Republicans fumbling for answers in an America changing faster than they are...

[DKW 86 7,410]

Republicans fumbling for answers in an America changing faster than they are...

“The problem for the Republican Party is that you have a recalcitrant minority trying to hold off a tolerant majority,” says David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute.

“The increased salience of social issues is a challenge for Republicans. Candidates like Bush — who have to think about running in a general election — know there’s a shift going on and they have to react. … That’s why most of the [top-tier] candidates will try to avoid these issues. But the ones who aren’t at that level, they are going to keep bringing them back.”

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, the most conservative of the top GOP candidates, put his rivals on notice by calling for a constitutional amendment to allow states to roll back the ruling. (IMHO Walker just gave himself the KOD.) Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, accused “five unelected judges” of redefining “the foundational unit that binds together our society.” Mike Huckabee, a long-shot Arkansas ex-governor staking everything on an appeal to evangelicals, made an opaque reference to civil disobedience. “I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch,” he said in a statement as gay and lesbian couples were posting their plans to wed on thousands of Facebook pages. “We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”

That may be smart primary politics in states like Iowa, but it’s a potentially toxic general-election position. Six out of 10 Republican voters oppose gay marriage — but most national polls show that between 54 percent and 57 percent of American voters as a whole back same-sex marriage, a number that has increased dramatically in the past five years. Ominously for GOP candidates, 60 percent of young Republicans support the court’s move. Even among white evangelical Protestants, support for gay marriage has increased from 13 percent in 2001 to about 27 percent today, according to the Pew Research Center.

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz3eSJ7y8cG

[AURaptor 1,121]

The old guard GOP have been out of touch for quite some time. What we see now are chickens coming home to roost

[homersapien 11,352]

This started when the Christian right (the "moral majority") took over the GOP.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Because before that, we had lawyers in suits named Democrats and lawyers and suits named Republicans.

[autigeremt 6,569]

This started when the Christian right (the "moral majority") took over the GOP.

Possibly. I'd say it started in the 1960's.....

[icanthearyou 4,462]

This started when the Christian right (the "moral majority") took over the GOP.

Possibly. I'd say it started in the 1960's.....

I tend to agree. I think it actually began when, Goldwater redefined "conservative". Unfortunately, no one listened to his statement of regret about the "extremist" mentality he helped to create.

[TexasTiger 12,800]

This started when the Christian right (the "moral majority") took over the GOP.

Possibly. I'd say it started in the 1960's.....

I tend to agree. I think it actually began when, Goldwater redefined "conservative". Unfortunately, no one listened to his statement of regret about the "extremist" mentality he helped to create.

And it quickly got too extreme for him.

[autigeremt 6,569]

This started when the Christian right (the "moral majority") took over the GOP.

Possibly. I'd say it started in the 1960's.....

I tend to agree. I think it actually began when, Goldwater redefined "conservative". Unfortunately, no one listened to his statement of regret about the "extremist" mentality he helped to create.

And it quickly got too extreme for him.

A lot of my family fit into this mantra on the other end....staunch Democrats who switched parties in the late 70's and early 80's because the Democrats started leaving the common man to create a minority majority. I think they (party liners) are all a little nuts in my opinion.

[WarTim 3,456]

Conservatives MUST choose their words carefully. The lib MSM will twist whatever they say to fit their agenda.......as always.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Conservatives MUST choose their words carefully. The lib MSM will twist whatever they say to fit their agenda.......as always.

The spiking of the football by this President is about as un - Presidential as it gets. The MSM take their lead form Obama, so don't expect any hold back when it comes to such things.

[WarTim 3,456]

Let me save 'em some time.....Raptor, you are a racist..............

[homersapien 11,352]

This started when the Christian right (the "moral majority") took over the GOP.

Possibly. I'd say it started in the 1960's.....

I tend to agree. I think it actually began when, Goldwater redefined "conservative". Unfortunately, no one listened to his statement of regret about the "extremist" mentality he helped to create.

And it quickly got too extreme for him.

A lot of my family fit into this mantra on the other end....staunch Democrats who switched parties in the late 70's and early 80's because the Democrats started leaving the common man to create a minority majority. I think they (party liners) are all a little nuts in my opinion.

"common man" There's a loaded phrase!

[homersapien 11,352]

Let me save 'em some time.....Raptor, you are a racist..............

Just leave.

[cooltigger21 0]

They think that abandoning the social issue will help them in the general election. It will have the opposite effect. They won't gain any one who was previously a democrat. The conservative base will just say the heck with it and sit it out thus ensuring a democrat victory. Republicans are already on shaky ground as it is with the way they keep abandoning their conservative principles. They have surrendered on Obamacare, spending immigration and everything else. These so called enlightened ones aren't that enlightened.

[autigeremt 6,569]

This started when the Christian right (the "moral majority") took over the GOP.

Possibly. I'd say it started in the 1960's.....

I tend to agree. I think it actually began when, Goldwater redefined "conservative". Unfortunately, no one listened to his statement of regret about the "extremist" mentality he helped to create.

And it quickly got too extreme for him.

A lot of my family fit into this mantra on the other end....staunch Democrats who switched parties in the late 70's and early 80's because the Democrats started leaving the common man to create a minority majority. I think they (party liners) are all a little nuts in my opinion.

"common man" There's a loaded phrase!

Ha! LOL

[WarTim 3,456]

Let me save 'em some time.....Raptor, you are a racist.............. >:(/>

Just leave.

Haha. You wish...

[icanthearyou 4,462]

They think that abandoning the social issue will help them in the general election. It will have the opposite effect. They won't gain any one who was previously a democrat. The conservative base will just say the heck with it and sit it out thus ensuring a democrat victory. Republicans are already on shaky ground as it is with the way they keep abandoning their conservative principles. They have surrendered on Obamacare, spending immigration and everything else. These so called enlightened ones aren't that enlightened.

I think you are correct. I believe that is the price you pay for always being prepared to criticize the political opposition but, never prepared to actually address the issues. Criticizing all things "liberal" and, promoting social conservatism are great for rallying the base but, probably not enough to win. At some point, all of the candidates will have to address the economy with more that criticism and rhetoric.

The GOP needs to consider, if Obama is as bad as the rhetoric suggests, why is a Republican president in 2016 not a foregone conclusion? How did Reagan engage the other 47% of America? Was dismissing them the blunder that cost Romney the 2012 election?

Can you address the issues of the base and, the issues of the country?

Will the winner of the Republican primary be:

The candidate who best plays to the base.

The candidate who represents a compromise within the party.

The candidate with the best ideas and best chance of winning the general election.

I think the answers lie in this statement, "The conservative base will just say the heck with it and sit it out thus ensuring a democrat victory."

There is a certain childish, selfish, and intolerant quality to that statement of attitude. Is it difficult to win a democratic election when you project an attitude that has no respect for democracy and compromise. Is this attitude the reason why a Republican win is not a foregone conclusion?