CONSERVATIVE THIRD PARTY

Here in CO we have closed primaries, so I maintained my GOP voting status in hopes of working from the Grass roots level to get some decent people into office. I have realized that my primary choice doesn't matter. Both the major parties know who is going to be on the ballot for the big show, primaries are pointless.

I agree.

The fiscally conservative segment of the Republican party are not perforce "Social Conservative" (read Evangelicals).

Many, if not most, probably tend towards socially conservatism but without the zeal and absolutism of Evangelicals: They don't want to outlaw abortion in all instances, but they do want to see it limited. They do think that minors who want an abortion should not be allowed to have one without the knowledge, let alone the consent of their parents. They don't want to force Gays to live, fearfully, in a closet, and they don't have a fundamental problem with them getting married, but they do want to see the institution of marriage ( between a man and a woman) endure.

Given a party that eliminates positions that currently seem extreme ( whether accurate or not), I've no doubt there would be a flood of people leaving the Democrats or coming out of apathy to represent.

There are very many young people who are fiscally conservative but shrink from a perception of a Republican Party that that hates Gays.

This is not to say that the Evangelicals are actually theocratic monsters, or that they have not been a valuable constituency of the GOP, but for good or bad, they are on the losing side of history.

We can choose to insist that their positions must be held by Republicans, or we
can take victories when we can and stave off the degradation of our society and our country by Progressives.

I don't expect them to compromise their principles and so the GOP needs to shunt them aside.

They couldn't produce a Republican victory in 2012, and so they clearly don't have the influence they lay claim to.

Political victory can 't be expressed as 100% for either party, and so the GOP needs to focus on a generally more conservative path fro the country.

Young people are happy to be fiscally and theoretically conservative, but they can't bring themselves to be associated with what they perceive to be Medieval strictures.

So yes, an Evangelical third party will benefit Republicans.

Ignoring the irony of you chastising anyone for wanting to "pick a fight," pointing out what you are about is not aggression.

I very much doubt this is true. And, I do so hope that we get to find out.

It is not just social issues and immigration that are driving people away from the Republican party. Opinions on fiscal issues are trending away from the Republicans as well.

Thank Goodness that you don't get to decide these things.

Yes.


"The CDU is committed to its christian-social, liberal and conservative roots. Yardstick for its orientation is the Christian view of man, and coming from this the three core values "freedom, solidarity and justice" "

Leaving aside the irony of you claiming accurately to describe what anyone "is about," you have pointed out nothing of the kind. The opening post is straight forward. It states what Huckabee has claimed, and asks people for their opinions.

Although you didn't asked for it, I add what the CSU(the CDU's sister party with four minsters in the federal cabinet - equal number as the liberals have) says:
"Christian responsibility for and with the citizens. The "C" in our name is our focus and commitment." (Chapter III of their actual party program with six sub-chapters about it. [First chapter is the party's history, the second is about future aims.])

Thank you for quoting their charter Walter but what I would prefer is your opinion as an intelligent and informed German.

Perhaps you missed my answer in my above post.
Here it is again

This is quite a conundrum, not having a fundamental problem with marriage between two men a/o two women, and at the same time wanting the institution of marriage, defined as marriage between a man and a woman, to endure. Is it merely a problem of semantics, defining marriage between two individuals of different genders as “institutional,” and excluding from the other type of marriage the word “institutional” in its definition? If that’s so, then what is the problem? What are the dangers of adding same sex marriage to the definition of marriage as an institution?

I don’t see how this is an either or situation seeing as how you agree with the social conservatives about the degradation of society and country brought on by those abortion rights and gay rights supporting Progressives.

This isn't about their Republican prospects. If it is, they're hypocrites. They would withdraw because they value the obedience, respect and love for God they claim to have, and should have as Christians, more than their Republican prospects and political power.