« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Life, Daniels and the pursuit of conservative election victories

Why Democrats win elections and why lifeless Daniels truces won’t produce majority reports

mitch daniels

Since his 2008 re-election Governor Mitch Daniels has been, rightly, singularly focused on reducing the size of the Indiana state government; balancing its budget and pursuing policies that would attract business to the Hoosier State.

Ronald Reagan would be proud of Daniels’ successful application of conservative principles at the state level as well as his clarion call that America faces an existential economic, budget and debt crisis that can only be arrested with radical conservative change.

But the Gipper would, rightly, not be pleased with that portion of the clarion call that suggests the economic crisis can only be addressed if fiscal conservatives and social conservatives “call a truce” until our economy is saved.

Democrats have never won elections touting social liberalism

There are a number of false premises behind Daniels’ vague suggestion,which I address below, but the best evidence that such a truce is not only not necessary, but also counterproductive, is provided by the history of the Reagan Administration during the last severe economic crisis.

There would have been no Republican or conservative majorities, nor a President Reagan, absent the social conservative voters Reagan brought into the party. Far from playing down social issues in the midst of a recession with double-digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates; Reagan insisted that the Republican Party platform include support for a pro-life amendment to the Constitution.

False liberal premises that Daniels’ truce assumes as true

Some have suggested that Democrats win elections due to manipulation of so-called “wedge” issues. That is a meme invented by the Left in the media and the Democratic Party to try and scare conservatives into silence when their conservative base is energized over amnesty for illegals, preserving traditional marriage and reversing Roe v Wade.

Yes, many people vote for Democrats because of their social liberalism. They are called liberals. They are no more than 20% of the population. They will always be Democrats and they ensure that the Democratic Party will always be the liberal party in this country.

Most importantly, they don’t enter into truces to be liked by conservatives and you can bet that they won’t honor any truce that moderate Republicans enter into with social conservatives. Their favor, nor that of an even higher proportion of the liberal Democrats than the hard left, can’t be curried no matter what Republicans do unless they denounce conservatism and join MoveOn.org.

Additionally, what would happen during a Mitch-inspired internal-GOP truce? Would liberal Democrats cease their assault on marriage? Of course not. You might as well call a truce between my Carolina Gamecocks’ offense and defense and hope that Georgia Bulldogs don’t try to score, but I digress…

So, why do Democrats win elections and how does that relate to Daniels’ call for a truce between libertarians and social conservatives?

The at-fault party is the Default Party

The main reasons Democrats still win elections in this country, despite their dismal and repeated failed policies, is that they have dominated American politics for most of our history and are, therefore, the “default” party. After all, JFK, Clinton and FDR were Democrats and grandma votes Democrat, so therefore, blah, blah blah…

Well, this is not a Democratic Party filled with JFKs and Bill Clintons.

This fact of the Democratic Party as the default party must change, and may well be in the process of same given recent polling showing the GOP preferred over the Democrats by 10 points.

Ancillary reasons include their pre-Obama, Bill Clinton-enabled subterfuge as a “centrist” party and the tendency over the years for Republicans to be Democrat-lite and the consequent failure to build up larger conservative majorities when they held power.

One can point to no election cycle in which the reason for Democratic Party victories can be traced to support for liberal social policies, nor to any backlash against conservative social policies leading to GOP defeats.

Moreover, the whole premise that compartmentalizes voters is flawed. Most of the social conservatives that Reagan brought in were also ravaged by CarterDem economic and weak on defense and national security policies.

Additionally, Democrats have been given cover over the years from being seen as primarily responsible for their failed policies when both parties were less ideological than today, compromise bills garnered lots of GOP support, and the Reagan Recovery that scared Boll Weevil Dems into voting for tax cuts which some spread credit around for the 25-year boom, especially when Newt tamed Bill in the 90s.

Thankfully, and to the credit of elected Republicans over the past two years, President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party own all policies now in place that have failed to usher in a recovery. Heck, then Senator Obama even voted with the new Dem Congressional majorities of 2007-8.

Everything is as clear to the voters as Luzianne tea, hence, the parties and town halls, Scott Brown and the polls.

The Great Recession (Depression?) and the 2010 Election

Mitch, Obama; failed Dem policies; exposure of the non-Clinton-like majority of Democrats; and empty wallets have already achieved your goal of a singular focus on the economy that will put large conservative majorities back in charge of the House that will repeal ObamaDem laws.

No significant number of Republican voters are going to stay home because the GOP remains the Party of Life, and one can’t point to any election cycle to make that case, much less the current one that will occur during a near economic depression with polls showing pro-lifers on the rise.

There simply is no evidence that splits between libertarians and social conservatives have cost the GOP in the past, when elections were less focused on the economy. To the contrary, the rise of social conservatism within the GOP since the late 60s, through the Reagan 80s, and into the Dubya congressional gains of 2000, 2002 and 2004 have coincided with such gains.

Moreover, social conservatives have been the equal of the most loyal voters within the GOP since the 80s and dwarf in size those libertarians so enamored of internet gambling that they would cut off their bet-picking noses to spite their faces with an ObamaDem economy that leaves them with no money left to wager!

The scare line that the Religious Right wants into your bedroom works even less with ObamaDems having invaded every room in the house.

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Charlotte ObserverThe Minority Report and Examiner.com archives

www.devinelawvista.com

COMMENTS

  • tacoslayer

    He has made that abundantly clear on many occasions. He has never veered from his pro-life position.

    I don’t think that beating the guy over the head with one statement taken out of context is fair or reasonable….especially considering the man’s track record of unabashed conservatism.

    Daniels is exactly the type of candidate the GOP needs right now. I’m thinking….and hoping….the next national election is about competence. Daniels brings that in abundance. Competence is the only thing that will defeat the Dem machine.

    While I don’t agree with some of your assertions I always enjoy your diaries. Thanks much!!

    PS….did you see those Gamecocks roll over Southern Miss??
    Good looking team this year!!

  • aesthete

    In local ones, not so much. Progressives win based on cultural issues all the time on the seaboard, and many a Republican has fallen to strident cultural conservatism. Mike, you’re from GA, and I’ve lived there: nice place, very socially conservative. The northern East Coast and parts of the West are very much concerned by the specter of social conservatism, and vote accordingly. Achance’s anecdote about how towns in AK are more likely to have bars and whorehouses than churches holds true in much of the West, and the East Coast doesn’t have any use for the churched. Moreover, we have lost our focus on important issues due to the influence of the “Moral Majority” many times. From 1998-2006, one could argue that social conservatives gained the most domestically, and sidetracked a discussion of fiscal solvency, in circumstances where Reps should have been able to cut government. Mitch’s “truce”, while unadvised as a statement made aloud, is a good idea because it would 1) allow the broadest consensus to develop on fiscal issues possible, 2) would allow candidates to be agnostic on social issues, if they are running against Dems trying to use social issues as a distraction, and 3) would prevent the various social conservative advocacy groups from sidetracking Republicans from fiscal goals and making a fuss.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    discussions on the Will the GOP stand for Life? column here at Redstate. My purpose here is about the fake issue of a GOP split with Daniels’s statement simply being the best example of Repubs being mislead into plating into it and being still too timid on the issue and not yet realizing what a landslide is coming.

    Mitch is just one man. The issue is much larger and that is where my attention lies: Life, liberty and how h….he GOP is the only way to preserve it.

    I agree that we need Daniels and he is the kind of candidate we need, but he is wrong on thinking a truce within the GOP would help (since their is no war going on with pro-lifers) and that the dem left would honor a truce even if it were a good idea.

    thx for comments and Go Cocks! Spurrier seems to have finally delivered superior athletes on both sides of the ball and 3 good QBS, with a world class RB. We look like we can compete for the SEC east, at minimum..

    Beat Dawgs next Satdy!

  • chihank

    Dan Lugar says he won’t back any other Presidential nominee until Mitch Daniels makes his decision. I think Daniels would be a top contender for 2012.

    Also I think it was a cheap shot for Huckabee to call out Daniels on his “truce” on social issues. Huckabee attacked Daniels to shill for donations for Huck PAC.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    election cycle in which support for liberal social issues or opposition to conservative ones defined a democratic presidential or congressional majority victory. Of course that is not in that case in some individual local and state races.

    The lie that the Left and some libertarians try to advance is that there is a war within the GOP on these matters that the Christian right pushes or that the GOP is worse off for being pro-life and there is ZERO evidence to back that up.

    Dem victories:
    1976 – Watergate
    1992 – Clinton ran to the center
    1996 – Clinton was in the Center
    2006 – anti-Bush on war
    2008 – Obama wins due to bad economy, GOP base uninspired by Bush moderation on fiscal matters and McCain’s timidiy

    Being liberal on social issues NEVER a factor in national outcomes

    GOP victories
    1980 and 84 and 88 Pro-lifers major part of Reagan Revolution
    1994 Backlash against liberal dems
    2002 and 2004 Pro-lifers big for GOP

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    most of his actual governing ideas. Social conservatives are not the enemy of the kinds of fiscal solutions this country needs.

    Liberals and Democrats are, and if we declare a “truce”, they won’t participate in either the truce on social issues, nor smaller government.

  • chihank

    Daniels’s truce statements don’t bother me. Daniels was endorsed by the IN Right to Life in 2004 and 2008. So he is hardly pro-abortion. However, if Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney called for a truce, then I would be concerned.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    it proceeds from. I’m sure Daniels was also a sweet child that was good to his dog as well…smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    cause the GOP to choose wobbly US senators who are our ONLY chance to reverse Roe by the judges they confirm.. It was stupid for his to call for a truce for all the reasons I’ve stated and that poor judgment on that issue does give me pause in my otherwise enthusiastic view of him as a Presidential choice.

  • JadedByPolitics

    “Yes, many people vote for Democrats because of their social liberalism. They are called liberals. They are no more than 20% of the population”

    Damn RIGHT you are GC, the bottom line is the RIGHT to life is growing in favor of Conservatives not away from them. On illegals there are 71% of OUR Countrymen and women who agree with OUR stand on that issue. If ANY Republican thinks for one damn minute that Social Conservatives are going to be allowed to be thrown under the bus for Fiscal expediency they are going to find out fast that they will have no more then 30% approval. I DARE them to bring anything less than the THREE LEGS of the stool to the dance!

  • mikejmoe

    Until he talked about a truce. Dumb Dumb Dumb

  • penguin2

    remarks and baggage dumped on us. My favorite line:

    The scare line that the Religious Right wants into your bedroom works even less with ObamaDems having invaded every room in the house.

    That’s it in a nutshell.

  • bk

    Here’s the way it works in liberal playbook the majority of the time.

    • NEVER give an inch on ANYthing. If they ask you to budge, call it a “slippery slope” that will lead to the ruin of the country. Example: Stopping PBA is a “slippery slope” toward back-alley coat-hanger abortions killing millions of women.
    • As to Republicans, claim (with the help of the MSM of course) that the GOP is the obstructionist “party of no” who have never offered a new idea in their history (Lincoln doesn’t count as a Republican) and just want to turn back the clock to the failed policies of the past.
    • Once you have gotten the GOP to offer a compromise on their position – and they WILL offer a good faith compromise – give them ZERO credit. Instead, call it a “good first step” toward whatever it is you want to extract the next compromise from them on.
  • A_Texan

    I was excited about Daniels until he proposed this “truce.” I have read that he has been a squish on traditional marriage–even in Indiana where it’s a winner.

    I would VERY much like to hear a satisfactory clarification from him.

  • pilgrim
  • A_Texan

    AND in ’96, when the GOP arguably called such a truce–when the GOP leaders acted half-embarassed to be associated with pro-life members (remember the GOP convention–Dole claimed to not read the platform, Susan Molinari (hey look at all the pro-choice women in our party, etc.)–that was our WORST year. Dem. candidate by 8 points.

  • A_Texan

    A candidate at the head of a winning conservative coalition nationally must put the emphasis on economic/fiscal concerns as always, but must always moderately, but unashamendly and firmly, support a strong national defense, traditional marriage, and the right of the unborn to live.

    This combination has been the key to every GOP presidential victory in my personal memory.

  • acat

    That is, there’s two ways to garner more votes than the opposition – first is to motivate your own supporters, second is to persuade your opponents’ supporters at home.

    Reagan got the religious right to show up at the polls. Repeatedly. So, for that matter, did Newt… but McCain, in part because of the knives he’d left in various backs over the years, did not.

    I question whether Daniels, despite his own apparent pro-life stance, can overcome this .. apparent attempt to back-burner the pro-life agenda. He may have suppressed his own supporters.

    Mew

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    that remained vague, so don’t hold your breath.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    the country has no chance either way. For me, I am with the pro-life formula that seeks to save lives and makes possible conservative majorities on other issues as well.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    that either stayed home, or voted for Obama to purge white guilt!

  • gayrepublican

    I don’t think the point is about asking social conservatives to take a backseat but to ensure that as a party the dems aren’t able to paint us and our candidates as just social conservatives with no other focus. When the dems are able to paint our candidates as scary rightwingers we loose indiependent voters. As a party we absolutly need to stick to our values but not get lost in them. The fiscal message needs to be just as strong as the social message.

    Ronald Reagan was successfull not just because he was able to pull social conservatives together but also because his vision was large enough to attract moderates. Will there be room in our party tent for moderate Republicans who might be pro choice? If we are going to retake the house and senate we will need to win seats in the north east which will mean congressmen and senators in the mold of Collins and Snow.

    Lou

  • acat

    If verifiable, I’ve got some apologies and some verbal thrashings to hand out….

    Mew

  • acat

    I think it was Fred! who said that the big tent is a stupid analogy, what we actually need is a big magnet – to pull us all together, I guess….

    I was never a Fred!head, but someone around here has it in their signature block.

    Fred! flamed out well before I could decide if I liked or disliked him and could act on it – Illinois tends to be late in primary season – but that quote struck me as expressing what’s wrong with the “big tent” analogy … that is, it’s stupid!

    Think about it. What happens in a big tent is usually a staged act or a big brawl depending on if it’s a circus or a boxing match .. and the only elephants you’ll find are those who are trained to perform on cue. Perhaps the Dems have a tent, they’re a bunch of circus clowns …

    Mew

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    weenies that buy the Left’s CONSTANT lie claim that pro-lifers scare off more voters than they keep.

    Social cons like me only REACT to false claims against us by ruling class moderates and the left.

    more later

  • cactusjack

    usinmg the Reagan three legged stool analogy, and remembering what was unique about 1980 and 84 was that the Libertarians came out of the wood work and joined our party literally, when they heard Reagan speak they knew it was the closest they had ever heard out of a major candidate since, well since ever…anyway, it may be, for success in 2012, not shedding any of the Socons (which I am one) or other cons of the three legged stool, but it may need we need to run more with the Libertarian-friendly, libertarians welcome approach again. It’s not that hard since Obama has run the US so far, far statist left. To my way of thinking, that also means reemphasizing a national security, eco-con Gay Repub has a home here and his or her vote is badly needed in 2012. A lot of that particular profile, in fact, dont want to remake the US social fabric , arent interested in “Gay marriage” or going ultra activist. Just want to be left alone to go to work and live life.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    voting percentages of self-identified social con repubs since the 80s thru 2006 and they led all other groups each cycle with less drop-off in poor years for the GOP.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Kyle-MI

    I think he saw that in the last couple elections (2006 & 2008) the GOP lost ground because they lost their fiscal responsibility reputation. Unfortunately 2008 had the double whammy of a fiscal crisis and the loss of the GOP fiscal reputation. Where Daniels goes wrong is that he drinks too much of the cool aide from liberals (both within and outside of the GOP) who try to connect the loss of fiscal reputation with social conservatism. Our bottom line should be that we do not have to give up social conservative issues to regain our reputation of fiscal responsibility. They are not mutually exclusive. It is too bad he has damaged his political reputation as he has good credentials on both fiscal and social conservatism. There is still time for him to repair the damage before 2012.

  • Kyle-MI

    I don’t have the numbers but I remembers seeing the analysis and it makes sense. The GOP took a beating in the last two elections because they dropped the ball on fiscal issues. It would be extremely foolish for them to pick up the on the fiscal issues only to loose because they dropped the ball on social issues.

  • mbecker908

    because of a noisy subset we’ve come to call SIVV who crawl out of their caves roughly every four years and insist that “morality” be federalized without having a clue how to do it.

    They raise all sorts of hell, with the help of the MSM who has no use for them or their views, and do crap like propel Huckabee into a front runner’s position because of aberrations like the Iowa caucuses. And they attack Romney for being a Mormon instead of where he’s actually vulnerable – on the issues.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    They are available to be quoted by the media anytime of their choosing. Its just that they usually don’t quote them., because they can quote David Brooks et al spew the lie of the great split of so-cons trying to run them out of the party when the only arguably significant numbers and/or groups in the GOP spoiling for a fight are those very GOP moderates.

    Most stories I see about this issue don’t quote alleged kooks. Rather, the media asks the viewer to assume same is so.

    Never works. Won’t this time.

    partly because we are on the job, eh ‘beck?

    btw, I picked AZ Fri night in my college football pool (you should join, btw – see link below) and Wildcats delivered…

    http://www.wagertracker.com/poolHome.aspx?contestid=2305

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • gayrepublican

    It isn’t the prolifers who scare off voters. The scare comes when Pat Robertson types come forward and claim that a horrible natural disaster is the wrath of God for a particular sin. Don’t midunderstand I have nothing against those who have faith, my concern is with those who use it as a weapon.

    lou

  • gayrepublican

    Kyle I agree with you 100%. The job is getting the message out.

    lou

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Farrakhan et al at will?

  • mikerazar

    whenever I think about dead babies I forget what those other issues are.

    It is easy to be tough and never compromise, but just maybe if you make common cause with the libertarians and other fiscal conservatives, you can actually win some of them over and save some babies from having their brains sucked out.

    If the progressives keep the White House in 201

  • mikerazar

    in 2012, the Supreme Court will be gone for decades.

    A deal with the fiscal conservative may also save millions of terrorist victims. It may save Israel.

    It is crazy to attack Mitch Daniels. Save your fire for the real enemy.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    clamoring against fiscal conservativism nor insisting that fiscal issues take a backseat as per social issues. What I see are social conservatives that are suffering from the Depression every bit as other Americans and are in concert with Daniels et al on fiscal conservative solutions. Do the people Daniels wants social conservatives to appease by shutting up about abortion, want liberal judges? I didn’t think so.

    There is no split in the GOP. Daniels had no reason to make the truce statement except to the degree the left has him fooled.

    He is GREAT governor. Let him continue his good work as Governor and save the weenie campaign advice about lifeless truces.

    I am not attacking Mitch. I am attacking the notion that there needs to be truce between factions in the GOP, truces with lib Dems or that even if we had a truce that it would be honored by the liberal side or make a difference in votes even if it were honored.

    Dems are not going to agree to cut government in exchange for internet gambling, e.g….

    Most social cons are also fiscal cons in the GOP.

    Daniels fears will be shown to be silly when the WAVE comes this November that delivers majorities that empower strong conservative econ and budget medicine absent any truce, because there will never be a time when those that care about marriage and life agree to shut up about it, especially when the lib lawyers etc keep attacking both.

  • mikerazar

    Of course I don’t want liberal judges. Didn’t I say that 2012 could determine the future of the Court for decades? I know that most socons are fiscons too. I take Mitch’s message as telling us to emphasize our common interests.

    Perhaps his fears are silly. But even with a wave, the Senate is a tough swim. If we can capture a few more votes from people who fear social conservatism, even irrationally, it could save the Court.

    Politics is necessarily a combination of idealism and practicality. If we can save the economy, protect our security, and maybe incrementally save some of the babies, posterity will judge us kindly.

    If we could “wave” a wand to change people’s hearts on abortion, we would have done so forty years and millions of souls ago.

    Like it or not, there are many young voters who get the pro life message but can’t understand the anti- gay marriage one.

    We should not try to purge our cause over tactical disagreements. If Congress and the White House consisted of Mitch clones, we would win big time.

  • Oz

    The point is simply that it’s not what the “middle” is interested in.

    I don’t have a problem with you saying that we need to stand up for life.

    I think the main issue is that people care about the economy and that is what we need to be campaigning on and focusing on.

    I would be glad to take a pro-life candidate like Daniels who loves, loves, loves small government and get behind him as President even if he’s not interested in talking about abortion and gay marriage at ever turn on the campaign trail.

    He will do the right thing once he’s in office with conservative judges and the like because that’s what he wants across the board.

  • mikerazar
  • Achance

    SoCon in practical political terms means abortion. There are others, gay marriage especially, but the one elections CAN turn on is abortion and the Democrats own abortion with the young and single and suburban women.

    I think the basis of a “truce” with SoCons is, as Reagan did, the assurance from the Republicans that the Republican candidate will not allow the social left’s agenda to advance further. There are very few places in the Country that you could win a general election on an agenda of repealing Roe v. Wade. If you have a strong agenda based on fiscal restraint, even cuts, and strong defense, you can bolster that agenda and your winning coalition by also being for conservative judges, also code for Roe. v. Wade and traditional values, code for a lot of things but usually focussed on gay marriage.

    There really isn’t much a President or even a Governor can do about SoCon issues except for their power over judge selection; social issues are almost entirely legislative and judicial. In the states where the two touchstone issues have been tested, the electorate has come down on the SoCon side, but the judiciary has pretty uniforrmly said no and imposed the liberal postion. I think effective Republican candidates realize this and essentially offer peace to the SoCons, especially on abortion. Comrade Obama willfully sought to offend SoCons through exective actions to impose publicly funded abortion; rolling that stuff back is a winning issue for Republicans. Even “moderate” women who are personally pro-choice are respectful enough of the views of others they will not oppose measures limiting or even eliminating measures that offend the conscience of pro-lifers such as taxpayer funded abortion or forcing hospitals, doctors or pharmacists to take actions that offend their beliefs.

    Sarah Palin is a darling of the SoCons these days, but when she was a candidate for Lt. Gov. she never much mentioned social issues and was defeated in the primary by a candidate who was very strongly identified with the Social Conservatives, Loren Lemen. When she ran for Governor she ran on her anti-corruption meme and fiscal restraint, not social issues and even though I saw a good deal of her while she was running both for Lt. Gov. and Gov. and while she served in the Murkowski Administration, I never heard a word from her on social issues; she was the standard issue Republican who went to church somewhere sometimes and didn’t have to be told to bow their head during the prayer but that was as far as religion went. The Legislature had passed a parental notice provision that was very controversial and was overturned by the AKSC. Despite pressure from the Legislature to bring it up in a Special Session, she refused to do so. In other words, so long as she was active only in Alaska politics she was content with being identified only as someone not antagonistic to social conservatives.

    Now we’ll see how it works out for Joe Miller that he is strongly identified with the social conservative side of Alaska politics and, I believe, would not have been the Senate nominee had it not been for the parental notice initiative having been on the ballot. Democrats aren’t stupid and they’ll be trying to push him as far into the righthand corner as they can while running as far to the center as they dare on social issues. It will be a good test.

    In any event, I don’t think there are many states that you can win on a SoCon agenda, but the “truce” that a successful Republican candidate should seek is the assurance to SoCons that s/he is not antagonistice and will take steps to not allow the Left to advance their social agenda. That social position in addition to a strong fiscal restraint and national security agenda wins elections.

  • neomom

    a bit differently. I read it as having the fiscal issues drive the bus for a while with the social issues going along for the ride.

    The liberals never run on what they will actually do once they get in office – case in point Obama who ran as the second coming of the centrist Bill Clinton.

    They didn’t explicitly SAY they were going to publicly fund abortions, even though it was no surprise when they did.

    I believe Daniels “truce” while really poorly worded is in that vein. We know he’s pro-life, but he doesn’t need to have it on a placard front and center.

  • pilgrim

    Nobody I know is talking about insisting that a GOP nominee must be talking about social issues like abortion and gay marriage. The problem arises when the GOP nominee insists that OTHERS need to STFU with respect to these issues. This has been the failure in recent history from Jerry Ford thru John McCain. When they fall into the trap of worrying about what others attacking the left are saying is going to cost them, and those others must just STFU, then they lose.

  • finaljeopardy

    Thank you very much for this thoughtful diary.

  • SteveLA

    Art

    You really don’t go far enough in that your post does not explain the role of the Tea Parties in shaping the battle ground this year and probably the same in 2012. I haven’t seen Tea Party candidates making social issues a major set of issues and I tend to think dynamic is doing much more to shape the future of the Republican party than anything else.

    The argument can be made that a new power “base” within the R party is mostly Tea party focused and that focus is not on social issues, being agnostic mostly at worst, supportive at best, but not interested in fighting another culture war. The dynamic of a new Tea party base challenging the older social conservative evangelical base for control of the nomination process which shapes the party is probably as much of the story and this debate as much as anything else is the undercurrent driving much of this discussion.

  • aesthete

    In addition, as time goes on, conservatives are largely making their peace with the gay marriage issue: it is now largely argued on the grounds that elites override the democratic process, and on definitional terms (i.e., government shouldn’t change the meaning of a centuries’ old tradition). My guess is that the GOP-Tea Party synthesis will lead to a sort of libertarian lite approach to many issues, with the pro-lifers and some libertarians merging and agreeing that protection of life is a libertarian issue. The social issues will likely be argued in individualistic terms going forward, with SoCons emphasizing parental rights and repeal of social engineering, rather than government involvement in societal and public mores.

  • Achance

    much like the Moral Majority was, though the Tea Party is less overtly religious than MM was. I don’t know that the TP movement has focussed much on what it is for, but it has some pretty focussed ideas on what it is against. I suspect there could be some very sharp and rapid divisions in the TP once the “fors” started being developed, so for ’10 being “aginners” works.

  • SteveLA

    aesthete

    I’ve seen very few defenses of Prop 8 here on RS based on a real conservative point of view, namely the overturning of the will of the people expressed not once in Prop 22, but twice in Prop 8 by lessor gods in Black Robes. No the upset is the usual culture war mantra based on theology that frankly nobody outside of the bastions of social conservatism in the Deep South that most of the rest of the country does not agree with.

    At least for me, a real conservative position on Gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty and all the rest of the culture war issues is a return to what the Constitution has set forth; let each state and it’s citizens decide what they want on these issues. The push for a omnipresent Federal Government, ether a far Right Wing or a far Left Wing is not something I support, but of course I am a RINO, and have been one now for 30+ years.

  • JSobieski

    If we had any reason to have confidence in the federal and state court systems not to bypass self-government through tyranny of the men in robes, I don’t think there would be any discussion of those issues at the federal level.

    However, we see these court rulings pop up in a wack-a-mole fashion, and we know that the US Constitution says something about states respecting certain decisions by other states.

    People get upset, become emotional, and then let lose (see O’Donnell supporters).

    However, many conservatives do oppose gay marriage on both levels:
    (1) Want it to be a state decision
    (2) Would vote at the state level that there not be gay marriage

    Similarly for abortion:
    (1) Want to overturn Roe for reasons Rudy Gulliani would agree with
    (2) Would push for state laws prohibiting abortion

    Your point about letting “citizens decide” inherently leaves open the opportunity for people to decide “no”. Otherwise, your “citizens decide” test is really just a proxy for no citizen decision.

    Far more people oppose gay marriage than you credit. How many state ballot initiatives have failed on this issue? How many conservatives are in California?

  • SteveLA

    JSobieski

    I tend to beleive that the vote for Prop 8 was a coalition between the social conservatives and those of us who got PO’d about Judges overturning our vote, and I voted for Prop 8. The timing was good and in some ways Obama’s run for office brought out large number of African Americans and Latinos who weren’t sold on the proposition that gay marriage = civil rights being sold by the gay community. That’s not quite the same as return to “true conservatism” as I understand that term.

    I don’t know if CA is turning back towards a more conservative, in the fiscal and law and order sense of that term direction, but let’s hope that Carlie and Meg are the signs of returning to a winning streak after a long streak of loosing state wide elections. One thing is clear though, Carlie and Meg give Republicans in CA some amount of hope for a change, something lacking in the last 10 years.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    given the behavior of the social liberals he wants one with.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    That is my point. There is no GOP split on the fact that the economy is the emphasis. The fact of the economy makes that plain. Mitch needs a hearing aid.

  • JSobieski

    So maybe its not an issue that is limited to conservatives/southerners.

    Given the number of Obama supporters who voted for Prop 8 (Obama supporters generally like interventionist judges), I suspect most of the votes in the coalition actually oppose gay marriage as opposed to voting against judicial overreach. Judicial overrreach is not an issue that appeals to those left of center very often.

    Not arguing that conservatives are a growing force in CA, just disagreeing that opposition to gay marriage is as limited and unpopular as you seem to imply.

    I too have hope for Carlie and Meg to move the ball forward. To be honest, I also had hope for Arnold. That year he pushed for the 4 ballot initiatives was actually pretty impressive. Too bad he has been on defense ever since.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • SteveLA

    JSobieski

    Whoops then, I got you wrong then.

    There was a great deal of early commentary here on RS that tried very badly in my view to make the case that passage of Prop 8 was an indicator of how CA had returned to “true conservatism”, it wasn’t.

    In the African American community, “low down dirty men” aren’t exactly celebrated and the gay communities nonsense about equating gay marriage with civil rights backfired…BIG TIME. AA voters who supported Obama 99:1 weren’t excited about this form of judicial activism and voted for Prop 8.

    In the Latino community, machismo and all the rest of the culture does not exactly embrace the “Zorro the Gay Blade” stuff.

    Funny thing though, the big money donor in therProp 8 race, and lots of court challenges going on to find out how much money came in, was from the LDS church along with a pretty strong message being pushed in the local Stakes. I’m actually wondering how or if those newly found set of politician muscles will play out in the 2012 Presidential nomination if Romney gets in, well truthfully when he gets in.

  • chihank

    I meant Sen Richard Lugar. Although Dan Qualye would like very much for Mitch Daniels to run in 2012.

  • chihank

    The GOP will use the gay marriage threat as a fundraising tool. Gays are not about to vote for the GOP in droves.

    Interestingly, the early primary states for 2012- Iowa and NH – allow gay marriage, In Iowa, gay marriage was issued by judicial fiat. Huckabee supporters are trying to lead a drive to vote against the pro-gay marriage judges this fall. Newt and Tim Pawlenty supporters have joined in as well. Thus, the GOP will still be the anti-gay marriage party, at least for the next few years.

  • IJB

    They always think everyone is coming around to their way of thinking. Even though they’re not! ;)

  • catt

    Achance wrote: “I see them as a focus of discontent, much like the Moral Majority was, though the Tea Party is less overtly religious than MM was.”

    That’s an understatement! And when the religion is overt, it’s generic enough for Mormons, Catholics and evangelicals to all be in general agreement and work side-by-side with little to no friction. The 8/28 rally was a perfect example. This is a *huge* change from the MM and similar groups in the 80′s. This kind of ecumenicalism was anathema among conservative evangelicals back then. Now, one of the key leaders is unabashedly Mormon … something totally unthinkable in the context of the Moral Majority movement. Totally unthinkable.

    I’d go one step further and say that when the religion is overt, it’s not just generic enough to be within the comfort zone of Mormons, Catholics and evangelicals, it’s also generally within the comfort zone of libertarian types who are agnostic or “spiritual without being religious” or whatever. Like putting “In God We Trust” on coins, there are militant atheist types who get bent out of shape about it, but those are not generally the kind of people who would want to be involved in the Tea Party movement anyway.

    I understand that to some people, this seems like a bad thing, from a doctrinal point of view. I would have thought the same way, back in the 80′s.

    Today, I think it’s a strength of the Tea Party movement that is going to take a lot of people by surprise. It’s a *genuine* “big umbrella”. Groups that were once welcome to contribute their money and votes, but made to feel like “outsiders” in any other respect, are genuinely included so long as they are in basic agreement about limited government and the Constitution and so on. A lot of mainstream types think they can pick up the Tea Party support and go back to business as usual. I think they’re trying to change the course of a river whose breadth and depth they don’t really understand.

  • Mary Beth
  • Mary Beth
  • IJB
  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I have dyslexia and will always transpose letters. If it were not for spellcheck my writing would be indecipherable.

    Of course a spellcheck would not catch that sort of mistake since Dairy is spelled right.

    Well Dearie, I wrote a diary in the dairy down in the derry said Dorrie.

  • Mary Beth
  • http://www.800cart.com Ron Robinson

    I can get behind that!

  • http://www.800cart.com Ron Robinson

    C’mon Gamecock, it’s a holiday weekend…

    But you make your case well! Obviously, been way to busy with my head down in CA… except for Benishek’s race.

  • aesthete

    In all seriousness, I was speaking of long-term trends. I don’t think that many of the current opponents of gay marriage will change their views, but the generation replacing them largely doesn’t care about the culture war (particularly gay marriage) any which way. They aren’t particularly concerned with leftist indoctrination or affirmative action, and they don’t care about gay marriage. This, the fact that most conservative arguments against gay marriage are more reliant on “will of the people” type rhetoric than the merits or demerits of gay marriage, and essays like Codavilla’s excellent piece lead me to believe that the social conservative movement is headed directionally towards a more libertarian-lite, anti-technocratic and social engineering, and anti-authoritarian synthesis with standard cultural libertarian though. Will social conservatives abandon the drug war, or cease in their search for moral candidates for office? Probably not, but they have already jettisoned some of the more authoritarian aspects of their agenda, such as censorship of language and sex on TV, bans on pornography, and overly-stringent laws on public decency. In addition, there’s not much noise from social conservatives on censorship of the internet/pornography, which is also encouraging, and there is widespread denunciation of douches like Ryan Sorba. My hope is that they will reject federalizing nanny-staters like Elizabeth Dole with the same alacrity that they do social liberals.

  • aesthete

    There are occasionally attempts to make anti-government gay marriage a conservative position, and any victory on that front (no matter how federalist or agnostic to social issues) a victory for conservatism. What you don’t see, and this is what I’m getting at, is an argument defending the merits of gay marriage bans from a practical standpoint. In the 90s and early 00s, you saw many gay marriage opponents try to use gay marriage as a referendum on gays in general, to try to make a practical argument on the grounds of reproduction, for instance. Such arguments are now in the minority, and now the arguments at the fore are largely populist (i.e., the elites in black robes shouldn’t overturn the peoples’ decision un-Constitutionally) or definitional (the government shouldn’t redefine marriage to something else). While neither is particularly libertarian, they are both much closer to that than they were 10 years ago, and many of the newer conservatives care much less about gay marriage, and are much less personally averse to homosexuals and homosexuality. This trend towards anti-authoritarianism has been ongoing, and I think will continue, to the point that there is a workable synthesis between small government fiscal conservatives (western conservatives and right-libertarians included in this group) and social conservatives (southern conservatives and populist conservatives can broadly fit here). If we avoid electing Huck, such a synthesis will be even smoother.

  • aesthete

    James Dobson’s foghorn-like call for social issues to be at the fore of every Presidential election, and his subsequent implication that social conservatives might jump ship if they aren’t, is a blight on every election, ditto other social conservative leaders. In private, many have undoubtedly pushed DOMA, continuing the drug war, and other policies that voters don’t care about right now. Daniels’ truce was one that would have been better to pursue quietly and behind the scenes with like-minded social conservative groups and leaders, rather than said aloud. However, it is one that we should actively pursue, as social and cultural wedge issues are often used to distract voters and allow pols to get points by supporting a meaningless symbolic gesture.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    and who hasn’t run for office in over two decades. You make my point with the non-exception. If you have to go back to Dobson of two decades ago or his meaningless statement a few years ago, then what ya got? Nothing. Kind of like Democrats who bash Christianity as Islam s evil equal by pointing to slavery or the Crusades! smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Doc Holliday

    btw, we are already winning with the anti-socialist pro-small government message. Issues aside, this seems to me like the proverbial golf champion who gets bored winning and decides to start messing with his swing.

    As I have said many times in recent posts, Republicans are pro-life and that will stay in the plank.

  • Doc Holliday

    unfortunately, there is a “but”. this line is absurd: “the size those libertarians so enamored of internet gambling that they would cut off their bet-picking noses to spite their faces with an ObamaDem economy that leaves them with no money left to wager”

    you are the one fixated on internet gambling. liberatrian-conservatives are enamored with freedom. They are the majority of people at the Tea Party rallies. They are the majority of conservatives winning converts on the radio, tv, and through books. . They are the majority of people who fly the Gadsden Flag under the Stars and Stripes.

    I think you are right that the party is best when it is bold and confident. We are not our best when we are fighting or talking about fighting for no reason. You are right that we do NOT need a truce, but we might just need one if we keep focusing on the issue.

    They asked Morgan Freeman how to reduce racism, he answered, “stop talking about it”. I think we should stop talking about our differences and focus on our opponents, at least for two freaking months!

  • Doc Holliday

    1) to anyone who does not understand what I am saying, I am not saying we should back down on social issues as long as they are based on the Constitution. I am only speaking about constantly talking about differences whether real or perceived, and possibly starting a split on the eve of a huge victory we ALL want.

    2) some info on the “internet gambling” thing between GC and others and me and others lol. The issue is not internet gambling. The issue goes back to 2006 when the Frist Senate along with Kyle and others in leadership constantly broke their promise of limited government.

    The Republicans at that time often overreached and they did enact big government legislation. The result was that Republicans lost both the House and Senate.

    At the Time, Frist was considering a run for the presidency. He got some polling out of Iowa that social conservatives would respond favorably to a law banning internet gambling. So Frist, Kyle and some others of unimportance pushed it. They passed this ban on freedom by attaching it to an unrelated safe ports act.

    To many this latest big government act became a rallying cry, it showed that the Republicans had lost their trust in Americans. It was not gambling per se that mattered, it was how the Republicans had lost their way and no longer defended liberty. In the end, we lost our you know whats and Frist’s stock collapsed. He did not even run in the primay, his political career was over.

    Anyway, GC at times tries to belittle libertarians and libertarian-conservatives by saying all they care about is “internet gambling”. Of course he knows what really happened and why Americans are finally up in arms wondering where their freedom went.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Whiskey Sours…

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    but also believe in traditional state police powers as part of states rights and so defend local efforts. The only reason I am tolerant of federal attempts to deal with internet gambling is the difficulty of regulating same at the state and local level and due to the many friends whose young children have wiped out bank accounts of said parents on internet gambling while the parents were otherwise occupied. I wasn’t very involved in the 2006 discussions on this matter.

    I agree that we should focus on what we all share in common for 2010, hence the overall theme of this and most all my columns.

    Maybe you would be better off trying to buy a sense of humor because you have none. That was cute throwaway line I put in partially to test you! smile

    You failed, but this time with close to a low “D” grade. I probably should stop because at some point in life one loses the ability to have a sense of humor and has to settle for the five senses they do have.

    my bad

    and Happy Labor Day…hope you can find some good BBQ to wash down all the crow you must have eaten Thursday night with the emergence of the Great College Football Power from Columbia…

  • Doc Holliday

    the much talked about but rather small group of “fiscal conservatives” is a remnant of the old Republican party last seen during the Goldwater vs Rockefeller battle, Rockefeller was the “fiscal conservative”.

    libertarian-conservatives, as you know, are not “socially liberal”. In fact most elected libertarian conservatives in our party are pro-life. libertarian conservatives focus on the Constitutional limits of government to do what it wants with the “little people”.

    The question libertarians ask is whether a proposed law is constitutional or not. They ask themselves, am I allowing people to live in freedom or am I about to step on their neck and force them to live how I want them to live?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    to defend himself and the troops on the war, and his failure to defend conservative principles and the GOP, which would include what you suggest re big government, but after seeing what REAL BIG government looks like under ObamaDems, what Bush did looks puny by comparison.

  • Doc Holliday

    Dobson and internet gambling lol. btw, I have a sense of humor, I find your posts on the other USC to be very funny , in a Baghdad Bob sort of way. :)

    happy Labor Day to you sir.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    And those Libertarians that want courts and Congress to trample on states rights to achieve their libertine ends are no better than big govt liberals. Do we agree on that Doc? I refer to those libertarians that like Roe v Wade and the Cally judge’s Prop 8 decision etc.

    I share many libertarian principles but I am willing that they be fought out state by state w/o demonization of Christians and if libertarians win a battle in one area, then Christians can move to another area and vice versa. That was the Jeffersonian vision: Free speech, votes and local majority control on most matters. The right to vote with feet to gather with the like-minded if not satisfied in one locale.

  • Doc Holliday

    if little kids are wiping out bank accounts playing poker on line, they could do it paying for all types of pay services, such as gaming sites, or even on Amazon. Spare me the “do it for the children speal”, we have had enough of that from the left. Must Americans always bow to the lowest common denominator? Must we not be allowed to do anything if one person can’t handle it? Sounds like a pretty boring country to me.

    actually not a single player has ever been arrested for gambling on the internet. And thousands of Americans still do it today. People talk about playing on tv, on the radio etc, their is no fear. But Frist did chase some major companies out of America, he did make would be criminals out of millions, and all for a hope to gain a few points in Iowa. No, that is not funny to me at all.

  • Doc Holliday

    and to your second point, that is why I always refer to the camel getting its nose under the tent. This is why I always defend freedom whether it be smokers, gamblers, or land rights. So many of us say “well, I don’t _____ so why should I care?”. sigh

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Doc Holliday

    but words mean things. libertarian has a specific meaning related to specific people today. The leftist “civil libertarians” are a totally other group and you know it. I agree there are those that try to break this reality, some leftists like Maher and John Stewart call themselves libertarian when everyone knows they are just socialist Democrat stooges.

    Also, as a life long conservative and Republican, someone who has always voted Republican, I am focused on libertarian conservatives and libertarians in general who should stand with us. when I say libertarian, that is of whom I am speaking.

    Civil Libertarians are the Al Sharpton Jesse Jackson types that want big government to pay them off because of institutional unfairness.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I haven’t studied the matter in detail. Also suspect that any state solution would chase some companies to other states if a state and local solution is even possible, but that would be the trade off.

    But while I loathe the LibDem line of “for the children” on all things, it is a fact that many state and local laws are proper to protect lowest common denominators, incl children. They must be evaluated on a case by case basis when the market and reasonable parental attentiveness isn’t enough.

    Sometimes, there simply is no solution except to deal with the world as it is. I am all for kids running and playing and breaking arms as the alternative is tyranny and stifled growth!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2010/09/05/labor-day-in-camel-not/

  • Doc Holliday

    they recently opened full casino gambling in West Virginia. They are planning to put a casino at Gettysburg, PA of all places. The sad fact is the opponents of internet gambling and even an office pool on the Super Bowl are mainly after one thing, control. The government does not care if people lose their life savings, they just want to make sure they control it all and they get the money.

    There are a few that bamboozle well meaning fundamentalists for political gain, but that is the second act for sure. It is no less fiendish because it uses people’s faith, when the reality is never what the politico promises.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    libertarians are more interested in having their individual rights imposed by judges and/or the feds and are not respectful of state and local majorities right to self government re abortion, gay marriage etc

    Many, have been oblivious to how the liberal dems take individual property and other Liberty away thru economic regulation. That population is dwindling thanks to Obama overreach.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I don’t like the idea of government promoting gambling and then getting dependent on keeping enough people gambling to pay for their pet projects and salaries. Tax it, yes. But government running it and advertising? I don’t favor that but states and local govts should have the right and if I don’t like it enough, I walk.

  • jeffreywturner

    The REASON that so many Republicans have fallen for the myth that social issues are losers for them:

    THE MEDIA

    The same can be said for so many issues.

    Why do Republicans overestimate the portion of the electorate that is pro-abortion?

    Why do Republicans think family values is a losing issue?

    Why do Republicans believe that privatization of Social Security is a loser for them, when the only major Presidential candidate to run on such a platform and make it a major part of the campaign was victorious?

    The answer is simple on all of these and more – the media and their bogus, biased, loaded-question polling, which is meant to drive the narrative rather than report on it.

    Until we get more networks not dominated by liberals, we will never be able to convince the pansy Republicans that most of the public is on our side.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Flagstaff

    I don’t know what Daniels means by his truce, either, but let’s set that aside.

    Republicans are now “preferred over the Democrats by 10 points.” I hope that poll is only the beginning. Assuming it’s accurate, the next question is “why?”

    A reasonable person would conclude that it’s because the American public has seen enough of the Democrats’ ideas and programs to dislike them, and they’ve seen enough of the Republicans’ ideas to prefer them. All, mind you, after those ideas have been filtered through the Democrat Spin Machine called the media. We only have to look at what the public has been told about Republicans to know what the public PREFERS, and it happens to coincide with basic conservative values.

    So, Republicans, don’t run away from being called the pro-life, anti-tax, pro-gun, anti-illegal-immigration, pro-human rights, anti-Socialism, pro-free market, anti-Cap-and-Tax, pro-growth, anti-ObamaCare, pro-small business, anti-bailouts, pro-self-reliance, anti-Big Government, pro-national security, anti-appeasement, pro-border security, anti-terrorist, pro-Great Britain and our traditional allies, anti-excessive regulation, pro-liberty, anti-judicial activism, pro-Constitution Party of NO. That is the Party the public is telling you it wants you to be. EMBRACE IT. BE IT. LOVE IT. The people do.

    Don’t misunderstand me. That is what we should campaign on and mostly agree on, but diversity of thought is good, too. Don’t apply any litmus test to a candidate and say “I won’t support him if he doesn’t agree with me on “Issue X.” If he agrees on most of the issues, he’s on the right side. The majority of Republicans and conservatives agree on the majority of those issues, but we need a majority in Congress to succeed.