Shrill because I used "queer" instead of the much nicer "gay?" Because I pegged the liberal as a racebaiter? Guilty, then. I'm sick of playing games with words and not pegging degenerates for what they are.
"I will then ask you, do you think the Cuccinelli campaign has been run in a smart way? Do you think the Republican party has behaved in a smart way? "
Do Republicans ever behave in a smart way? Rarely, and the more moderate they are, the more it holds true. Cuccinelli is no moderate, but I do believe his campaign could have been run better. Maybe he's allowing himself to be led by his handlers too much, instead of doing what he instinctively knows is right.
"How, precisely, do you suggest we persuade fiscal/small-govt conservatives who are also social moderates, to vote for Republicans (if that *is* your goal)? Has Cuccinelli -- or, for that matter, has anyone on this forum -- spent time trying to persuade that particular group that they should vote with their wallets? Have the Republicans in Richmond used their majority to limit the size and scope of government? "
What you're really asking is how do we persuade social moderates that we're not anti-abortion, anti-queer Jesus nuts. Maybe we can't. But those "moderates" see no sin, no wrong, in embracing sodomite marriage and the murder of unborn babies. Most conservatives know better. They understand that God is real, and that His standards demand accountability.
If some "social moderate" is enough of a fool to vote for McAuliffe or Sarvis instead of Cuccinelli, he will deserve what he gets...the problem is, the rest of us won't deserve it.
"I hope Cuccinelli wins somehow, but Sarvis's economic positions are substantially better from a conservative, limited-government standpoint."
Really? Sarvis wants to tax carbon emissions. Is that limited government?
A vote for Sarvis, who hasn't a hope in hell of winning, will ensure McAuliffe gets it.
No, "shrill" because you are nastier to fellow FReepers who disagree with you on anything than most FReepers are to Democrats. Do you think the squishy middle is going to rally to our side because we call them degenerates, sodomites, etc?
What you're really asking is how do we persuade social moderates that we're not anti-abortion, anti-queer Jesus nuts. Maybe we can't. But those "moderates" see no sin, no wrong, in embracing sodomite marriage and the murder of unborn babies. Most conservatives know better. They understand that God is real, and that His standards demand accountability.
"Maybe we can't?" You're not even trying. The left has the power of the media and two generations of public school indoctrination on their side. Using round numbers, it's a 40/20/40 electorate. If we continue to stink at presenting ourselves to the low-information, high-self-importance, "doesn't really know the issues and arguments but styles himself as an 'independent thinker'" middle, then the left will continue to hive off pieces. You see it in their otherwise-risible efforts to promote Democrats as the natural home for 'liberaltarian' (fiscal conservatism + social liberalism), and those smarmy pastors of the left (the socially liberal but soothingly acceptable mainline Protestant ones, not the Sharptons). They keep chipping away, and highlighting the most repellant personalities on our side, making it socially and internally unpalatable for the marginal voters to affiliate with us.
It might be a useful exercise to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is on the fence between Sarvis and Cuccinelli (I am not) and re-read your posts on other threads (I have), and see which campaign you are helping the most (hint: rhymes with 'sleazy grifter').
And yes, there will be a settling of accounts, but that is not for you or me to perform. Also, remember that Jesus dined with whores and IRS agents, and was more stern toward the Pharisees who went around judging others strictly.