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 Partys 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 Romneys 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 were going to win, weve 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 Id say the same answer.
He added, It doesnt mean running from [social] issues, it means putting it in the right context because you dont want to insult people who care about those issues no matter where they stand. But make it clear that thats the higher priority.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Tell all that to president Romney.
Umm....I would say that "social issues" are pretty darned important if you propose in any way to return us to Constitutional government. In fact, what John Adams was getting at was that if the people abandon the self restraint that comes only from God-given morality, they will become ungovernable savages and the Constitution will no longer matter. We have to stop creating this false dichotomy between "social issues" and other issues. If we don't have a solid, righteous culture ("social issues") then nothing else matters. Who cares what the tax rate is in Hell?
Entirely understandable, but this country has moved inexorably leftward on social issues. A candidate can and should act according to conservative values once in office, but putting the focus on social issues won't win you an election, otherwise President Rick Santorum would be ramping up for reelection.
America hasn't had one of those in many years, otherwise Rick Santorum would've been elected in 2012.
So essentially you are saying that the only time you would be willing to fight for something is when you essentially already have it? That you will simply give up if the going gets too tough? How can you consider yourself a conservative (presuming that you do)?
And we’ll celebrate the success of making noise on social issues next time President Santorum visits, right?
I’m aware of that, but how do you propose to reclaim the culture by refusing to fight for it?
There is only one candidate who has consistently stood by his principles and who won't change his tune to suit the audience he's with, Ted Cruz. That's why I want him as my president even though I don't agree with him 100% of the time. At least I know where he stands and I know that won't change.
To me, that is surrender. What the left has won they have won unfairly and unconstitutionally. Who will be the voice for what is right and also Constitutional.
I think it is a chicken position. I respect Cruz on these issues. He has guts. I don’t agree with him on everything, but the so-called social issues are #1 for me. They are #1 #2 #3 #4 #5......they are everything to me. What is money without religious freedom? What is money if you are forced to violate your own conscience and disobey God? What is money if you are forced to fund the murder of babies? What is money if you are forced to be silent about your faith, about morality, about things you care deeply about?
That makes sense, since he's basically running for Caesar.
If he was running for God, I'd expect him to focus on the more spiritual.
I agree with Walker here, BUT it was a stupid thing to say.
[If the people abandon the self restraint that comes only from God-given morality, they will become ungovernable savages and the Constitution will no longer matter.]
THIS is what I what in a POTUS.
ACTS 5:27-29
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
The problem with this theory, is that the social issues inevitably impact economics. For example, where do you think the economy would be today if we had not aborted 55,000,000 babies?
This is the questions we should be asking the political leaders.
You fight for those as an officeholder. We’re dealing with a center-left America now, in case you haven’t noticed. If you’re going to put the social issues in the forefront BEFORE you get elected, you’ll be watching someone else’s victory speech on election night.
Feel free to tell us which conservative Presidential candidate in the modern era has put the social agenda at the forefront and gone on to win the general election? And please... don’t insult yourself and the rest of us by responding with “Reagan.”
Wrong. That's called facing the reality of running for high office in an increasingly liberal country of 310 million people.
Welcome to the Neville Chamberlain school of American patriotism. I, for one, want nothing to do with you defeatists.
Fair enough. See my comment at #16. Walker has made his statements in word AND in action on that subject.
Too many Romney people around him.
In fact I got to thinking its odd how Rubio gets a pass on trade authority when so many seem to think Walker would choose him as a running mate.
It does not involve altering your beliefs or lying about them, it's about generating enthusiasm for your candidacy by appealing to the larger electorate, while diluting the opportunities for your opposition to demonize your beliefs.
He's not talking about governing, which comes after winning an election.
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.