If you haven't seen it already, Ryan Sager
has a column up today at the NY Sun about how GOP candidates are snubbing social conservatives, namely the chappies running the ValueVoters.org debate. I recommend you read it.
Ryan accurately described the agenda of these social cons as "anti-abortion, anti-stem-cell-research, anti-judicial-independence, anti-immigration, and pro-censorship."
More to the point, he accurately notes that it is unlikely that any of the candidates are going to lose more than they gain by not showing up at this extravaganza of 1950's-longing, protectionist, religiously-infused, and yes, big government (on the censorship count alone) sentiment. While Ryan bases that contention on the premise that the vast majority of the country does not agree with the ValuesVoters.org people on issues like this (or that they are the most important of all), I think it's worth pointing out that the fact that the top four GOP candidates feel they can
miss this debate with little harm shows that most likely, contrary to what Phyllis Schlafly implies in her comment to the Sun (cited by Ryan), social cons are not in fact the true or at least majority of the grassroots of the GOP-- obviously good news, from my perspective.
Oh-- and I love how Ryan calls Schlafly "Ms." She'll no doubt be screaming over that, with her anti-feminist reputation...