Posted on 12/29/2013 7:06:04 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Filling in for Sean Hannity earlier this week, Neal Boortz suggested that Republicans will be unable to take the House in 2014, and that the reason will be social conservatives and cultural issues.
(via Breitbart.tv)
This whole thing about Phil Robertson and what have you – it speaks a lot to what we have coming up in the election next year. We desperately need to get the Democrats out of control of the United States Senate. The survival of our republic may depend on getting the Democrats out of control of the Senate, sending Harry Reid into the position of minority leader in the U.S. Senate – the survival of the republic may depend on that. And the Democrats are afraid that is indeed what is going to happen. That is why Harry Reid pulled the nuclear option a couple of weeks ago – because they were afraid we may lose the Senate.
This is a common refrain in Washington and among the “old guard” of the GOP: The notion that we can totally win if only we would stop caring about silly little backwoods issues like abortion, prayer, marriage, values and, well, the list goes on. It is not actually difficult to understand why this idea appeals to this group. After all, who can but think that we should do whatever it takes to ensure a Republican majority in the hopes of stopping the runaway spending train and reckless mismanagement of America under the current regime? Not to mention the steady decrease in American power and prestige on the world stage. We’re less safe, less wealthy, less secure, and soon to be less healthy. To stop the agenda set in motion by the pseudo-socialist politics of the democrat party has to be paramount, surely.
But expecting social conservatives to accept that their core issues should “sit this one out” is an absurd expectation. What are we saving if we surrender our values in order to save it? For social conservatives, the threats they see are every bit as immediate, every bit as damaging, and every bit as dangerous as the fiscal issues. Why then relent? Shunning social conservatives hasn’t worked yet. What makes them think it will in the future? Especially when we have overwhelming evidence that America is just about fed up with the moral decline in America. Just ask A&E.
So yes, social conservative issues will continue to play a major role in politics and elections for the foreseeable future. Maybe our Washington problem-solvers should try and figure out a strategy for working with that, rather than coming back every two years and telling social conservatives to be neither seen nor heard while still expecting them to turn out and support the party.
Those social moderates really did a bang up job in the last two presidential races. Friggen morons
Hey Boortz, when the GOP passes amnesty, most conservatives, including
myself won’t even show up to vote. So, the GOP will lose because of the GOP, not social conservatives.
If all the gop can give us are rinos, I just as soon not see them win.
Yep...let’s run the Todd Akin and the Sharron Angle and the 2010 O’Donnell campaigns again.
Those should have been three R wins, moving the Conservatives close to capturing the Senate. Senate control this cycle would have been assured if the Rs had just simply run sensible, winable candidates in those three elections.
“...avowed social conservatives that are hollow?”
An avowed social conservative who is hollow is NOT fiscally conservative. Take your pick, as there are many Republicans who fit that description in the U.S. Senate.
The irony is that neither abortion nor marriage is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. It is one of those matters left to the States.
States regulate medecine. A State can outlaw abortion clinics, requiring all abortion to be performed in an approved hospital and only in cases where it is necessary to save a woman’s life. That ought to reduce the baby killing substantially. Many don’t know this, but many teaching hospitals do no teach how to perform an abortion.
Marriage is a religious act, period. Government should have no say in that matters.
I want my candidates for State and National offices to be whole Conservatives, holding moral as well as Constitutional beliefs.
And I'd bet money Boortz will again be correct in his belief that Paul Broun will get clobbered by Michelle Nunn in Georgia's Senate race.
It’s likely, yes, that hypocrites will slip up in other matters, but on the other hand this was about social conservatives. Boortz said nothing here about financial conservatives, in fact IIRC he likes them.
In GOP realpolitik we see some of one kind, some of the other, some of both kinds.
Let’s look for people who walk the talk and promote them, and don’t waste wind on blaspheming evil. Evil blasphemes itself.
Better for Republicans to stand their ground and defend life, traditional values, and the family, rather than answer ridiculous hypothetical questions that will get played in the media and then they stupidly grovel and apologize for, in which they'll lose those voters down the road They weren't socially conservative to begin with if they had to apologize about being "misspoken" - ahem.
Boortz is completely, totally wrong. Fiscal and social conservatism are interchangeable and inseparable. One cannot exist without the other.
It’s guys like Boortz that drive Conservatives to stay at home. He blasts and rips CONSERVATIVES and leaves the liberals alone. If they aren’t in his little libertarian strain of the GOP, he trashes them
A people who will listen to shallow vilifications is a problem of itself. It is bringing on its own chastisement.
If you quit blaspheming Boortz (he does appreciate at least SOME facets of freedom) you might notice that some people DO fail to walk the walk in one area or another.
Let’s make the discussion to be over who walks the best. Not the worst! Get the cream to rise to the top, and let the skim milk deal with itself.
RE: The answer to the rape gotcha is simple: “What crime has the baby committed?”
So, what’s the response to the inevitable next question — “Are you going to force the mother to give birth and raise the baby born not through her fault?”
I have always liked Hannity. But why would he ever give this baby killing dirt bag air time at Christmas.
“What do you do with a woman who gets pregnant because of rape”?
That is an easy question. You deliver the baby to full term and then put it up for adoption. That is how we adopted our youngest son.
Right to Life is a matter of a core principal. If abortion is wrong because it is murder, it is ALWAYS murder.
BTTT
Answer to the first question: Yes. Killing a child never brought healing to anyone.
Answer to the second: Whether to keep the child or give it to loving parents is her choice.
I hope they learned their lesson when they stayed home
Just a cheesy lawyer… why do they all love them some abortions so much…?
Neal has had it backwards for a decade, at least.
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.