So...social conservatives voted for McCain, even though he wasn't the most socially conservative presidential candidate available by any stretch of the imaginatory system, and what thanks do we get?
No thanks, only blame. For the loss I guess. I'm getting the distinct impression some are trying to ditch social conservatives from the party for that reason. Karl Rove addressed that yesterday saying, "Politics works by addition, not subtraction." He said that it's not wise to "read social conservatives out of the party" but rather the idea is to expand the issue base.
I heard it too at a family gathering recently where it was mentioned how the Republican party needs to be the party of civil liberties, and I was okay with that, thinking he meant the tendency of government to spy on its citizens. Big Bro will get out of hand and terrorism can be a convenient excuse. But instead he was talking about gay rights, which means, I presume, gay marriage.
When I was younger, I used to naively think that if conservatives gave up their support of the death penalty, then the Left would give up its support of abortion.
But was it ever really about the death penalty? Didn't Democrats embrace Bill Clinton despite his support of it? In the end the social issues are simply a convenient way to make the conservatives look heartless and cold, nevermind the insanity of trying to frame abortion as other than heartless and cold.
So I can't believe a unilateral disarmament by Republicans on issues like gay marriage would suddenly make limited government more appealing to the American voter. The cold hard fact that libertarians miss is that Americans don't want limited government and low taxes right now. For example, the majority simply don't care about a flat tax. Do you know any politician who has ever won a campaign on the flat tax in the past decade? Ever? Americans want entitlements and safety nets, especially if only the rich pay. I don't see what that has to do with the price of abortion in China.