The fact is that for every “moderate” who is attracted to the party because we soften our positions on hot button issues we will lose principled conservatives who not only vote but also give money and time.

Sorry, Meghan, I’m not buying it. The GOP needs to become a party that teaches principles of good governance to new generations of people. A party that just floats along trying to appeal to different demographic groups is not worth supporting.

That’s right, dismiss them. After all, what can they do but vote Democrat in droves?

and lack of fiscal conservatism.

And you want to whittle the party down to exactly that dynamic again? I see that as a recipe for a permanent minority.

“Yet the PERCEPTION is that the right wing is…..”
In effect you argue to let the MSM, whom will always hate us, drive our direction, by allowing the false perceptions they engender to determine our overall direction as a response, so that we MIGHT be more liked by the media. Well I only see two outcomes to media appeasement, either the media drives us off a cliff or eventually just drives us over to the Democrats. How about we find a real conservative message that shows a direction and hope for the future. So we stop being seen as ‘feeding the rich more wealth’ rather than a framework of freedom and infinite opportunity that holds the prospect for personal and societal growth for a better future. That is our real image problem. Not our moral stance on certain types of scientific research.

Plus, I know a lot of us are still miffed at her daddy…

P.S. Was Margaret Sanger pro-science? Were there moral implications to her message? Is there a difference in types of stem cell research? Are the “sciences” of Drs. Mengele and Schweitzer on a par? I get it, alright. I just don’t like it.

Hand waving nonsense. Time and again conservative posters have made it abundantly clear that the conservative position is smaller government.

And time and again people just like you attempt to spin or redefine this to suit a position. Foolish spending? Please. So you’re the guy with the keys to the safe that holds the definition of what’s foolish. Who knew?

The Left is “hijacking science” for socialist purposes, but we are to blame for their success.

You just don’t get it, do you? When conservatives use biblical arguments and screech about stem cells and stop scientific progress by messing with the funding thereof, it’s difficult (nigh impossible) to claim a pro-science stance. The left therefore uses this to promote a consistent pro-science message which resonates with most of the young.

The reality is that a vast number of science and engineering types, in fact probably the majority, are not leftists. I’m certainly not. Yet the PERCEPTION is that the right wing is against science. Yeah, I know, I’m wrong. Should be simple to prove this: go to any public university and read the tea leaves.

There’s a vast difference between observing the obvious (the left consistently promotes a pro-science message) and laying blame. Your problem is that you don’t like the observation therefore you will be more than happy to either pretend it’s not real or shoot the observer. This varies between conservatives. Don’t worry about it; you’re quite normal.

Change our views, abandon principal and hope the media loves us enough not to make up lies about us.
You have attacked social conservatism.
Fiscal Conservatism

“The problem with advocating spaceborne power of course is that it grows government (lots of NASA money.) Oh dear, we can’t have that, now, can we? Good heavens, the GOP can’t articulate a halfway sane science and energy policy position because it’s being hamstrung by the “conservatives.””

You want to run solely on an economic/foreign policy conservative philosophy and expect that the media won’t call you a fascist? heh….hehhehheh….

By chopping the philosophy this way, the message no longer makes sense. At least if your trying to argue you are attempting to do whats best for humanity in the long run. No message is uninspiring, means no hope of getting better as a society, will drive droves to someone with a message of hope for a better future.

The point eluding you is that of perception. Unless and until the republican national party drops social conservative party planks, republicans will be increasingly equated with an anti-scientific viewpoint. e.g. who were the idiots who used abortion as a litmus test for appointments of supreme court judges? Hint: perception says that it wasn’t the left.

#114 — Is not global warming hysteria, which certainly does ring with your beloved youths, every bit as anti-science as the positions you haughtily despise?

Global warming isn’t about science, it’s about the successful hijacking of science for leftist political means because the republicans — thanks to “conservative” morons — have been neutered. The only “conservative” stance out there is to denounce the whole thing as a conspiracy (just as you are doing now.) That’s not going to work. What am I saying? Let’s amend that: it didn’t work in the last election because that was the message being promulgated by the right. It didn’t work in 2008 and it’s not going to work in the future.

The correct and proper stance of the party ought to be that there is some global warming that is real (this part is true because it can be proven, so refuting this is idiocy) but that mitigation in the short term is expensive and pointless. This is at least on topic and arguable. The GOP ought to endorse nuclear energy and spaceborne solar as medium and long term positions and endorse US drilling as the short term solution. Doing this would have at least been sane.

The problem is that the GOP can’t do this. The left, thanks to useful (conservative) idiots, has successfully painted the GOP as out of the loop re science policy. Nobody takes the GOP seriously regarding science. Nor do I. The “conservatives” don’t even bother to offer a science policy. Nope. As close to science as I heard from a “conservative” in the election cycle was drill baby drill. Real forward thinking. (McCain of course advocated nuclear energy, but everyone in this idiot’s den has denounced McCain as a RINO leftist, so the “conservatives” can’t even claim a score on this one.)

The problem with advocating spaceborne power of course is that it grows government (lots of NASA money.) Oh dear, we can’t have that, now, can we? Good heavens, the GOP can’t articulate a halfway sane science and energy policy position because it’s being hamstrung by the “conservatives.”

GOP says “Oh well, screw it, we can’t deliver sane energy policy because of the conservative base, and the base knows best, so we’ll just hand the entire enchilada over to the socialists. And even if we had a plan, the social nutjobs are going to make us all look like imbeciles ranting about issues that just happen to correspond to biblical crapola (although we’ll deny it until we keel over) which makes us all appear like were anti-scientific by definition. No matter what, the conservatives have killed us, so we’ll hand it all to the socialists and claim that it doesn’t matter.”

Good plan.