Smitty:

1. Although repealing the 17th Amendment is going to be challenging, it is the most direct route back to the Founders’ federalism. If the state legislatures of California, Michigan, New York etc could be shown how much money they would have for themselves if they had senators who danced to THEIR tune, I’d bet they’d get on board for repeal.

2. There seems to be some (mistaken) angst about the 8/28 rally among secular Tea Partiers. I see 8/28 as an affirmation for believers in the fundamental commitment we have to God and country. It goes much deeper, and encompasses much more, than just politics. We each have our own reasons for participating in things like the Tea Party. Glenn has referred to “the third Great Awakening”, which for me implies a God-centered civic life embracing much more than simply government. We have been conditioned by the left, even the social conservatives, to reflexively look to government to accomplish our goals. That support for abortion has steadily declined shows other means can be effective. I think many social conservatives have caught on to this and no longer seek to achieve their objectives through government. Simply, for me, the Tea Party is part of HOW to achieve my political objectives. 8/28 addresses WHY. It makes no difference if secular Tea Partiers have a different “why”; we make common cause.

@Okie,
For point 1, I don’t think the 17th Amendment, while necessary, is sufficient. Because of the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve. Hence my “Distributor of Cash” line, which I think should go viral in the discussion.

For point 2, the real issue isn’t so much any individual’s belief, but rather that the Federal government wants to be God, and exhibits substantial jealousy.

This is kind of ‘the chicken or the egg’ theorizing, with RINOs always taking the,’we can’t attract moderates/independents/etc…,
with social conservatives running things’ position.

Fiscal conservatism never happens without moral conservatism, for they go hand-in-hand. Those that preach ‘fiscal conservativism only’ are wolves in sheeps clothing, scheming how to get their next meal.

Maybe these ‘fiscal conservatism only’ preachers need to take their preaching to the Democrat Party, for the Democrat Party are ‘The Inclusive Party Of Acceptance’.

Republicans, fiscal conservatism only is a Faustian Bargain. Or better yet, Fiscal Conservative Only might be the name of one of the people Christian meets on his journey to Celestial City. Like Pliable, Fiscal Conservative Only seeks to bring Christian back to City of Destruction. Surely, Screwtape would approve of Fiscal Conservative Only’s methods.

Those that preach ‘fiscal conservativism only’ are wolves in sheeps clothing, scheming how to get their next meal.

Hey look, kids: it’s how to lose friends and influence nobody!

I’m a registered Democrat who can’t stand the Democratic Party. They’re Nanny-State lunatics who’ve never seen a problem that can’t be solved with more government money and control.

I also happen to be pretty socially liberal.

Right now, I’m firmly aligned with the Republicans, and am dedicated to voting straight R down the line to send a damn message.

The social conservative wing of the Republican Party has precious little appeal for me, though, and if I find that they’re getting more agenda juice than the fiscal conservatives, I may just rethink some of my votes.

yes so you’ll vote for the dem then you do realize it is possible to be both a fiscal and social conservative?[This coming from a social moderate]

Why do the heathen rage, and people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against His anointed, (saying),
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us…..

There will be no successful social conservative movement that doesn’t lead with fiscal conservatism. Most of the muddled middle have a live and let live attitude but don’t really have any really strong views on anything but economic well being. If fiscal conservatives principals are correct and we deliver everything else will fall into place. However if the independents think “real conservatives” care more about taking away some one’s dildo than making way for economic growth they’ll vote back in the communists.

Smitty:

I agree on the 16th and Federal Reserve, but repealing the 17th should make it easier to deal with the other two. If we can get an article V Constitutional Convention off the ground, should we restrict it to say, the 17th, or go for broke in the fear it will be our only chance.

Lewis:

In some ways the social/fiscal thing is a false dichotomy. This social conservative agrees with Adobe Walls; even more I will fight tooth and nail to restrict political action to fiscal matters. Politics / government is not the venue to address social conservative concerns, and I think many social conservatives have figured that out.

Good points. Unfortunately, the federal government does stick its nose into social conservative areas – the Department of Education, nominating Supreme Court justices, giving hundreds of millions to Planned Parenthood, etc. Obviously, Art. I, Sec. 8 does not allow them to do that, but they do it anyway.

Now, my one problem with libertarians is that they seem to not live in reality, as in, fiscal conservatism and letting people live their lives is great, but in reality, if a 15-year-old heroin addict is having her mother’s live-in-boyfriend’s baby, there’s all sorts of screaming about how we need welfare for the mother and baby, a Department of Social Services for the live-in-boyfriend issue, clean needles for the heroin, and socialised medicine for the baby born six weeks early and with birth defects. Reality is that there is a huge social cost to not having stable family structures, and reality is that a lot of voters then want us to pay for it.

Good points. Unfortunately, the federal government does stick its nose into social conservative areas – the Department of Education, nominating Supreme Court justices, giving hundreds of millions to Planned Parenthood, etc. Obviously, Art. I, Sec. 8 does not allow them to do that, but they do it anyway.

Now, my one problem with libertarians is that they seem to not live in reality, as in, fiscal conservatism and letting people live their lives is great, but in reality, if a 15-year-old heroin addict is having her mother’s live-in-boyfriend’s baby, there’s all sorts of screaming about how we need welfare for the mother and baby, a Department of Social Services for the live-in-boyfriend issue, clean needles for the heroin, and socialised medicine for the baby born six weeks early and with birth defects. Reality is that there is a huge social cost to not having stable family structures, and reality is that a lot of voters then want us to pay for it.

Be very, very wary of those urging that the tea parties develop leadership and spectacular events.

What most of them are looking for is a head they can cut off.

Regards,
Ric

Some of the fiscal solutions such as abolishing the Dept. of Edu. take care of at least part of the other problems. Conservatives have to prove that they can govern without getting caught in the power traps that produce stupid non conservative ideas like no child left behind from people who are supposed to be conservative.

Add the Federal Trade Commission to my list of must abolish government.
From Moonbattery
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/09/federal-bureauw.html#comments

Thank you, Mr. Locke. You’ve put into words a thought I’ve had for some time.

On topic, I’m a fiscal con only, and don’t give a damn what you do in the privacy of your own home, so long as it harm no one else. For that matter, I define harm for public actions a bit looser than most social cons would be comfortable with.

Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s, and unto God what is God’s, isn’t that the verse? Well, start taking it seriously!