That means, we have to learn to work together and find a way to finesse our differences in views. And to be a coherent party, rather than just a coalition of expediency – we need to determine what is the core set of principles/views that defines us and around which we can rally and work with each other.

Of course, coming to agreement on core values is itself a challenge. And priorities can change depending on the world we live in. What was key 10 or 20 years ago may not be key today. And you also have to be able to recruit enough people to make a party viable.

But in any party, we’re not going to get everything our way. We have to engage in “delayed gratification” on some of our issues – not that we shut up about them, but that we subordinate them to the priority, trusting that their time will come.

And in particular, given the dangerous turn our nation has taken under Obama and his cohorts, I would argue that our priority and unifying focus has to be on fiscal conservatism and small government. That’s where the fire is.

That’s also the issue where too many of our “moderate” party leaders are pouring gasoline instead of water. Which means that I agree with you on the end – but the means has to be feasible to. Splintering is the last thing we need – but selling out first principles is just as bad or worse. Finding the sweet spot between is the challenge

Shame on all of you, Rush & Sean.

We are losers as long as rise to this bait.

Eric Fletcher

In brief, don’t take a dump on our living room carpet if you want to remain welcome as a visitor.

We do have a few who keep in line, and they can provide us with a good challenge and some insights as to how we come across.

Your comments today are violating these guidelines. Keep this up, and one of our moderators will be showng you the door before long.

See?

I like this idea (although agree that we don’t need a NEW America, my old America is just fine – as long as BO isn’t leading it) and think it has potential. Is it where it needs to be? Not yet, but I think if we get conservative voices behind the idea and help mold the message, we’ll get somewhere positive.

Next up would be the point which is repeatedly made on this site that elections have consequences. You guys lost badly in the last election. It was your ideas that failed. Man up to it and step aside. Let new leaders with different ideas take the stage. Notice I didn’t say “new” because they aren’t new. They are older than the country, possibly older than man himself. And when we provide the public with a choice not an echo, they seem to like those old ideas. That they just happen to be the ideas you keep pooh-poohing might be what has led to your failure.

You want to be a “leader?” Then: Lead! Put your reputation on the line, go after oh-so-popular “Dear Leader.” Take down a Democrat–any Democrat, anywhere.

Take on a leftist group, any leftist group–pick a fight and show no mercy–I don’t care if it’s the Democrat Grandmas for Hot Fudge Brownie Kindergarten Snack-Time. Take them down.

This Democrat party and it’s money-men have poured millions into every little left-wing outfit they could find, they have cultivated a weed garden of thousands and thousands of foot-soldier–make them howl in silence as the tentacles are cut away. What are they going to do, go public with the fact that they’ve indirectly funded some kooky group? Let them bring in their reinforcement of ACLU lawyers and media “watchdogs”–then drag them down into the mud and slop, too.

There’s a lot of targets out there, and some have some awful skeletons in the closet–rattle them bones and tie the carcass to the Democrat Party.

Show me there’s some fight in your belly, not a desire for more grapeshot in mine.

If this is to be a fight, if this it to allow you to lead–then show me you understand someone has to lose and that you have no problem making the loser the Democrat; that you can’t wait to make that loser the Democrat. You’ve got the money, you’ve got the reputation: You’ll find plenty of soldiers when you start fighting.

I’d have to say that the most numerous GOP “moderates” are those who hate the “pork” but love the “bacon.” Remember the “9000 earmarks” that cluttered the budget that just passed? 40% of them were inserted by Republicans. We have one principled conservative on our local city council who votes against the “free” money that the state and feds want to “give” them. The vote is always 6 to 1. Don’t assume that the fiscon message is an easy winner. How many state Republicans salivated for the Porkulous bucks?

Don’t assume that the defcon message is an easy sell, either. There are lots of voters who are getting the attitude that “terror”, Iraq, Afghanistan are just so “yesterday.” Can’t we all just get along?

But we should drop traditional marriage, that has overwhelming popular support? That draws majority minority support — in California?? Just because the 2% gay population has a disproportionate voice in the MSM and Hollywood? I don’t think so!!

Primaries are the place for promoting conservative principles and candidates. Sometimes we should challenge incumbents. Former Cong Gilchrest was a major league porker. So Harris won the primary, but lost the general in a Democratic year? It’s only a big deal if Harris doesn’t try again in a normal competitive year. And when retirements open up GOP seats in red states, or when Dem incumbents run for re-election in red states, push hard for conservative candidates.

Who cares if some bureaucrat at NRSCC or some member of NCNA doesn’t like Pat Toomey? Their precedessors didn’t like Reagan. Ignore them! And where we have a blue state contest like the Illinois senate contest in 2010, where a national security hawk/social liberal like Mike Kirk is the only GOP candidate with a remote shot at winning, take the half loaf. Kirk will vote for most if not all Republican judicial appointments in any event.

Conservatives are winning. Welcome moderates and half a loaf when it’s the best we can do. And fight hard to add conservatives in solid red territory whenever the opportunity presents itself.