I have settled on a GOP candidate to support.

[Cancel 2016.2]

LOL, I was kinda surprised by that too. But I think it shows how serious people are about fiscal issues. It is the one thing that almost everyone in the country would get behind.

Any candidate willing to tell the masses to STFU about the social bullshit until we get the country back on its feet, would win by a landslide.

I have 'chatted' with Lorax/Onceler for years now on various sites. His position does not shock me at all. He has consistently maintained the need for fiscal responsibility and he routinely calls out both parties for their lack of responsibility.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

LOL, I was kinda surprised by that too. But I think it shows how serious people are about fiscal issues. It is the one thing that almost everyone in the country would get behind.

Any candidate willing to tell the masses to STFU about the social bullshit until we get the country back on its feet, would win by a landslide.

exactly

 

[NOVA]

Abortion is only a major issue with the democrats and they will and do play it the hilt.....If the liberals wouldn't bring it up or media didn't always ask the abortion question, we would seldom even hear of the issue....They've been demogoging that issue for decades and people are catching on the tactic...

 

[WinterBorn]

Abortion is only a major issue with the democrats and they will and do play it the hilt.....If the liberals wouldn't bring it up or media didn't always ask the abortion question, we would seldom even hear of the issue....They've been demogoging that issue for decades and people are catching on the tactic...

It is an issue raised by BOTH parties. No conservative candidate gets the evangelical vote without promising to end all abortions immediately.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It is an issue raised by BOTH parties. No conservative candidate gets the evangelical vote without promising to end all abortions immediately.

This.

 

[Damocles]

It is an issue raised by BOTH parties. No conservative candidate gets the evangelical vote without promising to end all abortions immediately.

Even the evangelicals that I know are saying, "That's luxury, important but secondary to the economy."

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The problem with this country is that we keep focusing on what the candidates are going to do with 'social' issues. How about we elect someone who knows what the hell to do with FISCAL/ECONOMIC issues. Put a moratorium on 'social' issues until the economic/fiscal issues have been solved. It is the social issues that are used by both parties to create the wedges in society. It leads the two bases to knee-jerk rejection of any proposal on economics by the 'other' party because they are pissed about social issue differences.

Exactly and not only that the divide and conquer manipulations used by politicians with these social wedge issues prevents needed compromise for any affective solution to be implemented.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I agree. This is what I have been saying for a long time. The social issues are not critical to our survival. The fiscal issues are what we need to address immediately.

I to agree in general principle but I have seen nothing to indicate that either party is serious about fiscal policy. I see Democrats as being bad but the Republican record has been far, far worse on spending. Most of the worst abuses of spending and most of the debt have occurred under Reagan and W. I'm not optimistic in that regard.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I to agree in general principle but I have seen nothing to indicate that either party is serious about fiscal policy. I see Democrats as being bad but the Republican record has been far, far worse on spending. Most of the worst abuses of spending and most of the debt have occurred under Reagan and W. I'm not optimistic in that regard.

The bolded is simply complete stupidity. The BULK of Reagans spending came with a DEM led House. Without them, the budgets NEVER gets passed. The BULK of the budgets under Clinton came with a REP led Congress. Without them, the budgets never get passed. Under Bush, the fiscal irresponsibility occurred when the Reps had complete control to be sure, but the WORST of the deficit spending came with the DEMS in charge of the House and Senate. Again, without them, the budgets do not get passed. Under Obama, the deficit spending has dwarfed Reagan and Bush combined.... and that was with the Dems having super majorities.

bottom line, NEITHER party has shown ANY sort of fiscal responsibility. We have had just about every combination of Rep/Dem in the WH and the two houses of Congress and the result has been the same. Year after year of increases to our national debt. This has gone on since IKE was President.

Therefore, either learn what really happens or do shut up with the partisan bullshit on the debt. It is BOTH parties that have failed us.

 

[DamnYankee]

If I were a Rep planning to run, I wouldn't toss my name in the hat until at least November.

You missed the point entirely. Ryan has the best head for fiscal conservatism, yet he is largely ignored.

 

[Airstrip One]

Speaking from a strategic standpoint, you wouldn't want to run Rubio with Cain, as they come from neighbouring states (GA/FL). You typically want to spread the ticket geographically. How about Cain/Johnson?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You missed the point entirely. Ryan has the best head for fiscal conservatism, yet he is largely ignored.

No, I did not miss your point. I addressed it. Ryan is not currently stating nor acting as if he will run. Thus the focus is currently on the crop that is pretending/intending to run. If Ryan does plan to run, he would be smart to wait until November to announce.

 

[Canceled2]

No, I did not miss your point. I addressed it. Ryan is not currently stating nor acting as if he will run. Thus the focus is currently on the crop that is pretending/intending to run. If Ryan does plan to run, he would be smart to wait until November to announce.

You would need a pretty substantial war chest to wait until November to start campaigning. Obama aims to raise a billion dollars to run...

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Most of the worst abuses of spending and most of the debt have occurred under Reagan and W. I'm not optimistic in that regard.

????......obviously not true.....look at what's happened to the national debt since 2008........

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Speaking from a strategic standpoint, you wouldn't want to run Rubio with Cain, as they come from neighbouring states (GA/FL). You typically want to spread the ticket geographically. How about Cain/Johnson?

look to key electoral states that typically go Democrat.....like Minnesota......

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have to diagree with this "put social issues on the back burner" idea. Maybe you mean well, maybe what you are saying isn't that far from what I have said, that we need a candidate who knows how to "balance" social conservatism with fiscal conservatism? But the idea that we have to abandon a core principle, because it may offend independnets and seculars....well, that's just ignorant. What good is a principle if you are going to put it on the back burner? I get the feeling, many of you fiscal conservative seculars, don't grasp the principles of social conservatism, and don't understand why they are important to the conservative philosophy as a whole. Being totally ignorant of this, you think it's a good idea to get rid of all that stuff... put it on the back burner. As much as it makes a secular cringe to hear a candidate talk about God, it makes evangelicals cringe to hear "put your social issues in the closet!" We have to find a way to bridge this gap, to establish why these principles are important to conservatism, and instead of putting them "on the back burner", making the case for why we should never put our principles on the back burner.

My position does not mean that abortion and gay marriage should be front and center, I understand what is being said about fiscal issues being of paramount importance at this time, I'm just saying we can't abandon our principles, and we don't need to. That said, I believe a candidate like Herman Cain could articulate a strong message, full of common sense and pragmatism, because that's just who the man is.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I have to diagree with this "put social issues on the back burner" idea.

isn't that what we did when we nominated McCain?........

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

isn't that what we did when we nominated McCain?........

I think so, McCain distanced himself from the evangelicals in the beginning, then when he saw how lukewarm their support was, he tried to fake his way to the nomination, and it never did work. I think that was much of the reasoning behind picking Palin, to hopefully shore up the social conservative base. Romney has the same problem, in my opinion.

Look... I am not saying we have to nominate someone who trots out god and abortion in every speech, ignoring (or putting on the back burner) the fiscal conservative issues. That is just as detrimental as the other way around, the way I see it. I haven't heard Cain speak much on the social issues, but I suspect he holds a viewpoint similar to my own, these 'hot-button' issues we spend so much time discussing, should be an issue dealt with on a state or local level, and our government has no place in the debate. That's not abandoning the principles, or putting them on the back burner, it's articulating how we shouldn't waste our time focusing on issues which should ultimately be left to the states.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You would need a pretty substantial war chest to wait until November to start campaigning. Obama aims to raise a billion dollars to run...

and you will need an even bigger one to start campaigning NOW.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I have to diagree with this "put social issues on the back burner" idea. Maybe you mean well, maybe what you are saying isn't that far from what I have said, that we need a candidate who knows how to "balance" social conservatism with fiscal conservatism? But the idea that we have to abandon a core principle, because it may offend independnets and seculars....well, that's just ignorant. What good is a principle if you are going to put it on the back burner? I get the feeling, many of you fiscal conservative seculars, don't grasp the principles of social conservatism, and don't understand why they are important to the conservative philosophy as a whole. Being totally ignorant of this, you think it's a good idea to get rid of all that stuff... put it on the back burner. As much as it makes a secular cringe to hear a candidate talk about God, it makes evangelicals cringe to hear "put your social issues in the closet!" We have to find a way to bridge this gap, to establish why these principles are important to conservatism, and instead of putting them "on the back burner", making the case for why we should never put our principles on the back burner.

My position does not mean that abortion and gay marriage should be front and center, I understand what is being said about fiscal issues being of paramount importance at this time, I'm just saying we can't abandon our principles, and we don't need to. That said, I believe a candidate like Herman Cain could articulate a strong message, full of common sense and pragmatism, because that's just who the man is.

Tell me Dixie.... what has changed in the last 20 years with regards to the social issues that has improved this country on the whole?

The point is that the social issues are polarizing and quite frankly are not going to help the economic situation we are ALL in despite our views on social issues. So by 'putting social issues on the back burner' and focusing on the thing we all agree needs to be fixed, we can elect people who actually have a fundamental understanding on HOW to fix the economy.