I'm 100% certain you are mistaken about that.

Ask anyone of either "social" philosophy (L or C). Do they want govt to be run as efficiently as possible? Do they want to make sure that govt takes only the tax $$$ necessary to do the job? Do they believe that people should be held accountable for their actions?

The *vast* majority will say yes.

The real argument is over what, exactly, is the "minimum" amount of govt necessary. And that's simply a "systems analysis" discussion.

Reagan's big appeal that lead him to his 49 state landslide was not abortion, gays or social engineering. We remember him because of things like, "govt is the problem, not the solution". "Morning in America" -- economic morning, after the Carter recession. Economics.

In '94, the Rs used a long list of politically conservative promises to win control of both houses of Congress -- taking control of he house of Reps for the first time in nearly 50 years. A landslide. In 2004, after a decade of *abandoning* the Contract and instead pushing "Compassionate Conservatism" (culture war) -- Bush won with 51%. Over the next 4 years, they finally pushed their supporters over the edge, and now the Rs control *nothing*.

The 'tea party' movement -- pure, unadulterated political Cism -- is where pretty much all of those voters are now. That movement is what the R party *promised to be*, but since they proved to be lieing . . .

I've heard that excuse many time. To me, it's merely an excuse.

Remember, that glorious 1950's culture you claim to want to restore was a world in which blacks were still legally forbidden to marry whites, and in which women, gays, minorities of all types, were oppressed on a daily basis with the full weight of law.

Society will fight for 'equal rights for all', because of the principles of our founding fathers.

So if you put together a group dedicated to *opposing* equal rights for all using the full force of govt to continue oppressing the rights of minorities . . . that is a *very* different thing.

Y'all are on the offensive against a society that is trying to find a way to make good on the promise of the Constitution.

If you really are on the left then please remember that. Maybe you guys could elect leaders that understand the principles of our founding fathers as well?

As of right now the Dems in congress and our President are not listening to the voice of our founding fathers.

I'm neither left nor right.

I'm "up".

I'm socially liberal as they get -- live and let live. Politically, I'm as conservative as they get -- 'conservative' as in 'prudent'. As in, "I spend my money conservatively".

And there is no way anyone will *ever* likely govern according to my principles, because once in office the system will bend them to it's will. Corruption is just too tempting. Almost certainly, no matter what we promised to get into office, once in power we'd suddenly see all the reasons we should spend most of our time using that power to help those we favor.

And that is corruption, that is exactly how we got here in the first place.

This is so full of BS, its not worth anyone's time to respond. Society is not fighting for anything, its powerful special interest groups fighting against society.

My friend, look at the specifics of the issues you're talking about -- one side is fighting for the rights of citizens (gays, pregnant women, etc). The other side is fighting to try and use majority status to keep equal rights from those minorities.

To equate the two is to suggest a real lack of understanding about the issues we're talking about, in my opinion.

That culture that "traditionalists" are trying to preserve was a racist, homophobic, hypocritical one.

I'm 100% sure you're wrong about your #2 as well, so I guess we're at an impasse here.

As far as I can go is that the GOP won't win until economic and social conservatives agree to recreate their coalition which is the ONLY reason they were able to win in the 1980s and 90s. They WILL NOT win by jettisoning so-called social conservatives. The numbers just aren't there for that. the #2 position is simply not capable of achieving that themselves.

Also curious you say you are for abortion because of a laissez faire attitude, does this extend to post-natal infanticide, to child abuse, etc? If not why not? Isn't this "live and let live" as well?

Finally, there are plenty of issues that so-called social conservatives and libertarian types can agree on, such as the right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet or to smoke cigarettes or these things, yet we allow the liberal establishment to make those issues irrelevant and focus us solely on the homosexual thing and abortion. Don't you realize we're being played by them?

It is a common thing I hear from many 'culture warriors', the common thread being that they often have a very biased, partisan misunderstanding of what "libr'ls" are.

Believe it or not, most liberals still want accountability and efficient govt.

For me, the 'abortion' question is only about "at what point does a fertilized egg acquire the full protection of law".

Certainly not at conception, in my opinion. And certainly before full term, also.

In my opinion, just like in the '94 election, the only way the Rs can get back on track is for the social Cs to agree to drop the "culture war" and focus on political conservatism. Like the 'Tea party' movement. If they wish to continue the culture war in some other capacity, that is their choice. Just don't try to use the political party for that end.

I'd suggest it's a core philosophical conflict -- "culture war" requires an expansion of govt intervention in private affairs. "Political conservatism" requires a contraction of govt intervention in . . . almost everything.

The thing that interests me, and surprisingly the MSM completely miss, is that both Dems and Repubs are hermoraging support. The falling GOP membership is faster than the Dems falling membership but both parties are losing members. Who's gaining? Independents!


Poll: Independents gain on Democrats, GOP - UPI.com

But the GOP losses have translated into only marginal Democratic gains, with 36 percent of those surveyed describing themselves as independents, up from 32 percent in 2008 and 30 percent in 2004. The survey said 35 percent of U.S. adults identified themselves as Democrats, about the same as the 36 percent identifying themselves as Democrats in 2008.

__________________
We are United States Marines, and for two and a quarter centuries we have defined the standards of courage, esprit, and military prowess.
Gen. James L. Jones, USMC (CMC); 10 November 2000

"On my signal, unleash hell"

Excellent post. And it only took 6 pages for someone to point out the obvious. The numbers I saw were 21% identified as Republicans, 35% Democrats and 38% Independents. Despite the slight differences in the numbers your basic premise is corrrect. Both parties are in trouble.

__________________
A man only learns in two ways, one by reading, and the other by association with smarter people. - Will Rogers

Register Independent! A pox on both their houses!

perhaps this extended crisis in american conservatism can break the two party system once and for all.

then we could legitimately celebrate the bush presidency.

__________________

And now back to our typical partisan LDUCs.

__________________
A man only learns in two ways, one by reading, and the other by association with smarter people. - Will Rogers

Register Independent! A pox on both their houses!

the only problem is that many in this country vote down a party line but are too proud to admit it. they are thus 'independents.'

the poll is misleading.

__________________

I disagree. I think most people who vote down the part line or pull the party lever are quite proud of their party heritage. Mom and Dad were D/R and Granny and Gramps were D/R so that's why we're D/Rs. Doesn't matter if our candidate is a flaming jackass, he's our flaming jackass.

__________________
A man only learns in two ways, one by reading, and the other by association with smarter people. - Will Rogers

Register Independent! A pox on both their houses!

Pro-life is the only logical position, if you acknowledge the golden rule.

Help the rich is crony capitalism, both parties are engaged deeply in this.

Nuke the Arabs is an exaggeration, but I know what you're trying to say. The Arab solution is simple: 1. get off their land 2. treat all foreign sovereigns the same, even Israel

'Kill all the f--s'...yes indeed, this stance on foreign policy came via the Straussian invasion in the 70s and the N. Rockefeller invasion of the 50s, and these influences must be pruged and jettisoned pronto