…allow themselves to be suckered in to voting for CINO’s. It’s no victory at all when Liberals like Romney are able to garner Republican support and (God forbid) become the standard bearer of the party.

(1) Obama’s not going to win Indiana. It’s not a swing state. It went for Obama in 2008 because of George Bush fatigue, but it’s shifted back. Lugar is a moderate, and we could get a serious conservative elected in that state. Money is not going to be an issue this year because of Citizen’s United, so we might as well spend other’s money to eliminate Lugar and push the party in the direction we want.

(2) Agreed on avoiding debates on left-wing media, and agreed that we need to shape the media to reflect our values and our positions, so far as is possible. But even Fox News is a bit problematic. For a long time, they supported the general Establishment support for Romney, although they have become a bit more balanced lately. But absolutely, avoid CNN, NBC, mainstream leftist media. In terms of our philanderers versus the left’s, I do have to point out that Anthony Weiner was forced out of his position. So it’s not quite as black and white as you state. As for me, I support someone who genuinely repents and gets right with God, but both parties have done a pretty good job of pushing out more extreme personal immorality. I wonder what will happen with that guy in AZ – Babeau. I hope he truly repents, because it would be good to welcome him back into the movement.

(3) Purity. OK, what is acceptable in a candidate in MA is not necessarily what we demand in a candidate from KS. But there need to be some standards. Religious freedom, including the freedom of religious people to fully live their lives in the public sector. Pro-life. Willing to support the war on terror and fully, permanently and strongly support Israel. I would have a hard time supporting a candidate who buys into climate change hysteria. We need a commitment to cut social spending way back and transition entitlements to the free market. We need someone who will shrink government down to its essential function of defense and assuring rule of law for free enterprise. OK call me a purist.

(4) The slowness of change can be alieviated by always developing some particular topic guaranteed to drive up anger, and then pushing it. This whole contraception thing is such an issue. Women can afford contraception, and nobody is going to ban it across the United States anytime soon. So use this issue, which in the overall scope of things is not that big an issue, to show the Obama Administration’s hostility toward religion and their patronizing attitude toward women. One can turn these issues into potent weapons, and we shouldn’t be so reserved about pushing them and pushing them hard, even if there is a bit of push-back at first. Slam the administration hard on religious freedom, and then work on the women’s vote by reconceptualizing the health care debate into one of individual freedom versus government mandate.

(5) We shift the Overton Window right by finding a few key points, preferably with a lot of financial backing, and pushing things as far right as we can. We don’t shift the window right by pitching to the center. On some issues, perhaps, but not all. We’ve already shifted the Overton Window a long way on climate change – increasingly people reject the idea of human-generated climate change, and there’s plenty of money out there to convince people that the science is weak. We can shift people away from environmental issues and focus them more on free enterprise and domestic energy production. Let’s use that money to shift the window further to the right – not to assault science outright, but to ‘teach the controversy’, and undermine liberal academic elite positions on a range of science-related issues. I think others may disagree, but we’ve already shifted the window on issues related to life. By focusing on contraception, and religious freedom, we’ve brought an issue back into discussion that had been moot since the late 70′s and now any sort of a pro-abortion position seems more extreme than it was even a few months ago. We’ve got women’s rights nuts fighting the contraception battle all over again, while almost everyone would be willing to compromise and accept a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v Wade. I will gladly trade access to contraception for a ban on abortion. The point is, we are on the offensive and as long as all they do is react to what we do, we are fighting forward.

The lesson, as I see it, is not to move toward the center but to shift the country much farther to the right. Make the Democrat Party irrelevant. They are on the defensive. Let’s articulate our case, keep on the offensive, and indeed propose more than we think we can win. It’s worked for the last decade in a whole host of areas – homeland security and the war on terror in particular. We’ve moved the center permanently on that. Even Obama is maintaining Guantanamo. The answer is not moderation, but sticking to conservative values unapologetically.

the media,, academics, and teacher’s unions have already moved us so far to the left that the words socialism and communism have lost their ability to evoke fear and loathing.

A little over 15 years ago, Hilliarycare was tossed onto the ash heap of history because it was too extreme and too far left, and yet the Dems., in some fit of power, without reading or vetting a monstrous bill, pushed it into law with NO Rep. vote, not one, and now a pres. issues exec. orders and edicts by the ton and Congress does nothing, while the media obediently (whatever happened to the imperial pres. of Richard Nixon that had to be so vigilantly opposed?) worships at the leftward shift.

To reach the center again, using JFK as a touchstone (having a strong military, more reasonable budgets, lowered tax rates, and unabashed patriotism) will take a decade, if possible.

But it is possible as radical professors of the baby boomers are retiring by the millions themselves and not leaving behind blind adherents because they did not come out of the demographic shift of the 60s, teacher’s unions are going to be less influential going forward because finances are finally catching up with districts, and the MSM is being undercut and gone around by the net.