Flake: Inevitable that a GOP presidential nominee will support SSM

posted at 10:01 am on April 1, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Via Mediaite, which claims that Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) “surprises” Chuck Todd with this answer.  I’m not sure that’s the case, but he probably surprised some of his fellow conservatives — even though Flake assures Todd and Meet the Press viewers that his own views on marriage haven’t changed, and aren’t “evolving”:

“I think that’s inevitable. There will be one and I think he’ll receive Republican support or she will,” answered Flake on the Meet The Pressafter being asked about the possibility.

Todd pressed Flake on his own views on marriage equality, asking him if he would ever change his views.

“I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. i still hold to the traditional definition of marriage,” Flake said.

“In the past I supported repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t tell. I supported the nondiscrimination act a as well but I hold to the traditional definition of marriage,” he said.

Over on Fox News Sunday, GOP strategist Ed Gillespie doesn’t expect the party platform on traditional marriage to change, but believes that support for a constitutional amendment to protect it will dissipate by 2016:

Republican strategist Ed Gillespie said on “Fox News Sunday” that he doesn’t have a problem with the 2016 Republican Party platform saying marriage is between a man and a woman, but suggested that support for a constitutional amendment might wane.

“I don’t think you’d ever see the Republican Party platform say we’re in favor of same-sex marriage,” said Gillespie, who was a top adviser on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. But, he added, “There’s been a little bit of a shift, I think, in terms of Republicans saying we should allow this to be worked out through the states, not imposed by courts, and not imposed federally.”

Don’t be too sure about that.  Politico reports that social conservatives have begun to push back hard on this line of thinking.  Retreating on these issues cost Republicans the presidency in the last five years, they argue:

Leading cultural conservatives, including the movement’s standard-bearers from the past two presidential campaigns, have had it with Republican elites faulting them for the party’s losses and are finally ready point a finger back at the establishment.

“Look, the Republican Party isn’t going to change,” former Sen. Rick Santorum said in an interview. “If we do change, we’ll be the Whig Party.”

Santorum continued: “We’re not the Libertarian Party, we’re the Republican Party.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who carried the Christian conservative torch in 2008, pointed to the drop-off in enthusiasm among Republicans following George W. Bush’s victories.

“The last two presidential elections, we had more moderate candidates, so if anything a lot of conservatives went to the polls reluctantly or just didn’t go at all,” said Huckabee in a separate interview. “If all of the evangelicals had showed up, it may have made a difference.”

Frankly, I don’t think it would have made any difference in 2008.  The nation was just too bitter over the Bush years to elect another Republican, and Barack Obama ran a campaign that took full advantage of that bitterness.  Republicans had a real shot in 2012, but the economy was just good enough to turn the focus on the supposed extremism of Republican fiscal and social policy rather than the failures of the Obama term in office.  A stronger candidate may have made the difference for the GOP, but I don’t think that had much to do with the supposed squishiness of Romney on social issues.

Politico’s Jonathan Martin writes that the silence of social conservatives until now has been “surprising,” but don’t expect it to last.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Just keep going along to get along, GOP, and I’ll disappear faster than a dog in the White House kitchen.

Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 10:05 AM

There can be a party nominee who want to get marriage out of government period, but there will never be one that is for “gay marriage”.

ninjapirate on April 1, 2013 at 10:08 AM

A stronger candidate may have made the difference for the GOP, but I don’t think that had much to do with the supposed squishiness of Romney on social issues.

Its hard to win when Democrats were turning out 104-105% of the vote.

BobMbx on April 1, 2013 at 10:09 AM

How exactly does the federal gubmint intend to enforce SSM in conservative denominations/churches across America without throwing Religious Liberty out the window?

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 10:05 AM

ZING!

OldEnglish on April 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM

PEREZ HILTON 2016 BABY!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, I’ve been a lifelong member of this party..

..that may be about to end….it the GOP thought it’s losses
in 2008 and 2012 were bad, just wait. Every values voter
in the Nation will abandon them….Good luck.

ToddPA on April 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM

A thread on gay marriage?

Man, that came out of left field.

Bitter Clinger on April 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM

How exactly does the federal gubmint intend to enforce SSM in conservative denominations/churches across America without throwing Religious Liberty out the window?

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Since the HHS mandate on contraceptives came about last year, I’d say religious liberty isn’t on the gubmint’s radar.

Bitter Clinger on April 1, 2013 at 10:12 AM

A stronger candidate may have made the difference for the GOP, but I don’t think that had much to do with the supposed squishiness of Romney on social issues.

IMO, the GOP should abandon the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman because it singles out and alienates gays who clearly only care about SSM. I think the GOP should go on the record as being the party that intends to protect the institution of marriage at a time when this societal institution is under assault from all sides. In other words, make the one man and one woman a tacit and almost meaningless part of the equation. It is the institution and not the sexual orientation that matters.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 10:12 AM

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Incrementally. The way they break down EVERY protection on the Constitution.

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Whether he’s aware of it or not, Flake is suggesting the GOP money players will dictate a socially liberal candidate over the demands of the base.

budfox on April 1, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Quoting Santorum and the Huckster. Yeah, that’s going to win over the squishy middle.
/sarc

rbj on April 1, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Its hard to win when Democrats were turning out 104-105% of the vote.

BobMbx on April 1, 2013 at 10:09 AM

…you may be a little low there!

KOOLAID2 on April 1, 2013 at 10:14 AM

How exactly does the federal gubmint intend to enforce SSM in conservative denominations/churches across America without throwing Religious Liberty out the window?

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Enforce is such a strong word. They’ll simply deny tax exempt status to any denomination that does not recognize sodomite relationships, perform marriage rites for sodomites, ordain practicing sodomites, and otherwise dare live up to the tenets of faith of their religion.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Frankly, I don’t think it would have made any difference in 2008. The nation was just too bitter over the Bush years to elect another Republican,

That’s NOT what happened in 2008. It wasn’t “the Bush years” in general but conservatives’ disgust with the treasonous push for illegals that McShame, Bush and the rest of them tried to shove through by underhanded means – over and over and over. That is what killed the GOP and brought the shame of Barky the Dog-Eating, Ineligible Retard to office. That, and the psychotic break brought on much of America by the credit crisis, of course, along with McShame’s pathetic inability to articulate what the real story about it was.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 1, 2013 at 10:18 AM

The country is on the brink of bankruptcy, the dollar has been devalued grossly, the fed is printing money like it’s going out of style, but its nice to see that the so-called social conservative wing of the party is digging in on this issue.

Take a look around the world, Germany, Canada, both have same sex marriage, and manage to run a much tighter economic ship than in the supposedly conservative bastion known as the United States.

All you social conservatives are being played like a fiddle. You allow these tertiary issue to suck up air time and as a consequence, the country is being run into the ground while the focus is on non-issues like gay marriage.

The sooner we get the Huckabee wing out of the party, the better.

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Value voters will abandon GOP for what – Democrats? At least we the fiscal cons have Libertarians or Constitutionalists to throw our useless votes at. Good luck sitting at home, you troglocons, enjoy the mandated contraception, death panels, and – soon in your neighborhood – compulsory abortions.

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM

You know, it would sure liven things up around here if we could get a gay thread every now and then….

HotAirian on April 1, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Number of states which have amended their state constitutions to prevent legalization of same-sex “marriage”: 31

To the states above, add Hawaii amendment (1998) reserving the definition of marriage to the legislature

Number of states in which voters have upheld the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman in a statewide referendum: 32

To the states above, add Maine’s “people’s veto” (2009) of same-sex “marriage” legislation

Number of states where voters have, either explicitly or implicitly, rejected the legalization of same-sex “marriage”: 33

To the states above, add Iowa’s judicial retention election (2010), removing state Supreme Court judges who voted to impose same-sex “marriage”

Number of states where marriage remains the union of a man and a woman under state law: 42

Number of states which currently (May 2012) grant marriage licenses only for unions of one man and one woman: 44

Took the above from http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/how-many-states-have-banned-gay-marriage/.

Washington elite, especially Republicans, need to educate themselves on what the States have already voted on. Unless, Flake et al are saying States have no rights.

moonsbreath on April 1, 2013 at 10:21 AM

IMO, the GOP should abandon the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman because it singles out and alienates gays who clearly only care about SSM.

I think its the dems and they only about destroying the repub party. There aren’t enough gays to throw the elections to dems but if the dems can aggregate enough liberal factions (that include a lot repubs) then they will have done what they needed to do.

Re-define marriage, make the church defend its ground, remove current tax structure because they won’t accomodate what is the new law. Poof! religion marginalized and taxed to boot. All so 3% now can morph into 10% by virtue of the bennie grab that will occur.

The more they can leash the more dependents they have to vote in lock step to keep the bennies flowing.

DanMan on April 1, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Value voters will abandon GOP for what – Democrats? At least we the fiscal cons have Libertarians or Constitutionalists to throw our useless votes at. Good luck sitting at home, you troglocons, enjoy the mandated contraception, death panels, and – soon in your neighborhood – compulsory abortions.

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Worse will be better.

ninjapirate on April 1, 2013 at 10:22 AM

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM

What kind of GOP is there without social conservatives, pray tell? And we’re the ones who are unaware of reality?

Living4Him5534 on April 1, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Its hard to win when Democrats were turning out 104-105% of the vote.

BobMbx on April 1, 2013 at 10:09 AM

And our guy cannot get the base. The GOP may force the nomination of another liberal jackass. I will stay home if they do.

The socialists have a candidate. It’s time we did too.

dogsoldier on April 1, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Economy was good enough in 2012?

*shaking the head*

cmsinaz on April 1, 2013 at 10:23 AM

IMO, the GOP should abandon the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman because it singles out and alienates gays who clearly only care about SSM. I think the GOP should go on the record as being the party that intends to protect the institution of marriage at a time when this societal institution is under assault from all sides. In other words, make the one man and one woman a tacit and almost meaningless part of the equation. It is the institution and not the sexual orientation that matters.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Give me a break… the reason the “institution” matters is so that society can order itself into making boys and girls into men and women who become dads and moms… no teleology, not institution.

ninjapirate on April 1, 2013 at 10:24 AM

no teleology, not institution.

make that, no institution.

ninjapirate on April 1, 2013 at 10:24 AM

moonsbreath on April 1, 2013 at 10:21 AM

It used to be a solid 50 on ALL those categories, you know.

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:24 AM

What kind of GOP is there without social conservatives, pray tell? And we’re the ones who are unaware of reality?

Living4Him5534 on April 1, 2013 at 10:23 AM

The kind that doesn’t cause centrist voters to recoil in horror at the prospect of President Santorum or some other equally loathe big government spender who scores big on social issues.

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:25 AM

no teleology, no institution.

BTW, the ship on this kind of sailed with modern feminism which doesn’t acknowledge the differing needs of men and women but gay marriage will be the capstone… a point of no return.

ninjapirate on April 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Take a look around the world, Germany, Canada, both have same sex marriage, and manage to run a much tighter economic ship than in the supposedly conservative bastion known as the United States.
kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM

You’re daft!

German depositors are set to have a run on the banks.

Try and keep up.

In Canada the Government prosecutes Christians who teach and preach their religion.

There is no Free Speech in Canada.

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 10:27 AM

If the republican party wants in a minority then they can kick out people like me, Christian conservative. There is a lot of us in the republican party. If they kick us out, I hope GOP is prepared to lose big time in future elections.

Many times in the bible God mentions how Gay is a sin. From the old testament to the new testament. Which is why Christians can’t support a party in which they support gay marriage. God created marriage to get us back to one flesh.

To win we need to kick out Socially liberal people like kkaneff79

BroncosRock on April 1, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM

they’ll stay home, and quite a few did the last 2 presidential elections. bush in 04 got 4million more votes than mccain or romney. if the party wont work w/ the social cons why should they support the party. your method of yelling and insulting and blaming them aint gonna work. but it makes you feel better and gives you a scapegoat instead of facing the reality of why the GOP lost in 08 and 12

chasdal on April 1, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Washington elite, especially Republicans, need to educate themselves on what the States have already voted on. Unless, Flake et al are saying States have no rights.

moonsbreath on April 1, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Just another tactic in centralization & consolidation of federal power.

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 10:30 AM

DanMan on April 1, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Which is why the GOP should become champion of societal institutions.

The enemy declares that religious denominations are less important than free stuff for Sandra Fluke’s private parts. The GOP should be unambiguous in their defense of religious freedom.

The enemy talks of sodomite “marriage” as being on a par with normal marriage. The GOP should champion the idea of family and the sanctity of marriage as a bedrock societal institution.

The enemy wants to confiscate privately held firearms. The GOP should be in the front lines defending our civil rights as specifically enumerated in the Second Amendment.

The enemy insists that the entitlement programs for the worthless parasites shall not be touched. The GOP needs to be clear that fiscal responsibilty requires even the parasites feeling some pain.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 10:31 AM

The kind that doesn’t cause centrist voters to recoil in horror at the prospect of President Santorum or some other equally loathe big government spender who scores big on social issues.

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Oh, stop it. You cannot kick social conservatives out of any right coalition, you blithering idiot. And the myth of the “centrist voter” is beyond the point of mere annoyance.

Social conservatives happen to be the ones who press most strongly for decent judges since opposing Roe is a simple litmus test for whether someone could even be considered a Constitutionalist, or not. Bush’s attempts to make decent judicial picks (that rat bastid traitor Benedict Roberts aside) was based on Bush’s religious feelings and opposition to Roe more than anything else (as Bush was fairly left on many non-social issues, as proven by some of the idiots he had around him and empowered in his pathetic second term).

And Santorum is no a big government person so stop with the stupid slander. I know that you people hate Santorum. Good for you, but try to be a little honest. Just a little, as that is all you people are even capable of.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 1, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Like I said in the headline, if gay marriage goes through, we should make sure the first churches sued for access are Black or Hispanic.

This will poison the tactic for use against the anti-clericalists’ real target, and split the minority/gay part of the Democrat coalition.

Sekhmet on April 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM

media creates narrative…runs narrative every day in print, TV, websites. GOP congress people live in bubble only read news media. come to the conclusion that the people have changed and it’s inevitable that the narrative will win and the people don’t matter.

This is how the culture war has been played for the last decade at least.

the people haven’t changed the liberals just took over the media to the point that only thier POV is given.

unseen on April 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Fluke Flake.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Incrementally. The way they break down EVERY protection on the Constitution.

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Of course they will…..

It is my belief that the 2nd amendment is an anachronism that has no place in the modern society.

nonpartisan on April 1, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Just change the 2nd amendment to the 1st and presto…

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM

You’re daft!

German depositors are set to have a run on the banks.

Try and keep up.

In Canada the Government prosecutes Christians who teach and preach their religion.

There is no Free Speech in Canada.

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 10:27 AM

As someone who is temporarily living in Germany, I can tell you that there is no imminent run on the banks. The German banks are well capitalized and they’ve instituted rules to prevent subsidiary banks from transferring excessive capital to the PIIGS.

Further still, having living in Canada as well, I can tell you that while there are troublesome restrictions on freedom of speech, I’m not sure how that has any relevance on the financial bankruptcy in the United States. As I said before, you social conservatives are being played for fools. You think the battleground is abortion and gay marriage, but these are just distractions from the fact that the country is being bankrupt by the ruling class. How many more trillions do you think the fed can plop on its balance sheet while you and Santorum and Huckabee rail about gay marriage? Which do you think will have a worse impact on the country?

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Unfortunately the damage of this lurch to the left on so many issues may be somewhat disguised by the 2014 midterms that will favor the GOP. The establishment will think their plan of appeasement is a success if they do better in 2014 than in 2012. The problem is you can’t compare presidential election years with midterms. They are different. 2014 should be compared with 2010.

Wigglesworth on April 1, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Like I said in the headline, if gay marriage goes through, we should make sure the first churches sued for access are Black or Hispanic.

This will poison the tactic for use against the anti-clericalists’ real target, and split the minority/gay part of the Democrat coalition.

Sekhmet on April 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM

sounds like a plan. Conservatives have to get used to using the liberal tactics against them.

unseen on April 1, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Well, they aren’t going to win regardless with amnesty.

I can hear it now after the GOP loses to Hilary in the 2016 elections, “where were the evangelicals?”

mrscullen on April 1, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Don’t strike back, just walk away. They’re of the impression your vote doesn’t tip the balance enough to take you seriously. They’re looking for the missing link voter that’ll flock to the gop after they’ve dropped the last social issue from the platform.

hawkdriver on April 1, 2013 at 10:34 AM

The country is on the brink of bankruptcy, the dollar has been devalued grossly, the fed is printing money like it’s going out of style, but its nice to see that the so-called social conservative wing of the party is digging in on this issue.

Take a look around the world, Germany, Canada, both have same sex marriage, and manage to run a much tighter economic ship than in the supposedly conservative bastion known as the United States.

All you social conservatives are being played like a fiddle. You allow these tertiary issue to suck up air time and as a consequence, the country is being run into the ground while the focus is on non-issues like gay marriage.

The sooner we get the Huckabee wing out of the party, the better.
kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM

You anti-socons make me laugh. Truly you do. We are talking about the GOP. It isn’t like they are only becoming traitors on the social issues. They are frickin passing amnesty. They are passing tax increases and funding Obamacare. Have you heard about any significant cuts in spending– yeah neither have I. The GOP is betraying us all. Gay marriage is the icing on the cake. They are Demlite on EVERYTHING..

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Unfortunately the damage of this lurch to the left on so many issues may be somewhat disguised by the 2014 midterms that will favor the GOP. The establishment will think their plan of appeasement is a success if they do better in 2014 than in 2012. The problem is you can’t compare presidential election years with midterms. They are different. 2014 should be compared with 2010.

Wigglesworth on April 1, 2013 at 10:33 AM

if the GOP continues to lurch to the left they will lose the house in 2014 and Obama will be like Bush and gain seats.

unseen on April 1, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Give me a break… the reason the “institution” matters is so that society can order itself into making boys and girls into men and women who become dads and moms… no teleology, not institution.

ninjapirate on April 1, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Which is why I object to the term marriage getting hijacked by sexual deviants seeking to legitmize their perversion as a co-equal lifestyle choice. In short, you can’t order yourselves into making children into adults when you practice a lifestyle choice where making children isn’t even biologically possible.

Let the sodomites live with each other and practice their deviancy as they may but to call them married is a step too far.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Republicans had a real shot in 2012, but the economy was just good enough to turn the focus on the supposed extremism of Republican fiscal and social policy rather than the failures of the Obama term in office.

Tortured.

No, we had a candidate and a party too pathetic to control the focus or challenge the narrative during the worst and most destructive presidency in American history. We didn’t simply have a “real shot” in 2012, it was ours to lose. Romney and the GOP were so profoundly pathetic and out of touch that when I reflect on the last year it feels like a dream, something that couldn’t have really happened, or better yet the sort of nightmare about being held down powerless against an approaching threat or run in place unable to escape it.

rrpjr on April 1, 2013 at 10:37 AM

You think the battleground is abortion and gay marriage, but these are just distractions from the fact that the country is being bankrupt by the ruling class. How many more trillions do you think the fed can plop on its balance sheet while you and Santorum and Huckabee rail about gay marriage? Which do you think will have a worse impact on the country?

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM

It’s YOU who have bought into the idea that social conservatives ONLY care about these issues. We can multitask. The problem is that some fiscal conservatives can’t seem to see how the two are intricately connected.

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:38 AM

they’ll stay home, and quite a few did the last 2 presidential elections. bush in 04 got 4million more votes than mccain or romney. if the party wont work w/ the social cons why should they support the party. your method of yelling and insulting and blaming them aint gonna work. but it makes you feel better and gives you a scapegoat instead of facing the reality of why the GOP lost in 08 and 12

chasdal on April 1, 2013 at 10:29 AM

It might come as a surprise to you but I don’t see 16 years of Obama as a steep price for driving the GOP troglocon wing into extinction. Having lived under both regimes in my two other countries of citizenship, I’ll take socialism over fundamentalism any day.

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 10:38 AM

a

Value voters will abandon GOP for what – Democrats? At least we the fiscal cons have Libertarians or Constitutionalists to throw our useless votes at. Good luck sitting at home, you troglocons, enjoy the mandated contraception, death panels, and – soon in your neighborhood – compulsory abortions.

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Abstaining and concentrating on local elections are an options. Dems are not the only option open. Fighting the fight in the judiciary where the left seems to put everything anyways etc.

when the herd is running toward the cliff, the one running in the opposite direction seems crazy?

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Yup. And it’s inevitable that many people like me will quit voting, period, because I’m not about to vote GOP so that pervs can have tax breaks.

Ed Snyder on April 1, 2013 at 10:39 AM

If the stupid GOP keeps taking Democrat party positions on issues, we effectively become a one-party system.

All it really takes is a couple of money men repositioning their finances and the party of Lincoln and Reagan heads for the history books. And the party of Michael Badnarak and Gary Johnson will not greatly benefit; the conservatives will head for something that is actually conservative.

Greek Fire on April 1, 2013 at 10:40 AM

A stronger candidate may have made the difference for the GOP, but I don’t think that had much to do with the supposed squishiness of Romney on social issues.

Of course it did, Ed. Consider North Carolina, where Romney did in fact win.

Romney won it by 3.
Bush won it by 14.
Gay marriage and civil unions were banned in 2012 by the voters by 22.

What does this tell you? Romney severely underperformed in a socially conservative state. Now think about the other states that Romney lost that are purple states:

Let’s think about these one at a time:

Ohio (heavy evangelical population in the Cincinnati area)
Florida (heavy evangelical population in the northern portion)
Iowa (heavy evangelical rural population)
Virginia (heavy social conservative presence in the south and west of the state)
Colorado (a significant mixture of evangelicals and Mormons)

How many swing states did Romney lose that don’t have heavy concentrations of social conservatives? Nevada and New Hampshire. Now given the state of the economy, and the fact that Obama was mired in scandal after scandal, this gives you a few options to pin things on:

1.) Romney couldn’t win because Romneycare made him look too much like Obama

2.) Romney couldn’t win because he actively discouraged his own base on social issues (saying Chick-fil-A supporters weren’t part of his campaign, saying there was no abortion-related legislation he would enact)

3.) Romney couldn’t win because of his own gubernatorial record (running to Ted Kennedy’s left on gay rights, signing $50 abortion into law, calling his views progressive, etc)

4.) Romney couldn’t win because of his record at Bain capital demonstrated that he was a vulture capitalist who didn’t care about anybody else, and that he views the working man as disposable

5.) Romney couldn’t win because of his 47% remarks / I like being able to fire people / I don’t care about the very poor remarks, which made him come off as someone who despised the working class.

6.) Romney couldn’t win because he was too awkward (I love the lakes, all the trees are the right height, I was a severely conservative governor, I believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in, etc)

7.) Romney couldn’t win because his advisors and surrogates openly signaled he was a RINO (Romneycare was a success, the campaign is like an etch-a-sketch, etc)

8.) Romney couldn’t win because he flip-flopped on every issue (abortion, gays, cap and trade, guns, etc) making people distrust him

9.) Romney couldn’t win because the Republican party was way too far to the right on social issues, preventing him from being able to capture the attention of Americans (aka, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were so influential that no Republican could win anywhere, and the campaign was really all about them…. errrr… yeah, right)

10.) Romney couldn’t win because the economy was doing so well that Obama was guaranteed reeelction (persistently high, 8% unemployment… errrr… unlikely)

11.) Romney couldn’t win because Obama has done a superb job in office and has an impeccable, scandal-free record (no Benghazi, no Solyndra, no Fast & Furious, yeah right!)

Needless to say, I think explanations 1 through 8 are plausible, and were all contributing factors — and yes, that includes Romney’s squishiness on social issues.

Face it, Ed. It’s not the economy, stupid. Romney was a terrible candidate, stupid.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 10:40 AM

All you social conservatives are being played like a fiddle. You allow these tertiary issue to suck up air time and as a consequence, the country is being run into the ground while the focus is on non-issues like gay marriage.

The sooner we get the Huckabee wing out of the party, the better.

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Hey idiot, in 2008 the GOP ran a social liberal and alleged fiscal conservative. In 2016 the GOP ran a guy who ceded social issues to the rat-eared devil without firing a single shot. How’d either of these campaigns work out for the nation?

How about we get rid of people like you who are so intolerant that you think every social conservative is a member of the Huckabee wing? Seriously, you make the claim that social issues are unimportant and are willing to let the Dems advance their agenda along these lines without challenge. What kind of America do we get as a result of cowards like you? Not one I want to pass down to my children for certain.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Gosh, a long time ago prophets in times of trial, spoke of great goodness coming, but our ever-worldly politicians merely cede defeat before it happens and merely facilitate and encourage it.
What ever happened to the very moral obligation to oppose that which corrupt society? I know, relativism, where each individual is his or her own god.

Don L on April 1, 2013 at 10:40 AM

It might come as a surprise to you but I don’t see 16 years of Obama as a steep price for driving the GOP troglocon wing into extinction. Having lived under both regimes in my two other countries of citizenship, I’ll take socialism over fundamentalism any day.

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Spoken like someone who does not understand most southern red state voting blocks and calls people troglocon but actually thinks they have a chance of turning blue states like Cali and Illinois red.. BWahhaaahhaaa.

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Supremely Gay. Click image for larger view.

Bmore on April 1, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Now all we need is Jet Boy to come over and swish, weep, pee on everything, and run away.

Ed Snyder on April 1, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Tortured.

No, we had a candidate and a party too pathetic to control the focus or challenge the narrative during the worst and most destructive presidency in American history. We didn’t simply have a “real shot” in 2012, it was ours to lose. Romney and the GOP were so profoundly pathetic and out of touch that when I reflect on the last year it feels like a dream, something that couldn’t have really happened, or better yet the sort of nightmare about being held down powerless against an approaching threat or run in place unable to escape it.

rrpjr on April 1, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Yep. Mittens didn’t say jack about Benghazi (a clearly impeachable action – several, in fact) nor about Barky and Shrillary dancing on the coffins to lie to America. Candy Cowley actually did shut him up with her lie at the debate. That was the last time Mittens did anything on the offense in the campaign. Mittens agreed with Barky, the America-hating idiot who had the worst “recovery” in modern history to his name along with having shredded the Constitution on so many fronts, more than he agreed with the base. The 2012 campaign was beyond pathetic. A dead chicken could have beaten Barky … but not a Vichy Republican.

Well … at least the economy is booming at .4%, now. And we’re only borrowing and spending over 8% of GDP into the economy to “produce” that stellar 0.4% “growth”. It would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous, stupid, and destructive.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 1, 2013 at 10:42 AM

It might come as a surprise to you but I don’t see 16 years of Obama as a steep price for driving the GOP troglocon wing into extinction. Having lived under both regimes in my two other countries of citizenship, I’ll take socialism over fundamentalism any day.

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 10:38 AM

You are usually a very good read, Archie, but this time you’ve really screwed the pooch. That is, without doubt, the single most idiotic statement I’ve ever seen you post, besides the fact that THIS country has NEVER had a Theocratic Fundamentalist ideology – in ANY form.

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:43 AM

The reason why U.S. is bankrupt is because we no longer have a mom and a dad family life. People are being rise by single parent, which does not work as well as having a mom and a dad. Single parent increases poverty which increases the amount of $ the government has to give out.

We should not kick out Christians from the republican party. This country NEEDS US to be in power to solve our financial problems.

BroncosRock on April 1, 2013 at 10:43 AM

So basically the republican elites sound like the liberals on teen sex/pregnancy: they’re going to do it anyway, so we’d better fold and make it as easy as possible.

So I’m supposed to support a party who is ok with porous borders, wants to grant law breakers citizenship, will redefine marriage to any X who wants to marry any Y, is good with universal background checks and de-facto registration, etc etc.

Guess I don’t have anyone to represent me in DC.

Free Indeed on April 1, 2013 at 10:43 AM

The sooner we get the Huckabee wing out of the party, the better.
kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM

You really do want this country to see Dems in the White House forever.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Bmore on April 1, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Nah gonna doo et. Wouldn be prudent at this juncture.

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM

It might come as a surprise to you but I don’t see 16 years of Obama as a steep price for driving the GOP troglocon wing into extinction. Having lived under both regimes in my two other countries of citizenship, I’ll take socialism over fundamentalism any day.Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Spoken like someone who doesn’t know any socons, and doesn’t want to. This is the reason that Repubs win; when people in your own party hate their own allies more than they hate Dems- welcome to loserville.

Answer me this idiot. If marriage and abortion were guaranteed a state issue: what would socons push at a federal level? Whereas your socialist use the judiciary and the federal government as a hammer for EVERYTHING, socons want just want things back at the local level, but you are too bigoted to see it. MEh have fun in your socialist Utopia..

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Having lived under both regimes in my two other countries of citizenship, I’ll take socialism over fundamentalism any day.

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 10:38 AM

“Fundamentalism”? Opposition to gay pretend marriage is “fundamentalism”? You’re friggin insane. Why don’t you go back to one of the other countries you are a citizen of? You’re only helping to promote socialism, here … to combat the delusion “fundamentalism” that you see around you.

What a friggin idiot.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 1, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Giving in all all the social issues to gain fiscal sobriety; wait what? All the surrendering does one thing for the left: Embolden them,and if you think giving in on social issues will make the ‘rats give in on spending you need to have your skull trepanned.

Why should I support a party that keeps allowing the leftist trash to take more and more and more with barely a whimper of protest. I’ll walk away and you can tag me with whatever name you like.

Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 10:31 AM

we agree on all that but how is giving up the notion marraige is between one man and one woman preserving societal institutions? You lost me there. The dems are redifining what marriage is to destroy the societal institution of religios freedom. Once morals are outlawed its over.

DanMan on April 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM

It’s YOU who have bought into the idea that social conservatives ONLY care about these issues. We can multitask. The problem is that some fiscal conservatives can’t seem to see how the two are intricately connected.

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:38 AM

if what you are saying were true, abortion wouldn’t be a litmus test and we’d never have run Akin, Mourdock, or given national consideration to Huckabee or Santorum.

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Are the GOP committing political suicide? The answer is Yes! Gay marriage, amnesty, and gun control.

jjnco73 on April 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:19 AM

some very important issues you listed there. but apparently not important enough. because if they were the GOP would work to address the socon’s issues so that they would come out and vote.

chasdal on April 1, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Aw, come on, its funny!

Bmore on April 1, 2013 at 10:47 AM

It’s YOU who have bought into the idea that social conservatives ONLY care about these issues. We can multitask. The problem is that some fiscal conservatives can’t seem to see how the two are intricately connected.

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Oh no we can’t! Between clinging to our Bibles, listenin’ to Huckabee, and keepin’ the womenfolk pregnant there just isn’t time to worry about the economy./

Seriously, the so-called fiscal conservatives are myopic losers. They think that so long as they spout fiscal conservativism and go along with the left on issues such as sodomite relationships, amnesty for trespassers, and so on; then the left’s voters will take a second look at the GOP. It just isn’t the way the GOP is going to win elections.

The fact of the matter is the parasites that vote Democrat on social issues don’t care about economic issues. So long as they get “free stuff” from their Dem overlords, they remain reliable idiots.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 10:47 AM

if what you are saying were true, abortion wouldn’t be a litmus test and we’d never have run Akin, Mourdock, or given national consideration to Huckabee or Santorum.

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Again, another ignorant statement. Abortion is a litmus test in the DEM PARTY. Name one prolife big name DEM.. Yet we have a lot of big name Repubs who are prochoice. We have never stopped someone from speaking at our convention for being prochoice…Not so with the Dems. Go back and actually study how Akin won the nomination. It had more to do with split votes than abortion.. Ugh..

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Yup. And it’s inevitable that many people like me will quit voting, period, because I’m not about to vote GOP so that pervs can have tax breaks.

Ed Snyder on April 1, 2013 at 10:39 AM

It is not tax breaks. They want the power to sue people who speak out against their way of life. The church, businesses, individuals. They want revenge, not tax breaks.

astonerii on April 1, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at

hey jackass, where were you when our idiot compassionate conservative president was passing the prescription drug bill and bankrupting our country? Oh right, he was against abortion and gays so it was alright.

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM

So you think that the support for Santorum and/or Huckabee was SOLELY about social issues? That those who supported them don’t care about the fiscal issues as well?

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM

It might come as a surprise to you but I don’t see 16 years of Obama as a steep price for driving the GOP troglocon wing into extinction. Having lived under both regimes in my two other countries of citizenship, I’ll take socialism over fundamentalism any day.

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 10:38 AM

I’m still agnostic on the gay marriage thing but I see abortion differently. Where does a partial troglocon fit into the “Party”; do I get to sit up front or must I wait in the coatroom?

Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Bmore on April 1, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Once was enough. But you do make a good point, those people are REALLY out there.

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:52 AM

we agree on all that but how is giving up the notion marraige is between one man and one woman preserving societal institutions? You lost me there.

DanMan on April 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM

What I was trying to say was that the GOP needs to take a page out of the Dem playbook and do a little bit of pandering through vague promises. It is pretty much assumed that the GOP supports normal marriage. Why go out of the way and define the genders involved? The GOP should make it clear they stand for the institution of marriage. It gives the squish Republicans some latitude on the issues when confronted by radid homosexuals who object to the one man/ one woman terminology. In short, I’m not suggesting that the GOP abandon their support of normal marriage just not go out of their way to alienate homosexuals who clearly don’t give a damn about anything other than forcing society to accept thier lifestyle choice as legitimate.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Another spineless, pandering politician speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
If the GOP embraces Gay Marriage, it is D-E-A-D!
Senator you are truly a Flake!

Art on April 1, 2013 at 10:54 AM

The fact of the matter is the parasites that vote Democrat on social issues don’t care about economic issues. So long as they get “free stuff” from their Dem overlords, they remain reliable idiots.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Good point. But WE’RE the myopics.

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:55 AM

if what you are saying were true, abortion wouldn’t be a litmus test and we’d never have run Akin, Mourdock, or given national consideration to Huckabee or Santorum.

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM

So much straw. What is it with your type and the dishonesty?

CW on April 1, 2013 at 10:55 AM

hey jackass, where were you when our idiot compassionate conservative president was passing the prescription drug bill and bankrupting our country? Oh right, he was against abortion and gays so it was alright.

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Where the hell were you when the HHS mandate was enacted? Probably in some dark place whining about social conservatives I’d bet.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 10:55 AM

You are usually a very good read, Archie, but this time you’ve really screwed the pooch. That is, without doubt, the single most idiotic statement I’ve ever seen you post, besides the fact that THIS country has NEVER had a Theocratic Fundamentalist ideology – in ANY form.

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:43 AM

This country wasn’t, correct, but not for the lack of trying. Let’s leave abortion issue aside, since it’s more a constitutional conundrum than religious issue, and look at other social causes.

Gay marriage? For God’s sake, we prosecuted gays until Lawrence not so long ago. I’m not a personal fan of snaking a fellow’s pipe, but they sure don’t harm me anyhow. One would expect conservatives to concentrate on protecting the Church and its servants against frivolous infringements, rather than blocking anyone from paying the marriage tax penalty and divorce attorneys’ bills.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide? That was my personal beef with so-cons since the beginning of time. Why is it the government’s business that I want to off myself, or ask anyone – being fully conscious and responsible adult – to do it cleanly and painlessly?

Stem cell research? George W. Bush has become the world’s laughing stock and lost countless young votes with his religious itch to fight science, not to mention potential life loss due to stunted medical progress. And what exactly did he gain by that?

So please tell me, why should I supportive or understanding with the social conservative when they strive to undercut my rights at every turn?

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 10:55 AM

hey jackass, where were you when our idiot compassionate conservative president was passing the prescription drug bill and bankrupting our country? Oh right, he was against abortion and gays so it was alright.

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM

I am pretty sure a lot of us socons were pi$$ed about that because most of us are as fiscally conservative as we are socially, but don’t let that interrupt your stereotype. I can guarantee you if we look at the GOP congressman and Senators who voted for those bills; they weren’t all social conservatives, but you keep BLAMING us for a GOP that went off the rails FISCALLY.

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 10:56 AM

It is not tax breaks. They want the power to sue people who speak out against their way of life. The church, businesses, individuals. They want revenge, not tax breaks.

astonerii on April 1, 2013 at 10:49 AM

When I was born, Kennedy was President-elect.

In that time, we’ve gone from homosexuals being active persecuted, to being tolerated, to being left alone, to being celebrated.

It’s not enough. It never will be for those who bear the weight of a guilty conscience.

That’s why the demand for concessions will not cease until they are sure that they have converted everyone to their point of view in the vain hope that it will silence the voices within them that convict them of their guilt every waking moment of their lives.

Ed Snyder on April 1, 2013 at 10:56 AM

So you think that the support for Santorum and/or Huckabee was SOLELY about social issues? That those who supported them don’t care about the fiscal issues as well?

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM

be serious. Neither of those two are credible on fiscal issues

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:56 AM

As someone who is temporarily living in Germany, I can tell you that there is no imminent run on the banks. The German banks are well capitalized and they’ve instituted rules to prevent subsidiary banks from transferring excessive capital to the PIIGS.

Further still, having living in Canada as well, I can tell you that while there are troublesome restrictions on freedom of speech, I’m not sure how that has any relevance on the financial bankruptcy in the United States. As I said before, you social conservatives are being played for fools. You think the battleground is abortion and gay marriage, but these are just distractions from the fact that the country is being bankrupt by the ruling class. How many more trillions do you think the fed can plop on its balance sheet while you and Santorum and Huckabee rail about gay marriage? Which do you think will have a worse impact on the country?

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Fool meet mirror.

“As finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble put it: “Germany has managed to have its concerns met, both in the interests of Europe and the German taxpayer.”

But the terms of the bailout also sent shivers down plenty of spines, including those of many voters who still fear that, despite the strength of the German economy, the euro crisis could still land on their doorsteps.

“If everybody starts to think their money is unsafe, we’ll get a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the banks will go under,” said Thomas Schuster from the Cologne Institute for Economic Research. “So trust is paramount.”

Architects of the deal have been quick to point out that the Cyprus bailout – or bail-in, as many are calling it – will not and cannot become the template for other troubled eurozone nations.

But economics commentator Philip Faigle, writing in Die Zeit, disagreed: “The taboo has been broken. For the first time in the euro crisis, savers have been expropriated”….

One in three said their trust in the common currency had been shattered and that they would like to see the return of the deutschmark.

There is anecdotal evidence that some Germans have begun removing their savings from banks, and that others have opened new accounts to spread their savings around and avoid getting caught like Cypriot depositors with more than €100,000. Financial daily Börsen Zeitung commented that while Germans – still collectively haunted by the currency collapses experienced by their forefathers – were not necessarily planning a run on the bank with their feet, “they are already doing it in their heads”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/31/germans-greet-cyoprus-deal-mixture-relief-fear

“Hundreds of people have been penalised for opposing gay marriage in Canada since marriage was redefined, a US magazine reports.

The National Review, one of America’s most widely read political magazines, says there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings in less than five years.

Public employees have been disciplined, businesses have been sued and churches have been threatened with sanctions over their matrimonial beliefs.

In 2011, for example, a well-known television anchor on a major sports show was fired just hours after he tweeted his support for “the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage.” He had merely been defending a hockey player’s agent who was receiving numerous death threats and other abuse for refusing to support a pro-gay-marriage campaign.

The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches outlining standard Catholic teaching on marriage. He is hardly a reactionary — he used to be known as “Red Fred” because of his support for the labor movement — but the archdiocese eventually had to settle with the complainants to avoid an embarrassing and expensive trial.

In the neighboring province of Saskatchewan, another case illustrates the intolerance that has become so regular since 2005…Yet the provincial courts disagreed, and commissioners with theological objections are now facing the loss of their jobs, with the situation replicated in other provinces and also at the federal level.

So far, churches have been allowed to refuse to consecrate same-sex marriages, but a campaign has begun to remove tax-free status from religious institutions that make this choice.

As I write, two Canadian provinces are considering legislation that would likely prevent educators even in private denominational schools from teaching that they disapprove of same-sex marriage, and a senior government minister in Ontario recently announced that if the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of homosexuality or gay marriage, it “would have to change its teaching.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/301641/canadian-crackdown-michael-coren?pg=2

This is about the US Constitution & the Protection of Religious Liberty & Free Speech.

workingclass artist on April 1, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Ultimately, what the establishment doesn’t want to face is that 2012 was a sweeping rejection of the fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate model. It was tried and tested, under ideal circumstances, lost, and lost badly.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Now all we need is Jet Boy to come over and swish, weep, pee on everything, and run away.

Ed Snyder on April 1, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I’ll have you know…I do not “swish”. :P

JetBoy on April 1, 2013 at 10:58 AM

kkaneff79 on April 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM

What is this guy going on about? If Obama, or Gore, or Kerry, had as much dissension from members of their own Party as Bush had and has from HIS Party, we might have had a chance at winning in 2008.

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2013 at 10:59 AM

A stronger candidate may have made the difference for the GOP, but I don’t think that had much to do with the supposed squishiness of Romney on social issues.

if that helps you sleep at night I suppose its a better drug than crack.

dmacleo on April 1, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Name one prolife big name DEM.

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Nancy Pelosi.
Joe Biden.
Hillary Clinton.

All claim to be pro-life who want to see abortions a rare occurence. Of course, they don’t mean it but you would be hard pressed to find any Democrat come out with the candor of that Planned Parenthood official in Florida.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 11:00 AM

I’m still agnostic on the gay marriage thing but I see abortion differently. Where does a partial troglocon fit into the “Party”; do I get to sit up front or must I wait in the coatroom?

Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM

As I stated above, abortion is quite different from all other social issues. It pits one person’s constitutional right to life against another’s constitutional right to pursuit of happiness. As a person of science, I clearly see and understand that abortion is murder – but, as a thoroughly immoral and atheist individual, I don’t have any problem with murder when it’s legal.

To quote our beloved usurper, PBUH, the matter is above my pay grade.

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Whey, whey tired of the ghey. Next please.

BKeyser on April 1, 2013 at 11:01 AM

I’ll take socialism over fundamentalism any day.

Archivarix on April 1, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Feel free to enlighten us knuckle dragging troglocons on
the last Fundamentalist policy-directive-Executive Order
that a Republican President did that negatively affected
you.

BTW, Your Socialst buddies have a nasty penchant of
Fu*cking up everything I VALUE in this country.

ToddPA on April 1, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3