He understands that the economy and jobs are the biggest concerns for most Americans and will focus on those issues without attempting to impose broad, sweeping mandates for social change.

`
`
I’m a Portman fan, all right, and a CFG supporter, BUT your description sounds like a veiled message to social conservatives to “take a hike with your right-to-life and traditional marriage issues so we can win.”
`
There has never been any indication – except for anecdotal musings from the pundit class and the left – that the social issues in fact hurt conservative candidates. Gallup has for the first time since Roe v Wade found 50% opposed to abortion on demand, and other polls (while failing to break the 50% mark) also show a plurality in favor of the pro-life position, record showings.
`
The gay marriage issue is even more starkly in favor of the conservative position. In every single election where the people of a state have decided, gay marriage has lost. Even in Maine with a supposedly libertarian electorate which has tended blue nationally of late and a 2-to-1 funding edge for the gay marriage side, the voters defeated the proposition.
`
What exact “social issue,” then, is actually costing Republicans who favor it? The death penalty? Affirmative action? WHAT?
`
Conservatives shouldn’t have to choose among the issues they support, especially when the public is trending towards our side.

Suckers!

you forget the third leg. Yes if the GOP embraces liberty(limited government) and the pursuit of happiness(ability to earn and keep personal property) they can win but to get landslides like Reagan they must embrace a culture of Life(pro-children,pro-senior citizen, pro-medical research into life advances (adult stem cells) etc also.

n0doz on November 12, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Well said–and I totally agree. We aren’t going to find a candidate that we agree with 100%. We must find one with our core values, and work from there. If they aren’t pro-choice–that shouldn’t be the litmus test–they aren’t going to do anything to rock the boat anyway–that is just their own opinion.
It’s not like we are going to be able to reverse Roe v Wade anyway. People have to stop being so rabid on certain points. Elect true republicans and we will win.

Be careful about listing yourself as an independent because in some states you will not be able to vote in the primaries. This could lead to a bunch or conservatives not having any say in whom the R’s choose to run like NY23

As I recall in 2008, the GOP had open primaries and allowed Dems and Indies to pick their candidate in many states anyway. This has got to be the most idiotic idea yet: “Hey, let’s let a bunch of yo-yos who hate us and disagree with us pick our f**king candidate for us! What could go wrong?”

So if Republicans adopt a radically conservative agenda, the independents should come flocking, and everyone who says otherwise is a traitorous RINO, right?

hicsuget on November 12, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Do you think the Republicans have pursued a radically conservative agenda while in office recently?
Does not wanting Universal Health Care and Cap & Trade amount to radical agenda? If you think so you typed in the wrong URL.
You meant to type dailykos.com

inspectorudy on November 12, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Absolutely true… this is the ONLY reason I stay with the Republican party. I intend to wait and see what happens with the 2010 primaries. But if the “good ‘ol boy Ohio Repubs” force RINO candidates on us… I’m gone.

Seems to me Ohioan Republicans had a big hand in successfully turning Ohio from red to blue. It’s hazy for me but I seem to remember lots of stories prior to 2006, stories that revolved around Republican political corruption, but I don’t remember whether it was particularly localized or more on the state/statewide level.

Any Ohioans here that can help on this would be appreciated.

Dusty on November 12, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Bob Taft was the Governor equivalent of Voinovich. He was a hugely progressive RINO, who got caught in multiple scandals. Here are just a few…

- Anti-Gun: Veto’d a bill to provide protection for concealed carry laws and allowed the Cleveland Plain Dealer to publish the names and addresses of gun owners. The legislature overrode his veto and passed the concealed carry law in spite of him.

- Was charged with 4 criminal misdemeanors for failing to disclose golf outings and gifts paid for by lobbyists.

- “Coingate” happened under his administration… The Bureau of Workers Comp invested hundreds of millions of dollars in high-risk investments run by people close to the (corrupt) Ohio Republican Party. Tens of millions of dollars in investment coins just disappeared.

The Ohio Republican Party is renowned for cronyism (if not outright corruption and progressive-ism). Ohio deserved to turn blue to teach them a lesson.

Taft is a perfect example of why I stress principles over party.

…Conservative in Columbus

inspectorudy on November 12, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Thanks for the tip. I live in Missouri, and we can be registered one way and vote in the other party’s primary. Great for Operation Chaos! That being said, I will make sure they haven’t changed the law, if I decide to go that way.

The Democrats are making themselves into a minority party by pursuing a radical, leftist agenda.

So if Republicans adopt a radically conservative agenda, the independents should come flocking, and everyone who says otherwise is a traitorous RINO, right?

All of these poll numbersa are SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERSTATED because of people’s fear of being called racist.

notagool on November 12, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Racist.

mankai on November 12, 2009 at 12:43 PM

:’)

So kicking out people because of their social views just puts people with even more liberal social views into office.

Focusing on the fiscal views makes much more sense.

Focusing on social views is counter productive to promoting conservative social values!

petunia on November 12, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Who is kicking people out because of their social views?
Or do you mean not voting for them in a primary?
It’s not the same thing.

No representation without taxation!

DerKrieger on November 12, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Clever.

Than 4 years ago? For Ed’s argument to make sense social issues would have been a factor in the loses in 2006 and 2008. They weren’t and they sure didn’t hurt from 1994-2004. What did change? Oh yeah, the party of fiscal conservatism starting spending like a pimp with a week to live.

Rocks on November 12, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Yes but, there is almost universal agreement on fiscal conservatism!

So kicking out people because of their social views just puts people with even more liberal social views into office.

Focusing on the fiscal views makes much more sense.

Focusing on social views is counter productive to promoting conservative social values!