Skip to comments.
McCain Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming 'Religious Party'
FOX ^
Posted on 04/17/2009 1:01:30 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
McCain Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming 'Religious Party' Steve Schmidt urges Republicans to begin voicing more support for civil unions and gay rights.
FOXNews.com
Friday, April 17, 2009
John McCain's top adviser from the presidential campaign urged fellow Republicans on Friday to warm up to gay rights and warned that the GOP risks becoming the "religious party" with its opposition to same-sex marriage.
Steve Schmidt, in his first political appearance since the election, spoke at the Washington, D.C., convention for the Log Cabin Republicans -- a grassroots group for gay and lesbian Republicans.
He urged Republicans, in the near-term, to endorse civil unions and stop using the Bible as rationale for gay-marriage opposition.
"If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party," he said. "And in a free country a political party cannot be viable in the long-term if it is seen as a sectarian party."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: christianvote; fauxmarriage; goldwater; gop; homonaziagenda; homosexualagenda; lbj; liberalgop; liberalrepublican; logcabin; mccain; mccaintruthfile; mcqueeg; omfg; queerrinos; religiouspersecution; rino; rinoalert; rinoparty; rinos; sodomyinthegop; steveschmidt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 321-334 next last
To: Sub-Driver
It shouldn’t be a religious party, but it should certainly be the party the religious feel at home in.
101
posted on
04/17/2009 1:34:56 PM PDT
by
Trod Upon
(Obama: Making the Carter malaise look good. Misery Index in 3...2...1)
To: Sub-Driver
I tell you, I don’t care what Rush or anyone says about 3rd parties, I am through with these dumb a**ed republicans.
102
posted on
04/17/2009 1:36:16 PM PDT
by
calex59
To: Big_Monkey
irrelevant, regional party of rednecks and hillbilliesI'll take that any day over the party of Steve Schmidt and John McCain. And just because Schmidt has a lesbian sister he is trying to please doesn't mean I have to change my beliefs!
How did that John McCain presidential campaign do again?! Oh yeah, he got beat by a community organizer who doesn't have a damn clue!
103
posted on
04/17/2009 1:36:47 PM PDT
by
kcvl
To: Antoninus
Because the polls show no difference between married/unmarried and between 20ish and 30ish respondents. The break point seems to start at age 35-40. That pattern indicates cohort replacement (i.e. fixed groups, each moving up the age scale at one year every twelve months) rather than individual attitude shifts with age.
104
posted on
04/17/2009 1:36:49 PM PDT
by
steve-b
(Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
To: manc
inform the black and Hispanic community that the Dem want homos, our party does not. we believe in traditional values not some limp wrist ed agenda, in fact remind all those blue collar workers too who are union or the average job.
Exactly. Brand the GOP as the party of working men, dads, family men, Godly men, etc. and the Dems as the party of metrosexuals, stoners, pony-tail guys, pimple-faced teens and fairies. That message is largely accurate and would resonate in the Black, Hispanic, and blue-collar white communities.
The GOP is WAY too spineless to even try it. But they should.
105
posted on
04/17/2009 1:37:03 PM PDT
by
Antoninus
(Now accepting apologies from repentant Mittens.)
To: Big_Monkey; kenavi
Yep. And not popular here. Goldwater would be/is rolling over in his grave. What the Republican party is today is not what he created in 1964.
Maybe so, however, it is the Republican Party that Reagan designed, and he was successful where Goldwater was not.
To: Pox
That is what the extreme left desires. A better course of action would be to emphasize conservatism and leave religion out of politics as much as possible.
I wonder what the founders would say to that if they were here today?
To: Sub-Driver
Religious party? Heaven forbid!
108
posted on
04/17/2009 1:39:13 PM PDT
by
madprof98
("moritur et ridet" - salvianus)
To: kenavi
Like it or not, its sage advice.Listen to the man. He just won a tough election for us!
What, he lost it for us in a landslide? Oh.
109
posted on
04/17/2009 1:39:15 PM PDT
by
xjcsa
(Currently shouting "I told you so" about Michael Steele on my profile page.)
To: kenavi
Steve Schmidt, in his first political appearance since the election, spoke at the Washington, D.C., convention for the Log Cabin Republicans -- a grassroots group for gay and lesbian Republicans.You call that "sage" advice? Pander to that huge voting segment of 'gay and lesbian Republicans'. Brilliant! More of the same Dem-lite strategy used by McQueeg in 2008 that worked so fabulously.
To: Pox
“You stand up to those stereotypes and make absolutely sure it is universally understood that the stereotype is incorrect. That has NOT been accomplished at this time.”
Agree. That is what I intended, but did not articulate it well. Take the opportunity to go on the offensive not the defensive. Thanks.
111
posted on
04/17/2009 1:39:51 PM PDT
by
Never on my watch
(If Obama isn't the Anti-Christ, then tell me what the Anti-Christ would do differently.)
To: Big_Monkey; Impy
>>
Personally, I believe government should stay out of the marriage morass and stick to what it does best - contracts and agreements. Give the homos the ability to enter into civil unions and be done with it. Marriage is something for God, by God and of God. <<
The whole point of "civil unions" laws is to FORCE the government to recognize and endorse gay couples as having equal status to traditional marriage. Nobody is prohibiting them from having whatever ceremony they want in private to valid their little "relationship".
Here in Illinois, the government doesn't recognize gay marriages or "civil unions" at all due to the defense of marriage act, yet gays have "marriage ceremonies" all the time in private and nobody stops them. If they want to spend a couple thousand bucks to rent tuxes, throw rice, walk arm in arm down an aisle and have a professional religious minister "marry" them, that's all perfectly legal in Illinois (I know this for a fact, I used to work in a wedding studio and photographers would occasionally be hired to cover homosexual "marriage" ceremonies in Illinois) All of that is 100% legal and nobody is going to arrest them for their little ceremony. The only thing that's not legal is GOVERNMENT recognition of their ceremony. In the eyes of the state, they are still single persons and unmarried.
This isn't about gays "right" to do whatever they want in private and have whatever ceremony they want to throw to "validate" their relationship with each other. This is about gays trying to force the rest of the country to recognize those ceremonies and elevate it to being equal to a traditional heterosexual marriage (despite 4000 years of history showing otherwise). It's all about the money.
112
posted on
04/17/2009 1:40:51 PM PDT
by
BillyBoy
(Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
To: steve-b
If what you’re saying is true then American liberty as we understand it is finished. There is no aspect of human society that the homosexual acivists will allow to remain untouched. Religious liberty, free speech, property rights...all these things will have to bow to the HomoFascists.
This is what happens when a society becomes socially liberal. It doesn’t become “live and let live”. It unleashes ugly forces that use government power to force everyone in society to acquiesce and pay homage.
113
posted on
04/17/2009 1:41:20 PM PDT
by
puroresu
(Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
To: Sub-Driver
The same old “let’s join the left and maybe they’ll vote for us” routine. So how did that work out for you last year, Juan??!!
114
posted on
04/17/2009 1:41:23 PM PDT
by
Oldpuppymax
(AGENDA OF THE LEFT EXPOSED)
To: Big_Monkey; BillyBoy
Goldwater laid the foundation on which Reagan built a movement
And yet it was Reagan that brought the Christians solidly into the GOP by being totally Pro-Life.
Reagan does not what YOU consider the ideal Conservative.
To: Sub-Driver
Steve Schmidt = EPIC FAIL
Mr. Schmidt, your strategic analysis means Zero to us.
116
posted on
04/17/2009 1:41:35 PM PDT
by
savedbygrace
(You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
To: steve-b
Because the polls show no difference between married/unmarried and between 20ish and 30ish respondents. The break point seems to start at age 35-40. That pattern indicates cohort replacement (i.e. fixed groups, each moving up the age scale at one year every twelve months) rather than individual attitude shifts with age.
Talk to me in five years when we can actually test those numbers. The vast majority of people's kids start going to school when they are 35-40. THAT is where the break will remain on the homosexual issue. Say what they will to a pollster five years before, no one wants an "out and proud" homosexual teaching their kids.
People are only now starting to realize that approving butt-sex marriage means that the state schools will begin preaching it to your kids. Most rational people oppose that on a visceral level.
117
posted on
04/17/2009 1:42:04 PM PDT
by
Antoninus
(Now accepting apologies from repentant Mittens.)
To: Sub-Driver
McStain’s staff, family, and the former man himself need to STFU! Now!
118
posted on
04/17/2009 1:42:41 PM PDT
by
j_tull
(I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.)
To: Impy
Homosexuals are about 2% of the total population, probley less of the voting population. Their vote means zip, nada, nothing, zero.
119
posted on
04/17/2009 1:42:54 PM PDT
by
stockpirate
(We stand as conservatives at the Hot Gates like the 300, what will history say of us?)
To: BillyBoy
Ultimately, the only way to resolve the problem is to get government out of the marriage business.
120
posted on
04/17/2009 1:43:03 PM PDT
by
steve-b
(Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 321-334 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson