Why not big tent GOP?

[charby]

So, you don't mind that they hold those views, but you do mind if they act on them.

If they are fighting a losing political battle, yes.

Be no different than if member of one of the Christian churches that believes that women are subservient to the men and if he got elected he tries to repeal the 19th Amendment.

[Perd Hapley]

When is the last time a strong fundamentalist Republican candidate made on a ballot and also won the election on a state exec race (Gov, Sec of State, Treasurer or Attorney General), US Senate, US Congress or President?

Seems like in Iowa, open fundamentalist candidates can make it to a few a state house or state senate seat (and lower offices) and win because of the constituency of the district (strong Dutch Reform areas) but they lose on higher races at the primary.

I was going to say that you moved the goal post, but you've actually swapped goal posts and are now playing for the opposing team.

You originally asked why all the GOP pols are socially conservative. But now you're saying that they can't even get elected to the top offices. These dueling questions could only be reconciled if a super-majority of governors, Congressfolk, etc; were Democrats. This is not the case.


I also note that you use the term "fundamentalist," a term with which few so-cons identify, and most see as a pejorative. See my comments above, about productive dialog with the so-cons.

[Perd Hapley]

If a so-con running said, "I do believe that marriage should be one man and one woman, and I personally feel that abortion should be illegal, but we know that times have changed and making gay marriage and abortion illegal is battle that probably will not be won." I could support that person 100% if I was in agreement with their other campaign issues.

An objective observer would have to regard that as really, really terrible messaging. Your candidate would be giving red meat to the Democratic Party ("He admitted that he's a gay-hating enemy of choice that wants to put women in jail for their reproductive health choices!"), while telling a vast swath of potential voters that they've lost, so they shouldn't expect him to try to make a difference on two things they care about. Besides which, people don't like hearing a defeatist attitude like that from Presidents. They don't want him to be the guy that says, "Quit fighting; they won."

Though I will grant that Obama has gotten away with a defeatist attitude on a couple of things.

[roo_ster]

If they are fighting a losing political battle, yes.

Be no different than if member of one of the Christian churches that believes that women are subservient to the men and if he got elected he tries to repeal the 19th Amendment.

Well except that there are majorities in favor of traditional marriage and for restricting abortion.  And in the means of imposition where abortion and gay pseudomarriage have been imposed by a progressive judiciary in contrast to the amendment process that requires supermajorities of elected congresscritters and elected state legislators.

But other than that no difference.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I've seen a few people trying for Repub endorsement vilified because they weren't in lock-step on all issues. Whereas the Dems seem to get behind one person, and go to the mat for them

The left has a pretty big advantage here.  The environmentalists will work with the union thugs, and the black power will work with the radfems.  The left all works together towards their common goals even when they have almost nothing in common at all.  But hell will freeze over before a libertarian cooperates with an evangelical, or a wealthy businessman type with a flyover hick.

Wish I knew a solution for that.

Incidentally, Rand Paul, of all people, he seems to really get this.  He shows a surprising willingness to support other folks on our side, even when he may not completely agree with them.  A real team player, and the exact opposite of his father.

[Perd Hapley]

It's easy to work together when there are no real principles.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The left has their principles.  Warped and twisted and wrong, perhaps, but principles nonetheless.

[Balog]

If they are fighting a losing political battle, yes.

Be no different than if member of one of the Christian churches that believes that women are subservient to the men and if he got elected he tries to repeal the 19th Amendment.

Restrictions on abortion after 20 weeks have what, %70-80 approval ratings? Gay marriage, so popular the courts had to force Ca to adopt it after they passed an initiative against it. You're parroting the left's "inevitability" nonsense.

And your laughably transparent disdain for peoe who dare to take their religion seriously is both eye roll worthy and a perfect window into how you view us. "Why won't you damn wife beating hateful morons just shut up, stop acting about the things I don't care about, and vote how I want?!?!?!" Why indeed.

[charby]

Restrictions on abortion after 20 weeks have what, %70-80 approval ratings? Gay marriage, so popular the courts had to force Ca to adopt it after they passed an initiative against it. You're parroting the left's "inevitability" nonsense.

And your laughably transparent disdain for peoe who dare to take their religion seriously is both eye roll worthy and a perfect window into how you view us. "Why won't you damn wife beating hateful morons just shut up, stop acting about the things I don't care about, and vote how I want?!?!?!" Why indeed.

If its so such a high approval rating why isn't it illegal?

[charby]

And your laughably transparent disdain for peoe who dare to take their religion seriously is both eye roll worthy and a perfect window into how you view us. "Why won't you damn wife beating hateful morons just shut up, stop acting about the things I don't care about, and vote how I want?!?!?!" Why indeed.

Compromise, neither side is 100% happy but each gets something.

[Perd Hapley]

If its so such a high approval rating why isn't it illegal?

Because every GOP politician at the state and national level is strictly pro-life. Or not. 

[charby]

Because every GOP politician at the state and national level is strictly pro-life. Or not. 

60% to 70% populace approval should translate that 60-70% of all politicians feel that way and should be slam dunk legislation to outlaw abortion after 20 weeks on a federal level.

[Perd Hapley]

Or, no, it's because pro-life pols never make it past dog-catcher.

Wait, which is it?

[charby]

I was going to say that you moved the goal post, but you've actually swapped goal posts and are now playing for the opposing team.

You originally asked why all the GOP pols are socially conservative. But now you're saying that they can't even get elected to the top offices. These dueling questions could only be reconciled if a super-majority of governors, Congressfolk, etc; were Democrats. This is not the case.


I also note that you use the term "fundamentalist," a term with which few so-cons identify, and most see as a pejorative. See my comments above, about productive dialog with the so-cons.

I'm not sure of your level on involvement in politics, but when a person wants to run for office they usually start with their local party organization to make the first step/be criticized to death. Gotta get those nomination signatures somewhere.

[Perd Hapley]

OK, this:

Why can't party loyal accept a person who can lead, has a fiscal conservative plan but has no opinion (or has a different opinion) on social issues be a GOP candidate on the ballot?

seems to contradict this:

When is the last time a strong fundamentalist Republican candidate made on a ballot and also won the election on a state exec race (Gov, Sec of State, Treasurer or Attorney General), US Senate, US Congress or President?

Seems like in Iowa, open fundamentalist candidates can make it to a few a state house or state senate seat (and lower offices) and win because of the constituency of the district (strong Dutch Reform areas) but they lose on higher races at the primary.

(assuming "party loyal" refers to Republican voters)

Which is it? You say that Republicans won't even put someone on the ballot, unless they are so-cons. Then you talk as though so-cons never win. And there are hundreds of GOP Congresscritters, governors, et al; and even a recent president.

So how are these GOP winning, w/o being put on the ballot?

[French G.]

Social conservatism, liberal gaia theory hippie tears, and sharia are all the same in my mind. Piss poor ways to run a government and they all come with a demand that you believe as they tell you or else.

Balance the budget, fix the roads, annihilate foreign enemies. Let us sort the rest out by ourselves at church, the bar or wherever else you might find handy.

[charby]

OK, this:

seems to contradict this:

(assuming "party loyal" refers to Republican voters)

Which is it? You say that Republicans won't even put someone on the ballot, unless they are so-cons. Then you talk as though so-cons never win. And there are hundreds of GOP Congresscritters, governors, et al; and even a recent president.

So how are these GOP winning, w/o being put on the ballot?

I probably used the term party loyal too loosely. The average GOP voter just shows up at the ballot box at primary and election time to cast there ballot, most not even being part of the vetting process.

[MillCreek]

Social conservatism, liberal gaia theory hippie tears, and sharia are all the same in my mind. Piss poor ways to run a government and they all come with a demand that you believe as they tell you or else.

Balance the budget, fix the roads, annihilate foreign enemies. Let us sort the rest out by ourselves at church, the bar or wherever else you might find handy.

+1

[charby]

Social conservatism, liberal gaia theory hippie tears, and sharia are all the same in my mind. Piss poor ways to run a government and they all come with a demand that you believe as they tell you or else.

Balance the budget, fix the roads, annihilate foreign enemies. Let us sort the rest out by ourselves at church, the bar or wherever else you might find handy.

x2 Secular government, not moral police.

[Perd Hapley]

Social conservatism, liberal gaia theory hippie tears, and sharia are all the same in my mind. Piss poor ways to run a government and they all come with a demand that you believe as they tell you or else.

Balance the budget, fix the roads, annihilate foreign enemies. Let us sort the rest out by ourselves at church, the bar or wherever else you might find handy.

I think you've just endorsed social conservatism. Left to shift for ourselves, and with a minimal government, there will be a sort of cultural inertia. It's no coincidence that social liberalism has been the project of those who endorse an ever-expanding regulatory state and vast social spending programs.

[dogmush]

Social conservatism, liberal gaia theory hippie tears, and sharia are all the same in my mind. Piss poor ways to run a government and they all come with a demand that you believe as they tell you or else.

Balance the budget, fix the roads, annihilate foreign enemies. Let us sort the rest out by ourselves at church, the bar or wherever else you might find handy.

QFTMFT!!!!!

And Fistful; that may be the ideal you strive for, but in practice socon's trend to try and use the government to enforce their morality on others.

[MillCreek]

I think you've just endorsed social conservatism. Left to shift for ourselves, and with a minimal government, there will be a sort of cultural inertia.

Or is this a more libertarian stance than it is social conservatism? 

[Waitone]

Social conservatives will tell you there will never be a morality-free government despite what libertarians hope and believe.  The only question to be resolved is which moral code will be imposed.

[Perd Hapley]

And Fistful; that may be the ideal you strive for, but in practice socon's humans try and use the government to enforce their morality on others. are not nearly so libertarian as they ought to be.

[makattak]

Social conservatism, liberal gaia theory hippie tears, and sharia are all the same in my mind. Piss poor ways to run a government and they all come with a demand that you believe as they tell you or else.

Balance the budget, fix the roads, annihilate foreign enemies. Let us sort the rest out by ourselves at church, the bar or wherever else you might find handy.

Ah, yes. And now we get the REAL reason that social conservatives and the mythical "fiscal conservative but socially liberal" can't work together.

"YOU SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES JUST WANT TO PUSH YOUR SHARIA LAWS ON ME!"

Social conservatives = the Taliban.

Gee, why can't we just get with the program and act like those who have the above opinion of us want us to act.

I read a study recently that liberals have very limited empathy: Most have difficulty placing themselves in someone else's position and following their reasoning. It seems libertarians share yet another trait with liberals.