The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

GOP candidates need to court social conservatives

Social conservatives expect to be courted by just about every Republican presidential candidate. Statistically, we cannot be ignored by a serious campaign. While the Tea Party will certainly be a force in next year’s nominating contests, we know that we make up the majority of that movement and one-third of Republican primary voters. Thanks to the hard work of many leaders who encouraged evangelicals to engage in the political process, our opinions on social, economic, and foreign policy issues matter.

Garnering social conservative support is simply not as easy as it used to be. In the past, peppering a speech with red meat social issue talking points satisfied our activist community. To date, every announced and rumored Republican candidate embraces the pro-life label. To stand out from the crowd, candidates should start talking specifics.

For instance, candidates should call for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Candidates who are wary of losing independents in a general election can support this policy while simultaneously proposing to fund organizations that provide the same non-abortion services as Planned Parenthood. There is no reason why mainstream Republicans should want more money going to an Obama-friendly political machine.

Although judicial nominees are not getting a lot of attention right now, the next president will have the ability to radically alter the Supreme Court’s makeup. Candidates should pledge to nominate conservative judges — and not be afraid to give some names as examples — to the federal bench. We know that “conservative” is code for a judge who is pro-life and committed to preserving our nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage.

When it comes to foreign policy, we are looking for candidates who acknowledge the threat of radical Islam, not merely terrorism or extremism generally. We are sick and tired of hearing our president apologize for the war against Islamic terrorism. The Iranian regime, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood are enemies of the United States. There is nothing to negotiate and no room for compromise.

Many of our fellow Christians, living as minority religious populations around the word, are suffering at the hands of Islamist regimes. As our movement matures, we are beginning to engage more with these kinds of international human rights issues.

The Iran example is a good way to illustrate how all three traditional legs of the Republican Party combine. Iran is a pariah that poses a national security and economic threat to the United States while holding onto power by brutally oppressing its own citizens. Candidates should explain why the dangers posed by Iran go beyond its status as the number one state sponsor of terrorism. People are just beginning to learn about the growth of Iran and the presence of its terror affiliates in our own backyard, South America. There is no risk in coming out strongly on these issues early in the campaign because doing so won’t alienate independents.

Social conservatives want candidates who are strong supporters of Israel. We do not trust the Obama administration when it comes to supporting our most important and trusted ally in the Middle East. The U.S.-Israel relationship has the ability to unify conservatives around your campaign. Make a note of it, especially if your record is moderate or unclear on other major issues.

  • Pingback: GOP candidates need to court social conservatives « Sound Renown

  • Gridmark

    Again, Bush “stayed the course” when the country and two wars were failing. His tax cuts were not working when our jobs were going overseas and deficits and debt was going higher. His tax cuts did not attack any problems that were arising. He neglected Afghanistan for some 5 years while he went to Iraq. Iraq was a quagmire and totally mismanaged and after some 3 years it took John Murtha and others to scream that the president had to do something. Bush only believed in ideology and did not manage anything. It is okay to have faith, but you still have to run the country. Relying on God alone and on tax cuts alone, is not managing the economy or wars.

  • newton

    There is a problem for republicans candidates. while they try to win the favor of social conservative in the primary they have to remember this is a center left country. When they get into the general election they will then have to explain to a country (that is liberal) why should they vote for a social conservative. social conservative views may be popular in the republican primary but it’s not popular in the general. How can you win with social conservative views when the country is liberal?

    • Liberty Issues

      You nailed it Newton. We need to ditch the partisan primaries. I livd 17 years in Washington State, which doesn’t even have partisan registration.

      I’m a political junkie, so I watched and it’s a whole different ballgame with open primaries. This is really insane right now. We all know that independents and swing votes decide elections, but candidates are running around tryin to capture their base.

      The base of both parties combined is only about 25% of the voters. We’re being governed by a minority, in effect.

      • True Right

        I agree that getting rid of the parties would help make individuals responsible for their own platforms and keeping their promises, ending the political theater of party division in the houses where each person’s committee voice may be silenced by party.

        Essentially that’s one function the first amendment was supposed to do, prevent rule by a church party yet allow cooperation between churches in the forum of Congress. But the freedom in Christ was defeated so far by the anti-Christian KKK precident in the Supreme Court. For more read http://www.congressionalbiblestudy.org

  • A.R. Lanthem

    LibertyIssues is living in a fantasy land if he/she really thinks social conservatives comprise only 15% of the population!

    • Liberty Issues

      Zogby Poll. 15%. The fantasy is entirely yours.

      http://old.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.cfm?ID=19028

      If asked properly, 59% of Americans define themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That’s probably why loyal partisans are down to about 1/4 the voters. And even 50% of conservatives believe religion should not be involved in politics — a return to Jefferson and our Founders (wall of separation) — the Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan social liberal and VERY fiscal conservative.

      What I find amusing is that the two tiniest political factions in America are either economic liberals or social conservatives — also the most feared. But they each think they’re the majority.

      The reason both are so feared is they see the role of government as imposing their personal values on everyone else. Anyhow, I hope Michelle Bachman and the others keep calling out the wingnut faction on the right — as the teabaggers have done all along.

      • A.R. Lanthem

        So many things wrong here:

        1. You’re citing “old.zogby.com” not “zogby.com”. If you can provide the pathway from the original site itself, we can talk.

        2. What’s worse, though: Even on this dubious site, this is just one commentator’s spin of a Zogby poll, not the poll itself. You’ll notice that this is in the portion of the website that highlights when other people mention Zogby’s name.

        2. Even worse still: This partisan commentator cites the 15% as identifying themselves as “conservative Republicans”, not “social conservatives”.

        By all means, keep pretending social conservatives are so inconsequential. Only makes us stronger….

        • Liberty Issues

          @AR LATHAM “many things wrong here:”

          Yep — and all of them yours.

          @AR LATHAM “1. You’re citing “old.zogby.com” not “zogby.com”. If you can provide the pathway from the original site itself, we can talk.

          (LOL) Strike one. Ignorance. Yours.

          It’s called a subdomain. It can ONLY be on zogby.com which is a top level domain. And why would I want to talk with a wingnut?

          @AR LATHAM “What’s worse, though:”

          Yeah, you do get even wackier as we go.

          @AR LATHAM Even on this dubious site, this is just one commentator’s spin of a Zogby poll, not the poll itself. You’ll notice that this is in the portion of the website that highlights when other people mention Zogby’s name.

          Strike Two Even dumber. Ya gotta do more than mention his name — do you think Obama’s web site has everyone who mentions his name? Like … Limbaugh and Plain? (lol)

          It’s not a dubious site, How did you miss all the “Zogby International” stuff in the header. INCLUDING ZOGBY’S PHOTO!!!!

          Now that you know it’s Zogby’s web site, you have egg on your face. Again. And you lie about what’s there. Here’s what your “partisan comentator” says

          “[Disclosure: Cato paid for this question, but the poll itself was Zogby's regular Thursday-after-the-election poll of people who said they voted.] ”

          HE PAID FOR THE POLL. (flush)

          Now strike three.

          @ALanthem “2. ven worse still: This partisan commentator cites the 15% as identifying themselves as “conservative Republicans”, not “social conservatives”.

          Sorry, I set you up on that one. Keep looking at what you typed: social conservatives are LESS THAN 15%. Unless you believe ALL conservative Republican are also social conservative.

          Let’s add it up. You never knew you were at Zogby’s website, and made several judgments based on that ignorance. The page SAYS the Cato Institute commissioned the poll. And how did you miss the other cited polls which were saying the same thing.

          @ALanthem By all means, keep pretending social conservatives are so inconsequential. Only makes us stronger….

          Strike Four. I never said inconsequential. I said that the independents have 2-3 times the votes; Obama is already tarred as an economic liberal (the ONLY faction smaller than social conservatives).

          Just to clarify, I assume a large percentage of social conservatives are also economic conservatives. But a only a small percentage of fiscal conservatives are social conservatives.

          All I said(implied) was the Republicans are dead if they get tagged as a party of social conservatives. On top of the Birthers! When a majority of Americans reject both partie, partisan battles is the last thing they want.

          Independent and swing voters watched Republicans threaten to shut down the federal government …. to punish a provider of a constitutionally protected surgical procedure … on a BUDGET BILL …. which had NOTHING to do with spending.

  • Liberty Issues

    Social Conservatives are 1/3 of the primary voters, and less than 15% of all voters. That makes them the kiss of death for Republicans, just like the equally tiny economic liberals for the Democrats.

    Problem for most Americans is that a majority now rejects both parties, which sounds good until we realize that just empowers the wingnuts in both parties. We need to dump the partisan primaries.

    Keep attacking Planned Parenthood — punish them for a constitutionally-protected medical procedures. Aw geez; Thomas Jefferson is probably sobbing in his grave, “We THOUGHT we created a wall of separation.”

    At our founding, Catholics were still burning people at the stake in Europe. And Protestants were burning them in Massachusetts. No thanks.

    Just as many dead babies are caused by conservatives. ANY state can ban abortions of a viable fetus, for several decades now. If YOUR state can’t do it then don’t try changing it back to a federal issue.

    Democrats have their own economic delusions and gullibility. Republican hysteria consists of claiming “late term” abortions cannot be banned, or that prayer has been banned in our schools, or that Reagan was a supply-sider … yada, yada, yada.

    • True Right

      In my area only half of the eligible citizens are registered to vote. If the voters were split equally, that would be 25% Republican. Newt’s poll says the majority are center-right so that makes social conservatives exceed 50%. Over 90% are Christian to some extent.

      Obama is so destructive he inspired my Christian neighbor, a formerly life-long unregistered to register to vote against the President.

      The Democrats have a monument to their stupidity in my tiny town of 2000 where they are spending $4 million to do cosmetic improvements to the main road that should cost about $100,000 if that – since they are leaving unimproved two bridges which ought to be widened – saying they don’t have enough money for that. Do the math $4M / 2K = $2K so they could give $2,000 to every man woman and child in this town and leave the cosmetics alone or give $2K to every adult and still do the work with a cheaper contractor. We need true Christians in charge of government at all levels.

  • mrcool

    As an Independent voter I really look forward to the Republicans retaking the US Senate and hopefully the Presidency in the next election. The government needs to get serious about cutting the debt, this country can no longer live beyond its means. The American people are ready for the cuts, no matter how painful, the time is now…

  • Gridmark

    After watching George Bush, a right wing born again social conservative, I can see why our country is in neglect. I have never in my life seen such stupidity in my life. To say all those years that we will have tax cuts and “stay the course” is the most asinine ideological bunk of all time. It shows how our country goes into neglect, when someone has “religion.” “Stay the course” and our economy and two wars were ran into the ground. There are problems to be solved and things to get fixed. We have an infrastructure to fix and the middle class keeps losing with jobs going overseas. A country needs to be led pragmatically and not by an ideology from the left or the right. Talk is cheap. The right wing will always talk of God and country, and yet they continually ignore the population. It makes them worse than democrats as democrats does useless spending, but at least their heart is in the right place even though they are dumb. On the other hand republicans come across as ignorant, arrogant, and crass while they talk about the constitution and God and country. And the republicans come across as a bunch of nuts.

    • slv@synergetics.com

      I read your comment and was a little discouraged. Evidently you are as deceived as so many Americans are. Whether you believe it or not, this country’s foundings were because of the Godly heritage that our Forefathers brought with them. What does the Godly right winger have to do with the population anyway? This isn’t the major concern. Our concern is that our leader whose purpose is to run this country into the ground, so that he can edify his muslim brotherhood. This is a very dangerous group of people and as a country we should be standing up againist this incidious ideology. I hope you get a grip before it is too late.

      • Gridmark

        My reply went to the top of this thread.