“This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue.”
I agree and I will write or fax my reps.
These guys are jerks. I think we need to keep an eye on them. It was good of them to give us a list.
No, the Boston Tea Party wasn’t concerned about gay sex, because they knew it was wrong. And they weren’t concerned about abortion because they knew THAT was wrong.
They were not big on baby killing or sexual perversion.
Taxed Enough Already is the name. One could just as easily argue that social conservatives are co-opting the TEA party movement.
homosexualty and abortion are not “social issues”. They are moral and ethical issues (issues of right and wrong) which cannot be overlooked because they undermine and attack what America is and stands for.
A real social issue? How do we treat our poor?
“Already, there are Washington insiders and special interest groups that hope to co-opt the Tea Party’s message and use it to push their own agenda – particularly as it relates to social issues.”
...and we want to be first in line!
Talk about perverting a message...
“When they were out in the Boston Harbor, they weren’t arguing about who was gay or who was having an abortion,”
That’s because even Jefferson believed that homosexuality was a crime.
If there was no mandate to act on any social issue, then you frigging butt pirates and homosexualists, there’s no reason to listen to ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ANY SOCIAL ISSUE THE NEXT TWO YEARS.
Go back in the log cabins.
FUGOPPROUD!
Immigration is a social issue with dire fiscal consequences. Look at California.
“Screw the babies. I want a tax cut!”
Sure.
Kill ‘em fast (abortion) or kill ‘em slow (AIDS), the most important thing is whether the check book balances.
I will NEVER support an pro-choice or pro-abortion candidate, AND I will NEVER support a candidate whose position on that issue is unknown or vague.
Period.
If they can’t get the most basic right, life, correct, then why should I trust that politician with power? That means they’ll cave in to anything.
I would like to stick with federalism. Let’s debate the social issues at the state level and fiercely guard state sovereignty. We will certainly have a much better chance of advancing conservative social causes at the state level.
If the states want to change the US Constitution through the amendment process, then so be it.
We must also figure out some way to purge the courts of activist judges. This would be the most immediate and effective way of advancing the conservative social agenda.
The perverts want the Repubs to remain silent while the liberals are given free reign to open the sewers. Traitors.
You guys will get us to power again when we screw up.....right?
This is nothing but pure divide-and-conquer BS. They're setting up a false premise that the Republicans elected are going to focus on social issues, and now they're going to "warn" them not to tackle said issues, even though they're not on the radar except for DADT.
A one-legged stool falls over pretty quickly.
Here’s to all three legs.
Social issues kill Republicans.
Ken Buck would be Senator-elect right now had he not stepped in it.
What matters right now, 300 congressional Republicans all opining on the nature of homosexuality and Other Things That Don’t Matter, or saving America from bankruptcy?
One path will save America from 0bama, the other will destroy the Republicans’ reclaimed majority, and America’s last hope with it.
The choice is theirs.
That's how the MA GOP undertands it -- their committee head said in an interview a couple of years ago with a gay newspaper that she didn't intend to bring up social issues. In practice, the state party has favored social liberals for at least 20 years, as far as I can tell.
Reagan was able to articulate a pro-life stance while still directing a conservative economic recovery.
There’s a way to stay focused on the economy without giving up important principles like being pro-life and anti-gay marriage/armed forces.