[kingu]

We will /never/ unite behind a ‘true conservative’ until we come to an agreement as to whom is considered to be a ‘true conservative.’ An economic conservative who's not part of the right church? That's a RINO. A religious conservative who thinks that the government is the ultimate charity? That's a RINO.

So long as we have the evangelical litmus test of proper denomination, proper church attendance, etc, I honestly don't see a manner or method that we reach a conservative who can unite the party, and the nation, against the expansive federal government. In the present climate, there is no way Ronald Reagan would ever have become president. He signed abortion into law in California as governor! He flip-flopped and was extremely pro-life! Burn him at the stake, especially for his Hollywood connections!

Nope, not going to happen. I am, by no means, suggesting evangelicals be tossed under the bus, but religious affiliation has to come off the table in the defining of who is a conservative, or we'll continue to have just useless RINOs who represent /none/ of the ideals of the conservative movement, religious or otherwise. We will continue to split our votes and let these ‘middle of the road’ leftists take over.

[ari-freedom]

Republicans have to be strongly pro-life and traditional values. but they also have to cut taxes and spending and be strong on national security. Just like with energy policy, we need an *all of the above* approach.