What if Economic Conservatives Stay Home on Election Day?

FOXNEws.com ^ | November 20, 2007 | Michael Tanner

[NCDragon]

Hardly a day seems to pass without leaders of the Religious Right threatening that so-called "values voters" may not turn out to vote unless the Republican nominee is reliably conservative on issues like abortion or gay marriage.

"Our voters would rather stay home than vote for half a loaf of bread," says Bill Stephens, the executive director of the Christian Coalition of Florida. "They either want the whole loaf, or they’ll wait for next time."

Others, like the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, are raising the possibility of a third party candidate.

As a result, the Republican candidates are falling all over themselves to prove how pro-life and anti-gay they are. Mitt Romney changed almost every position he ever had. John McCain discovered he was really a Baptist. Even Rudy Giuliani begs religious conservatives not to "fear" him, and seeks out Pat Robertson’s endorsement.

[RichInOC]

They’re stupid, then. Just like the social conservatives would be if they did.

What do I win?

[cripplecreek]

My candidate of choice has spent a lifetime proving what he is.

[Greg F]

Not the same thing . . . I’m both a religious conservative and an economic conservative. Economic conservatives tend to be pragmatic; they’ll take the best deal offered, even if it’s not a conservative (with the exception of some of the wild eyed libertarians). Religious voters may really stay home rather than pull the lever for a pro-abortion candidate.

[inkling]

Any member of the “Take My Ball And Go Home” Caucus should wake up. Think of the troops in the field when you walk into your polling place.

[ex-snook]

Maybe we would a strong conservative candidate in 2012? Better late than never. No, I won’t vote for Giuliani.

[weegee]

Then they run the risk of openly Socialist libs winning the White House. That’ll protect your savings/investments/property, not.

It isn’t lesser of two evils. It is the better of two lessers. Hoping that electioning the Left will result in a backlash is hoping for a day that may never come.

Meanwhile the Left will oppose the Republicans regardless of the policy initiatives or any concessions they make. The GOP base will also oppose Republicans on principle when they are ticked off.

A do nothing Republican is better than a runaway lib.

[Tax-chick]

Religious voters may really stay home rather than pull the lever for a pro-abortion candidate.

I won't vote for a pro-abortion presidential candidate, but I will be there to vote in my county and state elections, and I'll be campaigning for my state senator, governor, and judge candidates.

Anyone who "stays home" from the polls deserves a tax-raising, gun-grabbing, cross-dressing liberal in *every* elected office.

[DManA]

The question should be, what if the Republicans nominate a totally unacceptable candidate.

[sauropod]

More socialism will be the inevitable result.

[CindyDawg]

I am both also but sometimes you just have to say no to the best deal offered, be it a social or economic issue.

[weegee]

The abortion issue will only be settled by a Constitutional amendment. It is the only way to take it out of the activist courts.

If a candidate isn’t pushing for an amendment, I wouldn’t pay much attention to any talk they give the issue one way or the other. They actually count on the issue never being resolved so that they can keep a key “demographic”. Tomorrow’s only a day a-wayyyyy. It’ll never come. Amendment or nothing. Putting our own “judges” on the issue resolves nothing. The Supreme Court has flip flopped on its own decisions in the past. Don’t look for any decision to “settle” it.

[Non-Sequitur]

He does have a point. If one believes in smaller, less intrusive, fiscally responsible government then none of the major candidates on either side are attractive choices. But it’s been that way for a 20 years now.

[weegee]

So urge the base to turn out in the primaries. That is when you get to challenge the candidacy.

If none of the field appeal to you, then there is little hope of finding someone now to get the nomination who will.

[Non-Sequitur]

If a candidate isn’t pushing for an amendment, I wouldn’t pay much attention to any talk they give the issue one way or the other.

Would it be safe to say that you would vote for Hillary Clinton if you were convinced that she was anti-abortion?

[mysterio]

The candidate I vote for will run on a platform of smaller, less intrusive government. I’m pretty sure I will be able to vote for a candidate like that, even if I have to write in that candidate. So, no need to stay home.

[Major Matt Mason]

It was suburbanites, independents, and others who were fed up not just with the war and corruption, but also with the Republican drift toward big-government who stayed home, or even voted Democratic, on election day 2006. That night, more than 65 percent of voters told a pollster they believed that "The Republicans used to be the party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders they used to oppose."

Amen. Notice the word "independents" at the beginning of the paragraph. This is the true reason that the GOP lost last year, rather than the fiction that is being promoted around here that conservatives stayed home. Some economic conservatives stayed home, but many of those aren't necessarily registered Republicans.

[Hunterite]

“What if Economic Conservatives Stay Home on Election Day?”

***********

Free-traitors/open-borders consider them conservative economists, when in reality they are economic leftists. This sounds like the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party is flexing its big mouth, minority muscle again.

[CindyDawg]

Exactly. Let’s elect a strong conservative that also cares about the economy. We have a good candidate running.

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

Then they'll be passing up a chance to help send this:

to the dustbin of history.