[Antoninus]

Some are both, some are only one or the other.

Here's the trouble. Social conservatives have long been able to hold our noses and vote for a "fiscal only" conservative if necessary against a liberal democrat.

The same courtesy has NOT been extended to candidates who are both fiscal and social conservatives by the so-called fiscal-only conservative group. In fact, for them, being socially liberal is more important than being fiscally conservative.

These are the RINOs who fight harder against conservatives than against Democrats. You don't have to think to hard to come up with a few names.

It's high time to abandon these people. Without social conservative votes, they'll be lucky to get 20% in a general election.

[MEGoody]

The same courtesy has NOT been extended to candidates who are both fiscal and social conservatives by the so-called fiscal-only conservative group.

I would agree that in some cases, the social liberalism has overridden some voters desire for fiscal conservatism. I've also been told by fiscal conservative/social liberal type folks right here on FR that they don't want "us" (meaning those who are both socially and fiscally conservative). So it is true there is quite a bit of antagonism on their part toward us.

It's high time to abandon these people.

I would agree we should fight for candidates that are both socially and fiscally conservative. We may not always get that, however, because the populace is all over the place in the "quadrant".

And wouldn't you have much rather had McCain win the election than Obama? I know I would have.

Without social conservative votes, they'll be lucky to get 20% in a general election.

I've told that to those FR folks who want to rid the party of social conservatives.