Diary

How much social liberalism are you willing to tolerate?

With the 2010 midterm elections coming up, Republicans have some golden opportunities to make some serious dents in the majority Democrats hold in both the House and Senate.  Harry Reid is vulnerable, even though he’s doing everything in his power to work with his lawyer buddies to get every portential Republican opponent indicted.  There are some “Blue Dog” Democrats that are vulnerable, and I suspect there will be more, since they aren’t as fiscally conservative as advertised.

With the recruitment of Republican candidates to go up against these Democrats in 2010, there are bound to be differences on certain issues.  The question that I have been struggling with, as I’m sure you will be when the primaries hit us, is how much social liberalism can we handle?

Initially, I supported Rudy Giulliani for President.  I know that will rub some of you the wrong way, given his views on abortion and gay marriage, but when he came out and said that he opposed partial birth abortion and didn’t believe we should have taxpayer funded abortions, that eased my concerns about him enough to throw my support behind the person who I thought was best suited for the Presidency.  Sadly enough for me, I had only John McCain and Ron Paul to choose from in the Nebraska primaries (I didn’t vote for either of them), as Rudy suffered from the most poorly managed campaign in GOP primary history.

With the unification of Republicans under this communist, I mean socialist, I mean ultra liberal president, this is somewhat of an exciting time for the party.  But what I’m afraid of is that while we go after new blood in the party, are we going to wind up with more Chuck Hagles, Lincoln Chaffees, Maine Sisters, Arlen Specters, and Chris Shays?  Has Michael Steele and the rest of the GOP leadership finally learned their lesson that liberl Republicans don’t win elections?

I, for one, would be willing to consider voting for a pro-choice candidate who has conservative views on national security (and I include protecting the border and a no-amnesty illegal immigration stance on this one), fiscal responsibility, and lower taxes.  Once again, I know this will agitate some of you, but this will be a tough question to answer as 2010 and 2012 grow closer and closer.  If someone believes in a strong military, lower taxes, a balanced budget/fiscal restraint, and strong national security, do we give them a pass on some of the social issues?