Replies

When you and others reference threats to leave the GOP by social conservatives, you DO realize, I hope that you are talking about a tiny handful of "Constitution Party" types. An overwhelming majority of social conservatives are going to stay right where they are in the GOP that they dominate on the issues that count for social conservatives.

I get personally annoyed (I must be growing older which, I suppose, generally beats the alternative) by suggestions that, as a social conservative, I am somehow inclined to leave the GOP unless I get everything I want the instant that I want it. Roe vs. Wade was handed down more than thirty years ago. Lately, there have been a spate of pro-homosexual decisions. I don't think I vary one iota in my beliefs and positions on such matters from your Senator Coburn and Senator Inhofe and former Senator Nickles (sp.?) on any social issue. Or from J. C. Watts for that matter or from Steve Largent. What am I, as a social conservative, doing to deserve disrespect?

Though my every ancestor was a Democrat (and most were labor union members), I have been a Republican since I was a teenager and I will die one. Most of my relatives (still working class have adhered to the GOP for socially conservative Catholic religious reasons. I have supported Dubya since he was nominated and supported him on just about every issue including the tax cuts which benefit me not at all. Those tax cuts were good policy regardless of who they benefit. Likewise Dubya's policies in most areas.

If you want to find folks who constantly threaten to bolt, you would do better to look at the Tancredo crowd.

Your suggestion of Janice Rogers Brown for the vacancy is something in which I thoroughly concur. She is the single best nominee that I can imagine. That is particularly true in light of the Kelo vs. New London decision. The GOP is changing as a socio-political institution but the party is still defined by its ideology.

The Demonrats are frantic because they cannot take Janice Rogers Brown, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales (whatever his issue drawbacks) for granted simply because of their respective ancestries. The Demonrats would like the right to convert the Republican young in college classrooms on environmentalism, sexual license, bleeding heartism, pseudo-intellectual mock superiority, repulsion for war and (gasp!) guns, etc. Meanwhile, the Demonrats view the votes of blacks, Hispanics, union members, poor people, blue collars, dead people, people who never were, etc. as a sort of political entitlement for Demonrats. I'll bet you disagree with this as much as I do.

For what it is worth, I also agree with you on Dubya's judicial nominations which are generally far better than those of his father or even of Ronaldus Maximus.

The Constitution Party types or other eccentrics have seldom effected an election outcome. The phenomenon of social conservatives is far, far broader than the Constitution Party types. The fact missing in the notion that social conservatives will leave the GOP is any sizeable number of actual social conservatives who WILL leave the GOP in any foreseeable circumstance.

That does not mean that social conservatives expect to be or wish to be taken for granted. It is for such circumstances that God invented primaries. How much did Tom Coburn spend running for his three terms in Congress in an otherwise Democrat district? How much did he spend compared to his primary opponent(s) in the Senate race?

Oh, and few things put social conservatives in more of a punishing mood than the Gerald Fordian/Nelson Rockefellerian suggestion that they "have no place else to go." If they go elsewhere in this election or that they will do so by quiet nonviolent political assassination by voting booth rather than public proclamation and press release except when we got Weicker's hide in Connecticut. Lieberman is still more of a Republican than Weicker ever was.

But you are more than a social conservative -- you are a conservative both social and fiscal from what I have read of your posts. That is what I was trying to get across. I am both as well.

I fought with the "purist" as they call themselves starting in 1999 when I first came on here so we go way back and they were threatening back them to pick up their ball and leave -- told them to go then as well. Nothing is ever good enough for them -- we actually have some of those types in my County and State -- they belong to the Republican Assemblies -- bunch of malcontents always threatening not to vote Republican because they are the "social" conscience of Republicans. They are not my social conscience -- I do just fine on my own supporting candidates like Dr. Tom, Sen Inhofe, and others. I work in campaigns from the grassroots to elect more conservatives and the only people I ever meet threatening to stay home and not vote call themselves "social" conservatives. I am just a plain old Conservative Republican that is pro-life and supports pro-life candidates -- easy for me -- I live in Oklahoma. Now you know why I said what I did about "social" conservatives -- have to be a fiscal as well IMHO to call yourself a conservative.

I didn't come up with the title "social" conservative and never even heard it until I came on here. I thought conservative meant you were pro-life and pro-tax cuts which meant you would be Republican.