In many ways I agree with Mr. Jenkins (although my criticisms of the GOP would not be quite so vituperative); one of my biggest problems with Palin was her professed evangelical bent. I just don't think that helps a person's credibility, but on the other hand it should give one a good idea about an individual's moral compass.

I believe no person would ever be elected president if s/he declared him/herself to be atheist or even agnostic. (Billy Graham has been an advisor to presidents of both parties). The key to me, though, is that the president should keep his religious preferences completely private. No 'faith-based" anything. No espousing religion in public schools, etc. The problem the GOP has is not that evangelicals might vote democrat, it's that the evangelicals just won't vote - if the GOP candidate is not "religious" enough. Thus the GOP must, to some extent, cater to that constituency.

On the other extreme, we have the politics of Hollywood (Sean Penn and his ilk), Barney Frank (who is loathsome and not because of his sexual orientation), and other miscreants like Pelosi, Reid, Durban, etc., etc.

How to decide between the frying pan and the fire? I have to vote for the side that has the "possibility" of giving us a less intrusive government.

However, I do think Mr. Jenkins has a bit of a chip on his shoulder. People who promote godlessness and moral relativism deserve no higher place on the pedestal than those with opposite views.

Ross,

Despite the label "point/counterpoint" on your exchange with Mark Hillman, I saw much more agreement than disagreement in the two pieces. At least as I read them. They both have provoked me to further thought.

Mr. Jenkins, on the other hand ... Color me skeptical when a person like this claims to be a Goldwater conservative. I too have criticized Huckabee and Palin - especially Huckabee - and am not a Dobson-ite when it comes to politics, but phrases like "knuckle-dragging evangelical views" and "a bunch of lunatics" and "polluted theocratic nonsense" are inflammatory phrases that show no willingness to co-exist on a broader conservative platform.

Does Mr. Jenkins not see the problems with "liberal activist judges"? Has he not read any of your work on Kelo, for example, among others? Has he no interest in protecting fundamental religious liberties?

I'm curious what Mr. Jenkins thinks of the Roe decision and the possibility of Congress passing a bill that would pre-empt state and local laws regulating abortions. What does he think of the Defense of Marriage Act?

Is Mr. Jenkins more interested in restoring the GOP to its fiscally conservative roots or in bashing sincere people of religious faith? We all could use a little more humility. Excuse me while I go back to dragging my knuckles.

Its sounds like as much as Mr. Jenkins wants to remove social issues from the "Republican" platform as not important to the civic arena. He has inevitably allowed social issues to dictate his vote for the management of our public domain regardless to the fact that he supposedly supports a libertarian form of government.
Is the political talking point about the religious right just what it sounds like, a political talking point? We live in a constitutional republic and abide by a social contract. We forfeit certain rights to have other rights protected. I have no affection for a moderate political stance, because we do get exercise our intelligent design in a bubble. The fact that there are very intellectually, convincing people that believe total governmental control by so called "elites" in our society who have dedicated there life's purpose to achieve such is enough for me to never give my approval by vote or appeasement by silence.
Lastly and most importantly there is no Republican party. It is a political organization, just like any organization, that is supported by monetary, physical, and representative efforts of people. There is no mandate that passes and can marginalize a group as Mr. Jenkins proposes. And if your presumption based on the statistical voting pattern of religious conservatives (or Fanatics) is any indication as to what they deem important, then by any means a fanatic will choose only to support their cause and what will that bring if you some how can figure out a way to alienate them? Remember, you will always have progressives, doing what progressives do, and that is to push the envelope constantly because by definition if they did not, they would have no purpose.

Chris,
I grew up in Tulsa. However, my knowledge is limited to my understanding only up to graduating high school and is not even close the where I am at today. I moved to Boston for school and have lived here ever since, so I have a "feel" for both sides of this issue. I really don’t understand, and maybe you can point out what specific policies in Oklahoma that you felt were dominated by God, guns, and gays. I only remember Susan Savage and her crew in Downtown Tulsa trying to spread their progressive ideals. From my internships in the Tulsa County Court, they seemed to be the precipice of activist judges, particularly Shelcross, who I got to graciously watch day in and out. To all the other commenter’s I don’t grasp your understanding of the examples you use, Palin and Huckabee, as campaigning for their religious beliefs. It seemed to be any discussion that brought up their beliefs were from opponents and media that wanted the “compulsion” reaction.

The abortion issue seems like a moot point as to the validity of the decision. I can’t remember the last time I heard a proponent of abortion argue the constitutional validity of the Supreme Court decision. But in today’s politics, the understanding from the populous is they do not care whether it is constitutionaly relevant and decided by the courts, made into law by Congress, or even enforced by the Executive branch as long as it is made a viable option for women to choose. To me, the religious right that does not support any initiative by our government (Federal or State) to legalize abortion is the only group that is actually defending the constitutionally described inalienable right to life. I don’t understand how we can have constitutional scholars (B. Obama) that study and dissertate on the Constitution unless it is a field that doesn’t study the document but study’s interpretations of the document. Like I said previously, a constitutional republic is a social contract of its citizens to forfeit certain rights in order to have other rights protected.

As to the idea that social issues are in a vacuum is not entirely clear. We can debate that the legality of gay marriage is a social issue only to the point where the underlying issue involves relationships of human beings. The actual “intrusion” of the state (and by state I mean either Federal or State government (which one is constitutionally prescribe the power is another debate)) encompasses economic rights and restrictions granted by the law. I don’t know of any laws passed that are purely “social prospective(s)” by the government they do not directly affect other civic obligations and “intrusions”.

The size of the government and having a limited government are not directly correlated and do not determine the amplitude of “infringements”. Everything the government does “infringes” on rights. In fact, this is why government was created and does not mean it’s a bad thing. But the debate moves to what we as citizen will allow the government to take away, to what degree we will allow them to go, and how effective are the government's laws at serving and protecting.