I can only speak for myself as an Independent, but I consider myself more aligned with the Blues than the Reds precisely because of what appears to be extremist attitudes with the Red tent. Don’t believe in Global Warming? Then it is a complete, total, absolute fraud only supported by fools and criminals without any possible shread of evidence. Think that “Enhanced Interrogation” is legal? Then not only is it impossible that government agent could ever have done anything wrong . . . merely asking the question is disgusting and an affront to infants, baseball, and your Momma’s Apple Pie.

What would be won?

I assume the goal is votes, isn’t it? Let me ask you this: As a political party, would you rather the Republicans be 100% morally correct (hypothetically verified by Heavenly Writ) and hold no political influence, or 50% morally correct but have political influence? They’re a political party — ther only reason they exist as a party is political influence. They aren’t a church. They aren’t a baseball team. If nobody will vote for them and their representative candidates, then they are effectively dead.
Why minimize the voice of the SoCons? Because the theory is that they scare away more votes than they bring in, and votes are what matters in this context. Period.

What do you think you have “won”?

You’re adorable.

My question asked him to expound on his statement, which by virtue of being limited in scope inherently left details out. I asked a question to clarify what was not said (that notorious trick of the ankle-biters who were Socrates’ oponents, known as the Socratic Method), and he did. The only thing I implied or inferred from his original statement was that he believed exactly what he said . . . I am a trickster like that.
Now, I could have asumed or inferred that his limited statement implied or inferred that he wanted to wipe out all c-b-b regulations and re-start all legislation and common law in this area of jurisprudence . . . that would have been inappropriate. I could have assumed that he only wanted to deny the Hispanics c-b-b protections, then I could jump up and down and call him a racist (which would be true, if he believed that). Also, that would be inappropriate. Since how I understood and reacted to his position depended on more detail, I asked him to clarify. I chose a question that put the issue squarely out in front so that we didn’t have to go back and forth multiple times. He clarified. He understood what I asked perfectly. So did you.
If you’d like to see the debating tricks of the wise guy as opposed to the wise man, I’d suggest you look at insulting and belittling your “opponent”, which brings us to . . .

““Name-calling is popular among Democrats and liberals; it’s their favorite substitute for thinking” … is just an obvious statement of observation, given your parting comment to me #41, #44, and #42 and many prior items here and elsewher. If you dont want it to be true, you have the power to change it.”

I assume you’ve already realized that I didn’t write comments #42 and 44, so we’ll just skip those.
Your statement makes name calling the provence of “Democrats and liberals”, and even ascribes the rationale why “Democrats and liberals” do this — “its their favorite substitute for thinking”.
Now, I’m sure you’ll object vigorously to this, but your statement implies that ONLY “Democrats and liberals” engage in name calling. Shocking, I know. You are insulting and rude, resorting to name calling in just about every post you make, so either you are a Democrat and liberal, or the name-calling tendency extends beyond D-a-l people. . . which makes your statement itself an exercise in “name-calling”.
Absolutely, its in my power to not call people names and belittle them. As an example, I point to my exchange with Mark in this thread, or with Gayle Miller about abortion several threads back. I’ll let you in on a little secret: My being rude versus being polite is directly proportional to the curtousey I receive from others. Be polite, and I will be polite to you. Be rude and offensive, and I’m not going to waste the effort being polite. You started your response to me (#40) with an attempted insult. Let me repeat that: Your response to me began with you attempting to insult (and failing miserably), and only after you had fired your piss at me did you botrher to speak rationally. To then try and pin name-calling on D-a-l isn’t a rationale . . . its projection.

“Why, thank you — it has been awhile since somebody referred to me as a wise man. I’m assuming you meant in the classical sense”
- Yes, I was - classical in the sense of the ankle-biters who were Socrates’ opponents. I was using it precisely to refer to your question, which unfairly assumed/inferred a hole in his proposal that wasnt there. It’s a debating trick of a ‘wise guy’ more than a wise man.

“Name-calling is popular among Democrats and liberals; it’s their favorite substitute for thinking” … is just an obvious statement of observation, given your parting comment to me #41, #44, and #42 and many prior items here and elsewher. If you dont want it to be true, you have the power to change it.

Go to your website an look if you don’t call a number of people RINOs. I guess you are a Democrat now.