The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Streetcar Line

Social Conservatism: Winning Right

By on 2.24.12 @ 6:08AM

No reason to be embarrassed — a plurality if not a majority of Americans support its positions.

(Page 2 of 2)

Nonetheless, the lefty media has a big and powerful megaphone that is good at drowning us out. That’s why it is admirable that Rick Santorum has never backed off from a discussion of social issues. He knows his words will be distorted, taken out of context, and harshly criticized by the media minions of the Left. Yet very little of what he says is, in full context, the slightest bit objectionable or “extreme.”

Moreover, if the economy continues to improve, even slowly, so that its weakness no longer hobbles Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, then conservatives need a presidential candidate who is willing to champion these issues and our values, and who knows how to turn his championing of them into votes. They are, after all, majority- or plurality-positions that we hold.

Some of us have usually been more squeamish than not about social issues. (For decades, I always mildly agreed with “socio-cons” but was driven far more by economics and defense needs than by social issues; and indeed as a college freshman I had the temerity to tell a conservative-movement leader that I agreed with Barry Goldwater that Jerry Falwell’s moral hectoring merited a good “kick in the a$$” — even though I supported Falwell’s basic positions.) Some of us (myself included) would still prefer to talk about free-market economics and the virtues of limiting government. But none of us should fail to rise to the defense of our social-issue positions, because the only way we lose on them politically is if we act embarrassed by them and thus give credence to the leftist attacks.

It is the left that wants government to co-opt, or steamroll over, the mediating institutions we hold dear. It is they who seek to impose their values on us by force of law (and thus by force of the gun, wielded by the jailer) — not we who seek to impose our values on them. Leave our families and churches and voluntary associations alone, and we’ll all be fine no matter how the less-socially-conservative people want to conduct their own private affairs. Even if we are of the evangelizing (small “e”) persuasion, our bailiwick is moral suasion in the open public square, not coercion. If this makes the leftists howl — so what? While they are howling, we’ll defeat them, fair and square.

Page:   12

About the Author

Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (190) |

Appleby| 2.24.12 @ 6:53AM

Making fun of us is so chidish that merely preserving an adult demeanour gives us the points, and showing where people can help and how they can do it -- by example of a life well lived -- is far better than pranching through the streets dropping garbage and their pants, screaming GIMMEE NOW! and other toddler liberation phrases. Perhaps some of those who find their peers embarrassing will get out there and demonstrate by doing.

BackToBasics| 2.24.12 @ 8:00PM

I agree with part of what you say and maybe all of it depending on what you mean by "preserving an adult demeanor." Does this mean that the "adults" never show anger?

It reminds me of when I see Republicans in Congres too often reaching across the aisle to Democrats in hopes of persuading the Democrats to be reasonable, without much effect. I sometimes think of a passage from the Bible in Jude verses 22, 23 that says, "And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23. And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire."

As for the kids that wear their pants too low, maybe it is a secret invitation to a spanking above those partly fallen britches - TIC. It is too bad, but we are getting past the point where civility ALONE will win enough over to the conservative side to make a difference.

Alan Brooks| 2.24.12 @ 10:46PM

What appeals to Rightwing proles (who do the dirty work) is bad taste:
a truck driver doesn't read Shakespeare and listen to Mozart very often. I drove with truckers a dozen times, all were married but had "side action"-- even at the truck stops. There were cots in the back rooms for "side activities".
And that doesn't mean video games.

You guys have an idealized outlook.

Alan Brooks| 2.24.12 @ 10:52PM

... you cons be pollyannish, but I'm not going to share your gullibility.

BackToBasics| 2.25.12 @ 3:20PM

I am not a total idealist but it is better to have some idealism and than to be too cynical. Most cynics were former idealists at some point. Too much cynicism eventually leads to bitterness and even hatred. I don't want to go that route and I don't think you are at these last stages yet and I hope you never get to that point either.

BackToBasics| 2.25.12 @ 3:54PM

I will add that what idealism I have comes from my faith in Jesus Christ. Notice I did not say my faith in conservatism, people, the church or anything else of this world. And at that it is because of His faithfulness to me which I respond to. If anything this does not show idealism in anyone or anything of this world, myself included, but faith in Him produces at least some idealism just the same. It is a natural effect that springs from His faithfulness.

Alan Brooks| 2.25.12 @ 11:36PM

"Notice I did not say my faith in conservatism, people, the church or anything else of this world."

But those who run AS themselves are less idealistic; they are hardnosed businessmen who wear faith as a mere badge: trust in the marketplace is more important than Jesus in the manger.

You think Hillyer would give up what he has to follow Christ?

BackToBasics| 2.26.12 @ 11:32AM

I do not know Hillyer's ulterior motives but I agree with his writings more than not as they are more firmly rooted in Biblical principles. I'd rather think better of him until shown otherwise. Jesus said that you can know someone by the fruit they bear, some fruit is good others are not. To me, Hillyer's fruit is what he writes. God knows his ulterior motives. I do not.

Brian Mc| 2.24.12 @ 7:02AM

Well said, Quin...especially the last paragraph. I'm tired of proponents of big government forcing their liberal agenda down our throats as they bemoan our lack of 'compassion'. I like to believe that we are rope-a-doped but patiently awaiting the latter rounds. We cannot settle for a 'draw' as the 'draws' of the past have been victories for socialist incrementalism. They will not rest or relent until we have been thrown from the ring. The last election cycle was only one round and I shudder to think that this year is the last.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.24.12 @ 9:52AM

The history of mankind has been inundated with intercene battles for power and wealth.
Tribal societies raided neighboring villages for their women and goods. The ancients through the Roman Empire conquered and enslaved. The Middle Ages brought serfdom that was a contract of safety at the price of liberty. And socialist wars, whether a shooting war, or the war we face today against creeping socialism is a war for power and wealth.
You are correct that we are at a pivitol point. Many may wake up tomorrow to be surprised that they have been conquered and enslaved. Let's hope they have the wisdom to understand before their potential bondage.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 10:52AM

Your last 3 sentences are Gospel truth. As for historical parallels to what you're talking about, here's one of my favorite excerpts from Cicero's First Philippic:

"Men ask, what is the reason why I, or why any one of you, O conscript fathers, should be afraid of bad laws while we have virtuous tribunes of the people? We have men ready to interpose their veto; ready to defend the republic with the sanctions of religion. We ought to be strangers to fear. What do you mean by interposing the veto? says he; what are these sanctions of religion which you are talking about? Those, forsooth, on which the safety of republic depends. We are neglecting those things, and thinking them too old fashioned and foolish. The forum will be surrounded, every entrance of it will be blocked up; ARMED MEN will be placed in garrison, as it were, at many points. What then?--whatever is accomplished by those means will be law. And you will order, I suppose, all those regularly passed decrees to be engraved on brazen tablets. 'The consuls consulted the people in the regular form,' (Is this the way of consulting the people that we have received from our ancestors?) 'and the people voted it with due regularity.' What people? that which was excluded from the forum? Under what law did they do so? under that which has been wholly abrogated by violence of arms? But I am saying all this with reference to the future; because it is the part of a friend to point out evils which may be avoided: and if they never ensue, that will be the best refutation of my speech. I am speaking of laws which have been proposed; concerning which you have still full power to decide either way. I am pointing out the defects; away with them I am denouncing violence and arms; away with them too!"...Marcus Tullius Cicero, The First Philippic

Von Mises Jr.| 2.24.12 @ 11:07AM

Beautious, Con Chef. A glaring example is what is happening with "Sustainable Jersey" this next month, that is implementation of Agenda21. They are having quiet meetings to sign over jurisdiction over OUR property rights to the UN/DC for a few sheckles to balance current budgets and get re-elected.
But the problem is that once implemented, the UN decides if you can subdivide in a community, build on your own property or even walk in your own backyard if it is deemed "sensitive" enviornment for trees or bees.
Soon they shall awake to find that their property is underwater, or unsalable; even if the survived the market effects of the subprime plan. Who will buy land or build a plant in Jersey when the UN decides if you can put up a building addition or a shed for your business???

DRed| 2.24.12 @ 11:19AM

How is the UN going to to control New Jersey? I need to warn my friends who live there

Von Mises Jr.| 2.24.12 @ 11:44AM

C'mon Dredful, you don't have any friends. You just have comrades.

DRed| 2.24.12 @ 11:46AM

haha. Nice one. Seriously, though, what is Agenda 21?

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 12:11PM

There's this thing called Google. Check it out.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.24.12 @ 12:50PM

You will find out when you are confined to a 700 sq.ft. apartment with a high speed rail train to take you to your assignment, comrade.
Like in China and Nazi Germany, you will need your papers to leave the compound.

Look it up!!!!!

DRed| 2.24.12 @ 1:02PM

My apartment is probably not much bigger than that as it is, my friend. And I don't even have high speed trains!

Von Mises Jr.| 2.24.12 @ 2:01PM

You will be welcome in the "Brave New World."
Some of us chose liberty.
Perhaps that is a trout stream or the top of the mountain. You can watch me on TV.

DRed| 2.24.12 @ 2:14PM

So a non-binding UN treaty is going to destroy our liberty?

Al Adab| 2.24.12 @ 2:42PM

JR:
Hope this ends up in the right sequence in the thread. Rising gasoline prices are part of the agenda as well in order to satisfy the enviros and to isolate our communties and, as you note, make us dependant on public transportation. What they don't understand is the size of the country. Our Western States have counties larger than eastern States. The distances between towns is large. By isolating us they feel they can limit our influence. What they may accomplish is forcing us to become more self-reliant on our own individual state resources. For example Texas and WY could begin their own oil production and keep it for their own use. NV could build its own nukes and states would more and more ignore the dictats from DC. The 26 or 33 states involved in the suits over health care and illegal migration represent the wave of the future.

DRed| 2.24.12 @ 3:08PM

Look, there's no doubt that liberals in heavily urban eastern states don't understand how people in the west live. That goes both ways. But rising gasoline prices have much more to do with isolating Iraq and the massive explosion of demand for gasoline as China and India become more prosperous. Look at the history of gas prices under the Bush administration-they fluctuated wildly. That obviously wasn't because of Bush's desire to force most of America to live in urban enclaves and take public transportation everywhere.

DRed| 2.24.12 @ 3:09PM

Isolating Iran. So hard to keep those two straight.

Al Adab| 2.24.12 @ 4:14PM

Dred:
Which is exactly why domestic production should stay in the domestic market. What we need are a few more refineries and a few (understatement) less government regulations and taxes on production and processing.

DRed| 2.24.12 @ 4:37PM

But Al, domestic production staying in the domestic market would only be possible by government regulation.

I agree with you on the refineries, though.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.25.12 @ 6:42AM

Al, Maybe we found an modern day Dred Scott. Perhaps we should return him to his owner?

Von Mises Jr.| 2.24.12 @ 3:15PM

Look up Agenda21!!! They build housing zones and work zones, and trains to take you from one place to the other. That's it.
Here is the map. You can live in the little black dots.
http://images.search.yahoo.com.....nda+21+map
Your kids don't live in the country. You don't go on vacation in your car to Yellowstone. It is for the freaking bear and moose, and your not welcome. You live in a shoebox and work.

DRed| 2.24.12 @ 3:53PM

Can you find the original UN documents those maps allegedly came from?

Al Adab| 2.24.12 @ 4:16PM

For clarity is it D Red or DR ed?

Von Mises Jr.| 2.24.12 @ 4:30PM

Al, that was great. I think he is DRedFul.

DRed| 2.24.12 @ 4:39PM

D Red. I'm neither a Dr nor a talking horse. You can also call me DRedful if you like.

WIlber| 2.24.12 @ 9:02PM

Perhaps your words emanate from the other end.

ella8| 2.24.12 @ 4:45PM

They have succeeded in turning upstate NY into a third world country. Most people don't realize it because they either work for the state or are part of the intellectual elite bubble. Everyone else must move away (to one of the black dots).

ella8| 2.24.12 @ 4:55PM

The Rural Genocide Agenda, otherwise know as Agenda 21. Ever been to the ADKs, it is beautiful, but economically desolate. I believe that may be the future of all of upstate NY. Nevermind those of us who have family roots here. It is very sick and twisted.

ella8| 2.24.12 @ 5:05PM

And when we move to the black dots we can only afford a tiny apartment. Not exactly ideal for a family oriented life.

ella8| 2.24.12 @ 5:15PM

Has anyone ever wondered why it is with all of the modern convienences that people struggle just to take care of one or two kids when people used to manage having ten or even fourteen? I truly believe there is something sinister involved in this. I truly believe that the UN and Planned Parenthood have been imposing backdoor population control on this country for years. I don't care if people think I am a kook for stating this and I don't care if it ticks off the Church of Death. Oooh a mom who takes care of her kids, scary stuff, better spin the BS machine about Christian militias and post partum moms.

ella8| 2.24.12 @ 5:36PM

I don't see how this is too far fetched, the UN//Planned Parenthood/ Totalitaran Church of Death is blatantly involved in population control in China even to the extent of imposing forced abortions. What makes us any different. The only difference is that they can't be blatant about it here. It is amazing what can be achieved through government regulation, taxation, and redistribution of wealth.

ella8| 2.24.12 @ 6:08PM

Is it really such a large bridge to cross to think that the HHS is just an arm of agenda 21 and a means to impose backdoor population control? Why is free birth control such a pressing issue? What about medications for real health issues? Why do cohabitants and illegitimate families get greater benefits than intact families? How far down the slippery slope have we already gone? They have already come for our conscience, when will they come for our wombs?

Von Mises Jr.| 2.24.12 @ 8:15PM

ella8, finally a bright person asking pertinent and probing questions.
DRed wants to move into a government shoe box where he can't watch his TV past 9PM. He doesn't get it that his standard of living will drop from the pathetic portrayal he espouses now, and his liberty to boot.

RND| 2.25.12 @ 12:29AM

Ella, you are right. We've now structured Western World society that parents who parent one child feel exhausted and, only with great trepidation and probably unplanned, get pregant with child #2. But then both say, "That's it, no more." However, as you are pointing out, that is not good enough for the UN elites and PP; they don't want adults married, let alone having even one child.

I would posit: Look at a family of 5 children. 6 or 7! And you'll see more family joy, family strength. More healthy, positive-outlook kids.

The left wants none of that. Communism did not want it. And Red China LOUDLY tells us what they want -- yet we choose to see and hear no evil, eh?

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 12:14PM

Chilling, Von. Absoultely chilling. I listen to Quinn & Rose in the morning, since I live in Pittsburgh, & Quinn has talked at length about the insidious creeping of the Useless Nations Agenda 21. Add to that Madame Dufarge (Hillary "Crinton") & her support for the UN Small Arms Treaty & you've got some BIGASS problems.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.24.12 @ 3:20PM

Con, you must be an awesome Chef.
I find that people with clear thinking can cook. You must try different ingredients and different styles to be any good.
Too many poeple have six things they can cook and order pizza Friday night. And that is the way they think!!!!

TommyFrisco| 2.24.12 @ 3:38PM

Von Mises Jr.,
I'm trying to talk Con Chef into buying a smoker so he can cook a Texas-style smoked beef brisket. I've got that pretty well perfected. It's a big challenge to take such a bad cut of beef and create something so juicy and tender you can cut with a fork. I'm not sure he's up to the challenge. :-)

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 4:29PM

I'd freely admit it, too! I know how to cure & smoke a side of salmon. Beef, however is another matter entirely!

:-)

TommyFrisco| 2.24.12 @ 5:00PM

Con Chef,
There's no doubt that I could learn a lot from you. I'm not as well-read and haven' spent any time in a professional kitchen, but I do know briskets. I'm on my fourth smoker after having worn out my first three. I've smoked hundreds of briskets and have experimented with many different rubs and methods. I would be proud and honored to share with you one of the few things that I can do well. You'll have those folks up there in Philly, and even back home in Memphis, begging for more. I only ask that you tell them that you have a good friend down in Texas who helped introduce you to the flavorful world of Texas-style BBQ.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.26.12 @ 6:06PM

I am fixin to come there soon. It is one of the couple regions of the counrty I haven't savored yet. I'm still on my first smoker but we have some good smoked meat in the NY/NJ area with lots of types of sausages and some good barbeque if you know where to go.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.24.12 @ 4:40PM

Chef Paul's barbeque brisket is awesome and I don't have to clean the smoker.
- 1.5 hr at 425, add stock when turning in 45 min
- Make trinity, jar tomato gravy, couple cups beef broth with some honey, brown sugar and spice in 7 qt dutch oven and then cook brisket 1-1.5 hr at 350 in oven
- finish on top by slicing brisket and simmering in sauce until it thickens or about 45 min
- get yourself some rolls and beer, and you have leftovers for days. And you might get lucky.

TommyFrisco| 2.24.12 @ 5:04PM

Somebody get a rope. :-)

Sorry, VMJ. That dog won't hunt. Your comments are far better than what your "briskets" could be. Please don't be offended.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.24.12 @ 8:18PM

I admit it is not Dinasour Barbecue Upstate NY and Harlem fashion. But I don't have the capacity to slow smoke brisket for 12-14 hours.
Chef Paul Prudhomme's recipe works for me unless I am fishing up near Syracuse.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 4:36PM

Professional kitchens & the military are the best 2 examples of a meritocracy left in this country. Being a Navy brat (hence the NB for my old handle) who's Dad was an officer afforded me a good perspective to start in kitchens. Let's just say my first chef was an Italian coke headed version of R. Lee Ermey's "Full Metal Jacket" cgaracter. I remeber kvetching to my Dad about it when I first started & he told me, "you couldn't join the Corps because of surgery. So look at this as boot camp. Now are you a hacker or a non-hacker?"

Thus began my 8 years in professional kitchens. Wouldn't trade it for all the whiskey in Ireland!

Should Have Impeached| 2.24.12 @ 4:02PM

How in the world can something as sweeping as Agenda 21 be implemented without Congressional debate, or "the people" having a voice in the surrender of national sovereignty? I read that George W. Bush backed it (??). What is this with the president (any president) making such unilateral decisions for a whole nation? There's serious work to do. This needs to go away worse than Obamacare. This is scary stuff!!

Von Mises Jr.| 2.24.12 @ 8:20PM

His father G.H.W. Bush was all in. This is not a Republican v. Democrat thing. It is the ruling class in DC, state government and Wall Street becoming the new Nobles, and we be their serfs.

Al Adab| 2.24.12 @ 8:51PM

Correct. The sad thing is the pundits all follow and talk to one another and even ours forget there exists a great nation beyond the Blue Ridge.

Alan Brooks| 2.24.12 @ 10:49PM

Biggest socialist of all time was Jesus. The New Testament is a socialist tome.

Brian Mc| 2.25.12 @ 6:26AM

Comparing what Jesus was attempting to do and what your ilk is trying to ram down our throats is preposterous. I'd rather burn in hell than follow your god...big government.

Tankrtrash| 2.24.12 @ 7:19AM

Great article Mr. Hillyer.
Much of the strident indignation coming from the left has less to do with the "right to choose" than it has to do with "lose of income". The abortion hustling industry has evolved into major racket.

Conserdude| 2.24.12 @ 7:20AM

I've been a big critic of newt and do not want him to win the nomination. But his statement on Obama's support of infanticide was the finest moment in this entire campaign.

Mimi| 2.24.12 @ 7:59AM

Not only was it the .."FINEST MOMENT"....It probably will win us the election...no matter who the nominee!

Pelligrino| 2.24.12 @ 9:45AM

You both are referring to Newt Gingich's Mesa, AZ debate comment two nights ago, correct? I think I need to replay it and archive it. Yes, I will. I have to agree with you both. I believe that Newt referred to how Illinois Senator Barrack H. Obama voted in Springfield, Illinois, correct? (I think my memory serves me correct)

THEN THREE BIG HURRAHS ! FOR NEWT !!

Why Conservative leaders in this land, why GOP don't openly reveal, repeat, state, repeat, uncover and repeat again to the American people how Illinois State Senator Barrack H. Obama comported himself while (frankly doing a whole lot of card playing, smoking, carousing) racking up votes and non votes OVER and OVER and OVER again is beyond me.

I could destroy Barrack H. Obama FOREVER just based on how he behaved as a "public servant" during those few, short Springfield years.

Three cheers for Newt! That comment, spoken as Newt was in his permanent slouch and wearing his purple tie, that comment needs maximum broadcast throughout the land from now until 12 midnight Pacific Standard Time, November 6, 2012.

Al Adab| 2.24.12 @ 10:10AM

The election will not be won, but could be lost, should social issues become the campaign focua. The Leftist/statist DEM party and this president are extremely vulnerable on economic and foreign policy issues.

If the GOP, and its Conservatives are wise (a questionable matter), they will understand that the social issues are a matter of freedom and personal conscience while the critical issues are ones of government interest. Social issues change will follow as a matter of course, but the election will turn on economics.

Vern Crisler| 2.24.12 @ 10:22AM

I think it's important for conservative politicians to talk about social issues. However, conservative politicians have to learn to talk about social issues wisely, with temperate language, and with some sophistication.

Granted, every once in a while one wants to hear a simple, thundering Thou shalt Not! -- but a politician who speaks this way too many times comes across as strident.

What is the saying: suavitur in modo, fortiter in re? Strong in statement, but gentle in delivery? Santorum and other conservatives need to learn how to do this when talking about moral issues.

KennesawJack| 2.24.12 @ 11:09AM

Vern, your comments are correct but Al Adab has it exactly right. People will vote their wallets, not their consciences. That is why the compliant, complicit press is focusing on the social issues aspect of the campaign. If the state of the economy comes to the fore in this campaign then their boy, the One, the Messiah, the great Obamarx himself, is toast and they know it. We must understand this election will not be won by fighting on the ground of social issues and we must insist our focus be on the economy.

Pelligrino| 2.24.12 @ 12:00PM

Gentlemen, I say it is ALL OF THE ABOVE. Use the whole slate.

Exploit every issue as the Demoncrats are vulnerable on ALL issues.

This present swift rise of gas prices might just be so that come Labor Day they begin to sink and hit low levels so the Dems can do a fake on the voters.
All economy issues fluctuate. We already know they are going to lie about employment figures as we move from July to October -- you know this. There will probably be some much ballyhooed refinery or nuclear power plant news right about 10 August and 30 August. Dem Party IOUs will be called in on Wall Street, Goldman Sachs will finally do something right in August or September to give a lift, the Stock Market boys will do their part as will the Chicago Mercantile Exchange....Soros will move some money this way or that. Brazil will announce some new partnership on a business venture that spells (on paper) 20,000 new American jobs.

The real economic picture will remain very, very grim. The real one. However, this technicolor wonder will razzle-dazzle and be splased with Main StreamLiberalMedia salvos to every kitchen table in the nation.

So, it will appear that the economic situation is fluctuating, fluctuating up, for the better.

So it will appear.

HOWEVER -- The moral decay of our country does not fluctuate. One cannot fake this.

And the American people know this.

How do we lose on moral grounds when the best students in our country are now coming from home schooling families? We spend more money per student and have dumber kids than Greece in our public schools. Don't you think that even public school parents are very, very tired of the public school social engineering? Do you really think black and Hispanic faith communities and black pastors can defend Obama? Frankly, I'd be making some real alliances with the Vatican right now and using some of their real muscle. Agnostics in America know that it is wrong for Washington to be dictating to clerics and parishioners. I'd be appealing to the parents of our military, as I know (and you do, too) that the parents of our military do not want homosexuals in the ranks. How do we lose on moral grounds when our single parent mothers are the face of failure and their kids are the failure?

What? Did you guys somehow miss the ongoing American love affair with Tim Tebow? (Why do you think America loves the Tebow family?)

I might not be the guy to call a "Purpose Driven Life" and Rick Warren fan, but, haven't you noticed? This is not a fluke. People want purpose in their lives and they know that materialism is bunk. College kids want jobs, but even in their partying and endless TV sports viewing they really crave adults who they can respect. Why do you think young men (down deep) wish they could be Navy Seals?

Obama has done nothing right in three years to merit his reelection. Nothing.

Yes, the discussions have to be sophisticated and not get into the fine nuances of contraceptives. EVERYBODY knows this. But, frankly, guys you are using RINOesque tactics and thinking when you say, "Let's JUST keep it on the economy."

That's loser thinking. It is also irresponsible.

I mean -- it does dawn on you that we stutter, stumble, fumble, and groan (and lose jobs, and are less competitive) in American business and American industry.....maybe ALSO? maybe also because we are morally wayward?

You know the answer. How can you talk about a hard American work ethic as vital when you know that this Ethic comes from God Almighty alone.

Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and Durban are vulnerable on EVERYTHING.

Economy -- yes.
Jobs -- yes.
Energy -- yes.

Faith, values, core beliefs -- YES!

Exploit all of it.

We aren't going to get out of debt, get our fiscal house in order, downsize government, deregulate, end pending state bankruptcies, start finally winning against islam, end illegal immigration by the millions, end drug abuse in the millions without a more moral, a more upright, a more faith-centered nation.

And the American people know this.

Even the guy smoking a joint on welfare watching TV in a flophouse motel, even this guy right now knows this. As does the woman two doors down who had an abortion three months ago.

Christopher C| 2.24.12 @ 1:17PM

Dear Pelligrino - round of applause. You are right, and I am actually praying, old heedless me, that after being confronted by a clear moral, electoral choice for the first time in - what? -thirty years, that Americans stand true.

TommyFrisco| 2.24.12 @ 2:30PM

Very well said, Pelligrino! Thank-you.

Our candidate(s) should deliver a complete and comprehensive conservative message, that is clear and concise, to ALL Americans...one that will truly make us the greatest nation in the world in all aspects, not just militarily or economically.

TommyFrisco| 2.24.12 @ 11:55AM

Al Adab,
You may be correct in predicting a defeat in November if social issues become the campaign focus, but social conservatism is a critical component of conservatism in general. Our GOP campaign should clearly articulate ALL the differences between the Democrat party (liberalism & socialism) versus conservatism---conservative economically, in foreign policy, and in domestic issues. We lose elections when the entire message is watered down or critical parts of it are ignored. The facts support the arguments for conservatism. Republicans must do better in distinguishing themselves from the Democrats. It can't be said enough that today's Democrats are on the wrong side of every issue.

Vern does have it right, though, in how the social message should be delivered. That's how Jesus spoke. He didn't use a holier than thou type of delivery and certainly didn't speak in anger.

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 12:46PM

It would depend on the candidate, Santorum could probably lose on Social Issues if it became the focus.

Gingrich demonstrated that he can completely derail the left's narrative when they bring up social issues. I honestly think Newt could win using social issues, because he knows how to turn tables on the left when they start their narrative about Conservatives being extreme.

Al Adab| 2.24.12 @ 12:51PM

Tommy:
All of you have it essentialy correct, but I'll adress this to you. The Left and many "moderates and independants" are afrais that a Conservative administration will impose iots social views just as The Left has done by fiat and the courts. It is that fear - unfounded (activist Conservatism is an oxymoron)- but nonetheless real which keeps many fiscal and government conservatives from supporting Conservatives. This we can clarify, but not in the midst of the most critical election campaign of our lifetimes.

Emphasis must be placed on the failed policies and economic as well as foreign policy disasters of this administration. The fact remains that many voters find this president likeable and without a core reason to vote against him, will once again vote for him. It is only through strong focus on issues of immediate impact that this election can be won.

Al Adab| 2.24.12 @ 12:52PM

apologies for my typical typos.

TommyFrisco| 2.24.12 @ 3:39PM

It's the thought that counts, Al Adab. Your thoughts are always a pleasure to read.

TrueBlue | 2.24.12 @ 3:07PM

It has always amused me how people calling themselves fiscal conservatives love to tell people to ignore the social values of a candidate and just vote on fiscal issues, but when a candidate comes along that is the opposite (which Santorum is NOT, he is actually pretty fiscally conservative if you look at his record and stop listening to the rhetoric) we get told that that person cannot win. Look at how well he is doing with very little money, money acquired from individuals who don't donate more than $75-$100 on average vs Romney and Newt who have multi-million dollar contributions to their Super PACs. Santorum and his campaign know how to spend money wisely.

Newt has too much baggage that he can't just explain away, Ron Paul is rather delusional about the world outside our borders, and Mitt Romney is a Liberal with an R next to his name. The ROOT of this country's problems are moral and social issues. Lack of personal responsibility, inability to think for oneself, a massively deflating work ethic, sexual/hedonistic behavior (the fall of Rome anyone?).

Old Soldier| 2.24.12 @ 7:34AM

I am a social conservative in my personal life.

The only time Socons embarrass me is with a double standard. We can't criticize Democrats' unconstitutional social programs, then propose our own. We have to be consistent.

I am personally opposed to abortion as a form of birth control. On the other hand, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments limit action on the issue either way (which Roe v. Wade got horrendously wrong).

Old Soldier| 2.24.12 @ 7:36AM

I meant FEDERAL action.

John Drake| 2.24.12 @ 9:57AM

I'm with Old Soldier. I'm a conservative, evangelical Christian. I agree with the socially conservative morals. But it seems to me that it's both overly shallow analysis and an ultimately fatal error to assume a liberal, statist vision for the federal government and just insist that socially conservative morals (rather than liberal morals) be imposed by it. I also cannot see how such an approach can truly be called conservative (even though it routinely is at this site).

TrueBlue | 2.24.12 @ 3:09PM

I agree. You do not impose those beliefs on others, you lead by example and PROVE they are better. Show people that it is in their best interests, and that of society, to behave according to those beliefs. But in the end the federal government should not do ANYTHING the US Constitution does not specifically say it has the power to do, as the document itself states.

Dr. X| 2.24.12 @ 7:54AM

"We'll defeat them fair and square," eh? I hope so, but I doubt it. The "conservative" public simply has no voice and no organization. There are no true conservatives among the social elites.

All societies are run by elites, even "democratic" ones. The elites in control of social institutions utilize shameless propaganda, riots, violence, demonstrations, Machiavellian iron-fistedness, and "community organizing" to get what they want. And it works.

The last 50 years in this country have been a series of assaults on conservative values and conservatives have capitulated every time. If the conservative public was as concerned about "infanticide" as Hillyer believes they are, there would be a "Chicago '68"-style riot outside every abortion clinic in the country. They're not concerned. If conservatives were really concerned about moral decay they would have boycotted the Super Bowl for allowing that whore to perform at halftime. Most conservatives watched it and shrugged.

Nice sentiments, Quin, but unfortunately a lot of wishful thinking rather than reality.

Bruce| 2.24.12 @ 8:22AM

Dr. X;
I may be one of the few males who did not sit through every moment of the Super Bowl. I clicked in twice - once at about halftime and once as the game ended. My main reason for not watching was because I wanted nothing to do with what was being presented as "OK 'family' entertainment"

Derek Leaberry| 2.24.12 @ 8:23AM

Well said. Social conservatism is a remnant in this country. Even half of those who call themselves conservative or Republican have surrendered to the social left. We are not only to be tolerant of abortion, divorce, homosexuality and other social perversions, we are to be supportive. We must face the fact that most Americans have low morals.

Pelligrino| 2.24.12 @ 10:03AM

Doctor X, I have to agree wholeheartedly. Although we've been run off a lot of the more pacific attempts to abortion clinic (quietly, decently, prayerfully) protest as they enact and enforce mercurial local ordinances that seem to only apply to certain facilities like abortion clinics.

As to the halftime whore in Indianapolis, that says it all, doesn't it? Right there in the heartland of America with families everywhere gathered at gatherings from San Diego to Bangor, Maine. Odd that the NFL books these gigs like the slut named Fergie of Black Eyed Peas, yet the NFL knows its hottest rising star is the son of a Baptist missionary couple who liked to wear Bible verse references under his eyes at Florida and was already a national figure after his Heisman win. Odd that the NFL persists with these hedonism shows at halftime, on the day America celebrates itself. Odd that we don't boycott the fat men suits of the NFL until they cave. Oh? And don't get me started on the Go-Go dancers now in the new Cowboys Stadium. (aka the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders) Now they dance and prance right in the faces of the fans perches. To America's moms: How dumb are you? Do you really think your 17 and 19 year old (and 22 and 28 year old) sons aren't watching more the boobs and butts and navels gyrating away? Ditto for your husbands? (say, yes) And, moms, you sit there like lumps on the log instead of having the proper living room fit that would shame instantly all the men in your life, shame them to do the right thing.

Mom's? Why don't you ban and boycott Danica Patrick? NASCAR would drop that piece of manure in a second if you spoke up, spoke up loudly, spoke up forcefully.

NASCAR would.

I am with Bruce; I've stopped watching entirely. I have no idea what commercials were shown. I am only aware of who won in Indianapolis as it was in a blurb above the fold the next day in the newspaper.

I still fight, though. Good men fight.

Teaghan| 2.24.12 @ 11:02AM

I'll agree with your Danica Patrick statement. She is an embarrassment especiall when she said this week, " I don't understand why they call me a sex symbol" You show yourself half clothed on national television and attach yourself to something as low as GoDaddy.com, you are trash Danica and not to be taken seriously or admired.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 11:21AM

Teaghan:

I could care less about the commercials. I don't even thinik I've been to any GoDaddy sites. And I sure as hell haven't gone online to watch their "continued" commercials.

I just want to see if she can hack the load in stock cars. As I said below, I like watching drivers make the switch. Its why I like Montoya, Ambrose, & even guys like Stewart, whom many people have either forgotten or didn't know was an open wheel guy.

If she winds up sucking this season & the next, then I'll think she'll need to head back to Indycar.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 11:12AM

I'm not asking to be combative or snide, but what's wrong with Danica? Her GoDaddy commercials? Hell, comparatively speaking, that's nothing when held up to Madonna, her past & what everyone knows about her already. Danica's hardly a "sex symbol" in the same way Madonna is.

I'm a HUGE racing fan (ALL series) & LOVE to see open wheel drivers make the switch to stock cars. Its one of the reasons I'm one of the few Juan Pablo Montoya fans (he's not my favorite driver though, that's Junior).

However, you're right about NASCAR listening to their fans. They're the only sport who takes fan input as seriously as they do. Just look at what they did in the offseason after enough complaints from fans about tandem drafting at restrictor plate super speedways like Daytona & Talladega. We now see the return of pack drafting & its back to being as exciting as it was.

GO 88!!!

ThumpasuarusRex| 2.24.12 @ 4:03PM

Gotta say CC, the NHL is far more aware of their fan base and its desires than any other sport. And this has little to do with my unabashed love of hockey.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 4:40PM

Yeah. Just get a bunch of Russians, Canadians & Scandinavians to fight!

NASCAR has wrecks, though. With 42 other cars at 200 mph, that's pretty awesome!

ThumpasuarusRex| 2.24.12 @ 5:25PM

Oi. You do realize that 150 players in the NHL, roughly 1/4th, are from the U.S.? Listen to me CC, I am wise.

My first love will always be football. NASCAR, not so much.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 11:24PM

I shall defer to you on hockey, ole buddy. And I eat, sleep & breathe college football & basketball (I DID go to a b-ball school, U. of Memphis), but I LOVE me some car racing. ANY series. F1, Indycar or NASCAR, I'll watch it. I freaking LOVE cars.

SUBVET| 2.26.12 @ 1:47PM

NB..........you can't love cars if you watch NA$CAR racing. First of all racing is about passing not following. Brian France is just a white obama. Under the banner of "fair play" all of the cars have to fit a templet. Under the banner of "green energy" the motors have been changed to fuel injection. Not direct port injection like most current makes but, a 1984 throttle body unit.

Anyone who says or goes against the "REGIME" is fined and penelized under the all inclusive artical 7.
Just like this country NA$CAR will fold under the control of the France family. "They" have taken the ability of the driver away from racing.

Favorite SMOKEY YUNICK quote......."Load the waggon the mule is blind". "The only people I hate are named BILL.........France & Clinton".

SUBVET| 2.26.12 @ 1:57PM

88........is the ghost of #3, now that we know Jr. has a girl friend maybe they won't still call him gay.........oh maybe it was arranged.

Seek| 2.24.12 @ 12:56PM

I don't think you realize just how unpopular your brand of social conservatism really is. And your comment (among others) reveals, albeit unintentionally, an elitist contempt for average Americans rivalling anything found on the hard Left. Most of us just want to watch the Super Bowl on TV and enjoy the show. Apparently, some don't.

Conservatism can't afford to alienate voters by descending into deep, religiously-driven cultural authoritarianism. Otherwise, Obama wins again. Which is not something I want.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 1:08PM

How do you figure it will result in "authoritarianism?"

Al Adab| 2.24.12 @ 4:03PM

NB:
Because he is a statist/leftist and fears that Conservatives will do to him what he would do to us - if he had the chance.

They do not understand the rule of law.

DRed| 2.24.12 @ 4:24PM

"This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don't think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone ... [that] government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues. ... Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone."

Statements like that are why people worry that Rick Santorum and people like him are somewhat authoritarian.

ThumpasuarusRex| 2.24.12 @ 5:28PM

Santorum is in no way representative of conservatives as a whole. Social conservativism is not authoritarian, it's being responsible for one's behavior.

Seek| 2.24.12 @ 7:19PM

If you're referring to me, you've got me confused with someone else, bub. I'm on the Right. I simply don't like right-wing buttinskis any more than left-wing ones. I'm pretty consistent in my anti-buttinskism.

ThumpasuarusRex| 2.24.12 @ 4:04PM

Social conservatism has very little to do with authoritarianism and everything to do with personal responsibility.

Seek| 2.24.12 @ 7:20PM

It's about both, actually. Social conservatives, from James Dobson to Allan Carlson, long have seen them as mutually reinforcing.

Mimi| 2.24.12 @ 8:12AM

As the Abolishinist of old, we are on the Right side of history.
We can wait hundreds of years until they annihilate themselves out of existence or continue the battle to save lives.
Thanks Quinn, sometimes we need a jolt and wake up call to be bold and proud of ourselves for speaking out with courage!

gearjammer| 2.24.12 @ 8:36AM

See the polling on Obama vs any rebub in Virginia. He is winning. Why ? Forced sonograms by who else=social conservatives. Idiots all of you.

Teaghan| 2.24.12 @ 11:04AM

Northern Virginia is Virginia's problem. Most are employeed by the Federal govt hence vote democrat. The forced sonogram was tabled but I read today that a large % of abortion clinics do it anyway. It's a part of the procedure.
And excuse me sir, I am not an idiot.

TrueBlue | 2.24.12 @ 3:19PM

Yes, it's such an idiotic thing to make people actually realize the life inside them IS ALIVE. They sure don't get taught that in all those sex ed classes they are FORCED to go to.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.24.12 @ 8:37AM

Newt Gingrich effectively framed the dialogue.

The Democrats are the party of death and destruction. From infanticide to their never ending quest to destroy individualism they are the riders of the pale horse.

In esaence Obama is the King of the Party of Death which in fact would make him the Devil.

Oldefarte| 2.24.12 @ 10:09AM

Amen, agreed! Also, see his latest proclamation regarding his dedication to instituting a huge increase in domestic oil drilling if elected to economically revive this country!!!!!!

Teaghan| 2.24.12 @ 11:05AM

And Kathleen Sebelius, the Angel of Death.
Sarah Palin's death panels in full sunlight.
And they laughed at her.

Ward Bond| 2.24.12 @ 9:18AM

Thank you Mr. Hillyer, I've come to really like your writing. For a long time I have wondered why so many of my friends and associates are Democrats, good and decent all. I guess because of family tradition and because of the notion that the Democratic party is for" the little guy." These are not evil people but I believe the Democratic Party itself is evil. You can't change this institution, you must defeat it.

crookedwren| 2.24.12 @ 10:04AM

Yes, Ward Bond, you're almost right about your Dem friends and the evil party. I know. Although there are also some nice Dems who honestly have been taken in by leftist propaganda.

Remember academia, our school systems, have been teaching anti-American, pro-Socialist/pro-Marxist stuff for DECADES.

Remember that Dewey and Counts and Rugg believed that social engineering was more important than teaching kids their three Rs. They wanted kids taught WHAT to think, not HOW to think. They took over teacher training, all pedagogical philosophies taught by the academy, and the textbooks. Teachers themselves, well-intentioned, lovely, caring people, cannot see the bias toward Marx and Fabian Socialism that they are perpetuating. Those that CAN see it, believe they are in the right. (I've heard the phrase "Jeffersonian Progressive" bandied about.) The Left has so indoctrinated those who have been entrusted with our children that the Truth can hardly penetrate there. (See "None Dare Call It Treason")

Then there's the media who underscore and support the ideology of the academy.

Take it from one who knows because she has been there -- and her sons and ex-husband are adamantly STILL there -- the Dems have been completely usurped by the Socialists and the Marxists. "The little guy" has been duped for a very long time. "The little guy," the teaching professions, and the propagandists in the media are the "useful idiots" that are helping perpetuate evil. And so many of these good people have not the slightest clue.

The Democratic Party was and is the party of slavery.

Too bad our teachers haven't read Whittaker Chambers or Hayek. Too bad our journalists can't see beyond their borrowed ideological bigotry to read these folks as well.

It's going to take a long time to truly penetrate the "re-education camps" that have taken over our educational system and our media.

But backing down and backing away are not an option.

Pelligrino| 2.24.12 @ 12:22PM

Superb post, Crooked Wren!

Let's get you writing speech copy for these mealy, mouthed, weak-spine, manicured nails GOP candidates who want to sound "reach -across-the aisle friendly."

Forget that; let's have you replace them!

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 9:18AM

From the Article:

"Newt Gingrich was absolutely right, indeed profoundly so, in Tuesday night's debate when he said this:

"I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. OK? So let's be clear here. If we're going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion. It is not the Republicans."

The lack of media attention to this bizarre and lonely "stand" of Obama's speaks volumes about media values."

THIS issue, more than any other during the '08 election, told me more about the type of person Obama is than ANY other issue that was mentioned. The fact that the man literally DID endorse infanticide, with his stand & vote against the Infant Born Alive Protection Act, spoke VOLUMES to me. This is adherence to eugenics & population control that would make Sanger proud. Add to this 'Science Tsar" John Holdren, who WROTE A BOOK advocating the use of sterilization agents in drinking water to keep the population down.

This all makes sense to a die hard Marxist/Leninist "president" like MaoBama. After all, you have to keep the population down when you're planning a cradle to grave nanny state for everyone. To use a college analogy, the more heads on the keg, the less beer there is to go around. This is how regressives view the need for population control measures like abortion & socialized medicine.

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country."...Lenin

It doesn't get any more clear cut, folks. If these regressives thought that they could get away with enforcing a one child policy like China, I'm sure they'd pitch it. There's a word for people who support infanticide like this. That word is "EVIL!"

W| 2.24.12 @ 10:12AM

ConChef
Excellent points. Power hungry commies like Obama have no problem with infanticide or euthanasia because they know best. Abortions were routine in Russia and China enforced a one child rule by mandatory abortions.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 10:46AM

If you've never read "The Bear and the Dragon" by Tom Clancy, he's got a passage in the book that describes what happens in China when someone has an "un-authorized" pregnancy. The baby MUST be killed with a syringe of formaldahyde into the skull when it crowns. IF the child is born viable, then the State MUST care for it. So I guess even the Chinese don't believe in what Obama does.

Christopher C| 2.24.12 @ 1:27PM

Evil indeed. Whoever the R candidate turns out to be, even Romney or Paul, I wonder if they could run an attack ad - those two/three-year old images of Obama swatting flies. O=Beelzebub, and not an actual word needed.

Oldefarte| 2.24.12 @ 10:04AM

Quin's typical noble and accurate assessment of this situation is admirable [as always], BUT it remains a fact that the solutions to this problem lies outside of government and politics. Make no mistake, Quin's point of emphasis on the decline within our culture of morality that leads to abortions etc is spot on. The solutions to same lies in the private living standards and dedications of the general public from their own individual self-improvement from focus upon religion and its morality sermons. Government is not, nor can it ever be, a forceable solution. It must come from within each person and their combined/collective efforts provately. Church attendance has sadly declined throughout my lifetime, and family dedication to church attendance has waned substantially. This has been aided and abetted by the racially liberal policies of the government [see so-called Catholic Nancy Pilosi's recent statement on abortions as an example]. Hollywood productions and academic indoctrinations have facilitated this governmental movement throughout time. The solutions cannot successfully start with government, but should begin from the moral guidances of individuals dedicated toward instilling same within their children. Abortions will stop when young women use Nancy Reagan's phrase of JUST SAY ''''NO'''' to their male suitors before marriage; when parents/guardians forbid their children from attending immorally laced movies and TV shows; when church attendance becomes a required function of families similar to eating and sleeping; when taxpayers demand that radically liberal college professors resign or relinguish their slanted/perverted personal destorted opinions within their classrooms; when taxpayers call their hometown newspapers and cancel their subscriptions [and instead obtaining their news via cable TV or the internet such as TAS etc]; etc. Finally, taxpayers MUST select the most professionally capable [and conservative] candidates available who will be able to restore this nation's government to fiscal/economic/financial stability over a period of time; and not the most religiously outspoken candidate [who will be overwhelmingly defeated by the now current NOW liberalized elements within our society in a landslide]. Government/politics should be about mostly economics and financial matters, not social ones [which again are private issues], and the upcoming election is fatalistically detrimental to us all if we do not select the best professionally capable manager/administrator to restore our government from the radically liberal elements now controlling our government. If/when we do same, then as Quin indicates, it thereafter begins our duty and obligation to begin the moralistic restoration of ourselves and our society!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THKrupp| 2.24.12 @ 3:04PM

You are absolutely right. This is the only way to change things. You cannot impose political solutions.

Simon Templar| 2.24.12 @ 10:08AM

Excellent article. Well thought out and sharp.

Quin| 2.24.12 @ 2:34PM

Wow. Thanks, Simon. I'm not accustomed to compliments from you. Much appreciated.

TommyFrisco| 2.24.12 @ 3:14PM

Quin,
Please forgive me for jumping into your reply to Simon. This is just a beautiful opportunity to say that we're really not that hard to please nor are we being unreasonable. As Newt said (paraphrasing), the extremism is on the other side of the aisle.

tadcf| 2.24.12 @ 10:26AM

The religious right often suggests that since we can’t empirically prove the principle the existent of the soul, let’s just go ahead an err on the side that says there is a soul that is responsible for person-hood. We'll, take the other track—erring on the side that says there is no thing called a ‘soul’, in anything other that figurative term. Even if there was a soul, what would happen to it when a fetus was aborted? Would it die along with the body? In Sunday School, when I was a child, we were taught that the soul is immortal, and when it passes from a life in this world, it goes on to live with it’s father is heaven. It that’s true, and it doesn’t die, where is the murder—can you murder a mass of protoplasm, when the soul, the spark of life, continues to live?
Oh, but it’s murder in God’s eye’s—breaking one of God’s laws. Well, some of us don’t believe that. Murder is a human law that was created by men so they wouldn’t go around killing their own tribesmen—which were needed when fighting members of other tribes. The wise governors of the tribes started calling it God’s law, because that gave it more authority and importance.
So what’s the importance of killing a person? It takes away ones hopes and dreams, and the memories of that person in the minds of those who knew them. In other words, the importance to the person who is kill is their self-awareness (self-consciousness). When you kill somebody, you take away everything they could have been. How can you murder something that’s not even aware of it own existence?
And the cognitive wiring for consciousness doesn’t even begin until 24 to 28 weeks—and that’s only when it begin, not when it’s completed. Do I hear echoes of Rowe vs Wade?

Dmac | 2.24.12 @ 11:33AM

You just explained to yourself why Godless men commit murder. Godless men have no sole, no sole they recognize or listen to anyway. Godless men have no problem killing, whether its unborn children or other Godless men. When you have no God, you have no morality, because as you just said in a round about way, men made it all up and claimed it was from God so it would be listened to. Mankind has no morality. If they did they wouldn't need laws written on stone or sheepskin or paper. The morality would come naturally. Man's sole though, the part of him that is spiritual usually does have a conscience, and that conscience is the little thing a decent man listens to when he is making a decision, espeecially a decision that affects others.
For those of you who have no beleif in God, please tell me how you can have a sould or conscience? Dawrin forgot to explain that little tid bit didn't he?

Dave Williams| 2.24.12 @ 12:51PM

Curb your rabid religiosity, please. I'm a proud and out atheist, and -- precisely BECAUSE I value humanity -- I deplore infanticide and abortion.
And, by the way, I do have a "sole."... two, in fact, one on the bottom of each foot.

Christopher C| 2.24.12 @ 1:34PM

An atheist - someone who can never, ever be trusted on moral issues, because twisted reasoning can always deliver a convenient decision. And the reasoning will be twisted, because ultimately, everything will be relative; there will be no moral absolutes. To paraphrase GK Chesterton, how could you respect any such person - s/he has no invisible means of support.

g wayne| 2.24.12 @ 12:08PM

So a baby, 2 weeks outside of the womb can likewise be killed according to your logic. Certainly he has no self awareness.
"Well, some of us don’t believe that. Murder is a human law that was created by men so they wouldn’t go around killing their own tribesmen—which were needed when fighting members of other tribes. The wise governors of the tribes started calling it God’s law, because that gave it more authority and importance."
....Prove it. When was this "law" created and by whom? If your mother had decided to abort you would she have prevented you from being what you could have been? Yes! Murder is the killing of an innocent life, in or outside of the womb.

THKrupp| 2.24.12 @ 3:33PM

The Code of Ur-Nammu is the oldest known tablet containing a law code surviving today. It was written in the Sumerian language c. 2100-2050 BC. (wikipedia article, Code of Ur-Nammu)

Bill| 2.24.12 @ 10:38AM

Guess Who?
voted for
1. Raising the debt ceiling 5 times
2. Planned Parenthood
3. Medicare Part D
4. NCLB
5. Bridge to nowhere
voted against
1. "Right-to-Work" law
Ans: "Keystone big-government RINO" Rick Santorum

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 11:00AM

Guess who?

Calls people "ni**er lover" & is a liberal plant on this website?

Answer: Bill the Bilbo Wannabe!

W| 2.24.12 @ 11:25AM

maybe it is Bill Maher

Bill| 2.24.12 @ 11:27AM

Guess who?

lives on food stump and a convicted sexual predator
Answer: Con "child molester" Chef!

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 12:23PM

Ah, yes. The predictable 3rd grade response from the documented bigot. See, douchebag, this is how it works. I have YOUR POST/S to back up my assertion that you're a bigot, fraud & probably a liberal plant on this site. YOU, on the other hand, have no such supporting evidence of me. You merely have your 3rd grade intellect to use in what you think, I'm sure, are "witty" comebacks. Funny, liberals have 3rd grade intellects when it comes to things like this. You sound more & more like a liberal/regressive every time you hit the "submit" or "reply" button.

"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."...Bill, "Do the Honorable Thing" article on this very site:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403

Oops!

Bill| 2.24.12 @ 12:29PM

Con Chef is on parole for molesting children, a typical liberal kind of thing!

Al Adab| 2.24.12 @ 12:54PM

I really find it helpful when the debate rises to such philosophical heights.

W| 2.24.12 @ 12:55PM

Bill
If you want to accuse someone of a crime, post your real name and email adress to back up your charge.

ConChef has posted his name and adress and therefore your accusation is defamatory, and since you accuse him, and you also accused Nick of the same crime, then that is defamation per se.

That means you are liable for damages unless you prove they are convicted of the crime.

Man up and post your name and email.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.24.12 @ 1:11PM

More mouth breathing from the bigot, yet no proof of his assertion. How unsurprising.

You must be the star pupil of your special ed class.

Bill| 2.24.12 @ 6:43PM

I have been harassed almost three weeks for exercising my first amendment right, while Con Chef and others, declared a war on my civil liberty accusing me something I never said, and that I disavow and disassociate. If you want truce, just LEAVE ME ALONE! We all should get over with it.

VBMax| 2.24.12 @ 7:22PM

Bill,
I called you out on this days ago and you are still at it. This has nothing to do with your first amendment rights. It has everything to do with you passing yourself off as something you are not
and making the rest of us look guilty by association.
Some of your posts are simply beyond the pale and I again disavow any agreement with them.
If you want to continue posting here you need to apologize and change your act.

Bill| 2.24.12 @ 9:19PM

VBMax,

The First Amendment!

W| 2.25.12 @ 8:07AM

Bill
The First Amendment prohibits only the government from restraining your first amend rights.
This is a private site.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.25.12 @ 2:08PM

Too bad Nathan Bedford Forrest Bill doesn't realize that the 1st Amendment, while protecting his right to be a bigot, doesn't allow him to spew his racist bile on a privately owned website.

Go report back to your masters at Media Matters that your cover's blown, mole. You've been found out. Go crawl back under your rock, slug.

Old Soldier| 2.24.12 @ 11:56AM

To be fair, Gingrich and Romney would have also if they had been Senators at the time.

EqualTime| 2.24.12 @ 10:42AM

I'm with you Quinn. I hope that Santorum earns the nomination, then chooses an equally conservative running mate (perhaps Sarah has matured and developed enough in the last 4 years to demonstrate her readiness). Then we'll have a clear choice for the country and we can demonstrate once and for (now, anyway) that social conservative don't get all the attention we do just because Fox panders to us and that, because we are the dominant force in the Republican primary, our candidates have to spend more time on our issues than discussing the economy and job growth. We can show the world what the country at large thinks of our agenda and what real support we have when we appeal to the whole electorate- not just ourselves. GOP 2012!

Teaghan| 2.24.12 @ 11:10AM

FOX is beginning to suck.

TommyFrisco| 2.24.12 @ 10:43AM

Quin, this is one of the finest articles supporting conservatism that I have seen for a long time. Thank-you!

Thank-you, especially, for reminding us about Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D). Thinking of him and his efforts to protect the black family which was being systematically broken up by Government interference illustrates just how much the Democrat Party has changed in the last 20-30 years. The election can be won this November by clearly articulating that the Democrat party, using Obama as its figurehead, no longer represents America's best interests. They are on the wrong side of every issue.

For many years I have used the abortion issue as a litmus test in knowing who to vote for. Life does begin at conception and that life should be protected. Any candidate who can't get that simple fact in their head is either ignoring the reality or they're pandering for votes. To gain political office by supporting the killing of unborn children and the destruction of the American family is the definition of evil.

Santorum could not be more correct in saying that our economy and our future depends on the strength and morality of the American family. This is the primary season where we should be voting for our candidates who best represents our principles and values. Regardless of what the MSM or the GOP establishment says, our most electable candidate is the one that we support and vote for. We do not have to settle for the candidate who has the most money or who may attract unprincipled (moderate) voters.

Seek| 2.24.12 @ 1:00PM

The Moynihan Report was published by the U.S. Departmentof Labor in March 1965. That was at the very start of the Great Society. Something else was at work to explain high black out-of-wedlock birth rates. Call it "blackness."

TommyFrisco| 2.24.12 @ 1:49PM

Seek,
Well, I remember him, many times, back in the 70s and 80s, going on Meet the Press and discussing the issues. It was hard not to like the man even though he was a Democrat. But, as I mentioned, today's Democrat party is much different than it was back then. There used to be some common ground between the two parties.

Louis Jenkins| 2.24.12 @ 10:59AM

We've had some quotable quotes this campaign season. Only allow us, dear God, the opportunity to put a better man in the White House. Let the liberals Howl, gnash their teeth, and heap ashes on their heads. This nation will not stand for another four years.

David W| 2.24.12 @ 11:44AM

Mr. Hillyer, I believe that all of the issues with Obama and big government can be boiled down to "social issues."
- we spend too much on defense and not on taking care of the poor - social issue.
- we need to be sure that the Social Security net is not destroyed by the GOP - social issue.
- we need to spend more on green energy to save the planet and our children (ignoring that the only ones saved are Obama's contributors) - social issue
- we need to force insurers to pay for contraceptives - social issue

Everything government does can basically be boiled down to a social issue. The left uses social issues to increase taxation and spending and control.

Fiscal| 2.24.12 @ 11:49AM

The big problem with the position of social conservatives is that they want to restrict personal liberty in the name of their religious beliefs. Any restrictions on personal liberty result in new laws and enforcement that makes government larger. Social conservatives, then, really want bigger government for their pet issues. Just let people pursue their happiness in their own way unless they infringe on the rights of others. It's just as wrong to force your opinion of same sex marriage or abortion as it is to force health care down our throats.

Virtually all abortion arguments are theologically based -- i.e., when does life begin? Science does not define the beginning of life, it defines the process of gestation from the formation of eggs and sperm, to fertilization, to the formation of body parts, to sentient activity, and of course, to birth. Given the freedom in this country from the imposition of religion by the state, I find this ironic -- especially in the light of all of the complaints by social conservatives that Obama is interfering with the Catholic Church. If Christians can argue for their religious beliefs to be codified in secular government, then they should really find no fault with what Obama is doing.

When will social conservatives fight for personal liberty?????

W| 2.24.12 @ 11:55AM

Science is clear that life begins at conception. You are describing the changes in life. Life contiues to change after birth with speech, intelligence, walking, etc. You cannot accept that life begins at conception otherwise you rationalization for abortion falls apart.
When do you believe that "life" deserves protection of the law to prevent its termination?

Fiscal| 2.24.12 @ 12:09PM

"Science is clear that life begins at conception."

Really???? There is absolutely no consensus on when life begins among scientists. It is a philosophical and theological argument because science depends on the process of theory and proof. You cannot prove a philosophical/theological argument with science. True science is silent on the issue of when life begins. Scientists, on the other hand, are humans who have philosophical and religious beliefs. I wish more people would understand science -- and for that matter -- economics.

W| 2.24.12 @ 12:14PM

If if is not life at conception then what is it?

Fiscal| 2.24.12 @ 12:45PM

If you want a short discussion on the definition of "life", look at this wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

In fact, it is technically "life" prior to conception because eggs and sperm are "living". So that gets into the further discussion of whether you are talking about "life", or "human life". Then we get into the discussion of what it means to be "human". Is it pure existence that defines us or what we, as a clump of cells, actually do. Is it "human" if there is no capability of thinking? Is it human if we cannot exist on our own? This is a philosophical and theologic discussion -- not one of science. If you want to believe that "life" begins at conception that's fine with me -- just don't force your theology on me through government fiat. You are free to use speech to try and convince me -- that's also guaranteed in this country.

W| 2.24.12 @ 1:04PM

You just admitted that life begins at conception so now you want to argue about what it means to be "human" to raise the tiresome argument that you are killing a life but not a human life.

Why don't you just admit the truth of what you believe which is that you are terminating a life because is is convenient for you to do so.

Your side has won this in Court. You are free to kill life up to and including the minute the "life" is removed from the mother. So why are you so concerned about justifying to yourself and us that you are not killing a life?

Fiscal| 2.24.12 @ 1:12PM

I said the "technically", life begins prior to conception when eggs and sperm ARE formed -- not when they meet. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of science in that regard.

Personally, I'd like to keep abortion very limited for a number of non-religious reasons -- and I will. But that does not mean I want to force my beliefs on others. Personal liberty is important -- philosophically and fiscally -- to me. Any infringement on personal liberty like banning same sex marriage or interfering with the personal choice of an individual on abortion only places government above the individual. I happen to believe in that "We the people..." stuff.

W| 2.24.12 @ 1:25PM

You are not serious. You say that sperm is life , that eggs are life, but when they "meet" that is not life? Or is the living sperm and the living egg, which do not "meet" the same as the life created when they "meet?"
You have a fundamental ignorance of reality and common sense.
Abortion articles always attract ones like you that have to justify why they believe in abortion with nonsensical arguments like yours.

Fiscal| 2.24.12 @ 1:44PM

Yes, I am quite serious -- and you sir, are logically challenged. That's what belief over reason gives you. I never said that life STOPS at conception, only that life exists prior to conception. Do you really not think that sperm and eggs are "life"??? Actually, I don't have anything to justify because unlike you, I am not trying to force my religious belief on you through government. I want government out of these personal liberty decisions on both sides of the discussion.

As for common sense -- that dictated that the earth was flat, that women and blacks were inferior, and that germs didn't exist. It also says things like tax cuts are stimulative even though the macro data disproves it. People use "common sense" as an excuse for not using reason and effort to find the truth.

TommyFrisco| 2.24.12 @ 2:52PM

"I want government out of these personal liberty decisions on both sides of the discussion."

If that's truly your position, Fiscal, then you don't support Obama forcing health insurance companies to provide "free" abortions which will actually be paid for by all taxpayers, including those of us who adamantly oppose abortion. Is that correct? Since it is Obama and the Dems forcing more and more Governement intrusion into our lives, aren't there many reasons why you should support the Republican nominee this November?

Fiscal| 2.24.12 @ 3:46PM

Absolutely, Tommy... Abortions are an elective procedure. As such, the individual should pay as with any elective procedure.

Actually, both Republicans AND Democrats are forcing more Government intrusion into my life. The Dems through a nanny state and the Republicans through social conservatism and military adventurism. It is a mistake not to fault Republicans for forcing more Government on us just because they want less government on fiscal matters.

TommyFrisco| 2.24.12 @ 4:03PM

Fiscal,
So, we do have common ground. I do agree with you that Republicans in DC have been at fault, as well. But, that's what we are trying to change. Surely, you have heard many of us complain about "compassionate conservatism." We want less Government intrusion into our lives period!

I would like to remind you that Santorum has said that he has not and will not impose his personal beliefs into law. Another example, Gingrich's criticism of Ryan's Medicare reform was that it did not give Americans a choice between the new plan or staying with the old plan. They are both against forced Government intrusion into our lives. Romney, on the other hand, cannot make the same claim...certainly not Barack Obama.

Al Adab| 2.24.12 @ 4:05PM

"Do not waste time bantering with morons or barbarians." Marcus Aurelius

TommyFrisco| 2.24.12 @ 4:22PM

Al Adab,
I understand. Only a fool argues with a fool. For some reason, I sense that it is possible to reason with Fiscal.

Oh, BTW, I loved your comment above "activist Conservatism is an oxymoron." I have said that many times. I used to think that becoming informed on the issues and going out to vote was the extent of my political responsiblities. Unfortunately, the curent situation requires us to become more active. I resent the fact that our representatives in DC have added to my responibilities and my time, but I can't sit back any longer and watch our country and our way of life being destroyed. Our kids and grandkids will resent us if we don't do what we can to stop this madness.

Fiscal| 2.24.12 @ 7:24PM

I don't have a great deal of hope that Republicans will change and absolutely no hope that Dems will change. Santorum is a big government guy who made his money lobbying for the past several years. What bothers me about the Republican party today is that they are as much for government intrusion into our lives as Democrats -- only in the area of religious theology. I find both sides intolerable.

Oldefarte| 2.24.12 @ 9:50PM

"Force your opinions of same sex marriage"----the government is currently [judges] forcing same sex marriage law upon states' populations after the people's will against same was expressed legislatively has been provided. "Social conservatives, then, really want bigger government for their pet issues"---- no dummie, social conservatives want GOVERNMENT TO GET OFF THEIR BACKS BY FORCING DOWN THEIR THROATS GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES THAT ARE DISRESPECTFUL OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS [not larger government]. "If Christians can argue for their religious beliefs to be codified in secular government, then they should really find no fault with what Obama is doing"----Christians want government to stop forcing their socialistic policies upon them, not to be codified with government. Stop spreading your bullexcrement lies!!!!!!!!!!

SpiralArchitect| 2.24.12 @ 1:59PM

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams

The article is worth reading.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com.....z1nKM0GMID

Fiscal| 2.24.12 @ 2:11PM

Aye... there's the rub.... whose morality and whose religion????? John Adams sure lived at a time when morality was at it's peak -- right??? Slavery and not letting women vote was indicated from the morality of those times. Are we a more moral nation today because we discriminate less? I hope so. Was business more moral in Adams' time than now? Not on your life.

The genie is out of the bottle. What you are really saying is that you want this country to turn into a Christian theocracy. I understand that....

THKrupp| 2.24.12 @ 3:45PM

The problem goes further than that...Which christian sect do people want to use for the dominate moral structure. I grew up Missouri synod Lutheran. We dont even let other sects commune with us because they may not fully believe in what we are communing. I cannot imagine anyone agreeing on whose moral authority will be used to base all the new moral laws upon. Its better that government stay out of it all together.

Fiscal| 2.24.12 @ 4:04PM

Religious institutions are not among the most moral of organizations. Just as guns don't kill, people do. Religion is not immoral, just the people that misuse it. Whether we are talking about evangelical preachers in megachurches living like kings or priests violating young boys, I'm not sure I want those people telling me what to do. Should we all buy million dollar dog houses?

It's ironic that many evangelicals want their beliefs foisted upon us in this country yet berate muslims for wanting the same thing in their countries.

Yes, let's keep government out of our personal lives on all sides....

ThumpasuarusRex| 2.24.12 @ 4:25PM

The poor impulse control of a few does not obliterate the validity of an institution that has stood for thousands of years.

ThumpasuarusRex| 2.24.12 @ 4:23PM

No Fiscal, you don't get to morph the words of another and maintain credibility. Advocating for more strict interpretation of the Constitution is not advocacy for theocracy. You'd know this if you weren't so fond of cheap stunts and word games.

SpiralArchitect| 2.24.12 @ 5:06PM

Well said, Thump.

Hopefully some read the article.

Adams never owned a slave.

Most religions have similar views of robbery, murder, marriage etc.

The ideals are what comes from them and what should be considered.

Fiscal| 2.24.12 @ 7:26PM

You are correct. So tell me where in the Constitution you find anyplace to outlaw abortion or restrict marriage on a federal level????? Let's face it, you are not really for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, you are for reading the Constitution in your own image. I find that just as bad as the Democrat point of view.

Oldefarte| 2.24.12 @ 10:01PM

"Slavery and not letting women vote was indicated from the morality of those times. Are we a more moral nation today because we discriminate less? I hope so. Was business more moral in Adams' time than now? "----Eliminating slavery and allowing womens' votes were legislative corrections of immorality and inequity, while governmental forcing of abortions and homosexual marriage is an institution of immorality, so society's colonial improvements [due to the activites of religions demanding slavery's abolishment and women's rights] have been overshadowed today by radical government's forcing the unwanted, immoral homosexual marriage laws upon society. Colonial government's influence from religion and morality has now been replaced by radical Democrats' immoral takeover of government for their hedionous ideas and radical philosophy. Government is now controls by radical liberals devoid of religious influence, whereas former colonial government made improvements to society due to their influence from religion and morality. Again, tell the truth!!!!!!!!!

Kingofthenet| 2.24.12 @ 2:32PM

Please, Pretty Please with sugar on top, Refight the Sexual Revolution, and stand HARD on these issues...

Nick099| 2.24.12 @ 3:01PM

Great article. Very thoughtful.

Oldefarte| 2.24.12 @ 4:01PM

THIS is why Newt Gingrich should be [1] the Republican nominee and [2] the next president of the US:

http://youtu.be/vOImnCrKPZ8

Fiscal| 2.24.12 @ 4:17PM

While I don't disagree that we should pursue oil shale (like Canada) and natural gas long term, the claim that it will lower any energy prices in the short term is fallacious. The processing of oil shale is far more expensive than just extracting light sweet crude from the ground. In the short term, to pay back the cost of setting this up, companies would need government insured loans -- something I'm personally against for any industry. Expanding the use of natural gas, which we have in abundance, is problematic because we don't have the infrastructure to utilize it for automobiles -- something we'd have to do to make it work. That would require the government to build the infrastructure. I'm actually in favor of government infrastructure in that case. However, in both cases, for at least a decade, it will actually increase the cost of energy, not decrease it. Gingrich is betting that the vast majority of voters are gullible to his uneconomic rhetoric.

That said, in the longer term, we must invest in these things to become energy independent. Our electorate is so economically illiterate that they actually believe his pitch. Again, Gingrich has these big ideas that lack any relation to reality.

Oldefarte| 2.24.12 @ 5:04PM

BS!

Oldefarte| 2.24.12 @ 5:07PM

PS: You obviously don't know your ars from a hole in the ground about oil/gas production, about economics/finance, and are a typical environmental wacko of the Democratic Party persuasion!!!!!!!!

Fiscal| 2.24.12 @ 7:31PM

Great informational comment. Perhaps you can point me to an article discussing how little infrastructure will cost when moving to natural gas....

Actually, OF, I want government to do a lot less than you do....

Oldefarte| 2.24.12 @ 9:07PM

Infrastructure costs when moving to natural gas? Are you possibly talking about conversion of gasoline stations to natural gasoline stations [since your comment was non-informational in regards to Newt's 26 MINUTE speech of EXTREMELY DETAILED PROPOSALS]? It's simply a matter of extracting the old fuel tanks and replacing same with natural gas tanks....case closed! Wait, you want government to do less that I do? How can that possibly be when you do not even know me? If up to me government would be reduced by 50% AS A STARTING POINT and continue cutting from there to remove the waste, fraud and abuse from same [how does that float your boat?]. Don't ignorantly propose to know someone else's mental reasoning when you don't even know the person, since it makes you appear ignorant or possibly arrogant! As to your other BS, of course nothing will solve our short term crisis [which is the result of the majority of my lifetime's witnessing of the radical Democrats preventing oil/energy production in this country for supposedly environmental BS reasons; which has resulted in our now being totally dependent on the ME Muslim terrorists for 2/3 of our energy needs [when we could have been fully developing our oil/energy sources of domestic supply 40 years ago]. To do so now is critical as he states to solve our energy future needs, to provide a huge source of tax/royalty revenue for government, to divert our energy needs away from our enemies sourced supplies, and to provide millions of lucrative paying jobs/employment for our now 15 % unemployment. Ignoring shale, oil deposits in all three of our oceans are abundant and are now restricted from drilling-production, not to mention land based oil underground sites. We don't have the "infrastructure to utilize it for automobiles" regarding natural gas you say? BS, again remove oil fuel tanks, replace same with natural gas tanks, re-tools automobile production so vehicles run on natural gas and quela! What do you prefer, Solyendra [and genius Obama's idea to the taxpayer cost of $500 million P*ssed down a rathole]????? Why does this conversion require GOVERNMENT'S involvement [which would typically F*&k it up as usual]? Private industry would handle it profitable in a gold rush fashion to become involved for the profits. Your statement that it would increase the cost of energy is entirely stupid, since you'd be converting from fossel fuel/oil to natural gas with the former three or more times the cost of the latter.....DUH!!!! You ignorantly contradict yourself by stating ". Gingrich is betting that the vast majority of voters are gullible to his uneconomic rhetoric......That said, in the longer term, we must invest in these things to become energy independent" How can something be uneconomic and yet result in energy independence? [what would be the sense in the former if it resulted in the latter....that's stupid]. Your final statement of "Gingrich has these big ideas that lack any relation to reality" is entirely ludicrous since if we don't begin the long term efforts that he describes to solve our energy problem, we will end up financially bankrupt within another Obama-radicalized term, completely beholden to foreign enemy countries controlling our energy sourced supply needs and therefore politically controlled by same, and unable to possibly work towards a financial balancing our our governmental defecit/debt problems due to increasing socialization of governmental expenses and no revenue sourced ability [other than ya boy's typical screaming of taxing to death the MILLIONAIRES & BILLIONAIRES 1% which will not solve the defecit/debt problem]. How's that for a 'great informational comment, dufus???????????????

Scorpio51| 2.24.12 @ 4:52PM

Great article Mr. Hillyer. Santorum should never move off the social issues. He realizes the moral decay of this nation and people are hungry for this message.

Also, Newt was brilliant to turn the tables on John King. It was classic Newt and had the liberal left twisting themselves in a knot to try and prove him wrong. It didn't happen and I loved it.

cicero| 2.24.12 @ 6:55PM

The problem with the Republicans over the past several election cycles is that they keep trying to hold their convertive base while not alienating the "mythical middle". It seems to me that Reagan won his landslides because he ran on "principle", and not so much on "politics". Right now, we have two diametrically opposed philosophies exemplified by the two parties. The Dems are radically left, while the Repubs are hard right. The so calledd "middle" can vote for one or the other, or stay home. As far as I am concerned, anyone in the "middle" hasn't been paying attention. There will only be two choices. There is no middle party. Reagon has shown us that given that choice, the people of America vote conservative. To try to appeal to the "middle" requires both the right and the left to abandon principle for the sake of votes. Once they abandon their principles, they abandon all credibility, and the right to the votes.

Fiscal| 2.24.12 @ 7:36PM

Reagan really didn't govern from the extreme right. He had a lot of liberal friends in Hollywood and refused to use government to restrict them even if he held those social conservative beliefs. In addition, while he lowered the tax rate the first year, he then followed that with 11 tax increases and doubled what you pay for social security. He would never be chosen by the Republican party today. Besides, he created the biggest deficits in history until that time.

And this is interesting, because I thought Reagan was a very good President. For some reason, however, you people seem to rewrite his history.

Oldefarte| 2.24.12 @ 9:25PM

BS...try reading 'Reagan: The Man, the President'. He changed his original Hollywood liveral views to conservatism due to Nancy's influence. He did NOT raise taxes 11 times, but instead cut the tax rates by one third. He would so be overwhelmingly nominated today, and the defecits were due to his increasing military expendatures [which brought down the Soviet empire] after Carter's gutting of same. You're a typical radical liberal liar.....TELL THE GD TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!

cicero| 2.24.12 @ 7:52PM

I did not argue that Reagan "governed" from the right, particularly on domestic policies. My posit is that he "ran" on principled politions. The American people will elect a candidate who stands for conservative principles, rather than for one who stands for liberal (progressive) ones. However, they still want a President who will govern right of center, without burning the leftists at the stake,

David| 2.24.12 @ 8:37PM

Fiscal, you wrote, So tell me where in the Constitution you find anyplace to outlaw abortion or restrict marriage on a federal level?????

The question, moron, is: "Where in the constitution did it give judges the authority to decide when human life begins and that a mother has a right to kill her unborn child?

POST American| 2.24.12 @ 10:26PM

---------------------BOTTOM LINE---------------------

"The US better watch it
or in a couple of decades
we're going to be a
minstrel show --for RED China."
-Gore Vidal
1985

---Ford ---Reagan ---McCain --were there.
OPEN adulterers one and all.

Gingrich was on the scene and soon after,
during the KEY decade of the 90's
---was there himself.

In this, the 11th hour of the CFR-Trilateral
RED China handover, TREASON and EUGENICS
OP --------with the US probably within two
years of receivership ----this is NO TIME
for squeamishness.

---GET the OPEN, indeed, open and
mercenary adulterers ----OFF! the podium
of conservative American debate!

'Been there ----SEEN that."

Someone who professes to be a
conservative and can openly DUMP
the love of their youth ---and hook up with his best available enabling fantasy ----has had his
very judgement compromised.

-------TIME FOR SPRING CLEANING BOYS!

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel | 2.25.12 @ 12:48AM

Quin Hillyer - Nice commentary!

After observing Gingrich's remarks in the debate about Obama's support of infanticide, you rightly pointed out in your commentary the following:

....The lack of media attention to this bizarre and lonely "stand" of Obama's speaks volumes about media values. It makes the establishment media into moral reprobates for refusing even to understand that this is, or should be, an area of controversy....

I could not agree more about the mainstream media's immoral value system. But, that should be expected. What bothers me more, are the so-called Conservatives and even pro-life people who will allow the lib extremist to frame the whole debate. Profilers ought to be calling the "pro-choice" people the "pro-death." And, pro-life people need to be harping on the crimes against humanity of the pro-death crowd for their support of abortion genocide, and, also, specifically, black abortion genocide:

"Abortion genocide:"

http://conservapedia.com/Abortion_genocide

And, I even go a step farther to connect some necessary and important dots, as influential politicians should not be able to wash their hands of this whole matter:

"The President of the United States: A Sex Offender? - Why Obama's support of the abortion industry is the worst molestation of youth:"

http://www.thechristianmessage.....ender.html

FeFe| 2.25.12 @ 10:38AM

A Janeite. God bless you, sir.

Pat| 2.25.12 @ 4:30PM

It’s always amusing when pundits erect a Chinese wall between social issues and money. Apparently, we’re supposed to believe that abortion or climate change are really different in most respects from issues like bailing out GM with taxpayer money so the UAW realizes a return on its campaign contributions to the Democratic Party. Are abortion or climate change, for example, really “social issues”, divorced from government payoffs to Friends of the Democrats? Supposedly that’s the case when our passions over threats to individual freedom, invasion of privacy or the good of the many vs. the good of the few morality are inflamed. Some things just aren’t about lousy money, higher concerns are involved – or so we’re told. And we voters prefer to believe everything isn’t always about the money, some issues go beyond taking wealth from the taxpayers and the giving of that wealth to well-connected Washington insiders.

Yet, somehow filthy money always worms its slimy way into these so-called social issues. Just the other day an acknowledged “reputable scientist”, Peter Gleick, confessed to forging documents reputedly from the mid-western think tank challenging the scientific validity of climate change theories – and Gleick’s forged documents cast the Heartland Institute as callously indifferent to human welfare vis-a-vis the climate change threat. And when you represent a “we believe in climate change” institute like Gleick currently does, an institute which benefits from generous grants squeezed from taxpayer funds, we’re supposed to ignore that fact and assume Gleick was acting entirely from a higher conscience, it was never about the money, or so Gleick and many of his supporters claim.

Scientists are in it strictly for the science we’re convinced, the good of all mankind - but a little money helps the battle for enlightenment. We believe our scientists in that regard because, unlike religious leaders, scientists have given us voters important tangible gifts like CAT scans, Teflon and Viagra. Of course we realize money is in there somewhere, the half a billion government loan to now bankrupt Soylandra, the $3 billion in taxpayer funds California provided scientists to pursue elusive embryonic stem cell cures for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, but that’s merely a side issue, the social aspects of climate change or the morality of experimenting on human embryos should be the sole focus of our debates. Consequently, social issues and the legitimacy of government handouts occupy diametrically opposed corners of the political arena – funny how it just doesn’t seem that way at times.

POST American| 2.25.12 @ 10:50PM

------------------BOTTOMLESS LINE----------------------

----McCain --Lieberman ---Graham -----Gingrich et al
----------------------WERE THERE!------------------------

obadiah| 2.26.12 @ 6:19PM

Speaking as a practical person, I would put religious conservatives at one end of a scale of values and at the other end I would put people who "like to party." Some party people like to party all the time and some party people balance party with other activities like work and family. In the middle are people who party occasionally or who like party people. Religious conservatives are not all that numerous when compared to party people and party tolerant people, but religious conservatives are much better organized. They do best when they don't threaten to stop the party.

Jim Hlavac | 2.27.12 @ 5:32PM

Your stance against marriage by any name for gay folks is not conservative -- it is intrusion by government into the lives of taxpayers, and the unfair burdens placed on gay couples -- especially since though other sorts of contracts and evil commercial law, gay couples, gay "marriages" are already recognized by the law and by government; we just have to pay more for what you get automatically; but we get it.

Even more amazing, nothing you do to gay people has one single affect on heteros. There will still be as many gay folks; even if you jail us all, as some "social conservatives" wish to do. Your dime, not mine, to pay for me in jail for the rest of my life, does not sound rational, oh well.

And there will still be as many divorces and out of wedlock children. Gay folks simply having nothing to do with heterosexuality except we share the same country, and are treated as some threat to your heterosexuality. For the life of me I have never understood it. You all seem so fearful that everyone will "turn" gay the minute a moment of decency is extended to us. Such is laughable. Unless you all know something about heterosexuals' lack of solidity we gay men just can't fathom. Truly, we know who we are, who are you?

And oddly, this whole debate over gay folks reminds me of the "debate" such as it was styled, in the Austrian Empire, in outlawing and not recognizing Jewish marriages, or any non-Catholic marriage, as if there would be no more Jews, and no more Protestants, and that these people would ergo join the Catholic faith. It was never realistic.

And the crowing over votes by the "Public" that said "no recognition" for gay marriage, well, I suppose one could crow over votes recognizing slavery's continuance, or the prohibition of women voting or owning property. More bizarrely, this publication loves to say we live in a "representative republic," one where the passions of the people are tempered through the legislators. And now, on gay marriage, you all are thrilled with public votes, and eschew the legislators altogether, and decry them when they do temper the passions of the people, as they have in several states. Which will, of course, force a constitutional issue over the full faith and credit clause of the constitution we both revere. It's a bit of hypocrisy that is hard also for me to fathom.

Still, you've all come a long way on the gay thing around here, and I fully expect you to continue. For out of all the problems this nation, this nation's families, children, and society faces, sissy smooching and your recognition that we just aren't that important will come 'round.

Meanwhile, remember this, in your comparisons between abortion and gayness -- gayness doesn't kill, abortion does. And in the slaughter of some 50 million babies, there were oh, some 2,500,000 gay men and women in the bunch. For that I'm sad.

Words| 2.27.12 @ 9:36PM

Meanwhile, as usual, good is called evil, evil is called good, light is called darkness, darkness is called light, words are redefined as meaningless nonsense, meaningless nonsense is redefined as words. And this is done by, oh, one who acts with deviant perverted degenerate behavior his Creator has described as abominable as it is detestable, as detestable as it is abominable. That is sad, sad as really defined sad, sad really defined as sad.

More Articles by Quin Hillyer

More Articles From Streetcar Line

Not Wanting to Write About Nothing Good

April 30, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Perez Abomination Grows

April 23, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Tea Partiers for Freedom

April 16, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Make Room for a New Master

April 9, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Closed to the Public

March 26, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/24/social-conservatism-winning-ri

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|73 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|40 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|55 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|76 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|32 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|23 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 3:45PM

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 3:21PM

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 3:14PM

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 12:36PM

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 10:29AM

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 6:00AM

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

Most Popular Articles

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.23.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple | 5.22.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr | 5.22.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.