Any candidate claiming to be “fiscally conservative and socially moderate” is a walking talking contradiction. It’s so ambiguous it’s laughable. For example, does this mean he feels the pain of the entitlement class, yet is reluctant to spend more of the taxpayer’s money on entitlements, or does it mean he’s fiscally conservative, that is until he feels the pain of the entitlement class, at which time he’s willing to spend the taxpayer’s money on entitlements?
The key word in this bogus line of reasoning is moderate. This is the “I can have my cake and eat it too”, word, the “I can get out of jail free”, card. To incorporate the word moderate into politics means to sit on the political fence; one day you jump off on the left side, another day you get to jump off on the right side, depending of course, which way the political wind is blowing on any given day. To be a moderate is to stand for nothing; one can’t make a conservative decision in politics then divorce themselves from the liberal causality of that decision, and vice versa. There is no moderate causality in politics. Therefore, to claim one is a moderate is an oxymoron. It means not having to declare weather you’re liberal or conservative (how convenient).
Is the glass half full or half empty? Neither, it’s moderately full, when not empty of course. Is it right or wrong to collect taxes at the point of a gun? Neither, coercion is moderation we can live with, albeit it helps having the gun. Malfeasance can become acceptable too, in moderation of course. The next thing you know politicians will be excused for being moderately promiscuous.
Moderates cost conservatives the election in 2008. It brought us the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both of whom need to go the way of the dinosaur, politically speaking. Consider this, Adolf Hitler was a moderate fascist and Joseph Stalin was a moderate communist. Here in this country, you’re either liberal or conservative. So stop the foolishness; we are no longer beguiled by such sophistry.