Posted on 05/08/2009 3:27:15 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
(CNN) — Days after national Republicans launched a new campaign to broaden the party's outreach, former upstart presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says the GOP is at risk of becoming "irrelevant as the Whigs."
In an interview with the California newspaper The Visalia Times-Delta, Huckabee said the GOP would only further decline in influence should it alienate social conservatives — largely considered the most energetic and loyal faction of the party.
"Throw the social conservatives the pro-life, pro-family people overboard and the Republican party will be as irrelevant as the Whigs," he said in reference to the American political party that largely disbanded in the mid 1800s.
"They'll basically be a party of gray-haired old men sitting around the country club puffing cigars, sipping brandy and wondering whatever happened to the country. That will be the end of the party," he said in the interview published Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
It’s hard to say, Ansell.
A woman becomes pregnant and the doctor believes that going full term will likely kill her. She has two children already, should she risk dying and leaving her children motherless or have an early-term abortion?
I get raped. The morning after pill doesn’t work? Am I obliged to have the rapists child?
A 12-year-old girl is a victim of incest, by an uncle..say, should she be forced, at 12, to carry a baby to term and deliver the baby?
They are all good questions.
You avoided the question about a real life situation that you posted.
After you described your real life experience and the people involved I asked you, “She was in labor and she had a child, would you trade that six year olds life now in exchange for you not having to watch, and/or for the 12 year old to not have to go through that labor?”
No, I answered you. It’s hard to say.
Do I wonder if an abortion to save a twelve-year old child from going full-term to deliver her own child might be understandable? I do wonder.
You probably disagree. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
You didn’t answer at all.
This is your real life experience, this is your own story that you posted here. It isn’t theory or hypotheticals, this is one question that you can truly answer from your heart and reveal your inner being.
“She was in labor and she had a child, would you trade that six year olds life now in exchange for you not having to watch, and/or for the 12 year old to not have to go through that labor?”
However, Sarah Palin wasn’t a Presidential candidate, so I’ll exclude her from your “none”...
Right. Sarah will pick up the 55 M votes McCain got, plus the many millions that refused to vote for the Rino McCain. In addition she will pick up millions of democrat votes that are fed up with the spreading of the wealth to the lazy, uneducated leaches. I see a Sarah land slide, and so do the democrats. That is why they continue to bash Palin.
The numbers are not there for us to win majorities without working together. When it comes to primaries, that's the place to fight it out but after that, we keep our eyes on the real target--these evil RATS. We must vote out every one of them we can.
Hate to break it to you, but the same folks demonizing anti-abortion measures also demonize anti-gun control measures, religious matters, free market matters...I find abortion IS a good litmus test. Liberal there, liberal elsewhere in almost every case I've seen.
Besides - if a Party can't stand against the killing of kids who survive abortion (Obama's Choice), then what good is it? If it won't oppose using taxpayer money to fund abortions, do you really think it will stand for free enterprise, smaller government, right to bear arms, etc?
Actually, when I think of the race the Huckster could have run vis-a-vis the race McSame ran... And why was it I didn’t like the Huck? Because I didn’t like some of his nanny state anti-smoking stuff?
Actually, I didn’t think he had enough name rec. I would probably consider him next time.
OTOH, he speaks out of both sides of his mouf, so he could be talking con now, just to sprint lib if he ever got in there.
I always liked him in the sense that I found him funny and entertaining, but didn’t think he’d make a good potus, but the game is changed. Now we have to compare anybody to the reality of the nightmare that is upon us.
I find abortion IS a good litmus test. Liberal there, liberal elsewhere in almost every case I’ve seen.
I disagree.
But one thing is certain...if the folks who are adamantly pro-life under any circumstances badger and hector those who my feel there are some extenuating circumstances, I believe it’ll destroy the party.
As I said, there’s much more to unite around than to divide around.
Maybe this is the reason for the rise of the Libertarians.
I believe that there are a lot of people out there who are looking for leadership, but if they join Republicans around the majority of issues and are insulted or maligned because of differences on one or two, there will be no party.
I disagree with Huckabee, Republicans shouldn’t drive ultra social conservatives from the party...but are ultra-social conservatives willing to work with other Republicans?
Or do they just want to form the ultra social conservative party and sit around and complain that other Republicans didn’t agree with them on every issue?
“...are ultra-social conservatives willing to work with other Republicans?”
Based on past history, I’d say you have it backwards. Social conservatives have repeatedly voted for moderates in general elections. We voted in large numbers for McCain.
However, I’ve watched social liberals SCREW conservatives in the general election. In AZ8, the RNC supported a candidate in the PRIMARY (until called on it), and then withdrew all support in the general election, while the previous GOP homosexual representative made his preference clear.
Specter left the party because he couldn’t win a GOP primary, even with full support from the GOP establishment. And his GOP defectors defected over FISCAL issues, not abortion!
It is the moderates who hector the social conservatives. Hundreds of columns written about how social conservatives need to ‘shut up and sit in the back of the bus’, to use Bill Safire’s expression from 1996. And since Reagan, the party has repeatedly shunned social conservatives - just as they instinctively attacked Palin last year.
Sorry, but if you want to see a party disappear, let the MODERATES continue to attack social conservatives. Then watch the Democrats take 70% of the vote...
The numbers are not there for us to win majorities without working together. When it comes to primaries, that's the place to fight it out but after that, we keep our eyes on the real target--these evil RATS. We must vote out every one of them we can.
True enough, and THAT is the essence of Reagan's 11th commandment. Reagan wasn't saying to never criticise other Republicans. He was saying that, when push comes to shove, it's better to work together to get what we can than it is to be split up and lose.
I also think Reagan's strategy was to use optimism and strong leadership to appeal to moderates, while keeping the core of the Party's movement conservative. I.e. don't let the moderates have positions of power, but do present a strong alternative that makes them want to vote for you.
One thing I am convinced of is that "moderates" are not defined so much by pragmatism and anti-partisanship as they are by just simply not having strong principles, period. The one biggest thing that "moderates" will rally to is when someone presents (whether it is true or not) an air of leadership and strength. Obama did this last year, even though we know he doesn't really possess these qualities, he's just good enough of an actor to make many people think he does. McCain, on the other hand, really did flop around like a fish out of water, and presented an image of being weak, ineffectual, and wishy-washy. Even his belated message of economic conservatism didn't appeal because, frankly, he wasn't fooling anybody.
They always have been before.
I think the real question is: are socially-liberal Republicans willing to work with the base of the Party? From the looks of things, the answer is no, and the intrasingence of the pro-choice, pro-gay wing of the GOP is what is largely helping to present the fractured image of the GOP to the country at large. I'm not worried about the social conservatives blowing the store, I'm worried about the "moderates" doing so.
...then, is all lost?
I realize that many have to hold their noses while voting. I was less than thrilled with McCain as the nominee, but I wasn’t about to vote for a know-nothing community organizer with the most liberal record in the Senate.
But again, is all lost?
I’m not really talking about the RNC or politicians in general. I’m disgusted with politicians and I think many Americans are.
But I think that Obama’s overstepping is getting the average American Joe...the one who doesn’t have anything to do with the RNC...who doesn’t follow the day-to-day stuff very concerned. It has been effective to point out things that Obama has done and say to Obama voters, “How would you have felt if Bush did that?”
All Republicans have to face the fact that we lost a battle. We lost a big battle in the last election. But there’s still a war to fight.
And, the way I see it, ALL Republicans need to stop the finger pointing at each other and infighting and denigrating each other. And the talk about the future of the party and how it is diminished. I don’t believe it is diminished, I believe it is waiting for a leader. You talked about what has happened “since Reagan”. Do you mean that somehow, he started it? Or was he the last good Republican?
I think that what we all need right now is another leader like him. One that has principles upon which his soul is grounded and who will stick to them regardless of what a poll said. There used to be a tradition of debate in America that has been killed. It has been killed by, mainly, the left who use the media to demonize and attack anyone with a different position. But the right is doing it now, too.
It used to be that a true leader wouldn’t take the nation’s temperature and then form policy. A true leader would have ideas and solutions and then convince the American public that those ideas were sound.
The site here is an example. There are a bunch of people reading, but not as many posting. I think that’s how the average american feels about government. Curious and interested, but a little bit reticent to get involved.
I need an example of how socially liberal Republicans aren’t working with the base of the party.
The worst behavior I’m seeing from elected Republicans right now is fiscal irresponsibility and the tendency to embrace this idea of huge government, but maybe I’m missing something.
“I’m not worried about the social conservatives blowing the store, I’m worried about the “moderates” doing so.”
Can you give me an example of what you mean so that I can understand you?
Yet he did very well for someone who started in the lowest rung in the debates... we should never assume the entire country sees things in the same way some of us see it. For all the anti-McCain posts here on FR .. he has actually been voting against abortion, etc., while Kay Baily and Lisa Murkowski and the two twister sisters from Maine all vote for abortion... yet you rarely see people here on FR going after them and both Kay B and Lisa M are up for re-election next year and, I understand, Lisa M is polling very high up in Alaska.
“I need an example of how socially liberal Republicans aren’t working with the base of the party.”
Specter, Collions and Snowe spitting on the party base and voting for gross FISCAL irresponsibility.
They are ‘pro-choice’ - to include choosing fiscal lunacy.
And how about all those North East Republican movers and shakers who instinctively attacked Palin as a stupid yokel. Spent time attending a COMMUNITY COLLEGE, for goodness sakes! Became a mother before becoming a politician! What an embarrassment!
The socially liberal Republicans rarely loose an opportunity to spit on social conservatives, even if it means fiscal suicide. They treat us like turds in their socially liberal punchbowl.
Remember the Safire quote I mentioned to you earlier? Is that your definition of working with social conservatives? Telling us to get to the back of the bus and let the grown-ups drive?
No, I’m not Safire. I’m just trying to understand where the vehemence comes from.
But it’s curious that even here on this thread, Huckabee’s being called a RINO...and he’s about as socially conservative as it gets, isn’t he?
And the problem with Collins and Snowe and Specter is that they voted for FISCAL irresponsibility.
THAT is what I’m most concerned about. Republicans taking the line that spending helps everything and the government should increase in scope.
They go to Washington and they become a part of the big machine and they fail to represent the fiscal conservatives who elected them to office. Or the social conservatives who elected them to office.
They fail to represent the REPUBLICANS who elected them to office. All the Republicans. They didn’t just somehow betray the ultra social conservatives...they betrayed all the conservatives.
Here is a hint...how many socially conservative Republicans have voted for the big spending? How many liberal Republicans?
Huckabee is an oddball on social conservatism. Anti-abortion and pro-gun, but he gets all squishy on anything involving ‘compassion’ - so he’s pro-illegal immigration, pro-spending on social programs, etc. It makes a person suspect he approves of big government, as long as the big government spends on his priorities. Most social conservatives are anti-big government, period.
It makes a person suspect he approves of big government, as long as the big government spends on his priorities.
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.