[EE-BO]

shinerbock- I never said anything about Iraq.

For the record I support our effort there and if Hillary or Obama win and really do refuse to establish a permanent military base there- it would be one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in recent memory and remove the one great long term benefit of our war effort. I am most definitely voting Republican this fall on the Iraq issue alone- I didn't even have to think about the other issues.

What I am talking about is the domestic social issues agenda. We are at war. We face a unique economic situation that in the next few years will really help to define our role in what is quickly becoming the first truly global economy ever. We also have entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt our nation as our infrastructure sits in the worst possible condition imaginable.

A conservative President can address these issues brilliantly. But NOT if he is spending his time trying to pass Constitutional Amendments about who can have a medical procedure and who can enter into a legally recognized domestic partnership.

Romney dropping out was a huge blow to SOME conservatives- granted a pretty big "some"- but if he really and truly was a conservative candidate he would have mopped the floor with McCain and Huckabee, neither of whom is all that appealing to the base.

Romney put mandatory health care into effect in his state- how was that a conservative move? He also raised taxes and fees on businesses- how was that a conservative move?

This primary contest points to a major division in our party about what is most important to a conservative. The question is, is it more important to be fiscally conservative and let that effect a movement to streamline government, or is it more important to be morally conservative and expend enormous government resources to put legal restraints on people's behavior.

Romney's problem is that he is a somewhat moral conservative but not a fiscal conservative- and he has the record to prove it. Dig deep enough and you will find his moral conservatism is not all that firm either- which is why Huckabee is killing him in the South.

Protecting the nation is not the issue I was addressing- I trust any of our fine candidates to do a good job of that (though on experience alone I would think McCain the best suited for that role.) I was talking about social policy- which is a great way to win votes, but it doesn't win a war or steer an economy through rough seas.

As for the the Europe reference- all I can say is check out the context of the speech. I do not think he was talking about the presence of Islam (though as a Mormon he certainly has a firm opinion about all Muslims), but rather he was clearly stating that because Europeans had abandoned the traditions of the church- they were suffering by not being strong enough to remain secure.

This is a direct attack on abortion, drug and same-sex union friendly policies in many European nations- and it fits right into his speech on how we need to quash these things in the US.

It completely ignores the complex social reasons for Europe's race issues (plus the geographic proximity to Muslim nations which makes the influx just as easy as it is over here on our Mexico border) and instead says the Europeans are in trouble because they don't go to church.

And yes, that is a scary generalization to make.

PS- I open to being wrong or changing my mind (and also to much shorter posts where I don't feel like I have to explain positions are arguments that are taken out of context in previous posts), but it is hard to do that when replies lack specific examples and instead resort to "You suck- in 50 words or less"