I don’t know that many social conseratives, but of those I do know, there are consistent threads of thinking among them. I like them and we respectfully disagree, something nearly impossible to do with an immature, ignorant, slogan-spewing liberal. Perhaps it’s all too true that politics is extremely corrupting because my arguments are mainly with elected social conservatives and not with the rank-and-file (similar to my arguments with union representatives).

Naturally, there are going to be areas in which Republicans of different stripes will differ. I think the interesting question is not whether we should downplay religion but rather how to emphasize those areas/issues whereupon we agree. What are those areas? Are we honest enough with ourselves and amongst ourselves to accept honest criticism from each other? How do we craft a consistent message that you and I can unite behind with enthusiasm? Are there systemic changes needed that ensure the party faithful select the candidates they endorse? Who are these candidates of the future?

Since our recent electoral losses, it’s natural that we would question what went wrong. I’m not blaming social conservatives. But I tend to think individual religious decisions are private — that religious freedom is freedom of privacy, essentially. As long as we stick to the principles of our Founding Fathers, religious and non-religious alike will be best served.

Where I have a bit different focus from you is that I don’t believe social conservatives actually think any better of Bush and Huckabee than you do. Naturally, considering how poor the pool of candidates is generally, voters try to muster a bit of enthusiasm about someone, and I think it makes it look as if these candidates have broad support. However, I’d say among my fellow Christian friends, support in this past primary was spread pretty equally between Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, with no one being interested in McCain. I never thought the field was a strong one, and in the end, I think we ended up with the weakest candidate of all. Ron Paul has possible anti-Semitic baggage, Huckabee has inconsistent viewpoints that tell me he doesn’t understand conservatism, Fred Thompson was out of it energy-wise and doesn’t actually have a very strong conservative record, nor does Romney. I supported Romney, and I think the Mormonism was a paper tiger. In light of our financial problems, he would surely have come across as more credible than McCain. Well, it’s all academic anyway.

The Compassionate Conservative label never deceived any of the Christian conservatives I know–we thought it was a typical pathetic attempt to pander to liberals and we turned up our noses. I don’t think you’d get any argument from any of these folks either on the central importance of property rights.

As far as the war on drugs is concerned, just because social conservatives are concerned about drugs and their affect on society, as we all should be, that doesn’t mean that the government “war on drugs” is perceived as the way to handle things, or as anything more than a typical government sop to make it look like it’s doing something. Most of the conservatives I know are clever enough to see through the empty, expensive and lame ways in which government attempts to solve problems it largely has created in the first place, such as our current economic mess.

Perhaps you know more social conservatives than I do, but those in my experience are not really that naive. As a conservative, I see that drug use is just a symptom of strained, sick, dysfunctional families. Government programs have consistently undermined the family structure by rewarding dads who skip out, teenagers who become pregnant, and spending so much money that the cost of living is so exorbitant it takes at least 2 salaries coming in just to keep a roof over one’s head. This kind of pressure is destructive to family life, encourages divorce, leads to financial problems, poverty, children without stability at home. Add to this a consistent public school system which presents children with pressures and anxieties at inappropriate ages, creating an aura of doom and panic. (ie. books like 1000 Ways Children Can Save the Planet–for 6 year olds!). The literature prescribed for young people is full of death, hopelessness, despair. Many of the novels they read for school depict children who have awful parents but who meet up with a wonderful, caring school teacher who saves the day for the kids—one or two stories like this–no biggie. However, after time, the consistent propaganda is: don’t trust your parents, listen to us, the teachers, we are the ones who really care! Teachers often lie outright to parents to disguise what is happening in the classroom–that’s my own experience, attempting to undermine the relationship between children and their parents. Add to that a criminal justice system that makes it nearly impossible to prosecute drug-dealers or other criminals and keep them locked up. Didn’t mean to provide so much detail, but I just wanted you to see the sort of issues that really concern social conservatives. Rather than government slapping band-aids on issues, I’d rather see them remove impediments and respect the natural mechanisms society has to strengthen itself. Does this make sense?

However, I’m in my 50s, and have had the benefit of listening to and reading a lot of conservative commentary as well as having lived through Reagan. Younger conservatives of all stripes, unless they do a lot of reading, may never have heard the essential core principals of conservatism, since leaders during their adulthood have not made the case. That’s one reason I don’t trust the exit polls recently which asked people to self-identify as “conservative”, “moderate”, and “liberal”. I honestly don’t think most Americans know what these labels mean–at least a lot of them don’t in the Seattle area. I hear Bush being described all the time as “ultra right-wing”. They cannot tell you which policies he implemented are ultra right-wing, and perhaps it’s just because he was known to hold Bible-studies in the Whitehouse, but these folks are adamant about their opinion, and I suppose they are simply parroting what they hear in the MSM. I don’t think you can overemphasize the importance of the GOP electing leaders who articulate the basic picture well.

Many younger Christians are confused and ignorant. They, like non-Christian young people, sometimes buy into the idea that in order to help people, we must do it through government programs and it is always Democrats espousing this whom they hear. I believe many of them would support the right policies if they were taught free market principles and solutions. Conservatism takes longer to explain and can’t be shoved into a 15 second sound-byte.

Ah, but you see, dave, we know that you have absolutely no problem with supporting and endorsing social conservatives who you have deemed “homophobic” and “hateful” — when it’s Democrat Party members who are doing it.

Now, be consistent and denounce your Democrat Party as supporting and pandering to homophobes. Or make an even bigger fool of yourself by insisting that there’s nothing wrong with the fact that Obama and his Democrat Party endorse and support people who are against gay marriage, who support ex-gay therapy, and outside whose churches you and your fellow bigot gays are protesting.

I give in, you’re correct I am deluded. I actually thought that a group of appeasers and collaborators might possible be interested in who they were really supporting. Pretty stupid eh? The sad thing is you truly think you’re protected. You’ll see.

Here’s the problem with your formulation. The current modus operandi of liberals and the Left, as well as their media facilitators, and pretty much everybody else is to charge that anything other than complete and total acceptance and support of gays is “anti-gay.”

Sorry, but as long as that is the response (at its mildest, if not “homophobe!!! BIGOT!!!”), then “hate the sin, not the sinner” won’t make any difference. As a practical matter, when the sinner’s sense of identity is completely wrapped up in their sin, the sinner can’t (or won’t) differentiate between someone hating their sin, and someone hating them!

I know one thing–if Palin had won (McCain won’t be around much longer, so let’s dispense with the fiction), my partner of four years, who is from Germany and working to get a green card, would be sent home in a rowboat, and you and I would be tattooed and sweeping floors in a concentration camp.

This is “fact” to Dave and his ilk. They literally are completely and totally delusional. They insist that all conservatives want to put them in camps. They insist that all conservatives want gay people dead.

You have to wonder; why are they so desperate to deny reality that they make up stories like these?

As I see it, without property rights you have no rights at all and as you recognize, there is no conflict between social conservatives and fiscal ones except when they collide without liberty. However, the drug war is a good example of good intentions becoming government policy that through money empowers government agents that then grow and consume more money and then exist as an end in themselves whose effectiveness is difficult to assess. We all agree that drug abuse is a moral negative and coarsens society, but I would argue so has the drug war and for many reasons. Every single person I know who I would describe as a social conservative also supports the war on drugs. And so we have a government policy that is seemingly impossible to change and to defund. It’s with us forever.

I’ll finish just by stating that it’s better to eschew utopia in favor of liberty, despite that there are those who suffer. I’m not willing to sacrifice the ability of the diligent to get ahead just so we can slap ourselves on the back for attempting to rid ourselves of societal evils, an impossible goal and an immoral one because of the costs it incurs. The greatest moral agent in a free society is the moral hazard.

I agree with you that there is a distinct, virulent anti-Christian bias among certain groups. However, I don’t agree that they are well-represented in the GOP.

Ignatius, as a Christian conservative, fiscal conservative, etc. I disagree with you that social conservatives don’t care about fiscal conservatism. I don’t know any fellow social conservatives who are not equally conservative fiscally. This includes groups of people I have known in two other states where I lived prior to taking up residence in Seattle. If they do not talk about financial issues as much as they do the other things in your hearing it is probably that they regard those as a “given”. I don’t know any “values voters” who are happy with Bush, or who approved of what he has done with education spending, and all the other pork barrel spending. Most social conservatives just want government to get out of their lives, stop raiding their incomes, stop forcing them to support micro-managing government programs, stop driving up the prices of everything, stop meddling with the institution of marriage, stop forcing them to pay to end human lives, stop trying to re-structure society, stop forcing them to have their children indoctrinated in public schools which fail anyway, etc. And they want to be safe from the invasion of foreign nations. I don’t see a huge difference here in fundamental outlook with other conservatives.

And I wish I could forever dispel the fallacy that there is an inherent divide between “social” and “fiscal” conservatives. If conservatism is really about government being constrained to those functions delineated in the Constitution, with the attendant freedoms accorded to all, then there is no real rift. That’s WHY I am a conservative–I believe that conservatism provides ALL Americans the greatest protections for their freedom, the greatest ability to allow people to thrive, and the greatest respect for all people. Conservatism is inherently a uniting force, as opposed to the philosophy of our opponents, which divides society into classes, genders, races, etc. in order to create the idea of victimhood so that their politicians can manipulate society to produce a nation of equal outcomes at the expense of everything else. We must NOT lose track of our basic viewpoints towards life.

What I have noticed is that many so-called liberal and moderate Republicans may think of themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but in reality they are also NOT conservative when it comes to the economic issues. Perhaps THEY are the group who needs to understand what conservatism is.

Another point I try repeatedly to make is that you cannot separate fiscal and moral conservatism, because moral issues determine individual behavior, and individual choices are never made in a vacuum. Corruption is a moral issue, for example. Does anyone believe that corruption does not affect each individual in society, in particular each member’s wallet? Poor moral decisions result in chronic ill health which overtaxes the health care delivery system and drives up costs for everyone across the board.

Many people in the GOP (just like northern liberals) inherently dislike people from the South, and dislike Christians, and often dislike the average working guy. I see it as a kind of cultural snobbishness and it’s ugly, but whom you like to share cocktails with and hang with should not translate into who shares a similar vision of political philosophy.

Why does it matter if your neighbors disapprove of you if they behave decently to you and mind their own business? I’m not gay, so I’ve got no idea what kind of treatment is accorded to those who are, just as I cannot personally know what it is like being African-American. However, what I do know is how much anti-Christian hatred is out there, and I can see it wherever I go, even in clubs where I’m a member. For some reason, society now thinks this kind of ugliness is acceptable, as long as it’s directed against Christians.

I suspect in all of this discussion is the hidden argument for abortion, which those in favor of it are not willing to have with opponents. This is the single most dishonest issue I’ve ever seen. Everyone pretends that it’s a difference of opinion about when human life begins. What a crock! We know that a human fetus is human, and we know it’s alive. If it weren’t alive and growing, it wouldn’t need to be killed in an abortion. I can’t believe the stupidity going on today. The question is not IF a human embryo is a human being—we KNOW it’s a human being. The question is more appropriately framed as: what do we do as a society with mothers who are knocked up and don’t want their babies? Pro-choice Republicans aren’t willing to even have an honest discussion and they disdain those who understand the ugly implications of allowing societal whim to decide who gets to live and who has to die.

I really believe that Republicans need to get a grip on what they actually believe, while we still have freedom to do so, and before we know if it’s even worth rebuilding the party.

I didn’t think so.

“Opinions based on fact”

Hmm, I’ve an opinion that addDave needs to get out of his parents’ basement. So that he lives in their basement must be a fact then.

Opinions based on fact are not delusions. Also you like so many here can’t understand the concept of SOME. I personally have never claimed all SC are hateful or dangerous – only those who are in control of the major organizations that you totally ignore – or maybe agree with. I don’t hate people, I despise actions and lies. You are in a dreamland, be happy there but don’t claim it’s reality across the country. If you bother to take some time and read what comes from these “pro-family” anti-gay groups you might see what I’m talking about. And don’t bother claiming they have no influence in the party or that their twisted beliefs represent the mainstream.

As far as the polls you quote as gospel – did they contact all 50+ million that voted for Obama. And if they did the same type of poll with those who voted for McCain do you really think that those contacted would have more of a clue about their candidate? Well, of course you do but you’re wrong. Again with your dreamland.

Merge our creative energies together…and quite frankly we can get 40 percent of the GLBT vote. McCain got 30 percent and we can work toward that end and we can find common ground in the Latino community and African Americans….use the old saying teach a person to fish and they can eat for a life time and point out that we have common values….hard work, the desire for family, freedom.

Reagan stressed the positive and optimism and we should too….we don’t need to stand in a circle and shoot at each other….just extend our hands and join forces and fight for freedom!