Winning the Future: The Fiscal-Conservative Fantasy

American Thinker ^ | November 10, 2012 | Selwyn Duke

[grey_whiskers]

And Obama lost between six and eight million votes.

Romney got massive turnout from social conservatives, it was the moderates upon whom he relied, who did not turn out.

Nice try, troll-boy.

Cheers!

[Colonel_Flagg]

Running on social values is the deluded fantasy.

Who gives you your freedoms? God, or government?

[Gene Eric]

>> Bottom line... They aren’t going to vote for us,

To Hell with amnesty. It’s about Socialism.

There’s enough we can grab from each demographic to turn things around. But first we must modify the way information is dispensed to the public.

[Utmost Certainty]

A lot of you keep trying to box me into contrastingly opposite positions I don't actually possess. I do not under any circumstances condone impositions of Leftist morality—none of this whatsoever is in line with my personal values. I am not in favor of gay marriage nor am I pro-abortion. What I'm trying to get at here is a more practical political question. Because if you look at the polls, we have an emerging reality now of an electorate whose prevailing tastes/preferences/values are increasingly turned away from traditional Conservative values. For instance, Gallup says 50% of people support of gay marriage:



Odds are % is going to keep slowly up-ticking. Allow me to reiterate—I do not support this. But I think it's worth asking: What in the world do social conservatives realistically plan on doing about this, politically speaking? Because if you run on principle alone and double-down that gay marriage should banned, then you risk alienating HALF the electorate. I simply cannot conceive how this would be a viable winning strategy.

[Utmost Certainty]

A lot of you keep trying to box me into contrastingly opposite positions I don't actually possess.

I do not under any circumstances condone impositions of Leftist morality—none of this whatsoever is in line with my personal values. I am not in favor of gay marriage nor am I pro-abortion.

What I'm trying to get at here is a more practical political question. Because if you look at the polls, we have an emerging reality now of an electorate whose prevailing tastes/preferences/values are increasingly turned away from traditional social Conservatism. For instance, Gallup says 50% of people support of gay marriage:



Odds are % is going to keep slowly up-ticking. Allow me to reiterate—I do not support this. But I think it's worth asking: What in the world do social conservatives realistically plan on doing about this, politically speaking? Because if you run on principle alone and double-down that gay marriage should banned, then you risk alienating HALF the electorate. I simply cannot conceive how this would be a viable winning strategy.

[Utmost Certainty]

Freedoms don’t come from government, period.

[Alberta's Child]

Here's something else for you to consider:

One of the most remarkable provisions of Obamacare was the $700+ billion in Medicare cuts that were included to reduce the impact of Obamacare on Federal budgets over the next ten years. That item alone would have been considered an outrageous crime against humanity if a Republican had ever signed the bill into law.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Good. So don’t throw out the people in the GOP who believe correctly.

[SoConPubbie]

But — what are you going to do about the new “ladyparts voters”? (I take the claim for this new term) 70% of them voted for the ‘rats. They are a growing demographic (young, single women).

Sorry, but you are seeing trends that you think are static and enduring and part of the larger culture.

They aren't. They're transient and more a function of the lousy candidate we had this election that no more represented the base than McCain, or Dole, in fact, he represented them even less.

Romney backed both Abortion and the Gay Agenda.

Romney had no definitive plan for limited government or reducing the size of goverment in any meaningful amount.

The so-called trends and observation offered up by the Conservative media and the left-wing media refuse to take this into account, because (especially for the conservative media) this would mean they would have to accept responsibility that they did not do their job during the primaries and truly vet Romney. Instead, they took the tact of sitting on their hands, for the most part.

Romney, being the pitiful candidate that he was, was the primary cause of this ugly loss that we had.

[johnd201]

and you can’t see the forest for the trees! If Republicans lost TWICE to a candidate as bad as Barack Obama what possible chance would they have of winning in the future running the same way they did when they lost twice.

foolish statement of the day!

[johnd201]

Actually I probably am to the right of Goldwater but facts is facts! You cannot win if you cannot change!

Get a grip homeboy! Stay your way and NEVER win again.

[johnd201]

Actually if Republicans lost to a candidate as bad as Obama they will NEVER win again if they don’t change.

Get a grip, homeboy! Adapt or die . . . or perhaps you’ll just fade way.

[DBeers]

Get a grip homeboy! Stay your way and NEVER win again.

Get a clue RINO -we are a Republic. Further, I need not win a damn thing to attain what is God given. Government gives me NOTHING!

The country did not elect an emperor. At the federal level, in addition to the Presidency, there is the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Judiciary -Then of course there is State & Local government -all under God and His inalienable truths.

Why do you and others think the presidency is so damn important UNLESS you buy into the whole false premise of government tyranny? No president including Obama can even have a mandate to do anything they please simply because a majority elects them. You only concern yourselves with attaining government imposed power -this at the expense of self governance!

Unless all branches Federal, State, and Local choose to follow the leftist collectivists off the cliff we will not be able to go off the cliff -no matter the leftists arrogant claims to the contrary.

You wish me to join in your delusion; sacrifice truth, principles, and self for collective power. You are simply another flavor of collectivist -I will not join you!!!

[johnd201]

I really don’t intend to be insulting or demeaning but you are NAIVE to the extreme !!!!

[FreedomPoster]

Not a welcome message around here, but accurate from my experience as well.

And they aren’t convinced at all the GOP is serious about cuts and budgetary reforms. “Strongly” doesn’t begin to enter into it. The Bush years were much of their experience with Republicans, they do not really remember Newt’s Congresses.

[rmlew]

All those brats were indoctrinated by Cultural Marxists. The solution is to fight cultural Marxism, not give up to the Gramsciites.

[rmlew]

We should fight the issue and point out the tyranny that the gay rights movement is bringing. No one does this. Maybe its lack of money or lack of testicles.

[SunkenCiv]

Bwa-ha-ha! The concerns, criticisms, and complaints about the federal budget deficit growth is the only thing most FReepers have in common with one another. Thanks neverdem.

[DBeers]

All those brats were indoctrinated by Cultural Marxists. The solution is to fight cultural Marxism, not give up to the Gramsciites.

Agreed! Those that suggest otherwise are collectivists seeking a collective -spineless useful idiots without individual conviction looking for power and validation through government.