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 ...
Which is precisely why I keep hammering on idea of paring down the Fedgov back to it's constitutionally sanctioned roots.
There's about 78,000 pages of tax laws. The Bible is about 2,000 pages. If it takes a life time to study the Bible for proficiency, how can liberty thrive or survive when just a minute portion of our statist edicts takes up 78,000 pages?
More Fedgov power = more control = less liberty to pursue our natural, God given rights.
You need to look up Kansas-Nebraska act. It turned slavery over to popular sovereignty and to the states.
“The Federal apparatus, including SCOTUS, is unbalanced and out of control.”
Yes, but that doesn’t change what is it’s constitutional role. Should the states be responsible for their own defense or is that part of the federal government? Again, we don’t uphold the constitution by violating it whenever we feel it will provide us with momentary advantages.
“There are numerous constitutional anomolies from SCOTUS that distort the original intent (Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, Lawrence v Texas, Obamacare, Wickard v Fillburn) and your great and mighty statism did nothing to prevent their implementation. In fact, federal statism enabled them.”
Indeed - but what gain do you seek by arguing that a child is a child in North Dakota and not a child when they cross the state line. It is absurd. It was absurd when the line was the 34th parallel, and it will be absurd now.
Again, this is the Kansas-Nebraska act - the “Great compromise” that was to resolve the issue of slavery. We know how that worked out - it was a disaster.
Per the 14th, this is the authority of the federal government and it is in it’s purview.
“Maybe, a VERY STRICT inprepretation of the constitution would set us back on the course our founding fathers intended.”
And where does the constitution say that personhood is a state issue? It does not. The constitution is on my side, not yours.
I know what the act is, SCOTUS opinions, Bill of Rights amendmendements, etc. You are just ignoring my points on the existing constitutional authority / limits of the 3 federal branches and the ever growing cancer of statism.
You do like your strawmen. The constitution says national defense is based on federal powers with states fulfilling militia responsibilities. This was not part of the discussion any more then authority over treaties.
"And where does the constitution say that personhood is a state issue? It does not."
Where does it say "murder" is a crime, or how it should be punished? Oh the chaos - how do we keep people from murdering one another! How about check kiting or a plethora of additional legal infractions?
The Tenth Amendment states that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.
The Fifth Amendment states that none shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Under this umbrella, all states have the authority to prosecute murder and other crimes that violate both constitutional and state law infractions.
Focusing on economic issues is a loser because the majority of Americans want the government to give them free stuff. That’s why focusing on social issues is in fact the only way Republicans will ever win.
“I know what the act is, SCOTUS opinions, Bill of Rights amendmendements, etc. You are just ignoring my points on the existing constitutional authority / limits of the 3 federal branches and the ever growing cancer of statism.”
Not at all. I have already affirmed the constitutional authority of the federal government and it’s limitations. I am arguing that this is within their purview via the 14th amendment to the constitution.
“You do like your strawmen. The constitution says national defense is based on federal powers with states fulfilling militia responsibilities.”
And the Constitution also says that the Federal government via the 14th declared who is and who is not considered to be a person. :)
“The Tenth Amendment states that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.”
And my argument argues that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly gives them the power to decide who is and who isn’t a person within the United States of America, providing recognition that everyone born in the United States is considered to be a person.
“Under this umbrella, all states have the authority to prosecute murder and other crimes that violate both constitutional and state law infractions.”
Indeed, but the Fourteeth determines who has the legal rights and responsibilities associated with personhood.
This is, as of the 14th, an enumerated power and thus not subject to the Tenth.
By what authority do you accept the Tenth and reject the Fourteenth?
My comment is that I voted for Tim Walberg so he can be Tim Walberg, not Arlen Specter, nor Mike Huckabee for that matter.
You can help fix the problem from the local level on up, or put your nose up in the air Obama style and watch everything go in the crapper.
People can fix the problem or be a keyboard warrior.
A seventh new party to go with the six parties out there now? That will work about as well as the McCain campaign.
I spent over 20 years trying to fix the GOP from the ground up. NOTHING. Its time to bail out. The Constitution party CAN win if people stop rolling over for the RINOS.
How will it win when it hasn't won anything at this point despite being on the ballot at least 20 years? Not one congressional seat, and as far as I know, not one state rep or state senate seat. Yeah, they CAN win if they get enough votes, but they rarely get more than 5%. People are having trouble buying what Rs or Ds are selling, but many more are buying Rd and Ds than CP, LP, Green, Reform, or any of the other fly by nights out there.
I live in Washington state!
The GOP is dead here.
No more shjt sandwiches please.
Yeah, let’s turn our backs to nascent life, and moralize how the vulva is no different than the anus. Life would be so much easier with blood and crap on our hands.
More FedGov laws = less liberty
Natural Law is the cornerstone of every individual's right to existence, freedom, and liberty. Let's not lose it over someone's desire for ever growing state control.
Our entire republic rests on the concept of Natural Rights, or else it is null and void. There is no support for a legal definition of "personhood" outside of the concept of Natural Rights. Natural Rights was the cornerstone of the American revolution. Personhood is the cornerstone of this "Republic" (not a Democracy - which means "mob rule"). We do NOT need laws to support the very basis of our revolution, or else it was all a sham.
If the GOP decides to go gay, then I might just do campaign work for either Santorum or Hucakbee in 2016.
“We do NOT need laws to support the very basis of our revolution, or else it was all a sham.”
Hobbes disagrees.
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.