Social conservatives, what's the end game? (Page 7)

OK, I tried a couple of searches, but the first pages of results are flooded with stories about a gay couple suing a church for a nixed property sale.  Do you know of a specific example (city/state) that could help my search?

We'll see. There's a lot of intra-family debate about that.

The bishops primary responsibility is the care of the souls of their flock.
So they need to weigh a lot of considerations in making such a judgement.
I think the new generation of bishops and priests are more likely to go down that line to some degree,
although your guess is as good as mine.

It's a terribly heavy responsibility they carry. 

To bring this back to the OP, I'd say that there are at least two roads now for social conservatives in light of the recent election.

One is to abandon social principles and move to a more libertarian position.
I won't do that myself, although I am open to compromise if it helps further my position.

The other is a strengthening of the voice within certain demographics.
For myself that means within my own church.
Flip even 1/3 of Catholics who voted in apparent violation of Church teaching and you've solved the problem the Republicans have.
Another demographic that has some possibilities for this is the Protestant black church. 
With Obama not running in 2016, there may be some opportunity to bring members of those churches to the conservative side in the voting booth.

I think the second road has more promise than the first.

Its not the social issues that were the determining factor.  Apparently fifty percent of this nation views government as Santa Clause with a bag of goodies to hand out so blaming folks with deep convictions seems misplaced, to me anyway.  Bottom line is that you cannot run against Santa Clause and expect to win. 

How do you figure that percentage?

Thanks Don.  As always, a reasonable response to what could be a very sensitive subject.  We may not always agree, but I always know I will get a fairly rational response from you.

Maybe I am missing something, my husband is not Catholic, I am. We were married in the Catholic church - no issues. 

Maybe you mean if neither person is Catholic. 

Social issues most certainly are a factor with who the GOP nominates. The GOP could not put up a guy that could beat a rookie with ZERO experience or accomplishments. They had 4 more years to try, and they could not put up a guy that could beat a failure as a President. They could not put up a guy that could beat Obama because they had to put up a guy that was far right on social issues to appease the religious right of the base.

Lots of folks are tired of the social wedge issues and have walked away from the party. If you want to live a puritan life style, great, keep doing that. But stop trying to legislate it to me. It does not mean you have to abandon your personal moral and how you behave, but to continue to keep pushing a social agenda means to continue to had this country over to the Democrats.

And all the credit going to Obama for the young is undeserved. Ron Paul led a grass roots campaign and had a TON of youth voters signing on. The movement eventually became the TEA party. The original TEA party was about nothing more than taxes, but then the GOP took it over, and now the TEA party has a social agenda. All the TEA party is now is the far right wing of the GOP. All those young voters lost, grass roots program destroyed. It is killing any chance of fiscal reform and small government we have.

Yeah, didn't Romney tell us it was 47%?  In the days since the election Obama's already increased lazy dependents 3%?  

Rounding error kinda like the proposed budget cuts and tax increases.

I actually disagree with the bolded portion.  Romney won the nomination because he was the moderate of the bunch, which including his prior Pro Choice stance as well as Romneycare which is a form of socialized medicine.  The republicans were trying to appeal to the middle.

Romney lost because they played nice and let team Obama define him as an out of touch rich guy who hates women and wants to outsource everything (oh and a flip flopper).  They did a very affective job.

When you couple that with Romney playing prevent defense for most of the campaign throwing up a high level 5 point plan with no specifics he lost.  He could have been pro choice, pro amnesty,  and running on Romneycare and he still would of lost using the same strategy.

There is a lot of debate going on in conservative circles that he lost the election because he WAS moderate on social issues.  Romney had 3M less people vote for him than McCain did.  Obama had something like 12M less votes as well I believe.

So both sides did their share of ticking off people and losing votes, but had Romney done more to shore up his base (ie be more conservative on social issues) he could have potentially picked up those 3M votes that stayed home and been more competitive.

You have to include the 3% of voters who are deceased.

What about the guys that are voted in that are dead?

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/watercooler/article/221402/108/Alabama-elects-a-dead-man

Yes, Romney was specifically picked because he could appeal to moderates after Govenoring Mass. But in the Primaries he had to go far right to win the nomination. I feel he was always pro life so that didn't matter and he was a very active member of his church. they first had to get over he was Mormon, but after that, he was a social conservative.

And I agree with you... this thing alone is not the smoking gun to loosing the election. Lot's of reasons.... but Republicans used to have a good record on individual freedom and civil rights. Now they are know as the exclusion party. And part of that is from the insistence of a social platform in politics.... and of course we can't tip toe around this... it isn't even a social platform, it is a evangelical Christian platform to legislate social beliefs.

I've said it once and I will say it again... I'm not against evangelical Christians or anyone's faith or their beliefs... I just do not understand pursuing a political agenda focusing on morality when the rest of the country is falling down around us. When we get the debt under control, fund our entitlements comitments, get unemployment under control, reform our tax code, provide affordable health care, solve the illegal immigration problem and have an educational system second to none maybe then we can focus on who marries who... but right now, I don't really care.

As I mentioned before, you can't win running against Santa.  None of what you mentioned really mattered to the left.  Just look what they ran on, free birth control, repubs will cut all or eliminate benefits, free healthcare, student loans, amnesty for illegals and my all time reason to vote for Mr. Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio   (the Obama phone)

Like it or not, you could drop the abortion plank in the platform and will still lose running against a majority in the electorate who feel entitled to everything and the gov. should hand it out.  John F. Kennedy would be laughed out of the dem party today if he made his famous statement about not asking what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

This isn't about ABORTION!

Another reason no ground will be gained is the insistence to think the majority of this country wants free stuff.

There are those in the far right that think every single person that gets something from the government is a freeloading leach and would cut off any aid in a second... there are those in the far left that think the government should supply a free ride and try to get it.... then there is the other 80% of this country. The vast majority of this country wants the government to supply certain services and are willing to PAY FOR IT. The vast majority of this country I believe wants the government to be more fiscally responsible. Maybe not my brand... but I honestly do not think anyone is for wasteful spending and a fre ride.

There is a cultural war going on in this country that frankly I don't care about. It is being fought in the legislature and in the school system. It is a war I do not feel the Federal government has any business being in. If you want certain morals or values expressed by your government, then fight it out in your state legilsature. But it isn't something I want the Federal government persuing, nor is it something I want the Federal government to have the power to dictate. What is so hard to understand about that?

LIMITED Federal government!

Those that rant and rail against a "socialist" government, and rant and rave about not following the Constitution, are the very same ones trying to use the Federal government to shape their own brand of Utopia. It's nonsense.

You stated the problem and I put it in bold type.  What you stated is simply not born out by the stats, 80% or the vast majority may want gov. services but currently only about 47% are paying for it.  Show me anywhere 80% are willing to share an equal burden, say a flat tax, and then I will believe what you say. 

As far as fighting out any issue at the state level, it just isn't going to happen.  I agree that gay issues, abortion, education, healthcare, etc. are issues that belong in the states.  Gay rights folks don't want it left to the states, neither do the pro choice people. The problem is the fed has pretty much done away with the 10th and has its nose in everything.  I unfortunately don't see that changing.  So here we are, bigger and bigger gov. with greater and greater debt, and loss of more liberty, until it all collapses.  I am peace with that outcome, I no longer care what the fed does as I am tired of fighting for what I believe and being disappointed. 

Keep spreading the over the top hyperbole.  Have you really thought about what you pay lately?  Federal income tax is just a slice of it.  Property tax, gas tax, toll roads, blah blah blah.  And don't forget the payroll.

I'm so sick of the far right acting like the poor in this country are a bunch of freeloaders.  *Everyone*, rich, poor, middle class - tries to pay as little tax as possible.  That's human nature.  Continually attacking the people who are barely able to feed themselves?  In my mind that doesn't line up with what Jesus taught, but I don't expect rationality from political zealots anymore.

I work, I contribute, and when I've finished my deductions I have no problem paying income tax.  Yes I expect some level of services from the government.  When was the last time you drove on an interstate?  Used cell phone / GPS frequencies?  On and on.

People like to forget that the government IS us.  With all of our quirks and faults.  Once you stop believing it is some sort of alien growth to cut off and start participating, this country might improve.

I pulled 80% out of my rear, but the point is I do not believe everything the GOP or FOX news says. I believe the large majority of people in this country are hard working contributors to society. If you have a problem with the level of services the Federal government provides, then perhaps we could focus on that problem. You can't expect to spend capital on social agendas and then be able to work on everything else.

... and loss of LIBERTY???? That is exactly what I'm talking about. A social aganda presented by social conservatives does not advance liberty... it RESTRICTS it for some... those that don't do it have no problem..... they just want to make sure no body else does. What does that have to do with liberty?

You do not get to complain about an over reaching federal government, when you actively purse advancing an over reaching government.

I've explained what I was talking about several times in the thread...perhaps you could read it.

I suspect we have another anonymous user posting on here again.

It's not me.  I make all my dumb statements under my normal user account.