more. And maybe that message will get out there.

Social conservatives want government to be larger (in many cases only in those areas, but larger nonetheless), and they believe that ONLY government can solve the perceived “problems” with society. Am I personally socially conservative? Absolutely. Do those issues affect my vote? Absolutely not. Allow me to explain.

That’s a generality that is just not backed up by facts…you’ll find there are far more SoCons numbered amongst those opposed to the pseudo-Marxism of Obama that you will find pure agnostic/atheistic Libertarians because most SoCons know the only true liberty begins with the individual exercising his liberties in a responsible and moral manner and that government unrestrained by any social morality is and always will be an enemy both to morality and liberty…

Most SoCons rather than wanting more government to enforce their morality would rather have the central or federal government so limited in it’s scope that each community would be free to set it’s own social mores free from interference from the Central Government!

I’ve posted a list of the RINOS, Squishes etc and ways to define them in two different post in this thread…the fight we’re having in the party is between the 80% of us who make up the base and a 10 to 12% group of the party who holds a disproportionate and despotic control over the party apparatus and refuses to represent us!

This fight is about representation…not about purges and exclusion…if 75% to 80% of this party agrees on an issue in this party…we should be represented by our party and it’s leadership. We shouldn’t be excluded from leadership positions because we hold the same views as the majority of this party and we damn sure shouldn’t be expected to shut up and get in line when a minority of 10% to 12% of this party flaunt their power over us and take a steaming crap all over every thing we agree on!

Oh, and btw….dead on (as usual)

Later, behind closed doors, is the time for debating our differences.

During the election we all had to band together and let McCain do whatever the hell he wanted without complaint to stop Obama…now we need secret handshakes and wait till some unknown point in the future to demand representation from our leadership because we’re to busy following the same failed strategy from 1996, 2006 and 2008 to engage in some soul searching and looking at the mistakes that got us in the hole we’re in!!