Republicans should give up on abortion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why should the Republicans give up on social issues? The problem with Libertarianism is that it possesses a fatal flaw even greater then that of Populism. That problem is that is policy of freedom from Gov't goes a long with a freedom from responsibility, but that leads to Gov't dependence and thus increases the size of Gov't and decreases freedom. Limited Gov't can only work when people are hard working and responsible. I am sorry if I am insulting my own generation but this is one the stupidest laziest, most irresponsible generations ever. I hope to god that it is case similar to that of the Counterculture where it is only a small 20 or 30 percent we see on TV and the rest form another "Silent Majority", but I fear that isn't the case this time due to the internet and other forms of instant communication. Many on hear say we heading towards Europe in terms of social permisiveness, why would you want such a thing. Am I the only one thats repulst by the 13 year old father in the UK(By the way I don't think he is the father, I think the 15 year old girl was rapped).

I think Social issues for now should not be tossed asside but they should take a back seat to the Economy.  In some cases they may intertwine like the "Octomom" in CA.

The next issue I want to address is the comparison between social issues like Abortion and Gay Marriage to Segregationism. The difference is that although segregationists tried to use the bible to defend there views, there is no moral basis for intentionally depriving a group of people the same rights as those that are given to others on the basis of color. Both sides in the Abortion debate claim that they are defended the rights of the weak and defenseless. I don't see this going away any time soon. Gay Marriage will be unlikely to go away cause I beleive that in ties into the collapse of the family leading to things like the Octo-mom and the 13 year old father which will become a bigger issue as stories like this continue to hit the news will create a backlash at least among those 35 and older and hopefully among sane young people. Republican party will miss out on a lot of really motivating issues like these mentioned. While Fezzy(I am sorry to call you out) being barely a Republican himself may feel we pandered too much to the base, the base feels betrayed and abandoned by out of control spending and a national party that until recently didn't care that much. Some issues will play with both the base and Independents. Some Indies left the GOP because of spending, the war, and corruption. Well the war is a dead issue with Obama in office, the GOP is now on there side on the spending, and the Dems are now doing everything they can to cede the Corruption issue to the GOP.

I agree that the GOP needs to speak to competence, fiscal restraint, individual responsibility, and thrift as opposed to the Dems desparate attempts to stimulate the same irresponsibility that got us into this mess in the first place. Only talking up social issues where it fits into that message. But tossing them aside and throwing them in the trash as National issues would be a big, big mistake.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Though this isn't exactly what we were talking about, I think that another interesting aspect of the abortion debate is how it could be so different if only a few things had been different. The biggest differences is if Robert Kennedy had not been shot. He was pro-life and thus it is unlikely that we would see the massive shift towards the pro-choice position in the Democratic Party. I'm not saying that the Democrats would be the pro-life party (there would still be many pro-choice Dems like Humphrey and now Pelosi), but those who shifted their views to stay elected likely wouldn't have as the party would be more open to the pro-life view. Some examples are Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Bill Nelson, Dick Gephardt, Dick Durbin, Richard Daley, etc.

On the other side, with the Democratic Party being less pro-choice, we would likely see a more open GOP as well. That could mean Reagan as pro-choice (I don't know when he "converted though). Ford would have been more open about his views as well, as would Howard Baker and John Tower.

It's an interesting question/point of divergence, and worth talking about.

Very interesting point and I have read you making it before. Its possible the South would be Democratic leaning not like it was prior to 1960 but like Jimmy Carter 1976. The Northeast would be Split with northern New England, NJ, DE, voting GOP and Southern NE, NY, and PA voting Dem. The Midwest would be the swing region and the West would be the GOP base. Basically the late 60's and 70's poltical alignments continuing till today. It would be interesting running a pro-life Ted Kennedy against a Pro-Choice Reagan in 1980.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You know I am getting sick of having my views labeled as natavist just because I beleive the law is the law and that we should not give amnesty. I am not a natavist becasue I am a firm supporter of Immigration and I don't focus on specific group. Some of my best friends are hispanic and I am a firm supported of South American Democracy and think we need to lock arms with Columbia as a deterant to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. What we need to do is silence the real natavists and push them away and work to convince Hispanic, Asians etc that our opposition to amnesty doesn't mean we are opposed to Immigration. The media is not going to help us win over these groups just because we change our position, they will find another issue to try and hurt our efforts so we shouldn't try that route. We need to reach out directly to these groups. I am a firm supporter of reaching out to Asians and Hispanics as a way to make CA competative again and lock down TX,FL,AZ,. Not too mention regain NC, NV, CO, and NM.

Fezzy to respond to your earlier post responding to me. You agreed the base felt angry and antagonized, so would it be wise to antagonise an already mistrustful group on a whole other set of issues?