Raising Cain

[Guns Guns Guns]

... As it stands, he appears to be my kind of republican, one that is conservative fiscally but doesn't dwell heavily on the social issues. I like him and hope he does well in the primaries.

http://citizens4cain.com/site/blog/...and-running-for-president-with-bryan-fischer/


Aside from the abortion issue, Cain has supported the military's ban on homosexuals and says he would have never repealed it as president. As for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA - a proposed bill that would prohibit "discrimination" against workers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity), the conservative commentator explains that he "would veto that relative to special rights to homosexuals."


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1275518



“You can’t separate social issues from domestic issues. They go hand in hand.”


http://cubachi.com/2011/03/08/herma...s-from-domestic-issues-they-go-hand-in-hand”/

 

[WinterBorn]

But just because you post this doesn't necessarily mean you agree with any of it, right?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So far, I am not seeing anything from Cain that I don't agree with. I think shithead wants to tarnish Cain's reputation with Damo, so he's throwing out anything Cain has ever said about the social issues, in hopes of doing that. But what Cain says is true! This isn't about "religion" or standing up for Gawwwd... this is about plain old American values and principles, and Cain is nailing it.

 

[Damocles]

Interesting. If he spoke that way during the debates I didn't hear it. But then it's early. If he truly believes that way and starts dwelling on the social issues to the detriment of fiscal conservative policy then he'd no longer get my "as it stands he appears to be" statement, it would then be withdrawn.

As I stated in the thread you took that statement from, even the Evangelists that I know say that the social issues are now luxuries, we first have to get the debt into line, get a true balanced budget amendment done, we have more important things to fix before we start stepping into those... If a candidate doesn't understand this and all they have to talk about is gays,etc. They won't get my support.

 

[Damocles]

So far, I am not seeing anything from Cain that I don't agree with. I think shithead wants to tarnish Cain's reputation with Damo, so he's throwing out anything Cain has ever said about the social issues, in hopes of doing that. But what Cain says is true! This isn't about "religion" or standing up for Gawwwd... this is about plain old American values and principles, and Cain is nailing it.

That's my guess as well. I've never said that social issues kill him for me, I said a focus on them to the detriment of the fiscal issues would. So far Cain has done or said nothing that detracts from what I originally stated. He appears to be my kind of republican, fiscally conservative and not too heavily focused on social issues so that he loses sight of the fiscal issues that I find more important.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Interesting. If he spoke that way during the debates I didn't hear it. But then it's early. If he truly believes that way and starts dwelling on the social issues to the detriment of fiscal conservative policy then he'd no longer get my "as it stands he appears to be" statement, it would then be withdrawn.

As I stated in the thread you took that statement from, even the Evangelists that I know say that the social issues are now luxuries, we first have to get the debt into line, get a true balanced budget amendment done, we have more important things to fix before we start stepping into those... If a candidate doesn't understand this and all they have to talk about is gays,etc. They won't get my support.

Well, you didn't hear him speak that way during the debate, because he didn't speak that way during the debate. I'm sure he truly believes what he says, why else would he say it? But what you go on to say, doesn't really make much sense to me, it's like saying, the painters are coming to paint my house, but if they show up in those ugly white jumpsuits, I am going to send them back home! That's your preference, but probably, you are going to be sending them home and your house isn't going to get painted. You need to have an epiphany and decide you can tolerate the white jumpsuits, in order to have your house professionally painted. The same is true here, you are not going to have a candidate who is secular, winning the nomination for the GOP... that just isn't going to happen, there are far too many evangelicals out there. Now, there is a difference between tolerating the white jumpsuits, and having one of the painters obsessing on his white jumpsuit while ignoring your paint job... I can see your point there... I don't want a candidate who can't seem to speak without mentioning god, gays, guns, and abortion. I do want a candidate who understands the importance of social morality in our society, and the need for us to stand up for our principles of decency... who isn't "afraid" of these issues, or compelled to shove them in a closet or "put them on the back burner." I want someone to say they are pro-life because the Constitution guarantees the right to life, not because "Jebus" said so. I want someone to make the connection between these values and fundamental conservatism, and why you can't really have one without the other. Take it out of the realm of religion and dogma, and bring it back into the realm of principles which are fundamental to our nation and Constitution, as well as society as a whole. Herman Cain doesn't say he is opposed to Planned Parenthood because God says abortion is wrong... He is opposed because it contradicts Constitutional principles which endow us with a right to life, and our respect for sanctity of life is important in who we are as a nation. He's opposed because it serves as a form of "genocide" targeted at African-Americans, and he makes that case like no one else I've ever heard.

What Libertarian-ish Republicans need to remember is, you can't just abandon everything those on the religious right stand for, simply because they take the position they take. It gets complicated when you say, I am not really pro-choice, but I can't be pro-life because that's what the "jebus believers" are for! I can't support what they support, or people will think I support all of their crazy shit! You've got to try and understand this, the overwhelming majority of the nation, is not Libertarian or Secular. They are going to have strong convictions and beliefs, and with people of faith especially, their beliefs are fundamentally important, and they won't abandon them for any reason, nor should they have to.

 

[Damocles]

Well, you didn't hear him speak that way during the debate, because he didn't speak that way during the debate. I'm sure he truly believes what he says, why else would he say it? But what you go on to say, doesn't really make much sense to me, it's like saying, the painters are coming to paint my house, but if they show up in those ugly white jumpsuits, I am going to send them back home! That's your preference, but probably, you are going to be sending them home and your house isn't going to get painted. You need to have an epiphany and decide you can tolerate the white jumpsuits, in order to have your house professionally painted. The same is true here, you are not going to have a candidate who is secular, winning the nomination for the GOP... that just isn't going to happen, there are far too many evangelicals out there. Now, there is a difference between tolerating the white jumpsuits, and having one of the painters obsessing on his white jumpsuit while ignoring your paint job... I can see your point there... I don't want a candidate who can't seem to speak without mentioning god, gays, guns, and abortion. I do want a candidate who understands the importance of social morality in our society, and the need for us to stand up for our principles of decency... who isn't "afraid" of these issues, or compelled to shove them in a closet or "put them on the back burner." I want someone to say they are pro-life because the Constitution guarantees the right to life, not because "Jebus" said so. I want someone to make the connection between these values and fundamental conservatism, and why you can't really have one without the other. Take it out of the realm of religion and dogma, and bring it back into the realm of principles which are fundamental to our nation and Constitution, as well as society as a whole. Herman Cain doesn't say he is opposed to Planned Parenthood because God says abortion is wrong... He is opposed because it contradicts Constitutional principles which endow us with a right to life, and our respect for sanctity of life is important in who we are as a nation. He's opposed because it serves as a form of "genocide" targeted at African-Americans, and he makes that case like no one else I've ever heard.

What Libertarian-ish Republicans need to remember is, you can't just abandon everything those on the religious right stand for, simply because they take the position they take. It gets complicated when you say, I am not really pro-choice, but I can't be pro-life because that's what the "jebus believers" are for! I can't support what they support, or people will think I support all of their crazy shit! You've got to try and understand this, the overwhelming majority of the nation, is not Libertarian or Secular. They are going to have strong convictions and beliefs, and with people of faith especially, their beliefs are fundamentally important, and they won't abandon them for any reason, nor should they have to.

[X] Wall of Text
[X] Apparent The Writer Didn't Read the Post made After the one he quoted.
[X] Didn't read because it needs more paragraphs, maybe some bullet points.
[_] More than 5 people will read this.

Dix, read the post after the one you quoted. In this case I believe you and I agree, but you get upset because I have different priority than you. I am assuming this long-winded post is something about how horrible libertarian thinkers are because they believe that the social issues should take back burner status. Am I right?

IF, the notable word is the starting one the "if", he started talking social conservatism to the DETRIMENT (that was the second important word there) of fiscal policy he'd lose my vote. I won't even get close to voting for another Bush. It won't happen.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

[X] Wall of Text
[X] Apparent The Writer Didn't Read the Post made After the one he quoted.
[X] Didn't read because it needs more paragraphs, maybe some bullet points.
[_] More than 5 people will read this.

Dix, read the post after the one you quoted. In this case I believe you and I agree, but you get upset because I have different priority than you. I am assuming this long-winded post is something about how horrible libertarian thinkers are because they believe that the social issues should take back burner status. Am I right?

IF, the notable word is the starting one the "if", he started talking social conservatism to the DETRIMENT (that was the second important word there) of fiscal policy he'd lose my vote. I won't even get close to voting for another Bush. It won't happen.

What is "detrimental" in stating your principles and convictions? Why is that wrong or bad? Are we doing it to be politically correct? I think Herman Cain is very much a Constitutionalist, and I think he would probably argue that it's none of the government's business what people decide on these issues, it should be left to the states and individuals, not determined by the government or the president. But as a matter of principle, we can't put our values in a box, on a shelf, on the back burner, or anywhere else. Individuals deserve the right to express their beliefs and opinions, and ultimately determine through the ballot box, what boundaries and limitations we have on society. That's Liberty and Democracy.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

From shithead's link above. He explains his position very clearly, and then goes on to talk about the economy, etc. He didn't dwell on the morality of what is right and wrong or condemn and judge, he just made his case, and it made sense to me. Probably because it is very similar to my own case for social conservatism.

It sometimes seems, what the libertarian seculars miss, is how important it is that we stand up for these principles, they are the foundational principles of the Constitution. Conservatism stripped of all social conservatism, is a flawed and failed ideology, we know this for a fact, we've tried it before. Some would also argue, and I would tend to agree, that pure Social Conservatism is equally as bad, it doesn't work either. The KEY is finding the balance... accepting that we have principles which bind us as conservatives, to a belief in something greater than man, which endowed us with these bountiful freedoms. We can't move forward without that, and we are destined to fail without it. You think it is unimportant and we can abandon it for the sake of fiscal issues, and I believe it is fundamentally what helps us to solve the fiscal issues and everything else. We view the importance of the 'value issues' differently, and the key to building a strong philosophy to defeat Obama, is including all aspects of conservative values, including (especially) the social ones.

 

[Schadenfreude]

http://citizens4cain.com/site/blog/...and-running-for-president-with-bryan-fischer/


Aside from the abortion issue, Cain has supported the military's ban on homosexuals and says he would have never repealed it as president. As for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA - a proposed bill that would prohibit "discrimination" against workers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity), the conservative commentator explains that he "would veto that relative to special rights to homosexuals."


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1275518



“You can’t separate social issues from domestic issues. They go hand in hand.”


http://cubachi.com/2011/03/08/herma...s-from-domestic-issues-they-go-hand-in-hand”/

he does not separate social from fiscal - and you support this freak

 

[Damocles]

What is "detrimental" in stating your principles and convictions? Why is that wrong or bad? Are we doing it to be politically correct? I think Herman Cain is very much a Constitutionalist, and I think he would probably argue that it's none of the government's business what people decide on these issues, it should be left to the states and individuals, not determined by the government or the president. But as a matter of principle, we can't put our values in a box, on a shelf, on the back burner, or anywhere else. Individuals deserve the right to express their beliefs and opinions, and ultimately determine through the ballot box, what boundaries and limitations we have on society. That's Liberty and Democracy.

It is detrimental when they make it clear that the social issues are more important than the fiscal issues to them. When such is the case they are always willing to compromise on the issues they find less important (the back-burner issues for them). If fiscal issues are back-burner then they have their priorities out of whack. We need to ensure we stop people from driving our nation into bankruptcy, at that point we can then turn our minds uncompromisingly towards the luxury items.

IMO, we absolutely cannot afford to compromise on the fiscal issues, we need a candidate that will drive that ball down the court, fighting and clawing for every step, willing to climb on everybody trying to stop him in order to stuff that ball right into the basket, I don't even care if they "spike the football" so long as they get it fricking right. I'd prefer compromise on the social issues at this time to any compromise on the fiscal issues. We must stop our leaders from driving our fiscal policy further into a hole, we need to do whatever it takes to make that happen.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It is detrimental when they make it clear that the social issues are more important than the fiscal issues to them. When such is the case they are always willing to compromise on the issues they find less important (the back-burner issues for them). If fiscal issues are back-burner then they have their priorities out of whack. We need to ensure we stop people from driving our nation into bankruptcy, at that point we can then turn our minds uncompromisingly towards the luxury items.

IMO, we absolutely cannot afford to compromise on the fiscal issues, we need a candidate that will drive that ball down the court, fighting and clawing for every step, willing to climb on everybody trying to stop him in order to stuff that ball right into the basket, I don't even care if they "spike the football" so long as they get it fricking right. I'd prefer compromise on the social issues at this time to any compromise on the fiscal issues. We must stop our leaders from driving our fiscal policy further into a hole, we need to do whatever it takes to make that happen.

But no one is doing that Damo, not Cain or any other Republican that I know of. The core conservative view is, to get government out of the 'social issue' business, because they have no business there to begin with. That doesn't mean candidates have to distance themselves from their beliefs and faith, or hide them in a closet. Now, a true social conservative (like Bush) does push a social issue agenda, and maybe that's what you are speaking of, and if so, I tend to agree with you... we don't need someone up there preaching the gospel as they run for president. But we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater either, there is something to be said for social conservative values and principles, and they are fundamental to our beliefs as conservatives. I believe the 'ideal' candidate will be able to walk that line, articulate a message that doesn't seek to put the social values 'on the back burner' but rather, make a case for why our values are the most important aspect of who we are, without making you feel like you are being preached to. I think Reagan did that brilliantly, and not many have done it as well since... I also think Cain might be able to bridge this disconnect as well. Like Reagan, he seems to have a way of putting things so average people can relate... he often uses humor, like Reagan. I loved it during the debate when he explained his support for Romney last election. The reason he's not supporting him now, is because he lost, so now he's going to try it his way... I thought that was very Regan-esque.

 

[Canceled2]

[X] Wall of Text
[X] Apparent The Writer Didn't Read the Post made After the one he quoted.
[X] Didn't read because it needs more paragraphs, maybe some bullet points.
[_] More than 5 people will read this.

Dix, read the post after the one you quoted. In this case I believe you and I agree, but you get upset because I have different priority than you. I am assuming this long-winded post is something about how horrible libertarian thinkers are because they believe that the social issues should take back burner status. Am I right?

IF, the notable word is the starting one the "if", he started talking social conservatism to the DETRIMENT (that was the second important word there) of fiscal policy he'd lose my vote. I won't even get close to voting for another Bush. It won't happen.

Bush was NOT a social conservative politically! My two examples are NCLB and the Pill Bill. Bush's religious convictions translated themselves in only one policy that I can think of... stem cell research. This notion of social conservatism being an antithesis to fiscal policy is stupid twaddle. Indeed social liberalism is what is adverse, politically speaking, to a sound fiscal policy....again note: pill bill; social security; welfare; medicare; etc...all social liberal policy.

 

[Damocles]

But no one is doing that Damo, not Cain or any other Republican that I know of. The core conservative view is, to get government out of the 'social issue' business, because they have no business there to begin with. That doesn't mean candidates have to distance themselves from their beliefs and faith, or hide them in a closet. Now, a true social conservative (like Bush) does push a social issue agenda, and maybe that's what you are speaking of, and if so, I tend to agree with you... we don't need someone up there preaching the gospel as they run for president. But we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater either, there is something to be said for social conservative values and principles, and they are fundamental to our beliefs as conservatives. I believe the 'ideal' candidate will be able to walk that line, articulate a message that doesn't seek to put the social values 'on the back burner' but rather, make a case for why our values are the most important aspect of who we are, without making you feel like you are being preached to. I think Reagan did that brilliantly, and not many have done it as well since... I also think Cain might be able to bridge this disconnect as well. Like Reagan, he seems to have a way of putting things so average people can relate... he often uses humor, like Reagan. I loved it during the debate when he explained his support for Romney last election. The reason he's not supporting him now, is because he lost, so now he's going to try it his way... I thought that was very Regan-esque.

[X] Another wall of text.
[X] Needs paragraphs and/or Bullet Points.
[_] Will be read by more than one poster.

First, tell me where I have said we need to throw any babies anywhere. I have stated I would prefer compromise to come in one area over another, and I base it off of actions of those elected. If a candidate shows signs that he would be unwilling to compromise on fiscal issues they'll have more of my support than a candidate who shows unwillingness to compromise on social issues.

You say "nobody" is doing that, but we do have past records to go by, some of the candidates will not have my support in a Primary, while I would vote for them against Obama as the "least bad" of two bad choices.

Do you deny that for some republicans the fiscal issues are much more easy to compromise on than social issues? Even when they speak a good fiscal game, it is where they will compromise in order to get what they feel is important passed that bothers me.

 

[Damocles]

Bush was NOT a social conservative politically! My two examples are NCLB and the Pill Bill. Bush's religious convictions translated themselves in only one policy that I can think of... stem cell research. This notion of social conservatism being an antithesis to fiscal policy is stupid twaddle. Indeed social liberalism is what is adverse, politically speaking, to a sound fiscal policy....again note: pill bill; social security; welfare; medicare; etc...all social liberal policy.

Bush tied almost all close elections to anti-homosexual legislation by having supporters put forward Amendments, etc. to vote on whether gays could get married. This was a drive to bring out the Evangelical vote and push him past his opponent in the close elections.

On top of that each week, yes weekly, he had a phone call where he took advice from ministers who were members of the National Association of Evangelicals. This is where Ted Haggard comes in to the scene, he was a member of that group and spoke weekly with the President giving him advice.

Bush was/is a social conservative. However, that wouldn't always mean that he wasn't fiscally conservative, only that when it was time to compromise that fiscal issues would show up on the compromise block before the social issues would. We absolutely cannot afford that now.

 

[Canceled2]

Bush tied almost all close elections to anti-homosexual legislation by having supporters put forward Amendments, etc. to vote on whether gays could get married. This was a drive to bring out the Evangelical vote and push him past his opponent in the close elections.

On top of that each week, yes weekly, he had a phone call where he took advice from ministers who were members of the National Association of Evangelicals. This is where Ted Haggard comes in to the scene, he was a member of that group and spoke weekly with the President giving him advice.

Bush was/is a social conservative. However, that wouldn't always mean that he wasn't fiscally conservative, only that when it was time to compromise that fiscal issues would show up on the compromise block before the social issues would. We absolutely cannot afford that now.

And Clinton passed don't ask don't tell...bfd. Bush was tied to two wars ...he made compromises because he needed funding. He was a social liberal in the entitlement programs he stamped his name on-not a social conservative. He was also a Christian-but aside from his stem cell legislation there is NO legislation passed during his 2 terms that can be tied to those beliefs.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

[X] Another wall of text.
[X] Needs paragraphs and/or Bullet Points.
[_] Will be read by more than one poster.

First of all, this kind of nonsense cheapens your response, you should just drop that, it makes you look pinheaded.

First, tell me where I have said we need to throw any babies anywhere.

It's a figure of speech, Damo... I thought you were familiar with it, sorry. When you speak of your desire to have a candidate who "puts social issues on the back burner" it sounds as if you want to throw the social conservative baby out with the bath water to me. It sounds as if you are totally unaware that a vast majority of conservatives base their personal conservatism on the premise there is a God, or Creator, and our entire culture is based on values which can't be disregarded. You personally don't find this important, but many do, and they aren't going to abandon what they believe so you can feel good about having a secular candidate.

I have stated I would prefer compromise to come in one area over another, and I base it off of actions of those elected. If a candidate shows signs that he would be unwilling to compromise on fiscal issues they'll have more of my support than a candidate who shows unwillingness to compromise on social issues.

I think it goes without saying, our most pressing issues at this time, is the economy and spending, as well as the size and scope of government. But in order to support a foundational conservative message, which answers the challenges and provides the solutions we need, it requires adherence to our founding principles, which are (again) rooted in the belief that our Creator endowed us with personal liberty and freedom. You can't remove this from our conservative message, and still have something worthwhile, because you have conceded your principles. If you leave the question of a Creator open, suddenly, our rights come from MAN... from a COURT... from men in robes, not from our Creator. And if that is the case, MEN can alter or remove our rights, we have no righteous claim, we put that on the "back burner" because you didn't feel it was important.

You say "nobody" is doing that, but we do have past records to go by, some of the candidates will not have my support in a Primary, while I would vote for them against Obama as the "least bad" of two bad choices.

Well, we have past records of people advocating segregation too, Damo... the current political landscape doesn't have a damn thing to do with the political landscape of days gone by. Things change, people change, culture and societies change... we don't live in the past.

Do you deny that for some republicans the fiscal issues are much more easy to compromise on than social issues? Even when they speak a good fiscal game, it is where they will compromise in order to get what they feel is important passed that bothers me.

I am not pleased with Republicans going along with Democrats in 'business as usual' fashion, to continue spending trillions of dollars we don't have. The most recent budget is a good example. We started off saying $100 bil in cuts... Demos offer $4 bil... we go back and forth and "settle" for $39 bil, then find out, only $300 MIL is being cut this year! We should be talking about how many TRILLIONS we're going to cut! But the people inside the beltway, are incapable of even thinking that way... it's not in their DNA... it is sucked out as soon as they become part of the establishment.

As for the so-called "social issues" I am very much a Constitutionalist, I believe these matters should be left to the states and the people, and the federal government shouldn't play a role. other than to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the Constitution, and will apply it to the law without the compulsion to change or alter the meaning. I think that's probably in line with the majority of conservatives, I could be wrong... but I damn sure don't see these mythical social conservative bible-thumpers out there trying to make you live by their religious standards.... I'm just not seeing that happening out there. What I see is, the liberal secular left, waging an all-out war on our culture. And I see people who profess to be conservatives like yourself, who just don't seem to get it, and think they have to buy in to the anti-religious left's rhetoric, to appear above it all.

I don't think we have to abandon our principles, I don't think we have to put social conservatism "on the back burner" or shy away from our convictions. This is fundamental to who we are as conservatives, and there can be no compromising that. Stressing the importance of fiscal issues and the economy is great, I have no problem with what you're saying there, and I think it is appropriate to have those issues front and center in our agenda as conservatives, but the case has to be made for why our fundamental values are tied to these issues as well, we can't abandon them.

 

[Damocles]

And Clinton passed don't ask don't tell...bfd. Bush was tied to two wars ...he made compromises because he needed funding. He was a social liberal in the entitlement programs he stamped his name on-not a social conservative. He was also a Christian-but aside from his stem cell legislation there is NO legislation passed during his 2 terms that can be tied to those beliefs.

None of this changes what I am saying, we can go round and round about Bush, but Bush isn't running. The reality is he spent unwisely, I remember the good times when I thought 400 Billion in overspending was "insane"... When Bush starts to look fiscally conservative... Well we cannot afford to have somebody who prioritizes the social issues above fiscal issues. This is, of course, why we hold Primary Elections. If the crippling debt, unreported unemployment figures, inflation, etc. doesn't convince you that we absolutely need to focus on the reality of a nation's debt running amok, I don't know what will. Hopefully voters in the primaries will pay attention to what is, right now, driving our nation into the ground rather than the social issues.

 

[Canceled2]

None of this changes what I am saying, we can go round and round about Bush, but Bush isn't running. The reality is he spent unwisely, I remember the good times when I thought 400 Billion in overspending was "insane"... When Bush starts to look fiscally conservative... Well we cannot afford to have somebody who prioritizes the social issues above fiscal issues. This is, of course, why we hold Primary Elections. If the crippling debt, unreported unemployment figures, inflation, etc. doesn't convince you that we absolutely need to focus on the reality of a nation's debt running amok, I don't know what will. Hopefully voters in the primaries will pay attention to what is, right now, driving our nation into the ground rather than the social issues.

Ummm yes, we could go round and round...but you introduced him into the equation on a wrong assumption. He is a man of faith I have no doubt-but his spending WAS NOT socially fiscal IT WAS socially liberal. He did prioritize fiscally, based on ability around war spending-remember the Bush tax cuts? But in order to get his war spending, he compromised with spending dems as well as added a couple of socially liberal spending programs of his own-not fiscally social ones. War spending is NOT a fiscally social agenda. Having a platform that boldly includes your social beliefs IS NOT equal to having a social agenda.

I agree that what our country needs is someone who is fiscally conservative coupled with grit and equipped with a plan that he/she can articulate and is determined to implement- That does not mean they cannot also be socially conservative in their values and world view.

 

[Damocles]

Ummm yes, we could go round and round...but you introduced him into the equation on a wrong assumption. He is a man of faith I have no doubt-but his spending WAS NOT socially fiscal IT WAS socially liberal. He did prioritize fiscally, based on ability around war spending-remember the Bush tax cuts? But in order to get his war spending, he compromised with spending dems as well as added a couple of socially liberal spending programs of his own-not fiscally social ones. War spending is NOT a fiscally social agenda. Having a platform that boldly includes your social beliefs IS NOT equal to having a social agenda.

I agree that what our country needs is someone who is fiscally conservative coupled with grit and equipped with a plan that he/she can articulate and is determined to implement- That does not mean they cannot also be socially conservative in their values and world view.

I've not once said that they cannot be socially conservative. I have said that it is a deal killer for me if that is where they draw the line rather than on the fiscal issues. We cannot have somebody willing to compromise on fiscal issues.