Likewise, “Too Big to Fail” isn’t a socially conservative issue; the argument of moral hazard has primarily been raised by fiscal conservatives, and is a theme in libertarian opposition to “bailouts”.

Are there social conservatives who agree with these arguments? Yes, bucketloads of them! But given that there are also social moderates/liberals who agree with those two arguments, it strains credibility to call them SoCon issues.

I do however believe both of these men were honorable. They did their best as far as they were able. And W in particular is owed a great debt of gratitude for recognizing the GWOT and doing his best to prosecute it in what, despite initial claims to the contrary, was actually a very unfavorable domestic environment.

Unfortunately, our congressional leaders after the initial revolution were even worse than the Bushes. They squandered the legacy Reagan passed to them. And now, as is always the case, we who come after must clean up their mess and build the party again. The good news is that this time, it really is happening from the bottom up, and not the top down. With luck, and more importantly prayer, what we build now will last longer than the last one did.

Comparing an incumbent win to a challenger win isn’t cricket.

As for Republican problems in California, maybe the reason Republicans keep losing there is precisely because so many of them look like just like Arnie on their voting records. Looks to me like Neil and some others out there are trying to change that, and with a little bit of luck there might be a choice between The Duke and Moonbeam instead of between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer in some upcoming elections.

The are only a few things which do actually bind the Tea Party movement together:

1. A strong belief in the US Constitution as a document of limited government.
2. An equally strong belief that the road we are currently on is one which leads inevitably to a totalitarian state.
3. The way to fix #2 is to move as strongly and as quickly back to #1 as is possible.
4. You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Eventually the majority of the people figure it out, and when they do you’d better hop to it on getting things back where they belong, or else.

As I was think about those potentially conflicting ideals, it occurred to me that my objection to the redefinition of marriage is primarily a religious one. Specifically, I don’t want the federal government telling me what religious convictions should be. Redefining marriage to include homosexuals does that. Perhaps the resolution of the problem is as simple as removing the federal government from the equation. From a legal and religious perspective, I think it might strengthen the positions of both the government and religions.

I haven’t finished thinking it through yet. I still need to think through the potential cultural issues and implications.

You hit on a key point when you said that our fight must be to uphold the case for morality along with the legal question. I happen to have 2 daughters who are both members of their churches, along with their husbands. They are self-proclaimed pro-choice liberal Obama koolaid drinkers. As I said, the younger gave her 1st son in adoption when she was 21. The other daughter has only been with one man in her life and of course would never have considered abortion for herself, either. The 2 of them can’t be an unusual case.

If we can educate people on the barbarism of abortion, we will change hearts and minds. The pendulum is swinging our way.

I don’t think this community is asking anyone to take any back seats. I sure am not.
.

What the Democrats have done so masterfully is discredit the Republican label and get fewer and fewer people paying taxes. For Republicans, even if we couldn’t engage the mushy middle on issues, they paid taxes and nobody except rich liberals wants to pay taxes – even rich liberals don’t but they say they do. So, we had the two pronged attack of resonant issues and lower taxes. Well, half the Country doesn’t care about taxes since they don’t pay them, they receive them. And the other half is all over the dial on issues.

Here is how the public argument goes:

Do we agree that we women should have all the information they require in order to make an informed choice? Good. Then they need to have information about what their ultrasound shows, information about how to collect child support and information about adoption.

Do we agree that abortion should be the last resort? We don’t? Then you need to make the case that it should be the first option. Don’t want to go there? Good. Then let’s agree and move on.

Do we agree that America should view an abortion on TV so they can make an informed decision about this issue? We don’t? You want people to consider this issue without all the facts? Then you need to explain why. Don’t want to? Then can we agree that abortion is a procedure so barbaric that we cannot show it on TV, which is exactly what you just said? Good.

Now, can we put the resources of the government to work in order to show women and men that they do have choices, and that the very last resort should be abortion – instead of government resources being used to fund and advocate for what we have agreed should be the last resort?

I’ll take that for the time being. Like until 2010.

I was born fighting. And I live in Boston. Nothing here really offends me. I appreciate the courtesy, but I have no idea why you felt the need.

If you disagree with me. I have two words for you. Bring It. I’ can handle it. We’ll do shots when the battle is over.

Why should we believe that the standards desired by Massachusetts or California should have to make their way to Virginia?

But that’s precisely where we get to when we forget the beauty of federalism.

I’m not telling you to do more “compromising with the rest of the country” — I’m trying to get both sides of these divides to agree to focus on other things at the federal level….and let everybody determine their own standards at home.

Back it up yourself.

He’s the exact opposite of a Meg Whitman or a Carly Fiorina.