So now you want the national party to take sides in primaries?

You’ve really outdone yourself this time. You’re such a fool it amazes me you’re not a moby, Ace.

You can’t get rid of that sort of funding by backing pro-abortion candidates, even if they have an R next to their name.

Essentially, Social Conservative issues, which you have derided on multiple occasions, lead to fiscal accountability.

Your angst at SoCons is misdirected.

as long you have unbridled abortion in this country. When the State can enact laws allowing our infants to be aborted, it means the government is large enough and powerful enough to do so. There are many writings available that show following social conservative tenets, actually leads to smaller government and fiscal conservatism on the part of government.

You have it backwards, which does not surprise me.

Eh? Can you name a case where a candidate was rejected by conservatives because of this? Hmmm?

…because when you say that you don’t want “small government and fiscal conservative issues to suffer or be given a back seat to social conservative issues”, many people will read that and believe that you want social conservative issues to occupy that back seat.

And most SoCons I know feel like they’ve been sitting in that back seat for a long time — valuable on election day and not much else.

Whether they’re justified in feeling that way or not, many of them do.

What I’m interested in finding is a place where no faction can feel like their issues are relegated to the proverbial “back seat.”

But that’s difficult with social conservative issues — because we’ve got to come to grips with the fact (and it is a fact) that these are non-starters in lots of places around the country.

I’m not saying that we should try to be competitive in Marin County or Vermont. But we do need to be competitive in places that aren’t socially conservative.

If we aren’t, then we’re toast.

I hate to see it, really. The Founding Fathers, and the great thinkers of conservatism (Burke, Kirk, Reagan, and others) placed a huge emphasis on the moral underpinnings, to the point of basically saying that if the government did not have a moral compass, it was doomed.

And we have so many, so very many, who think they can scoop the icing off the cake and think they’ve got the real thing.

My positions:

A strong, well-funded military for national security. We can argue about implementation and still all be conservatives.

Hard-line on immigration. WTF is so hard about putting a freaking wall up between us and Mexico? Why do we allow visitors from Europe and elsewhere to come in for a visit and just stay forever? And why do we allow pregnant women to sneak over the border and have babies who are automatically given citizenship status?

Less government - from healthcare to intrusions in our schools. Fewer and less intrusive regulations for businesses falls in here as well. And let’s scratch all the BS crime laws protecting one group or another.

Less government spending.. that includes funding all the liberal BS programs as well as farm subsidies and all the other handouts.

That leads us to lower taxes. The less the govt spends, the more we should keep.

I want a party that will defend my Constitutional rights to own as many guns as I like and protect state’s rights. And, I want a party who will not allow Congress to subjugate that Constitution to treaties and agreements with foreign countries.

If that doesn’t make me Conservative, I don’t know what does.

The reason I, for one, am posting here is because I care about the Republican party and I care about it coming back into power. I don’t think abortion is a very important issue. It isn’t to me (I feel it is between a woman and her God.). And I want a party to fix all of the things above first. But I understand how important it is to many others, particularly those of strong faith. We have to resolve that somehow. But the resolution cannot be the banning of one or the other group from the party. We need to work together for our common goals.

If a candidate declares himself pro-life, that’s fine by me. I just don’t want an entire Republican party trying to concentrate on overthrowing Roe v. Wade (a very unlikely proposition) when there are more achievable goals to be accomplished. And I want that party to welcome voters who do not share the same views on abortion but share a majority of the other core values.

Anything Obama passes into law is the law of the land. So does that mean we should give up on opposing anything as soon as he signs it?

Give me a break.

Republicans should be able to disagree and debate as friends and allies working to a similar goal. However, that goal must be based on some unifying principles. Straying towards pragmatism has led to electoral defeat, leading towards more bumbling compromise, ending in the empowerment of the opposition, endangering the liberties which are our very principles.

The most sacred right we hold as individuals is the right to life. It is consistent to demand that our party adheres to this right, and champion it in public discourse by protecting the life of the most innocent.

United We Stand, Divided We Fall.

Let me first state that I am pro-life and long have been. If anything, my feelings about abortion have only grown stronger as we’ve learned more and more about fetal development. I firmly believe that our society is profoundly harmed by the legality of abortion.

I do not wish to see, at all, the Republican Party nationally become a pro-choice party. If it did, I would leave it.

But I think it’s a mistake to think that we have to choose one side or the other of that issue (and other matters having to do with social and cultural values) in a ‘one-size-fits-all’ scenario.

Does that mean that I value unborn life in, say, Utah….but not in Vermont?

Of course not. But it occurred to me some time ago that we’ve made precious little tangible progress on the issue since Roe was decided 36 years ago…such that, no matter how much value that I or anybody else ascribes to unborn children in either of those places, as it stands they’re being aborted daily in both of them.

Does there ever come a time when values and principles can be considered alongside of practical strategy and tactics? Or is to do so tantamount to capitulating on values?

If our efforts thus far have come up empty, might we be wise to consider going a different direction that might actually prove effective in saving some of these lives? Or must it be an all or nothing campaign…if we can’t save all of them equally, then it’s not worth saving one of them.

The answer for the GOP on social issues is not to move left or to move right. The answer is to move back at the national level and forward on the state level.

they just don’t fit well here at Redstate. Again, I’m sure the Blue Dogs would be a great fit for you. BTW, don’t let the door hit ya!

they just don’t fit well here at Redstate. Again, I’m sure the Blue Dogs would be a great fit for you. BTW, don’t let the door hit ya!

Only one way, overturn Roe v. Wade.

To do that you need pro life judges.

To get pro life judges you need a president who is pro life to appoint one.

You also need pro-life members of congress to consent.

I can’t make this any more simple for you.

Abortion will be a national issue until Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Get it?

Abortion should not be the central issue in the Republican revival, nor do I think it should, or need, be a, cornerstone message of a campaign and I am certainly not arguing for it to be.

I am saying that we as a party need to figure out what unifies us. We can be a big tent, but we need to agree on the poles that hold the tent up. It is natural that the Republican party be built on the preservation of individual rights, limited government, and other principles regularly espoused here at RedState. It is important that grassroots Republicans start holding their elected officials accountable to these basic principles, ensuring consistency to the unifying poles of our tent.

Abortion, unlike other social conservative issues, is encompassed by one of these poles, the preservation of the right to life. While it need not be the centerpiece of Republican campaigns, it should be a principle that unifies our candidates as Republicans.

I also disagree that abortion is an issue that should be left to the states or individuals, which is usually my default position. The Federal government has the responsibility to ensure the natural and enumerated rights of all citizens and it was the Republican party which acted on this responsibility under Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

I would not call myself an active pro-lifer, I rarely debate the subject and it is certainly not the focus of my political thought and activism, but the cause does have a natural home in the Republican Party.

…and I live in Madison, WI. So I am certainly outnumbered by those who favor abortion.

And your attempts to make it so are weak.

Leaders of the party should at least agree on “most” of the planks of the party, and it should include the more important ones. I don’t think it is unreasonable for the candidates we chose to be for the Republican platform. Obviously there is a problem if our side is saying the same thing as the other….

Which brings up another thought, why are the mods/libs/squishes of our party trying so desperately to be like the Dems? Isn’t it reasonable to expect social conservative issues to be present somewhere? These same people have no idea if they do not accept Conservatism as it meant to be, they are really liberals and don’t know it. And for those who say this is not so, can someone define for me what is a moderate?

Ignore him. We’ll decide what’s best for our party.

It’s telling though that you seem to think that being painted the pro-life party is some sort of embarassment or a slur.