I agree that pro-life candidates have a rather dismal track record in statewide campaigns these past few years.

And as I’ve written before, find me a credible fiscal conservative who happens also to be a social “liberal” (by that narrow definition above of pro-abortion and pro gay marriage) and I’ll support them over a weaker social “conservative”.

However, fiscal conservative-social liberals seem rarer than passenger pigeons from what I can see. Almost all social liberals I see are also big-government advocates too.

But hey, give me some names and I’ll take a look.

In any case, from my perch in the Bay Area, most of the people who identify themselves as Democrats or who vote for Democrats have a visceral aversion to Republicans. They’ve bought the caricature hook-and-sinker (Democrats for the working people, Republicans are rich people for Big Business Democrats care about people, Republicans are heartless, etc,) that voting for a Republican doesn’t even enter into their conciousness. These people dispised McCain – and for these people, it wouldn’t matter whether a Republican candidate was for abortion, they’d still vote for the Democrat because the Democratic party is the reliable supporter of abortion.

In other words, the current rules of the game eliminate a substantial portion of voters from the Republicans from the outset. And so long as Republicans accept the caricatures, they’re in deep trouble no matter what position they hold on abortion and gay marriage.

The point is that the Republicans have to wage two battles. The first, as I described above, is to start to redefine the stereotypes. Point out the big money interests behind the CA Democrats. Hammer on how the Public Workers Unions have bought the legislatures and are bankrupting the state with their pensions and their excessive numbers. Explain how the Republican alternatives will help working people and demonstrate who’s really on the side of the working people.

And explain how reducing government regulations strangling business is hurting the state, and so on. The point is to turn the tables and help voters to see that things have changes and its the Democrats whose outdated ideas are making things worse.

And in line with that, when we run pro-life candidates, let’s start hammering on just which party is the one that wants government running lives. Expand people’s vision, get them out of the narrow ruts.

This may not work in 2010 to be sure or evern 2012; we’ve got decades of message neglect to work with.

And certainly in the current state of affairs, I would push on the fiscal conservative case because that is where people are most open to a change in perspective.

But pro-life is winning the hearts-and-minds gradually, so I don’t want to shirk back for illusory political gain – but we need to emphasize the humanity of our position, protecting the vulnerable, rather than making opponents into villains.

(And as I mentioned, my opposition to gay marriage is primarily directed against the courts declaring by fiat that it is a fundamental right. This is something that should be handled at the legislature or the ballot box, and those with the most votes win – at least until the next vote.)

I almost forgot the second front – that is having attractive candidates who don’t fit the stereotype, but who can come across as caring as they defend conservative policies as caring. The best programs and philosophy won’t get heard if we don’t have consistent messengers.

I’m shocked any self-professed conservative would say this about the likes of Campbell.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/hist_stats_gen_prim/historical-voter-reg-primary-jun08.pdf

DTS numbers doubled after opening primaries. I’ve always been a pretty staunch conservative. Yet I initially registered DTS. Why not? I still get to vote in Republican primaries.

Nice arguments but they don’t sell in CA. We can’t even pass a parental notification law, let alone any of what you are promoting.

Do you live in CA or have spent any time out here? CA it is a fairly liberal or more properly libertine state in a general sense. Archance summarizes CA pretty well up thread and he also summarizes what happens when the power of Communist Democrats runs unchecked by a Republican party gone into the mode of seeking those who can fit through the eye of needle on social issues.

So Prop 8 proves that CA really is socially conservative, see they passed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman. I voted Yes on 8 by the way. Interesting, but wrong.

Could it be that Libertarians, the African American Community, the Latino community got tired of San Fran liberals and nice folks in matching outfits telling us what civil rights were all about and how not allowing gays to “marry” we were holding back some great civil right?

Could it be that people were fed up with Gods in Black robes telling us what to do, to overturn laws we the people had voted for in the form of Prop 22 on the most specious of arguments?

The knownfact that Prop 8 signaled a turn to the Right in CA in terms of social issues is a nice knowfact, but it’s mostly wrong. When the issue returns to the ballot as a clean up or down vote and the gay folks don’t oversell, something like gay marriage will most likely pass, or at least get very close and eventually pass.

Somewhat to the left of Texas….boy howdy.

Convince me that closed primaries produce more electable Republicans. It seems the last 10 years have proven the opposite.

No doubt there are thoughtful voters (like you) who are uncomfortable with the fringe elements of both parties. But you won’t change anything by undemocratically electing more Arnolds. That only disenfranchises conservatives & encourages us to complain about squishes.

Most DTS centrists are (unlike you) too lazy to join a party or think about the issues. The open-primary system rewards their lack of engagement. Their lack of engagement results in a less informed voting public.

So your argument is essentially that uninformed voters should have more influence. Maybe you ought to reconsider your signature.

Rather, we should seize the mantle of less government interference by pointing the comprehensive range of areas in out lives that the left wants the government to control.

The best defense is a good offense.

I knew you’d finally see the light on fiscal matters….three two…one….blast off….just kidding.

The Democrats have succeeded in reducing “governmental interference” in private affairs to strictly sex-related behavior. The have also succeeded in convincing much of the public that “social conservatives” have a monopoly on “interference in private affairs”.

Specifically, abortion and gay marriage are now the sole determinent of whether one is viewed as supporting governmental interference in private affairs, for all practical purposes. Either you support the unrestricted right to abortions and gay marriage or you are an evil social conservative who wants government in the bedroom.

(Pornography seems to have lost its power mainly because it’s hard to get most of the electorate really riled up about it, and the drug laws against marijuana are mostly federal, I think, so this doesn’t carry much weight, that is, the drug issue crosses left-right lines anyway; it’s the sex issues that absorbs the press).

And I think even gay marriage is going to shrink in controversy within the next decade as the issue gets resolved at the ballot box or as state courts rule.

Which really means for all practical purpose, the whole issue of government interference boils down to abortion.

My point here is two-fold:

1) First, you’re not going to get opponents to shut up about abortion. This is an issue that is not going away because it’s literally a life-and-death issue.

Furthermore, the pro-life position primariliy is about protecting the life and rights of our most vulnerable population, not about trying to get into bedrooms.

2) Rather, the point is to change the ground rules, just like Dick Cheney refuses to accept the biased definition that his interviewers try to force upon him.

There was a poster earlier today who made an excellent comment regarding just which side of the political spectrum believes in government interference in private affairs. He notes how the left/Democrats want the government to expand its power over our health care choices (Keep your laws off my body! should be our rallying cry, not the left’s!), about the food we eat, the cars we drive, and almost every other sphere of activity except for abortion (and again, as argued above, charging pro-lifers as government interventionist is a false charge).

And opposition to gay marriage is more about preserving a 3,000+-year status quo and really can’t be construed as “government in the bedroom”; it’s the “pro” side that wants to change the government’s role. (I don’t want to theadjack and start another pointless debate over gay marriage, just to say that accusing opponents of wanting government in the bedroom specifically should be out of bounds.)

Conversely, it is primarily the modern right and Republicans who want the government out of our lives.

What we need to do is to push back and shout from the rooftops in areas of people’s lives how the Democrats want government to run our lives – rather than allowing the argument to be solely centered around sex – and specifically around abortion.

For instance, on Cap-and-Trade, let’s talk about how the law will bring government regulation of every device with a motor, How ObamaCare will expose our private medical records to government bureaucrats and the IRS. Or the efforts to create thought-crimes, and all the other government-coerced social engineering that the left is advocating.

We should be attacking the privacy violators of the left, their advocacy of government interference, not allow ourselves to be put on the defensive. It’s late, but we’ve got to change the rules.

In all the CA elections coming up, first thing I’ll be checking on will be how they came out on Prop 1A and how they voted or acted on any of the recent CA budget battles. Anyone voting to give CA Democrats more to spend is as they said in the Godfather, “Dead to me”.

Pretty much seals the deal for me, I won’t vote for anyone who supported Prop 1A, which is what I think you were talking about.

The only major 3/4 requirement I know of is the number of states required to ratify an amendment to the U.S. constitution.