I´m okay with the fiscal conservatism of the Republicans. I wish they would put their focus their a bit more and use a bit less political capital on calling for Obama´s impeachment because he had the temerity to suggest he was issuing executive orders (no, the orders did not say to confiscate guns) or freaking out because he had children on the stage when he announced the executive orders. (Those pictures circulating, comparing Obama to Hitler because he had children on the stage, were not becoming and did not win any votes.)

Focus on what is important. Stop turning people off by focusing on every little tidbit that doesn´t matter in the grand scheme of things.

Okay, I actually read the article and intend to comment on IT. Jonah slaps delusional self-described fiscal conservatives upside the head. Bravo! We need this kind of clarity.

I´m a big Jonah fan, but where does he address the "socially" of the headline? I was expecting some comment on the misfit candidates who want us all to vote on single issues such as abortion or gay marriage. But, it´s not there. I´m with him on fiscal conservatism, though, and I agree that it has to be real.

Why are some supposedly Republican people so harsh in their criticism of fellow conservatives and their own party?
Poster #1 disparages the publishing of the pictures of Hitler and Stalin with children as props, juxtaposed with a picture of Obama using children as props (which was intended to show it was nothing but propaganda). Yet no comment about Schieffer saying that defeating the NRA will be like defeating the Nazis? Is his criticism reserved for his own Party only?

Another dose of lagomorphine to dull the senses.

The tragedy of Obama’s presidency and the feckless Republican house is that finance savvy American today has no choice but to sell America short.

What cannot go on won’t. When America’s GDP is stagnating at $15 trillion and the debt is nearing $17 trillion and accelerating, financial collapse is inevitable and near. Any financially savvy person will position himself for that collapse, which means betting against America.

That, sadly, is what the low information voters have done to the country.

#1, your name is Bob.

#1 spews a #2 all over his argument. And no offense the poster #2!

Sorry #1, but the low-info youth vote need pictures to help them out. I´m looking forward to your response to the future Republican president who surrounds herself with children on the day she issues 23 executive orders re: abortion.

Why the sudden change in tone from Jonah? Writers don´t just turn on a dime like that for no reason. And why so slow to respond? It´s not like Bob hasn´t been spouting these memes for years.

I´ve relied on Jonah for years for his razor sharp, historical assessment of what´s wrong with the fascist, Utopian Left belief system. Looks like he´s added another tool to his tool box - ire.

I think the bigger problem is people who consider themselves socially liberal and fiscally conservative and therefore do not vote at all, because they can´t find someone running who is both of those. I know quite a few people who just shook their head at "your two-party system." If they had chosen to vote for the fiscally at-least-kinda-conservative Republican, we´d be in better shape.

To all,
Let us all remember the character of a rabbit:
They hop in, drop their c rap and head out to procreate without concern for the environment´s ability to sustain them.

But mostly they drop c rap.

Whether a literal or figurative rabbit, the leavings are the same.

Jonah´s article could´ve and should´ve been addressed to those running the Republican Party who sold out long ago.

Jonah is right about the "Bobs" of the nation. But it is not just the so-called socially liberal/fiscal conservatives who voted for Obama who are the problem, however. The bigger problem is the socially liberal Republicans who have destroyed the GOP.

Make no mistake, when bunnies thump constantly about "evil" conservatives who adhere to socially and fiscally conservative principles, it is with the desire to divide and conquer.

I feel about the so called Socially Liberal / Fiscal Conservative the same as Rooster Cogburn feels about boastful Texas Rangers.

Maybe there is such a thing as SL-FC out there, hell I believed it the first 20 or so times I heard it. But if I ever run into a SL-FC who is actually FC, I think I´ll shake his hand and buy him a Daniel Webster cigar.

Could it be that there are alot of members of the GOP that DO want the gov´t out of their lives. Don´t lecture on Gay marriage. Its none of anyone´s business. Rape? Seriously? How do can this party get?
Now we have Mark Sanford is running for the House. Is that the best we can do? That is like having Bill Clinton and Sanford lecture on Fidelity.

Thank you Jonah! This is constructive and thoughtful.

Our congressional republicans have passed numerous bills. Obamacare bills. Budget cutting bills. etc.

The senate refuses to take up a single issue sent over from the house.

Somehow the public blames the republcans instead of the demonrats in the senate.

O is the enemy of our freedom yet we choose to play the msm game and blame our own elected officials.

They have held hearings, gotten information and informed the public if we bother to watch those hearings on CSPAN.

Guess we´re just oo busy so we blame the republicans doing the heavy lifting.

Shame on us.

Executive summary: It is not possible to be fiscally conservative AND socially liberal.

That is what Jonah is saying. The social liberalism costs break down the money side.

Poster #1: ("hose pictures circulating, comparing Obama to Hitler because he had children on the stage, were not becoming and did not win any votes."

Wow - did you forgot all the knashing of teeth (still today and when will Lucianne show that photo again?) of Bush on the aircraft carrier with the banner Mission Accomplished behind him - which to remind poster #1 was about the ship´s crew and not Pres. Bush...

Yeah, optics for thee but not for thou....

People like ´´Bob´´ aren´t feeling the fiscal pinch that voting for a liberal brings (yet). All that massive spending is simply being added to the next generation´s backs instead of being paid for by the people who want it right now.

#12, Excellent description of trolls!

Hi, I´m Bob. I didn´t vote for Romney because he wasn´t a fiscal conservative. His vice-presidential pick, Paul Ryan, of the famous Ryan Plan, doesn´t even want to cut spending -- only freeze it (sure, that balances the budget in 28 years, big woop). I also did not support Santorum or Bachmann because, let´s face it, they are homophobes.

There were other choices. In the end, I voted for Governor Gary Johnson, another Bob.

If Conservatives really want to live in a Capitalist system, they are going to have to stop worrying so much about who gets married to whom, and who is smoking what. Otherwise they are dooming themselves to Socialism.

For those who doubt the existence, I´ll tell you I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. In general Libertarians will fit this definition as would many strict constitutional conservatives. Who among those groups would have voted for Obama? Couldn´t tell you. I´d guess some that didn´t do their homework and allowed themselves to be influenced by the media may define themselves as such but their actions would defy their proclaimed beliefs.

Mitt Romney ticked all the social and fiscal conservative boxes on his way to the nomination and he lost. I suspect the problem lies in the consistency of the message and the effectiveness of the messenger. Mitt´s ability to make the case against abortion, same-sex marriage, and government healthcare was compromised by his support of those things in the past. His ability to represent socially conservatism as a path out of poverty was undermined by his wealth.

Reagan could talk effectively about conservative solutions for poverty because he had experienced it. He could articulate a pro-life message because he believed it. Here´s Reagan on liberal uncertainty about whether a fetus is a life: " If you were walking down the street, and saw something moving inside a paper bag on the sidewalk, would you kick it?" Even pro-choice voters can feel the truth in Reagan´s observation.

The argument that attaining political power requires you to abandon political principles can leave you with neither.

Good article by Jonah. We continue to eat our own.

~~You buy into the media’s anti-Republican hysteria no matter what the facts are.~~

Jonah´s correct -- "Bob" is no fiscal conservative, "Bob" is no conservative, period. IMO, there ain´t no such animal as a socially liberal fiscal conservative. If you are a "social liberal" it means, among other things, that you endorse unlimited funding for treating the consequences of sexual excess, including paying for everyone´s birth control, abortions, chlamydia, syphilis, papiloma, AIDS, etc., not to mention billions in welfare "for the children", i.e. the hordes of illegitimate children resulting from the socially liberal "lifestyle". You can´t help all these wonderful people finance the consequences of their fun, without turning the country into a fiscal graveyard. And that´s just one aspect of the ruinous costs of social liberalism.

Pretty lame, imo. It´s like the *pure*, self-described conservatives really want to keep losing elections. I guess so that can keep offending more and more people.

Yay, Jonah! You tell ´em.

´´When will it dawn on you that Obama doesn’t think we have a spending problem? I ask because when he said ´we don’t have a spending problem,´ it seemed to have no effect on you.´´ Makes one feel as if they´re living Orwell´s 1984, doesn´t it?

IMHO, many of those who would call themselves socially liberal fiscal conservatives (Bobs) are actually anti-Christians attempting to hide the fact behind a mask of being fiscally conservative. Being socially liberal is what really drives them. God isn´t fooled, but they don´t even know He exists. They are soon to learn better.

My definition of a SL-FC is a "cheap liberal", which is the Sam for libertarians. They are only conservative about their own money, but quite liberal with other people´s.

#12 is correct about ´Bob´ the Troll.

I am not a fan of this black or white "false alternative" stereotyping.

"Live and Let Live" is not socially liberal, it´s a principle. No one should be FORCED to adhear to societal standards set by the herd (just like no one should be FORCED to buy healthcare). It is the principle of people being allowed to make their OWN personal choices in life *as long as they don´t impact the freedom, finances and/or rights of others*.


Maybe the "social conservatives" forcing policy on others can actually point out to me where in the Constitution it says the Feds have the right to dictate who someone marries, what they do, who they have sex with, what they put into their bodies... Go for it. 10th Amendment stands for me on most issues except abortion (which is murder). So how is that for liberal!

I am depressed by the lack of humility of some of my fellows....

God will not put up with this crap! It´s all or nothing - it is all in the Bible which is our foundation formed by our Founding Fathers & our Constitution. We were formed as a nation of Judeo-Christian principles for Christians & non Christians with an Anglo Saxon backgound. We are not an African,Asian or Indian nation but welcome those who love America. Problem is people want to arrogantly pick & choose which part applies to their personal approval.

Wow, just when I thought the in-fighting couldn´t get any worse. So now you say being ok with gay marriage is now a principle? Good grief. You social liberal folk are really reaching. Sorry, I will continue to be a social and fiscal Conservative. In other words, a real Conservative.

#31, No, you won´t find it in the Constitution, but you will find it explained numerous times by the men who established the Constitution.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

~ John Adams ~


[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people.

~ Gouverneur Morris ~


Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.

~ James Wilson ~


Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.

~ George Washington ~


[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

~ Benjamin Franklin ~

Obtuse.

Being personally ok or not okay with something is irrelevent. Personally, I am socially conservative. Politically, I am not.

Marriage, Drugs, (Healthcare) is NOT in the Consitution and therefore should be dictated by the states. The Bible is NOT our constitution. However, the priciples in the Constitution are in alignment with Christianity - purposely so.

This isn´t rocket science folks.

Principles only matter when you apply them with equitable application and, you know, tolerance,

And ya´ll call yourself Christians? Really.?!?!

Hopefully #34 realizes there were "Federalists" and "Anti-Federalists" that were involved in the drafting of not only the Constitution but the Federalist Papers.

"What’s a non-extreme date to balance the budget, Bob? 2113?"

When they´ve taken care of everything, the words we read, the songs we sing, the pictures that give pleasure to our eyes. Haha! I think Jonah picked 2113 because it´s a hundred years from now, but left it in for us Rush fans.

I apologise. I did not intend to exclude anyone.

Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed...so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.

No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

~ Patrick Henry ~


A corrupted people and republicanism cannot co-exist.

~ Richard Henry Lee ~

Render unto Ceasar.....

Jesus didn´t petition the state, but the People. Through principles.

And as I remember it - no group was left out. He was freeing souls one at a time - through VOLUNTARY participation, not force.

But good luck with Cherry picking quotes which confirm your bias!

It seems that we are ripe for the pickin´ since, looking around, I can see that we are no longer a religious and moral people: therefore, we seem to have a need for masters!

I don´t see any mention of specific social issues & their impact on the country´s financial health in Jonah´s column. Seems to me to be a criticism of those who are only moderately fiscally conservative vs. those who understand we are the brokest nation on earth (Steyn).

#15 admonishes gay marriage is none of my business, but criticizes the behavior of Mark Sanford & Bill Clinton. Why isn´t their infidelity just another "lifestyle choice" that only narrow-minded bigots who want to continue to lose elections would mention? If fiscal conservatism is all we care about & morality is irrelevant, bring on the cheaters, wife beaters, smokers, SUV drivers as candidates, who cares, right, as long as they want to cut the deficit?