RINO Romney Wounded More Than His Own Political Aspirations


Source: Wikimedia Commons

Cliff Kincaid’s latest column at RenewAmerica says a number of important observations that have been bouncing around in my head the last couple of weeks, but with a week of holiday vacation at one point and relentless business the rest of the time I have not had time to write down.

In addition to rightly pointing out that Romney has a liberal record on the global warming hoax and socialist health care, Kincaid put the fight to defend marriage under the microscope:

One of these issues — same-sex marriage — is worth a detailed examination. After attending Restoration Weekend in West Palm Beach, Florida, Ronald Radosh reports that leading conservative analysts and political leaders have concluded that the Republican Party has to move left on issues like illegal immigration and cultural issues. Regarding the latter, he notes that gay marriage initiatives were passed in four states on November 6. “We need a truce on divisive social issues” is supposed to be one of the verdicts from these conservative thinkers.

They need to think harder. First, the movement for gay rights, which is funded by rich homosexuals and billionaires like George Soros, will not accept a truce. Second, in the four states where gay marriage won on the ballot on November 6, the vote tallies against gay marriage surpassed the vote totals for Romney. In Maryland, Romney was behind the vote for traditional marriage by 12 points. This is telling. It means that people voted against gay marriage, which was Obama’s position, but they would not vote for Romney. This suggests that Romney failed to galvanize social conservatives on his behalf.

Kincaid rightly points out that while Romney-like a typical RINO-mouthed support for defending marriage, his actions told a very, very different story. In addition to having laid down the red carpet for homosexual activists to counterfeit marriage in Massachusetts, during the 2012 presidential campaign Romney deliberately took a pass on enthusiastically getting behind the defense of social issues.  I know for a fact that at least one very prominent social conservative beseeched Romney to do so (this fell on deaf ears), and while Romney was handed one or more golden opportunities by current events to get behind a headline-issue, he continued to forefeit his opportunites to energize the conservative Republican base.

So Romney got what RINOs always get when people are aware of their liberal record: a lukewarm base where many folks just stayed home rather than hold their nose for a turd of a candidate.

Unfortunately, Romney’s liberal record and refusal to even pretend to be an enthusiastic conservative torpeodoed not only his own political aspirations, but something that waas ultimately more critical.

Kincaid doesn’t go this far, but I will: Mitt Romney is the primary reason for the historic defeat for marriage in several states. Yes, once again, Mitt Romney has undermined marriage.

As Kincaid revealed, there were a lot of conservatives who came out to defend marriage…but who-like my wife-couldn’t bring themselves to vote (yet again) for a fake “Republican” candidate forced upon them by the “mainstream” media and the fatcat GOP establishment.

Knowing conservatives as I do, I don’t even need to ask myself if, since the ostensibly most important decision (president) on the ballot didn’t offer a choice worth wasting gas money on,  more than a few simply didn’t bother to go to the polls at all.  And in not bothering to go to the polls at all, these lazy conservatives robbed marriage of the support it needed at the polls to contiue fighting off the barbarians.

Do I blame these lazy conservatives-who had a chance to uphold marriage, regardless of the lousy presidential choice with which they were presented-for the first-ever losses for marriage at the ballot box?  Oh yeah.

But who is deserving of more blame?

It is the “Republican” who betrayed his party’s values when he served as governor of Massachusetts.  It is the “Republican” who betrayed the people of Massachusetts by forcing socialized health care on them whether they wanted to play this loser’s game or not.  It is the “Republican” who rolled over for his belly to be scratched when homosexual activists wanted to counterfeit marriage in Massachusetts and gave them what they wanted. It is the “Republican” who was stupid enough to ignore science and common sense to burden the people of his state with global warming cap and trade schemes. It is the “Republican” who thought he could hypnotize the Republican base into supporting him with hollow smoke-and-mirrors “conservatism” that consisted only of free-market talk.

Yes, the American people can be astonishingly stupid. Yes, even some conservatives can be amazingly stupid at times.  But they are nowhere near as stupid as liberals think they are.  The average American isn’t going to buy a Democrat-lite when they can have a Democrat for the same price…and conservatives get nauseated at the thought of either one.

So a lot of conservatives just stayed home on Election Day, thanks to RINO Mitt Romney.  And now homosexual activists have their first-ever victory that they will leverage into an illusion of “momentum” and “tide of history” and “consensus” and other such propaganda designed to direct the unsuspecting to get where the herd is perceived to be going. Now it will be even harder for rational people to defend marriage and family from the liberal barbarians.

It is now harshly clear: conservatives are going to have to fight and defeat the libeal infiltrators in their own party before they will be in a position to effectively fight and defeat the liberal vandals who are Hell-bent on wrecking the greatest nation on earth.  Until the Republican Party is rejuvenated into a group that once again stands for its own values (unlike the ones who are currently falling overthemselves to raise taxes, offer amnesty to lawbreaking invaders, and generally dance to the Democrats’ tune)-and until Republicans stop letting the “mainstream” media and establishment RINOs pick our candidates for us-the American people will be essentially defenseless against the corrosion of liberalism.

Nice going, Mr. Romney. As you have repeatedly demonstrated an aptitude for, you have yet again damaged your own party’s values and goals.


  1. thisoldspouse says:

    I was going through a pile of junk mail the other day and came across several Romney campaign mailings. In every lengthy letter detailing our deplorable jobs condition, the silence on ANY social issues whatsoever was deafening. I couldn’t believe that a campaign for the highest office in the land could just pretend these issues didn’t exist for a substantial portion of the population.

    • SDJammer says:

      If you think discussing Social Security and Medicare is dangerous in a campaign where you have the far left liberal press just waiting for anything they can nail a Republican candidate on, just try touching some of these social issues. Don’t believe me, go ask Akin and Mourdock.

      I am not sure why you guys continue to be “your own worst enemy”. I just don’t understand your reasoning on this. When you find yourself in a hole, the best advice you can get is to “stop digging”. Yet every time I look, all I see is the shovels and dirt flying.

      Conservatives have no hope unless we are willing to be pragmatic on certain issues, lead with the pillars of fiscal conservatism and keep moving to the right as best we can. To think we are going to make it in one step is just not reasonable.

      • thisoldspouse says:

        Read the article and reality, SDJ. “Fiscal-only” didn’t work!

        Utah, UTAH, Mormon Central, is recently reported as in the BOTTOM 10 states in voter participation in this last election cycle. This was with a Mormon running for president.

        If you can’t get a Mormon state fired up with a Mormon POTUS candidate, something is seriously wrong, despite fiscal-issues being the sole bargaining chip.

        • SDJammer says:

          True, but the vast majority of fiscal conservatives voted and voted the right way. It was social conservatives that stayed home and put Obama back in the White House. What will you say if in 4 years you have a social conservative running and the fiscal conservatives take a pass on voting? You will be up in arms.

          Take a look at both the Akin and Mourdock races. They were ahead and looking like sure winners. McCaskill was not very well liked and was ripe for being defeated. Romney won both Indiana and Missouri by 10 percentage points and the two senate candidates that were LEADING up until they had a gaffe on a social issue should tell you a lot.

          And yes, it is called reality. These issues are so delicate and the press and the democrats just can’t wait for a mistake as it instantly becomes a lightning rod for the press and the democrats.

          Oh and by the way, Romney won Utah by 48 percentage points. I don’t think getting a few more Mormons out would have changed the electoral votes he got from Utah.

          I am convinced that until social conservatives can quit being their own worst enemy, we have no chance of winning anything. And go ahead and beat me up all you want, but just remember I am both a fiscal and social conservative. I just think we have got to be smart if we want to keep from losing every election and letting the progressive liberals destroy this country. And one more article blaming Mitt Romney for our problems is not much better than Obama continuing to blame Bush for all of his problems.

          • Bob Ellis says:

            You will almost never find a social conservative who isn’t also a fiscal conservative. The problem is the other way around; fiscal conservatives (using the term loosely, since a lot of “fiscal conservatives” are really little more than “crony capitalist liberals”) who either hold socially conservative values in contempt, or are afraid their liberal friends will sneer at them or call them names if they stand for socially conservative values also.

            Social conservatives aren’t the worst enemy of conservatism or the GOP. Liberal RINOs are the worst enemy of the Republican Party; the public understands that Democrats are going to oppose Republican values, but when Republicans oppose Republican values, the public loses confidence in Republican values in general, and the GOP becomes utterly worthless.

            Finally, Bush didn’t give Obama “his problems.” Obama and his fellow liberals gave Obama his problems (it was liberal policies that brought the financial meltdown and the economic slowdown), and liberal policies continue to exacerbate the problem.

            On the other hand, as I pointed out, the liberalism of Mitt Romney and the establishment RINOs brought us yet another presidential defeat, as well as other political defeats.

            Until “Republicans” learn the lesson they desperately need to learn, or the people recognize the duplicity of these RINOs in all its disgusting glory and toss them out, or both, I’ll keep exposing that duplicity and sellout in pursuit of the day when the Republican Party acts like it believes in its own values.

            The only alternatives are (1) keep abandoning Republican values and keep losing to Democrats as a worthless shadow-of-liberalism party, or (2) raise up a new and real conservative party that isn’t ashamed of its own values. #1 guarantees perpetual loserhood and the demise of America; #2 would take a long, long time to become viable, and by then, America is probably toast anyway.

            So I’ll keep on exposing RINOs and the consequences of their liberal betrayal within the GOP.

            • thisoldspouse says:

              Amen, Bob!

            • thisoldspouse says:

              I always find it funny that “fiscal conservatives” always seem to be the pro-drug use, pro-pornography, pro-abortion Randian libertarians, and yet, they are perfectly fine with the government regulating the drug industry, a necessarily gargantuan, intrusive, expensive spurt of government growth that would make the “war on drugs” a drop in the bucket in comparison.

      • Bob Ellis says:

        Leadership often requires we NOT play it safe. In fact, if you want to win, leaders have to lead headlong into the danger zone.

        Republicans have been losers in cycle after cycle after cycle precisely because they’ve run around with their tail between their legs, afraid of their own shadows, hoping the media and others on the Left wouldn’t say mean things about them.

        And in playing the sissy’s game, they (a) still didn’t get any liberals to like the, and (b) alienated their own base with their pathetic cowardice and compromise.

        Sticking your finger in the wind and then running in the direction you perceive to be the direction the herd is already heading is not by any stretch of the imagination “leadership.” Leaders have to educate and motivate, often in unpopular directions. The GOP needs to LEAD, not follow the herd…off the cliff we’re headed for at an alarming rate.

        I would agree with you that a smart person stops digging when they find themselves in a hole; why RINOs can’t seem to get it through their thick, mush-minded skulls that again and again and again it has been proven that wishy-washy RINOs don’t win elections, I just don’t understand. Dole, McCain, and now Romney-it should be as clear as freaking day, yet they continue to run around with their heads up their rectums babbling about compromise and adopting liberal positions.

        You never win by retreating. You never win by conceding ground to the enemy. Why can’t these RINOs understand that? The answer is getting pretty obvious to me: they’re more interested in advancing liberal policies (meaning they’re traitors in our midst), or at a minimum, are more interested in maintaining a place at the table where the spoils get divided, than they are in doing what’s right.

        Which is why they need to be exposed, and need to be put out of the party if they refuse to support the party’s clearly documented values.

  2. Bob Ellis says:

    Bush was considerably less conservative than we needed-but far better than the three loser RINOs I mentioned. He didn’t pee his pants at the thought of publicly taking a strong socially conservative position.

    The reason we can’t get a conservative past the primary is because (a) we’ve allowed the RINOs to get too much control of the party apparatus, which they then leverage to (b) tell us, along with the “mainstream” media, who “can win.”

    Conservative have to stop this insane BS of allowing RINOs and the media to tell us who our candidate should be.

    That’s what I’m trying to do: wake conservatives the Hell up, so we’ll stop letting liberals tell us what we can and can’t do, so we can finally get a real conservative through the primary again. The only alternative is to roll over and allow the liberals to pick our candidates without a fight-and Hell will freeze over before I’ll stand by and allow that.

    When people who claim to be conservatives say the kind of stuff you mentioned, they’re either (a) lying when they claim to be conservatives, or (b) instead of waking the Hell up, they’re popping a handful of sleeping pills and going into an even deeper sleep. That’ kind of idiotic “desperation” is the kind that kills. Invite more of the liberal enemy into our camp? So the conservative-party-of-record can help the Democrat Party advance more liberal policies and kill more conservative ones? Only a complete and utter moron (or a liberal) would say that!

    One thing is certain: we darn well won’t ever see a conservative candidate in the next few elections if we keep groveling, compromising and listening to lying liberals for our political advice. If we insist on being that stupid, we don’t deserve to win anything.

    • SDJammer says:

      Well, as usual we are getting nowhere. I will give you the last word. How do you explain the Missouri Senate race where Todd Akin ONLY received 39.2% of the vote in a conservative state that Mitt Romney won quite easily and Richard Mourdock lost by 5.6 percentage points in another conservative state which Romney again won handily? Aren’t these exactly the types of candidates that you are advocating we put on the ballot in all 50 states and go “all in” on?

      Please don’t get me wrong, I liked both and actually sent a modest contribution to both. I knew Akin had a tough race, but I thought Mourdock was going to win no problem. He had the Club for Growth (fiscal conservatives) behind him big time.

      I maintain that we have years of selling our values to people before we have a serious chance and that begins with more education and less campaigning. In the meantime, I still think we need to “pick our battles” and steadily gain ground, not “go all in” and fall on our face in one big belly flop. I await your answer on Akin and Mourdock as I really think we need to learn from those two drubbings as those were more teilling than any Mitt Romney loss.

      And as for Bush, I agree he was no coward. However, he was no conservative either.

      • Bob Ellis says:

        Akin and Mourdock are, sadly, easy to explain, and the explanation is one I alluded to before.

        That same “mainstream” media that we allowed to pick our candidate for us also told us that Akin and Mourdock were not only primitive, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, they actually hate women and think rape is okay. Who wants to support or be associated with a sexist proponent of rape?

        Of course, it was completely pathetic that we allowed the Left to once again write the narrative and we dutifully danced to their tune. But what made it even worse was that the GOP establishment hung these guys out to dry, with condemnations every bit as vicious as those coming from Democrats, and threatened to cut them out of party funding. All this made Akin and Mourdock a couple of untouchable pariahs even worse than a flip-flopping RINO (especially after the media had spent the primary patting this RINO on the head and telling us what a good dog he was…at least, when compared to his evil conservative primary opponents).

        Just as it sends a message to the people when a party is ashamed of its own values, it also sends a powerful message when a party freezes out its own people like that.

        The only way we’re ever going to put some stiffness back into the spine of the average Republican voter is if we educate the people to be able to see through the lies of the Left, and lead by example and STOP DANCING TO THE LEFT’S TUNE. We’re also going to have to demonstrate that the party and those who lead it really believe in what we say we believe in. That means the RINOs will have to get with the program-or get packing. Their choice, but either way, the liberalism and the capitulation to it has to go.

        Also, I’m not expecting that we “win it all” right away. I know that isn’t realistic. I’ll I’m asking for is that we STOP GIVING AWAY THE DOGGONE FARM all the time. Somehow, it’s ALWAYS conservatives who are supposed to give ground-whether it’s a Republican/Democrat fight, or a liberal/conservative fight. That’s pathetic enough either way, but when the conservative is expected to surrender Republican values to liberals WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY…that is completely and utterly intolerable. No, by golly, if there’s going to be any “compromising” going on within the GOP, it darn well needs to be the liberals who are betraying the values of their own party who need to be doing the compromising, not those who are merely standing for what is ALREADY our documented Republican values.

        Conservatives have tried being the nice guy and settling for turds for leaders and candidates for way, WAY too long. We’re long overdue for DEMANDING better from people who CLAIM to be Republicans.

  3. thisoldspouse says:

    I had a horrifying thought the other day. What if Romney runs again in 2016? I haven’t heard anything to dispel this possibility. After all, it’s common for people to loose elections more than once and run again.

    But people are running around saying that this is it for Romney. I’m not so sure, unfortunately.

  4. Bob Ellis says:

    If there had been any substance to the outrageous charges, it would have been smart for everyone to distance themselves from Akin and Mourdock. However, there wasn’t a shred of substance to either one; one was a case of a stupid and scientifically unsupported statement that in no way merited the equally-unsupported hysteria it generated, and the other was a case of a person’s words being twisted to mean something completely different than what was intended.

    Notice that liberals (whether in the GOP or in the Democrat Party) will stand by other liberals to the death. Conservatives? We dutifully kill our wounded when the Left instructs us to. We deserve to lose if we’re going to act like losers like that.

    We’ve been playing like losers for decades, afraid of our own shadows and fearful that a liberal might (oooooooooh!) say something mean about us. They understand playing to win. We barely understand playing DEFENSE enough to avoid a total rout.

    Part of the game is perceptions. If people perceive we’re uncertain of what we believe, they will not place their confidence in us (and the media also smells blood in the water and goes after us even more viciously). If people perceive we don’t have the fortitude to stand strongly for our ideas and our people, they won’t go out of their way to stand for us or our people.

    As a former detective, I’ve gone into the interrogation room with no proof whatsoever that someone did something…but after acting like I had them dead to rights, I got a full confession. It doesn’t work every time, but it works more than half the time when you play your cards right. Why? If you act like you are winning, if you act like you hold all the good cards, people with a bad hand will usually fold.

    The Left is winning because they ACT like it…and we act like a bunch of unsure losers who don’t even believe in what we claim to believe in. If we’ll stop playing the timid loser and behave as if we have the right solutions (which we darn well do), and exhibit confidence in our ideas and our ability to carry them out, that will not only intimidate our enemies but will inspire the confidence of the uncommitted “independents” out there.

    I understand that you’re trying to be helpful, and I appreciate that. But we’ve compromised and capitulated to the point where our heels are hanging over the edge of the cliff. If we don’t pull our heads out, get a little ticked off, and start playing offense, we’re going over the cliff any time now.

    I’ve been selling for years, and apparently too many people are too lazy or obstinate to buy. There will always be some who would rather whine and moan but do nothing. There will always be some who will refuse to do what is right, no matter how softly or how boldly it is pointed out. There is nothing I or anyone else can do about them. But hopefully there are still some people out there who are willing to do the right thing, but because of all the competing voices out there calling for compromise and capitulation and defeatism, they just haven’t realized what they CAN do yet. It is to them I appeal, and hopefully there remain enough of them to do some good-if only a strong voice can penetrate the pacifying haze of propaganda.

    The hour is late, the enemy is at the gate, and it’s time for some real alarm. If our people sleep even a few minutes longer, it’s going to be over. We don’t have time for farting around with RINOs and playing footsie with liberals; they must shape up or go. Everyone with a voice needs to be raising the alarm NOW, before it’s completely too late.

  5. jaytheatheist says:

    Entertaining thread.

    I normally don’t do politics but I do have a very broad observation.

    Most of the gist of the comments below - as well as over time on this website has to do with Republican candidates not being conservative enough.

    In looking at the demographics of your party, even in the good times, it is predominantly rich white men. I don’t think it controversial to say that the Republican Party seems to lack a platform that would be attractive to a significant slice of America outside of rich white men.

    Now, I know the arguments about how Republicans feel they are more empowering to other than - rich white men. Frankly, there are some nuggets I can agree with on that platform. However, Republicans on social issues seems to be where you guys get tripped up. A lot. Painfully a lot.

    My question is, do you really feel that the path to regaining your Party’s standing is by selecting more socially conservative candidates? As a Liberal, I do hope so as I believe it helps my side… but that is the point. If Republicans truly kept to a fiscally conservative motif and stopped caring about who is kissing who, I think they would find an entirely new segment of the population that would consider their fiscal message.


    • Bob Ellis says:

      Are you a racist, Jay? Based on the standard of the Left (http://www.americanclarion.com/14585/2012/11/14/media-paul-ryan-is-a-racist/) you certainly seem to be. You seem to have something against white men. Seems rather Marxist to have something against wealthy people, too.

      In all seriousness, you’ve done nothing but parrot the empty blather and propaganda of the Left that is always thrown out when you have exactly zip to offer to counter the right answers. You can do better than that, Jay; don’t diminish yourself by repeating such fake prattle.

      Unlike the divisive race-based (and race baiting) mentality of the Left, conservatives have solutions that benefit ALL Americans. We don’t try to play favorites and either reward or punish people based on how much or how little money they have, how high or how low their background, no matter what their skin color or sex is. No, conservative solutions are a return to the policies that made this nation the greatest on earth in the first place. They are color-blind and don’t involve Marxist class warfare.

      Unlike liberals, conservatives don’t try to divide (and conquer) Americans by demographics and then make empty promises of goodies to each one.

      We don’t get “tripped up” on social issues at all. We stand for what is right, for what has always worked best. However, we face a dominant media establishment that stretches from virtually ever newsroom in America to every corner of television and movie theaters to the music industry, in addition to all the political activist groups and usual suspects, who manufacture a concerted narrative to make conservatives look bad. Unfortunately, so many Americans (including some conservatives) have been so dumbed-down by this worthless education system we have, that they frequently fall for some of the most pathetic and transparent BS that constitutes all the Left has to offer.

      It’s an uphill climb to educate Americans on the fundamental principles that most Americans once instinctively understood. The propaganda establishment is almost monolithic. But for one thing, you don’t quit just because you face a daunting foe (if that were the case, the American Revolution never would have occurred). Besides, the silver lining in liberals getting their way is that sooner or later, things will get so bad that even the dumbed-down American people will finally be unable to mistake exactly who is determined to destroy everything good and worthwhile in America.

      Then, America will return to the road to greatness.

      Oh, and if homosexual activists didn’t force the rest of us to know who was kissing who and demand a pat on the back for it, we wouldn’t need to worry about it.

  6. Bob Ellis says:

    Compromise hasn’t worked. Capitulation hasn’t worked. Soft-peddling the problem hasn’t worked. It’s about time the alarm was raised, and raised very loudly. If these “calmer” people don’t pull their heads out and realize we are about to lose the greatest thing God ever gave a people politically, America is going to end up on the ash heap of failed nations. Trying to remain “calm” when you need to be in motion and ready to fight is deadly.

    Of course, you folks on the Left would be more than happy if folks just remained in their stupor. It makes it so much easier for you to destroy America if the rest are lulled into inaction.

    If that happens, it won’t be because I sat on my thumbs and pretended everything was fine. My conscience will be clear, and so will everyone elses who is trying to raise the alarm.

    • jaytheatheist says:

      I think you miss the gist of my original post.

      Conservatism, like Liberalism is a spectrum. For those who are on the extremes, there is little that can be done. It is those in the middle to the left and right of the independents that really matter for a Government controlled by the voters.

      As a Liberal, I don’t object to fiscal responsibility. Nor am I opposed to sensibilities being incorporated into entitlement programs. I also think that immigration should be tightened up. In short, as I indicated in my first post, there are some nuggets I can get behind. There are few ideologies in my life that are not open for discussion.

      The problem is that I, and more importantly, many others would not consider jumping ship only due to the fact that elections are now less about what is good for the Country (economics, direction, leadership, security) and more about social issues. I’m not saying social issues are not important but they do pale in value when compared to the economy and security of the United States.

      Granted, I am guilty of the same thing (placing social issues at the top) that I am accusing Conservatives of doing but my observation comes at a time when Conservatives seem to be behind the 8-ball and are in danger of becoming irrelevant.


      • Bob Ellis says:

        No I didn’t miss it at all. There are people who are consistent in their ideology on both the Left and the Right, and then there are those in the middle who are clueless and take a buffet-style approach to life, grabbing whatever looks good at the moment with little or no thought.

        Appeals from the Left tend to suck these poor schmucks in because liberal appeals are almost entirely based on emotionalism. They appeal to feelings, not intelligent thought (examples: what “feels good” rather than what is best or what works, enticements that allow you to feel like the “nice guy” rather than being the “bad guy” who “denies” people their heart’s desire, appeals to envy and greed, etc.). The conservave appeal is always the more difficult one because it requires people to stop and THINK. It’s even harder because what is intelligent and right often goes against what “feels good.” Jesus said the right way was narrow, tough, and sparsely populated for a reason.

        Based on what you stated you believe in here, it sounds as if you do indeed have some conservative sensibilities. However, it is equally obvious from previous conversations that you hold a lot of liberal positions as well, especially in the social arena.

        The thing is, fiscally conservative positions depend on socially conservative positions in order to be and continue to be viable. They are inseparable. You cannot maintain limited government and fiscal restraint when you allow lawlessness to reign. You cannot maintain limited government when society is falling apart because you ignored the preservation of fundamental institutions like marriage and family (the proof is in the poverty rates for broken families, as well as the societal cost of dealing with the problems wrought by broken families). You can’t have fiscal responsibility and limited government when you shell out big bucks to fight AIDS and other social diseases that could be avoided if people would just behave morally. When you ignore morality on the important things (protection of innocent human life, maintaining law and order, protecting marriage and family), it naturally follows that relatively lesser issues will also crumble. If you don’t expect morality with regard to protecting life, property and family, you cannot logically expect morality when it comes to honesty in the business world, protecting the taxpayer’s interest, resisting the urge to feather one’s nest at the expense of the taxpayer and so on. An insightful read on this subject would be C.S. Lewis’ “Abolition of Man.” In it, he likens this attitude of separating certain types of morality (and pretending that some aren’t important) is like castrating an organism and then encouraging it to be fruitful.

        It’s all tied together. You can play the buffet-style approach to life, but that is as incoherent as it is ineffective. The only real conservative is one that is both fiscally and socially conservative, because they compliment one another and make each other feasible-especially so of social conservatism. (Remember John Adams’ statement that our system of government-which is a limited one-is only possible for a moral and religious people).

        Conservatism is indeed behind the 8-ball, and in danger of becoming PERCEIVED as irrelevant. That is not because it is a failure as an idea system (it is essentially the modern political embodiment of our founding principles, which produced the most successful nation in history). It is in danger because those who CLAIM to be its adherants (i.e. Republicans) are making a complete mockery of it. They claim to be conservatives, but then behave in a liberal fashion. Just as preacher who commits adultery brings discredit upon Christianity (though the discredit properly belongs on the preacher, not the belief system he failed to live up to), so it happens that when a “conservative” behaves in a liberal fashion, it brings discredit on the “conservative” belief system. Why? Because apparently those who claim to be supporting it demonstrate that they themselves don’t believe in it.

        In other words, people who wear conservatism as a cloak in order to get elected (but don’t really believe in it) are leading people to believe it is a worthless system because of the hypocrisy of these RINOs. There is nothing wrong with conservatism; there is plenty wrong with hypocrites who drag its name through the mud.

        Which is precisely why I’ve become even harder on “Republicans” who bring discredit to the Republican and conservative brand. Right now, they are an even greater threat to the conservative agenda than even out-of-the-closet liberals are.