If Democrats have social conservatives, then how are they scared by them?

Just wait until these socially conservative Democrats find out their vote didn't count. Many of the politicians they vote for do not want to honor that vote and will use the courts to change it.

There is nothing in Sarah Palin's past governance to suggest she has ever advocated to impose her religious or social beliefs on anyone. But that has totally escaped some. That she actually follows her beliefs in her personal life decisions is what scares them. Why .... she could be a role model. And that's frightening!

BTW, you may be surprised to know that socons are far from a monolithic bloc. While I respect someone like James Dobson on social issues, I digest his political opinions along with many others, including yours, while I am deciding an issue.

Further, it is only slightly more patronizing to be told first that we're fascists for promoting our ideals to the detriment of the nation, and now we're stealthy because we hide those ideals from the electorate.

Make up your fucking mind.

Hopefully, the Republicans will get it sooner. In California, they're so ideologically pure, they've been out power in the state senate/assembly since the 1960s. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong...) It's great they can pat themselves on the back for having the "correct" positions, but, what's the point if they don't get elected?

I hear the rap given to "country club" Republicans and normally bridle. I have worked for 36 years to let those who refer to themselves as social conservatives--aka the Religious Right--know that they are welcome in the Republican party, but that their single-issue stance is a personal choice, not a choice of the party.

As a country club Republican, I know how important life is. I also know how imperfect is the legislative process. How imperfect is the judicial process. But, imperfect, there are times when those processes address the needs of society. The decision to decriminalize abortion in Oregon occured in the 1960's, well in advance of Rowe v. Wade.

In Oregon, that decision was a private decision, made between families, clergy and doctors. Post Rowe v. Wade, the radicalization of abortion has led to some pretty gruesome outcomes, none of which had, or will have, any great traction amongst the greater portion of our state's citizens (IMHO).

What the Republican party offers evangelicals--along with anyone who holds strongly held religious beliefs--is that we, as Republicans, have respect for individually held beliefs. Like a belief in God, a belief in a Saviour, or a belief in chaos.

I was brought up to believe that this respect, and the acceptance that others may or will have religious views different than mine were described by a clearly American trait: tolerance. And, by the by, I have asserted that for many of the evangelical persuasion, it is my feeling that they will find greater commmon cause among Democrats than among Republicans, since the Republican impulse is to rely upon individuals making their own decisions, rather than the felt need to elect elites who will impose their decisions upon us.

I'd say it's up to the religiously motivated to ask themselves whether the teaching of their church is more in line with individual responsibility or with the need to impose belief upon others. It is that decision that should motivate one to either party.
.

I have no problem with people promoting their values.

I agree with Palin (as seen by her actions) that it is not the Government's job.

What I'm trying to say is that there are voters out there who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals who could be picked off without losing social conservatives - if the adulation by social conservatives for Palin is a clue.

Judging by the comments (except for Oregon Guy) most of the party doesn't get it. As I said it will take another 20 to 40 years for the Republicans to wise up. Republicans are nice people but politically astute they are not.

They pay lip service to Goldwater and Reagan but, when it comes to shaping the party in their mold to actually win elections they are against it.

You see there is more room in a party that is socially tolerant when it comes to government than a party which wants to force morality on people at the point of a gun.

I seem to recall that Jesus was not in favor of government enforcing personal morality. You know "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And: "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out." Jesus was a libertarian. At least that is my take.

Well the Republicans are now a regional party. If it wants to be a National Party again some changes are going to have to be made.

Obviously my council is not welcomed by Real Republicans™. I have no problem with that. I have spent a lot of time in the political wilderness in my lifetime. However, if you want some advice for enlarging the base in the future - I'm available.

And BTW the party needs to do something about its fiscal conservative creds. The party as it actually exists is Economically Socialist and Culturally Socialist. You know, I was always under the impression that Republicans hated socialism. Actions Speak Louder Than Words.

Janet C.,

Sorry I left you out as some one who gets it.

Let me add that Alan Keyes in the 2004 Illinois Senate election should have been a lesson to the socons. I made the point at the time. Republicans weren't listening. Pity.

RINO McCain lost.
Anti-gay marriage prop 8 in California won.
Anti-gay marriage prop 2 in Florida won.
The anti-gay marriage prop in Arizona won.

Seems evident that social conservatism is a winner and leftist country club republicanism is a loser.

Guess the results of the elections of 2006 & 2008 still haven't gotten thru to the Republican party.

Perhaps 2010 will finally wake up the Republican party? I personally doubt it.

When the Republican party champions small government and free enterprise it won't matter what the bible humpers think. They'll flock to the polls and vote Republican. As long as the Republican party is a left wing, government hugging, socialist party run by the RINOs they will keep losing.

Republicans have been preaching to America??

I didn't know a head could fit that far up an ass.

Anon November 8, 2008 02:51 PM,

And that is why Republicans gained seats (or at least didn't lose any) in the last election.

OK, you Republicans have convinced me. I'm throwing my lot in with the Democrats.

I have the choice of between two parties. Both are economically liberal. One is socially liberal. I'm throwing in my lot with the social liberals.

M. Simon -- I'm not throwing my lot in with either party because both are in an uproar right now.

Plus, I do not see the democrats as socially liberal, they are socially "lockstep" politically correct and not tolerant at all, witness their treatment of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton.

There's a much greater chance of increasing social tolerance in the republican party than there is of increasing fiscal conservatism in the democrat.

Donna,

Good point. The next election is two years away. I may just sit that one out until the dust settles. I can say that today I'm leaning Democrat. We shall see what happens.

The war of gays with Mormons, blacks and Hispanics is a taste of things to come as each Democrat special interest vies for their share of the spoils. It will only get worse.

And then there is the financial crisis and the budding world wide Drug War that is turning into a shooting war. And Obama is going to own them all. And problems we don't even know about.

I really wouldn't want to be him today. And in 3 1/2 years? He will be in worse shape than Carter when he got voted out of office.

M.Simon, count me in among those who "get it."