Huh?

I'm not actually a strident social con, more of a social moderate. But this statement from lgf is, unfortunately, in a word, dumb. I might even agree with lgf to a degree, but the social con agenda wasn't even on the agenda this Fall. And it certainly wasn't pivotal in the race. Hell, even Obama shifted to the right on the issue to get elected.

As much as anything else, this election was a referendum on the social conservative agenda, and the social conservatives did not win.

The socially conservative, moderate and liberal wings of the GOP do need to find a way to get along - especially if the neo-cons want at least one party that takes the war on terror seriously. 

Roe v Wade can be approached as a matter of bad law with the ultimate determination being left to the states. And even as a social moderate, I would never support using tax dollars to fund abortions.

But trying to dismiss one leg's agenda because the most anti-social conservative candidate in years lost an election is too much of a reach. 

Comments

[mark l.]

"this election was a referendum on the social conservative agenda"

it was over money, plain and simple. they(congress 02-06) had managed to spend it faster than our gdp was growing-no small feat. everyone who was going to vote over money got their 401k statements-saw a 20% drop, heard 700 billion to bail out banks on the brink, in the backround the daily dow numbers were nails for the coffin.

mccain's fundamental's of the economy statement, multiple times, was the equivalent of six feet of dirt.

did I mention mccain was winning or tied in the polls immediately before?

bush had a great run with the gdp, but the market from the time he took office til 07 was running under 3% yearly return.

In the back of their minds was was the thought of clinton-'didn't the gop tell us he raised taxes all the time? why did I still make a killing?'

[scarshapedstar]

This IS the first presidential election since the GOP spent a month parading around the forcibly-animated corpse of Terri Schiavo, no?

Y'all thought we forgot?

[mark l.]

"Never mind. You fucking aspire to be ignorant."

actually, I've never dreamed of voting democrat, so I've never touched your level of ignorance.

what's up with the name jaime? are you waiting for gender reassignment?

terry schaivo-

"Now Sen. Tom Harkin (D.-IA), a man with impeccable liberal credentials, is proposing such a law. Not for Terri Schiavo, but for the rest of us.

"In a case like this, where someone is incapacitated and their life support can be taken away, it seems to me that it is appropriate -- where there is a dispute, as there is in this case -- that a federal court come in, like we do in habeas corpus situations, and review it." Harkin told reporters he was hopeful that Congress would address such legislation sometime soon."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0322-20.htm

funny how my memory is a little more bi-partisan.

[scarshapedstar]

Oh...kay? No idea which bill the author of this article is referring to, but you pretty much shot yourself in the foot; one of my many objections to the Schiavo affair is that they was attempting to actively micromanage a family's private matters under the guise of legislating.

If Harkin wanted to pass a law that explicitly would not apply to Schiavo, I don't see it as being wrong in principle the way that Bill Frist's actions were.

[Jake]

Isn't that right you pussy?

Enjoy the wilderness, loser.

Posted by: jaime | Thursday, November 06, 2008 at 12:43 AM

Rich. Some *guy* with his name spelled "Jaime" calls someone else a 'pussy'.

[Diogenes]

Johnson jumped the shark a while back. Just whisper "Intelligent Design" in his ear and watch him go b@tsh!t crazy. It's really twisted that it's a bigger political issue with him than any evangelical that I've ever met - and I am one...

[Ralph]

I'm not a fevent social con but I am socially conservative as defined today - pro - life and anti-gay marrige.

But I know this social conservatives win. What does the press attack the most? Social cons. Why. Because it wins.

The gay marriage ban won in California.

I was very anti - Huckabee. However he has proven he can sell that in a way that is hard to demonize. I we want to win we need repeat need social cons who can sell social conservativeism with a smile. Ideally they will also be a national security conservative and a fiscal conservative. But we as a movement need to realize social conservatism is the first leg on that three legged stool.

As a member of the other stools primarily I see the great need to bring in the first. We can't win without them. If we want the other two we need to agree to the first. With all three legs we are unbeatable. Indeed social con with one of the other two might win. But defense con and fiscal con togather cannot win.

We must realize that in the Republican tent social cons are the largest group. When you're pondering that remeber blacks and hispanics passed the gay marrage ban in California. Social conservatism is our path to minorities. Like it or not (white guilt - not mine - forces me to say that is about conservatism not race despite a black pres).

Last I want to say to all you non-social cons (I'm all three really) think about it. Social conservatism I mean. They aren't all wrong. Give them some credit. Despite all manner of demonization on a daily basis they stick to their beliefs. You might stop to ask yourself why. This is hard. The other two legs are easy. Society purposefully makes social conservatism hard. Why?

[Ralph]

OK Let's try again. I had lots of msitakes the first time.

I'm not a fevent social con but I am socially conservative as defined today - pro - life and anti-gay marrige.

But I know this, social conservatives win. What does the press attack the most? Social cons. Why? Because it wins.

The gay marriage ban won in California.

I was very anti - Huckabee. However he has proven he can sell social conservatism in a way that is hard to demonize. If we want to win we need social cons who can sell social conservativeism with a smile not hatred. Ideally they will also be a national security conservative and a fiscal conservative. But we as a movement need to realize social conservatism is the first leg on that three legged stool.

As a member of the other stools primarily I see a great need to bring in the first. We can't win without them. If we want the other two we need to agree to the first. With all three legs we are unbeatable. Indeed social con with one of the other two might and can win, but if wer have only defense con and fiscal con together cannot win.

We must realize that in the Republican tent social cons are the largest group. When you're pondering that remeber blacks and hispanics passed the gay marrage ban in California. Social conservatism is our path to minorities. Like it or not (white guilt - not mine - forces me to say that is about conservatism not race despite a black pres).

Last I want to say to all you non-social cons (I'm all three really) think about it. Social cons I mean. They aren't all wrong. Give them some credit. Despite all manner of demonization on a daily basis they stick to their beliefs. You might stop to ask yourself why. This is hard. The other two legs are easy. Society purposefully makes social conservatism hard. Why?

As an addendum let me say that we can act as a moderating influence on the social cons, but we shouldn't be so dam fearful that they want to impose theocracy. Get to know what Christians believe. Christianity brought you the first amendment. Nowhere else on Earth has that. I have a theocracy fear too. I will never allow that to happen on my watch, but not everything is a slippery slope to theocracy. We have power too and in that instance if we simply joined with any other group not in the Republican tent we would easily be able to prevent it. America works like that. As it is our fear of theocracy keeps leading to more and more to socialism. Do you want that?

[Tennwriter]

Thank you, Ralph. Nice to see the issue treated with some sanity and simple practicality.

Perhaps the frantic should try to understand the concept 'soul liberty'.