PDA

View Full Version : 'Conservatives' wonder whats happening in Washington State




JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 04:40 PM
I know. Too damn many 'social' conservatives and not enough Libertarians, and until they realize this, they will continue to lose and be on the short end.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019857998_voters08m.html

pochy1776
12-08-2012, 04:44 PM
Whats so bad about social conservatives. Beats having retard liberals who vote for more Free stuff. I would actually support banning SSM on a state initiative. I still think we should promote the privatization of marriage. Also, i love it how Pot Smokers only care about their drug, and not Illicit drugs like Meth or cocaine. When will we see illicite drug become legal?

pochy1776
12-08-2012, 04:46 PM
Also, SSM is like a football game between red states and blue states. It does not make a state freer or un freer. That came from the Mercatus center. Also, Why can't we start a free state washington?

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 04:48 PM
Whats so bad about social conservatives. Beats having retard liberals who vote for more Free stuff. I would actually support banning SSM on a state initiative. I still think we should promote the privatization of marriage. Also, i love it how Pot Smokers only care about their drug, and not Illicit drugs like Meth or cocaine. When will we see illicite drug become legal?

I'm just the messenger here. As long as social conservatives stay in control of the GOP, they will not attract independent voters and will continue to lose. So far, their 'social conservative strategy isn't working............is it?

erowe1
12-08-2012, 04:56 PM
I'm just the messenger here. As long as social conservatives stay in control of the GOP, they will not attract independent voters and will continue to lose. So far, their 'social conservative strategy isn't working............is it?

I don't know how someone could look at the recent history of the GOP and think it's controlled by social conservatives.

As for whether there's some "social conservative strategy" and whether it's working or not, I don't think you can conclude that it isn't from the gay marriage ballot measure in Washington. That measure only passed 53-47, but Obama beat Romney 56-41, and the Democrat senatorial candidate beat the Republican 60-40. So the gay marriage measure couldn't have made Republican losses worse than they already were, and if anything mitigated them.

As for legalizing marijuana, I don't see why that gets lumped in with social conservatism.

juleswin
12-08-2012, 04:59 PM
""Too much government

Wilbur, the GOP party chairman — who describes himself as a "devout Lutheran" — says he believes that voters who said yes to same-sex marriage and pot don't necessarily support those things. "I think people are saying, 'It's none of the government's business,' " he said. "I think there's a strong libertarian streak out there." ""

I love that quote from the article. Someone should tell the social cons that they should stop using the govt to force their morality down other peoples throat and the line about "elevating the desires of the individual over the needs of the community." makes me laugh. The individual make up the community so if majority of the people elevated the desires of the individuals in the community, wouldn't that in turn elevate the desires of the community? especially when that desire is the need to be left alone.

Social conservatives needs to mind their own damn business, teach by example and not through the barrel of the govt's gun

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 04:59 PM
religious right = social conservatives.

pochy1776
12-08-2012, 04:59 PM
I'm just the messenger here. As long as social conservatives stay in control of the GOP, they will not attract independent voters and will continue to lose. So far, their 'social conservative strategy isn't working............is it?

Neither will pandering to Dykes thinking that the government is their savior. So far i have put up a proposition to privatize marriage and nobody liked it.

pochy1776
12-08-2012, 05:04 PM
""Too much government

Wilbur, the GOP party chairman — who describes himself as a "devout Lutheran" — says he believes that voters who said yes to same-sex marriage and pot don't necessarily support those things. "I think people are saying, 'It's none of the government's business,' " he said. "I think there's a strong libertarian streak out there." ""

I love that quote from the article. Someone should tell the social cons that they should stop using the govt to force their morality down other peoples throat and the line about "elevating the desires of the individual over the needs of the community." makes me laugh. The individual make up the community so if majority of the people elevated the desires of the individuals in the community, wouldn't that in turn elevate the desires of the community? especially when that desire is the need to be left alone.

Social conservatives needs to mind their own damn business, teach by example and not through the barrel of the govt's gun

And liberals ought to stop making these alternative lifestyles celebrated. Both stupid sides want they'res to win. How come Gay assholes (Dan Savage and FCKH8) are "tolerant and progressive" and religious people are hated. This double standard i cannot stand.

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 05:04 PM
Neither will pandering to Dykes thinking that the government is their savior. So far i have put up a proposition to privatize marriage and nobody liked it.

marriage and pot....non-issues. Only social religious right conservatives put these issues front and center over a 16 trillion $ debt. They are the enemy.

erowe1
12-08-2012, 05:08 PM
marriage and pot....non-issues. Only social religious right conservatives put these issues front and center over a 16 trillion $ debt. They are the enemy.

I don't see any social conservatives out there making a fuss over legalized pot.

They do oppose gay marriage. But there's nothing libertarian about getting government even deeper in the marriage business. And a lot of these religious right people are the closest friends we have, far from being our enemies. They don't control the GOP, and never have. Our best hope to overcome the liberal GOP establishment is with a coalition that includes social conservatives.

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 05:17 PM
I don't see any social conservatives out there making a fuss over legalized pot.

They do oppose gay marriage. But there's nothing libertarian about getting government even deeper in the marriage business. And a lot of these religious right people are the closest friends we have, far from being our enemies. They don't control the GOP, and never have. Our best hope to overcome the liberal GOP establishment is with a coalition that includes social conservatives.

who was it that wanted a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage?....yes, government should stay out of it, but as long as you have groups wanting to use gay marriage as a pawn in the political arena we're going to have this tug-of-war over a non-issue, which if you are someone who is independent will usually fall on the side of 'legalizing' a 'thing' because of socially controlling groups like the GOP attracts....and nourishes. I don't know about you, but from where i come from...Washington State and a NEOCON county, we lost all but one seat in the county re-org due to religious right, socially conservative seniors.

And may i add...all the speeches given, never once did any candidate address the debt. or wars.

nobody's_hero
12-08-2012, 05:21 PM
I think the religious right has mostly been used by the GOP anyway. It'd be better for them to cut ties with politics and go back to making their church organizations models in their own communities.

The GOP has held majorities before and I never saw any significant legislation against abortion or gay marriage. But I did often see it suddenly become an issue when elections were around the corner and the GOP needed the religious vote.

erowe1
12-08-2012, 05:26 PM
who was it that wanted a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage?....yes, government should stay out of it, but as long as you have groups wanting to use gay marriage as a pawn in the political arena we're going to have this tug-of-war over a non-issue, which if you are someone who is independent will usually fall on the side of 'legalizing' a 'thing' because of socially controlling groups like the GOP attracts....and nourishes. I don't know about you, but from where i come from...Washington State and a NEOCON county, we lost all but one seat in the county re-org due to religious right, socially conservative seniors.

And may i add...all the speeches given, never once did any candidate address the debt. or wars.

This gay marriage issue has nothing to do with legalizing anything. Gay couples were getting married in Washington long before this measure passed, and the government did nothing to prevent or punish that. This doesn't lift some ban on something, it just gets the government involved in it.

If the problem is that candidates are mentioning debt and wars (and I agree, that sounds much more serious than gay marriage), then that's not a problem rooted in social conservatism.

And I don't understand. If Washington is neocon country, then how do social conservatives have control there? And who is this "we" that lost seats? Neocons, libertarians, so-cons, or what?

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 05:27 PM
I think the religious right has mostly been used by the GOP anyway. It'd be better for them to cut ties with politics and go back to making their church organizations models in their own communities.

The GOP has held majorities before and I never saw any significant legislation against abortion or gay marriage. But I did often see it suddenly become an issue when elections were around the corner and the GOP needed the religious vote.

The GOP needs to go more Libertarian now. People are waking up, albeit slowly, and the old strategy's are not working.

erowe1
12-08-2012, 05:28 PM
The GOP has held majorities before and I never saw any significant legislation against abortion or gay marriage. But I did often see it suddenly become an issue when elections were around the corner and the GOP needed the religious vote.

That is exactly their modus operandi.

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 05:30 PM
This gay marriage issue has nothing to do with legalizing anything. Gay couples were getting married in Washington long before this measure passed, and the government did nothing to prevent or punish that. This doesn't lift some ban on something, it just gets the government involved in it.

If the problem is that candidates are mentioning debt and wars (and I agree, that sounds much more serious than gay marriage), then that's not a problem rooted in social conservatism.

And I don't understand. If Washington is neocon country, then how do social conservatives have control there? And who is this "we" that lost seats? Neocons, libertarians, so-cons, or what?

Washington is not NEOCON...my county is... as i stated.

It was the social conservatives that mounted an initiative campaign to ban gay marriage, so i'm not sure what your talking about here.

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 05:32 PM
That is exactly their modus operandi.

and its come at their expense...i.e...LOSING.

erowe1
12-08-2012, 05:35 PM
Washington is not NEOCON...my county is... as i stated.

It was the social conservatives that mounted an initiative campaign to ban gay marriage, so i'm not sure what your talking about here.

OK, so still how's that work? Your county is a neocon county? And who lost seats there? Neocons? And if so, am I supposed to see that as a bad thing?

Mounting an initiative to keep the government out of gay marriage (let's drop the "ban" misnomer) is not the same thing as controlling the party. My guess is that the neocons control the rest of the state GOP as much as they do your county.

erowe1
12-08-2012, 05:37 PM
and its come at their expense...i.e...LOSING.

What do you base that on? If the Democrats in statewide elections did better than the gay marriage measure, how could it have helped them?

This measure shows that opposition to gay marriage does better than the Republican party does.

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 05:46 PM
OK, so still how's that work? Your county is a neocon county? And who lost seats there? Neocons? And if so, am I supposed to see that as a bad thing?

Mounting an initiative to keep the government out of gay marriage (let's drop the "ban" misnomer) is not the same thing as controlling the party. My guess is that the neocons control the rest of the state GOP as much as they do your county.

NEOCONS control my county GOP. Is that a good thing for you?

I'm sorry, but you can't use the initiative process to ban something and say its not political. And it was an attempt to ban gay marriage....that failed.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=neocon

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 05:49 PM
What do you base that on? If the Democrats in statewide elections did better than the gay marriage measure, how could it have helped them?

This measure shows that opposition to gay marriage does better than the Republican party does.

The ban was defeated, thus opening the door to allowing same sex to marry with the same benefits as hetero.

Look, as long as the GOP wants to allow social conservatives to rule things, then they will not get the upper hand, because indendents are turned off by social control freaks.

Just the messenger. Ignore at your own peril.

erowe1
12-08-2012, 05:51 PM
NEOCONS control my county GOP. Is that a good thing for you?

No. But if neocons control it, then wouldn't so-cons challenging them be a good thing? I can't tell which side you consider yourself on, the neocon side or the so-con side.


I'm sorry, but you can't use the initiative process to ban something and say its not political. And it was an attempt to ban gay marriage....that failed.
There's that word, ban, again. The measure didn't fail. It passed. It wasn't a measure to ban gay marriage, it was a measure to grant it state approval.

erowe1
12-08-2012, 05:55 PM
Look, as long as the GOP wants to allow social conservatives to rule things, then they will not get the upper hand, because indendents are turned off by social control freaks.


Nothing in this conclusion matches the facts. Where do you get the idea that social conservatives rule the GOP? You yourself said they don't in your own county. It's pretty clear they don't in general.

And as for the results of this measure, again, since the anti-gay marriage position did significantly better on that ballot measure than Republicans did statewide, it stands to reason that the measure didn't hurt them. If anything, they might well have done worse without it.

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 05:59 PM
Nothing in this conclusion matches the facts. Where do you get the idea that social conservatives rule the GOP? You yourself said they don't in your own county. It's pretty clear they don't in general.

And as for the results of this measure, again, since the anti-gay marriage position did significantly better on that ballot measure than Republicans did statewide, it stands to reason that the measure didn't hurt them. If anything, they might well have done worse without it.

where did i say that?...i didn't...wtf?

and in general...yes, they do...not sure where you get this idea...no matter. Losing will continue as long as the religious social conservative NEOCONS are in control. The evidence is in.

erowe1
12-08-2012, 06:03 PM
where did i say that?...i didn't...wtf?

Where did you say what?

Look, this whole thread is your attempt to repeat the standard MSM line we've all been fed. Republicans are too out of the mainstream. They need to be more moderate and move closer to the Democrats to do well. And supposedly these states that passed pro-gay marriage measures are proof of that. But then when you look at the details, gay marriage consistently did worse than Democrats overall. So it doesn't make sense that that issue hurt the GOP. It's precisely the neocons who are behind this propaganda. They control the GOP, not the so-cons. And they would love to see the so-con influence on the party diminish, just like they want to see libertarian influence on it diminish.

Edit: Are you asking where you said that so-cons don't control your county? In posts 12 and 17 you said neocons did.

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 06:07 PM
do you ever read your own posts?

As i stated. I'm the messenger. Social Conservatives are destroying the GOP and conversly, the country. Its clear you don't agree, and being in denial of the facts will not change anything. The party needs to turn more Libertarian . Start attracting imdependents or die as a party. Its coming.

erowe1
12-08-2012, 06:10 PM
As i stated. I'm the messenger.

I get that. You were spoon-fed a message by the MSM and you're regurgitating it for us and don't understand why we would be more skeptical about it than you are.

The problem is, your message doesn't match the facts. As your own state shows, so-con issues do better than the GOP does. They can't be what's dragging it down. I think it's much more likely that the neocons (you know, the people you said control your own county) are the ones that need to be purged.

klamath
12-08-2012, 06:13 PM
It is funny that CA in the massive democratic year in a massive blue state PASSED a gay marriage ban. The courts took it down.

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 06:24 PM
I get that. You were spoon-fed a message by the MSM and you're regurgitating it for us and don't understand why we would be more skeptical about it than you are.

The problem is, your message doesn't match the facts. As your own state shows, so-con issues do better than the GOP does. They can't be what's dragging it down. I think it's much more likely that the neocons (you know, the people you said control your own county) are the ones that need to be purged.

I wasn't 'spoon fed' anything. It appears you aren't paying attention. So-con issues are the issue. Gays and pot are at the top of their agenda, and no matter how many times they lose, they keep coming back with the same old BS and turn off independents and lose the big elections like Governor, Senators...etc.

NEOCONS=SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE=GOP.

erowe1
12-08-2012, 06:35 PM
NEOCONS=SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE=GOP.

Neocons and social conservatives are not the same thing. They're rival factions in the GOP. Neocons are generally socially liberal. They're embarrassed to share their party with all those anti-gay marriage folks. You sound a lot like them.

Antischism
12-08-2012, 06:37 PM
Social Conservatism and the fight against gay marriage or alternative lifestyles which they harp against and show intolerance for is one of the big reasons why independents or otherwise "soft" Democrats continue to turn a blind eye on the message of liberty or libertarianism as a whole. The gay bashing, homophobia and Bible-thumping are strongly viewed as "conservative" values, and that stigma will not go away as long as we have these idiots trying to enforce their views on everyone else. It'd be one thing if they were advocating for the government to stay out of the business of marriage, but they want to ban it at the Federal level.

As for anecdotal evidence, I can name quite a few people I know who always vote Democrat as default because of the social issues "conservatives" are associated with. These are people who would otherwise be more open to looking at the Republican party.

erowe1
12-08-2012, 06:43 PM
Social Conservatism and the fight against gay marriage or alternative lifestyles which they harp against and show intolerance for is one of the big reasons why independents or otherwise "soft" Democrats continue to turn a blind eye on the message of liberty or libertarianism as a whole. The gay bashing, homophobia and Bible-thumping are strongly viewed as "conservative" values, and that stigma will not go away as long as we have these idiots trying to enforce their views on everyone else. It'd be one thing if they were advocating for the government to stay out of the business of marriage, but they want to ban it at the Federal level.

The numbers don't support your conclusion. What's happening instead is that there are more Democrat voters opposing these pro-gay marriage measures than there are Republican voters supporting them.

We might get to the point where social conservatism is more of a hindrance for the GOP than it is a draw. I agree that we're moving in that direction. But we're not there yet. And if we're not there yet even in blue states like Washington and Maryland, then we're certainly not there yet nationwide.

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 06:47 PM
Neocons and social conservatives are not the same thing. They're rival factions in the GOP. Neocons are generally socially liberal. They're embarrassed to share their party with all those anti-gay marriage folks. You sound a lot like them.

They are the same. They love to bomb brown people, while spouting how much they hate gays. I'm just the opposite.

The one and only reason i 'joined' the republican party was because of Ron Paul. I actually fall into the Independent category and supported Ron for his Foreign Policy ideals..and then later on all of his idealogy.

erowe1
12-08-2012, 06:54 PM
They are the same. They love to bomb brown people, while spouting how much they hate gays. I'm just the opposite.

They're not the same. Neocons are generally socially liberal. They love bombing brown people. But they're embarrassed by the Republicans who oppose gay marriage.

Look back at most Republican primaries, the so-con champion usually loses to the establishment neocon. All those Goldman-Sachs donations don't go to the guy who speaks out the most against gay marriage. I can't think of a single person who could be characterized as a typical neoconservative that doesn't want the GOP to soften up on moral issues. Gay marriage was the one issue where Cheney explicitly differed with GW in 2000. Wolfwowitz, Krauthammer, Kristol, Giuliani, McCain, Lindsey Graham... none of these are the people the religious right considers its champions.

AGRP
12-08-2012, 06:56 PM
'Conservatives' Faux News zombies wonder whats happening in Washington State

AGRP
12-08-2012, 07:04 PM
Washington state is really shinning these days and it gives me happy chills. Anyone remember the overthrow in King County by Ron Paul supporters? One comment from the Seattle paper. A lot of them are similar:

Wilbur, the GOP party chairman — who describes himself as a "devout Lutheran" — says he believes that voters who said yes to same-sex marriage and pot don't necessarily support those things. "I think people are saying, 'It's none of the government's business,' " he said. "I think there's a strong libertarian streak out there."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-zOrBIXwBs

thoughtomator
12-08-2012, 07:36 PM
Social conservatives don't control the GOP. Progressive Wilsonians do.

juleswin
12-08-2012, 07:51 PM
Social conservatives don't control the GOP. Progressive Wilsonians do.

Who ever controls the republican party doesn't matter, the problem is that republican politicians tend to pander and pander to social conservatives which turns of independent and fiscal conservative democrats. Tolerant people tend to be intolerant of intolerant people, especially when those intolerant people want ti impose their moral standards on other people.

Drop the social cons and save the country, its not like they will go ahead and vote for democrats

tod evans
12-08-2012, 08:31 PM
religious right = social conservatives.

I consider myself religious and many of my politics are to the right of Attila the Hun but I'm all for ***** having the same access as straight folks to government freebies, I also think all drugs should be available to all adults and wars should only be declared by congress.

I'd also like to repeal every bit of legislation passed since 1930, bar everyone who's ever profited one dime from todays government from ever holding office again and start over with all new blood in DC...

So how's that fit with religious social conservative?

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 08:43 PM
I consider myself religious and many of my politics are to the right of Attila the Hun but I'm all for ***** having the same access as straight folks to government freebies, I also think all drugs should be available to all adults and wars should only be declared by congress.

I'd also like to repeal every bit of legislation passed since 1930, bar everyone who's ever profited one dime from todays government from ever holding office again and start over with all new blood in DC...

So how's that fit with religious social conservative?

not saying there isn't exceptions, but from what i've seen and been around, all the clamor and hand-wringing over pot and gay marriage is coming from the religious right, who as it so happens are in control of my county party and KING county in Wash. State. The rhetoric from these groups is expected. Thats all they worry about. Trying to start a conversation about Ending the FED will get you deer in the headlights looks. It reminds of the cop abuse issue. You get a few assholes and the rest just follow and stay silent, corrupting and polluting the well.

AGRP
12-08-2012, 08:55 PM
not saying there isn't exceptions, but from what i've seen and been around, all the clamor and hand-wringing over pot and gay marriage is coming from the religious right, who as it so happens are in control of my county party and KING county in Wash. State. The rhetoric from these groups is expected. Thats all they worry about. Trying to start a conversation about Ending the FED will get you deer in the headlights look. It reminds of the cop abuse issue. You get a few assholes and the rest just follow and stay silent, corrupting and polluting the well.
It sounds like youve had bad experiences from a lot of ignorant people who are still in the matrix. Many of those who you call "religious right" worship the TV more than anything else. You can attract a lot more bees with honey then vinegar.

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 08:58 PM
It sounds like youve had bad experiences from a lot of ignorant people who are still in the matrix. Many of those who you call "religious right" worship the TV more than anything else. You can attract a lot more bees with honey then vinegar.

bad experience?...yeah, ok. I was a State AND County Delegate. Do i need to explain any further?

erowe1
12-08-2012, 09:35 PM
Who ever controls the republican party doesn't matter, the problem is that republican politicians tend to pander and pander to social conservatives which turns of independent and fiscal conservative democrats. Tolerant people tend to be intolerant of intolerant people, especially when those intolerant people want ti impose their moral standards on other people.

Drop the social cons and save the country, its not like they will go ahead and vote for democrats

Romney didn't pander to social conservatives. He lost the president race in Washington 56-41.
Baumgartner didn't pander to social conservatives. He lost the senate race in Washington 60-40.
Meanwhile, the pro-gay marriage initiative only won in Washington 54-46.

Social conservatism did better in Washington than the Republicans who tried to avoid it did. Part of the reason is because the more significant group of voters isn't fiscally conservative Democrats (of which there really aren't any), but socially conservative Democrats (of which there are at least a noticeable number).

This line about how so-cons are a drag on the GOP is being pushed on us ad nauseam by the MSM. But when you look at the details, it isn't true. The GOP establishment is going to try to use this to suppress social conservatives in the party. And when they do, that will give us added opportunity to unite with social conservatives against the neocons. It's pretty clear that Rand is already at work doing this. And there's really no other way to victory.

JK/SEA
12-08-2012, 09:55 PM
Romney didn't pander to social conservatives. He lost the president race in Washington 56-41.
Baumgartner didn't pander to social conservatives. He lost the senate race in Washington 60-40.
Meanwhile, the pro-gay marriage initiative only won in Washington 54-46.

Social conservatism did better in Washington than the Republicans who tried to avoid it did. Part of the reason is because the more significant group of voters isn't fiscally conservative Democrats (of which there really aren't any), but socially conservative Democrats (of which there are at least a noticeable number).

This line about how so-cons are a drag on the GOP is being pushed on us ad nauseam by the MSM. But when you look at the details, it isn't true. The GOP establishment is going to try to use this to suppress social conservatives in the party. And when they do, that will give us added opportunity to unite with social conservatives against the neocons. It's pretty clear that Rand is already at work doing this. And there's really no other way to victory.

Wish i had more to offer in this thread.

Only one question though.

How much time ya think we got to play more games?...look at this on an end game scenario.

If the GOP wants to start becoming a Party i would support, then there will have to be changes in their strategy. I've already out-lined my opinion, but i'm aware that there may not be enough people out there to make my dreams come true....lol...

juleswin
12-08-2012, 09:59 PM
Romney didn't pander to social conservatives. He lost the president race in Washington 56-41.
Baumgartner didn't pander to social conservatives. He lost the senate race in Washington 60-40.
Meanwhile, the pro-gay marriage initiative only won in Washington 54-46.

Social conservatism did better in Washington than the Republicans who tried to avoid it did. Part of the reason is because the more significant group of voters isn't fiscally conservative Democrats (of which there really aren't any), but socially conservative Democrats (of which there are at least a noticeable number).

This line about how so-cons are a drag on the GOP is being pushed on us ad nauseam by the MSM. But when you look at the details, it isn't true. The GOP establishment is going to try to use this to suppress social conservatives in the party. And when they do, that will give us added opportunity to unite with social conservatives against the neocons. It's pretty clear that Rand is already at work doing this. And there's really no other way to victory.


Not exactly true, pandering to social cons aka religious voters can also be in form of showing strong support for Israel which even you will agree he did more than anyone in the field. Also he was pro life, anti drugs, anti gay marriage. Now you might say democrats are also for most of those policy points I mentioned but the difference between democrats and republicans is voter see democrats going along with it as a way cool off republican anger and with republicans? well they are the scary guys that have to be appeased or else they destroy the house.

Social conservatism is drag, you cant believe how many democrat friends I can recruit to the republican party if only the conservatives will just limit their moral teachings to their homes and churches

erowe1
12-08-2012, 10:09 PM
Not exactly true, pandering to social cons aka religious voters can also be in form of showing strong support for Israel which even you will agree he did more than anyone in the field. Also he was pro life, anti drugs, anti gay marriage. Now you might say democrats are also for most of those policy points I mentioned but the difference between democrats and republicans is voter see democrats going along with it as a way cool off republican anger and with republicans? well they are the scary guys that have to be appeased or else they destroy the house.

Social conservatism is drag, you cant believe how many democrat friends I can recruit to the republican party if only the conservatives will just limit their moral teachings to their homes and churches

I don't really see anti-drugs as a so-con thing. But with abortion and gay marriage, Romney might have been on the record claiming to have conservative positions, but he avoided talking about them, and his record was far more socially liberal than the other Republicans.