Its the Family Research Council...of course they're gonna shape the poll to suit their ideological agenda, they're trying to push the candidates into their positions.

Yeah, its shady, but I hope you aren't trying to project that onto the rest of the social cons, it reflects the FRC (poorly I'll add), using it to swipe at the social cons who aren't keen on Rudy for his positions on social issues would be setting up a hell of a strawman, and taken in context with most of your late posts on the fight between social cons and everyone else, that can be easily implied.

And it could be shady on the part of FRC (unless it was a domestic based poll, but they should clarify that), I'm guessing they gave a set of choices, and people picked. Either way, it suits them, because if the WoT is off the list, it can't be number one priority, which enhances their priorities, and it takes Rudy's big strength off the table.

And besides, who the hell pays any serious attention to the FRC? Honestly?

Yeah, its shady, but I hope you aren't trying to project that onto the rest of the social cons, it reflects the FRC (poorly I'll add), using it to swipe at the social cons who aren't keen on Rudy for his positions on social issues would be setting up a hell of a strawman, and taken in context with most of your late posts on the fight between social cons and everyone else, that can be easily implied.

Nope. Just hitting the FRC on this one.

So little trust, sinistar...although I will admit, one of the least appealing things about the extremist social conservative argument (no to Rudy even in the general) is a lack of priority.

Completely off topic.

Slu, I admire you. You are a social conservative with both a heart and a brain. Further, you have the patience of Job.

How or why you sit in Hot Air and "debate" with the morons (not the good kind) you do and keep not only a smile on your face but your eyes squarely on the prize is beyond me. I would rather chew on glass.

I find most social cons fully equiped with a double dose of I know better and holy than thou at the expense of common sense or any sense of humility or compromise. You are a breath of fresh air.

Thanks, JS. Your comments are appreciated. I enjoy Hot Air not only for the Allahsnark, but because I really do like a good argument.

Or a bad one, for that matter...

I really don't mean to be on a tear about social cons lately. I actually share many of their concerns about Giuliani and find myself looking at Romney, even though I find him vaguely disconcerting. But I did enjoy his Howie Carr interviews, and think he's a smart guy.

But heaven help me, I want to mess up his hair.

Hmm...did Slubbo.com eat my comments again?

Lessee...

Looks so.

OK, well, I apologized to Slubbo...

I also noted I responded to him in the other evangelical post.

I also suggested Jack hit doubleplusundead and read why I think the evangelical leadership and certain social cons are threatening mutiny...or he could go to that thread I responded to Slubbo in for a shorty version.

That's it.

I'll note Jack, I'm not a social con.

No worries, sinistar.

I'd respond more, but your post gave me a photoshop idea...

Slu-

I'm older than most of you which means I have been fighting the man longer than all you morons. It also means I have seen some stuff,man, that gives me the 100 foot stare.

My grandfather was a Poly Sci professor and dean of a major U at the time of Goldwater. That's the conservative thought I grew up with. We welcomed Reagan's conversion, We also welcomed religious conservatives that Reagan mainly brought to the modern conservative movement. But neither Reagan nor the religious right founded the modern conservative movement. And those that did, get testy being threatened all the time. We haven't gotten all we want either. Boo hoo.

Like all political parties in our history, the Republican party is a group of factions. What started as a small gov't, Constitution party, took in religious voters who were mostly like minded. We have gone astray when we fight on singular issues like abortion. We also go astray when we believe that a group that is singularly powerful in the primaries, the religious right, is representative of the party at large. It isn't.

Have we stoped abortion? Nope. Haven't been perfect on taxes or national security either. But we don't threaten to put our worst political enemy in power if we don't get our way.

Hey, I'm older. You guys have to deal with this place. I'm a couple years away from going sailing for the remainder. But I would suggest that you alll go back to Reagan's idea of building coalitions. That was his genius. Keep fighting and you get canckles.

Jack, I think the fact that us small gov't conservatives haven't got anything close to what we want is precisely why the religious cons are acting the way they are. We've been ignored, and the amnesty disaster brought that to the fore, that we're at war with our own elite, and this is the religious cons reaction to it.

I agree we have to build coalitions, but we have to see what the real problem is, and it ain't the social cons, its the corrupt GOP elite. We need a crackdown.

I agree we have to build coalitions, but we have to see what the real problem is, and it ain't the social cons, its the corrupt GOP elite. We need a crackdown.

I don't believe the problem is corruption - it's much more simple.

Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Good point...

Dammit, why is your site so fond of eating comments?

I said: GOOD POINT!

Oh, I fricken give up...

Sinsitar-

Let's look at that.

Did the tax cut get extended in the face of a war and the threat of a recesion?

Yes. So check plus for Bush.

>>We've been ignored, and the amnesty disaster brought that to the fore, that we're at war with our own elite, and this is the religious cons reaction to it.

Ignored? You won. Huge. Amd every Republican candidate, including Fred who voted numerous times for chain migration as has Spencer Abraham as an advisor know gets it.

>>I agree we have to build coalitions, but we have to see what the real problem is, and it ain't the social cons, its the corrupt GOP elite.

George Bush was elected as the social con President. So yea, they got what they wanted. He did exactly what he should have done with fighting Islamic terror, he got 2 great Supreme Court justices even if he had to be forced to put the right people in place.

George Bush is and was as Christian a candidate as the religious right could have asked for. He most definitely wasn't the most competent conservative candidate. Why is it to much to ask that those of us who don't care about religion to get what we want for a change?

Christian conservatives have sway in the party today because of how the primaries are structured. That doesn't mean they get to act like children and pout when they don't get perfect candidates. If they decide to sit out this time because they don't like the candidates they will get Hillary and lose any leverage they ever had in the party.

Haha...sorry sinistar.

For some reason, the site doesn't auto-refresh. After hitting post, hit the refresh button and your comment should show up. It's a quirk I've never been able to fix or figure out.

Did the tax cut get extended in the face of a war and the threat of a recesion?

Yes. So check plus for Bush.

Government size and spending skyrocketed under Bush, and that's not counting the increased war spending. Fiscal and small gov't conservatism is NOT just about tax cuts and deregulation, people forget that. And he could have helped immensely by vetoing some of that pork, and not making big gov't initiatives like the senior drug plan.

Ignored? You won. Huge. Amd every Republican candidate, including Fred who voted numerous times for chain migration as has Spencer Abraham as an advisor know gets it.

We fighting a war with our own leadership, yeah we won that battle, but they want amnesty so bad they can taste it. We're already seeing them trying to slip in bits of the old amnesty bill into other bills, see the DREAM Act that they're trying to slip in now. They would rather attempt to redefine conservatism itself than admit they're betraying the movement.

George Bush is and was as Christian a candidate as the religious right could have asked for. He most definitely wasn't the most competent conservative candidate. Why is it to much to ask that those of us who don't care about religion to get what we want for a change?

I address this in my post, you should read it. The fact that you haven't gotten what you want is precisely why they're so antsy. You've been used, they don't wanna get used like those who favor small gov't have.