If Wildrose ignores social conservatives, then voting for it isn't a vote for better government

The Wildrose Party has taken a disastrous step this week with the announcement that Brian Jean has "no interest" in legislating social issues.
“We are not there to govern on social issues. We have no interest in social issues and we will be bringing no social issues forward to legislate on whatsoever,” Jean said in an interview.
This means a Wildrose Government would pre-emptively surrender to the faggots. Indeed they already have, with the decision to refuse to sign the Russ Kuykendall nomination papers because he dared to speak the truth about the faggot agenda.

There are a plethora of problems with a "fiscal conservative, socially liberal" mindset. For one, socially liberal is bad: it has you signing on to whatever ridiculous liberal cause is coming along without a moral compass to stop it. You end up not being very fiscally conservative.

bitterclingerpa at RedState.com expresses the social liberal mindset and how it is incompatible with fiscal conservatism:
Conservatism is not status quo ante but a belief that a free person in a free society is the best engine for freedom for all people, for economic growth, enabling the protection of rights by not infringing on them and allowing people to learn their life lessons by trial and error. Unfortunately due to it’s lack of structure it’s easily open to atrophy and dissolution.

Social Liberals view society as a field in which fairness does not exist but must be imposed. Where people are suppressed and not free to pick themselves up but need to be picked up and supported by others. It’s a society where others have “too much” and must be compelled to provide for others. It’s a Utopian vision of Society, leveling, a construct. Social Liberalism leverages “Social Justice”, redistribution of wealth (property) and Public Services as the means to an end.
The flip side is ridiculous bullshit like "Sex and Socialism" blogger Elisa peddles:
if you really believe in gay rights and what they represent - the idea that people should be able to make love with any consenting adult they choose - then you have to believe in (sexual) health services and want condoms and dental dams all over the place

Does Brian Jean believe we need government spending on dental dams for poofters while they blow hundreds of partners in their bar scene? If so, can he kindly come straight out and say that? I wonder how that will improve the voter turnout in pie-eating rural Alberta.

We tried going down this road with uranist-loving Danielle Smith, who insisted that the party faithful and the decent real people of Alberta have to change to meet the sick sexual mores of the group who commit suicide when they have their sick lifestyle exposed, waste away of venereal diseases when they don't. When Danielle was elected, the choice she made between Jeff Wilerton and herself was clear: Jeff will give you the party you want that expresses the wishes you have but will unlikely form government, while I'll give you most of the party you want and you'll actually get to form a government out of it. You can claim it's Craig Chandler or Huntsperger's fault all you wish, but the straight up reality is that Danielle Smith promised a bag of goods she couldn't deliver. No matter how much Wildrose capitulated on the fudge-packer file, the extra votes never came, and Wildrose supporters were left perpetually in a "worst of both worlds" scenario. They never become the "NDP of the right" exposing their moral and political philosophy daily on the public stage, nor do they end up forming government. They wind up in a "perpetual opposition" phase, but other than a few outrageous incidents like Sky Palaces or flying a fuck-buddy to South Africa and back, there's no philosophical disagreement over what they want them to do. Wildrose was looking to get into power, but to get into power they were having to sacrifice everything they believed in to do so. Turns out Prentice just got there first, and as a result Danielle "lost her fire". It turns out she didn't necessarily have a better idea for what to do in power other than "don't be as clueless as Red Redford". That position was filled.

Now Prentice is unpopular, not necessarily for being clueless, but for the Rachel Notley Budget that he passed. This I assume bolsters the Brian Jean argument that "fiscal conservatism" will win the day, but if Wildrose wins by just convincing enough voters that they would do a slightly better job with the finances, what has really been gained? Faggots will still have a special agenda in schools. Private education will still be under assault. Alberta hospitals will still be murdering babies. Property rights, including gun rights, will still be an endless pipe dream. And then the money managers won't end up being that good a money managers anyways. When wasteful and incompetent teachers demand more money or more hires (ie. class sizes), a "social liberal" can't really explain why it's abhorrent that the size of government be expanded, why productive people in private industry needn't have their incomes seized just because a bunch of teachers want more money regardless of the economic value of their role. Social liberals are in no position to stand up and say "no". They cannot make a moral or philosophical argument because they don't really have one. They have an immoral and philosophical argument in favour of raising government spending, but not one opposing it.

So when you hear that Brian Jean has decided "social issues" would not be debated by his government, it means that when social issues come up his plan is to let the left (the wrong side) just win without even mounting a fight? This is the principled conservative opposition to the Prentice PCs that he's offering?

There's no wonder Wildrose are stalling in the polls.

I leave you with the immortal words of Dennis Prager.
The entire American experiment in smaller government — and even in secular government — was based on the presumption that Americans individually would be actively religious. Unlike Europeans of the Enlightenment era — and unlike the Left today — the Founders understood that people are not basically good. That is a defining belief of Judaism as well as of Christianity. Therefore, to be good, the great majority of people need moral religion and belief in accountability to a morally judging God. In other words, you will have either the big God of Judaism and Christianity or the big state of the Left.

Social conservatives know that they need fiscal conservatives. They know that the bigger the state, the smaller the God. They know that proponents of the ever-larger state want their own gods, such as Mother Earth, to replace the Bible’s God. Fiscal conservatives must come to understand that they need social conservatives, too. They need them philosophically, as I’ve suggested, and they need them politically. There will never be enough Americans who are fiscally but not socially conservative to win a national election. Sorry.