Free Republic

And look at what Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, and Francisco Canseco ran on: fiscal conservatism and reigning in Big Government.

I should remind all of you, that taxpayer subsidized abortion funding, state protected abortion on demand, and states redefining marriage are all products of activist Big Government running wild. I’m arguing that the entire social conservative agenda can be advanced on a platform of limiting the size and scope of government, because it all falls under that, without the need to open up a divisive debate that will only hamper conservative efforts.

We are more likely to win over blacks and Hispanics with social conservatism.

Karl Rove spent a decade trying to win over blacks and hispanics, and all he got out of it was a Democrat House, Senate, and president.
Republicans would do well concentrating on being responsive to the desires of the majority of Americans, rather than catering to constituencies. We've had way too much of that from both sides for decades now. It's what has brought America to the brink of collapse.
 

If you refuse to defend our God-given Liberty, then you are not part of the solution; you are part of the problem!!

I'm all about defending out God-given Liberty.
We all have the same objectives, the only question is how we go about best achieving them.
It is a question of emphasis and how we frame the agenda.
We are most successful when we work from the broadest common ground.
Fiscal conservatism is a sure winner, everytime. And now more than ever in this political climate.
Republicans can achieve anything they want, and with broad popular support, so long as they frame it as limiting the size and scope of government.

There are two arguments for every conservative agenda item.
Both seek to achieve the same results, but one will enjoy more popular support that increases Conservative's power than the other.
The Tea Parties are saying Republicans need to maximize that, and avoid more divisive debates, if they want to be successful long-term.
 

We're not the ones opening up the front; they are.
And you expect us to tie our hands behind our backs, while they take away our freedoms of speech and thought?

I'm saying there is more than one way to skin a cat.
If Republicans go off the mandate they were elected on and start making a lot of unnecessary noise about the stuff they always lose elections over, then they will have a very short tenure in the majority.

People want to feel that Republicans are doing what they were elected to do, which is reign in spending, shrink the size of government, and return liberty to the People.

If they do that, then all of these other issues will fall into place, because they are all outcroppings of government run amok, getting involved in areas where it doesn't belong, sometimes where it is strictly prohibited by the Constitution.

Return Constitutional Government, and freedom of speech and thought will be restored, and "social justice" — the bastard child of Big Government — will shrivel up and die.
 

Thank you for contributing some common sense to a thread that is sorely lacking it.

I think Jefferson was more concerned with American Independence and the Bill of Rights. He, too, picked the more important battles to wage legislatively.

Do you think Jefferson was wrong?

So what do you suggest Republicans do?

Pick their battles.

Slash government spending. Shrink the size of government by simply defunding it.
The rest will sort itself out. Social liberalism cannot survive without the teet of Big Government.

But why open up a second, unnecessary front on the battlefield?
It is far easier to defend all of it on the fiscal front than defend it on the social front, too.
We concentrate all of our ammo on one target — spending — and don't let up.
 

Why should our tax dollars be used to push abortions and the prohomo pursuits?
You make like funding Planned Murderhood and the Pro pervert lobby but me and millions of others say NO but HELL NO!

This is a strawman.
They should defund these things, by all means. Just as they should defund all areas of government waste.
But they should do it on those terms, not because they're taking a Fundamentalist stance.
There are many ways to package the same agenda.
It is an artform the Democrats have mastered, but sadly, still escapes the Stupid Party.
 

DeMint would be perfect for NRSC chairman.
Cornyn is another failure who needs the boot from his post ASAP.

Ed Gillespie.

I highly doubt that "Palin is the best for the job" out of 300 million Americans. And if actually winning the election is part of the job description, then she is certainly in the bottom tier.

I think the GOP nominee is going to be a Ron Johnson-type candidate.
An adult with real substance who emerges late in the game and wins by unanimous consent across a broad spectrum, not some petty narcissist who has been running for president for the past 2 years.
 

How many Tea Party candidates that were elected were pro-abortion or pro-homosexual rights?

Actually, we don't know, because it was never brought up. Nor should it be.
It's time for congress to start governing like adults, and stop acting like guests on Jerry Springer.

Congress is there to attend to the affairs of the state, not opine.
Their personal opinions don't matter. How they run the business of America does.
 

Social issues kill Republicans.
Ken Buck would be Senator-elect right now had he not stepped in it.

What matters right now, 300 congressional Republicans all opining on the nature of homosexuality and Other Things That Don’t Matter, or saving America from bankruptcy?

One path will save America from 0bama, the other will destroy the Republicans’ reclaimed majority, and America’s last hope with it.
The choice is theirs.

We have a case of arrested emotional development in the WH.

Ya think?

We have a case of arrested emotional development in the WH.

Ya think?

0bama should just resign.
The party is over, and he can’t handle the hangover.

Palin is the only thing Keeping this piece of excrement Huckabee from being president.

This is a good point.
Palin and the Huckster have the exact same constituencies.
Huck's supporters all went to Palin after McCain took her under his left-wing.
Huckabee and Palin would likely bring Mutually Assured Destruction to one another in the GOP primary.
 

Palin should be RNC chairman because she can fire up the base and raise a ton of money, and most importantly, she would get the RNC out of the unsavory business of supporting RINOs in primaries.

On the other hand, if Palin ran against 0bama for president, 0bama would be a 2 term president. That is all the reason I need to consider it a very bad idea. I would think it is the anti-Constitution subversives who want Palin to run, so 0bama can continue to subvert the Constitution for another 4 years.

Of course, that ignores the many Tea Party candidates that won in the House...

And you can't figure out why that is?
You can't figure out why Tea Party candidates did so well in the House, where they are elected in lopsided districts, but can't win a statewide vote, except for very conservative states like Kentucky and Utah, where the winner is decided in the Republican primary, not the general election?
Would Sarah Palin be running on a statewide ballot for President, or just in overwhelmingly conservative districts?
 

Sarah Palin for RNC chairman!