Posted on 02/07/2014 5:30:36 PM PST by Olog-hai
For the last 10 days, we’ve had something of a running debate among GOP columnists on the question of whether Republicans should de-emphasize social issues as part of a broader political strategy to appeal to more voters.
It began when Roger L. Simon penned a column titled “How Social Conservatives are Saving Liberalism (Barely).” Simon believes that social issues, specifically gay marriage, may keep Republicans from victory …
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
That’s not what the social issues thing is about.
Do you enjoy having the Democrats tell you what to do in your personal life?
Don’t ask me to pay for your abortion, contraceptives, or sex change operation. Also, don’t ask me to support your War on Drugs, your hypocritical religiosity, or your keyboard patriotism....
No, it means to reject, which is worse than to ignore.
If nobody is a champion for conservative social issues, then those that hold them dear will get persecuted for them instead. The left-wingers in the Democratic Party are strong doctrinarians. The 2010 “shellacking” did not come about because of a de-emphasis, but rather a re-emphasis, on both social and fiscal issues, which are intertwined; the 2012 election stumbling is thanks to a strong de-emphasis thereof.
Same here
HELL NO!
Before it does anything, the GOP should emphasize amnesty. No back room deals, no secret plans for after the election, no hidden pacts.
Hahah :O
That is funny but also such a stark illustration of just how fail the GOP is.
It has zero success on any front whatsoever...well except of course the front of advancing government agenda or otherwise assisting the communists in their myriad schemes.
BLARG ;/
They NEVER HAVE emphasized the correct social issue: keeping the traditional family together, especially because of the benefit to children.
Not for it at all, but it is a pop culture loser to argue against queer marriage. Instead, we ought to be arguing forcefully FOR traditional families.
The question should be should the GOP approve taxpayer funded abortions and restrictions on the First Amendment.
No and no.
If the best they can do on social issues is those like Todd Akin then yes they should abandon them.
Akin and a few others furthered Obama’s agenda better than any Dem did(Romney helped too).
Alternatively the Little Sisters of the Poor ad against the birth control mandate was a home run.
Losing to Dems just to say ‘I took a (losing) stand’ is a date in the book of irrelevance and sometimes idiocy.
Akin was Michele Bachmann’s endorsement, not the GOPe, nor the tea party.
Akin was just a bad candidate that Palin and the tea party, and the establishment all tried to get out.
You need to rephrase this last sentence.
Are you saying they all were against him?
Politico
“”Sarah Palin slammed GOP Senate hopeful Todd Akin’s decision to continue his bid for the Missouri seat and suggested that she might back a third-party challenger in an interview on Fox News on Tuesday night.
(snip)
Palin’s remarks came hours after Akin, in defiance of GOP influentials from Mitt Romney to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, refused to drop his challenge to Sen. Claire McCaskill, the incumbent Democratic senator from Missouri.
(snip)
Akin, she said, is not the one to secure the state for the Republicans.
(snip)
In the interview, Palin championed Sarah Steelman, who was her choice for the ticket in Missouri’s bloody Republican primary, and added that if Akin doesn’t drop out by the end of September, “it’s going to be a third party then.”
wiki
“” Other candidates in the August 2012 Republican primary included businessman John Brunner, author and business executive Mark Memoly, and former Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman.””
(different article, slate)
“”In 2010, yes, Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell blew elections that Republicans were on track to win. (The Nevada race that Angle lost was less of a sure thing—Harry Reid is underestimated at his enemies’ peril. But we’ll go with it.) In 2012, Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin lost elections that other Republicans could have won, but Todd Akin was not endorsed by any major national or local Tea Party organization.””
I left out that Steelman and Brunner were the tea party candidates, (there was some division).
I have read similar here before.
I just didn’t understand what you were getting as this thread had nothing to do with Palin, nor did my comment that you replied to. .
My point relative to this thread is that there is no point taking up pet issues just to convince Americans to support Dems on those same issues.
I was responding to your post on Akin, what are you talking about?
Nothing about Palin.
To: sickoflibs
Akin was Michele Bachmann’s endorsement, not the GOPe, nor the tea party.
Akin was just a bad candidate that Palin and the tea party, and the establishment all tried to get out.
51 posted on 2/8/2014 1:08:22 AM by ansel12
ME, YES-——post 53.
To ansel12
In a comment I referenced Akin in a point about winning and losing so-con fights. I didn’t post anything about the Tea Party or Palin on this thread related to that.
My comment had nothing to do with them.
I pointed out that the so-con Palin, so-con tea party, and the so-liberal/libertarian GOPe did not support him.
So what was your original point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.