Skip to comments.
Huckabee: No Social Issues, No Evangelical Votes
CBN ^
| Apr 21, 2014
| David Brody
Posted on 04/22/2014 5:26:46 AM PDT by xzins
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-168 next last
To: C. Edmund Wright
Good point. I can see that. Big government = power corrupts. A derivative of the “absolute despotism” argument of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration.
81
posted on
04/22/2014 8:05:46 AM PDT
by
xzins
( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
To: First Authority
If you and yours only vote for 100% Christian candidates you are abdicating your responsibility as an American and will lead us down the path of tyranny. You will have no power, will not win, and religious freedom go out the proverbial window. One must win first.
My first responsibility as a Christian, is to Honor and Obey my God.
That does not include voting for any candidate who supports Abortion and the Gay Agenda.
Whom should I fear, he who can take away my Life, or HE who can take away my Soul, my Eternity?
82
posted on
04/22/2014 8:07:28 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: Responsibility2nd
Nice speech, but I remember Rick Warren.
To: xzins
It really isn’t that much of an issue. It doesn’t matter if the GOP talks about social issues or not, the media will talk about it anytime it is in the best interest of the Democrat candidate. See the “War on Women” meme. If the media can use those issue to the dems advantage it will be talked about.
If you want to stop it you turn it back on them. When they press you on your pro life stand you admit you are pro life, and believe the voters have the right to know how pro abortion your opponent is. Where does he/she draw the line, 20 weeks, 27 weeks, just before birth, is it alright to deliver the baby and then let it die? The voters have a right to know where both candidates stand. Pull this off a few times and the questions will stop being asked, guaranteed.
We need to start doing this on all the divisive issues. Force the dems to articulate how out of touch and radical their positions really are. If they won’t answer the questions then neither do you.
84
posted on
04/22/2014 8:07:45 AM PDT
by
redangus
To: First Authority; SoConPubbie
100% Christian candidates
If you're asking if I'll support an atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Islamic candidate, then the answer is no. Never.
85
posted on
04/22/2014 8:07:49 AM PDT
by
xzins
( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
To: First Authority
There will never be a perfect candidate for you as your perfect candidate died over 2000 years ago.
We agree on this, however, we do agree on what is an acceptable candidate.
I don't agree with everything Ted Cruz states or supports or does, but he is absolutely an acceptable candidate.
I don't agree with everything Sarah Palin states or supports or does, but she is absolutely an acceptable candidate.
I don't agree with everything Mike Lee states or supports or does, but he is absolutely an acceptable candidate.
Rand Paul, and the other candidates like him (Bush, Perry, Romney, Christie, etc.), on the other hand, with his desire to put the Social Issues on the back burner, grant Amnesty, put his head in the sand where foreign policy is concerned, will never get my vote, either in the primaries or the general elections.
86
posted on
04/22/2014 8:11:00 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: ilgipper
We didn’t lose the courts stole it. Every state that has voted in favor of traditional marriage has seen it over turned by a liberal court. It will be interesting to see if the decision on the Michigan AA course today changes that.
87
posted on
04/22/2014 8:11:11 AM PDT
by
redangus
To: JRandomFreeper
You just made his point. The chances of a small government, lower taxes conservative being pro abortion, anti gun or pro gay agenda are slim at best. That doesn’t mean he has to be circuit riding preacher on the stump when it comes to social issues. If you want to win you need votes and some of those votes will need to come from younger voters who arent really into the social issues, and face it if you don’t win you don’t get to make the rules. You can die on the hill of the perfectly principled, and vocal about it candidate, or you can pick your fights, elect small gov conservatives, hopefully limit the governments intrusion in your life and assume they will be much more conservative on all issues than the alternative. You decide.
88
posted on
04/22/2014 8:21:25 AM PDT
by
redangus
To: redangus; JRandomFreeper
You can die on the hill of the perfectly principled, and vocal about it candidate, or you can pick your fights, elect small gov conservatives, hopefully limit the governments intrusion in your life and assume they will be much more conservative on all issues than the alternative. You decide.
False choice and shades of a straw-man argument.
The third category you did not list, was the Reagan category, you know, the three-legged stool type of candidate?
The one that elevates ALL of the conservative positions to the same level of importance.
Try to win without this approach, and you will have another Dole, McCain, Romney debacle.
89
posted on
04/22/2014 8:27:29 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: xzins
This was a big part of the problem with Romney. He simply wasn’t, and still isn’t, credible as a conservative with respect to any of the social/cultural issues.
To: First Authority
He wouldn’t get their votes either because he forgave and absolved the sinners asking only that they go and sin no more. That would not be enough for many Freeper “Conservative Christians”.
91
posted on
04/22/2014 8:30:17 AM PDT
by
redangus
To: SoConPubbie
That was way out of line, and your interpretive statement is a false equlivalency straw argument. Your pharisaical attitude has ended this converstation.
92
posted on
04/22/2014 8:32:38 AM PDT
by
C. Edmund Wright
(Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)
To: SoConPubbie
I will not vote for a pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-amnesty, big government, socialized medicine liberal. Not even if they have an R by their name. From my list, you can see why I couldn’t vote for Romney.
Stick to your principle of running liberal republicans and keep losing.
Your choice.
/johnny
To: xzins
You’ve got to remember that in 76, 80 and 84, we were in a totally different enviroment vis a vis government gone wild and the trampling of liberties.
94
posted on
04/22/2014 8:33:35 AM PDT
by
C. Edmund Wright
(Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)
To: SoConPubbie
you were there, with the same blinders you wear today.
95
posted on
04/22/2014 8:34:27 AM PDT
by
C. Edmund Wright
(Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)
To: SoConPubbie
I didn’t say that the candidate wouldn’t be a SoCon. In fact I specifically hinted that a small gov, lower tax and I would add strong national defense canidate would be expected to also be more socially conservative than the dem alternative.
96
posted on
04/22/2014 8:34:38 AM PDT
by
redangus
To: C. Edmund Wright
That was way out of line, and your interpretive statement is a false equlivalency straw argument. Your pharisaical attitude has ended this converstation.
No, it was not out of line and it was not pharisaical either.
It was, however, the truth.
Sometimes the truth does actually hurt.
If you want to end the conversation, so be it.
97
posted on
04/22/2014 8:35:26 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: redangus
I didnt say that the candidate wouldnt be a SoCon. In fact I specifically hinted that a small gov, lower tax and I would add strong national defense canidate would be expected to also be more socially conservative than the dem alternative.
And I did not state or imply that you had.
However, your approach is just another variant of putting the social issues on the back burner, to which, the only reply a Christian can have, is no way!
98
posted on
04/22/2014 8:36:27 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: C. Edmund Wright
That’s true, but in terms of reviewing the history of the modern morals voter, it’s a reaction to the Nixonian era, but not the “silent majority” of Nixon, but rather the “moral majority” of Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan who really brought it into mainstream republicanism.
During the FDR, Truman, Eisenhower era if a politician had come on the scene touting gay marriage and abortion, they wouldn’t have just hustled him out of the room. They’d have tarred and feathered in copious quantities.
99
posted on
04/22/2014 8:38:08 AM PDT
by
xzins
( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
To: NorthMountain
I agree. And he took that doubt about his credibility and then told social conservatives to get lost.
Now his supporters act surprised that social conservatives took him up on it.
100
posted on
04/22/2014 8:39:39 AM PDT
by
xzins
( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-168 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson