Conservatives Can Win on Social Issues

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | February 20, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[Kaslin]

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Santorum showed up yesterday on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer. And, folks, it was like Bob Schieffer, who's, what, 90? Ninety-two? Bob Schieffer talking to Rick Santorum actually appeared as though Schieffer thought Santorum was from Mars. It was a space alien. What he thought, the things he had said, Schieffer could not believe that there was a human being alive on this planet who could think that way, who believed these things. He was shocked. He was stunned. And it goes to show the Republican establishment, clearly the Democrat Party establishment, do not have the slightest ability to relate to even half the country, probably more. They don't understand us, don't know us, have mischaracterized us and have lived under these mischaracterizations for so long now that they have just assumed that it's all true. A guy like Santorum comes along who is simply a devout Catholic, and he's nothing other than that, may as well be a three-eyed monster.

This Marvin Winans, the pastor at the church of the Whitney Houston funeral, to these guys he probably sounded as scary as Santorum sounds to them. I mentioned James Taranto. Best of the Web today has feature called Weekend Interview, and he talked to a guy named Jeff Bell, who is a well-known and accomplished, achieved social commentator. "Social Issues and the Santorum Surge," is the title of the piece. Now, I can't share the whole thing with you because it prints out to over four pages. It starts this way.

"If you're a Republican in New York or another big city, you may be anxious or even terrified at the prospect that Rick Santorum, the supposedly unelectable social conservative, may win the GOP presidential nomination. Jeffrey Bell would like to set your mind at ease. Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, 'The Case for Polarized Politics' --" He points out, as we have on this program -- before I read this to you I'm gonna remind you of this story. It's the early nineties and I'm a guest at one of these dinner parties out in the Hamptons, and after dinner out on the deck of the host's home, it's all Republicans, and many of them huge donors, this was before the '92 campaign began. And one of these donors comes up to me, pokes me in the chest, "What are you gonna do about the Christians?"

I'm totally taken aback. I'm still very young. I've only been doing the radio program for four years, and I'm, frankly, a little bit intimidated being in this group of people in the first place. "What are you gonna do about the Christians?"

"What do you mean what am I gonna do?"

"Well, hell, they're embarrassing us, man. We're not gonna win anything with 'em. This abortion stuff, I'm telling you, gonna kill the party. We're never gonna get women to vote for us, the independents, you can kiss 'em good-bye. And they listen to you."

I said, "Well, they're only 24 million votes. Do you realize you wouldn't have been winning anything, from Reagan on, if it weren't for those people?"

"We don't need 'em, we don't need 'em. They're gonna end up destroying the party."

So Mr. Bell, Jeffrey Bell, The Case for Polarized Politics, argues in this book that social conservatism "has a winning track record for the GOP. 'Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964,' he observes. 'The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period,'" '32 to '64. Basically 30-some-odd years. "When social issues came into the mix -- I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections." Another pull quote from Taranto's piece. "In Mr. Bell's telling, social conservatism is both relatively new and uniquely American, and it is a response to aggression, not an initiation of it." And he's exactly right.

"The left has had 'its center of gravity in social issues' since the French Revolution, he says. 'Yes, the left at that time, with people like Robespierre, was interested in overthrowing the monarchy and the French aristocracy. But they were even more vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion. In that regard, the left has never changed. . . . I think we've had a good illustration of it in the last month or so.'" This is Mr. Bell. It goes all the way back to the French revolution. The left is vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion, and they're doing it.

One other pull quote. "American social conservatism, Mr. Bell says, began in response to the sexual revolution, which since the 1960s has been 'the biggest agenda item and the biggest success story of the left.' That was true in Western Europe and Japan too, but only in America did a socially conservative opposition arise," and its party win elections.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I mentioned it last week. Look around, folks, at the abysmal state of our culture. How on earth could reasonable people not win any debate on social issues? The left is intent on destroying every institution out there except for the state, every one of them.

END TRANSCRIPT

[exist]

I hope he can hang on in Michigan. If he loses the GOP est. is going to pile on.

[onyx]

DONATE

Less than $4k to Go!

DONATE

Less than $4k to Go!

[GeronL]

The GOP can try winning without social conservatives.

Slim and none

[struggle]

If we can get Mitt to get #3 or #4 in Michigan - it’s over, we win. $$$ means nothing anymore compared to convictions.

[redgolum]

Maybe. It could go to convention and end up with something totally different than the people running now. The elite are getting ready to boot the Christians, and if Rick wins expect a third party run by someone like a Trump or Paul.

[Captain Peter Blood]

Right now Social Issues are not as important as economic issues.
The focus has to be on the Economy and that alone for if everything fails then social issues will not mean anything.
The Republicans need to use Clinton's 1992 campaign playbook and play the economy card over and over again.
Question is will they??????????????

[LibFreeUSA]

Not according to this guy.

[CainConservative]

Murdoch on Santorum: ‘Win Michigan game over’

Rupert Murdoch also tweets that Rick Santorum’s rise in polls shows “Values do count in America.”

[The Antiyuppie]

“The GOP can try winning without social conservatives.

Slim and none”

OK, then they can try winning without independents.

Somewhere between none and zero.

[redgolum]

Then the parties need to be realigned. If the only way the GOP can win is by picking the independents or the social conservatives, then it is done. If we are that far apart, they have a reason to worry.

[Mariner]

It's a ridiculous assertion by Taranto (Limbaugh did not make this assertion).

Social issues alone will not even win the Republican nomination.

[Kevmo]

___________________________________________________________________

I’m a big tent republican.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=6245#6245
Here’s 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 you’ll 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 won’t 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. We’re often amazed at how much rice can keep fitting in. Rudy Giuliani flunks some of the big issues, and on some of the little issues it looks to me like anyone else’s 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 from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy. That’s a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.

___________________________________________________________________

[redgolum]

Great analogy, but some peoples big rocks are different. Many of the fiscal people don't want our “big rocks” at all. Some of the moral conservatives are a bit leery of corporate greed being good.

All parties are mixes. What I see is a party leadership who is going all out for large business interests, and turning against social conservatives. Eventually, one or the other will leave. There has been many threats of that on both sides. If Rick gets the caucus and primary votes, the Blue Bloods might leave. If it goes to a brokered convention, many like myself will be very suspicious.

The collation that made the GOP is at failure point. This doesn't bode well.

[phillyfanatic]

I love Rush but.....Pubs in all 50 states should be pounding on a mixture of issues: energy prices, drilling, no kow towing to OPEC, under-employment, education reform, Const. issues which Dems seem to dis, private sector jobs. That mixture would undermine any type of Attack that B ama would wage. Social issues alone; he wins all the Blue and Purple states. Period.

[Genuis Cowboy]

Yes and Santorum is a REAL conservative! If he can’t be leader then why do we support the Republicans? If Mitt is in, I am out.

[Kevmo]

A very similar thing happened to the Whig party. That was how the republican party was formed. You don’t see many Whigs around do you? Their rocks were the same little rocks in the analogy. Those little rocks aren’t nearly as important as the big rocks.

[Impy]

Paul isn’t gonna run third party and get Obama reelected, he wants his son to have a political future.

And Trump is a twit out for attention, he’s not gonna ever run for jack squat. His flirting with running was just leverage to get a new deal from NBC for his stupid reality show.

The only thing the party establishment cares about is winning the election. Believe me, they will back Santorum in November.