In response to:
Social conservatives had their chance to show their power by ousting the most socially-liberal and otherwise highly objectionable president in history, and they came up short. I'm not willing to risk that happening again in 2016 when the D's run their next activist-liberal, Marxist puppet.
So where do the R's go for more voters? Someone tell me if there is a more likely source of allies than the fiscal conservatives in the libertarian, independent, and disaffected Democrat ranks.
Prager seems to assume that all social liberals are morally deficient, and some surely are. But we want only those who believe that the government has no moral authority to legislate moral behavior, and makes a mess of it any time it tries.
For some years now, we have been told about a major division within American conservatism: fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives.
This division is hurting conservatism and hurting America -- because the survival of American values depends on both fiscal and social conservatism. Furthermore, the division is logically and morally untenable. A conservative conserves all American values, not just economic ones.
By "social conservatism," I am referring to the second and third components of what I call the American Trinity -- liberty, "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum."
It is worth noting that a similar bifurcation does not exist on the left. One...
Google "poll fiscal conservative social liberal" if you wish to see the actual evidence of existence of social liberals who are also fiscal conservatives.
Remember, Romney was the man who pushed through taxpayer funding for abortion in Massachusetts and gave the state homosexual "marriage" by appointing known homosexual activists to the courts.
"Conservatives" can insist on purity, but the price may be much higher than accepting the need for a coalition to battle the extremely liberal activists - who know nothing of economics - that have the upper hand today.