I would just say you are doing exactly what the real enemies, the Democrats are hoping for. They have used the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy to divide the fiscal conservatives from the social conservatives. While the two are certainly not mutually exclusive, the libertarian, fiscally conservative movement is growing in numbers. By applying your social issues ‘litmus test’ to the ‘Tea Party’ you are doing the work of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al.
Social issues should be properly returned to states rights issues, not national issues. The way forward for the social conservatives is to get the Federal gov’t to return power to the states. If people can move to a state that offers them the social and fiscal environment that suits them, social conservatives and libertarian conservatives will both have a place where they feel welcome. To apply your rules, the chances of conservatism ever overtaking the liberalism that now dominates are slim and none.
DADT is a National issue. I agree that everything else is State level.
I don’t think the libs have a strategy so much as stating the obvious. Once you leave the basic message that resonates with the larger group, there will be infighting to no end. Look at what happens here. If anything I think you’ve understated the situation. My guess is there will be fractures over the next two years that will limit the effectiveness. On the naively optimistic side, some good will come of it. Up to Nov. 2 the focus was narrow and it seemed to me widespread with a focus on fiscal policy and limited government. Those days are behind us and various factions and factions within factions will be pulling in different directions. Keep is simple s... would be my suggestion.
Until all power reserved for the states is given back, social issues must be fought on the national level.
Agree. TEA stands for "Taxed Enough Already", if I'm not mistaken. It does not imply advocacy of various social issues at all.
Want to destroy the movement? Start mixing in all these gonadal politics, and the TEA party movement will be successfully marginalized as its "tent" shrinks more and more because of unnecessary stridency and inclusion of non-fiscal issues.
I have conservative social opinions, but I am willing to put the fiscal issues first in an effort to create as much consensus as possible.
IMHO, social conservatives should create a similar movement if they want, but should not try to steer TEA partiers away from their primary focus, that of fiscal conservatism, limited government, etc.
>>Social issues should be properly returned to states rights issues, not national issues.
Bingo. That’s the real issue right there.
That’s very true, well said.
Wanna borrow my flame suit?
You do realize your post #8 is internally inconsistent, don’t you?
Read it over carefully and see if you can see the inconsistency.
So taking a moral stand is giving the RATS what they want?
It sounds like the Fiscal (only) Conservatives are just like the RATS and want the Social Conservatives to compromise their values (again). Why don't they compromise instead like they did for Reagan? I say it's their turn.