Posted on 03/26/2013 2:33:13 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A shot across the bow of Beltway Republicans on Gay Marriage Day at the Supreme Court.
Alternate headline: "Huckabee's running in 2016."
When asked if he believes the Republican Party will change its position and support gay marriage in a Wednesday Newsmax interview, Huckabee remarked, "They might, and if they do, they're going to lose a large part of their base because evangelicals will take a walk."...
"And it's not because there's an anti-homosexual mood, and nobody's homophobic that I know of," he continued, “but many of us, and I consider myself included, base our standards not on the latest Washington Post poll, but on an objective standard, not a subjective standard.”…
“If we have subjective standards, that means that we’re willing to move our standards based on the prevailing whims of culture,” he said. “I think politicians have an obligation to be thermostats, not just thermometers. They’re not simply to reflect the temperature of the room, or the culture, as it were. They’re to set the standards for law, for what’s right, for what’s wrong, understanding that not everybody’s going to agree with it, not everybody’s going to accept it.”
I’ve read a bunch of pieces lately claiming that SCOTUS striking down gay-marriage laws will actually be a gift to GOP politicians because it’ll take this issue off the table. Rubio and Paul and Jindal et al. won’t have to squirm over whether to endorse SSM, back a federalist approach to the issue, or oppose it on the merits. They can just shrug and say “The Court was wrong but whaddaya gonna do?” and move on to other business. Take it from Huckabee: That won’t happen. Abortion’s technically been “off the table” for 40 years and yet it’s still an absolute litmus test for any potential GOP nominee (and any potential Democratic nominee too). To keep social conservatives onboard, candidates will be asked to promise (a) that they’ll appoint Supreme Court justices who are committed to overturning any gay-marriage rulings and (b) that they’ll endorse some sort of constitutional amendment that would either ban SSM outright or, at a minimum, return the issue to the states. (The amendment will go nowhere but that’s beside the point here.) Think a prospective nominee won’t do some squirming over whether they should sign on to those propositions, especially given the GOP’s panic over losing young voters? Come 2016, this won’t be just about gay marriage anymore; it’ll be a test of whether social conservatives retain the same influence over the party platform that they’ve had for the last few decades. That’s why Huck’s framing this in apocalyptic “stick with us or we walk” terms. It’s their party, at least on social issues.
With respect to what’s best for other GOP pols, the simple explanation is the correct one: They’re better off if the Court surprises everyone and upholds Prop 8. Then the 2016 field can take the position that they’re personally opposed to SSM in order to placate social cons while insisting that, as good federalists, they want local voters to decide this issue for themselves. That sort of squishy middle-way stance won’t dazzle anyone on either side but it might hold the Republican coalition together by reassuring Huck and his supporters that red states will still get to chart their own course. It might also be acceptable to young voters in the sense that the potential GOP nominee won’t be standing in the way of gay marriage in states when the votes are there. But note: The squishy position won’t work if the Court does end up legalizing gay marriage this summer. In that case, taking the federalist position via a constitutional amendment will be seen as an attempt to roll back marriage rights that gays have already won. Young voters likely will find that alienating, and social cons may reason that an amendment to return power to the states on the subject simply doesn’t go far enough as a rebuke to a judiciary that’s out of control. What politicians cherish is room to maneuver, and a pro-SSM ruling leaves the GOP with less of that than an anti-SSM ruling would.
Anyway. Across the aisle, Mark Begich magically decided last night that he too is now pro-gay marriage, which makes three Democratic senators who have “evolved” in just the past 24 hours. I’m starting a pool as of right now: At what time today will the next Democratic holdout formally declare his support for SSM? I’ll take 2 p.m. ET.
Update: Interesting choice of words from Reince Priebus:
“We do have a platform, and we adhere to that platform,” Priebus said in an interview Monday on USA TODAY’s Capital Download video series. “But it doesn’t mean that we divide and subtract people from our party” who support the right of gay men and lesbians to marry.
“I don’t believe we need to act like Old Testament heretics,” he said, saying Republicans “have to strike a balance between principle and grace and respect.”
No arguments here, but you have to support candidates that BEST support your views, no one can be in agreement 100%
Thing is, when you find a guy that is 100% in lock step with your views they don’t have a chance in hell of winning...the professional politicians know that, they capitalize on it, they exploit it, they have the monopoly on it.
I wish I knew how to change it, peacefully.
Hat tip to you post, lot’s of food for thought.
Jefferson knocked the snot out of them the day he realized that the way you win is get your own followers to the polls to vote for your candidates.
That's the way its been ever since. Don't look for us to return to the Federalist theory of elections any time soon.
TJ won with 61.4% of the vote ~ in 1804 he won with 72.8% of the vote. Madison then won 1808 with 64.7%. Finally, in 1812, an internal opposition to the big dogs in the Democrat-Republican party rose up in the person of DeWitt Clinton ~ himself a member of the Democrat-Republicans, he wanted MORE PORK. The Federalists threw their support to him but he lost anyway. In 1816, after the conclusion of the War of 1812 the Democrat-Republican party got the credit for what folks thought was a good conclusion and swept another of that brand into office ~ James Madison. Worth noting the Democrat-Republican party big dogs, still savoring the victories they'd gotten in the past looked at that tiny threat from DeWitt Clinton and co-opted all the main Federalist positions, thereby forcing them into a 'me to' campaign. The Federalists didn't even challenge Monroe who won in 1820 with 80%!
Finally, by 1824 the unopposed Democrat-Republicans broke into 4 factions, each with its own Presidential Candidate. Jackson won the most votes but John Quincy Adams won the vote in the House. But the signs of the power of the single member district were quite apparant. A large single party monopoly was not possible in this very large country ~ too many politicians were willing to bet it all on getting that 50%+1 vote win, and they began risking everything. By 1833 a new party called the Whig party moved into the national stage and won two Presidential elections before it died two decades later. Eventually two other Whigs won President, but as Republicans.
I’m not Evangelical, and I’ll walk if the GOP does this as well. A large variety of conservatives will NOT sell our souls on marriage, regardless how much the mainstream media screams that only “Evangelicals” object to gay marriage. I am NOT over 40, uneducated, or Evangelical, and I absolutely oppose so-called “gay” marriage.
No, he’s not right. Some will walk, others have already capitulated to the gay lobby and more will follow.
Evangelicals will split, Huckie Boy. As they have so many times in the past. And will do so so many times in the future.
When the penalty for opposing the gay agenda truly becomes financially and professionally and even corporally excruciating, as it will, most will cave, some will stand firm.
It has always been thus. When the persecution begins in earnest, big-talkers get distinguished from the quietly courageous.
Gratuitous calumny
Just go with the traditional 80% rule. For all the charges of “Purist” people hit me with, I’m fine with that. Romney did not approach 50 much less 80.
The core issues cannot be violated of course, but odds are anyone 80% conservative is pretty solid on those.
Not just in the last primary season. On this very thread some bigot takes a gratuitous swipe at Santorum.
Some day, in the prisons-mental hospitals to which the few who continue to oppose the Lie are relegated, we’ll have time to reflect on how we bickered and back-bit until it was too late.
That is if they don’t forcibly drug us into vegetables to deny us even coherent interior protest.
Whilst agree with the sentiment of your post, the attacks that were incessantly posted here are the kind of things you would expect, from the other side
Discussion is one thing, relentless posts castigating candidates over and over again, from a hand full of the same posters, is a different story.
Sorry Mike I have already walked!
Walked out on the whole process because of trust!
We cannot trust who we elect who the elected appoint, the betterment of sociotey has become what is vouge not what is proper!
Lawmakers have done all they can to tear this Nation apart and it’s working! Nuff Said!
Harry Truman had it right ~ when given a choice between a real Democrat or a fake Democrat the (Democrat) people will chose the real thing every time.
When the campaign professionals were telling us we had to go with Romney to beat the Democrats that was a demonstration of how utterly incapable they were of dealing with politics. Those guys should have been selling used cars or something. I also thought the days of home delivered milk would have been up their alley.
Oh I completely agree that there was a wealth of BS attacks based on DU mentality. And it was wrong for those who did it to have done it. What I’m saying is that if you have a candidate that took part in instances of demonstratively non-conservative behavior/advocacy/voting, it is out DUTY to eliminate such people from contention. Because they will GOVERN just an non-conservatively.
No. No candidate, even Ronaldus was perfect. But again, the 80% rule. No one has to break out a calculator but egregious BS is self evident.
Aw heck, why not. It's his turn to be President of the Rotary Club, right?
I'm fine with that too, we all have our ideals, and I didn't mean to imply you were a purist in any pejorative way, I was just writing in generalities.
No, I did not mean you in any way shape or form, nor did I take it that way ;) There are a few posters who I regularly have ‘debates’ with that led me to coin the phrase “Screaming “Purist” like a Klanner screaming “NXXGer” at a Stone Mountain Rally”.
Thumbs up FRiend, great chatting with you but I have to run.
Look forward to next time!
If Republicans cave of homo marriage, they might as well dissolve the party. They’ll never get another cent or vote from me. And I’m not an evangelical...or even religious.
yes but the probem is we are assuming that the candidate with the R behind them is always the best. sometimes they aren’t.
Huckabee gets it right, but we’ve been saying this for a while. The GOP attempts to drop even one of our major issues from the platform, and we’ll be gone. It’ll be worse than McCain and Romney. Reince is a snake. Can we deport him to Paraguay?
He thinks he’s going to ride this horse to the nomination? What a goof!
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.