Limbaugh: Evangelicals -- A Drag On Or Essential To The GOP?

[Terri]

By David Limbaugh
November 21, 2008

A good friend of mine (let's call him Bob) is convinced that unless the GOP puts abortion "aside as its focal point, it simply cannot win and regain power." That's especially interesting in light of Kathleen Parker's latest column, which disses the evangelical wing of the GOP.

Bob's point is that "we've lost a majority of women over this issue as they have become one-issue voters." It's not only liberal women but also others who believe it's simply not the government's business.

Kathleen Parker broadens the point considerably beyond abortion: "The evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh." Since the 1980s or so, says Parker, the GOP "has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners. ... The GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents."

More

[thomas]

"Though Democratic policies and actions mostly caused it, Republicans got the blame..."
McCain lost this election - when the crisis hit he started off right, cancelling his activities to return to work in Washington, then his pathological need to compromise, to reach across the isle to democrats sunk him. If he has said no and led the republican stand, although he would have been on the loosing side when the bail-out came up for a vote, he would have been on the winning side with the American people and could have smacked bHo up the side of the head with this issue winning the election. Too Old, too liberal, too, too, too - go away McCain, just go away.
The Old Chief

[SewingSusie]

There's already a party stressing economic conservatism nearly to the exclusion of social issues, and the last time I checked, our beloved Libertarians weren't garnering a great percentage of the vote.

Libertarians like Neil Boortz annoy the daylights out of me telling me that I'm ruining the Republican Party with my moronic belief in God and my even-more-moronic pro-life stand. He obviously hasn't a clue about the origin of the Republican Party.

"The evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP

does this mean that we're the boogedy-man?

[steve66oh]

There's a paradox here. The frustrating, maddening, sometimes criminal thing about Liberals is that at every opportunity, they will use expanded government (facilities, equipment, funding) to promote their agenda. Too many evangelicals see themselves as opposing Liberalism by growing government to better serve an "anti-liberal" agenda, when they should be unravelling the Lib programs, then promoting their own OUTSIDE government.

One example: 'Let's save marriage by banning marriages', instead of "Let's save marriage by giving it back to the churches".

Remember when "marriage licenses" were invented? Wasn't the excuse given as "we have authority to protect public health by requiring blood tests before marriage"? Well, does any state still do them? Ohio sure doesn't - what happened to "public health"? It was just a ruse, to permit states to take over marriage - and look how well that turned out!

[utexas]

Without the evangelicals the GOP would cease to exist as it is. It would become just another weak third party like the Greens or the Libertarians. To throw us out would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water or cutting your nose off to spite your face. The analogies are endless. Those in leadership or places of influence who feel they can do without the religious base of the party would be better off leaving the party themselves, because, like it or not, we are the core of the party and to deny that is to deny that this country was founded on Godly principals as evidenced by how many times the Founding Fathers used the name of God in their private writings as well as official public documents. Kathleen Parker sounds like she is a RINO and needs to go join the Dimocraps or the Libertarians or somebody else since she is apparently no social conservative. If these ignorant so-called “leaders” of our party want to shed us evangelicals and social conservatives it will be the death knell of the party and they ought to know this. They might as well be digging their own graves. We are the ones who need to be taking the party back from these left-wing nuts who have infiltrated and contaminated it.

[Terri]

Without the evangelicals the GOP would cease to exist as it is. It would become just another weak third party like the Greens or the Libertarians.

The same is true without fiscal conservatives or national security conservatives.

People have voted Republican for various reasons and not all of them are social reasons.

One group will not win elections without the others.

We have to find another leader who can draw us all together.

When Ronald Reagan ran for office it was not that long after the forming of the moral majority. The country was in trouble on moral issues but not nearly to the point we are today.

Reagan was not a preacher, or even particularly religious, but he was moral. In those days that seemed good to religious voters.

George W. Bush was a more openly religious man, a publicly professed born again Christian. He was open about his beliefs but he didn't run on them or directly use them to help him gain office.

Both Reagan and Bush were acceptable to those conservatives who are not religious.

But I'm wondering if now the standard has changed for both sides.

Would men such as Bush or Reagan be considered too religious by some conservatives and not religious enough by others?

[makamends]

like it or not, we are the core of the party and to deny that is to deny that this country was founded on Godly principals as evidenced by how many times the Founding Fathers used the name of God in their private writings as well as official public documents.

And we must not forget that our rights are God given. Cut loose that anchor and we drift off into relatavism. The Truth is in our chartering documents. Parker might be a better fit in the Libertarian party.

[rthom]

Terri makes a great point when she says: "Reagan was not a preacher, or even particularly religious, but he was moral. In those days that seemed good to religious voters."

"...to confuse ethics and law or what is legal for what is moral is a confusion of the first order and one common in Western society.

Senator William Fulbright noted:

"One of the more disturbing aspects of this problem of moral conduct is the revelation that among so many influential people morality has become identified with legality. We are certainly in a tragic plight if the accepted standard by which we measure the integrity of a man in public life is that he keeps within the law." --Quoted from: Gabriel, Richard A. "To Serve With Honor: A Treatise on Military Ethics and the Way of the Soldier." Westport:
Greenwood Press, 1982. p. 126.

[papajaxxx]

Terri said:

But I'm wondering if now the standard has changed for both sides.

Would men such as Bush or Reagan be considered too religious by some conservatives and not religious enough by others?

Interesting question.

In today's pluralistic society and secular environment, religion is almost taboo when considering a candidate. Most voters do not care about your religion as long as it's close to mainstream.

Many "strict evangelicals" (what I will call them) are more particular about a candidate's religious beliefs and will balk at voting for anyone whom does not share their beliefs. How large a group is this? Don't know...but, my guess would be less than 10M people. But, that could cause you an election.

A "uniter" pleases the majority of all groups, and that is definitely what we need leading the GOP.

If Romney had been the candidate, he would have not gotten the vote of most "strict evangelicals", and would have had a hard time beating Obama.

I don't think any GOP candidate, real or fantasy, could have beaten the Obama machine. The time was right for Obama.

Maybe in 2012, the time will be right for a conservative...let's hope so.

[Terri]

Good response, PJ. Let's develop it a little more.

A "uniter" pleases the majority of all groups, and that is definitely what we need leading the GOP.

That's what I'm getting at. I think there would still be those on the edges of both sides who won't vote unless the candidate is gung ho on their particular issue but it's true in any election.

If Romney had been the candidate, he would have not gotten the vote of most "strict evangelicals", and would have had a hard time beating Obama.

Maybe not. The main issue was the economy and Romney would have done a much better job explaining his position than McCain could do. That's true of everything, btw.

But, to address your point Romney would lose evangelical votes. And by the same token a candidate who is actually a preacher like Huckabee would lose a large number of votes for that reason.

I don't think any GOP candidate, real or fantasy, could have beaten the Obama machine. The time was right for Obama.

I'm not so sure. We had a candidate who could not represent himself, much less us.

But I do agree that we must have a uniter. I'm just not sure anymore how much of each faction's view he will have to represent. How much is enough?