Posted on 06/12/2015 11:50:38 AM PDT by GIdget2004
In an address to major donors gathered here, Scott Walker — who has wrangled with some in the Republican Party’s evangelical wing — urged the GOP to focus on fiscal and economic issues, rather than social ones, in the 2016 election.
During a question-and-answer session following a speech at Mitt Romney’s E2 Summit, Walker was asked by an attendee how the party can avoid locking itself into a divisive war over social issues, as it has done in the past.
Walker, whose presentation lasted in total around 4o minutes, stressed that he counted himself a social conservative, but called it a “great question.” He noted that, when running for governor in 2010, a time when the state was dominated on the statewide level by Democrats, he focused like a laser on economic matters but said little about social ones.
“We said that if we’re going to win, we’ve got to focus on two things — the economic and fiscal crises facing our state and our country. We were so disciplined on message it was almost over the top. If you asked me anything I’d say the same … answer.”
He added, “It doesn’t mean running from [social] issues, it means putting it in the right context because you don’t want to insult people who care about those issues no matter where they stand. But make it clear that that’s the higher priority.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
if you check my comment at #16, you’ll see he’s laid down some strong markers on abortion... in words and deeds. Not sure what more people are wanting. He has some strong cred there.
True.. Walker couldn’t get elected in his State if he was an actual conservative..
Soooooo he MUST appear to be a moderate... in some degree..
depending on the crowd he is addressing..
LIKE: all the RINOs in Congress.. (( DO ))...
He “may” not be a RINO... but I’m suspicious and do not TRUST Him.. /stink eye..
I’m suspicious of Cruz as well.. but he is earning my trust.. somewhat..
Looking for “TELLS” when Cruz plays his hand..
Walker looks “shifty” to me..
Imho, Santorum can’t win. He’s just not presidential.
You’re right.
I’m not saying I’m voting for Santorum. I like him fine. I would like someone a little tougher. The other poster brought up Santorum. I was just replying. I think Santorum would be better than either McCain or Romney. That is not saying a lot.
I think that McCain and Romney are the only Republicans who aren’t running.
McCain didn't really have a shot after the economy tanked. Romney did try that "economic issues" approach and it didn't work. Many voters saw him as just another rich guy and didn't bother with him. But he did lead in the polls over candidates who emphasized social issues.
Generally speaking elections are won or lost on economics. Reagan won because of the economy. In those days, there were a lot of Democrats who were conservative on social issues. Either they came to Reagan because of economics and stayed because of social issues or they came because of social issues and stayed because of economics, but there isn't that large pool of socially conservative Democrats to poach from anymore, so you may not hear as much about those issues next year.
Walker's comments are kind of superfluous, though. Whoever gets nominated is going to have to win over people who only vote because of the economy. That means downplaying other issues. Maybe his remarks are a sign to the other contenders not to tear each other apart because of small differences in positions.
Scott Walker: Prioritizing economics over idiotic political correctness is just sane policy.
There, I fixed it.
Look, I wish it were otherwise.
But I go back to my original point... To make social changes you have I get into office first... and the general electorate in this country is moony leftward. So you’re left with accentuating other issues that voters will respond to.
Scott Walker s going to run as a Romney....?
Kinda what it looks like.
This, coming from the guy who bristles wildly at any notion Sarah Palin is unelectable to the presidency.
What does being “electable” have to do with anything....
Who knows who is electable.. except a soothesayer.. who is lucky..
No one is electable with no one willing to vote for them..
Calling election by POLLS.. should be ILLEGAL...
Even political polling should be illegal.. so apt they are to be dishonest..
Only sheep care about what other sheep care about..
I think you made a BAAAAAAD decision to post that..
Lol. There are no winnable areas. You alienate social conservatives and you just drive over the cliff a bit sooner.
The only problem with that is this: economics are effected by social issues. If there’s any good reason to be a monopoly in America, it’s being a monopoly because anyone who disagrees with a given social issue doesn’t deserve to have a business. End of discussion.
[That is what I want in my Pastor.
The apostles weren’t part of the gov’t.]
I beg to differ. The government is upon Christ’s shoulders.
He expects us to be salt and light in government.
When America stood on the Word, this was a blessed nation.
It takes Godly leaders to lead the free world.
“Only sheep care about what other sheep care about..
I think you made a BAAAAAAD decision to post that..”
Nah.. There’s a history to that statement.
I believe that is true, but when dealing with a house, it's more urgent to do something about the fire rather than the termites. We. Are. On. Fire. Financially.
How many people in poverty do you think are there as a result of either their own or someone else’s wrongful actions? AFAIK, it’s not a small percentage. I understand that yes, you want to avoid taking the bait of the MSM, but eventually, you really can only avoid the reality of how immoral, or at least unethical, activities are sinking America and that society is being pretty sick with unethical or, if you prefer, immoral behavior and either ignorance/promotion of such behavior. Social issues are a minefield, you can only avoid them for so long.
You have me wrong. I am a Burkean Conservative, and I very much believe in pressing the social issues, but currently we need to get our financial house in order or we are going to have a whole lot more social problems pretty quick.
I have no problems with a candidate hammering the financial issues and refusing to allow the media to bait him into alienating potential voters. Once he gets elected, he can enact and support policies that bolster the social issue war.
That is exactly what the Democrats do. They deliberately refrain from telling people about all the nasty perverted stuff they plan to enact until *AFTER* they are elected.
Barack the scum Obama even had an "Obama for Life" website running. He was trying to make people believe he was Pro-Life.
I’m sorry I didn’t know that this piece of land was the Lord’s Kingdom. What did he mean then when he said his kingdom was no part of this world?
L
A dunghill with a balanced checkbook is still a dunghill.
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.