Cornyn: GOP's stance on social issues alienating independents [shut up John]

Washington Post ^ | September 16, 2010 | Greg Sargent

[ejdrapes]

Cornyn: GOP's stance on social issues alienating independents

A striking admission from NRSC chair John Cornyn, buried in today's New York Times article about the GOP and the Tea party:

Mr. Cornyn, who has been on the receiving end of anti-establishment anger, argued that the Tea Party had helped Republicans in one important respect, by moving the debate away from social issues. While Tea Party supporters tend to be socially conservative on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, most say they don't want to talk about them; they believe that by spending so much time on those issues, the Republican Party failed to focus on fiscal conservatism.

While social issues tend to be polarizing, Republicans can win on economic issues, Mr. Cornyn said, because the Democrats have been in charge as the economy has gone south.

"As I've traveled," he said, "I've talked to a lot of folks who are basically independents who say: I'm fine with the Republicans as long as we're talking about fiscal responsibility. Where I go off the reservation is when you talk about social issues."

That seems to be a clear admission from Cornyn that the focus on social issues demanded by social conservatives is driving "a lot" of independents "off the reservation." Very candid.

[Antoninus]

You want a real problem, Cornyn? If the GOP goes liberal on social issues, watch how fast a third party pops up.

There will be a conservative party on social issues. Whether it will be the GOP or a party to be named later remains to be seen.

[Antoninus]

Except those independents who call themselves that because the GOP won't come out forthrightly on social issues.

Exactly. I am on the verge of becoming an Independent because the Republicans no longer truly espouse conservative social issues.

[Sola Veritas]

“But why start a new front when we are already busy and on the right track to win?”

Because what good is “prosperity” if you have to live in a moral sewer to have it?

Having solid employment and being able to feed, cloth, and house yourself are basic needs. Of course, they are VERY important. But do I want that by having to work as the door keeper at a strip club, homosexual bar, or whorehouse...no I don’t. There comes a time when “money” isn’t as important as peace of mind and heart.

I won’t sacrifice freedom or religion and an orderly (moral) society to be prosperous. It is a mistake.

Focusing entirely on “fiscal” issues is a formula for that. As and example, I am livid that a General at the Pentagon said Christians with moral objections to homosexuality are the same as racists and bigots and should leave the military so DADT can be implemented. That is an important issue that must be discussed.