For about the umpteenth time — and I say this as a pro-life Republican — the proper choice for the GOP here isn’t to move left on social policy OR right on social policy.

It’s to get both sides to agree to a change of venue on social policy so that we can form a winning coalition on those things which unite us at the federal level.

When are social conservatives going to realize that they can’t do this on their own?

Are you saying you’d prefer to be an irrelevant (but ideologically uniform) political minority to a major force within an ideologically diverse coalition that actually holds power and moves policy?

Go take a look at the Libertarian Party and ask yourself if you think they’ve served their agenda well by being what they are. I’ll say this much for them: they like to pat themselves on the back a lot for “getting it”.

…first of all, relax. I’m not your enemy.

Second of all, you must’ve missed where I said that the compromise that social liberals would have to make for this to work would be acquiescence on Roe.

I may not have mentioned that explicitly in every post here. But I take it as a given. Obviously, abortion can’t get to the states while the Supreme Court is standing in the way.

Think about it: how much division do we have as a party over the death penalty? Almost none. And that is because it is on the state radar screens rather than the federal one.

…if what’s going on in NY-23 becomes defined — even a bit — by social policy matters, then we will be playing right into the hands of Frank Rich and others who are desperately trying to define it that way.

There’s a reason they’re trying to define what’s going on there by social policy — it’s because they realize that a GOP that is actively monolithic on social policy will quickly become irrelevant in quite a few places throughout the country.

The choice we’re constantly presented with — either we become a pro-choice, gay-marriage-supporting Democrat-lite party OR we rid ourselves of RINOs and hold true to conservative beliefs — is a false one.

This is not to say that we can or should be all things to all people. It’s simply to recognize and appreciate the fact that prevailing opinions on matters like abortion vary widely from place to place….and that no party can expect to remain nationally relevant if they can’t compete in most or all of them.

I totally agree that the new, improved GOP needs to be built on a foundation of principles. How about putting federalism on social issues in there as one of them? It is, after all, one of our founding principles and totally in keeping with the value of limited government.

I’m not saying anybody’s the “bad guys.” Who to blame for a problem has always struck me as far less important than what to do about it.

And I fully, fully support what Erick said. I’m not saying that we should “play nice” or just go along to get along.

I’m saying that we should remain unified around what’s propelled the movement to this point — fiscal issues — without taking the bait that Frank Rich, the liberal media, leftist bloggers, etc. are putting out there.

There’s a reason, Neil, that they’re trying to cast the NY-23 insurrection as being over social issues. It’s not a coincidence.

The reason they’re casting it that way is because they hope to drive a wedge between the movement which has boosted Doug Hoffman and those Republicans in NY and elsewhere who tend to be less socially conservative.

The point they’re making to these people is: your party is being taken over by people who don’t share your values on abortion and gay marriage…..take that as your cue to finally become a Democrat, where your views are welcomed.

But the Tea Party movements has NOT been about abortion and gay marriage. It’s been about government run amok. And it’s not only struck a chord, it’s had very real political impact.

If our adversaries are successfully able to frame it as the “religious right” asserting complete control over the GOP, then it will most assuredly become a Pyrrhic victory.

I’m not anti-social-conservative, Neil. I’m pro-life myself, and proudly so. But we’ve got to be strategically smart or we’re going to fade into political irrelevancy….and I’m not sure how that would serve our agenda’s interests at all.

…that we’d need to have a pro-life president in order to get judges who would overturn Roe.

If you paid close enough attention to Giuliani’s rhetoric in his ill-fated presidential campaign last year, you heard him say on more than one occasion that he maintained his own support for abortion rights, but would nominate strict constructionist judges like Alito and Roberts to the court.

I’ve no idea if he was being honest about that pledge or not. But, assuming he was, then I think it flies in the face of what you’re saying.

Besides, I’ve had discussions with plenty of people who are at the same time pro-choice and refuse to defend Roe.