[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Arles

I would love a social "libertarian", fiscal conservative candidate. But those are about as likely as a pro-life liberal.

Well, I can understand that, since I'm a pro life liberal and would love to see one have any kind of chance on the national stage, but it's unlikely.

Most people that ascend in politics with my views on fiscal policy are likely to be socially conservative as well. I've never been a big voter on social issues. Things like abortion rights, gay marriage, religion in school and other social policies are not things I worry about.

But I guess my point was the Palin's true appeal seems to be to the social conservative base. If anything, her ascendancy within the party means that this aspect conservative policies will only get more attention than in the past, so I'm surprised that so many are pleased with her selection.

I would like there to be a ban on partial birth abortions, but allow normal abortions.

I would prefer they all be banned, but think it should be decided on a state by state basis.

I would like civil unions to be treated the same as man-woman unions from the law.

I agree with you here.

I would like there to be less of a tizzy every time someone puts a nativity scene on public land.

Not here.

But, I don't see a major problem with all abortions being allowed and gay marriage not being officially recognized - or, in a different manner, I wouldn't vote for someone simply on those issues.

I would love to see a true fiscal conservative in the White House with a true vision on things like energy, taxes, education and cutting spending. As much as it will get mocked, Palin is the closest we have between these four candidates. My preferences early on were Thompson, Rudy and Romney. We got McCain and that ended my hope in having any policies I agree with in the White House. I haven't changed a ton since then, but I do think Palin atleast gave a sliver of hope on energy policy and taxes.

I guess I can see that and she scored major points in her debate when talking about energy, but I still think what she brings to the ticket more than anything else is her appeal to the social conservatives. She definitely woke them up and got them energized to go vote for McCain.

The best thing I can do to show where I am is to setup the following situation for all you on the left: Let's say the only two choices you had were Mitt Romney and Joe Liebermann. How "excited" would you be about this election?

No, I completely understand that. I made this point earlier (and got attacked for it) by comparing this election to 2004, where I think things were reversed. I was not excited about Kerry at all. He was a true dead weight and in a way I'm glad he didn't win.

It seems like my choices are a fairly outspoken left-leaning leader and a person who wants to sound conservative, but isn't that much different from his opponent. If that's the choice, I think I'm leaning to letting Obama and the democrats have a crack at things for two years and see where we are in 2010. The last thing I want is for McCain to go in, do a ton of things I don't agree with, not get his tax cut through and then have republicans blamed for the economic slowdown. I'm beginning to think this is how conservatives felt in the Carter-Ford election and my hope is that an Obama-Reid-Pelosi two year term would reinvigorate the true fiscal conservatives to take back the republican party. Not sure if it's likely, but it's one thing to root for. Right now, there's no good option for us.

I guess I just don't see that happening. If Palin is the heir apparent for 2012, then it will be on the heels of the social conservatives. The financial conservatives will probably try to run Romney again.