Only if let the "social conservatives" succeed in thier effort to claim exclusive rights to the term. The political conservatives - the old school constitutionalists - know better.
Also note that many of the moral concerns Republicans claim they have, I know I have. But I also know that none of them were intended to be legislated at the national level.
I know. I'm still looking for a republican Republican.
Courting. I see. Never mind that he and Obama have some of the same concerns about AIDS and HIV. I don't think I know a single person with the disease but I also know it's not always limited to those who may have lifestyles we disagree with. Are we supposed to just forget about them, write off the casualties and keep pushing the 'conservative' cause? I suppose that's verboten to agree with a Democrat on anything. That about the gist of it?
Let's just say that a healthy skepticism is one of the characteristics of political conservativism. While Obama may have the same concerns about AIDS and HIV, if I was focused on those issues he wouldn't be near the top of my list of people I would be looking to for anything other than access to political influence and the public treausury.
On that we agree. But I would argue that the 'social conservatives' who would use the national government to forward their agenda can be as much of a danger if allowed to act unfettered from our Constitution