"should Republicans focus on ideological purity or a big tent philosophy? In other words, should the GOP concentrate on our core conservative principles at the risk of losing more elections or should Republicans water-down a few beliefs in order to attract more moderate voters like Meghan in hopes of winning more elections?"

We went down the road of watering down our beliefs in order to attract more moderate voters during this last election season when we nominated Meghan's father and look where it got us then.  It doesn't work.  We need to put conservatism back on the ballots because that's what wins elections and we need to not feel ashamed about what we believe.  Don't get me wrong though - Meghan McCain is still a babe in my opinion.

My answer will of course get some criticism but I believe that what it means to be a "Conservative", is someone who is a true conservative. My opinion on what a conservative is, is someone who is conservative in all aspects of life... more in terms of "conservation" rather than the morality of things.

A conservative would absolutely be fiscally conservative above all else, but they would also support pure capitalism, and would be very conservative in how they felt the government should be involved. Very minor regulation, but otherwise the government stays out of the private sector.

A true conservative would also be conservative in aspects of environmentalism. A true conservative would also be someone who would probably have amassed relatively substantial wealth, but lived relatively modest for their means. A true conservative would want the least amount of laws impacting the freedoms of their country's citizens.

When I think of "Core Conservative Values", absolutely nothing with respect to morality or religion comes to mind. I do believe it has an exact opposite with respect to "Core Liberal Values". What ARE exactly, "Core Liberal Values". Core Liberal Values are those which support a larger government that exists to solve the problems of the individual. Socialism. My friends would disagree with this, but this is basically what it's come to mean as a liberal.

Now, if we're going to discuss "Core Republican Values" which I believe to be different than "Core Conservative Values", then I would say that core Republican values, while they do of course include any and all conservative values, they also include special interest groups. While of course I feel very strongly against abortion, I realize that even though I am Catholic, we are considered a special interest group. Being a Republican adds another layer, IN ADDITION, to our conservative values which makes up the morality aspect of what we do, and what we believe.

So, I can understand where Meagan comes from. I don't really know what "SHE" defines as a Conservative, and I think that while she is certainly well read, she may not fully grasp exactly what it means to be a conservative either. This is the only interview I've seen of her, so I can't say for sure. She certainly didn't touch on her conservative values though... only that she disagrees with most core Republican values.

For what it's worth, this is how I stand on some social issues:

• I am Anti-Abortion
• I am FOR gay couple adoption
• I am FOR gay unions and full marriage rights, but ANTI-"marriage" in terms of religion.

I think that may make me rather similar to her in what she calls a "Progressive Republican".

Not surprisingly, I beg to disagree with you, Todd.  Yes, I believe conservatives should conserve natural resources and fight government intrusion in the lives of private citizens and businesses but I don't believe our conservative principles stop there. 

As conservatives, one of our most fundamental beliefs should be to conserve freedom and "inalienable" rights.  What is the most fundamental right?  The right to life, of course. 

As Thomas Jefferson once said, "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."  The worst part about abortion is it takes away the right to life from our society's most helpless citizens, preborn babies. 

By stating that these babies are not fully human and, thus, do not have the right to live, liberals join history's most vile criminals against humanity.  It was the same argument used by the U.S. to justify slavery, when the Supreme Court ruled that blacks were only 3/5's human in the infamous Dred Scott decision.  It was the same argument used by Nazis to justify the horrible crimes of the Holocaust, when they believed Jews were not fully human.  Throughout history, if you want to observe the world's greatest atrocities against mankind just look for when a society that judged a group of people as not being fully or completely human.  

 As conservatives who want to conserve rights, freedoms, traditions and resources  we should first focus on conserving human life.  Thus I believe being pro-life is a conservative value and a Republican value. 

Plus, as you well know, "progressive" has traditionally meant liberal.  You're right, it is hard to judge Meghan McCain's political philosophy on her brief comments here, but I am weary that she used the term "progressive" in her self-description.

Matt, make no mistake about it, I agree with you 100% on the issue of abortion. Our disagreement is whether being a conservative is encompasing of that.

I feel there's a lot of grey area, certainly... and I completely agree with your statement on conserving freedom and inalienable rights. However, as disgusting as it may seem to us, a Liberal or a Pro-Abortion might use the same example and state that it's their inalienable right to kill babies.

Personally, I think her use of the term "Progressive Republican" is a cop-out. I think she uses this term to "soften the blow" she feels she may portray on her friends that are probably mostly liberal. She suggests that by saying she's Progressive Republican that she's some how better, or more advanced, than what it means to be a actual Republican.

It's silly, but it is hard to judge someone soley on a 1.37 minute interview.

For me, I support the Republican party, and with that, I support the Republican party's CORE values. I still feel that conservatism and being a Republican are not one in the same. Should the Republican party stray over the years as to what it "means" to be a Republican (as is the case with progressives), the conservative values would still be the same to me.

It's an interesting argument, and it might be guilty of splitting hairs, but I still think being pro-life easily falls under the banners of conservatism and the Republican Party.  That being said, I will grant you that the Republican Party's platform explicitly spells out their pro-life beliefs while there is obviously no such authority defining "conservative" values. 

Also, I totally agree with this statement:

"Personally, I think her use of the term "Progressive Republican" is a cop-out. I think she uses this term to "soften the blow" she feels she may portray on her friends that are probably mostly liberal. She suggests that by saying she's Progressive Republican that she's some how better, or more advanced, than what it means to be a actual Republican."

Meghan does seem to be suggesting that she is more "enlightened" because she is younger and older Republicans "don't get" her because of her socially liberal views.  It is an arrogance that is often seen on the left when it comes to social issues. 

As far as the original question goes: At this juncture should Republicans focus on ideological purity or a big tent philosophy? I think the answer is a little bit of both.  Republicans should look to their platform and the conservative principles that are spelled out within.  Now that America has tasted a liberal government again the party's principles will stand in stark contrast to the current government and appeal to a good many Americans. So, as far as the platform goes and national leaders of the party, the GOP should hold fast to its conservative principles.  If they do the Party can weather this storm and find its identity and voice again.

That being said, it is inevitable that there will be some in the Party, voters and politicians, who will not adhere to all of the principles of the Party's platform.  As voters the GOP should welcome them; Reagan famously attracted millions of "Reagancrats" to help build his powerful majority and today's Republicans should try to do the same. 

As elected officials Republicans should use wisdom and know when to welcome them and when to spurn them.  A "Progressive Republican" type might be the best we can realistically hope for in a Senate race in Vermont or Illinois but be unacceptable for a governor's race in Alabama. 

To me, the central defining characteristic of a conservative isn't that he is pro-life or pro-gun or favors personal property rights or even that he is against the government meddling in the concerns of private enterprise. Rather, the central defining characteristic of a conservative is that he feels that a person needs to take responsibility for his own situation and his own actions. Further, a conservative holds that a person should be allowed by his government and his society to achieve anything and everything he desires and to keep the rewards of his labors.

Steamboat, I certainly agree with all of your views, however, I still disagree with what it means to be a "Conservative". I really think that being a Conservative doesn't necessarily mean that you're Republican.

We as the people of the US determine exactly what it means to be "conservative". I don't think any one person. Wikipedia has some interesting insight as to the term conservative.

Scholar R.J. White wrote: "To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquify the atmosphere […] The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living."

That's really how I feel about it as well. We are conservatives, and that means the conservation of the heritage of this country as well as the rights within. Maintaining the constitution (right to bear arms is very much a conservative principle). The right to capitalism. The right to work hard and achieve successs.

To me, the term "progressive" quite literally means to "advance from conservatism". Although, like I said before, I simply think Meagan referring to herself as a "progressive" simply means she's emberassed by the perceived opinions her friends must have for her, and that by labelling her as "progressive" she can define herself as supporting of the Republican party, but at the same time distance herself enough if there's something she disagrees with. Rather than her moral opinions, I'd really like to see what her views are on a national health care system, or a successive unionized work force.

Quite literally, no real conservative or Republican would support any such legislation as it goes completely against our core values... progressive or otherwise.

"Steamboat, I certainly agree with all of your views, however, I still disagree with what it means to be a "Conservative". I really think that being a Conservative doesn't necessarily mean that you're Republican." - Todd

I agree 100% but, in a general sense, most people of the conservative pursuasion are identified with the Republican Party.  There are, of course exceptions, especially ibn the South.

Steamboat, yeah, I agree... that certainly is the case. For the sake of labelling myself, I label myself a Conservative first and foremost before I label myself a Republican. I'm not trying to be hypocritical in the sense that I think Meagan McCain is. I absolutely believe the Republican party (typically) aligns almost completely with my values and concerns. If however the Republican party was to change.. IE: if they became more "progressive" in hopes of catering to a more centrist group, I would no longer want to consider myself a Republican.

For that matter, I am no longer abandoning my agreement with the Republican party, simply stating that you must be a gun user before you can become a marksman... so to speak.

I say this simply because there have been times when I have NOT voted Republican. (GASP!?). It's true... I pride myself on having voted (twice) for Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. Certainly, he is a Democrat, but he is by far, a conservative Democrat. He's voted against his party in numerous big issues. He was AGAINST the Estate Tax, and voted to abolish it. He was also voted to increase bankruptcy restrictions (making it more difficult for people to absolve themselves from their debt).

I also have great respect for him as a Senator because of his history as an astronaut. Despite some of the other politicians who have for the most part, coasted through school... to become an astronaut requires an unbelievable amount of dedication and hard work. The amount of schooling required superceedes that of an Electrical Engineer. You're required to take something on the note of 12 math classes, and dozens and dozens of science classes. When you're being picked to be an astronaut, you get picked from the cream of the crop. I can tell, without a doubt, that he simply didn't slide through school on some bull crap lawyer degree, or political science degree. He clearly had to work for what he had. ANYONE that's had to undergo that, automatically makes them a conservative, which shows in his voting record. He still seems a better pick than Katherine Harris. Katherine Harris received a stab in the back from the GOP... as a "deal" was made that she forego any senate seat after Nelson and let Mel Martinez take the spotlight for Graham's open senate seat. 

I don't know how much more I can add to this conversation, but let me try...

Steamboat, I agree with much of what you said but take umbrage with your feelings that electing Republican lawmakers accomplished little.  Through largely Republican measures and legislation crime was significantly reduced, the threat of inflation (once growing at a double digit percentage rate during the Carter years) was eliminated through policies enacted by Reagan, the Cold War was won without shedding blood in a major, large-scale war, and economic growth and prosperity was secured for decades after a lethargic, slumping economy was inherited by Reagan.  To dismiss these accomplishments as being of little or no significance is simply not true. 

Did Republicans drop the ball a number of times? No question.  Ample opportunities were squandered as Republican lawmakers grew fat and rich, letting the power they had worked so hard to accumalate corrupt their principles. That being said, we should not belittle their legitimate accomplishments.

As for what being conservative means, Abraham Lincoln once said, "What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"  Whitaker Chambers called conservatism "an inclination to cherish the permanent things in human existence."  These one-line definitions seem to capture the heart of what being a conservative means, though I will attempt to define conservatism better in the coming days. It is, unquestionably, a hard concept/philosophy to define succinctly.

"Steamboat, I agree with much of what you said but take umbrage with your feelings that electing Republican lawmakers accomplished little." - Matthew Cochrane

You are absolutely right about what you say.  What I was trying to say was that we have accomplished little of lasting results.  We all (including you in your examples) look back on Reagan as the Great Conservative and he was.  Still, that was 30 years ago.  And, sure enough, bit by bit, we have lost pieces of those Reagan years until now we are at the very tipping point of becoming a socialist country.  

So, I ask again and will continue to ask in the future what our conservative support has gained us that has lasted.  We have proudly voted and tirelessly worked for Republican administrations and lawmakers and we have watched them, time after time, run our country into the ground to the point that we are at the very tippng point of becoming a socialist country.

Let us not ever forget that it was our last Republican president that initiated those awful bailouts and our most recent Republican presidential candidate that supported them while running for president.  Did I mention that it was actions like these taken by our two  most prominent Republicans that helped considerably to bring us to the very tipping point of becoming a socialist country?  

We cannot and must not continue to look back on the 30-year old election of Reagan as proof that the Republican Party is still viable and helpful for America.  Actions since that time are starting to make it seem like that election was an aberration instead of a pattern.  I am afraid that at the rate we are going that the election of more Republicans like the last ones will push us past that perilous tipping point that is, even now, all too visible on the horizon . . .

Nothing is lasting.  Like G.K. Chesterton once said (paraphrase), "If you want to make sure a white post stays white you need to constantly work to keep it white."  Or something like that, but you get the idea.  That being said we are still enjoying the benefits of legislation passed by Republican lawmakers around the country. 

Crime is still down. Inflation is still down (for now). Most Americans prospered greatly due to the tax cuts implemented by mostly Republican presidents and/or Congresses.  The effects of these are still being felt today.  We still live in the world's richest country and enjoy a relatively high standard of living. 

Again, Republican politicians have missed ample opportunities and made lots of mistakes but the be careful you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Right now we are witnessing what happens when conservatives are not elected into office.

Nothing is lasting.  Like G.K. Chesterton once said (paraphrase), "If you want to make sure a white post stays white you need to constantly work to keep it white."  Or something like that, but you get the idea.  . . .  -  Matthew Cochrane

Steamboat, I take issue with several things you said, as it seems like you're confusing a lot of different things. 

First, you're interchangeably using the terms "Christian" and "conservative" while they are obviously not the same thing.  I happen to be a conservative and a Christian but there are several conservatives who are not Christians and vice versa.  For clarity purposes, it would help if you owuld specify what you're talking about: Do you want Christians or conservtives to be more involved in the political process? You might want to say both, but that would just add to the confusion since if a secular conservative and a Christian liberal both got involved they would not be working towards the same goals.

Second, you seem to make the charge that there are no young professionals working to make the Republican Party more conservative which is far from the truth.  The fact you could say that on a website dedicated to spreading conservative principles where all the contributors have spent their own free time and money building illustrates the point well.  There are countless others who dedicated their time and money to keeping the Republican Party conservative. 

You mentioned that back in the 1970's you attended seminars and learned how to run campaigns for conservative candidates.  Maybe instead of complaining that nobody is doing that today, you should do it.  You obvously have the expertise and training and your experience would be invaluable to local conservative candidates.  Young troops need seasoned and experienced leaders.  True, there might be a shortage of troops in the conservative movement but there seems to be a lack of leaders as well.

First, you're interchangeably using the terms "Christian" and "conservative" while they are obviously not the same thing."  - Matthew Cochrane 

And yet I specifically said, "So if it isn't being painted by Christians or conservatives (sometimes these can be different)  . . ."  This was in the very opening of my comment.  Afterwards, I felt it went without saying that I felt the two were at least at times both specific and distinct.

"For clarity purposes it would help if you would specify what you're talking about:  Do you want Christians or conservatives to be more involved in the political process?  You might want to say both , but that would just add to the confusion since if a secular conservative and a Christian liberal both got involved they would not be working towards the same goals." - Matthew Cochrane

Although I did specifically mention in my comment the term "Christian right", I perhaps could have more clearly used the term "evangelical Christian" instead of just "Christian".   That would have clearly eliminated the concept of a liberal Christian.  Mea culpa on that one.  

And, yes, I was absolutely trying to say that both conservatives and evangelical Christians should/must be more involved in the partisan political process.

"Second, you make the charge that there are no young professionals working to make the Republican Party more conservative which is far from the truth. The fact that you could say that on a website dedicated to conservative principles where all the contributors have spent their own free time and money illustrates the point well.  Thee are countless others who dedicated their time and money to keeping the Republican Party conservative."  - Matthew Cochrane

I didn't say "no young professions" but I definitely feel like this is one big, huge lack for the GOP as it currently stands.  As I said, how many of your friends and colleagues do you know personally who are actively involved within the Republican Party as decision makers?  There's your answer on that one.

By the way.  This website is, in my opinion, hugely important in the effort to instruct, cajole, inform, educate or whatever the American people.  Your efforts and the efforts of others in this regard can never be underestimated.  Still, having said that, this website is not a decision making entity within the GOP and it is not a replacement for the nuts and bolts operation of either a political party or a campaign.  The two are, and must necessarily be, completely separate functions.  In no way was I disparaging the effort that went into this site.  

"Maybe instead of complaining that nobody is doing that today, you should do it."  - Matthew Cochrane

No way!   I did, indeed, run some good campaigns.  In fact my first successful legislative campaign was awarded the best campaign of that year (1976).  But that was then and this is now.  I spent the better part of 15 years leading campaigns of one kind or another and did it fairly well.  You wouldn't believe how much of a toll it takes both on the person and on the family to be so involved and I honestly believe that one of the cores of conservatism is that of the citizen politician.  That is how the founding fathers behaved and I think it's a great model to follow.  In other words, a citizen owes something to the nation or society and should therefore do a public service for a season and then he should get out and let others take the reigns.  I have put in my time and will now devote whatever energy I have in other directions.  Thanks for the vote of confidence, though.