Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Haley Barbour Tells Pro-Life Republicans to Ditch Social Issues in 2010 Elections
LifeNews.com ^ | September 8, 2010 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 09/08/2010 11:03:34 AM PDT by julieee

Haley Barbour Tells Pro-Life Republicans to Ditch Social Issues in 2010 Elections

Washington, DC -- Haley Barbour is the latest potential Republican presidential candidate to suggest that social issues like abortion should be taken off the table while making the economy the main focus. Despite the fact that polls show Americans strongly oppose the pro-abortion health care law, Barbour says fiscal issues should take priority.

http://LifeNews.com/nat6683.html

(Excerpt) Read more at LifeNews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2010election; abortion; barbour; conservatism; gop; gopplatform; haleybarbour; platform; republicans; rnc; socialissues
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last

1 posted on 09/08/2010 11:03:39 AM PDT by julieee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: julieee

Well, yeah—but only if they want to win their elections.


2 posted on 09/08/2010 11:04:35 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: julieee

The economy is inevitably the main focus and pro-life conservatives are campaigning on the basis of that already.


3 posted on 09/08/2010 11:05:42 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Obama's more worried about Israelis building houses than he is about Islamists building atomic bombs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx; Al B.; Clyde5445; Brices Crossroads; Lakeshark; rintense

Why am I NOT surprised...


4 posted on 09/08/2010 11:06:12 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Since conservatism is a social conservative movement and made up of social conservative voters, then what is left over is mostly Democrats.

The anti-social conservative vote is the left.


5 posted on 09/08/2010 11:06:40 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: julieee

He’s right.


6 posted on 09/08/2010 11:07:36 AM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion......the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: julieee

Can’t decide who’s a bigger clown- Huckabee or Barbor.


7 posted on 09/08/2010 11:07:44 AM PDT by petercooper (Ignorant Obama Voters: Happy Now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Will you people never learn.

Elections are won by building coalitions of voters to support you. You do not build a winning electoral coalition by telling the most passionated involved half of your voter base "get off the bus, we don't want you here".

The Pro deathers are not going to vote for a Republican, ever. Quit sucking up to your political enemies at the cost of your political allies.

The GOP really is the Party of Stupid.

8 posted on 09/08/2010 11:08:34 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The problem with Socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: julieee

Uh oh, looks like Haley Barbour can join Mitch Daniels on the list of “no way, Jose” contenders in 2012.


9 posted on 09/08/2010 11:08:54 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. - Dr. Wm R. Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: julieee

Lets see, ignore the more important issues, and only pay attention to lesser issues..

No Haley.
Get a grip on reality.


10 posted on 09/08/2010 11:09:26 AM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Seriously - you don’t win by telling your base to piss off.

Even the most stupid among us ought to be able to figure that out.

Why is it, however, that FisCons - who supposedly are all businessy and good at math and smart and all that stuff - are too stupid to figure out how to build and keep a winning coalition?


11 posted on 09/08/2010 11:10:35 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. - Dr. Wm R. Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner; onyx
What is wrong with these people?

Barbour has done fairly well, now he's joining the Daniels/Christie/GOP beltway coalition to raise the white flag on everything but financial issues?

12 posted on 09/08/2010 11:11:06 AM PDT by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: julieee
No, Haley, if all those other reasons are good enough to oppose killing babies, then putting sheckels in the pockets of financiers is an equally valid reason for continuing to oppose killing babies.

The deal is, dear Haley, it is non-negotiable. Most of us would have less problem killing you than giving up the issue.

Just one of those things you must learn to live with.

So figure this out ~ getting the economy going without killing babies.

If you're smart I am sure you can come up with something eh.

13 posted on 09/08/2010 11:11:19 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: julieee

Sorry but that’s not what he said. He said, “Any issue that takes people’s eye off of unemployment, job creation, economic growth, taxes, spending, deficits, debts is taking your eye off the ball,”

The question was not about abortion but about Mitch Daniels suggestion that a truce be called on social issues. The article even points out correctly that:

“Barbour is strongly pro-life and has signed pro-life legislation.”


14 posted on 09/08/2010 11:12:05 AM PDT by Artemis Webb (Barbour 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: julieee

Is wanting to EXTRACT illegal aliens a social issue? Because right after taxation thats the biggie for me.


15 posted on 09/08/2010 11:12:27 AM PDT by samadams2000 (Someone important make......The Call!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

This is just Haley Barbour mouthing off. He doesn’t run the party anymore but I can’t figure out where he got the idea that babies are a great national problem that must be dealt with by killing them.


16 posted on 09/08/2010 11:13:52 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Doing the same thing, over and over and over again. Alan Simpson was right.


17 posted on 09/08/2010 11:14:42 AM PDT by Obadiah (I can see November from my house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: samadams2000

When Reagan was first elected (1980), his aides (and Senator Howard Baker) said that the “social agenda” should be left for later, first the economy had to be cleaned up.

Well, it’s “later”.

The truth is those who don’t care about the social agenda
want to push it aside.

Abortion has been pushed aside until we have 50,000,000 infanticides.

Let’s not push these issues aside any longer.


18 posted on 09/08/2010 11:14:43 AM PDT by CondorFlight (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: julieee
Haley Barbour, who has great social conservative credentials, did not tell candidates to “ditch” social issues. That's just obvious spin from a Social Con news source. Barbour said that the focus of this election has to be spending and taxes. That is the critical issue to this country right now. Just because candidates focus on that does not mean they are going to vote Pro-Choice or for gay marriage. It just means that the priority has to be cutting spending and rolling back Socialism.
19 posted on 09/08/2010 11:14:58 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Reagan had a much better understanding of the GOP tent than that. The social conservative base is necessary but not sufficient to win.


20 posted on 09/08/2010 11:15:50 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: julieee

How many social programs and govt jobs has Barbour eliminated?


21 posted on 09/08/2010 11:16:11 AM PDT by Seruzawa (If you agree with the French raise your hand - If you are French raise both hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: julieee

Reagan was solid pro-life and never backed down form it.

In 1980 he recieved a lot of votes from pro-choice Democrats. Why? Because the economy was in such bad shape that they put aside their views on abortion and voted their economic needs.

We’re in the same boat today. The GOP isn’t going to lose a single vote by being pro-life, but they will pick up tons of votes (including those of pro-choicers) by being pro-economy.

Look to 1980 to see what we need to do.


22 posted on 09/08/2010 11:16:51 AM PDT by Brookhaven (The next step for the Tea Party--The Conservative Hand--is available at Amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

He’s not pitching pro-choice candidates, he’s pitching an economic message. That’s completely different.


23 posted on 09/08/2010 11:17:45 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

Not quite what he said.


24 posted on 09/08/2010 11:18:52 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

Something I noticed a while ago... not a peep or mention of ‘social’ issues in any of the Tea Party events.


25 posted on 09/08/2010 11:19:16 AM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker; Brookhaven
Your undestanding of Reagan is seriously flawed. Freeper Brookhaven has it right when they posted this.

Reagan was solid pro-life and never backed down form it.

In 1980 he recieved a lot of votes from pro-choice Democrats. Why? Because the economy was in such bad shape that they put aside their views on abortion and voted their economic needs.

We’re in the same boat today. The GOP isn’t going to lose a single vote by being pro-life, but they will pick up tons of votes (including those of pro-choicers) by being pro-economy.

Look to 1980 to see what we need to do.

22 posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2010 1:16:51 PM by Brookhaven

26 posted on 09/08/2010 11:19:42 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The problem with Socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

That’s not what he’s saying—’get off the bus’. He’s saying emphasize that part of your message which the voters are already looking for. Jeesh!


27 posted on 09/08/2010 11:20:06 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
No, he's pitching "attention" ~ and he has a prioritylist.

My list different. It begins "Without killing babies do such and so".

28 posted on 09/08/2010 11:20:21 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: julieee

No Haley. Babies are MORE valuable than winning Elections. Some fights are worth fighting even when one has no apparent chance of winning.


29 posted on 09/08/2010 11:21:24 AM PDT by Danae (Anal nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do che'l de'nmha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
"Why is it, however, that FisCons - who supposedly are all businessy and good at math and smart and all that stuff - are too stupid to figure out how to build and keep a winning coalition?"

Every "FisCon" I know values VERY HIGHLY the alliance with "Socons" and knows we can not, repeat, can not win without you.

Yes, that means we know we have to either support your core issues or not interfere with your advocacy of them in any way.

We have very dangerous monsters to slay and fighting amongst ourselves risks loss for all of us.

30 posted on 09/08/2010 11:21:37 AM PDT by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: julieee

I’m a social conservative, and I don’t think his statement is unreasonable. He never said “ditch,” that was the editors at the source putting that in the headline. IMO the fiscal issues are the correct ones to concentrate on. That doesn’t mean that a candidate should hide or obfuscate his views on social issues. If he’s pro-life, clearly state he’s pro-life. But it doesn’t need to be something that is constantly trumpeted once it’s been stated.

The fiscal issues are the ones that are going to get us the independent voters we need to put conservatives in office. Then, we start working on the independents to show them why our views on the social issues are the right ones.

}:-)4


31 posted on 09/08/2010 11:21:41 AM PDT by Moose4 ("By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: julieee

It’s not called the Stupid Party for nothing.

Is it really all that hard to understand that we need to rebuild the CONSERVATIVE COALITION that Ronald Reagan so successfully appealed to? Reagan was a fiscal conservative AND a social conservative. That infuriated the establishment, but it won him elections against the total opposition of said establishment.

Standing for marriage, family, and innocent life doesn’t require huge federal subsidies. Just the opposite. Stabilize families, and you cut way back on welfare and remove automatic votes for big government Democrats.

Karl Rove indicated in 2006 that he didn’t give a damn about the Evangelical vote, and he got the expected response. Millions of Evangelicals who had turned out for Bush in 2004 stayed home in 2006, and turned congress over to the Dems.

Was that stupid of them to stay home? Sure. But it was even stupider of the Republican Party to betray its base in ways that persuaded them to stay home.

Fiscal and social conservatism are NOT contradictory. They compliment one another, and both are necessary. Without Christian values, you cannot have a free society of citizens willing to discipline themselves. So, sooner or later, you get a police state to discipline them instead.


32 posted on 09/08/2010 11:21:52 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

You’re most likely to get a pro-life majority by having pro-life candidates pitch the economy in this kind of economy-wave year. He’s talking about winning and getting candidates elected—not having candidates turn pro-choice.


33 posted on 09/08/2010 11:22:03 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

He was very specific—he’s talking message to get GOP candidates elected in 2010.


34 posted on 09/08/2010 11:24:53 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: julieee
Repeal Obamacare and you take care of the fiscal and the abortion parts of it. What's with the fiscal focus instead of the repeal focus?
35 posted on 09/08/2010 11:25:52 AM PDT by Rashputin (Obama is already insane and sequestered on golf courses or vacations so you won't know it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Name me 3 pro Abortion Republicans who have won elections in the last 6 years.

Criste in NJ...nope Pro life. Brown in Mass-nope pro Life. McDonnell in VA...nope Pro life.

The GOP wins elections when it trys standing for things, not trying to be Dem Lite ala McCain 2008.

36 posted on 09/08/2010 11:26:02 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The problem with Socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Name me 3 pro Abortion Republicans who have won elections in the last 6 years.

Criste in NJ...nope Pro life. Brown in Mass-nope pro Life. McDonnell in VA...nope Pro life.

The GOP wins elections when it trys standing for things, not trying to be Dem Lite ala McCain 2008.

37 posted on 09/08/2010 11:26:14 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The problem with Socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Barbour’s not saying the party should be pro-choice. Reagan was very clear about reaching out to those who agree with the majority of your views if not all of them. Reagan never backed down from expressing his pro-life views, but he was also smart about reaching out on the economy when the economy (remember the Carter years?) was the number one issue.


38 posted on 09/08/2010 11:26:59 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight
The roof is falling in, because the foundations have been thoroughly undermined.

And Republican "leaders" are telling us we should focus on fixing the roof.

Wouldn't want to offend their good friends and financiers who are doing the undermining, you know.

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

39 posted on 09/08/2010 11:27:15 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (With God, Obama can't hurt us. Without God, George Washington couldn't save us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
You do know we are very sensitive to the Republican message. When a candidate drops the social issues we know what that means ~ and we already have enough gay guys in the ranks, as well as pro-abortionists.

Certainly no one expects the Republican candidates to focus on only 1 issue, or even 2 or 3, but Halley's ranking of priorities leads to the social issues being dropped.

40 posted on 09/08/2010 11:27:17 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: julieee

“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . . . “

It all begins with Life. Stop the slaughter first, everything else will follow.


41 posted on 09/08/2010 11:29:15 AM PDT by Macoozie (Go Sarah! Palin/Bolton 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: everyone; Virginia Ridgerunner; WKB
He spoke to a Christian Science Monitor group this morning so I went to their site and found THIS VIDEO AND THIS ARTICLE.

I am having trouble linking to the article excerpted here, so I can't read it, yet.

42 posted on 09/08/2010 11:29:50 AM PDT by onyx (If you support Sarah and want on her Ping List, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: julieee

We can do little to nothing, to protect the unborn with the dems in power. It’s unfortunate, it’s sad, it’s wrong, but it’s the truth.

We must win against these baby killing bastards or we will never stop the killing.


43 posted on 09/08/2010 11:32:31 AM PDT by Gator113 (Beauty will devour the Beast in 2012. Kill "Obamamosque"@ Ground Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: julieee

I see what he’s saying but he should have picked his words better.


44 posted on 09/08/2010 11:32:47 AM PDT by NorthStarStateConservative (I'm just another disabled naturalized minority vegan pro life conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: julieee

I see what he’s saying but he should have picked his words better.


45 posted on 09/08/2010 11:32:50 AM PDT by NorthStarStateConservative (I'm just another disabled naturalized minority vegan pro life conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Name me 3 pro Abortion Republicans who have won elections in the last 6 years.
Criste in NJ...nope Pro life. Brown in Mass-nope pro Life. McDonnell in VA...nope Pro life.

The GOP wins elections when it trys standing for things, not trying to be Dem Lite ala McCain 2008.
______________________

Yes, and I live in Virginia and McDonnel did EXACTLY what Barbour is arguing for...McDonnel campaigned almost exclusively on fiscal issues, not on social issues.

So did Christie.

So did Brown.

Barbour is not saying the GOP should run pro-abortion candidates. He is saying the election message in 2010 should be about the economy. Unless you want to lose. Then make it about something the electorate does not currently prioritize as the number one issue.

Sheeesh.


46 posted on 09/08/2010 11:33:00 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I know there’s good reason for cynicism from those who are strongly pro-life or anti-illegal immigration, particularly, when dealing with Establishment pols like Barbour.

The surest way to get pro-life candidates elected in this environment, however, truly is #1) to start out with genuinely pro-life candidates and #2) to have those candidates stress the economy—not deny their social positions, but campaign in the general election on the economy.


47 posted on 09/08/2010 11:34:14 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb
Sorry but that’s not what he said. He said, “Any issue that takes people’s eye off of unemployment, job creation, economic growth, taxes, spending, deficits, debts is taking your eye off the ball,”

Amazing how so many on this board refuse to read and you are correct. So many get wrapped around one issue and press their position forgetting that elections must first be won. Push the winning hand you have, don't go off message and stay on track. After the election then push your agenda.

48 posted on 09/08/2010 11:34:17 AM PDT by engrpat (A village in Kenya is missing their idiot...lets send him back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
I can't read the article. I can't link to it. I posted the link to the video and article I found at the Christian Science Monitor, which is the group he spoke to this morning. Here it is again.
49 posted on 09/08/2010 11:35:14 AM PDT by onyx (If you support Sarah and want on her Ping List, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: julieee

Haley cannot be trusted on the economy either, he let us down when he got Gingrich to cave on the budget freeze in 1985


50 posted on 09/08/2010 11:36:15 AM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-179 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson