Posted on 11/10/2012 8:05:19 PM PST by neverdem
It is time to throw the social conservatives out of the GOP. Look at what they got us — Barack Obama. It was the social conservatives who did it. They insisted the GOP support real marriage and children. To hell with that.
I’m getting this, in various forms, from lots of tea party activists. The GOP establishment in Washington is whispering it to each other. They look at Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock and conclude that they, not Tommy Thompson, Heather Wilson, George Allen, Scott Brown, etc. are the problem.
It is time to get rid of the social conservatives.
What’s really going on here is that the people who voted Republican, but who disagree with pro-lifers and defenders of marriage, have decided it must be those issues. They can’t see how what happened actually happened unless it happened because the issues on which they disagree with the base played a role.
This is a psychological avoidance of larger issues and does not stack up to the data.
Mitt Romney won about a quarter of the hispanic vote and a tenth of the black vote.
Those numbers may not sound like much, but in close elections they matter.
A sizable portion of those black and hispanic voters voted GOP despite disagreeing with the GOP on fiscal issues. But they are strongly social conservative and could not vote for the party of killing kids and gay marriage. So they voted GOP.
You throw out the social conservatives and you throw out those hispanic and black voters. Further, you make it harder to attract new hispanic voters who happen to be the most socially conservative voters in the country.
Next, you’ll also see a reduction of probably half the existing GOP base. You won’t make that up with Democrats who suddenly think that because their uterus is safe they can now vote Republican. Most of those people don’t like fiscal conservatism either — often though claiming that they do.
If you really need to think through this, consider MItt Romney. He is perhaps the shiftiest person to ever run for President of the United States. He shifted his position on virtually every position except Romneycare. Of all the politicians to ever run for office, he’d be the one most likely to come out and, after the Republican convention, decide he’d changed his mind. He’d be okay with abortion and okay with gay marriage.
Had he done that, he’d have even less votes.
Several million evangelicals did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000. His campaign had to work to get them back in 2004.
You may mentally decide, to escape having to deal with the other implications of this election, that if only the GOP would abandon its social conservatism it would do better. But if you do, go find yourself a new coalition because you won’t have half the votes the GOP has now. Good luck with that. In fact, if the GOP really wanted to expand with minorities, it’d keep the social conservatism and throw out the fiscal conservatism.
Richard Mourdock was one of two of the poster children for abandoning social conservatives this year. He was beaten by a pro-life Democrat.
The problem is not social conservatism. The problem is social conservatives have gotten so used to thinking of themselves as the majority they’ve forgotten how to speak to those who are not and defend against those who accuse them of being fringe, most particularly the press. Couple that with Mitt Romney’s campaign making a conscious decision to not fight back on the cultural front and you have a bunch of Republicans convinced, despite the facts, that if only the social conservatives would go away all would be fine.
It’s not time to throw out social conservatives. It’s time to accept that without them the GOP would be even a smaller party even less able to reach out to the hispanic demographic all the smart people say they need to embrace. Addition through subtraction never really works well.
IMHO and as graphically illustrated in the election most conservatives only talk and associate with folks in the echo chamber of their own views insisting only one or two legs are needed..they are wrong all three must be present for conservatives to have a chance of winning
We don't need to mandate probes to protect babies. We need to protect babies from being killed. Period.
Still waiting the fate of my own state rep - a former teacher and democrat who has held office forever... he has a 18 vote difference with the GOP challenger... counting provisional ballots on Monday and he's squealing like a pig in the local liberal paper - it's a hoot.
Understood by whom?
The only social conservative who ran recently won. Bush. Bush wasn't a fiscal conservative, but he generally was socially, at least on life issues. His reputation was as a social conservative, although not an a-hole about it. That's what works on social issues. Don't be judgmental, but do what's right because it is right.
Bush's dad, McCain, and Romney were moderates with moderate reputations.
Romney was part of the Hegelian Dialectic-—the GOP has been for the longest time——so that we move Left with each synthesis.
The Republican Party has moved so far left that it is barely Christian—and now the Democrats are outright Marxists and proud of it.
We need to get Christian Ethics back and the Natural Family unit where it is not being attacked 24/7. You need control of your children’s education!!!!!!!
Leftist knew in 1930, the way to destroy America and turn it into a socialist state would be to destroy marriage—to get millions of welfare dupes and destroy the Christian religion—which also destroys the natural family since immoral people treat others horribly. (They mocked God in the schools with Darwinism, mocked God in Art, and on TV since Archie Bunker.)
The agenda is to CHANGE the WORLDVIEW (Marxist/sodomite/pagan) and is orchestrated by the MSM and schools and the elites who pick both candidates who are allowed to run.
Conservatives who would win are never allowed into the game-—until the masses are so immoral or the Chicago machine fully controls the voting machines—like they have in Chicago for over a hundred years......then, we will be toast. (Maybe it is too late because they own the judges too now). We have no avenue to get control of anything unless we change the “thinking” of the masses. We have to get our kids out of the schools—burn the curricula—it was designed by Marxists—Dr. Ruggs-—Billy Ayers—sick twisted people affecting the way our children are “allowed” to think.
All conservatives/Christians need there children OUT of public schools and unpluged from TV which is shaping their immoral/Marxist worldview.
YOU shape it—it is worth ALL your time and money. Don’t allow the Leftists to ply their minds with garbage and disinformation since the socialist Dewey destroyed curricula—embedded it with socialist garbage and psychology to make kids into “group thinkers”——part of an emotional herd—to be herded like they did with the OWS. Instill Classical knowledge and explicit phonics and the Bible (again). It is the only way to freedom again—minds like our Founders. Minds that want freedom and responsibility.
um
aren’t “provisional” ballots usually from stupid people who don’t know if they registered or not?
Well, we implemented voter id this year and all new registration for everyone so I’m not sure who would be in that pile.
Another straw man concocted that if we go neutral on the social issues we are for the other extremes. It is such an issue loaded with land mines that we need to leave these issues to the pro life organizations and the churches.
It’s becoming a Catch-22 situation, just that fact that a person would be insane enough to want the job, makes them suspect to begin with.
Must you be so crude in your commentary?
Scott Brown went neutral, look where it got him.
When someone plays a part, they mess up because they don’t understand the issue.
LOL, how does that get pro-life legislation passed, we want to belong to a party that represents us and our American values.
Aiken and the other guy are not God, and they ain't King Solomon either. Why can't they just express sympathy for a woman who has been raped, and faces a difficult situation?
They could just say they thank god, that as man they will never face such a difficult circumstance.
They could say that such a difficult situation should be between the mother, her God, and her Doctor, and he wouldn't presume to be omnipotent.
He might even re-frame the situation by discussing the roots of the movement to permit abortion. It was a racist and bigoted movement because certain elites thought that there were certain groups of people who should not reproduce.
Millions of black babies have been killed. This genocide has been whole heartedly supported by the same party that supported the KKK - The Democrats.
It is a question that is sure to come, and to be so clueless and inept in answering shows a certain incompetence of communication that is unbelievable.
They should have decided the best way to deal with this question and practiced the answer till it was perfect.
I been calling for ditching the crackpots who say stupid stuff and nuke their own causes for a while.
Akin is an obvious example. He hurt his own cause.
Does this lead you to think that we ran a social conservative?
August 9, 2912 “”Mitt Romney, President Obama affirm support for gay Boy Scout leaders””
August 27, 2012 CBS News Scott Pelley Interview, party platform & abortion
PELLEY: Well, the platform as written at this convention for the Republicans does not allow for exceptions on abortion with regard to the health of the mother or rape or incest. Is that where you are?
ROMNEY: No. My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.
December 2011 On allowing gays to serve openly in the military:
““That’s already occurred. I’m not planning on reversing that at this stage.”
Past Mitt on Abortion;
“My position has been the same throughout my political career, and it goes back to the days of 1970,” he said. “There was a woman who was running for political office, U.S. Senate. She took a very bold and courageous stand in 1970, and that was in a conservative state. That was that a woman should have the right to make her own choice as to whether or not to have an abortion. Her name was Lenore Romney, she was my mom. Even though she lost, she established a record of courage in that regard.”
Past Mitt on homosexual military;
“”For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.
One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.””
Well said in comment #14. It might be a good idea to run one who has a voting record, too. We all know the one negative thing that voters have said the most about politicians in general for decades, at least...maybe longer. This is an era especially of citizens lacking trust in politicians, and the distrust will only be spread and intensified from here.
More freedoms can replace several kinds of free lunches. Self-actualization (improvement in one’s situation) is important to nearly everyone (general psych.). For example, let upstart mechanics/manufacturers/do-it-yourselfers work in broad daylight. Another example, cut “social services” that intrude in their private family matters.
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.