Government control has been a big problem with states like NJ, CA, NY, etc. face and has been one of the biggest problems with this nation. If you look at the data, the states with the highest taxes are the states which are having the most money problems. And they counteract that by raising the taxes further! I personally believe the republican party is not conservative enough and that is the reason they lost the last presidential election.

What you are mostly concerned with is Religious conservatism which is a complete different topic. While I can tell you don't agree, Religious conservatism is a very small aspect of any government policy today in this country and I would prefer it taken out of politics all together. Unfortunately both Democrats and the media won't let it happen, that's the problem. The only Religious conservatism policies that really exist, which doesn't entirely exist because of religious values, is abortion and the definition of marriage. Both are NOT managed or restricted at all in today's federal policy. So I don't understand why anyone even brings this up. It is not a federal crime for a gay couple to marry and it is not a federal crime to have an abortion. On the marriage issue, both Obama and McCain were against gay marriage, but both were also against making a federal policy on it. There are no laws which enforce teaching creationism, but the liberal party tries to pass laws preventing people from supporting religious parties. If someone wants to celebrate Christmas, they should be able to. If a city wants to put up a Christmas display in front of their municipal building, why create a law to stop them? As per the founding fathers, the purpose of separating Church and State was to protect the Churches from the State. Preventing the government from taking control and enforcing laws on them on religious establishments. Not the other way around.

Civil rights, conservative policy generally dictates a hands off approach on managing these. Thus as in many conservative states, there generally are less laws preventing people from doing what they want to do. Liberal policy on civil rights is to generally allow the government to make the choice for you on what is good for you or not. Thus gun rights, fireworks, pumping your own gas, smoking in bars, most of the restriction that cause headaches today.

Fiscally, conservative policy is generally an open market solution to allow the market to dictate how things should be. If people want to buy SUV's, let them buy SUV's. If people want electric cars, let people decide on their own if they want them. If companies want to merge, buy each other out, let them. If the companies mis-manage their-selves, let them fail. Another company who is fiscally conservative would buy the failing company out and make a better company out of the failure. Liberal fiscal policy generally has been to let the government in there to make and control market. As we've seen with forcing banks to giving money out to people to buy a home who can't afford it, the government bailouts and in history, this hasn't been too successful.

As per legality of drugs, you'd expect expect the conservative party to be more in support of it with the generally hands off approach, but most parties are against it. Only the green party really supports it. The Democrat party does not.

Miner Greg

You raise a lot of great points Greg and I don't disagree with all of it. But again, I am talking specifically about social conservatism, which is a threat not only to our civil rights but to the advancement of society. You cannot advance as a society when your education system teaches you to ignore science, reject evolution, and live under strict government control.

Overspending is an entirely different issue -- both the right and the left overspend.

Do you really think someone who believes the earth is 6,000 years old has the intellect required to lead this country through the 21st century?

Fiscally, a conservative policy allows does allow a free market solution but when Wall Street owns the government, how free is the market really? I believe there should be a small cap on corporate lobbying if not eliminate it entirely. It places those with money in charge of the government and corrupts government. Only then will we have something closer to a free market. And as for your comment about "forcing banks to give money out to people to buy a home who can't afford it," the sub prime mortgage crisis was really nothing more than a complicated pyramid scheme designed to prey on and exploit homeowners. There was profit potential involved and as Tony pointed out, "the banks were not forced to write mortgages to people on several or more homes." And who paid the price for this? Certainly not the banking industry which Bush bailed out. The entire economy suffered as the bank CEO's gave out record breaking bonuses and used the bailout money to expand their footprints further and reinvest in controlling the government which bailed them out.

As for your comment regarding the conservative party's drug policy, no, I wouldn't expect them to be more in support. Drug use is "immoral" and not in line with "traditional values or behaviors". Conservative policy does not embrace new or evolving traditions or behaviors, it alienates and discriminates against people who do not conform.

Do you really think someone who believes the earth is 6,000 years old has the intellect required to lead this country through the 21st century? Or as Sarah Palin says, that the Iraq war is an act of God?