Hi:
Agreed, completely.
This might be the end of the R party's majority status for some time to come. The Socials have completelyl lost track of what got them here -- the Contract with America.
I know -- it is like watching a speeding train wreck.
That's why I think we have been losing so many Governorships like in OK and other places. Social conservatives gave us the OK candidate for Governor in 2006 and he got beat almost 2-1 in a state that was 100% red for Pres Bush.
We have groomed no candidates from the conservative side that can win because of the litmus test these social conservatives require. No one but someone far right without charisma stands a chance with them. To win a nationwide race, IMO, you have to be a leader, have charisma, and be a speaker that gets their message across to the average person. Except for Rudy, I don't see that and social conservatives hate him. Rudy is the only one I have heard speak in person that has the WOW factor.
I have eaten enough rubber chicken and heard enough speeches to know the difference. When you tune out less than 10 minutes into a speech, there is a problem because the message is lost. When Brownback spoke I kept thinking he is never going to end for an example.
Well, this is just one social con talking, but I would ardently welcome a return of the issues/policies highlighted by the CWA.
What no one on the Anybody But Hillary side has yet to adequately explain to me is why the two sides (social/fiscal conservatism) are mutually exclusive.
The GOP wins when the nominee is an electable fiscal/social con (Reagan, Bush II before he lost his veto pen). The GOP loses when the candidate is squishy on fiscal and/or social issues (Ford/Dole/Bush I).
I realize it's just anecdotal, but 90-95% of the social cons I know are also ardent fiscal cons. Again, why must the candidate be mutually exclusive?
I wrote over a year ago that George Allen was the one candidate who could bridge that divide, which was why the 'Rats and the MSM worked so tirelessly to destroy him. Sadly, they succeeded.
Mark Sanford and/or Mike Pence might do the trick, but both have significant obstacles to overcome should they run, and neither has shown the inclination to do so. Haley Barbour is another possibility, but he also shows no desire to get into the ring.
Finally, JMHO, but I think the pro-Rudy/Romney/McCrazy frenzy on FR is generated less by people who want the GOP to win in 2008 and more by people whose personal political preference is to see the social cons kicked to the curb by the party. Sometimes I think there is as much antipithy towards the social con wing in the party as there is outside of the party.
Mark my words - they may be successful in throwing the social cons to the curb in the party, but they will never - NEVER - win a national election without us.