There are political alliances available out there to accomplish a great many goals if we go about it intelligently. There is a clear majority in this country that opposes the current trend of more government. Fine -- unite with those people, and solve that problem. We've actually got a political majority on the gay issues as well given that African-Americans generally are conservative on that. So then you unite with them to defeat things like Prop 8.
But if you insist on doing it all at the same time, you will lose too many fiscal conservatives because of social issues, too many social conservatives because of budget issues, and accomplish neither objective. And the only people who benefit from that are those who are liberals on both fiscal and social issues.
We just delivered a pretty crushing defeat to the left based on budgetary/fiscal issues, and the smart tactic is to exploit success and pursue rather than stopping to loot the baggage train and see what other goodies we might find.
[you will lose too many fiscal conservatives because of social issues,]
Then they weren’t really “conservative”, were they. Good riddance.
Please note that the writers of this letter are mostly “gay” activists who want to use the Tea Party movement to promote the homosexual agenda.
You consider them allies?
Welcome to Free Republic. Been here a whole 12 days and this is your first post? Been lurking for awhile?
Does that mean I should tolerate a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage republican who wants me to believe he's a conservative just because he believes in balancing his checkbook?
Does that mean I shouldn't ask the question?
1. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a pro-gay, pro-abortionist to be conservative.
2. I don't want them in my camp, because they will always stab you in the back.
I’m a pretty homophobic guy, and quite sure I don’t agree with a lot of the social agenda of gay fiscal conservatives. But if I do happen to agree with them on size of government issues, why wouldn’t I cooperate with them on those issues?
Temporary alliances are most certainly possible. However, the main problem is that the exact budgetary/fiscal issues are anything but simple to get an exact agreement on which causes are we going to change? Are we going to get a ban on federally funded abortions? Who would be willing to at least bring into honest question the way our funding for medical research grants into better treatments for cancers, AIDS, what about figuring ways to promote or discourage, rather than try to mandate, various bad behaviors that can increase one’s own risk of developing or contracting various diseases that we pay to try and treat and/or cure?
All I am saying, and trying to make sense about here, is that the real questions and possible solutions to the fiscal issues are tough, and divisive, along social lines. The two are not entirely separate, because the solutions would be divisive along the lines of one’s moral convictions. I agree with you otherwise that yes, sometimes temporary alliances may happen, but in the end, the real solutions are divisive, and this is largely why some matters are truly untouchable to numerous politicians.