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 previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-179 last
To: WKB
However in this current political climate I can see where now more than 1992 it really is the “economy studied” that the greatest majority of the people are concerned about.

And? Depending on the district, then give 60% or 70% of your message to the economy...but don't ignore the social issues...

BTW, I find the fantasy land on these threads pretty amazing sometimes...for example, FReepers talk as if one little ole legislator talkin' 'bout the huge, steep economy is then going to waltz into office & presto-chango...the economy's back...

Talk, talk, talk, about something so massive...and we think a handful of newly elected Republican office-holders will turn the mighty Titanic enough to keep navigating around every iceberg @ the breakneck speed we keep operating under.

Amazing.

Listen. I don't mean to completely downgrade talkin "the talk." But, unfortunately, there's not a lot of substantive ideas injected into "the talk." The solutions haven't usually been corporately thought out. And what's worse, few engage like statesmen anymore. IOW, really persuasive statesmen.

Let's face it: The Republicans should be elected to keep the Dems from driving the country faster into the ground than it's already moving. Having said that, I don't expect Republicans to "turn things around" -- just slow down the decay & deterioration & erosion.

Frankly our country is in such a horrific moral state that we're bankrupt there. That being the case, only God; plus mass repentance, daily widespread prayer, and trust in God to act can turn this ship around.

"Economy talk" isn't the gleaming new showroom showcase it's being plugged to be on this thread.

161 posted on 09/09/2010 5:31:32 AM PDT by Colofornian ( If we could CTR, we wouldn't need Jesus to be OUR righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Danae

What candidate that we are discussing is pro-choice?


162 posted on 09/09/2010 5:37:13 AM PDT by Sudetenland (Slow to anger but terrible in vengence...such is the character of the American people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard
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.

Bears repeating. Some just aren't getting it!

163 posted on 09/09/2010 5:40:37 AM PDT by CAluvdubya ("Sarah Palin fights, we cannot spare her."--GonzoGOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

RINOS now control the party.


164 posted on 09/09/2010 6:03:15 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (((.Go troops! " Vote out RINOS. They screw you EVERY time" Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: julieee

Excuse me, but where is the disconnect between killing off millions of people who could have made up our workforce, and economic prosperity in general? Abortion is not merely a social issue, Mr. Barbour. The sooner you and your ilk figure that out the better off we’ll all be.


165 posted on 09/09/2010 6:03:46 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; julieee; Tabi Katz; rabscuttle385; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; ...
From Laura Ingraham's Obama Diaries:

Since elites in this country are almost uniformly hostile to conservatism, our movement must necessarily be populist in tone....Bipartisanship, on the other hand, is all about deal-making among inside-the-Beltway types, Such deal-making is poison to populism because it makes it impossible for the people to know exactly where key players stand on important issues.

Ingraham goes further with the example of Stupak. If Pelosi had picked off a few GOP votes for Obamacare, she would have allowed Stupak to vote NO, and he could have run for reelection as a "pro-life opponent" of Obamacare.

166 posted on 09/09/2010 6:42:38 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: Obama is the dog who caught the fire truck!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

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

I'd ditch Haley Barbour before I'd ditch God and his unborn children.

167 posted on 09/09/2010 8:57:44 AM PDT by Ron H. (Impeach Hussein Obama before he can declare himself dictator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: julieee

Haley Barbour will next be wanting conservatives to embrace the Log Cabin Republicans as well I suspect. But will he ask them to embrace them from the backside?! LOL.


168 posted on 09/09/2010 9:04:11 AM PDT by Ron H. (Impeach Hussein Obama before he can declare himself dictator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: julieee

Better idea, Haley — ditch any idea of running for President. Apparently, Barbour didn’t learn the lesson that Mitch Daniels was recently taught.


169 posted on 09/09/2010 10:31:56 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard
Haley Barbour, who has great social conservative credentials, did not tell candidates to “ditch” social issues.

Sounds like his "credentials" were just a matter of him doing what he had to win in Mississippi.

And, no, he didn't say the focus should be on economic issues. He said to ditch social conservative issues. Hell freezes over before social conservatives vote for someone that disrespect issues they hold dear like that. Barbour is proving to be part of the problem with the Republican party.

170 posted on 09/09/2010 10:38:05 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: julieee
And, what Barbour doesn't realize is that the under 30 crowd is as or more pro-life than any age group. Throwing the pro-life issue away, throws away a chance to make inroads among the younger generation of voters.

Again, we have an example of career politician out of touch with the grassroots of the party.

171 posted on 09/09/2010 10:41:17 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Brown in Mass-nope pro Life.

Scott Brown is not pro-life.

172 posted on 09/09/2010 10:43:30 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tulane
He is saying the election message in 2010 should be about the economy.

There isn't a GOP candidate out there not running on the economy first anyway so his comments are merely an attack on social conservatives.

There is a big difference between ditching social issues and putting an emphasis on the economy while strongly supporting measures that will eliminate or reduce abortion and protect marriage.

173 posted on 09/09/2010 10:45:47 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Tulane
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.

Neither ditched social issues when they got in office. In fact, Christie has aggressively sought to eliminate PP funding and the state of Virginia has ramped up regulations against abortion clinics.

In fact, the Democrat went out of his way to make McDonnell's "extreme" views on social issues a issue in the campaign and the strategy failed miserably, proving that Republicans don't have to ditch the issues while running.

174 posted on 09/09/2010 10:56:07 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Remember this also, it is very difficult to promote an agenda that you did not run on.

It is also easy to dismiss an agenda you did not run on.

The blanker the slate, the more dangerous the candidate, IMO.

175 posted on 09/09/2010 11:12:04 AM PDT by calcowgirl ("In politics the middle way is none at all." -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
But I think that you might think that the purpose of campaigning is to lecture the voters about morality.

When has campaigning not largely been about morality positions and speeches about the right and wrong of competing political positions and platforms?

176 posted on 09/09/2010 11:27:00 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Danae

How many babies do you think will be saved if the Democrats win?


177 posted on 09/09/2010 1:28:25 PM PDT by RC Clayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RC Clayton

RC, I think you mistook my commentary as directed at you in particular. It wasn’t. It was meant as a general commentary.

That being said, I will continue to refuse to support anyone who is pro-choice. I do NOT care which party that person belongs to. I will not cave in on my beliefs to mistakenly assume that my ‘tolerance’ of such an inhuman act is better than an outright democrat in office. For me, BOTH are part of a culture of death which do NOT deserve to be in elected office.

I will NOT cave on my beliefs for the sale of expediency or anything else.


178 posted on 09/09/2010 2:04:58 PM PDT by Danae (Anal nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do che'l de'nmha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

Comment #179 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-179 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