Been there, done that.
Posted on 11/10/2012 8:05:19 PM PST by neverdem
It is time to throw the social conservatives out of the GOP. Look at what they got us — Barack Obama. It was the social conservatives who did it. They insisted the GOP support real marriage and children. To hell with that.
I’m getting this, in various forms, from lots of tea party activists. The GOP establishment in Washington is whispering it to each other. They look at Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock and conclude that they, not Tommy Thompson, Heather Wilson, George Allen, Scott Brown, etc. are the problem.
It is time to get rid of the social conservatives.
What’s really going on here is that the people who voted Republican, but who disagree with pro-lifers and defenders of marriage, have decided it must be those issues. They can’t see how what happened actually happened unless it happened because the issues on which they disagree with the base played a role.
This is a psychological avoidance of larger issues and does not stack up to the data.
Mitt Romney won about a quarter of the hispanic vote and a tenth of the black vote.
Those numbers may not sound like much, but in close elections they matter.
A sizable portion of those black and hispanic voters voted GOP despite disagreeing with the GOP on fiscal issues. But they are strongly social conservative and could not vote for the party of killing kids and gay marriage. So they voted GOP.
You throw out the social conservatives and you throw out those hispanic and black voters. Further, you make it harder to attract new hispanic voters who happen to be the most socially conservative voters in the country.
Next, you’ll also see a reduction of probably half the existing GOP base. You won’t make that up with Democrats who suddenly think that because their uterus is safe they can now vote Republican. Most of those people don’t like fiscal conservatism either — often though claiming that they do.
If you really need to think through this, consider MItt Romney. He is perhaps the shiftiest person to ever run for President of the United States. He shifted his position on virtually every position except Romneycare. Of all the politicians to ever run for office, he’d be the one most likely to come out and, after the Republican convention, decide he’d changed his mind. He’d be okay with abortion and okay with gay marriage.
Had he done that, he’d have even less votes.
Several million evangelicals did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000. His campaign had to work to get them back in 2004.
You may mentally decide, to escape having to deal with the other implications of this election, that if only the GOP would abandon its social conservatism it would do better. But if you do, go find yourself a new coalition because you won’t have half the votes the GOP has now. Good luck with that. In fact, if the GOP really wanted to expand with minorities, it’d keep the social conservatism and throw out the fiscal conservatism.
Richard Mourdock was one of two of the poster children for abandoning social conservatives this year. He was beaten by a pro-life Democrat.
The problem is not social conservatism. The problem is social conservatives have gotten so used to thinking of themselves as the majority they’ve forgotten how to speak to those who are not and defend against those who accuse them of being fringe, most particularly the press. Couple that with Mitt Romney’s campaign making a conscious decision to not fight back on the cultural front and you have a bunch of Republicans convinced, despite the facts, that if only the social conservatives would go away all would be fine.
It’s not time to throw out social conservatives. It’s time to accept that without them the GOP would be even a smaller party even less able to reach out to the hispanic demographic all the smart people say they need to embrace. Addition through subtraction never really works well.
“Conservatives support the constitution, and the constitution guarantees LIFE. Women don’t have some sort of special right to murder their own children.”
Well put.
I'll have to admit I don't like it. I've never trusted Huckabee despite religious common ground. I was prepared to support Santorum when it appeared that he was the solid alternative to Romney in the primary, but only because my distrust of him was not as great as my distrust of Romney. He seemed sincere, for a politician at least, lol.
However, looking at the tremendous influx of Mexicans and other Hispanics, as well as the social conservatism of churchgoing black people that anyone familiar would have to acknowledge, it does seem at this point that ditching the fiscal conservatives would be the far more electable proposition, as opposed to the constant harangue about ditching social conservatives.
If anything, it highlights just who's really driving the bus, establishment delusions notwithstanding. They're neither fiscal nor social conservative, they just play one or the other depending upon the audience come election season.
Take your abortionist/homosexualist b/s elsewhere. It’s not welcome here.
“A lot of that “younger generation” will grow up at some point”
Nope, the point of legalized pot is to help forget about growing up.
I believe that the ones who want to invade and tranvaginally probe vaginas - specifically, sucking out the nascent life growing therein - are the Democrats. Get the Democrats the heck out of womens’ uteruses...
Amazing how THEY were so worried that Conservatives would not vote for THEIR man and even more worried that WE would start a third party and now after THEY lost the election THEY want to throw US out of the GOP.
Somebody’s trying to save face.
ps: I know this is Reuters but today on AM Radio I heard the same thing from so called Weekend Business Republican radio hosts.
Maybe you should direct that question to Mitt Romney, John McCain and the RNC. Not advocating conservative values appears to be more of a loser than advocating them.
Given the choice, social liberals vote for the genuine article, seems to me. They don't believe a Republican who is liberal on social issues any more than social conservative Republicans do.
And Romney's ardent supporters ignored this. Liberals had a great time with Romneysia tho Obama had the same flip flopping issue.
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
I don’t get it. Take one look at that list and tell me these people were too Conservative to win. LMAO
McCain flat out said he hated Conservatives, or something to that effect. What am I missing here?
If they purge the Conservatives from the Republican party, they’ll have 20% of the registered voters remaining in the Republican party.
Now there’s a path to something. I’m just thinking it’s more like the city dump, than victory.
Sadly I heard this non-sense on AM Radio today by so called republican 3rd rate weekend radio hosts.
Suddenly RINO Romney is OUR loss!?!
They’re trying to save face and blame their loss on Conservatives. What a crock!
Bush
Dole
Reagan
Bush
Bush
McCain
Romney
Now that PBS survived maybe the RINOs would like to play the game “which one does NOT belong”
“It’s one thing to be pro-life, but they ventured where most pro-life politicians don’t even dare to venture ...RAPE”
and theodicy.
But there is a problem with being off the edge, in general. Remember when Joe Miller talked about the Berlin Wall as a model for border security?
Dole
Reagan
McCain
Romney
Now that PBS survived maybe the RINOs would like to play the game “which one does NOT belong”
“it’s going to have to moderate stances on abortion, gay marriage, etc.”
. . .
The GOP can do that, but the goal post will just be moved.
In a few years they’ll be considered radical SoCons if they don’t support forcing clergy to perform both gay marriages and partial birth abortions.
The RINOs lost. Not the Conservatives. Your man is now in the list with Dole and McCain and was not even good enough to be a Bush HW Bush who at least won one term (thanks to Reagan and Reagan alone)
The other point is that if social liberalism conquers ALL, then why did Obama lose six or eight million votes himself?
Cheers!
“Paul Ryan couldn’t articulate an argument if his life depended on it. He talked in talking points and non-sequators(sic)”
That’s what happens when you are VP and must tow the line of the head of the ticket. You can’t be yourself. The same was true for Sarah Palin.
More canard about how socially conservative Mexicans are
Really.. ..50-60% out of wedlock births
High crime
Mordida culture
Oh yeah regular Citizens Council they are
Who knew?
Chalk this writer off to yet another stupid white guy
Which planet did you learn politics, logic, and humility on??
95 or so percent of those in FR oppose abortion on demand, abortion as afterthought birth control, and abortion as means to avoid responsibility. Possibly the same percentage believe that there are times and circumstances in which it might be the most appropriate action (see rape, incest, and confirmed medical exigency).
On the other hand, likely 99 percent of those on FR agree totally in fiscal responsibility, social responsibility, mutual respect, and a basic understanding of human interaction.
Some participants may have missed out on the respect and human interaction parts.
"They can’t see how what happened actually happened unless it happened because the issues on which they disagree with the base played a role.
Que?
The only thing I see happening here is someone seriously irate about nearly everything (Lil Abner I believe) and intent on making the most of it.
So go ahead and shun alliances, demand orthodoxy, and pretend that "they" are responsible for every set back...that will show 'em!
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.