[F16Fighter]

"You and Farah can keep it up, but I hope you realize that too much nagging and nannyism often produces a backlash and marginalization, and increases the likelihood that Giuliani wins the GOP primary. Social conservatives are not the majority of the GOP, and thus we need votes from other wings of conservatism to win. Spit on 'em too much, and they may surprise you."

So it's your position that the performance from a vulgar artist at the Presidential Inaugural is crucial in order that the GOP win future elections??

Lol, NOW I've heard it all.

P.S. -- "Social conservatives" IF NOT the "majority of the GOP," ARE indeed the backbone.

This Party DIES without us -- like it or not.

[CyberCowboy777]

You are correct, the GOP NEEDS the Christan Conservative.

But how far do you think we will get without the rest of the party?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

P.S. -- "Social conservatives" IF NOT the "majority of the GOP," ARE indeed the backbone.

This Party DIES without us -- like it or not.

Perhaps. But it dies without the socially non-conservative, free market wing, as well.

The problem is there is only one party that believes in America's greatness and is willing to do what it takes to defend it. That's the GOP. Until either the Democrats excise their hate-America wing or some socially less-conservative 3rd party can rise to prominence, the social conservatives and social moderates/libertarians who believe in America have to stay together.

[Dan from Michigan]

Social conservatives do well when they stick to LIFE issues.

They lose votes when they go to CENSORSHIP issues.

Pro-LIFERS are the backbone.

[Diddle E. Squat]

The party is hurt by losing social conservatives, but it would survive by moving towards the middle. Moving socially left while staying economically conservative is probably the most likely outcome, unless current demographic trends change, because it is the easiest path to a sustainable majority. It would be a bad idea, and overall hurt the country IMHO, but it is a real possibility, which is why bombastic naggers like yourself are counterproductive to advancing social conservatism.

Maybe you don't get out much, but there are lots of the younger generations who vote Democrat or don't vote more than anything else because of their social liberalism, fear of the false stereotypes of the GOP as moral nannies and seeking a moralistic Taliban, and political ignorance in no small part fostered by such moralistic labels and myths. Part of the GOP's recent success has been winning over these voters, by overcoming and refuting these stereotypes, only after which some of them can then start to get past all that and start to recognize the benefits of social conservative positions. But you can't explain if someone won't listen, and too often the myths the Dems have created have been sustained as a wall, because the harping and rantings of the zealous fringe have fit right into the stereotype and thus they tuned out. IMHO you and Farah are extremely counterproductive, and hurt the cause of conservatism, and especially social conservatism.

Too bad you and Free Republic weren't around 2000 years ago, the vitriole that you and Farah would have posted against Jesus speaking with the women at the well, the Good Samaritan parable, and healing on the Sabbath would have been stunning.

[Freebird Forever]

This Party DIES without us -- like it or not.

Wasn't Mullah Omar once quoted as saying something along that line?