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.

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

Gee Mr Cornyn.. Thanks for catching up with the rest of us.. now get to work.!

Zippy_Slug on September 16, 2010 at 5:48 PM

No problem with me.

sandee on September 16, 2010 at 5:48 PM

I agree with Cornyn.

MayBee on September 16, 2010 at 5:49 PM

’bout time.

ctmom on September 16, 2010 at 5:51 PM

According to the Democracy poll, pro-life and pro-gun organizations are more popular than the tea party, the GOP and president Obama. At least on life and guns, the GOP shouldn’t back down. Notice how Cornyn combined a pro-life message with a pro-gay rights message. This is the right way forward: Stay out of people’s bedrooms but draw the line at basic morality.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on September 16, 2010 at 5:51 PM

I think that Mary Matalin could have told you “It’s the economy, stupid!” about a year and a half ago if you asked her. It’s not like she hasn’t heard her Cryptkeeper of a husband scream that over and over again.

teke184 on September 16, 2010 at 5:52 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.

I’m betting he doesn’t even address social issues except to note “we’re going to disagree on some things”.

amerpundit on September 16, 2010 at 5:53 PM

I have never understood the issues of homosexuality in politics. Who cares what someone does in the privacy of their own home.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business.

People are acting as if Cornyn’s mere presence at this fundraiser is going to manipulate conservatives across the country into homosexual acts. It’s silly.

ButterflyDragon on September 16, 2010 at 5:53 PM

The really fun part about this that properly managing fiscal issues will totally impact social issues in a very big way. They are not unrelated. But, shhhhh, don’t tell anyone….

joejm65 on September 16, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Cornyn has botched a few things as NRSC head, but until then I was a huge fan. I think he’s making the right move here.

BuzzCrutcher on September 16, 2010 at 5:54 PM

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

Nope.

Fallon on September 16, 2010 at 5:54 PM

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

Solve the fiscal/debt problems and reduce the burden of government.

Skandia Recluse on September 16, 2010 at 5:54 PM

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.

That’s like asking which eye you want a needle shoved into.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2010 at 5:54 PM

The problem comes when the more liberal positions demand government money as a remedy for whatever they are pushing.

That’s when the fiscal conservatism gets thrown out the window as they pander for the votes.

sharrukin on September 16, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Gays should be able to marry. On the other hand Democrats shouldn’t be able to procreate.

taney71 on September 16, 2010 at 5:56 PM

I think if the national GOP took the position that social issues were a local matter to be decided in the states, we would have a winner. We could concentrate on fiscal issues, strike a blow for the 10th amendment, and expand the big tent all at the same time.

Kafir on September 16, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Yes.

WisCon on September 16, 2010 at 5:57 PM

I almost said AMEN after I read this.

Rndguy on September 16, 2010 at 5:57 PM

“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

Must say I never quite thought of it in that manner.

marinetbryant on September 16, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Yes.

This.

Stick to fiscal.

John the Libertarian on September 16, 2010 at 5:57 PM

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

No problem at all. We need them in the party as well.

simkeith on September 16, 2010 at 5:58 PM

I agree 100% with Cornyn. The tea party needs to remember the grassroots anger that got them this far was fiscal conservatism, not social. I know a ton of self-described liberals who are actually libertarian and don’t even realize it.

cameo on September 16, 2010 at 5:58 PM

The problem comes when the more liberal positions demand government money as a remedy for whatever they are pushing.

That’s when the fiscal conservatism gets thrown out the window as they pander for the votes.

sharrukin on September 16, 2010 at 5:55 PM

They don’t need the money as a remedy, they need the federal money to merely exist!

Rndguy on September 16, 2010 at 5:58 PM

No problem here.

LastRick on September 16, 2010 at 5:59 PM

As a Social & Fiscal Conservative I agree.

At this point Social reform is a luxury.

portlandon on September 16, 2010 at 5:59 PM

So, Cornyn is being praised here but Mitch Daniels was condemned…. how does that work?

Regardless, I don’t want a truce on social issues… it sounds so beta… Abortion is murder and every child should have a mom and a dad…

ninjapirate on September 16, 2010 at 5:59 PM

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

Nope, and I’m one of his constituents.

He did get a somewhat nasty letter from me went the lawyers were sent to Alaska. I was civil, but reminded him of his pledge to stay out of the primaries and if he went back on it he may have to worry about his own primary.

cozmo on September 16, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Are we not on the same page in communication and understanding with the Log Cabin Republicans?

hawkman on September 16, 2010 at 6:00 PM

We absolutely need to come together with fiscal conservatives of all stripes if we’re going to rescue the Republic from debt-induced destruction. We’re glad to welcome those who believe in Constitutionally-limited government of ever race, creed, and orientation. An it’s good to see the GOP bigwigs are finally catching on to that.

Inkblots on September 16, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Re Log Cabin. They are a democratic front org funded by Tim Gill, of turning CO blue fame. They refused to endorse Bush in 04. GOPers should boycott them and instead focus on Goproud.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on September 16, 2010 at 6:00 PM

I agree 100% with Cornyn. The tea party needs to remember the grassroots anger that got them this far was fiscal conservatism, not social. I know a ton of self-described liberals who are actually libertarian and don’t even realize it.

cameo on September 16, 2010 at 5:58 PM

This is why 2010 will be a blow out. There will be lots of Democrats crossing over to vote for the Republicans.

Rndguy on September 16, 2010 at 6:01 PM

I have never understood the issues of homosexuality in politics. Who cares what someone does in the privacy of their own home.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business.

ButterflyDragon on September 16, 2010 at 5:53 PM

I don’t have a problem with what people do in the privacy of their own homes, it’s when they bring what they do out in the open and demand that I accept it and call it something that it is not.

That said, I’m leaning toward the position of the government getting out of the marriage business altogether. I still want the DOMA in place so what happens in some other state with regard to marriage doesn’t affect my state, but outside of that, let everyone have a civil union and the religions can marry people.

Kafir on September 16, 2010 at 6:01 PM

They don’t need the money as a remedy, they need the federal money to merely exist!

Rndguy on September 16, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Not entirely sure what you mean?

sharrukin on September 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM

ninjapirate on September 16, 2010 at 5:59 PM

But if we shut up about these issues, and quietly confirm strict constitutionalist judges, this is where these issues will be resolved.

John the Libertarian on September 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM

I don’t have a problem with what people do in the privacy of their own homes, it’s when they bring what they do out in the open and demand that I accept it and call it something that it is not.
Kafir on September 16, 2010 at 6:01 PM

That did make me say AMEN!

Rndguy on September 16, 2010 at 6:03 PM

CORNY YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM…….BBBBB BBBBBYE.

PappyD61 on September 16, 2010 at 6:04 PM

The irony:

If socons would shut up about abortion and fight for fiscal conservatives, we’d get more conservative politicians, including presidents who would nominate more conservative judges.

….and, outside of federal funding issues, judges are the ones who make the difference on the issue of abortion….especially the travesty that is Roe V Wade.

rickyricardo on September 16, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Elect Fiscal & Social Conservative candidates.

Do politicians only have to be one or the other?

portlandon on September 16, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Federalism for the win, not libertarianism. Politicians for federal office should defer social issues to the state level. I understand that you’ll hear about slavery and civil rights, but the thing that no one ever points out is this:

States rights and federalism were what allowed states to end slavery and grant civil rights. Slavery was the established system for hundreds of years, but then we created a system where those who were antislavery could pass it without the need to satisfy slaveowners in the South. The same goes for civil rights: federalism was the basis that created the foundation to end discrimination. This is a talking point that every single conservative needs to drive home.

cpaulus on September 16, 2010 at 6:06 PM

UPDATE

Expand on Gulp please.

Cindy Munford on September 16, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Elect Fiscal & Social Conservative candidates.

Do politicians only have to be one or the other?

portlandon on September 16, 2010 at 6:05 PM

socials cons aren’t going to win over as many independents as fiscal cons.

cameo on September 16, 2010 at 6:08 PM

It’s a TRAP!

Don’t believe Cornyn – he’s Lucy and he thinks you are Charlie Brown. This guy is a snake in the grass – worse than even Obama, because Obama has principles (just the wrong ones) while Cornyn cares only for his position at the NRSC – which is in jeopardy if the Tea Party candidates make it to the Senate.

These are words – words only.

HondaV65 on September 16, 2010 at 6:08 PM

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

YES! YES! and more YES!

I know, I know. I’m the last person y’all thought would poo-poo this, but the Log Cabin Republicans are a bunch of liberals. Gay Patriot has extensive coverage of this…link…so I’ll just defer to his site. However, this really jumps out at me.

The amount of money that the Gill Action Fund has contributed to the Log Cabin Republicans — about one-third of its total budget in some years — is raising questions about Democratic influence over the GOP organization and its search for a new president.

Tim Gill, founder and chair of Gill Action, is widely known for funding the campaigns of pro-gay politicians, many of them Democrats. He’s a wealthy entrepreneur and founder of Quark who has donated tens of thousands of dollars to various Democratic causes and candidates, including to the campaigns of Sens. John Kerry, John Edwards and Chris Dodd, as well as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Gill is viewed as publicity shy, but made a rare public appearance at last year’s Democratic National Convention in Denver where he lives.

LC Republicans are like the Mike Castle’s of the gay world. Old, out-of-date, and out-of-touch.

SouthernGent on September 16, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Expand on Gulp please.

Cindy Munford on September 16, 2010 at 6:07 PM

+1

pseudonominus on September 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM

I applaud Mr. Cornyn for taking such a huge risk by pointing out that fiscal issues are super important right now. The country can ill-afford focusing right now on social issues such as the lifestyle of the corrupt ruling elite, which is not inextricably intertwined with fiscal issues.

Christien on September 16, 2010 at 6:11 PM

no problem at all….

but i do have to question the intelligence of anyone who would let the left drive us over the cliff because of things like abortion and gay marriage

it seems like a rather unsophisticated view

r keller on September 16, 2010 at 6:11 PM

He can do what he wants, but this type of social conservatism is the key reason why moderates and indepedents may really want to vote for conservative candidates….and they may take a pass.

We’re not interested.

AnninCA on September 16, 2010 at 6:12 PM

“Social issues” is kind of nebulous, actually, and there is a big difference between overstepping bounds to “legislate morality” and fighting against pressures to use government to pass out patronage “socially”.

Count to 10 on September 16, 2010 at 6:12 PM

I think if the national GOP took the position that social issues were a local matter to be decided in the states, we would have a winner. We could concentrate on fiscal issues, strike a blow for the 10th amendment, and expand the big tent all at the same time.

Kafir on September 16, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Yup. That’s the ticket to a national GOP majority and shrinking government.

dedalus on September 16, 2010 at 6:12 PM

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.

Why does this seem so ominous?

sharrukin on September 16, 2010 at 6:12 PM

I don’t care if he goes. What the LCs need is a brand change. You won’t find ‘Mama’s Milk’ or ‘Dad’s Bag’s’ on a product label. It might be from mama’s cow or dad might have the strongest burlap in the New World, but it just wouldn’t give the consumer much confidence. ‘Log Cabin’ Republican just has all kinds of stand up comic potential.

Limerick on September 16, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Rndguy on September 16, 2010 at 5:58 PM
Not entirely sure what you mean?

sharrukin on September 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM

most liberal social programs require a heavy infusion of federal government dollars to merely exist. Otherwise the general public wouldn’t care if the ‘service’ was there.

Rndguy on September 16, 2010 at 6:13 PM

The government needs to get out of the marriage business.

Marriage is, among other things, a legal contract that ought to be licensed by the state to protect all involved.

People are acting as if Cornyn’s mere presence at this fundraiser is going to manipulate conservatives across the country into homosexual acts. It’s silly.

ButterflyDragon on September 16, 2010 at 5:53 PM

No, your misinterpretation is silly.

itsnotaboutme on September 16, 2010 at 6:14 PM

I don’t trust Cornyn (especially since I am from TX). He still sways with the wind and says whatever works for the current second. As for Chris Christie, I believe he is doing as the saying goes “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”. Be patient and see what he’s ACTUALLY doing. He is waaaaaaayyyyy to much of an a$$kicker to give in to obomunist….just sayin

sicoit on September 16, 2010 at 6:14 PM

I agree with the commenters that point out that smaller government gets our social issues.

Don’t want the government funding abortions? Less spending, small government.

Don’t want welfare to become a permanent crutch? Less spending, smaller government (forces changes).

Want to have a reasonable social security plan that can actually be funded? Less spending, smaller government.

Watch my blog (linked in my name) for my radical solution to our broken government. Should be able to write that this weekend.

PastorJon on September 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM

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

I don’t think there are many who care that much one way or another. “True conservative” or not. I think it’s also social libs who want to turn these things into wedge issues and litmus tests (e.g., someone who’s against gay marriage will soon be considered utterly unelectable).

ddrintn on September 16, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Glenn Beck, who takes the traditional libertarian pro-marriage stance of MYOB.

I don’t know about this. I know Glenn Beck said this. However, the guy talks out of both sides of his mouth. Next month he might say he’s for traditional marriage.

terryannonline on September 16, 2010 at 6:16 PM

So everybody seem to agree:

LET’S HAVE BUTTSEX!!!

Apologetic California on September 16, 2010 at 6:17 PM

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.

No Gulp needed.

Christie lost me when sided with the 9/11 mosque apologists. He was dead to me when he endorsed Castle.

The fact that Chairman Obama thinks highly enough of him to name to one of his panels comes as no surprise.

Norwegian on September 16, 2010 at 6:17 PM

As the nation turns against them, more and more Democrats are going nuts, behaving in bizarre, and sometimes violent ways.

Democrat Alderwoman hits poll worker with car.

The news reports don’t identify her political affiliation, so we know she must be a Democrat. In fact, she is from a large family of Democrat office holders in Wisconsin.

Luka on September 16, 2010 at 6:17 PM

most liberal social programs require a heavy infusion of federal government dollars to merely exist. Otherwise the general public wouldn’t care if the ‘service’ was there.

Rndguy on September 16, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Yeah, that’s the problem. If they want to be left alone then I am fine with that. Usually that’s what they say, but it isn’t what they mean. They want government funded approval and cash for their pet upsets.

sharrukin on September 16, 2010 at 6:18 PM

By all means, let’s get our fiscal priorities in line first—- another 30 million dead babies keeps the health care cost down.

Rovin on September 16, 2010 at 6:18 PM

I think if the national GOP took the position that social issues were a local matter to be decided in the states, we would have a winner. We could concentrate on fiscal issues, strike a blow for the 10th amendment, and expand the big tent all at the same time.

Kafir on September 16, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Yup. That’s the ticket to a national GOP majority and shrinking government.

dedalus on September 16, 2010 at 6:12 PM

That’s definitely where I want to be in principle, but a number of things will take a lot of unwinding to get there.

Count to 10 on September 16, 2010 at 6:18 PM

Cornyn: It’s the fuc*ing jobs, idiot! Everything else is secondary. Perhaps you need for me to draw you a GD DIAGRAM????

Homosexual “rights”? – Way down on the list! Don’t even bother addressing these ‘issues’ We don’t care. Neither does the vast majority of Americans who are struggling from day to day just to survive economically. What is so difficult with that concept????

alwyr on September 16, 2010 at 6:18 PM

No, your misinterpretation is silly.

itsnotaboutme on September 16, 2010 at 6:14 PM

Then enlighten me and tell me why anyone would have a problem with Cornyn attending this fundraiser?

How does his attendance negatively impact you, Republicans or the party?

ButterflyDragon on September 16, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Cornyn: Walk or chew gum–choose one.

Christien on September 16, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Elect Fiscal & Social Conservative candidates.

Do politicians only have to be one or the other?

portlandon on September 16, 2010 at 6:05 PM

socials cons aren’t going to win over as many independents as fiscal cons.

cameo on September 16, 2010 at 6:08 PM

How many politicians been consistently fiscally conservative while being socially liberal?

ddrintn on September 16, 2010 at 6:20 PM

I hope cornyn has his hearing aid in to listen to the voters! I live in TX and cornyn is on a tiny rope at our home. You good ole boys better get a grip. We vote and we do have a tiny clue what you have said and do.
L

letget on September 16, 2010 at 6:21 PM

LC Republicans are like the Mike Castle’s of the gay world. Old, out-of-date, and out-of-touch.

SouthernGent on September 16, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Cornyn fits right in with these RINOs.

As another commenter coined it: “I trust Cornyn about as far as I can throw Chris Chritie”

Norwegian on September 16, 2010 at 6:22 PM

i don’t have a proble with it but if he goes to the Logcabin event and then disses christian events I would have a problem with it. As long as he treats each group equally I have no problem.

I still think marriage should not be on the table.

social issues should be on the back burner but the candidate sshoould still support the right social issues to ensure that the correct fiscal issues get addressed. social liberals make the biggest spenders

unseen on September 16, 2010 at 6:22 PM

“I have never understood the issues of homosexuality in politics.”

Then why do people keep bringing it up!!?? Just freakin’ meet as people that agree on conservative fiscal issues – and not, “people that agree on conservative fiscal issues that like to do this-or-that-with-their-sexual-organs”! Why is that so difficult?

The Zoo Keeper on September 16, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Sure, Cornyn can/should speak to the Log Cabin Republicans.

The TEA parties’ primary concern has always been about the out-of-control debt and deficit and the unseemly spending and power grab of the federal government. Even a cursory look at the signs at any random TEA party gathering would show why citizens have risen up. Anyone who suggests that the motivations of TEA party activists are elsewhere is poisoning the well.

onlineanalyst on September 16, 2010 at 6:24 PM

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.

Co-opted.

ddrintn on September 16, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Social issues are not, and were never intended to be within the purview of the Federal Government. They rightly belong at the State level and the citizens of the State.

PakviRoti on September 16, 2010 at 6:25 PM

He’s right, How do you stand up with a big banner that has a pro Conservative political message and then tell anyone who walks up, you want to control some individual personal decisions?

Got a personal, social issue? Cool, don’t include it in your political message.

Liberals understand exactly how to confuse two or more separate issues together and hammer away at the slightest hypocrisy and they could care less how hypocritical they are.

Steal their thunder and give them a good dose of the blame they so richly deserve and leave a lot of social space in the tent.

Speakup on September 16, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Cornyn: Walk or chew gum–choose one.

Christien on September 16, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Yep.

And we all know the Tea Party candidates are socially liberal /s
Case in point: Angle, Miller, O’Donnell, Lee & Buck are all strong social conservatives.

Norwegian on September 16, 2010 at 6:25 PM

If we cut the funds of the government to what I think the constitutional level should be, there wouldn’t be enough left to worry about the “social Issues.”

There would be no Federally funded abortions, because there would be no federally funded medical care. (State Issue)
There would be no Federal money for embryonic stem cell research, because we wouldn’t be funding any medical research.

Tax breaks for R&D might be OK. Or tax breaks for bonds for R&D, but essencially, the risk and the rewards are the costs of the individual.

barnone on September 16, 2010 at 6:27 PM

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.

Yeap christie made a major mistake. bigger than Rove’s. rove had some reputation and some track record that he could fall back on. Christie choose to come out on the national scene by backing a RINO and CLAIMING CASTLE was a small gov limited gov guy. Not a good way to introduce yourself backing a RINO and lying your butt off for the RINO. then his endorsement showed he was powerless so three strikes at one time. backing a RINO lying for the RINO and then proving you have no chache. failure at all levels.

It was an unforced error christie did not need to make. the same as his sticking his nose in the GZM and immigration debate. I know the RINOs want someone on the national scene with conservative cred to blunt the power of Palin but the RINOs are finding out conservative cred is easy to get hard to keep.

unseen on September 16, 2010 at 6:27 PM

I know a ton of self-described liberals who are actually libertarian and don’t even realize it.

cameo on September 16, 2010 at 5:58 PM

I was talking to a person that describes himself as a “card carrying member of the communist party” about the libertarian stance of government staying out of people’s lives and he got excited and said, “I need to look into that!”.

I’m not exactly sure how someone that is attracted to libertarian ideals could end up a member of a party that is darn near its polar opposite, but, the point is that there are lots of people out there that are attracted to freedom if people are willing to ‘evangelize’ for it.

JadeNYU on September 16, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Then why do people keep bringing it up!!?? Just freakin’ meet as people that agree on conservative fiscal issues – and not, “people that agree on conservative fiscal issues that like to do this-or-that-with-their-sexual-organs”! Why is that so difficult?

The Zoo Keeper on September 16, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Because the people who want the government’s seal of approval to defend their behavior from criticism keep bringing it up.

Count to 10 on September 16, 2010 at 6:28 PM

I had no problem with it until I read what the LC group was. Now, I have a big problem with it. He should be going to talk to GOProud- not a bunch of Donks in Elephant clothing.

Birds of a feather….

kareyk on September 16, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Under the current circumstances (radical Democrat maniacs destroying the economy), I’m inclined to agree…to a point.

I’m not, however, willing to turn a blind eye to baby killing.

Kensington on September 16, 2010 at 6:29 PM

There’s various flavors of social conservatism.

There’s (1) “Those people are doing yucky/nasty/sinful things and there ought to be a law against it”

There’s (2) “Those people are doing yucky/nasty/sinful things and I might not like it but we need neither laws preventing it nor laws mandating its acceptance”

There’s (3) “What they do is their own damn business”

(1) is the legislated-morality approach, (3) is the pure libertarian approach, (2) is what I consider conservative.

JEM on September 16, 2010 at 6:31 PM

There’s (3) “What they do is their own damn business”

(1) is the legislated-morality approach, (3) is the pure libertarian approach, (2) is what I consider conservative.

JEM on September 16, 2010 at 6:31 PM

or 4) what they do is their own business as long as it doesn’t impact me or my children nor try to push their sin into my home nor make the majority sink to their level of depravity

which is what i consider conservative.

unseen on September 16, 2010 at 6:35 PM

There’s (2) “Those people are doing yucky/nasty/sinful things and I might not like it but we need neither laws preventing it nor laws mandating its acceptance”

There’s (3) “What they do is their own damn business”

(1) is the legislated-morality approach, (3) is the pure libertarian approach, (2) is what I consider conservative.

JEM on September 16, 2010 at 6:31 PM

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

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

most ‘libertarians’ are just liberals pretending to be conservative.

I remember when they sounded like the wacko left in opposing bush and the iraq war.

right4life on September 16, 2010 at 6:37 PM

unseen – Up to where you get to “nor make the majority sink to …” I’m with you.

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

I’m a social conservative, and I the last thing I want is the federal government addressing social issues–they have no Constitutional authority. Leave those issues to the states.

DrMagnolias on September 16, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Regardless, I don’t want a truce on social issues… it sounds so beta… Abortion is murder and every child should have a mom and a dad…

ninjapirate on September 16, 2010 at 5:59 PM

Crawling > Walk > Run.

Social conservatives will NEVER end abortion without power, and you will never get that power as long as you focus on abortion. That’s the reality.

Shut up about social issues, get the power by focusing on fiscal issues, and then…you can make your play to end abortion. In fact, abortion could have been curtailed dramatically if anti-abortionists had been a LOT more strategic in their game.

At best, all you will ever attain is a return to pre Roe vs. Wade status quo when there were 23 States that had legal abortion.

PakviRoti on September 16, 2010 at 6:39 PM

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

We already knew that Christy endorsed Castle. Christie made no secret of it.

Big deal. That was then. This is now. What Christie has to say about supporting O’Donnell is of more interest.

maverick muse on September 16, 2010 at 6:40 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

You mean that Cornyn just realized that Republicans are supposed to stand for small govt?

Gohawgs on September 16, 2010 at 6:40 PM

most ‘libertarians’ are just liberals pretending to be conservative.

I remember when they sounded like the wacko left in opposing bush and the iraq war.

right4life on September 16, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Hear hear! Most of them are little self-centered doper-anarchists. MeMeMeMeMeMe, ‘MY Rights are absolutes! Yours notsomuch’

rayra on September 16, 2010 at 6:41 PM

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. — Cornyn

Hey, the Tea Party and Republicans DO CARE about the social issues because if nothing else, WE DON’T WANT TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS, and refuse to accept the liberal demands on government to use taxes to fund abortion. We don’t want to fund any clinic with any tax funds if abortions are performed there.

maverick muse on September 16, 2010 at 6:43 PM

Just an OT aside: I have read that Rasmussen has Rossi (R) polling less than Patty Murray (D). Maybe we should be focusing attention on WA and helping out Rossi.

onlineanalyst on September 16, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Gays should be able to marry. On the other hand Democrats shouldn’t be able to procreate.

taney71 on September 16, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Thread winner!

either orr on September 16, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Cornyn (2002) and Hutchison (1993) were initially elected during the pro-big government era. Clinton assumed the presidency in 1993 after GHWBush, and Ann Richards was TX Govenor when Hutchison was elected senator. And Cornyn was elected following 9/11 with the Bush federal expansion of bureaucracies adding the DHS.

maverick muse on September 16, 2010 at 6:54 PM

I’m in the Rush camp on the civil union thing. As my senator, my beef with him is on illegal immigration, which is a huge part of the fiscal insolvency equation. He’s gotten pretty squishy after the 2007 amnesty debacle, constantly going back and forth and pandering to a group that will never vote Republican. He started out as a champion of conservatism, hopefully this outrage will remind him of the old adage, “you dance with the one that brung ‘ya”.

TxAnn56 on September 16, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Constitution and federalism, so long as the people are free and in charge. After that, enjoy the plantation.

Schadenfreude on September 16, 2010 at 6:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2