I think I may offer my thoughts as a longer post… but in short, I believe that this is not very much different than other core principles. You either think it’s important for our nation to remain, as it has historically been, committed to respecting our Creator, or you do not. I think it’s important… even critical. And I think the vast majority of Americans would agree with that basic sentiment. It gets much more touchy when you get more specific than that… which then takes me to one of my other core principles – a limited government (that includes a respect for federalism and the right of people to live with like-minded folks according to their collective views).

I could write more, but will save that for a later post – but I appreciate this contribution and wanted to offer my thoughts – for what they are worth…….

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/09/poll-who-leads-the-republican-party/

And I agree with Hogan that it’s time to calm down and get back to basics. Basics like changing votes face-to-face and on the phone. On the phone to battleground states and districts. To me, that mean remembering that all politics is local. And where Steele or Rush may not be able to change a vote, I can when I talk to my neighbors.

Blogging and social networking help – they help a lot – but a lot of that activity is preaching to the choir. Social networking often diffuses effort while Action Center tools focus effort.

I don’t care much these days about what Rush or Steele say to or about each other. Both should be saying something like ‘perhaps our tent is big enough to include the other guys views – there are probably many voters who feel the same way. And Steele should definitely have the presence of mind to start hyperventilating when we are called Nazis.

But that is not us grassroots workers.

The RNC cares about the party rolls because they want to be the big party and they want to be able to prove it.

I care about how people vote. It’s OK with me if they cross party lines to vote with me. It’s OK with me if the Republican party is the smaller party if they still seat a majority in Congress.

I think we simply need to prove with our votes that we can unseat anybody we don’t like. That’s all we need to do. That will get any incumbent’s complete attention regardless of how many special interests contribute to his/her campaign.

But it’s about talking to our neighbors. The very thing that most of us Republicans hate to do. Talk. Expose our beliefs.

Let our neighbor know that we think the tent is big enough to include them if they like opportunity, lower taxes, less government, personal liberty.

We won’t change a vote if we argue about choice or other party planks. We may change a vote if we talk about how we are inclusive. Do I really care about a voter’s position on choice if they vote with me? Fact is, I don’t.

So let the leaders jaw jaw and move the tent around. I will be talking to voters in my neighborhood about freedom , liberty and opportunity.

Those of you who know me suspect this is coming, so here it is:

The GOP is working on a new web site that will NOT have the tools we really need to influence votes. The GOP omits an Action Center like the one that was so effective for Obama in his campaign.

Well, the GOP’s idleness on this issue has not gone unnoticed and it will not stand.

A group of programmers, database and security people has taken matters into their own hands and are starting a conservative Open Action Center that will program and provide the online tools needed for conservative activism. in the districts and precincts. We had a successful conference call last night and a formal press release will be sent our later today.

We are going to build it, and they are going to come.

We need lots of help! If you are a coder or a database person, or just a blogger who can click a SUBMIT button, we need you to be a part of this.

Join us at http://gopguerrillas.ning.com if you can make an in-kind working contribution. What is it? Visit the site and find out. Join. Help. Help us win in 2010.

http://gopguerrillas.ning.com

My premise is simple: We cannot accomplish ANYTHING unless we are in office. Sometimes that requires some degree of compromise. Idealogues do not usually win. Politics is all about knowing when to compromise (now pay attention…) in a way that does not compromise principles but allows you to move towards the goal.

Check the conservative ratings on ACU and NJ. There are almost no reps/senators with 100% ratings. Reality is such that one must occasionally vote in a way that either represents their constituency in a way that goes against the book OR that helps move the ball forward strategically.

But if we’re not going to run AND govern on conservative principles then the base will not be on board. And to be clear, I’m talking about the conservative base, not the Republican base. There are plenty of Republicans that would vote the ticket if Pee Wee Herman was running. But there are many conservatives that would just as soon stay home or vote third party than to vote for some RINO.

I *think* you are interpreting what I say as “no matter what, we need to just give in to what the other guys are saying”. I think you should know me better than that What I AM saying is that we have to be willing to support someone who is a conservative – but maybe not a PERFECT one – when they have the highest likelihood of winning. There are numerous examples out there. Note that virtually no one is talking up how we’re gonna kick out Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Why? Because likely they’re the best we’re gonna do, and they can (and do) win. And they count as R’s when the counting happens in the Senate (for majority purposes). Do they vote with us all the time? No. But they sure vote with us a lot more often than most of the D’s.

There are more subtle versions of the same situation. Obviously my favorite one right now is the MO Senate race. Blunt is a >90% lifetime ACU conservative. He scored over 94% on the most recent National Review conservative ratings for fiscal conservatism. Yet there are legions of folks out here who want to kick him out because he voted with Bush on several items. GMAB. The guy is a fundraising machine. He is a proven winning candidate with unbelievable name recognition. Yet because he’s not 100% hard-core FDT conservative, we want to kick him out for someone who has never won a major election other than state auditor. I find that to be unwise, to put it mildly.

Sure – ideas count. But politicians are little more than talking heads unless they actually win.

I realize that this is only your own personal set of principles, but I would guess most conservatives probably agree with this. And to be honest, even though I’m a liberal, I respect all of these core beliefs. I even like some of them. But I am wondering what do you do about the non-believers and the barely-believers?

A recent huge Pew Poll showed that 5% of Americans are outright atheists. 4% are very strongly agnostic. By these numbers, conservatives have 91% (at least) of the population open to receiving a message that is at least quasi-religious. But it doesn’t tell the whole story. Only 39% of Americans go to religious services at least once a week, and only 54% go at least once a month. That means, in my reading, that 46% are essentially barely believers. They may repeat certain religious tenets, and most of them do believe (at least vaguely) in God. But few, if any of those 46% are really living their religion. I think people are so caught up in the fact that very few people are outright atheists that they assume that everyone else is religious. But I think these numbers show that there are a lot of E+C Catholics, but also probably a lot of E+C Protestants.

Do you assume they have enough respect for God and the Bible (or the Koran or the Torah or whatever) that they are fully supportive of a culture of life and all that entails? I don’t think the question is that easily answered and I think conservatives should be mindful of finding better ways to reach out to those who are not devout.

http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#