Cornyn: Independents keep telling me we should focus on fiscal, not social, issues

posted at 5:46 pm on September 16, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via lefty Greg Sargent, who notes that O’Donnell’s big win in Delaware adds a new layer of nuance to this strategy:

Mr. Cornyn, who has been on the receiving end of anti-establishment anger, argued that the Tea Party had helped Republicans in one important respect, by moving the debate away from social issues. While Tea Party supporters tend to be socially conservative on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, most say they don’t want to talk about them; they believe that by spending so much time on those issues, the Republican Party failed to focus on fiscal conservatism.

While social issues tend to be polarizing, Republicans can win on economic issues, Mr. Cornyn said, because the Democrats have been in charge as the economy has gone south.

“As I’ve traveled,” he said, “I’ve talked to a lot of folks who are basically independents who say: I’m fine with the Republicans as long as we’re talking about fiscal responsibility. Where I go off the reservation is when you talk about social issues.”

I assume this explains why he’s resisting pressure from the Family Research Council to cancel an appearance at a fundraiser for the Log Cabin Republicans. Cornyn’s response to FRC chief Tony Perkins:

“First, part of my job is to reach out to those committed to defeat Senate Democrats this November,” Cornyn wrote in the letter obtained by CNN. “The Log Cabin Republicans are doing just that, as they stand for fiscal discipline, limited government, and a strong national defense. We may not agree on several key issues, but we do agree that every committee in the United States Senate should be chaired by a Republican.

“Second, as social conservatives we affirm the basic dignity of every human life, including not only unborn children, but also adults with whom we may disagree. I believe we are all made in the image and likeness of God. I believe the beauty and blessing of America is that people of different faiths and creeds can live together in peace, despite serious disagreements. Respecting each other’s dignity does not mean ignoring those disagreements, but rather being honest about them, and working together where possible despite them. I trust that was the spirit in which I was invited to this event; I know it is the spirit in which I accepted it.”

I was thinking this morning when I read that passage that, to my knowledge, there’s no clear “true conservative” position on, say, gay marriage at the moment. Opinions run the gamut from Palin, who still (I think) supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, to Rush Limbaugh, who supports civil unions but not marriage, to Glenn Beck, who takes the traditional libertarian pro-marriage stance of MYOB. It is indeed fiscal issues around which tea partiers coalesce, although there’s a little room for dissent even there — I think. In one of the O’Donnell threads the other night, I said that a Senate with 60 Paul Ryans would sound great to me; a commenter reminded me that he voted for TARP, and I replied by asking whether in a primary he’d prefer Ryan with his TARP heresy or O’Donnell. He said O’Donnell. Gulp.

Exit question: Any big problem among HA readers with Cornyn attending the Log Cabin fundraiser? I doubt he’s planning to offer some kind of Republican benediction for all things gay, just a midterm pep talk about common ground, emphasizing the issues that unite us, etc etc.

Update: Right after I published this, a reader e-mailed us a tip with a link to this story about Obama naming Chris Christie to a federal trade panel. The subject line of the e-mail: “ENDORSED CASTLE OVER O’DONNELL.” Gulp.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Social conservatives are constantly being told to set aside their concerns for the sake of the country. However, liberal social republicans are never asked to make this concession. It’s tiresome.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:08 PM

We the people, it’s all we have left.

tarpon on September 16, 2010 at 7:16 PM

Libetarianism for the win!

Protecting the right of the people and NOT judges to define their own institutions IS libertarian

Protecting the right of the people and NOT judges to define when life begins IS libertarian.

Social conservatism IS libertarian in the vast majority of cases. It’s really only when you get into drug use that the vast majority of social conservatives have any difference with libertarians. Social conservatives (and most Americans) believe that drug use affects a lot more than just the user, it affects society as a whole, and libertarians are drug-addled stoners who want to get high in their mother’s basements. :)

I kid!

(sort of)

American Elephant on September 16, 2010 at 7:17 PM

Social conservatives are constantly being told to set aside their concerns for the sake of the country. However, liberal social republicans are never asked to make this concession. It’s tiresome.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:08 PM

if a socially liberally republican is in a socially conservative area they will make that concession. The problem is independents in this country are more driven by fiscal conservatism. Hearing someone give a speech about the evils of gay marriage and abortion gets them to tune out, especially if they’re at all socially liberal (or apathetic on those issues.) Saying “what you do in your home is your business, but in DC we need to cut spending!” gets their attention. It’s about freedom in both cases, focusing on that will build a better base and a better field of candidates.

cameo on September 16, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Can I really be a “social conservative” if I’m for legalizing pot?

Hmmm …

Well – I am PRO-LIFE, which is THE position of true intellect. If you cannot define when life begins – then you should logically take the conservative option and not destroy potential life – from conception.

Can one really put potential HOLOCAUST on the back burner? Not many of MY Tea Party friends would – they are all Pro-Life like me and, when we started showing up at protests – it was the Pro-Lifers who showed us the ropes. So I don’t buy the line that ABORTION is one of those “social issues” that we’re willing to put on the rear burner.

Gay marriage? It’s a little squishier – since some of the Tea Partiers in my group are gay. My position on gay marriage is that marriage is a procreational institution – and two same sex couples can’t do that. But whatever – that’s just my personal opinion.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2010 at 7:23 PM

libertarians are drug-addled stoners who want to get high in their mother’s basements. :)

and social conservatives are bible-thumping idiots. :) smiley face, it’s just a joke so ha ha ha.

John the Libertarian on September 16, 2010 at 7:24 PM

The problem is that if action is not taken to stop the eroding of traditional beliefs, it is the social conservatives who lose. People can do what they want, but when they force others to accept behavior those people find repugnant it takes away freedom of thought and association.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:25 PM

I’ve got no problem with morality (wow, how profound and moral I am) but if there’s a reprise of the Congressional (or Republican) interference like happened in the Terry Schaivo case, you can hang it up. We’re take-down-the-flag done. Right now, the most important thing is restoring the Constitution and fiscal sanity. We can debate school prayer later.

ncborn on September 16, 2010 at 7:25 PM

“I’ve talked to a lot of folks who are basically independents who say: I’m fine with the Republicans as long as we’re talking about fiscal responsibility. Where I go off the reservation is when you talk about social issues.”

The American electorate, in a nutshell. Learn this lesson, and you can complete the realignment that began in 1980.

ernesto on September 16, 2010 at 7:27 PM

The realignment will be worthless if we lose our freedom of thought and freedom to adhere to our beliefs.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Social conservatives are constantly being told to set aside their concerns for the sake of the country. However, liberal social republicans are never asked to make this concession. It’s tiresome.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:08 PM

But we’re not usually pushing an agenda, unlike the SoCons or Libs. Speaking strictly for myself (and I know there are many who agree with me, but I’ll let them speak for themselves)–I’m very much in the MYOB group, as far as social issues go. I don’t need to stick my nose in other people’s business. What they do in their bedroom is their concern. As long as the government stays out of my life, sticks to the Constitution, and keeps its fiscal house in order, I’ll be happy.

I would dare to say that SoCons and Libs are pretty much cut from the same cloth, as far as social issues are concerned. You both seem to think that you need to tell me how to live my life and spend my money. SoCons are all about criminalizing so-called “immoral behavior”, and forcing the government into our lives to legislate said morality. Liberals, on the other hand, are all about de-criminalizing behavior, and forcing the government into our lives to regulate it all and pay for it.

What’s the difference?! In the end, you both want to stick your hands and noses into my pocket and bedroom. My attitude is … f*ck off. You have no business making my business your business.

Leave me alone. I’ll live my life just fine, thankyouverymuch.

nukemhill on September 16, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:30 PM

No one’s losing their freedom of thought. You will always have the right to be an @sshole in this country. You’re really overreacting.

ernesto on September 16, 2010 at 7:33 PM

The realignment will be worthless if we lose our freedom of thought and freedom to adhere to our beliefs.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Fine. Adhere to your beliefs. Just stop working so hard to make them mine too!!!!

nukemhill on September 16, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Actually, what I want is for the liberals to leave us alone. Do not force us to allow our children to be taught things in school that we do not want them taught. Keep your behavior to yourselves.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:42 PM

I don’t think it’s JUST independents who think that way…

or maybe I’m and indie and never knew.

Ampersand on September 16, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Get on a school board then.

ernesto on September 16, 2010 at 7:44 PM

It’s not the social cons who won’t shut up about social issues.

Kensington on September 16, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Yeah, I know. So the only reply be; Social issue [fill in blank] is not a Federal issue and should be left to the States.

Then don’t respond to the weasels prodding. I cannot tell you how much I hate liberals.

PakviRoti on September 16, 2010 at 7:45 PM

It is not the conservatives who are trying to change our society. We are only trying to preserve the traditional norm. The socially liberals are the ones forcing their beliefs on us.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Shut up about social issues…

PakviRoti on September 16, 2010 at 6:39 PM

It’s not the social cons who won’t shut up about social issues.

Kensington on September 16, 2010 at 6:40 PM

THIS is the thread winner. Absolutely right. I’m not aware of any candidates who are making abortion and/or gay marriage the centerpieces of their campaigns. Anyone?

ddrintn on September 16, 2010 at 7:46 PM

I mean, you could make a case on that last point against everything from LBJ’s war on poverty to “Jersey Shore”.

JEM on September 16, 2010 at 6:38 PM

We are a nation where majority is suppose to rule while minorities ar eprotected. Not minority rules. If you want to have a deviant lifestyle I’m ok with that but don’t make my society change to accept you. you are the deviant not me. (not you personally but you in general) therefore if you want to crossdress I’m ok with that but don’t make be build special restrooms so you can practice your lifestyle. don’t make me change my society to fit you.

Now I’m all fine with accepting and not being descrimatory or racist but the line to me at least with deviant behavior is when you as a minority wants the majority to change to fit your lifestyle.

you as a guy want to screw other guys fine. do it behind close doors, not in orgy filled clubs. You want to be a “family” fine again don’t make the entire foundation of western civilization change to fit your choice.

You want to be a coke head fine but when you are in the gutter and you are selling your body for $2 don’t expect me or mine to give you money to continue your lifestyle that you choose to do.

I am ok with making drugs legal and I am also ok with letting drug addicts die in the gutter. Your choice your responsibility.

unseen on September 16, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:46 PM

The traditional norm was forced on you too, you know.

ernesto on September 16, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Social conservatives are constantly being told to set aside their concerns for the sake of the country. However, liberal social republicans are never asked to make this concession. It’s tiresome.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:08 PM

You are completely right, Rose, it is not easy being told what you feel and think should not be counted, and that you need to get over what it is that you think, feel and believe.

I just say, just keep on going,Rose, as best you can and do and say and vote for yourself as best you can for what you believe.

Noelie on September 16, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:46 PM

The traditional norm was forced on you too, you know.

ernesto on September 16, 2010 at 7:53 PM

And here comes idiocy itself, Rose, to tell you that you need to compromise. No support for you. I see the ugly challenges you face CHOOSING to be a moral person and having the block idiot assume it was “forced” on you because he fails at any sort of morality at all

Noelie on September 16, 2010 at 7:54 PM

The traditional norm was not forced on us. It is what it was when the country was founded. No reason to change what has worked for two hundred years. The people doing the forcing are the one who have rebelled against the norm.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Nice statement by Cornyn.

Y-not on September 16, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Coward’s way out, Mr. Cornhole.

I guess there is a percentage of the American electorate that are “uncomfortable” with issues such as faith, morality, and values, but is America a better country when we closet these issues to pander to selfish heathens? I think not.

I despise “independents”. Their votes are as predictable as wind direction.

David2.0 on September 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM

The traditional norm was not forced on us. It is what it was when the country was founded. No reason to change what has worked for two hundred years. The people doing the forcing are the one who have rebelled against the norm.

Rose on September 16, 2010

Your traditional norm is a lot older than 200 years, and has less relevance to the founding than you put on.

ernesto on September 16, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:54 PM

And yes, the traditional norm was forced on you, and everyone else. Society does that. Just because a norm is old doesn’t mean its socially self evidential…its perpetuated through force, through your family and social institutions.

ernesto on September 16, 2010 at 8:02 PM

I am specifically talking about our country in relationship to the marriage and gay rights issues. Do not try to force your abnormal views on us and we will leave you alone to do as you wish in private.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 8:02 PM

Noelie on September 16, 2010 at 7:54 PM

I didn’t tell her she had to compromise. All I said was that her “traditional norm(s)” were forced upon her just as new “norms” are being “forced” upon people today. Society does that

ernesto on September 16, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 8:02 PM

No one’s forcing you to believe anything about gays. We get that you’re proud to hate people for the sex they have or way they choose to organize their lives, but really, no one gives a damn what you feel about gays. The law should be neutral in that regard.

ernesto on September 16, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Opinions run the gamut from Palin, who still (I think) supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, to Rush Limbaugh, who supports civil unions but not marriage

Wow that’s some gamut there. The FMA says nothing about civil unions. As to the conservative position it’s pretty simple. Same Sex unions aren’t marriage.

Rocks on September 16, 2010 at 8:07 PM

So don’t say that social conservatives are the antagonists. We are trying to preserve what is. It is you who are the antagonists. It is you who seek to change what is.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Oh, and that just happens to be the position of the majority of Americans too, not just conservatives.

Rocks on September 16, 2010 at 8:09 PM

So don’t say that social conservatives are the antagonists. We are trying to preserve what is. It is you who are the antagonists. It is you who seek to change what is.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 8:08 PM

I didn’t say you were. But don’t for one minute believe that “what is” wasn’t forced upon society.

ernesto on September 16, 2010 at 8:12 PM

And now you want to “force” your way. So “forced” is good for you but not for tradition.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 8:14 PM

I didn’t say you were. But don’t for one minute believe that “what is” wasn’t forced upon society.

ernesto on September 16, 2010 at 8:12 PM

How about every minute then? History is forced upon society? People like owning a home. That’s traditional. Is that forced on society?

Rocks on September 16, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 8:14 PM

I don’t wanna force anything. Like I said, no one cares what you feel about gays. You, as an American, reserve the right to be an @sshole about how other people live their lives. That’s fine.

ernesto on September 16, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Your language reveals your character. Pretty poor.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 8:18 PM

Every candidate should read this link and sign a pledge to vote keeping in mind ITS NOT YOURS TO GIVE.
http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html
its a bit of a read but it has changed my view point.

ColdWarrior57 on September 16, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Exit question: Any big problem among HA readers with Cornyn attending the Log Cabin fundraiser?

Answer: No. Strange we’re even asking this in 2010.

LASue on September 16, 2010 at 8:27 PM

I despise “independents”. Their votes are as predictable as wind direction.

David2.0 on September 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM

Ah, yes. The typical “Independents have no real convictions” argument. Any other baseless accusations you want to toss in there? Really. Now’s your chance. Even though I’m a die-hard fiscal conservative, I refuse to adhere to SoCon principles, so I’m therefore worth being despised because I won’t toe the line with respect to your fundie beliefs?

Love it. Keep it up, big guy. You and your type are the number one reason why the Republican party continues to simply not get it. And why the Tea Party will continue to be a thorn in your side for years to come, as you wallow in irrelevance.

nukemhill on September 16, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Gays are out of work, too!

Use that angle, dummy.

profitsbeard on September 16, 2010 at 8:28 PM

Well, if social cons are so inconsequential, win without us.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 8:30 PM

I receive FRC mail and I agree entirely with tony Perkins-”Bottom line: if the Republicans want wins in November, they should start by supporting candidates and organizations that at a minimum support the GOP platform.”
And we know the LOg Cabins do not agree with our Platform. I just read there were 19,000 Log Cabin memebers- drop in a bucket compared to we who belive in life and traditional families-one man -one woman make a marriage!!

Bullhead on September 16, 2010 at 8:34 PM

You know who this helps? Mitch Daniels. Oh, snap. He flip-flopped on his initial pro-economic, anti-social issue agenda, didn’t he? [/sigh]

Our erstwhile friend from New Jersey, Manly Rash, is a close observer of Christie and not so thrilled by what he sees.

Terrie on September 16, 2010 at 8:44 PM

Fiscal conservatism seeks the values of DIYism, being left alone to lead a good life, not having government constrain your choices, and leaving you to be scandalized by your neighbors and to likewise scandalize them in return. Self-reliance is gained as well as the knowledge of self-restraint as you would never, ever, want to act like your scandalous neighbors…

Bringing decisions out of the national realm, where the politicians are the least accountable, and to the local realm where you can actually pester the critters is an extreme social good as it constrains government no end and keeps it on a tight leash. Somehow these societal goods are forgotten in the social values argument, and yet they come from fiscally conservative roots.

Continuing to argue about the start of life is missing the point that the rest of our lives are being strangled from us by pernicious government. It does little good if you are born in debt incurred by your parents and cannot renounce such debt as those spendthrifts have leveraged upon you and leave your liberty in the hands of bureaucrats. If we cannot beat this creature back in the rest of our lives, then we are leaving the children that do arrive with our sins and forcing them to work off our debts.

That is no social, moral or ethical good at all.

Strange that I don’t hear that from social conservatives all that much. Yet from fiscal conservatives I can get these good values to build a strong and life affirming society.

ajacksonian on September 16, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Continuing to argue about the start of life is missing the point that the rest of our lives are being strangled from us by pernicious government. It does little good if you are born in debt incurred by your parents and cannot renounce such debt as those spendthrifts have leveraged upon you and leave your liberty in the hands of bureaucrats. If we cannot beat this creature back in the rest of our lives, then we are leaving the children that do arrive with our sins and forcing them to work off our debts.

That is no social, moral or ethical good at all.

Strange that I don’t hear that from social conservatives all that much. Yet from fiscal conservatives I can get these good values to build a strong and life affirming society.

ajacksonian on September 16, 2010 at 8:45 PM

And that’s why the Libertarian Party comes this close to going all the way every election cycle.

ddrintn on September 16, 2010 at 8:57 PM

“As I’ve traveled,” he said, “I’ve talked to a lot of folks who are basically independents who say: I’m fine with the Republicans as long as we’re talking about fiscal responsibility. Where I go off the reservation is when you talk about social issues.”

Which GOP candidate is screaming about social issues?

Why does Cornyn’s NRSC support spendthrifts and cap-and-tax losers such as Crist, Bennett, Castle, and the like?

BuckeyeSam on September 16, 2010 at 8:58 PM

Senator Cornyn…he’s a REPUBLICAN, elected by REPUBLICANS, yes?

So there’s something amuk when he and others like him continue to work so tirelessly to REPRESENT “Independents.”

As to elections, granted, they need Independents to gain office, but, their then-later avoidance of issues important to REPUBLICANS is their downfall.

Lourdes on September 16, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Why does Cornyn’s NRSC support spendthrifts and cap-and-tax losers such as Crist, Bennett, Castle, and the like?

BuckeyeSam on September 16, 2010 at 8:58 PM

It’s the same behavior I just commented about (^^ previous comment here): they’re courting “Independents” and USING Republican voters.

This is exactly WHY the NRSC attracts such criticism from many a GOP voter and why some leave the GOP as to registration: can’t stand the duplicity and confounding lack of representation for the Right.

Lourdes on September 16, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Which GOP candidate is screaming about social issues?

BuckeyeSam on September 16, 2010 at 8:58 PM

Candidates? None that I know of. Social libs enraged that some people are opposed to abortion and gay marriage? Quite a few.

ddrintn on September 16, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Exit question: Any big problem among HA readers with Cornyn attending the Log Cabin fundraiser?

Answer: No. Strange we’re even asking this in 2010.

LASue on September 16, 2010 at 8:27 PM

He can attend whatever fundraiser he wants to…

BUT, I *DO* have a problem, big problem, with Cornyn’s preposterously false representations about that group, about what and who the Log Cabin ‘Republicans’ are…

Cornyn promotes them as somehow in-line with the GOP because they want “to reduce government” and are “strong on national defense”…yaddayaddayadda…

Utter lie.

Their Leftwing social issues promotions are demonstratively foundational causes as to GROWING government. Cornyn is talking out of both sides of his mouth about that group, though if he wants to attend their parties, feel free, no loss to me. I can’t stand the lies about that group and others like them by certain “GOP” politicians while the groups go about pushing Leftwing social divisions and causes, using platitudes that don’t accurately represent their motives and goals.

Lourdes on September 16, 2010 at 9:09 PM

Log Cabins have a long history of attacking conservative principles and the platform. I don[‘t know why Republicans pander to them. They are no friend to the unborn and traditional families or our way of life. And if you aren’t hearing from social issues people you aren’t looking in the right place.

Bullhead on September 16, 2010 at 9:14 PM

Social conservatives are constantly being told to set aside their concerns for the sake of the country. However, liberal social republicans are never asked to make this concession. It’s tiresome.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:08 PM

But Rose, what exactly do you want the social cons to do with their views? Many people are pro-life – Republicans and Dems. If a GOP became POTUS, I trust that he/she would appoint judges that would follow The Constitution and that means the Federal Govt would stay out of the business of each state. Eventually the court may have a pro-life majority and maybe one day Roe v. Wade will be overturned. What I can tell you, though, is if it is over-turned, it will be because it is bad law and not because they want to rid the country of abortion. The supreme court can’t do that. The POTUS can’t do that either. Abortion will NOT be illegal in the USA if Roe v. Wade is overturned. I’m sure there will be states that outlaw abortion. The battle will continue, but it will be at the state level.

We need to focus on our FREEDOM and then religious groups can reach out to communities all across the country and promote pro-life. I don’t want our government giving me permission to do anything or to take away my rights. (I AM pro-life by the way). I am sick now more than ever with the Fed Government’s quest to get in my business!

Oink on September 16, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Government out of my bedroom.

Government out of my wallet.

The end.

Good Lt on September 16, 2010 at 9:28 PM

n

ukemhill on September 16, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Seems to me the Tea Party is VERY relevant these days. Read the news much?

It was you Independents that gave us Obama. Thanks a million, Champ!

David2.0 on September 16, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Cornyn is right. It is fiscal free-market conservatism that is winning converts from across the “social” spectrum. But there are also conservative positions that resonate in social issues such as the institution of marriage, immigration reform, health care, and education.
Randy

williars on September 16, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Those who believe in NOTHING……will fall for anything!

Thanks Independents……….for President Obama!

Screw you!

Cornyn is an a$$ for pandering to these morons.

David2.0 on September 16, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Government out of my bedroom.

Keep your bedroom out of my face.

The Zoo Keeper on September 16, 2010 at 10:06 PM

if there’s a reprise of the Congressional (or Republican) interference like happened in the Terry Schaivo case, you can hang it up.

I can only chuckle in amazement how some people get so bent out of shape over making sure the rights of the most defenseless among us (in this case, a woman who was incapable of taking care of herself) aren’t being trampled upon. Considering all that’s wrong in this country today, I must seriously question your sanity if that’s what keeps you up at night.

As for the argument that we must forget about the social issues in favor of fiscal ones, let’s think about that for a moment….do you really think folks who are ok with irresponsible behavior in regards to social issues are going to suddenly behave responsibly when it comes to fiscal ones? If so, someone better alert the dems that have been running things since 2007, because they clearly haven’t gotten the message.

At this point, I agree, fiscal issues take priority. But that doesn’t mean we roll over and surrender when dems insist on pushing social issues.

xblade on September 16, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Social conservatives are constantly being told to set aside their concerns for the sake of the country. However, liberal social republicans are never asked to make this concession. It’s tiresome.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:08 PM

This.

Alexander on September 16, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Seems to me the Tea Party is VERY relevant these days. Read the news much?

It was you Independents that gave us Obama. Thanks a million, Champ!

David2.0 on September 16, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Sorry, but trying to equate the Tea Party with run-of-the-mill Republicans is retarded. The Pubs are doing their best to ride the coattails, but I fully expect the Republicans in Congress to abandon TP small-government, fiscal-conservatism as soon as the virtual ink dries on the ballots in November. It’s about as predictable as the sun rising in the East.

Mark my words–the Tea Party will become an official political party by ’12. After the Republicans abandon the newly minted Congress-critters this Winter, there’ll be a mass exodus by the new kids on the block. They’ll probably even form their own voting block and hang the Republicans out to dry, except for the few who get it, like Ryan and Cantor.

The Republicans (and Democrats, too; I’m an equal opportunity despiser, too!) are dinosaurs. And anyone who thinks that they represent “real America” are just as out to lunch.

And finally: I didn’t vote for Obama. And yes, many Independents did. Why? See above. You Republicans completely f*cked up from 2000 to ’06. And then ran … McCain? Really? You really couldn’t do any better than that?

So go ahead and be the victim. Blame Independents for the mess you created. Knock yourself out. Way to make yourself relevant. Oh, wait–

nukemhill on September 16, 2010 at 10:21 PM

The Tea Party stands for liberty and fiscal responsibility.

Millions of Americans believe that social conservatives strive to impose their values on those who do not share them, and that that is not liberty.

Social conservatives and libertarians must unite until we get the Marxists out of office.

Cara C on September 16, 2010 at 10:38 PM

The Tea Party stands for liberty and fiscal responsibility.

Millions of Americans believe that social conservatives strive to impose their values on those who do not share them, and that that is not liberty.

Social conservatives and libertarians must unite until we get the Marxists out of office.

Cara C on September 16, 2010 at 10:38 PM

That. But if SoCons don’t get that libertarians’ stand for limited government is universal then it will indeed be a short marriage. Liberty is for everyone. Not just for those who find others’ points of view “inconvenient.”

You are completely free to worship whichever G-d you choose. You want to rail against so-called iniquities? Go for it. But I’ll fight you to the death before you impose your religious sensibilities on me or mine.

Leave us alone.

nukemhill on September 16, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Social conservatives and libertarians must unite until we get the Marxists out of office.

Cara C on September 16, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Yes, and which ones have to cave and accept the beliefs of the others? Because I don’t intend to support social progressives even to get the Marxists out. So…

Go for it, you fiscal con libertines. Throw us overboard, or under the bus or whatever. Seriously. Embrace the socially progressive plank. I dare you.

Let’s see, once and for all, just how many more socially liberal fiscons join you than social conservatives stay at home.

And stop with the dishonesty about homosexual marriage not hurting anyone. Tell that to the photographer who was sued and has to pay $6000 because she didn’t want to photograph that immoral crap. Or the old people who were sued because they didn’t want two men doing it in their bed and breakfast that is also their HOME. We may still have freedom of thought but we will lose freedom to act on those thoughts. And anyone with an ounce of honesty/brains knows it. But you go right ahead there, Cornyn, if you think that is really a winner for you.

pannw on September 16, 2010 at 11:24 PM

Exit question: Any big problem among HA readers with Cornyn attending the Log Cabin fundraiser? I doubt he’s planning to offer some kind of Republican benediction for all things gay, just a midterm pep talk about common ground, emphasizing the issues that unite us, etc etc.

No problem with me. I prefer to know where politicians stand before the elections, not after.

The RINO contingent has made some sort of alliance with the Log Cabin, and like swallows going to Capistrano, their people are going to the Cabin for the benediction and probably the cash

Log Cabin is not an innocuous group, merely seking tolerance. They have agendas, and the gay agenda has become hard line, with a need to nationalize the insitution of gay marriage and a gay military. However they are good back scratchers and will support those who support them

The American public gives gay marriage a strong thumbs down in referendums, so the new tactic is to bypass popular consent and get the pols to make a deal

To the RINOs the Log Cabin bloc is the perfect start to a new base. They have long craved hispanics, that is, the grateful former illegals with brand new voter registration cards, but that is not enough if they lose conservatives. So the search for a broader base continues. Take in Log Cabin, lose the religious right. That would be sweet dreams for RINOs but they dont have amnesty, yet, so they keep testing the waters, hoping the nut cases will finally calm down about gay marriage.

Gay marriage, another reason to take out O Donnell

Guess I have to start keeping a scorecard of who makes the pilgrimage and who does not. Wish they would just mail me their deals list to save time

entagor on September 17, 2010 at 4:14 AM

Keep your bedroom out of my face.

The Zoo Keeper on September 16, 2010 at 10:06 PM

My bedroom isn’t “in your face.”

My bedroom is located at the top of my stairs.

And the government shall stay out of it.

Good Lt on September 17, 2010 at 8:22 AM

And stop with the dishonesty about homosexual marriage not hurting anyone

How has it hurt you?

Good Lt on September 17, 2010 at 8:23 AM

How has it hurt you?

Good Lt on September 17, 2010 at 8:23 AM

Seeing as it is not the law of the land yet, it hasn’t hurt me personally, yet. However, why are you disregarding what I’ve already posted about the woman in New Mexico who was sued by two homosexuals who insisted she photograph their ceremony, but she didn’t want to have to participate in the immorality? She lost and was fined $6000 dollars. Do you think she was hurt or not? Who is forcing their ‘morality’ on the other? Is she the tyrant for not wanting to participate when there are plenty of photographers around, or are the homosexuals the tyrants for forcing her participation knowing how she feels? Whose freedom has been infringed? What if it is a baker next, who doesn’t want to bake you a cake with two guys in tuxes holding hands on top? What about the couple who runs the bed and breakfast out of their home and doesn’t want two guys consummating their union on their honeymoon in their home? Again, a couple in Canada (yes, it is just a matter of time until it happens here, too, as it happens everywhere homosexuality is embraced) was sued for not allowing homosexuals in their own HOME.

So… The tyranny of the minority has already begun, even if I, individually, have not felt it personally. At least be honest about it.

pannw on September 17, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Social conservatives are constantly being told to set aside their concerns for the sake of the country. However, liberal social republicans are never asked to make this concession. It’s tiresome.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:08 PM

Say what? You don’t remember the Federal Marriage Amendment being on the national GOP platform in 2004 and 2008? You don’t remember the EPIC tantrum that social conservatives threw to (successfully) prevent Giuliani from being the GOP candidate in 2008? You don’t remember President Bush reluctantly embracing the FMA during the 2004 campaign because the social conservatives looked to abandon him if he didn’t?

Eesh. Social conservatives love to play victim. But they’ve called the shots in the GOP for quite some time.

Gabriel Malor on September 17, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Why do you think a libertarian would be in favor of the judge’s ruling on the photography case? That’s a horrible imposition of the state into a private transaction. You prove your ignorance by thinking a libertarian-based approach to the law and limited government would approve of such a ruling.

nukemhill on September 17, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Social conservatives are constantly being told to set aside their concerns for the sake of the country. However, liberal social republicans are never asked to make this concession. It’s tiresome.

Rose on September 16, 2010 at 7:08 PM

I object to cultural socialism as much as I do to economic socialism.

Coalition positions are limited by their least committed members. I voted Obama over Keyes. As did a LOT of Republicans. And I will again. Get over it.

Obama/Keyes vs Kerry/Bush

MSimon on September 17, 2010 at 12:05 PM

My position on gay marriage is that marriage is a procreational institution – and two same sex couples can’t do that. But whatever – that’s just my personal opinion.

Ah, but many heteorsexuals are incapable of reproduction, either by a surgical choice, physical damage or biology. Should they not be permitted to marry? And what of older single women who have gone thru menopause? are they not eligible?

I R A Darth Aggie on September 17, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Let me add. The State is not my friend. If it is yours, I am your enemy.

MSimon on September 17, 2010 at 12:11 PM

I see many of my socon friends are not serious about small government. And yet they mouth the words. Liars.

Liars are the devils tools. So much for the rectitude of social conservatives.

MSimon on September 17, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Protecting the right of the people and NOT judges to define when life begins IS libertarian.

You already have that right. Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one.

MSimon on September 17, 2010 at 12:24 PM

a gay military

The Israelis have a gay military and seem to be able to kick ass just fine.

If the Jews can do it, why can’t the Christians?

BTW I favor a return to the old time religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.

MSimon on September 17, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Seeing as it is not the law of the land yet, it hasn’t hurt me personally, yet. However, why are you disregarding what I’ve already posted about the woman in New Mexico who was sued by two homosexuals who insisted she photograph their ceremony, but she didn’t want to have to participate in the immorality? She lost and was fined $6000 dollars. Do you think she was hurt or not? Who is forcing their ‘morality’ on the other? Is she the tyrant for not wanting to participate when there are plenty of photographers around, or are the homosexuals the tyrants for forcing her participation knowing how she feels? Whose freedom has been infringed? What if it is a baker next, who doesn’t want to bake you a cake with two guys in tuxes holding hands on top? What about the couple who runs the bed and breakfast out of their home and doesn’t want two guys consummating their union on their honeymoon in their home? Again, a couple in Canada (yes, it is just a matter of time until it happens here, too, as it happens everywhere homosexuality is embraced) was sued for not allowing homosexuals in their own HOME.

[...]

pannw on September 17, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Something tells me you’re leaving a lot out of the cases you cite. Such as;

1. Was the photographer who refused to work the wedding “fined” or was she found in breach of contract? I’m sure the gay couple did not randomly select her to “force” her to photograph their wedding. Likely they already signed a contract with her and she refused to hold up her end of the deal.

2. The bed & breakfast owners who wouldn’t allow the gay couple to do it in their room? Another breach of contract, perhaps? On layman’s grounds, sorry, but the owners are wrong here. They are indeed imposing their social views on others. What next? A check to see if a hetero couple who checks in is married? Wouldn’t want pre-martial sex going on in the rooms. Why, it’s immoral!

Sounds to me like you’d be fine with the government enforcing your version of “morality” on everyone. And that’s the problem. Americans don’t want that. Never have. Never will.

Pro Cynic on September 17, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Seems to me the Tea Party is VERY relevant these days. Read the news much?

It was you Independents that gave us Obama. Thanks a million, Champ!

David2.0 on September 16, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Ever ask why? While the socons were passing their social litmus tests they were failing the spending test. i.e. socons cant be trusted. They are liars when they say they are for limited government.

Why not tell the truth? You are for spending and the big government needed to implement your social plans.

MSimon on September 17, 2010 at 1:15 PM

BTW the libertarians are not against the social conservatives. We are trying to tell you how to win elections AND then stay in power.

If that is not what you want. Fine.

Do you know what the biggest political party in America is? The MYOB party. You keep them happy and you can’t lose. Can. Not. Lose.

If you want to mess with the American people than they will go from left to right and back again until they find a party that is serious. remember ’06. Remember ’08.

MSimon on September 17, 2010 at 1:29 PM

I can’t speak for others, but I will tell you Mr. Cornyn. I vote for those that will reflect and fight for my beliefs. If you can’t or won’t fight for me, then I will find someone who will.

SGinNC on September 17, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Well then, just open the floodgates! ALL behavior is okay.

The Zoo Keeper on September 16, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Don’t confuse vice with crime.

Liberaltarianism for the Suck.

Scarcely any different from Libertarian Socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

rayra on September 16, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Well no. Libertarianism believes you should not be taxed to support the habits of others.

Here is a bomb: if socons really believe in small government lets see them champion the end of the drug war.

DRUG WAR = BIG GOVERNMENT

Besides – illegal drugs are easier for kids to get than legal beer. So it produces results opposite those advertised. The perefect government program.

MSimon on September 17, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Cornyn is probably right…for THIS election. The 2010 midterms will be about two issues: (1) Democrats spent oodles of money and ran up huge deficits but didn’t create jobs, and (2) Democrats forced ObamaCare down our throats that 55% of the country didn’t want, and Republicans can run against them on those two issues. Republicans could also make traction on energy issues, such as offshore drilling, shale oil, clean coal technology, and promoting nuclear power plants, and anti-cap-and-trade.

Most Republicans are pro-life, and pro-heterosexual marriage only, but this is NOT the election to be stressing such issues–it only gives Democrats an opening to say “he/she hates gays” or “he/she wants coat-hanger abortions in back alleys” or “she hates people who masturbate”, distracting the electorate from the issues WE CAN WIN ON.

Let’s face it, a lot of these social issues are decided either by the Supreme Court, or by STATE legislatures. Supreme Court justices are appointed by a President and confirmed by the Senate, so such issues should ONLY be raised in Presidential or Senate campaigns, not House campaigns. For THIS election, let’s get a House majority and as close as possible to a Senate majority, to at least put the brakes on Obama. Republicans won’t be able to override an Obama veto in 2011-12 anyway, so let’s campaign on issues we can win, and save the social issues for 2012, when Obama is no longer assured of being President.

Steve Z on September 17, 2010 at 1:58 PM

I can’t speak for others, but I will tell you Mr. Cornyn. I vote for those that will reflect and fight for my beliefs. If you can’t or won’t fight for me, then I will find someone who will.

SGinNC on September 17, 2010 at 1:30 PM

I will fight to get your beliefs enacted. And if that doesn’t work I’ll see what the Muslims want and fight for them.

See where that leads?

You are much better off if no one in government is interested in your beliefs. Pro or con.

MSimon on September 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Republicans won’t be able to override an Obama veto in 2011-12 anyway, so let’s campaign on issues we can win, and save the social issues for 2012, when Obama is no longer assured of being President.

You do that and you will lose me. And a LOT of others like me. Do you really want to chance it?

MSimon on September 17, 2010 at 2:03 PM

nukemhill on September 17, 2010 at 11:13 AM

And you prove your ignorance of reality if you think legalizing homosexual marriage won’t result in the forcing of everyone to fully accept and participate in it in this way. It happens every where it is imposed. Ask the people who have been brought before the Canadian Human Rights Council. Honestly, what difference does it make if some self proclaimed libertarian judge would of could of should of heard the case? It is what it is. It has been done. This isn’t some hypothetical “we will legalize it but we won’t force you to participate because we are libertarian” nonsense. This is reality. Wake up or stop intentionally lying, whichever the case may be.

Sounds to me like you’d be fine with the government enforcing your version of “morality” on everyone. And that’s the problem. Americans don’t want that. Never have. Never will.
Pro Cynic on September 17, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Sounds to me like you’d be fine with the government fining all people of faith if they have the audacity to actually try to live it. Where will it end? Will you be just as happy when we are all locked up in an internment camp for reeducation? That’s what it sounds like to me.

I’m not trying to enforce anything on anyone. Am I advocating the execution of homosexuals? NO. Am I advocating incarcerating homosexuals? NO Am I advocating making their behavior illegal? NO But the homosexuals were hell bent on forcing a Christian woman to participate in their perversity. They are the tyrants. And nowhere in the ruling in any article I’ve read has the accusation of breach of contract been levied. All accounts make it appear that she refused the job when asked. All she wanted was the right to freely act in accordance with her faith which was simply to not act at all. And she was sued and fined $6000. And you are trying to lay the blame on her. Shame on you!

Same with these people:
The fertility doctor in California? http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4941377&page=1

Massachusetts Catholic Charities anyone? http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp

Or DC? http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/same-sex_marriage_law_forces_d.c._catholic_charities_to_close_adoption_program/

Look to Canada and Britain for just how bad it will get. That’s where the old couple with the Bed and Breakfast in their own home were forced to comply or close down.

A Christian couple from Prince Edward Island who run a bed-and-breakfast out of their family home has been forced to close down their operation and pay a fee to two male homosexuals for refusing to comply with a Human Rights Commission (HRC) order. The Charlottetown Guardian reports that Dagmar and Arnost Cepica, owners of Beach View Bed and Breakfast, must shut down their two-room bed and breakfast and pay $1,000 in damages or else submit to a pro-homosexuality seminar by the Human Rights Commission and allow practicing homosexuals to take rooms in their home. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/may/01052302.html

That isn’t a penalty for any breach of contract. Read that last sentence.

Again, who are the tyrants?

pannw on September 17, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Umm…why isn’t my comment posting?

pannw on September 17, 2010 at 5:50 PM

My issue with the Senate RINOs (Cornyn included) isn’t about talking to log cabin folks. Go for it — courteously ignore the social conservative comments to the contrary and move on.

IHMO, the real issue for Cornyn and NRSC RINO group has spent millions supporting RINOs fighting Tea Party (Fiscal) Conservatives in elections through out the nation.

While some complain about how there doesn’t appear to be any room for Moderates in the GOP, the reality is it’s been too long the RINO good ole boys leadership policy that there’s no room for conservatives of any sort in the GOP leadership and Senate in general unless they can get there pretty much on their own…

How many conservative Senators other than Jim DeMint can anyone name? On the other hand, RINO GOP Senators are a dime a dozen, with a couple more dozen to spare.

drfredc on September 17, 2010 at 8:44 PM

What exactly is it that social conservatives believe anyway? I grew up in the south, and the social conservatives I encountered there were authoritarian nutters.

Are we talking about the same crowd today?

If so, then I suggest we find a way to arrange things so that they and the Marxist leftists occupy all their time fighting with each other so that the rest of us can live in peace.

I see no reason to trade one tyrant for another.

leereyno on September 17, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2