============================
You say that like that's a bad thing.
===================
"The "values voter" or "social conservative" is by definition a single-issue voter."
==================
Nonsense. Just because I am unbending on abortion does not make me a single issue voter, it makes me a man of principle.
I don't believe conservatism can be split between social and fiscal, and here's why:
I don't believe someone can be considered a conservative unless they embrace the entire ball of wax.
ANY deviation makes them a liberal with some conservative leanings, but a liberal nonetheless.
There is no such thing as a conservative with some liberal leanings.
They are NOT moderates. They are liberals.
A liberal could be a moderate one, but they are still liberals.
A liberal is a liberal is a liberal.
I welcome RINO votes, but they are liberals and have no business telling conservatives how to run the GOP.
OK. Then what the heck is the need for anyone to call himself a "social conservative", a "cultural conservative", a "values voter", a "fiscal conservative", a "Paleoconservative", a "libertarian conservative", or anything else at all other than simply "conservative" (my choice) if, as you say, there's only ONE TRUE conservative with ONE unified set of beliefs?
I'm asking how the "social conservative" would distinguish himself from me, the plain 'ol run-of-the-mill unmodified and unreconstructed "conservative"?
Have at it, I keep asking this simple question and all that comes back is cheap and juvenile innuendo and an immense resistance to answering the darned question.
I guess I'm a "liberal" for asking "social conservatives" what that "social" modifier is supposed to convey to the rest of us. It must be a real brain strainer.