Skip to comments.See, I Told You So: Social Issues Didn't Drive Independents Away from GOP
Posted on 04/26/2012 3:27:59 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: I want to take you back to this program February 27th, this year, mere weeks ago. I was talking about the Republican Party. They were angry. They weren't being public with their anger, but I was hearing about it through surrogates. They were angry at me for talking about social issues. "Don't talk about 'em, Rush, the social issues, independents don't want to hear about abortion, that stuff, please." Here's what I said
RUSH ARCHIVE: The Republican establishment in panic over the fact I'm killing the party. And you know how I'm killing the party? By not relegating discussion of social issues to the ash heap. They don't want it talked about. Oh, no, they just can't handle it being discussed. They think it's gonna send the independents driving away and the electoral history of this is anything but.
RUSH: That's right. The electoral history. And I was talking, there was a book. Jeffrey Bell wrote a book about how social issues being predominant in the Republican Party has led to presidential victory. And this was the point that I was making. This is an illustration about how the inside-the-Beltway Republicans are out of touch and don't get it and how northeastern liberal Republicans are scared to death of the abortion issue, when they win with it. So I want to follow this up with Brian Kilmeade today on Fox & Friends. They just had a new Fox presidential poll out. Listen to Kilmeade here.
KILMEADE: Among independents, the key voting bloc, who would you vote for if the election was today, 46 to 33, Mitt Romney, a dominant lead.
RUSH: Now, you heard him say "the key voting bloc." See, that's my pet peeve. "So here's Kilmeade. Among independents, the key voting bloc, who would you vote for if the election was today?" Romney up by 13 among independents. And that's after six weeks of this phony war on women stuff that was supposed to send independents running back to the Democrats. Don't buy it. Don't believe the conventional wisdom.
And a first-order level of need for keeping the society healthy, vibrant, and able to maintain itself against challenges and invasions. Not to say, maintain itself economically as well.
I call bull on this. When you say 'social issues', you simply mean Christian morality. And Christian morality does not make economies grow and thrive.
Otherwise, Buddhist China and Hindu India would never have been the world's biggest economies in past centuries, with Christian Europe a backwards fleaspeck.
A good work ethic and respect for another's property are the essential basics for prosperity. Which are not solely inherent in Christianity.
See Yahweh's hierarchy of needs:
There is a reason that life is the first unalienable right.
Hey Rush, it’s not just abortion, it’s homosexuality, too.
Mixing up social needs with personal needs is no way to argue your point.
Individuals are people... and they have basic needs that must be met before they can focus on someone else.
As a thought experiment, wait until your bladder is about to burst... and try to focus on saving the unborn. You won’t be able to focus on it very much, for you have a more pressing need - the need to pee.
And that’s what a physical need is (ie: food, shelter, clothing). After that, safety and security take precedent. Only when all that is satisfied will anyone spare the time to focus on others.
Unfortunately, Obama probably knows this... which is why he’s been trying so hard to make so many unable to fulfill those basic needs. For it’s much easier to control someone when they can’t meet those needs.
Nice try, but no dice.
G-d, through the words of the Torah, places utmost importance on the value of life. In Vayikra, the verse states: “ushmartem et chukotay veet mishpatai asher yaase otam haadam, vechai bahem, ani hashem.”3 You shall observe my decrees and my laws that each man shall carry out and by which he shall live, I am God. This verse teaches us that the commandments were not meant to take precedence over human life. If the observance or the performance of a Torah law would create a risk to a human life, then preservation of that life should take precedence over the observance of that Torah law.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin rules on the basis of this verse that if someone is offered the ultimatum to violate one of the prohibitions in the Torah or be killed, that person has the duty to violate that law and save his life. This rule applies to all the prohibitions in the Torah with three exceptions. The three exceptions are the prohibitions of idol worship, illicit sexual relations and murder. Although the Torah specifically says “vechai bahem,” if a person would be given the ultimatum to violate one of these three transgressions or be killed, he must refuse to violate the prohibition and sacrifice his own life.
The same Gemara in Sanhedrin,5 describes a case where a person being pursued destroys the property of another in effort to save his own life. Rava rules that if the property belongs to the pursuer, then the pursued is exempt from compensating the damage. However, if the person being pursued destroys the property belonging to a third party, he is liable for the damage. We see from this Gemara that it is permissible to destroy anothers property to save your own life, provided that you compensate the owner of the property.
That is exactly right! The GOP sold out and they laid down in front of the high-speed train for good measure.
Exactly. And a fascist/communist/sodom and gomorrah government could be made to be fiscally sound.
I don't get why people think that money is God.
I call bull on this. When you say ‘social issues’, you simply mean Christian morality. And Christian morality does not make economies grow and thrive.
Otherwise, Buddhist China and Hindu India would never have been the world’s biggest economies in past centuries, with Christian Europe a backwards fleaspeck.
You have not a clue. Not one single clue. I call my ping list “Moral Absolutes” becaucse they are universal. It is not “Christian” morality that mandates not killing the unborn, sex within marriage, no same sex acts, etc. It is universal morality and is taught in Buddhist and Hindu and Judaic ancient scriptures. Even ancient China under Confucianism and the like had some basic morality going for it. Your hatred of Christianity is blinding you badly.
However, that's *NOT* what she meant in her post. See below for her expansion on the point.
This Western ideologyperfected by Christian Theologyis what creates a successful societya culture which can flourishbecause of trust and unity. We are being destroyed by destroying all virtueall moralityThe Judeo/Christian concept of Godit is what the Cultural Marxists planned in the 30s to destroy Western Civilization through Atheist control of schools.
Or, in other words, Christian Theology is what makes for success - PERIOD!
And that's bull... as I pointed out.
I don’t always agree with savagesusie in every particular; but basic universal moral absolutes are absolutely necessary to render human civilization both human and civilized.
There is no separation between “social issues” and fiscal ones when it comes to government. The left wants your money to pay for all their social engineering after all.
“Republican” libertarians join liberals in the drama of “freedom from hearing morals.” It is gay/feminazi drama with a megaphone in power and in the press. Most Americans are not in the moral corruption community.
"social issues" -really you mean moral issues, right? We now face socialism e.g. a government tyranny hell bent on enforcing a government declared morality and you suggest these "social issues" are irrelevant; that we should instead count our coins and seek more coins?
Liberty is premised upon inalienable rights endowed us by the Creator. In essence, the premise of liberty places government under God. To place government above God is by default changing inalienable rights to government granted rights making government our master RATHER than our servant.
At what price? What is your price for selling out my inalienable rights by suggesting they are a luxury item?
Here is something paraphrased that I recently posted to a persistent promoter of unimportance and no principles necessary except those THEY feel are important e.g the fiscal issues.
There is a fight for the soul of our Republic, the fight IS at the federal level and some suggest we win by retreating to the States e.g. State's Rights -what next, retreating to the towns, then retreating to our places of worship and finally retreating to our homes; waiting for that knock on the door in the middle of the night? We should retreat and wait; fighting government encroachment is a luxury right now? --When will RINOs wake up to what is going on, what has been going on?
Conservatives must succeed if our country is to survive and success is NOT about retreat and compromise -success in NOT about more of the same at a slower pace -success is not about more of the same with a fatter wallet under a RINO!
What worked for Reagan was promoting a correct understanding of what it means to be a Republic and what limited government is all about (not JUST a balanced budget); but a principled position, a clarion call that our primary goal as patriots is to defend the people against the encroachments of big government.
If the advocates of socialism want to use and expand the power of the government at all levels including the federal level to impose their version of a government mandated utopia upon the people BUT conservatives proclaim loudly that we represent those that defend against this AT ALL LEVELS including the federal, then WE WILL WIN at the polls and we will return our country back to the people!
However, if we continue to follow RINOs over the pocketbook only cliff or progressive political correctness cesspool then our Republic under God will be no more.
Survival, the basic level, includes survival of sons and daughters between conception and birth.
What is the current financial cost of:
the horrible public schools driven by social liberalism?
the gay AIDS crisis?
fatherless homes, driven by feminist disdain for fathers?
Social liberalism costs everyone LOTS of money.
It's a simple matter of individual freedom versus individual slavery to arrogant and coercive government busybodies.
The Constitution stands as a shield and protection for "the People's" lives, liberties, and property. Who stands with the Constitution's "chains" (see Jefferson) and limits on Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary powers and explains those limits to "the People" can win the election.
The claim by this President that "we can't wait" to abide by the Constitution's protections and provisions to impose our policies without going through its prescribed process should be ample warning for all but the most dense among us that tyranny is upon us. Independents, as well as all other voters, are smart enough to understand that--if it is explained to them.
I agree -that is what Reagan excelled at. WHY? Because he believed it and understood it -it is why he became a Republican. He did not give it lip service to win power -rather he was elected because people KNEW he was the real deal -the ideology he promoted was complete rather than a half assed RINO message seeking power. I suspect this 'principled holistic conservatism' was and is behind the powerful appeal of Sarah Palin.