Skip to comments.Should the GOP dump social issues?
Posted on 03/31/2013 10:26:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Recently reporter Thomas Edsall - who has spent most of the last 30 years covering politics for the Washington Post and the New Republic - had some advice for the GOP. He draws upon some recent polling data to argue that "the Republican Party can afford to marginalize . . . Christian right leaders because evangelical social conservatives . . . are not going to vote Democratic." Thus, he reasons that Republicans can, as he puts it, "concede defeat in the culture war" in the hopes of picking up more socially liberal voters.
Mr. Edsall might want to check with Governor Mike Huckabee, who knows a thing or two about evangelical voters. Huckabee suggested that evangelicals will "take a walk" from the GOP if the party supports gay marriage. He might also want to consider the 1996 Presidential election, when Bill Clinton carried red states such as Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Missouri, and Louisiana.
President Clinton's wife is the likely Democratic nominee in 2016, and it's safe to say that the Clintons - with their deep roots in Arkansas - know how to reach evangelical voters, especially if the GOP acts like it doesn't want them. I would also note that in both 2008 and 2012, the GOP did nominate Presidential candidates who were not popular with social conservatives - and those candidates fared poorly in the fall campaign. Next time around, conservative voters might just stay home, or throw their support to a democrat who they see as more sympathetic to the middle class. But, of course, the question of what sort of culture our children are going to inherit is a lot more important than the results of any one election.
The social issues are not merely a political football...
(Excerpt) Read more at lauraingraham.com ...
I thought they already had.
Dumpe social issues?
Like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....sure why not, what good are they anyway.
This implies that they didn’t already dump them...not to mention every other type of issue.
No! They should DEFINE them.
and all those voters with them?
Liberals keep moving the goal posts of what words mean.
Call them on it.
its not like they are fiscally conservative either
//the Republican Party can afford to marginalize . . . Christian right leaders because evangelical social conservatives . . . are not going to vote Democratic.” //
Newsflash...some of us don’t vote Republican anymore either.
They dumped us a long time ago, Romney was the last straw. It is time to dump them for a CONSERVATIVE party and let them go the way of the whigs.
I am a Christian first, a conservative second, and left the GOP and joined the Constitution party.
Should the GOP keep selling out . . . ? What’s left to sell? They’ve all but signed their souls on the infernal dotted line in their own blood.
The "social issues" would be properly addressed if "conservatives" would quit voting for statism and collectivism at the federal level. Look where were are now - about 3 X the global GDP in debt - $150+ TRILLION and counting.
Run for office or elect conservatives at the state and local level where social issues can be lawfully addressed.
The GOP should focus on the budget and related economic issues. The cost of government is leading to many social ills.
But, the GOP will not focus on the budget and related economic issues because they are pigs at the trough not interested the least in reducing the size of government.
i don’t care , i am done with ‘em as a whole. until rino leadership is gone and conservatives run it, i’m done with em as a group.
PELLEY: Well, the platform as written at this convention for the Republicans does not allow for exceptions on abortion with regard to the health of the mother or rape or incest. Is that where you are?
ROMNEY: No. My position has been clear throughout this campaign. Im in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.
Should the GOP dump social issues?
***Speaking as a socon, they already have. The GOP is on the same road the Whigs were on when the Republican party was formed. How many Whigs do you know today? The GOP is similarly doomed.
From my home page...
Im a big tent republican.
Heres an analogy to work with. Take a small box and fill it with some rocks. Then add some rice, filling it to the top. Now take all the same stuff, but in a different order. Put in the rice first, then add the rocks. What youll find is that if you put in the big stuff first, the small stuff will fit around it. But if you put in the small stuff first, the big stuff wont have room. The republican tent is the box. The Big issues are the socon issues, to be put in first. The little issues are things that can be accommodated around the bigger stuff. A candidate who tries to focus on the smaller issues first and leave out the bigger issues has no way of getting all of us into the tent. He splits the party. The candidate who gets the big stuff right and as much of the little stuff that will fit, he can fit more into the tent. Were often amazed at how much rice can keep fitting in. Folks such as Rudy or Romney flunk some of the big issues, and on some of the little issues it looks to me like anyone elses rice would do just as well. All that remains for us to agree on is which are the bedrock principles and which are not. Why would there be so much invective aimed at rudy or romney from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot and romneybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter or Palin, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy or romney. Thats a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.
"What difference does it make?"
Only if they wish to win women’s votes.
The GOP doesn't have to dump social issues; they just need people who can argue their case like mature adults.
If the social issues had been debated from a constitutional perspective, the culture war would have been won forty years ago. The right to life would have been preserved as a 4th Amendment guarantee. Ditto the other blatant abuses of Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10.
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.