I have to agree with your take on swing voters. I am one of them. As a social moderate, I read a lot of comments on Republican sites that screams "We don't want you! You're EVIIILLLL!" at people like me.
So I can vote for the bunch whom I believe are trashing the country right now, or I can plug my ears and vote for the bunch who in many cases appear to loathe everything about me- except my vote!
Nice choices.

Not only can you not win a war if you can't read a map, you can't win if you print money to pay for expenses, have 47% of populace not paying taxes but consuming services like crazy, destroy financial incentives, regulate and tax to the hilt, transfer wealth from the prodcutive to the non-productive, repress freedom and a decide to be one strand in the glorious tapestry of the global community in which social, economic, gender, sexual, labor, environmental, energy, and caloric justice will be decided by an enlightened elite, and abandon, in many instances,the rule of law. Those that think a political relignment among libertarians and conservatives will overcome this are delusional. Rough waters head.

Most swing voters have no principles and are hardly moderates, if moderate means governing with a light touch. Their electoral power is unmerited and destructive of our liberties. They should wake up and stop preening over their self image as the golden mean.

if there is passion by the soc-con's it may be because they are reacting to being told to work hard, volunteer, get out the vote, but SHUT UP.

Most social-cons I know (I'm more soc-mod) don't want law (ie a kind of Xtian Sharia) but they do want their arguments of social suasion acknowledged AND in those areas where the government insists on leftist-social-dogma (education) they demand at least equal time.

Social cons are concerned with the loss of local and individual power over the lives of their children and their own choices.

Scozzafava was NOT a moderate Rep. She is a liberal Democrat who masquaraded as a Rep for votes.

"One only need look at how social conservatives have destroyed Republican chances in California. Giving the State to Democrats who have destroyed the State."

Oh puhleeze. You are capable of far better argument than that bit of nonsense.

Blame the Cali disaster on social cons because they 'gave' the state to the far left? As if the voters had no say in the matter?

Maybe Californians will begin to re-evaluate just what was 'so bad' about the vile social cons they 'rejected' in favor of leftist nanny-staters, NIMBYs, and union hacks who have created a real disaster.

Your's is not merely a false dichotomy, it's a strawman polity.

ThomasD,

Of course the voters had a say in the matter. Given the choice between socialists and socons they chose the socialists. I did the same thing myself in Illinois 2004. It happens. Alan Keyes got 27% of an undervote compared to Bush.

Perhaps a libertarian Republican choice would work better given that the State will likely legalize marijuana in the 2010 or 2012 election.

But you know, cover your eyes and plug your ears. Because there is absolutely nothing to see or hear.

Darleen,

I support Hoffman and Palin. I'm not anti-socon.

Re: Social cons are concerned with the loss of local and individual power over the lives of their children and their own choices.

They did it to themselves when they were Progressives back in the Teddy Roosevelt (and before) era. Huckabee is a remnant of that era. And his socialism shows.

Protestants instituted the compulsory public school movement as a way to "Americanize" Catholics and Jews. Now the Marxists and Unions have taken over the moral socialism/indoctrination experiment the ancestors of today's socons started. Cry me a river. Beat yourself over the head with a hammer and ask for sympathy? Well if you are crazy maybe. So have the socons come to grips with their craziness? Well the evidence is sparse on the ground.

Moral socialism doesn't work any better than economic socialism. The evidence is all around us and yet there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I have no friends on the left because I am against economic socialism. I have no friends on the right because I am against moral socialism. So be it.

At least I'm consistent. I'm against socialism. Period.

Actually there is a socon who shows up regularly here who agrees with me. Oregon Guy.

http://oregonguythinks.blogspot.com/

So I am not totally without a friend on the socon right. They are just few and far between. They think I am against their values when I'm just against their socialism. Oregon Guy gets it.

The persuasion of Jesus is better than the sword of Rome.

Thanks.
.

M. Simon

Where in my comments said I was in favor of "moral socialism"? In fact, I stated quite clearly that most social cons do NOT want an American Sharia.

But neither will they silently stand by while government dictates what gets taught or propagandized to their children.

If a parent says to a school "NO you will NOT" how is that socialized morality?

Good lord, you can't possibly think so-called "religious right" poses a great threat to liberty then the Left? Seriously?

PS

Huckafraud is no conservative.

M. Simon,

If I understand Darleen, then I think am in agreement with her and that we are closer together than you think.

I would call myself a Jeffersonian libertarian. I am fiscally conservative and very much believe in the values that brought our great nation into existence. Overall, I also have socially conservative values. I find it difficult to be logically consistent and have a coherent worldview otherwise.

I am all for liberty and what one does with one's private life is their business. But don't ask me to pay for it, promote it and have it shoved down the throat of my kids. This is where I think Darleen and I agree.

Unfortunately, the amoral segment of society insists on forcing itself on those of us who have a moral code. This is what irks so-cons as you call them.

Liberty is not a one way street. It comes with many responsibilities. There is not a single instance in history of a country or civilization surviving once it has lost its moral compass that I can find. The rule of law is grounded in morality (e.g. think of the Ten Commandments). You don't have the be a Jew or a Christian to see the moral value of the principles upon which our constitutional republic is formed.

Most social conservatives I know do not want to legislate a single prescription for lifestyles in America. Most would agree with "the persuasion of Jesus is better than the sword of Rome" comment. However, most will not accept the systematic attack on the fundamental values upon which our country and society was built without (a) having the opportunity to object and (b) having the traditional (now the "other") side of the story told. If a little sunlight on some of these social issues make people on either side uncomfortable, so be it.

Having said that, I try to focus politics on economic freedom, the rule of law, national security, constitutional authority, freedom of speech and the like because it is that framework where people have the greatest chance to pursue life, liberty and happiness as they define those things.

As always, I enjoy the discussion of ideas at CV. Thanks!

Darleen,

You didn't get my message. The school system that almost everyone hates was a "moral socialism" project by the ancestors of today's social conservatives.

It was designed as an indoctrination center by Protestants for Catholics and Jews.

I have yet to see one socon talk about that history and decry the error of their forebears.

And yeah. Socons keep saying they are not into giving dictation. So where did the "Moral Majority" come from? I know. I know. Musta been the Jews. [/sarc]

And where are the socons when it comes to putting an end to the drug war? MIA. What ever happened to that "small government" idea we keep hearing them mouth?

You will excuse me for whispering in their ear that hubis is your nemesis.

What happens when I say that a coalition of socons and libertarians would be a very good thing politically. "Don't dictate to us. We are more numerous. You are the junior partner. Suck it up." And that attitude is not just an isolated case. I hear it quite often from many different mouths.

When the Obama scare is over that attitude will cause over reach and bring forth the next Obama. We saw that arc of politics run its course from 1994 to 2006. Why repeat the mistake?

I am all for liberty and what one does with one's private life is their business. But don't ask me to pay for it, promote it and have it shoved down the throat of my kids. This is where I think Darleen and I agree.

Unfortunately, the amoral segment of society insists on forcing itself on those of us who have a moral code. This is what irks so-cons as you call them.

Well it irks me too. But consider that the public school system is the revenge of your ancestors on you.

And those you call amoral may just have a different path to the Maker. St. Augustine being a case in point.

And consider that we are repeating the error of Alcohol Prohibition with the Drug War. With similar results. Billy Sunday ring a bell? Now there was one powerful Moral Socialist who helped inflict real evil on the nation.

And the Moral Socialists who still back the Drug War are are doing a worse evil because it has geopolitical ramifications now. South America. Mexico. Afghanistan. Not to mention a thriving criminal subculture in America.

Do me a big favor. Read this:

Drug War History

And then come back and discuss it with me. Any of my posts will do. We don't mind thread drift around here.

Barrett,

I do agree with you. A very limited government at all levels is our best protection from the evils that have currently befallen us.

And what you object to I object to.

The one place I see a difference is that I do not see your path as wrong. Just different.

I can think of very few religions that are not based on some sort of moral supremacy. That IMO is a defect because it leads to conflict.

It is a mixed bag. It also leads to the Christianizing of the "heathens" which is mostly a good thing. For now.

And let me add that an immoral country cannot survive.

With respect to government what are the most dangerous of the violated commandments? Murdering, stealing, false witness, coveting.

1. It is difficult to separate necessary from unnecessary wars. Less of a problem for the USA because we don't like ruling over others. And about 1/2 the murdering in America itself is the result of the drug war.

2. Stealing: this is the most dangerous. Encapsulated in: "Taxation is theft." If only more of our politicians felt it in their bones.

3. False witness - you can't run a commercial system in a nation of 300 million without a lot of trust.

4. Coveting - it has led to some good. Our market system which provides us with wealth formerly undreamed of. Carried too far it leads to theft.

If I was to give one prescription as a way out of a lot of our current internal conflicts I would admonish: "Learn to live with sinners and yet be untouched by their sin." And "there is a difference between vice and crime." A government that goes after crime will be manageable. One that goes after vice will hound you every minute of your life.

And yes I too love the discussion at CV.

M. Simon,

I will read the Drug War History as soon as I can.

Regarding your other follow up comments, I am in complete agreement. It is on a platform of limited government with a practical plan on how to return to limited government and these points that will unite conservatives, libertarians, the conflicted thinkers and the intuitive independents in a resurgent voting block that loves the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness without the incessant intrusion of government.

Only apathy can conquer us. This will be won on the margin. It is our duty and responsibility to engage those around us and persuade (not coerce) them as best as possible. If every conservative and libertarian does this, we and all of America will win. Why? I believe that the right ideas and the truth are on our side. Besides, people inherently want to be free.

Regards

Barrett,

I agree. And that is why I do these posts. I think we have to forge an agreement among ourselves in order to defeat the Obama Communists. Then we can pick the candidates in the primaries to who can best lead the attack.

What is the minimum ticket to get into the big tent? (I think you have articulated it quite well) Because I don't just want to defeat the bastids. I want to CRUSH them.