GOP candidates are taking Mitch Daniels’s advice doing a “truce” on social issues and focusing mostly on economic issues.

If the GOP gains control of the House and Senate, there could be tension between conservatives who want a “truce” on social issues and those that want to bring social issues to the front.

Our state governments should take the lead and pass profamily legislation protecting the unborn. The reasonable people that have not commited will be more swayed by states across the country passing reasonable legislation than all the polls and radio and tv sound bites combined.

Best wishes !

I am one of those folks improperly labeled as a pro-choice fiscal conservative, or a socially-liberal, fiscally conservative voter.

I am not socially liberal; I am socially libertarian.

You want to permanently bad federal funding of abortion — great, go for it. I can support that. (But then I’d also support a permanent federal ban on the funding of all healthcare, with the exception of what we provide for our troops…)

You want to start dictating social policy, no matter how “moral” it is, by using the Federal Govt. to pass legislation to dictate how people live their lives, then you are no better than when liberals do this for their own purposes. You’re both scumbag politicians getting in the way of how I choose to live my life.

This IS a state’s rights issue, because it is not something that is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution any more than mandatory healthcare is.

Personally, I find most abortions to be reprehensible, but I take liberty seriously, and this is none of the Fed’s business.

It’s been widely known for a long time that many in the Washington GOP leadership either doesn’t agree with Pro-Lifers, or are simply annoyed by us. If only those pesky Pro-Lifers could see how important it is to ignore the abortion issue so we could elect more great men, like Arlen Specter and Mike Castle, then everything would be wonderful. That’s their attitude, and I for one am not interested in siding with people like that. Daniels seems to be taking that line, and we’ll see if he gets any farther than Rudy Guliani did with the whole ‘social issues dont matter’ thing.

I for one won’t go along with something like that, I agree completely with the Diarist that the Pro-Life issue should be one of the planks in any 2010 ‘Contract with America’ style document. For way too long we’ve done the whole ‘go along to get along’ thing with the Washington GOP leadership crowd, if they don’t like us fine, if they don’t agree with us fine, but let’s hold them accountable for that, let’s not let them keep pretending that they’ll get around to supporting Life eventually, and of course never actually do it. Let’s get them out of office and replace them with folks who do support Life. We’ve done a pretty good job of that so far this year, but now is a great opportunity, let’s make it a part of the Contract, make them sign the contract or state the real reason why, and then if they sign it and don’t do it, we vote them out.

Its time to force the pro-abortion folks in our party out of the closet, just like the former GOP Chairman recently came out of the closet, and admitted that he has secretly worked for years behind the scenes to defeat GOP efforts to protect Marriage. Many GOP leaders have been doing the same thing on abortion, publicly acting like they’re Pro-Life but behind the scenes keeping anything meanginful from happening to protect Life. Put the Life issue in the Contract, and force them to either live up to it or show their true colors once and for all, so we can get rid of them.

In the debate vs. Boxer a few nights back, in a state traditionally supposed to be avidly pro-abortion. And it’s probably the blatant honesty about it that’s going to make fence-sitters trust her more and maybe even win a few over to the pro-life position.

Decade after decade the Republican Party , and most of its apologists, have pushed social conservatism to the back of the bus. It’s worked so well in capturing the middle, ya know……..

The things we do to keep the left-wing marxist press from speaking ill of us…….

Without a moral compass, conservatism is squat. It is crap. It is just a better form of bad, and with no true right and wrong to guide it. Embrace our better selves.

I don’t like abortion and 100% against government funding for abortion. However, I am also 100% against big government. Be careful what you wish for. There are many people who are conservative themselves but don’t want to force their values to others. Advocating a big government that controls how people live their lives is very dangerous. You will end up with endless partisan wars. Liberals like big government because the y can force their liberal values to others. Some social conservatives who likes big government would also do the same. My take is you are free to advocate your ideology and by spreading your idea via religions groups, media(web sites…,etc.) and other means, you are more likely to achieve your goals without causing unnecessary tension. If you attempt to push it through forceful government policies, it will absolutely backfire. I know it is very tempting to rely on a big powerful government to achieve your idealogy. But that is the dark side…..It will not end up well..

Obamacare is anti-life both in its funding of abortions and in the “death panels” that will inevitably be needed to control its costs. Repealing it would be a major pro-life victory.

And yes, making the Hyde Amendment permanent and applying it to all federal programs would also be a major pro-life victory.

But by far the most important political decision in the abortion battle is still appointing pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court overturns Roe, any legislative victory can only skirt around the edges of the issue.

Because there is no credible third party in US politics, Republicans know that the GOP is the Family Values Voters’ only option. That gives Family Values Voters very little leverage, and it’s why Family Values Voters get played in every national election.

Sad but true.

I’m very strongly pro-life, but I also know that if I vote for people who want limited government and fiscal conservatism, that 95% of the time, I’m also going to get someone who is pro-life.

If I vote Daniels for Prez, I’m pretty darn sure that I’m going to get the judgeships that I want and I’m equally sure that he’s not going to be spending federal money on abortions and that’s without knowing (till I read this article and the comments) if he was pro-life or pro-abortion on a personal basis.

There are some pro-lifers who are terrible on big government (GWB, Huckabee for starters). It’s usually easier to go one direction than the other.

It’s a states right issue and it shouldn’t be being played on a national level.

Let the states decide how they feel. States that feel abortion is okay, well we need to get on the education train and convince them of the error of their ways.

But the Tea Party doesn’t give a ZIT about politically correct, and are pro-life.
The Gutless GOP isn’t a party, no, it is a bust.
So that’s why we are ditching them.

Focus is (or should be) the name of the game here. The new “contract” is a general messaging agenda meant to indicate the broad direction of the new Congress. It is not meant to be a laundry list document detailing every public policy stance and procedural vote Republicans will take. Adding pro-”family values” agenda items (whatever that means in a practical sense) is a bad idea for the same reason that spotlighting the GOP’s stance on the “Free Mumia” would be: both would greatly detract from the message that the GOP should be getting out loudly, which is that they will be more fiscally conservative, willing to repeal ObamaCare, less elitist, and vigilant against the rest of his agenda. They should be proving that they are not Bush Republicans (even though they are), and that they will fight against the excesses perpetrated by both Bush and Obama. Like it or not, no one cares about life issues right now, and those pieces of legislation you point to will never get passed under Obama. I say that as someone who supports two of the pieces of legislation you’re promoting here. No discussion of new legislation matters until Obama gets voted out, unless you want Obama to look bad by having to veto or make a statement against a popular bill, or otherwise engage in imaging. The pro-life bills do nothing on this front. For that matter, neither would a marijuana decriminalization bill or Federal Reserve auditing, to throw out some popular ones for libertarians.

Now for the good news: this emphasis on fiscal issues doesn’t mean that the party is ignoring its commitment to life issues. Quite the contrary: smart framing can bundle life issues with the general issue of judicial activism, which would tie into the themes that the GOP should be tapping into this election.

Look at all the senate candidates vetted by Jim DeMint and look at their stance on “social issues”.

Until the pro-life community gets off their butts and starts delivering a significant coalition at the ballot box, then they simply will not be taken seriously. You want to know what has destroyed the pro-life agenda? Bart Stupak.

For years, this coalition of single issue voters thought they could play both sides of the fence and not take a stand for one party over another. This allowed for an alliance with the Catholic Church, which is politically very liberal except on the issue of life.

But now that it looks like the Democrats are going to take a severe beating in November, who suddenly shows up at the table whining that their “issue” is being ignored? Well you had your chance. Despite one of the strongest advocacy groups in politics, you didn’t deliver votes in 2006 and 2008. Even worse, you voted for the wrong team. Meanwhile, the FiCons developed the Tea Party from nothing into a massive wave election.

And you are surprised to find your issue has been marginalized?

Welcome to the real world. The “three legged stool” is a cute analogy, but your legs hasn’t been holding up its weight.

The center-right has to win first! Surely you life-zealots and social crusaders understand that? The first order of business is to regain a centrist majority from the progressives, and the message that will earn that majority is one of a limited., constitutional federal government, and an end to the insanity of over spending. Seventy percent of the adult population immediately identifies with that vision and will vote for it, so don’t muck it up!

The progressives would like nothing better than an internecine battle on the center-right over “social issues”, and who is more true to the life-siders agenda.
That skirmish is a distraction. We need to win the major battle first.

…GOP remain pro-life? Has that platform, by itself, ever cost it an election cycle, or even a marginal seat? vs. how many grass-roots Republicans
would stay home on Election Day if the platform were dropped?

violating some new regs under a law passed this yr. Under the old law, they could still operate, pending appeals–now they can just shut them down. It’s not the answer to R vs W, but at least it’s slowing the executioners down a bit & might have them looking over their shoulders.

Yes, I am one of those hated gay republicans having never voted for any other party since I proudly cast my first vote for Ronald Regan. I have also never been anything but pro life and was heavily involved in sidewalk counseling for many years. All of that aside I am also a pragmatist, we will never achieve the goal of overturning Roe if we are out of power. While social issues are important they are not the issues that get us elected and keep us in power. It makes sense at least to me to focus the election on the economic issues that are important to people at the moment.

lou

Remove federal funding of abortion – fine.

Remove obstacles to states controlling their own abortion policies (including a reform of the judiciary) – fine.

One size fits all federal policies – terrible idea strategically. A long term loser. It is going to be difficult to convince fencesitters that we’re against big top-down government except, oops, in this one case because we really really really believe in it. A loser of an idea. It will put conservatism on the defensive when we should be putting liberalism on the defensive and keeping it there.

We must maintain the high moral ground of states’ rights at all costs. Simply giving it away for an eventual loser is a truly misguided plan. I am really disappointed that some here don’t get the big picture.

This battle will not be won with legislation but cultural war. We must maintain the high moral ground of being on the side of states’ rights. This is the way we roll back leftism, progressivism, Gramscianism for the long-term.

We win by framing the pro-life issue in terms of states’ rights.

We lose by using the heavy hand of federal government.

Legislation which frees the states to set their own policies: good.

Legislation which coerces the states in any way: bad.

Free the states, then if federal judiciary wants to throw down, wage war against the judiciary, going as far as constitutional amendment(s.) This is playing chess, not checkers. We absolutely must do it this way to force the hand of the judiciary on these issues. Show their disregard for the will of the people and check their power.

Wage war on the leviathan if you really want to win. Anything else is ultimately ineffective moral posturing, something that should be left to the …well, left. We should just play to win.

Federalism is good for many things but not the protection of life.