How a Republican can -easily- win...

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful,

That's BS.

Gun rights are dependent on supporting abortion bans that simply cannot happen in today's society at a national level, even among Republicans?

No, but they are dependent on voters that support that support gun rights. A large share of those voters are also social conservatives. That is what I have been saying, in language that is perfectly clear. Why must I keep repeating myself on this simple point?

The OP called for the GOP to explicitly alienate half of its base, which is idiotic for the reasons already stated. The alternative is not to make the 2012 election into a social issues referendum. That is a false dichotomy. The (wise) alternative is to focus on economics, without alienating the desperately-needed social conservatives.

Edit: Just saw your edits. I was not offended, but I'll modify what I quoted, if you wish.

[Balog]

Strawman.

What I put down is all "small-l" libertarian if "libertarian" at all and limited to those narrow positions that actively cost votes among the non-Republican Party faithful.  

I'm not saying run as a gold bug, open-border, isolationist (which are the "L"ibertarian positions that don't get traction with the uncaring middle) but as an actual, limited government, Constitution as written, Republican.

Why would a doctrinaire Repub, not a social conservative single(moralist)-issue tag-along but a limited-government Republican, have real heartburn with any of that?

After all, they can push for more if they want to (and can demonstrate the numbers) after we win teh frikkin' election.

All that kind of statement can do is increase the voter base.

Abolition of fed.gov recognition of marriage is not small l libertarian commonly accepted, at least not from where I sit. And very few social conservatives take a "ban it all right now or nothing" approach to abortion. I also disagree that homicide is entirely a states rights issue. The states do not (or should not, in my view) have the right to suspend the 4th amendment, or legalize murdering x ethnic/religious group etc. The Bill of Rights is a binding agreement on the states as well as fed.gov imho.

Also, in an unusual move for me I agree with fisty on his last post.

[Jamisjockey]

No, but they are dependent on voters that support that support gun rights. A large share of those voters are also social conservatives. That is what I have been saying, in language that is perfectly clear. Why must I keep repeating myself on this simple point?

The OP called for the GOP to explicitly alienate half of its base, which is idiotic for the reasons already stated. The alternative is not to make the 2012 election into a social issues referendum. That is a false dichotomy. The (wise) alternative is to focus on economics, without alienating the desperately-needed social conservatives.
Edit: Just saw your edits. I was not offended, but I'll modify what I quoted, if you wish.

I think that's what we're saying.  Any conservative candidate with any kind of track record will already have a position on social issues, easily researched and discussed.  However, to make this election about anything but the economy and growth of leviathian is death.

[Matthew Carberry]

The wording was bad in the OP but I don't see it as "alienating" a rational, intelligent base who isn't looking for a reason to be even more offended.

First, that stuff can't be a priority for a President or Congress right now, second, it isn't really Federal stuff anyway, and, third, the President has little to no ability to make any real changes on those issues even if they were Fed issues.

The sooner folks on both sides, who apparently don't understand civics, are gently educated on the fact that we don't have a King and that they are doing the same thing the folks they disagree with are doing by trying to make Federal issues out of what are properly state issues, the better.

The "we (Republicans/limited gov't./ fiscal conservatives) need them (primarily Social cons)" works the other way even more.  There are not enough socially conservative voters to win on that platform if the big middle; which has been trending secular, not thrilled with abortion but against outright bans, not necessarily pro-gay marriage but against unequal treatment, pro-gun and pro limited government, realizes they agree on far more than they disagree on.  

[Balog]

You deal with what you have. We all agree on not putting the focus on social issues. I agree that it isn't a fed issue, but even if the Potus can't directly affect it people still care about his position on those things.

However, there is a long running trend on APS of socially liberal folks bitching about the horrid millstone of social conservatives, and wishing for a candidate who could tell those icky religious folks to go f*** themselves but likes guns. It's a bit of a meme at this point, and I think that was the lens fisty and I have been viewing this thread through.

[Matthew Carberry]

Abolition of fed.gov recognition of marriage is not small l libertarian commonly accepted, at least not from where I sit. And very few social conservatives take a "ban it all right now or nothing" approach to abortion. I also disagree that homicide is entirely a states rights issue. The states do not (or should not, in my view) have the right to suspend the 4th amendment, or legalize murdering x ethnic/religious group etc. The Bill of Rights is a binding agreement on the states as well as fed.gov imho.

Also, in an unusual move for me I agree with fisty on his last post.

Again, strawman.

Who said "abolish Fed recognition of marriage"?  I said "apply full faith and credit to state decisions on the subject" and also, if someone has heartburn with gays getting the same benefits as heteros, the proper, rational on a limited government/equal rights basis response isn't to deny homos the benefits but to deny them to all married couples. Which is the proper response from a tax basis anyway if "simplifying the tax code and easing the individual's tax burden" is something a person genuinely cares about.

Obviously, the states' can't selectively "okay" killing any "X" group, but "unborn babies" aren't a "group", any more than "burglars" are also a "group"; for whom, by the way, the states' have decided to limit its protection against homicide in certain limited and voter-determined circumstances.  

Again, state's should be able to regulate abortion but "when personhood begins" is a philosophical question that medical science can only inform and which, in the end, will be up to the individual to decide.  Thus the overwhelming support, however distasteful, for 1st trimester legality informed by new medical discoveries.  

[Balog]

Again, strawman.

Who said "abolish Fed recognition of marriage"?  I said "apply full faith and credit to state decisions on the subject" and also, if someone has heartburn with gays getting the same benefits as heteros, the proper, rational on a limited government/equal rights basis response isn't to deny homos the benefits but to deny them to all married couples. Which is the proper response from a tax basis anyway if "simplifying the tax code and easing the individual's tax burden" is something a person genuinely cares about.

Obviously, the states' can't selectively "okay" killing any "X" group, but "unborn babies" aren't a "group", any more than "burglars" are also a "group"; for whom, by the way, the states' have decided to limit its protection against homicide in certain limited and voter-determined circumstances.  

Again, state's should be able to regulate abortion but "when personhood begins" is a philosophical question that medical science can only inform and which, in the end, will be up to the individual to decide.  Thus the overwhelming support, however distasteful, for 1st trimester legality informed by new medical discoveries.  

Gay marriage has nothing to do with tax benefits or fairness, it's use of force to compel social acceptance. Bolded part is entirely incorrect. And I don't see this "overwhelming support" you speak of, so pony up some data or let's just agree to disagree.

[Matthew Carberry]

Balog,

Like you I'm definitely viewing "social cons", with whom I group myself morally, through a lens.

That lens is those idiotic Pledges which, once signed, put the candidate on record as, for example, supporting overturning Roe v. Wade (which I too would like to do on Constitutional grounds) and using that as a litmus test for otherwise sound, Senate-approvable, Justices, which means they just lost or made uneasy the majority of potential voters who see that as code for "ban all abortions even life of mother etc. etc."  

Which, unfortunately is in fact the position of many of the social con groups that put out the damn pledges in the first place.

If the candidate sensibly refuses to sign due to the pledge's moronic lack of nuance they lose those arch-social cons.  You can't even agree with those folks in principle, if you aren't in lockstep in practice you are an outcast.

Which is not the way to win national office.  

[Matthew Carberry]

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=35819

"The rest of the poll had good news and bad news for the pro-life community. While U.S. adults think third-trimester abortions (86-10 percent) and second-trimester abortions (71-24 percent) should be illegal, they believe first-trimester abortions should be legal, 62-35 percent. The second-trimester data is particularly good news for pro-life groups who are in the middle of a major push to pass state laws prohibiting abortion at 20 weeks on the basis that the unborn child feels pain."

Pushing 2/3 is overwhelming considering the subject will need to be voted on.  This is consistent with other polling on the subject and the majority number continues to increase.  Particularly when you add the (minority of such in fact) nuances of "life of the mother" and "incest/rape".

How are babies a "group"?  They share no common characteristic other than being babies.  "Armed Robbers" share no common charateristics other than being armed robbers.   Bolded part is absolutely factual.  But then again I'm against Federal involvement in "discrimination" in the majority of cases regardless.  

Gay marriage does not affect you in any way, particularly if tax dollars are removed from the equation, any more than hetero marriage.

[Balog]

Balog,

Like you I'm definitely viewing "social cons", with whom I group myself morally, through a lens.

That lens is those idiotic Pledges which, once signed, put the candidate on record as, for example, supporting overturning Roe v. Wade (which I too would like to do on Constitutional grounds) and using that as a litmus test for otherwise sound, Senate-approvable, Justices, which means they just lost or made uneasy the majority of potential voters who see that as code for "ban all abortions even life of mother etc. etc."  

Which, unfortunately is in fact the position of many of the social con groups that put out the damn pledges in the first place.

If the candidate sensibly refuses to sign due to the pledge's moronic lack of nuance they lose those arch-social cons.  You can't even agree with those folks in principle, if you aren't in lockstep in practice you are an outcast.

Which is not the way to win national office.  

Again, you're assuming facts not in evidence. Broad statements about the majority of potential voters don't agree with my experiences and need some support to be accepted. And "I kinda support the biased poll about abortion" does not equal "I won't vote for anyone to the right of me on abortion."

If fed.gov was requiring vehement condemnation of homosexuality would that "still not effect me" if no tax dollars were involved? Face it, the push to recognize gay marriage does affect society.

I agree with the "all or nothing" nature of some social cons, but I don't agree that they have a serious effect on people one way or another.

[Matthew Carberry]

We're going to have to disagree.  Our premises on these few issues are different.

[Matthew Carberry]

Yeah, the Feds calling homos "bad", if it had practical effects on their rights, would be wrong.

But what is wrong with saying "homo marriage is the same"?  How does that, in a practical or financial way, affect anyone?

When it comes to "can't opt out" in terms of landlords or churches then that is an intrusion in "support" of gay marriage which I no more support than I do intrusions on behalf of any "protected class".  Simply recognizing it, but not requiring you to do anything, doesn't.

[Balog]

Your last point showcases the utopian nature of libertarianism. Federal recognition of marriage will in fact lead to oppression of those who do not recognize it.

[MicroBalrog]

Your last point showcases the utopian nature of libertarianism. Federal recognition of marriage will in fact lead to oppression of those who do not recognize it.

Please explain this to me. The country where I live recognizes gay marriages performed abroad and extends benefits to married gay couples.  This has been the case for five years now. Yet nobody has been oppressed by it.

[Matthew Carberry]

Your last point showcases the utopian nature of libertarianism. Federal recognition of marriage will in fact lead to oppression of those who do not recognize it.

Umm, no.  That is not an inevitability, particularly if we elect limited government folks.  Which is the larger goal.

If we don't maximize our limited-government voting block by de-emphasizing SoCon issues then the other guy's "intrusive government" types will recognize gay marriage and ensure it is forced upon us.  As we are seeing now.

What we need are truly non-intrusive types in terms of both "traditional morality" and "lefty weirdness", who want the government to just leave us alone.

And we know who those folks are.

[Scout26]

If the candidate runs on purely conservative ideals (and having a record of having voted/governed that way) will be (and history has shown) the winner.  That includes both social and fiscal conservative values.

[Jim147]

jim

[roo_ster]

What does being fiscally conservative/economically rational have to do with McCain?.....he wasn't any of that....

I wrote two different sentences.  They were not necessarily linked.  But, in fact, McCain claimed to be fiscally conservative and then proceeded to tell the socons to piss off in 2000.  They believed him and voted for somebody else.  In 2008, McCain was much more cordial toward socons.

No one's calling for anything like that. The OP is calling for GOP candidates to tell half of their own party not to vote for them, right up front. This silly, tired notion is based on the idea that some great mass of independents and libertarians are going to flock to the GOP, and that this is worth the loss of a few bitterly clinging religionists out on the fringe. The problem with this, is that it doesn't reflect the reality of the political landscape, and it doesn't work. The GOP cannot win by alienating a massive chunk of those who favor small government, and are already predisposed to vote for the GOP. That strategy will lose elections. Like Balog said, you're simply calling for a RINO candidate who will fare no better than McCain did in 2008.

The bold face part is reality as of 2011.  Maybe in 50 years it won't be so.  As it is, moves that alienate socons by a GOP/some sort of fiscally conservative candidate in favor of the semi-mythical mass of gun-loving fiscally conservative, but socially liberal independent types will result in a net loss of voters.  This is foolish, when the aim is to cobble together 50%+1 in enough states to win the electoral college.

Your last point showcases the utopian nature of libertarianism. Federal recognition of marriage will in fact lead to oppression of those who do not recognize it.

Umm, no.  That is not an inevitability, particularly if we elect limited government folks.  Which is the larger goal.

If we don't maximize our limited-government voting block by de-emphasizing SoCon issues then the other guy's "intrusive government" types will recognize gay marriage and ensure it is forced upon us.  As we are seeing now.

What we need are truly non-intrusive types in terms of both "traditional morality" and "lefty weirdness", who want the government to just leave us alone.

And we know who those folks are.

Granted, it is not a physical law, like gravity.  But, Balog's point is accurate in the places in western civ where "gay marriade" has been imposed.  UK, Canada, and teh USA (among others) have all provided examples to bolster Balog's contention.


To sum up, any viable GOP or fiscally conservative candidate will not do as the OP wrote and cut his campaign's throat.

[Balog]

When we are talking about Israel, then I'll give a s### about the Israeli recognition of gay marriage. You're living in an expressly religious state, not likely the .gov is going to persecute Jews for being observant is there? Since it's already happening here in the largely secular country I live in, your observation is wholly irrelevant.

A pastor has been jailed for "hate speech" because they took out newspaper articles qouting anti-homosexual bits of the Bible. Many people have been sued for refusing perform/photograph etc gay marriages.

Libertarians are not trying to stop this. Libertarians want to see gov legitimacy extended to gay marriage.libertarians reveal their deep, deep hypocrisy every time they pimp for gay marriage.

[MicroBalrog]

No, your argument is this will inevitably happen. There are many countries where gay marriage is recognized and that has not happened at all.

[Perd Hapley]

The wording was bad in the OP but I don't see it as "alienating" a rational, intelligent base who isn't looking for a reason to be even more offended.

That is simply incorrect. Read it again.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd like to outline my platform for my administration after I'm elected. The prime focus is the economy. ONLY the economy. Grow business, grow jobs, grow our nation. So I pledge to not do ANYTHING that involves gay marriage, abortion, or any of that other crap. NOTHING BUT THE ECONOMY. If I do a good job with that stuff, then we can tackle all the other issues during my second term. Thank you."

I think that's what we're saying.  Any conservative candidate with any kind of track record will already have a position on social issues, easily researched and discussed.  However, to make this election about anything but the economy and growth of leviathian is death.

Then, unless someone has called for the latter course, we're probably all in agreement on that point. Bogie will not be offended if I ask who has paid him to make divisive comments to pit us against each other. He constantly accuses other people of that during election years, and here he is on the payroll, it would seem. 

Because this has to be re-stated infinitely, I'll explain again. There is a big, big difference between focusing on economics, and telling half your base to STFU. I, and others, objected to the latter as a losing proposition. That doesn't mean that our ideal candidate would ignore economics and only talk about marrying heterosexual embryos and leading them in prayer in a public school.

[Balog]

No, your argument is this will inevitably happen. There are many countries where gay marriage is recognized and that has not happened at all.

It is happening. We are not discussing hypotheticals, we are discussing what is actually happening, right now, in the actual country in which I live. Why do you keep pretending this is some pretend future menace I'm talking about, when it is events that are currently happening?

[agricola]

Can you all stop derailing the thread please?

To respond to makattak (edit: and Tommygun) - Lord Vader was clearly a a great statesman, your attacks are WAY off base.  The first death star took twenty years to build (and had the shoddy workmanship typical of union-built machinery), but the second was built within a mere three years, and they were able to cut out much of the typical government / contractor waste whilst doing so.  He was also able to cut welfare costs on Alderaan by 100%, and created thousands of jobs in asteroid mining as a by product of that policy.   He was (obviously) pro-family values, and reduced spending on the Emperor's pension, security costs and travel expenses by a huge amount.

Vader makes Perry look like a dog by comparison.

[makattak]

Can you all stop derailing the thread please?

To respond to makattak (edit: and Tommygun) - Lord Vader was clearly a a great statesman, your attacks are WAY off base.  The first death star took twenty years to build (and had the shoddy workmanship typical of union-built machinery), but the second was built within a mere three years, and they were able to cut out much of the typical government / contractor waste whilst doing so.  He was also able to cut welfare costs on Alderaan by 100%, and created thousands of jobs in asteroid mining as a by product of that policy.   He was (obviously) pro-family values, and reduced spending on the Emperor's pension, security costs and travel expenses by a huge amount.

Vader makes Perry look like a dog by comparison.

I don't know. I'm kind of concerned about his past, abandoning his family and paying no child support. (Not to mention that alleged domestic violence incident.) He may have reformed since then and reached out to his son and daughter, but I'm still a little worried about his sincerity. 

[seeker_two]

Can you all stop derailing the thread please?
Vader makes Perry look like a dog by comparison.

Oddly enough, Vader & Perry have something in common....both are fictional characters whose dialogue is written by others....