Thursday, November 22, 2012

GOP Moderation Lost the Election, Say Evangelicals

Pro-life/pro-marriage, religious liberty Christians attribute the Mitt Romney loss to a Republican campaign that lacked emphasis on social issues, making Romney a one-dimensional candidate easily demonized by Democrats (with no resulting positive appeal), as well as leaving many Americans unmotivated by the two choices, so they didn't vote.

130 million Americans cast votes in the 2008 presidential election, versus 124 million in 2012. President Obama received 5.5 million fewer votes in 2012, yet was reelected by a 4 million vote margin.

For background, read Who Says the Evangelical Message is to Blame for GOP Losses? and also read Christians Will Vote Against Abortion, Socialism as well as Ignore Abortion & Gay Agenda, Says GOP Establishment & Media

Plus read that Catholic Bishops Warn Voting for Democrats is 'Grave Sin'

-- From "Conservative Republicans fight back after Romney loss" by Paul Kane and Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post 11/19/12

“The [Republican] moderates have had their candidate in 2008 and they had their candidate in 2012. And they got crushed in both elections. Now they tell us we have to keep moderating. If we do that, will we win?” said Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader. Vander Plaats is an influential Christian conservative who opposed Romney in the Iowa caucuses 10 months ago and opposed Sen. John McCain’s candidacy four years ago.

. . . many top GOP officials have called for softening the party’s rhetoric on social issues, following the embarrassing showing by Senate candidates who were routed after publicly musing about denying abortion services to women who had been raped.

“It was the one time we actually contested ideas, presented two viewpoints and directions for the country,” [Sentor-elect Ted Cruz] said at the Federalist Society’s annual dinner in Washington. “And then, inevitably, there are these mandarins of politics, who give the voice: ‘Don’t show any contrasts. Don’t rock the boat.’ So by the third debate, I’m pretty certain Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama.”

Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania who finished second to Romney in the GOP primary . . . placed the blame on the national party, saying it lacked an appealing agenda: “We as a party, the party of Ronald Reagan and ‘Morning in America,’ failed to provide an agenda that shows we care.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Social conservatives say they deserve seat at table in retooled GOP" by Michael O'Brien, NBC News 11/21/12

. . . social conservatives are arguing that opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion rights, among other issues, are as intrinsic to the Republican Party’s identity as ever.

In their reading of the election, Mitt Romney’s strict focus on economic issues and a refusal to engage President Barack Obama on social issues helped fuel his loss to the Democratic incumbent.

To hear some conservative leaders tell their story, Romney erred in refusing to engage social issues forcefully enough. When the president endorsed same-sex marriage, Romney largely demurred; the GOP nominee largely left bread-and-butter social issues out of his stump speech, focusing almost exclusively on the economy — the top issue for voters.

[Sen. Marco Rubio said,] "There are a very significant number of Americans that feel very strongly about the issue of life, about the issue of marriage and are we saying that they should be silenced or not allowed to speak or voice their opinion?"

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Evangelicals to 'Country Club' GOPers: Social Issues Aren't Problem, You Are" by Paul Stanley, Christian Post Reporter 11/21/12

. . . Often referred to as "country-club" Republicans, they are mainly business types who care more about fiscal issues and try to avoid social issues at all costs.

Yet somehow the moderates look to their socially conscious brethren and blame them for the abortion gaffes of Senate candidates Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri and Indiana's Richard Mourdock.

Nonetheless, evangelicals are sending a strong warning shot over the GOP bow that if social issues are abandoned in the party platform and in stump speeches, millions of voters will look elsewhere.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Caution to Republican Party: Drop Our Plank, Lose Our Vote" by Penny Young Nance, Concerned Women for America (Special to Christian Post) 11/14/12

The idea that Mitt Romney was somehow a radical on the life issue is almost funny. . . .

. . . Mitt Romney couldn't even bother to correct the president during the second debate when he falsely asserted that Planned Parenthood gave women mammograms. He had the perfect opportunity to pivot and discuss the skeletons in President Obama's closet on abortion. President Obama voted multiple times against the Born Alive Victims Act, which would have protected babies who are past viability and manage to be born despite abortionists' deadly efforts. He supports abortion for any reason, any number, at any point in pregnancy, and he wants all of us to be complicit with our tax dollars. Just this past spring, he worked hard against the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, a bill that would have prohibited sex-selection abortions. Yeah, he's pro-woman.

Millions, perhaps a billion dollars was spent on ads by Republicans. But none of them took on the sanctity of life issue. Instead, we all hammered on the economic issues, because that's what all the polls told us women and men cared about most. Turns out that's not completely true. . . .

But the fact remains that most Christians believe that life begins at conception. This issue is not going away. But as for Concerned Women PAC candidates go, they will get neither our endorsement nor help if they are not prepared to present a cogent argument for life.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Republicans Accepting Gay Agenda More and More

Questions that will never be answered: Given Mitt Romney's support for "gay rights,"
would a President Romney have protected religious liberty, and would a Vice President Paul Ryan have shown any social conservatism?