Posted on 04/22/2014 5:26:46 AM PDT by xzins
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned if the Republican Party ignores social issues in the upcoming national elections, then evangelical voters will simply stay home.
The evangelical vote in America has been a key ingredient in deciding who becomes the Republican nominee for president. Polling bears that out.
Yet the social issues near and dear to the hearts of evangelicals are under attack within Republican circles.
A few years ago, former Gov. Mitch Daniels, R-Ind., wanted to declare a truce on the hot button social issues.
"All I was saying was we are going to need to unify all kinds of people. Freedom is going to need every friend it can get," he argued.
That's the line by some within the GOP who say that the only way the party can get more votes and win elections is by staying away from controversial social issues like abortion and gay marriage.
But Huckabee, who's considering running for president in 2016, told CBN News that ditching these issues may cost the GOP evangelical votes.
"It leaves them at home. They just don't go vote, which they didn't do very strongly in 2012. There were fewer evangelical voters who voted for Romney than McCain. If 10 percent more evangelicals had voted for Romney, Romney would be president right now," Huckabee said.
Nevertheless, many in the Republican Party appear intent on phasing out social issues.
Just this past week, the Nevada Republican Party stripped out all language pertaining to abortion and marriage.
And after President Barack Obama won re-election in 2012, a Republican National Committee document concluded the following: "When it comes to social issues, the party must in fact and deed be inclusive and welcoming."
But Huckabee suggested the GOP might want to rethink that strategy.
"This notion of 'don't mention those issues because you might offend the voters who are leaning left,' you better worry about who are you going to leave at home, cool off, and completely chill out the voters who just will say, 'Well, I really don't have anyone to carry the issues that matter for me,'" Huckabee warned.
Huckabee insists that social conservative candidates will need to stand firmly for their values and convince the party that issues like marriage and abortion are an important part of the total equation.
"I think it's a mistake to think that younger voters are going to make their entire election decisions on a candidate's position on same-sex marriage," Huckabee predicted.
"If a candidate can articulate the reason he's for traditional biblical marriage is because of his biblical viewpoint, then will they hold that against them anymore than they would hold it against a Muslim who won't eat pork or drink liquor? If they do, then the problem is bigger than what the position is; it's why they hold the position," he added.
Huckabee is not a conservative, and he does not represent any conservative people or viewpoints.
I AM pro GOD ,pro LIFE, and PRO SMALL GOVERNMENT!!!!!
Right now however MY MAIN GOAL IS a candidate that WANTS SMALL
GOVERNMENT!!!! Social issues are very important to me BUT this
overall government IS SO OUT OF CONTROL I firmly believe that if WE
shrink the government the social issues will follow!!!!! I DO NOT want to
lose the opportunity of SMALLER GOVERNMENT because of my own
firm beliefs against abortion!!!!!! WE may NOT be able to have it ALL in
a candidate! I WILL STAND FOR ANY SMALL GOVERNMENT candidate
and pray the social issues start to correct!!!! The abortion issue is starting
to correct itself slow as it may be minds are changing!!!!!
So, you are saying that you will vote for a pro-abortion candidate if he is also small government.
Is that right?
Huckabee isn’t the issue. He won’t gain traction if he does run.
What is at issue is whether social conservatives expect their issues to be part of the discussion.
Will you vote for an anti-God, anti-gun, anti-life candidate if he also happens to be for reducing the size of government?
The Huckster wasn’t terribly pro “life” when it came to the lives of those cops murdered by the guy he let out of prison.
True, and to clarify even more - Reagan did do outreach to social conservatives, but the tenor of his main campaign, his big speeches, his debate answers, his written works prior to his running, did not emphasize the social issues. That was just not the flavor of his platform. It was in there, and he would be unabashed about it, but it was not the lead.
more words of wisdom from the “I’m taking my toys and going home” group.....
go home to mama and cry...
Of course not, that would be ridiculous.
Nor do gays have a *right* to marry the same sex.
That's easy.
I AM A DEVOUT CATHOLIC and I am dead set against abortion!!!
This COUNTRY is headed for SOCIALISM, government control of damned
near everything, YES I would vote at this time for SMALLER GOVERNMENT over ones abortion belief!!! Let’s NOT FORGET how
BIG GOVERNMENT is slowly removing religious freedoms from ALL of
us!!!! I DO understand how EVANGELICALS feel about standing for
social issues however I believe our REPUBLIC would have been in
better hands with Romney!!! I HATED voting for Romney but LOOK where
our country is NOW!!!! This admin is pure Marxist, Romney was the absolute lesser of the TWO evils!!!!!!
You are TOTALLY MISSING the point here, A SMALLER GOVERNMENT
candidate will ALSO BE a constitutional candidate, religious freedom, and
right to bear arms are constitutional issues!!!! I WANT MY DAMNED
FREEDOM BACK we ARE headed toward Socialism!!!!
Affixing blame, sounds so judgmental, so unChristian.
Maybe we should concern ourselves with getting out of this mess. We need to change the direction of the country.
It is not going to do a 180%, we need to start making incremental changes, and start laying the groundwork for further changes. That's how we got into the mess, it took years, and that's the only way out.
Will you vote for an anti-God, anti-gun, anti-life candidate if he also happens to be for reducing the size of government?
No. All the anti-God, anti-gun, anti-life, anti-American candidates and politicians of recent years have all been big government proponents.
Constitutional conservatives are pro-God, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-liberty, and pro-American.
"Social conservatives" are mostly big-government liberals pretending to be pro-God -- they intend to dictate how other people will worship. The issues they pretend to support would all be non-issues if they would support a Constitutional platform and respect the rights of others; but social-cons are only interested in dictating.
Not blame. Responding to a comment with another comment that I think is a dead on analysis.
I wasn’t in charge of his campaign.
You weren’t in charge of his campaign.
He was in charge of his campaign.
All I have to say to that is "an atheist libertarian".
I couldn't agree more. God can do anything. He was willing to save undeserving wretches such as myself.
I think though we see in Asia, South & Central America, and Africa dramatic growth in Christianity as we see Christianity disappear from western civilization. The USA is just the last to begin embracing the secular, socialist, model where the State not only becomes the father but also claims it alone is the arbiter of truth.
I am among those "supposed" Christians that voted for Romney and I have no regrets. I knew he was our last chance to stop the socialist onslaught. I look at what's happened since the election and know Romney would have been 1,000x's better than what we have.
All I have to say to that is "an atheist libertarian".
You proved my point again. Obviously you believe that anyone who does not believe exactly as you do must be an atheist. You are so very wrong.
90% of people in the USA believe in God, and they do not require your approval for their belief or worship.
More than 80% of people in the USA self-identify as Christian, and they do not require your approval for their religious identification.
You are also wrong in your belief that anyone who is not a Bible-thumping retard must be a libertarian. You are also very wrong on that point. You're just one illiterate person.
You're right, but he would have signed legislation moving us in the right direction. His skill was as a manager of large organizations with a good understanding of economics. He would have been at minimum competent when dealing with China, Russia and Iran.
If we had conservative legislation in front of him he would have been smart enough to not tick off his base.
Look what we ended up with. We now have as law of the land people forced to subsidize abortions through their health insurance.
What Romney would have done as president is wasted analytical power.
What I can agree with is that Romney ran a lousy campaign, he turned off a lot of republican voters, and that he should not run again.
Chris Christie is the “romneyesque” candidate, but he’s got a lot of problems.
The odds on favorites imo to win the nomination are: Cruz, Paul, Martinez, Bush.
The most likely VP candidates are: Cruz, Paul, Martinez.
The compromise ticket will be: Martinez/Paul.
If I’m right, you owe me dinner. :>)
They will fight female with Hispanic Female.
On Immigration Martinez has said:
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.