I'm probably pretty similar to you on the fiscal issues, but more conservative socially. I'm personally very conservative on those issues but I consider myself more pragmatic than most of the people who share the same personal convictions, because I do understand the need to separate religious values from secular law and the implications for a free and pluralistic society.

On abortion, I disagree not only because I can't agree with that on principle, but also because I think that's much too defensive of a posture. The true center of the country on that issue is not nearly as far to the left as the Democratic party is, and there's no reason that they should own the issue. If people could begin to see how the Democrats are the ones who refuse to do anything that would anger the most extreme pro-abortion coalition (the ones so extreme that they do not earn the right to be called pro-choice), then voters will realize who is more beholden to the fringe. I think there's probably a fight over FOCA coming down the pike which may instigate the change in public perception toward that direction. The GOP would be well served to position itself as less extremist if we're ready to become more serious about abortion prevention policies- including making some concessions on contraception.

In the social area the third rail of GOP politics is abortion and this is where the Democrats have a very easy time turning many younger voters and independents against the GOP. Abortion isn't going to go away and it's not likely Roe v Wade will be overturned (Laura Bush actually said as much in public comments). This is where many GOP will disagree with me but I think abortion needs to be a minor issue, and the GOP platform needs to be changed to something on the order of “we don't agree with it but we respect each other's beliefs and privacy, and accept its existence”. A that point we can work on reasonable controls like partial-birth, parental notification, re-evaluating fetal viability, etc. I know that will be a major concession for social conservatives but as long as the GOP is known as the anti-abortion party the Democrats will successfully use it as a wedge issue, and it will work for them.

A couple of other issues that turned me away from the GOP:

Terri Schiavo – to me an overreach of the federal government into personal, local and state issues. I actually tried to be a moderating influence only to be called a murdering Nazi among other things. Unfortunately those comments weren't coming from just the extreme right but from many of the conservatives I talked with.

Patriot Act – yes much of it was necessary but the NSLs portion really bothered me. The debate deteriorated into another partisan all-or-nothing argument. It would have been helpful to acknowledge the risks to personal freedoms and address them rather than using it as just another political football.

Anyway I could go on but that's the sort of things I'm talking about.

DaGoat, I'd be interested to know what kind of moderating influence you mean. I don't know much about your own political preferences, although I've agreed with some of your comments (but suspect I'm further to the right than you are in general.)

Can you elaborate, on what issues you feel we need a moderating influence? Since you aren't happy with the move toward big government Republicanism, I assume you're not talking about compromise on fiscal policy but social. Other than rhetoric though, I don't see where the party's been so extreme on social policy so I don't get why it's such a problem.

In fact, harnessing the politics of cultural resentment is very difficult, mostly because it is, by definition, the politics of loss. Relishing in the good old days may get you elected, but it doesn't actually bring back the good old days. And so there is inevitably the disappointment that flows to social conservatives; their cultural resentment against “elite liberalism” wins elections, but it doesn't change society in any meaningful way. And then the frustration builds over time until it explodes in violent rage (like Jim Adkisson, the man who shot up my liberal church because he wanted to “kill liberals'), or implodes in parody like Sarah Palin.

Read Rick Pearlstein's “Nixonland” to get a grasp of this culture of resentment.

Wright and Ayers are not members of Obama's campaign or his staff. Ayers is not nearly so close to Obama as the Republicans keep claiming. The political center is bright enough to realize that so they don't get outraged over them. Right wing extremists are highly influential in the Republican party and truly do affect policy. They see that truth too. Yet Republicans keep harping on two associations that are so different from their Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, John Hagee, Grover Norquist, etc.

Any endorsements from any pastors? Proof, please. John Hagee's endorsement was what got McCain in trouble and that notorious liberal, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League was one of Hagee's most vocal critics. Not exactly the center left or left wing of American politics, is he?

I don't know if I see this exactly the same as CStanley, but in my case I feel that the GOP kicked me out when it became clear they were just as happy to expand government to further their goals as Democrats are. Since I doubt I am alone in this feeling, I suspect the GOP lost many conservatives who might otherwise be able to provide a moderating presence.

I think there are some GOP leaders that get this and you now hear them admitting they lost their way. So far though I don't see that position really gaining a foothold. I go to conservative sites and discussion boards and there are still saying the same things they were saying 5 or 6 years ago.

As an aside it's always a little funny to categorize myself as a conservative since when I go to conservative sites I am often called a liberal. For purposes of this site I'm definitely on the conservative side though.

Uh oh, the gig is up…I've been outted as a conservative Republican.

When did I ever pretend to be other than that, Jim, and why shouldn't this post reflect my views from that perspective when that was the whole point of Jill's post (correct me if I'm wrong, Jill!)

Wow, CS, you actually can't tell the difference between putting the social conservatives in power in the party and having attended a church with a particular pastor. Well, there's a world of difference

OK, Jim, so if I'm the one who can't tell the difference (rather than the way I see it, that the left and center left can't tell the difference), then why was it unacceptable for McCain (whose religion is about as completely private as any candidate in recent times has been, much more so than Obama's) to even accept any endorsements from pastors without being raked over the coals for it? Was there really any credible reason to think that a McCain administration was going to create a new cabinet post for a Department of Theology?

And give me a break on the perceptions of anyone outside conservative comfort zone being painted as extreme left. Wright danced right along the edges of black separatism and antisemitism, and Ayers was a member of a group that promoted violence and anarchy. How much more extreme should we be willing to tolerate before someone is a wee bit too far left?

The first problem, I don't really know how to solve but obviously picking someone like Palin who feeds the base with that kind of rhetoric didn't work. I think someone needs to figure out how to change the key that that tune's been sung in- appeal to the patriotic, cultural conservatives in a way that's less of a turn off to the left. (I'm reminded of someone's column today about Obama being Reaganesque because he's using rhetoric that's clearly left wing – for Reagan it was the opposite of course- but doing it without pissing people off.)

As far as the second part, I think the two factions need to come to terms with the fact that they need each other (unless one or the other group thinks it can pull in new alliances from other parts of the spectrum, which I doubt.)

There will have to be a grand bargain. I think that the fiscons need to stop being condescending and arrogant, and they need to figure out what minimum guarantees the socons need. They should seek out socially conservative leaders who are a bit more intellectual and work with them on schooling the movement on the need to abandon anti-intellectualism, and they in return should promise to support the most basic tenets of social conservatism, which would be to embrace a Burkean attitude toward social change and to push back against ultrasecular progressive attempts to put religion in a corner.

Meanwhile, I think the GOP can rightly follow Obama's lead to get out of the pastor traps in the future. If called out for associating with a controversial pastor, shrug it off and say that you see the good works this person is doing although you don't agree with him on everything. If that still doesn't work to silence the critics, call them out on their hypocrisy since they gave Obama a pass on Wright.

I am a neocon.

good orator
comes across as reasonable person
comes across as regular, reasonable middle of the road guy
someone who can present a controversial issue while avoiding sounding extreme

I would agree with all that!

So – let me ask you, acknowledging that I come from a left of center place, from that place, it appears to me that the conservative base seems to actually LIKE at least some of the time to have their leaders or the individuals who seem to be most prominent (whether that's a media thing or not – definitely possible) be and act and appear extreme. And I believe it's that being or acting or appearing to be extreme that is what adds to a inability to garner enough support to win across the country.

Would you agree with that? If not, please do say why but if you do to some measure, I would think the next question is, what do you do about that, if it's the person who can present the controversial stuff without sounding extreme who will carry more voters or support?

Despite Jindal's awful debut, I still think he has promise if he can learn to communicate to the national audience as himself instead of the odd character he portrayed last night.

I'm also keeping my eye on Cantor, and other governors like Huntsman, Daniels, and to a lesser extent Pawlenty and Sanford. One thing about the governors is that I think the party should probably flex its executive prowess and present that as a contrast to what I see as a potential shortfall in the Obama administration. The types of programs he's going to be overseeing would be challenging for anyone to oversee, and since he has no experience with that kind of executive oversight I have concerns about how all of that 'oversight' is going to go (notwithstanding the oh-so-confidence inspiring move of putting Joe Biden in charge of the recovery plan.)

I think these governors should focus on managing their states recovery funds, as well as their general state's budgets, with exquisite finesse in order to be poised to have a shot at the WH in 4 or 8 years.