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.
with moral decline every where, we use a huckabee in the whitehouse. he can led america in prayer.
huckabee had a short lived daytime show in 2o1O on fox network, not fox news. it flopped. then in 2o12, huckabee had a talk radio show to compete with rush. it ended last year. huckabee’s contract ends in 2o16. stay tuned if huckabee resigns with fox news.
Recall in 2008 it went down between McCain, Romney and that fat goober from Clinton's state, pretty sad.
He needs to saty where he is.
huckabee was a lot thinner in 2oo8. since joining fox, huck has so much weight.
Flip that around. Why do GOP candidates not attempt to earn the votes of their socially conservative base? Moderate Republicans do more to help liberals win than any other group.
Fat, Dumb and happy.
He tries to hide it in the suit.
The FNC babes like Megyn Kelly cant get away with that.
And post 137? You see, social liberalism creates bigger, more intrusive government.
Social liberalism and moral breakdown don’t create conservative voters.
Rick Perry would be a far better choice as a praying man that is Huckabee.
Perry has amnesty problems...he’s a middle of the roader on amnesty, but Huckabee is full-blown amnesty.
Texas, on the other hand, is a huge economic and social success.
We do go to church, so don't say we don't.
Social conservatives need to know that there are other conservatives out here. Some conservatives might not be church going (they might believe in GOD, but they might not go). What we conservatives need to is to unite. We might have differences, but we need to fight the growing march of Socialism.
My comment was not directed at you specifically, but rather at the attitude that if a member of the base goes off the reservation because a Republican candidate does not represent them, that’s a greater evil, if you will, than that Republican candidate not working to earn the base’s vote.
That philosophy is taking the easy way out, in my mind.
What I want is to elect the most Conservative candidate. If candidate A is 95% of my views and Candidate B is 0% of my views, Candidate A would be better. Some of us might think Candidate A is a RINO and stay home. Candidate A is going to be better than B to us conservatives.
You are a fool that doesn't understand that social liberalism is what has created big government, and only social conservatives oppose it as a group.
That must be why you keep ignoring posts, you are a social liberal that wants to maintain a bassackwards self delusion about how the vote breaks down between social liberals and social conservatives.
Why did you ignore post 137?
That includes what you want to eat, smoke, drink, religion or anything else. That to me is what Government is. Small government is what I want for all. Social conservatives want government to tell people how to live.
I guess we will disagree.
I believe that gay marriage is going to divide Conservatives. We need to unite against Obama and the Marxists. We should have the same goal, to defeat Obama. I want the government to protect the border, to print GOLD BACKED money and that is all.
Evidently you support creating gay marriage.
Conservatives oppose it, that is part of our opposition to Obama and the democrats and the libertarians, if you want to unite, then unite with conservatives to oppose the left, not support it.
Why do you oppose marriage and want to create, and now preserve, gay marriage, rather than fight it?
We will never agree to this. I want to know that IMHO, if the government ban who you love (if both are legal), that what will they ban - sodas, guns or free speech. I say marriage, but I don’t care if it a legal civil union. What I want is a government that is out of people’s homes.
There wasn’t a gay marriage ban being imposed by the government on the American people, it just didn’t exist, now you have used the government to impose “gay marriage” on us just recently, and you support that, and want us to just roll over and accept it?
All you are saying is that you support gay marriage and bigger, more intrusive government, even at the federal level, for instance in the military, federal employment and immigration.
Is abortion also on your list?
I rec’d something from PriestsforLife in the mail about non-pro-life candidates and voting. It said while we shouldn’t vote for the lesser of the two evils, we do need to keep in mind who would do less harm if elected. While I’m not sure I would vote for a pro-choice GOP candidate, I might consider voting for someone a bit squishy on the issue. Why? Because dems tend to be pro-euthanasia, pro fetal stem call research, etc. It is less typical to find a GOPer that supports all of that.
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.