On the ‘acceptability’ thing, ‘08 being for the White House, neither base is likely to pout (06-wise), meaning that the WH goes to whoever best appeals to a few–maybe one or less–percent of swing-voters.

Meaning, the two bases are both likely to hurt themselves if they don’t kinda take it easy.

But if BOTH hurt themselves, then we’re right back to square one–a mean, nasty, square one.

Seems there ought to be an opportunity here somewhere–an opportunity formerly known as “the high road”.

“OTOH, to listen to our ‘normal’ celebs, the witch trials are on every street corner, and the Moralists are BOO! gonna getcha if ya don’t watch out!”

You got that right. But then, the easiest way to “speak truth to power” and pat yourself on the back for living dangerously is to be “oppressed” by someone that wouldn’t hurt a flea.

I think Alan above apparently has similar needs in his portrait of social conservatives but I’m not sure of the reasons. Where ricpic is coming from, I have no idea.

Of the “social conservatives” I know, even the ones that would avoid Rudy in the primary would crawl through broken glass to vote against Hilary. There is no “sit out” to them, no matter how unpleasant a particular vote may be.

But haven’t we had this discussion recently? I noticed that no one that was so sure Rudy would be unacceptable to “social conservatives” has yet bothered to address my point that “social conservatives” are also a huge part of the “fiscal conservative” block.

Where are their rabble-rousers? Their politicians? Their influential media? Their celebrities & public figures? Their street demonstrations? You really have to search long and hard to find any evidence of untoward behavior. Maybe there’s a book or two calling for rightist religious authoritarianism, but i dunno of any.

OTOH, to listen to our ‘normal’ celebs, the witch trials are on every street corner, and the Moralists are BOO! gonna getcha if ya don’t watch out!

Not only that, but the worriers are really not thinking it through.

For better or for worse, US popular opinion is fairly well in favor of the various sexual liberties we have acquired. Do these ninnies think that somehow social conservatives are going to be able to overcome that and install a bunch of unpopular laws? Puh-lease.

The only way that could happen would be if some judges made law on the bench.

Now this does happen, but the offenders have generally gone in the other direction, by creating law that is *more* liberal than Americans would choose.

And I disagreed with your suggested point, which was my point.

Alan: McCain may be trying to pander to me and people like me, but his participation in the Gang of 14 proved to me that in the long run, I could never depend on him to support originalist judges, and McCain-Feingold proved to me that the intent of the First Amendment was over his head. In short, pandering on his part is a waste of time because he is either transparently phony or completely self-deluded.

Overall Alan, you might give the whole idea of the GOP pandering to social conservatives a rest. I (and most of my friends) are a good deal more complex than you may suspect. Most of all, we value original intent. This “Compassionate Conservative” stuff is silly, as I do not need the Federal government to instruct me about morals or charitable giving. I get sufficient guidance from the Bible and from Church, and if we went back to caring for the poor through our individual Churches and Synagogues, we’d be much better off. The Government is a poor distributor of charitable services because it does not demand any reasonable standard of behavior from the recipients (look at the welfare state in New Orleans which has created a completely disfunctional society).

I am looking first of all for a President who will not falter even when various poll-driven spineless politicians put their own preservation before that of our nation. I am looking for a President who is able to articulate why we fight and is willing to do so 7 days a week if necessary. I am looking for a President who has executive experience (that includes Romney and Rudy, but excludes McCain). If I have no other option, I will vote for McCain if he gets the nomination, and I’m confident that the base will too (even if we have to hold our noses).

Oh, nonsense. I’m not even Republican and I wouldn’t vote for McCain for two major reasons, neither having anything to do with religion. One, I view McCain-Feingold as a dangerous attack on the first amendment. Two, and somewhat related, I don’t trust his judgement and commitment to liberty. No doubt he is a fine man, but I don’t want him leading the nation.

These reasons are also apply in spades to all the Democratic hopefuls currently out there, especially to Edwards and Obama. And who knows what Hillary stands for? In the case of the Democrats their craven pandering to the left in the pursuit of power, their elitist snobbery, and their adherence to outmoded multicultural ideals is a major turnoff for me. And this is where I stand before the war is thrown into the balance.

I feel like a cuckoo clock at times, so I hesitate in making the same old, same old. But you stated my position exactly.

I will just say that I find it absurd that anyone would ’sit out’ an election because they did not get everything they want. This Country was built on compromise. We have often settled for much less than we desire. Many would perhaps like drastic change, for a particular danger, but as a Country we do not work that way. For better or for worse.