Huckabee: We lost in 2012 because evangelicals didn’t support a more moderate nominee

posted at 7:21 pm on April 1, 2013 by Allahpundit

Ed flagged this Politico piece earlier but I want to pay special attention to Huck’s comments. Gabe Malor called BS on them on Twitter this morning. I think he’s right. Huckabee’s latest shot across the party establishment’s bow:

“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.”

Huckabee, like Santorum, was a bit incredulous at the attempt to fault social conservatives when the party nominated two individuals who largely shunned talk of culture in the general election and were uncomfortable when they had to discuss issues like abortion.

“Nobody would say that these were guys that just light ’em up at the National Right to Life Convention,” cracked Huckabee.

In other words, lower social-con turnout for Romney last year proved that the party’s already on thin ice. Move any further to the center on, say, gay marriage and who knows what might happen? Just one problem: Unless I missed something, social-con turnout for Romney wasn’t lower. On the contrary, after months of liberal concern-trolling that conservative Christians might not show up on election day for a Mormon, evangelicals gave Romney the best turnout among their demographic that any modern GOP candidate has seen. Remember this exit-poll comparison published by Pew a few days after the election?

mor

Not only did Romney match Bush’s share of white evangelicals from 2004, when Dubya and Rove famously used the gay-marriage issue to mobilize social cons, he actually did ever so slightly better among evangelicals than he did with Mormons. But wait: To say that Mitt matched Bush’s share isn’t to say that the same number of evangelicals turned out for both. It could be that 20 million voted in 2004 versus only 10 million in 2012, with the GOP nominee winning 79 percent of each. Is that what happened? According to the exit polls, no. In 2004, white evangelicals made up 23 percent of an electorate composed of more than 122 million voters; last year, they made up 26 percent of an electorate consisting of more than 127 million voters. As a share of the electorate and of total voters, Romney actually improved on Bush’s performance. The only way Huck is right is if the rate of growth among the white evangelical population between 2004 and 2012 should have pointed to even greater turnout last year than what we saw. I haven’t seen any data to that effect but I’m willing to be corrected.

If Huck is right that Romney’s too moderate for social conservatives’ liking, why’d they turn out for him in such high numbers? Simple: They’re not single-issue voters. Skim through the graphs compiled by the NYT’s Thomas Edsall a few days ago. On subjects like harmful government regulations and strong defense, white evangelicals top white mainline Protestants and white Catholics. They’re conservative more or less across the board, which is what the party establishment’s counting on if the nominee has to finesse the issue of SSM with a federalism dodge three years from now. The X factor is whether Huckabee, Santorum, or some other prominent social conservative pol will turn gay marriage into a litmus test. That’s what was missing from 2012 — maybe evangelical turnout for Romney would have been lower if Huck had agitated against him by reminding voters of his pro-choice past. But he didn’t. Social conservatives were roundly unified behind Mitt in the interest of defeating O, even when they denounced him as being the lesser of two evils. The one silver lining for the GOP in potentially having to face Hillary in 2016 is that she’s sufficiently polarizing to maybe keep social conservatives in the Republican tent even if they’re unhappy with the nominee’s position on SSM. With a lesser known Democratic nominee, the impetus to unite and defeat the great liberal threat might not be as strong.


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

So in other words you avoided the fact that I proved you wrong about my claim that you used a straw man.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 10:19 PM

You keep up with this utter nonsense that a minor point of my argument which I think was true, but I’m willing to retract for the sake of argument. I keep coming back to main point of the argumetn which you refuse to address–prefering instead to speculate about my sex life in fairly insane ways. Let me repeat my big question one more time. Why are you are willing to “let babies be murdered” to support traditional marriage? This is not a straw man, because if the Democrats win in 2016 because evangelicals sit out the elections, it does mean more abortion.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 10:27 PM

Condemning what you view as judicial tyranny out of one side of your mouth while praising executive tyranny out of the other is something I’ll leave it for everyone else to judge on their own.

You choose to highlight Romney’s view that DADT should have been repealed and openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military? We’ve since crossed that bridge and last I checked the US military is the still working just fine so Romney’s position was the right one.

alchemist19 on April 1, 2013 at 9:46 PM

1.) It’s not tyranny to fight one branch of government that bases its decision on nothing other than arbitrary whim

2.) When it comes to tyranny, unlike the judiciary, the executive branch has to respond directly to the people on a regular basis. Compare that to life-long tenures, and I think there’s a case that judges should be subject to far greater scrutiny and be far easier to reverse than the executive or legislative branches.

3.) It may be your opinion that the military’s working fine. My opinion is vastly different now that the Pentagon has open celebration of homosexuality. The U.S. army is not a gay bar. Unfortunately, our politicians seem to disagree. But not to worry, I’m far more disturbed by the inclusion of women in combat positions. I did think pointing out the DADT bit was worth noting since the Mittwits kept saying around election time that Obama and Romney shared nothing in common though. It’s difficult to imagine two candidates being more alike.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 10:29 PM

if the republicans nominate a SSM guy I will just not vote. to hell with them. A dem might win but hey what’s the difference b etween the two Not much

Bullhead on April 1, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Why are you are willing to “let babies be murdered” to support traditional marriage? This is not a straw man, because if the Democrats win in 2016 because evangelicals sit out the elections, it does mean more abortion.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 10:27 PM

I see that you chose to ignore the point I made which is:

The only way to fight abortion is via state legislation and the judiciary. The President has little to do with it other than nominating SCOTUS, and as we have seen with Souter, Kennedy, O’Connor and Roberts- the GOP is notorious for nominating losers who love liberal cocktail parties.

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 8:33 PM

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 10:31 PM

The only way to fight abortion is via state legislation and the judiciary. The President has little to do with it other than nominating SCOTUS, and as we have seen with Souter, Kennedy, O’Connor and Roberts- the GOP is notorious for nominating losers who love liberal cocktail parties.

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Nominating SCOTUS justices seems rather important on the abortion issue, but let’s ignore that. The President has pretty much the same impact on marriage equality as abortion. Why worry about the President’s position on social issues at all? [My question isn't completely rhetorical. My preference would be for the federal government to have no impact on social issues.]

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 10:36 PM

You keep up with this utter nonsense that a minor point of my argument which I think was true, but I’m willing to retract for the sake of argument.

Utter nonsense? You claimed I was wrong about the strawmen argument you in fact used. You even posted a link that you thought proved me wrong when in fact proved me correct.

I keep coming back to main point of the argumetn which you refuse to address–prefering instead to speculate about my sex life in fairly insane ways.

Again , why did you imply that you were celibate when you are not?

Let me repeat my big question one more time. Why are you are willing to “let babies be murdered” to support traditional marriage?

There you go again with the dishonesty. Please tell me my position. Oh and for fun quote me…but please don’t use wiki.

This is not a straw man, because if the Democrats win in 2016 because evangelicals sit out the elections, it does mean more abortion.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 10:27 PM

There you go again with some big assumption and awfully simple logic. I see a trend.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 10:38 PM

@CW on April 1, 2013 at 10:38 PM

You refuse to actually address my question. Instead, you make up stuff about my sex life, which is kind of creepy on your behalf.

So let’s just do this one more time. Please attempt to come up with a substantive rebuttal of what I’m saying. I’m even running patience with your refusal to address the issue that I keep pointing out here:


Let me repeat my big question one more time. Why are you are willing to “let babies be murdered” to support traditional marriage? This is not a straw man, because if the Democrats win in 2016 because evangelicals sit out the elections, it does mean more abortion.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 10:27 PM

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 10:44 PM

1.) It’s not tyranny to fight one branch of government that bases its decision on nothing other than arbitrary whim

I’m assuming that when you said “arbitrary whim” you mean “interpreting the Constitution”. That’s their job.

2.) When it comes to tyranny, unlike the judiciary, the executive branch has to respond directly to the people on a regular basis. Compare that to life-long tenures, and I think there’s a case that judges should be subject to far greater scrutiny and be far easier to reverse than the executive or legislative branches.

You want judges beholden to public opinion rather than what’s in the Constitution? That’s a recipe for tyranny of the majority.

3.) It may be your opinion that the military’s working fine. My opinion is vastly different now that the Pentagon has open celebration of homosexuality. The U.S. army is not a gay bar. Unfortunately, our politicians seem to disagree. But not to worry, I’m far more disturbed by the inclusion of women in combat positions. I did think pointing out the DADT bit was worth noting since the Mittwits kept saying around election time that Obama and Romney shared nothing in common though. It’s difficult to imagine two candidates being more alike.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 10:29 PM

The U.S. army is not a gay bar? Are you suggesting that gay people would join the military for the purpose of meeting other gay people? If not (and I hope not because that’s really stupid) then you’re going to have to explain what you mean by that statement.

I don’t remember anyone saying Romney and Obama had absolutely nothing in common. But that doesn’t mean they were exactly the same. For starters, Romney thought you built that and Obama thought you didn’t. I could go on but since you thought the horribly-misnamed Constitution Party was the way to go then you might be beyond reason.

alchemist19 on April 1, 2013 at 10:48 PM

Nominating SCOTUS justices seems rather important on the abortion issue, but let’s ignore that. The President has pretty much the same impact on marriage equality as abortion. Why worry about the President’s position on social issues at all? [My question isn't completely rhetorical. My preference would be for the federal government to have no impact on social issues.]

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 10:36 PM

The President’s opinion on social issues is extremely important. A liberal on social issue is more apt to nominate a socially liberal SCOTUS. SCOTUS nominees that turn out socially liberal tend to be more apt to rule based on culture and polling and less likely to rule based on Constiutionality– Souter, O’Connor, Kennedy, Roberts anyone..

My preference also would be that the federal government had no impact on social issues, but I do not have that option. That was taken out of my hands when Dems ram through federal legislation and use the judiciary as a hammer.

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Just who are these zealots? Please be specific and define zealot.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 8:05 PM

You don’t understand the word zealot?

Noun
A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

Sounds a lot like the folks who would exit the GOP if gay marriage is supported by the party, per Huckabee.

Anyone that didn’t vote because Romney was “too moderate” and allowed Obama to win another term, I would definitely consider them zealots. Or stupid. One or the other. Either way perhaps they should consider creating a new party because they’re pissing on the wheels of progress.

ButterflyDragon on April 1, 2013 at 10:57 PM

The one silver lining for the GOP in potentially having to face Hillary in 2016 is that she’s sufficiently polarizing to maybe keep social conservatives in the Republican tent even if they’re unhappy with the nominee’s position on SSM.

Nope. GOP going to have to earn it; same old ‘ vote for us or that boogie man over there who’s even worse will win’ ain’t gonna cut it anymore. Been there, done that, got squat to show for it.

Midas on April 1, 2013 at 10:58 PM

You don’t understand the word zealot?

Noun
A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

Sounds a lot like the folks who would exit the GOP if gay marriage is supported by the party, per Huckabee.

Anyone that didn’t vote because Romney was “too moderate” and allowed Obama to win another term, I would definitely consider them zealots. Or stupid. One or the other. Either way perhaps they should consider creating a new party because they’re pissing on the wheels of progress.

ButterflyDragon on April 1, 2013 at 10:57 PM

So you link all those libertarians who voted for Gary Johnson into this correct.. ? Or do you just bi+ch about socons?

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 10:59 PM

So you link all those libertarians who voted for Gary Johnson into this correct.. ? Or do you just bi+ch about socons?

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 10:59 PM

The libertarians who voted for Gary Johnson are also annoying zealots.

I am willing to vote for a GOP nominee who will oppose my stance on abortion and SSM, because I only look for 80% agreement with my stances. I don’t see any reason to think that the next nominee from either party is going to be the messiah leading us to utopia. Thus, I support a candidate who offers the best future between the two candidates with a chance of winning.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 11:22 PM

The miscalculation was all on the Romney campaign. First of all, they didn’t deal with the media problem. Having all the debates on the alphabet networks will never allow you to get your message out. They also needed to handle the Candy Crowley situation because she did a lot of damage to the campaign by making Romney look like a liar in front of 65 million potential voters. If only 10% were swayed that night, that’s 6.5 million voters and all over a bogus call on her part and one which you can’t say wasn’t planned.

Also, Sarah Palin never campaigned for Romney. She endorsed him, but never campaigned for him. I assume that was because she was requested to not campaign for him and, to me, that was a major blunder on their part. Whether you like Palin or not, she does get out some voters and has picked more winners than Karl Rove has.

bflat879 on April 1, 2013 at 11:22 PM

So you link all those libertarians who voted for Gary Johnson into this correct.. ? Or do you just bi+ch about socons?

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 10:59 PM

People who voted for Gary Johnson are just as stupid and just as much a zealot. Gary Johnson libertarians are the dope smoking, Ron Paul whack jobs.

ButterflyDragon on April 1, 2013 at 11:30 PM

People who voted for Gary Johnson and Ron Paul – Actually VOTED FOR BARACK OBAMA!!

Period!

Huckabee is one of Worst People Alive – which is why Allahpundit threw him out here/////

williamg on April 1, 2013 at 11:59 PM

Dear Mike;

Republicans lost 2012 because evangelicals knew that the More Moderate Squish wasn’t going to suppoprt them!

jaydee_007 on April 2, 2013 at 12:04 AM

The numbers don’t actually bear Huckabee’s point out. Evangelicals showed up in record numbers. So did conservatives (social, fiscal, and otherwise). It was the moderates whose numbers were severely depressed. Blame them if you must blame someone. Better yet, blame Mitt.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 4:15 AM

Nice try Huck – but wrong. One thing he’s right about is that millions of conservative voters stayed at home on election day, sadly. We Repub’s need to understand that you don’t just sit, aloof and indifferent, while millions upon millions of our nations best jobs are offshored, creating a domestic job market that is far too favorable to the employer. We Repub’s shy away from this issue and it has hurt us more than those in control of party strategy know.

Darvin Dowdy on April 2, 2013 at 7:09 AM

Any utterance from Chucklebee is nothing more than self serving, self absorbed rambling of a failed, bitter man hiding behind religion.

bloviator on April 2, 2013 at 9:27 AM

williamg on April 1, 2013 at 11:59 PM

People who voted for Romney voted for Obama! It is an absolute fact that it is the case.
Apparently people are slaves to your desired ends. We are not your slave. We will do as we please. I voted Romney, but I left at least 15 votes at home this last election, because Romney was not worth ruining my reputation trying to convince them to vote for.

Romney did every last thing in his power, once he locked up the nomination, to lose the election.

From staying silent for three months running, to shunning Palin and her supporters, to shunning TEA party people, to not rallying the base, to over spending for crappy pointless advertisements. He did one thing to attract voters, that was the first debate, and once the dust settled, so did Romney, back into his old tired and debilitated anti run for president. He enjoyed trashing conservatives, he went on the junket for the thrill ride, like a roller coaster. His own son said he did not want it, and it is likely that once he got the nomination, that fact weighed on him to the point he refused to fight.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Romney did every last thing in his power, once he locked up the nomination, to lose the election.

From staying silent for three months running, to shunning Palin and her supporters, to shunning TEA party people, to not rallying the base, to over spending for crappy pointless advertisements. He did one thing to attract voters, that was the first debate, and once the dust settled, so did Romney, back into his old tired and debilitated anti run for president. He enjoyed trashing conservatives, he went on the junket for the thrill ride, like a roller coaster. His own son said he did not want it, and it is likely that once he got the nomination, that fact weighed on him to the point he refused to fight.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Excellent summary. I’ve come to the same conclusions.

I just scraped some Huckabee off of my shoe. It smelled pretty bad.

ElectricPhase on April 2, 2013 at 9:35 AM

They’re not single-issue voters.

Precisely!

I know few God and family values folks who aren’t also responsible and prudent about finances and they fully expect the leftist government created dredges and parsites to start pulling their fair share, but instead of nurturing that group whose timeless values replicate those of our forefathers, the GOP insists upon isolating and cutting their own down by naively assuming that America’s social and cultural breakdown is best ignored (or encouraged)
The reality is that the cultural rot is exactly what is burdening our economic well-being and by manipulating and exacerbating it, the left is able to break our nation apart.

Turn the cultural rot around and you’ll turn the economy once again into the envy of the world.
But, I strongly believe the gOP is perfectly happy being the second fiddle as long as they continue to co-rule America, so they will not risk actually trying to restore America to her once proud self.
Freedom, to we underlings is easily dispensible.

Don L on April 2, 2013 at 9:38 AM

ElectricPhase on April 2, 2013 at 9:35 AM

I do not like Huckabee either. He was never a conservative outside of abortion, marriage and the church in general.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Huckster is just one more shining example of what’s wrong with this party.

We’ve become a bunch of talking heads on TV giving their opinions and party officials working behind the scenes against the interests of most members.

Here is an idea; how about everybody sits down at one table and talks to each other like big boys?

Marcus Traianus on April 2, 2013 at 9:44 AM

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 4:15 AM

Are you a dem troll? Moderates stayed home? What a laugh! You can’t get more moderate than Mitt!

tomshup on April 2, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Romney thought he was going to cruise to the WH on a promise to reverse Ocare when the dems hung the health care goat around his neck. He thought he would win cuz everyone didn’t like da won. He and his consultants made a lot of bad assumptions including leaving SP out in the cold. If Rove had to run Bush against da won, he would have lost that one, too. Pushing Romney on us from the beginning as the only candidate who could win was also a big turn off. Smuch should just stick to his TV show.

Kissmygrits on April 2, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Being a Christian and very active in my church. I don’t know of anyone who stayed home because Romney is a Mormon. Nobody I spoke with was exactly thrilled with him but for reasons other than his faith. Mainly that he was a RINO squish. I didn’t hear anyone bring up his values. But the morons running the RNC need a scapegoat. They are also dumb enough to believe it’s a “messaging issue”. It’s not. It’s actually picking candidates that actually adhere to the platform and actually govern like a conservative instead of sounding like one only when convenient. The base wasn’t fired up about Romney because he didn’t give us any reason to be.

Minnfidel on April 2, 2013 at 10:09 AM

If the GOP does not return to Reagan Conservatism, they will not win in 2014 or 2016. Period.

There is more to this nation, that the Northeast Corridor. Actual Conservatism is still practiced in the rest of America.

You cannot force Americans to vote for anyone that goes against their core belief system. And, for 78% of us, that is Christianity.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Four Dead Washington State Policemen would like to have a word with you Governor Huckabee about your leaning toward Clemency you bleeding heart fraud…..

portlandon on April 1, 2013 at 7:47 PM

You have a habit of repeating that, and I’ve addressed it before…

You’d think that the Dead Seattle Police officers would put a end to any future Huckabee Ticket dreams.

Pardon me, but I can’t stomach a a Huckabee on ANY ticket.

portlandon on May 9, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Ahem.

The Maurice Clemmons Case:
We Blamed the Wrong Arkansas Governor

By Caleb Hannan, Thu., Oct. 21 2010

After Maurice Clemmons shot and killed four Lakewood police officers last November, the world went looking for someone to blame other than the gunman. It found Mike Huckabee, who made for a convenient target. But it turns out that the world, in all its infinite wisdom, had scapegoated the wrong Arkansas governor.

Thanks to the Seattle Times latest entry in the remarkable series on what led up to the shootings, we now know that if any elected official in Arkansas deserves some blame for Clemmons massacre it’s not Mike Huckabee, whose only crime was to reduce the sentence of a teenager forced to serve 100 years for non-violent crimes, it’s current Governor Mike Beebe…

ITguy on May 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM

What Huckabee did as Governor was the right thing to do. After he left office, what others did was wrong yet you falsely pin their wrongdoing on Huckabee.

ITguy on April 2, 2013 at 10:10 AM

That being said, a lot of Evangelicals, like me, voted for Romney. We had no other choice. However, you cannot force Americans to be enthusiastic when forced to vote for a squish.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 10:11 AM

That being said, a lot of Evangelicals, like me, voted for Romney. We had no other choice. However, you cannot force Americans to be enthusiastic when forced to vote for a squish.

kingsjester

Bingo! That’s what the tools running the RNC don’t get. They think it was a “messaging” issue. It was an issue with the candidate. In my opinion, the moderates stayed home or voted for Barry because there was hardly a difference between him and Mitt. So they either voted for Barry or stayed home. Note to the people running the party. there needs to be a discernible difference between candidates. Messaging takes care of itself if you run a good candidate.

Minnfidel on April 2, 2013 at 10:17 AM

The link included in my last comment has been changed slightly.
Here is the updated link:

The Maurice Clemmons Case:
We Blamed the Wrong Arkansas Governor

By Caleb Hannan Thu., Oct 21 2010 at 12:00AM

ITguy on April 2, 2013 at 10:18 AM

That being said, a lot of Evangelicals, like me, voted for Romney. We had no other choice. However, you cannot force Americans to be enthusiastic when forced to vote for a squish.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 10:11 AM

.
The voting booth machine does not, nor has ever,
count or gauge enthusiasm.

Color the oval – pull the handle. No emotion required.

FlaMurph on April 2, 2013 at 10:22 AM

FlaMurph on April 2, 2013 at 10:22 AM

True. But motivating Americans to come to the polls, by convincing them that your condidate is the man or woman for the job, is another thing entirely.

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 10:24 AM

The voting booth machine does not, nor has ever,
count or gauge enthusiasm.

Color the oval – pull the handle. No emotion required.

FlaMurph on April 2, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Correct. However I held my nose like I did with Juan McLame. But I certainly wasn’t about to go door knock or try and convince anyone on the fence that he was a great candidate. I certainly wasn’t going to donate money, put up yard signs or bumper stickers etc. That’s what enthusiasm does or the lack thereof produces.

Minnfidel on April 2, 2013 at 10:33 AM

kingsjester on April 2, 2013 at 10:24 AM

.
Anyone who saw 2016 knows this marxist in the WH is a bad guy – and yes ANTI-American. No one can convince me this president is not ANTI-American.

For me- I was voting for ANYONE other than Ocommie in 2012. The inability to unify AGINST the community organizer- was a huge mistake. A divided front, will not stand.

“ObamaLite” as deemed by some- was still a no-brainer of a choice over a full on Marxist-Raised Transformer of the USA.

2014 better bring competitive candidates- and a blind unity – to vote every freakin socialist Democrite out of office.

Thats the goal for me – not purity.

FlaMurph on April 2, 2013 at 10:35 AM

If we lost because of evangelicals it’s because of their selective support of the first amendment. Freedom of religion for me but not for thee. Has there ever been a perfect candidate? Who?

Lets face it the major religions can’t even decide if your going to hell for eating pork spare ribs or a T bone steak. And gauging your vote on either one is ridiculous.

meci on April 2, 2013 at 10:37 AM

bflat879 on April 1, 2013 at 11:22 PM

are you saying there are palin supporters that stayed home instead of voting for romney because he didnt get her to campaign for him?

chasdal on April 2, 2013 at 10:54 AM

are you saying there are palin supporters that stayed home instead of voting for romney because he didnt get her to campaign for him?

chasdal on April 2, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Why not? It was not that he didn’t have her campaign for him, but he specifically chose to isolate himself from her. Voting for a President is voting for your Representative. If Romney did not want to represent them in any degree at all, why would you vote for him? Republicans are not OWED a vote. They do not OWN anyone. It is their job to prove they will represent the people they want votes from. Romney was a 2% differentiated politician from who Obama is. It is not enough to inspire people to put any effort into getting to the polls.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Some voters want their steak well done, others like it rare. Say progressives are rare and Conservatives are well done. Obama was a leg removed from the cow and Romney is the cut piece of meat from that leg. How appetizing do you think that would be for someone who likes their meat well done? I never should have voted for Romney, he was not worth the effort, the only reason he got the filled in circle was because I was already voting and I thought Obama was gearing up for forced insurrection war against us conservatives.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Loyalty will get your base to the polls. It won’t get your base to bring anyone else with them.

Romney was a crap candidate, pushed on us by some of the most hated people in the party who thought that excluding and insulting the base was a winning strategy.

SurferDoc on April 2, 2013 at 11:04 AM

It seems that establishment Republicans think that they can have their cake and eat it to. They try to support groups that are diametrically opposed to their current supporters Conservative beliefs and then castigate the current supporters for not being so called “inclusive”. I think that they should think about the old adage: A bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush. Especially when they are smacking the bird they have in their hand. If they continue this behavior and continue to degenerate my christian beliefs, this bird will fly.

SGinNC on April 2, 2013 at 11:11 AM

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM

so it’s not enough that she endorsed him?? because he didnt grovel and kiss her ring some palin supporters wouldnt vote for him? thank god you guys arent a cult.

chasdal on April 2, 2013 at 11:19 AM

In 2004 white, evangelical/born-again Christians made up 23% of the electorate and voted 78% for Bush.

In 2008 white, evangelical/born-again Christians made up 26% of the electorate and voted 74% for McCain.

In 2012 white, evangelical/born-again Christians also made up 26% of the electorate and voted 78% for Romney.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 11:19 AM

SGinNC on April 2, 2013 at 11:11 AM

I don’t mind a GOP that has divergent viewpoints. That is probably healthy and the party certainly isn’t going to ride to victory with somebody like Rick Santorum or Ron Paul at the top of the ticket. But, the problem I have with establishment Republicans is that they seem to go out of their way to attack social conservatives. The whole gay marriage thing is just one example. Establishment Republicans are okay with sodomite unions because they don’t give a flip about social issues and want to cave quickly and move on. Social conservatives see things differently. I for one am sick and tired of having my views sneered at by so-called Republicans.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Ironic, since the reason I supported him in the 2008 primaries was because he was more conservative than e.g. McCain.

The Schaef on April 2, 2013 at 11:23 AM

The voting booth machine does not, nor has ever,
count or gauge enthusiasm.

Color the oval – pull the handle. No emotion required.

FlaMurph on April 2, 2013 at 10:22 AM

I disagree slightly. No, you can not tell the enthusiasm of a single vote BUT in the aggregate, voter turnout does give you some sense of enthusiasm.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 11:26 AM

I’ve got an idea, why don’t all the social con zealots create their own theological party?

ButterflyDragon on April 1, 2013 at 7:51 PM

That’s a swell idea if you’ll agree to rewrite and follow the declaration of independence that explains to the anti-God folks that your rights only come from Him.

Social cons hold ture to the values handed down by western judeo-Christian civilization as did our founders. It is the Godless left and right that is at war with thousand of years of decency and family values.

Don L on April 2, 2013 at 11:43 AM

He’s not right, but he’s not wrong either. I’ve been a dedicated conservative since my 18th birthday because it’s the only logical belief system for society. But, the further the REPUBLICAN party gets away from my conservative values, the easier it is to say forget about them and go my own way. Why should I donate my time, my money and my vote to people that don’t share my values and actively try to destroy some of those values?

njrob on April 2, 2013 at 11:45 AM

In 2004 white, evangelical/born-again Christians made up 23% of the electorate and voted 78% for Bush.

In 2008 white, evangelical/born-again Christians made up 26% of the electorate and voted 74% for McCain.

In 2012 white, evangelical/born-again Christians also made up 26% of the electorate and voted 78% for Romney.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Okay, this seems to shake out. But these are the breakdowns of the people who voted.

Could someone tell me please how we can gauge the reasoning of the Rs or R-leaning people who did not turn out to vote in 2008 and 2012?

Those are the people Huckabee is talking about. His theory of why they didn’t show up sounds pretty plausible to me. Two weak moderate candidates in a row = low base enthusiasm = diminished turnout.

Missy on April 2, 2013 at 11:47 AM

I disagree slightly. No, you can not tell the enthusiasm of a single vote BUT in the aggregate, voter turnout does give you some sense of enthusiasm.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 11:2

or the degree of lust, greed, addiction, fear, hate etc….

Don L on April 2, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I never should have voted for Romney, he was not worth the effort, the only reason he got the filled in circle was because I was already voting and I thought Obama was gearing up for forced insurrection war against us conservatives.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 11:04 AM

So, a no vote would have been a defacto vote for BHO and the insurrection, you correctly feared. Evidence of which there is plenty….DHS stocking up on hollow point ammo to the tune of almost 2 billion rounds! Is that to equip the civilian force BHO referred to in his wish list of things he wanted in 2008?

You did the right thing with your vote, unfortunately the deck was stacked against us, with too many folding their hands!

tomshup on April 2, 2013 at 11:54 AM

so it’s not enough that she endorsed him?? because he didnt grovel and kiss her ring some palin supporters wouldnt vote for him? thank god you guys arent a cult.

chasdal on April 2, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Not really. It requires that he show that he intends to run the government similarly to how we want it run. He is running to be our representative in the executive branch of government. I am not a Palin supporter, although I would vote for her if she were ever up for election where I have the right to vote. So, the “you guys” argument is lost on me. I vote for policy, not for cult of personality. If the Democrat offers a better policy, I will happily vote for that individual Democrat.

It has to be a believable representative in government. I Romney got my vote, not that I voted FOR him, more against Obama. Then again, Romney did not get my SUPPORT in any measure beyond the circle filled in. I talked no one into voting for him and I took no one to the polls. (I voted absentee as I am on a contract position way from my home.)

If Romney would have been a merely acceptable conservative, he could have gained 15ish votes from my family members who are apolitical, they just listen to me when I ask them to vote. I have no verification other than their word they vote the way I ask, but why would they lie if they never had the intention to vote otherwise?

If Romney were a solid conservative that inspired me to think that he would actually change the direction of government for the better, then I would have talked to those family members, several friends who are persuadable, and the 20 or so coworkers who say they stayed home this election. I also would have donated money, put time in and knocked on doors. I have a close friend in Ohio who I would have gotten involved in knocking on doors, even though he cannot vote, he can talk and is quite persuasive.

Romney was going for the ignorant voters who do not pay attention to advertisements and are effectively unreachable by a campaign. The moderates. Guess who those true real moderates are? Friends of progressives and friends of conservatives.

What Romney the primary voters should have done was give the conservatives something compelling to talk about with their unaffiliated voter friends and families that they could sleep at night after convincing them to get to the polls and vote.

As far as Obama in office… If you voted for Romney, you voted for Obama. The earlier you voted for him (primary) the earlier you voted for Obama.

If you supported and loved Romney as a candidate, it was your JOB to talk to relatives, friends and coworkers as well as donate and do the foot pounding get out the vote effort. You were the ones who saw a major difference between Romney and Obama, and I honestly still think that if Romney were elected, over a period of 20 years the nation would have been worse off. He loves to strike deals with progressives, who match his world view with their policy agendas.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Those are the people Huckabee is talking about. His theory of why they didn’t show up sounds pretty plausible to me. Two weak moderate candidates in a row = low base enthusiasm = diminished turnout.

Missy on April 2, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Just for some perspective, between 2008 and 2012:

Liberal voters increased 11.7%, from 28.9 to 32.3 million.

Conservatives voters increased 1.2%, from 44.6 to 45.2 million.

Moderate voters decreased 8.4%, from 57.8 to 52.9 million.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 11:58 AM

We need a new coalition if that’s the “problem”.

If an Evangelical couldn’t bother to turn out even though Obama was pro-infanticide and supported gay marriage, then instead of turning up the dial on these issues, we need to ignore them and reach voters on other issues. Clearly, this crowd doesn’t care much about these SoCon issues, or they would have voted. Sorry, you don’t get your cake and eat it too.

Please tell me what SoCon positions Romney ignored? The day after Obama came out for gay marriage, Romney made it clear he believed marriage was between one man and one woman, and he fought it Massachusetts to preserve that when judges tried to mandate gay marriage.

The SoCon wing knows it’s not only feeble, but is actually costing Republicans elections. It doesn’t even sell in the Bible Belt anymore, ask Akin and Mourdock.

BradTank on April 2, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Sure Huck. Mitt just wasn’t moderate enough. Keep telling yourself that. Mitt was a RINO squish. Here’s the thing that idiots like Huck and the folks at the RNC need to hear. We ran two moderates in the last two elections and got beat. Repeating that same mistake again will not only doom the party but our nation as well. If you’re going to keep running Dem Lite candidates you might as well close your offices now.

Minnfidel on April 2, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Please tell me what SoCon positions Romney ignored? The day after Obama came out for gay marriage, Romney made it clear he believed marriage was between one man and one woman, and he fought it Massachusetts to preserve that when judges tried to mandate gay marriage.

The SoCon wing knows it’s not only feeble, but is actually costing Republicans elections. It doesn’t even sell in the Bible Belt anymore, ask Akin and Mourdock.

BradTank on April 2, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Romney does not support life nor marriage.
He was pro abortion, and his trademark healthcare law pays for them.
For marriage. The supreme court said it was the Responsibility of the legislature to enact laws to include “same sex marriage”, it was never Romney’s duty to make it happen. There were constitutional amendments in process when Romney unilaterally abused his power to force marriage licenses to be issued to people who were not qualified for them, same sex couples.

This short circuited the RULE OF LAW and made the very first SSMs in the United States of America. How exactly did he support marriage again?

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Romney does not support life nor marriage.
He was pro abortion, and his trademark healthcare law pays for them.
For marriage. The supreme court said it was the Responsibility of the legislature to enact laws to include “same sex marriage”, it was never Romney’s duty to make it happen. There were constitutional amendments in process when Romney unilaterally abused his power to force marriage licenses to be issued to people who were not qualified for them, same sex couples.

This short circuited the RULE OF LAW and made the very first SSMs in the United States of America. How exactly did he support marriage again?

astonerii

I get so tired of this “yes, but he didn’t do it with enough feeling”. Romney was better on the issues of abortion and gay marriage than Obama. Period. If you sat out the Election, all it shows me is that THOSE supposed SoCons don’t take those issues very seriously.

No, Romney wasn’t going to make the entire election about abortion because it turns most voters off, even in religious Red States. Again, ask Akin and Mourdock and compare their performnace to Romney’s in their respective states. Being a hyper-SoCon is a political loser, it sure didn’t draw out all of these Evangelicals out of the woodwork.

The SoCon wing of the party is dead, and I hope they form a new TheoCrat/Huckabee Party that is more of a televangelist movement, because that’s really all the SoCons want, to talk about these contentious issues.

It’s a myth that there’s this hidden bloc of millions of voters that will win elections every time for the GOP if they just talk more about God and Gays.

BradTank on April 2, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Just for some perspective, between 2008 and 2012:

Liberal voters increased 11.7%, from 28.9 to 32.3 million.

Conservatives voters increased 1.2%, from 44.6 to 45.2 million.

Moderate voters decreased 8.4%, from 57.8 to 52.9 million.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Is that from exit polls? Meaning it is self-reported? If so, that’s not particularly meaningful. The same person could have called himself a moderate in 2008 and voted for Obama and then called himself a conservative in 2012 and voted for Romney. Or another voter might have called herself moderate in 2008 and liberal in 2012 and voted for Obama both times. You get the picture.

Regardless, again, the opinions of people who don’t vote are not captured in exit polls.

Huckabee is talking about people who didn’t vote. You (at least in your last couple of comments, I haven’t caught up with the whole thread) are talking about people who voted. Different groups.

Missy on April 2, 2013 at 12:42 PM

BradTank on April 2, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Actually, if you do take these things seriously, then you do not reward those who are out of touch with them with your vote and thus consent. It legitimizes that position for the party and makes certain that you will never get your way ever.

But Romney did not just not do it with feeling, he never did it at all.

Romney supported same gender marriage, END OF STORY, there is an IMMUTABLE RECORD OF HIM DOING IT.

Romney supported abortion, he did not and never has supported life, END OF STORY, there is an IMMUTABLE RECORD OF HIM DOING IT.

Romney supported global warming zealots, END OF STORY, there is an IMMUTABLE RECORD OF HIM DOING IT.

Romney supported progressive agenda driven judges, END OF STORY, there is an IMMUTABLE RECORD OF HIM DOING IT.

Romney has a record in office of what he did and did not do. It exists whether you admit to it or not. Some people like to live in bubbles of alternate reality.

As for your final comment. I think you are right. We should be talking about the children…

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I tend to think Americans in general do not care about our legacy, the children enough. It is all about the here and now. This goes double for idiots like you.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Actually, if you do take these things seriously, then you do not reward those who are out of touch with them with your vote and thus consent. It legitimizes that position for the party and makes certain that you will never get your way ever.

But Romney did not just not do it with feeling, he never did it at all.

Romney supported same gender marriage, END OF STORY, there is an IMMUTABLE RECORD OF HIM DOING IT.

Romney supported abortion, he did not and never has supported life, END OF STORY, there is an IMMUTABLE RECORD OF HIM DOING IT.

Romney supported global warming zealots, END OF STORY, there is an IMMUTABLE RECORD OF HIM DOING IT.

Romney supported progressive agenda driven judges, END OF STORY, there is an IMMUTABLE RECORD OF HIM DOING IT.

Romney has a record in office of what he did and did not do. It exists whether you admit to it or not. Some people like to live in bubbles of alternate reality.

As for your final comment. I think you are right. We should be talking about the children…

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I tend to think Americans in general do not care about our legacy, the children enough. It is all about the here and now. This goes double for idiots like you.

astonerii

You’re just straight up lying now about Romney’s record, and I love how supposed “salt of the Earth” SoCons go straight for personal insults when things don’t go their way.

BradTank on April 2, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Huckabee has never been right about anything, nor was he particularly honest about his record as Governor of Arkansas.

Adjoran on April 2, 2013 at 1:02 PM

You’re just straight up lying now about Romney’s record, and I love how supposed “salt of the Earth” SoCons go straight for personal insults when things don’t go their way.

BradTank on April 2, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Really?

In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling on November 18, 2003,[3] the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.”

The court gave the State Legislature 180 days to “take such action as it may deem appropriate” before issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[1]

The state legislature did not make the changes… So how did Massachusetts hand out those marriage licenses? Romney made it happen.

When the law was first implemented, there was a $50 copay for a RomneyCare elective surgical abortion.

Then there was Romney calling a power generation plant a people killer, because he refused to grandfather it in when he was pushing for a cap and trade bill.

There are no lies in what I said. There is just you being an ignorant or lying hack.

As for calling a spade a spade, you obviously are an idiot, calling you as such is not just simply attacking you, it is describing you.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 1:25 PM

I voted for the “moderate” candidate.

Not again.

davidk on April 2, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Huckabee is talking about people who didn’t vote. You (at least in your last couple of comments, I haven’t caught up with the whole thread) are talking about people who voted. Different groups.

Missy on April 2, 2013 at 12:42 PM

My point is that evangelical, social conservatives did not make up as large of a proportion of those non-voters as a lot of people seem to believe.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Really?

In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling on November 18, 2003,[3] the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.”

The court gave the State Legislature 180 days to “take such action as it may deem appropriate” before issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[1]

The state legislature did not make the changes… So how did Massachusetts hand out those marriage licenses? Romney made it happen.

When the law was first implemented, there was a $50 copay for a RomneyCare elective surgical abortion.

Then there was Romney calling a power generation plant a people killer, because he refused to grandfather it in when he was pushing for a cap and trade bill.

There are no lies in what I said. There is just you being an ignorant or lying hack.

As for calling a spade a spade, you obviously are an idiot, calling you as such is not just simply attacking you, it is describing you.

astonerii

Please show me one video clip of Romney supporting gay marriage. Just one.

BradTank on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

williamg on April 1, 2013 at 11:59 PM

People who voted for Romney voted for Obama! It is an absolute fact that it is the case.

That is the most mathematically and logically incoherent statement that I have heard in my entire life. I know “acid casualties” that are more coherent – though they are now medicated. Have you taken yours today?

Shrieking and Bellowing that “Romney SUCKED!” – which we all knew to varying degrees – does not recover the incoherency of your statement.

Romney DID suck – but, he sucked less that OBAMA. Like it or not, this is a two-party system at the Presidential election level, and you only have one of two choices to pick.

Romeny was the correct choice – and the ONLT vote that mathematically provided OPPOSITION to Obama’s re-election. Voting for ANYONE else only HELPED Obama mathematically.

It’s simple. Well – it is if you passed high school math which, granted, some folks haven’t. I can help you with that, if you need it.

williamg on April 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Please show me one video clip of Romney supporting gay marriage. Just one.

BradTank on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

You need his words and not his DEEDS? So murderers are not guilty as long as they say they are opposed to killing?

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 1:52 PM

williamg on April 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Glad you agree that the argument of if you voted for so and so means you voted for some other person.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 1:54 PM

You need his words and not his DEEDS? So murderers are not guilty as long as they say they are opposed to killing?

astonerii

So now Romney is a murderer?
I forgot my rule about arguing with idiots.

BradTank on April 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Than why should anyone care what these slackers think about anything? If they want to take their ball and go home then they can just stay there while the rest of us try to limit the damage they caused with their snit.

paulus1 on April 2, 2013 at 2:02 PM

williamg on April 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Glad you agree that the argument of if you voted for so and so means you voted for some other person.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 1:54 PM

I never agreed to ANY such argument – particularly since “so and so” is not a defined candidate. You either KNOW that because you can read - or your level of incoherence and ignorance is higher than you demonstrated in your LAST incoherent post.

What I DID do was to correctly point out that YOUR comment was as incoherent as a the babbling ravings of an “acid casualty”, and was mathematically incorrect and disconnected from reality.

Those statements still stand.

williamg on April 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM

So now Romney is a murderer?
I forgot my rule about arguing with idiots.

BradTank on April 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Nope, it is a logical argument. You say that you refuse to believe that Romney is pro SSM even after he streamlined through executive fiat same sex marriages against the law of the land.

So, if that is the case, someone who murders another person, but is on the record of having said they are against murdering, you would refuse to believe they can possibly be a murderer.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 2:12 PM

williamg on April 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM

You did no such thing. What you argued is that your prior argument is false by your own reasoning. I understand you like to imagine you can arbitrarily move any vote not for Romney to the column of voted for Obama, but it just is not the case.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Please show me one video clip of Romney supporting gay marriage. Just one.

BradTank on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

1994

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/romneyletterbaywindows.pdf

“As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent,” Romney wrote, referring to US Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

dmacleo on April 2, 2013 at 2:23 PM

dmacleo on April 2, 2013 at 2:23 PM

I thought of linking it, but because that person is willing to only believe words and not actions, he will never believe it from that since the word marriage is not stated.

Some people are just here to spread lies and hope no one calls them on it.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 3:03 PM

ou social cons are like children taking a temper tantrum. You certainly aren’t the “salt of the earth” that your scripture describes you as.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 10:10 PM

What a bigoted little cretin you are. I am a Reagan republican and like him, I am a social conservative.
Social conservatism, fiscal conservatism and a foreign policy based on peace through strength are the principles that real conservatives believe in. Don’t like it…the democrats will welcome you with open arms.

fight like a girl on April 2, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Some people are just here to spread lies and hope no one calls them on it.
astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 3:03 PM

.
Seriously- a 19 year old letter to gay Republicans telling them he believes in equal rights for them and an end to discrimination for these people. Was SSM a hot topic 19 years ago? I don’t think so.

19 freakin years ago – AND YET, we just went through a microscopic probing of Romney during the 2012 election – with he stating over and over saying he believes in One man-One woman as the basis for a marriage- but believes gays should have the legal rights (domestic partnership, hospital visitation yada yada) but yet he is SSM all the way in your estimation.

You know deep down in a Carnac sort of way he wants SSM legalized.

To say Romney supports gay marriage- “is spreading lies” – as you put it-

FlaMurph on April 2, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Yeah, I’m sorry, but the idea that the GOP not doubling down on SoCon issues cost them the election is absurd. Not only do none of the numbers support that, but numerous social conservatives lost races in states where they would have traditionally done well to boot.

As I’ve said before, I don’t want to boot SoCons from the party, but politics is downstream from culture, not the other way around. If SoCons cannot engage the culture and reverse the trend of rising support for same sex marriage, then even if they can win some elections, it’d only end up slightly delaying the inevitable.

Frankly, I suspect same sex marriage being an election issue actually makes it HARDER to prevent it. Look at how many more African Americans opposed same sex marriage before Obama came out in favor of it. It’s obvious that for a large segment of the population, identity politics trump many of their personally held beliefs, which is in part why I believe most social issues shouldn’t be decided by elections.

As for SoCons, eventually they’ll need to realize that they’re only one of three (maybe four,) factions that make up the Republican party. They are not the sole faction, and may not even be the healthiest of the factions at the moment. Dictating the parties overall direction simply isn’t feasible for them at this moment, nor is it appropriate.

Either deciding the issue on the state level, or privatizing marriage, are good compromises, at least until SoCons see if they can drum up additional support for federal level opposition, which I doubt.

Until then however, showmen like Huckabee are just blowing hot air. SoCons simply do not have the strength to make these demands.

WolvenOne on April 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

FlaMurph on April 2, 2013 at 3:42 PM

You can argue all you want about the letter. I did not bring it up and explained why.

When people such as yourself can look at a man with his hand in the cookie jar and proclaim him innocent because his stated policy is no hand in the cookie jar, you got credibility issue.

Romney did not have to issue same gender marriage certificates. He did that on his own volition and apparently as a personal and private choice. The judgement was against the legislature, if the legislature did not comply then it was up to the court to make them, not for Romney to short circuit the process.

Thus, he can argue all he wants about not supporting same gender marriage for the rest of his life and it is meaningless and pointless unless he factually does something to prove it so. Since he has already proven to do something the polar opposite it is considered hypocrisy.

I know another politician who goes by the watch what I say and ignore everything I do… Obama. Romney’s evil twin.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Until then however, showmen like Huckabee are just blowing hot air. SoCons simply do not have the strength to make these demands.

WolvenOne on April 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

We’re not trying to make any demands. We’re leaving your party.

hawkdriver on April 2, 2013 at 6:01 PM

As I’ve said before, I don’t want to boot SoCons from the party, but politics is downstream from culture, not the other way around. If SoCons cannot engage the culture and reverse the trend of rising support for same sex marriage, then even if they can win some elections, it’d only end up slightly delaying the inevitable.

WolvenOne on April 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Oh, really? So your GOP is simply a weathervane followuing whatever polls tell you is “inevitable”? So if support for O-care goes over 60%, it follows that the only thing for the GOP to do is to support O-Care. THIS is precisely why so many are leaving the GOP behind. You don’t have to “boot” anyone out. You’re going to be left with a pathetic husk of a “party”.

ddrintn on April 2, 2013 at 6:08 PM

I know another politician who goes by the watch what I say and ignore everything I do… Obama. Romney’s evil twin.

astonerii on April 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

.
You’re equally deceptive and dishonest as your Marxist progtard brethren. Congrats. I’m sure the news of Romney’s Pro-SSM stance is just jiggy with his Mormon leaders. I’m so sure they embrace the homo thing very well. Sure.

Your commie messiah got elected because the Pravda media was able to control the reality and made the election about Romney- like all the ABRs did so dutifully- and took the focus of what the election should have been about- your failing Marxist-raised, vote buying, Community Organizer.

Like Ocomrade always likes to say ….. “It’s not about me”

FlaMurph on April 2, 2013 at 11:14 PM

FlaMurph on April 2, 2013 at 11:14 PM

I voted for Romney retard. It does not change who Romney is. His actions speak far louder than any words he could ever speak or write.

astonerii on April 3, 2013 at 8:52 AM

astonerii on April 3, 2013 at 8:52 AM

.
It so hard to tell what side your on though.

FlaMurph on April 3, 2013 at 10:50 AM

As for SoCons, eventually they’ll need to realize that they’re only one of three (maybe four,) factions that make up the Republican party. They are not the sole faction, and may not even be the healthiest of the factions at the moment. Dictating the parties overall direction simply isn’t feasible for them at this moment, nor is it appropriate.

WolvenOne on April 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Sure, but it’s the faction that cherishes more deeply their beliefs. When you believe that life begins at conception and you care about that deeply, you are unlikely to be bribed by promises that affect the pocket. My experience might be only anecdotal and I concede that. Also I live in California that is to the left of the country on most social issues so my vote doesn’t matter much in most elections (the only elections where my vote matters is in the initiatives). Yet I did not vote for either Meg Whitman (due to her stance on abortion) nor for Mitt Romney (due to his hiring of Ted Olson). I didn’t pick a candidate in either case (left those two sections blank).

I don’t know how Pew does their interviews (let’s not forget that on social issues people are more likely to lie to posters as underscored by the continuous underestimation of opposition to gay marriage) but I wouldn’t be surprised they are wrong on this one as well. I know many social conservatives who think along my lines. And remember, to keep losing, the GOP does not need to alienate all of us, just a significant portion of us. In states like Florida or Ohio, that makes the difference between winning or losing.

p_incorrect on April 3, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Given the stakes-more evangelicals and more self-identified conservatives were nedde3de to vote and did not.So spout your little nifty polls all you want allahrino,the fact of the matter is Romney didn’t inspire/motivate enough evangelicals/conservatives to vote/campaign for him.Huckabee is right and will be right again in 2016 when you fools nominate another good “conservative” fraud who has evolved on gay marriage,endorsed amnesty for illegal aliens(feel so good to call them that),or calls for the decriminalization of drugs.Sayonara Marco and Rand,Jeb and Chris!

redware on April 3, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Work on finding someone that your base likes.

Nobody likes the base. Further, the base has defined itself by not liking anybody.

In the general sense, “finding a candidate the base likes” is like catering a party to please half-plus-one of the guests with inedible vegan swill because the vegans are “the base”.

Election after losing election we hear this refrain of “GOP Elites ignored the base!” and election after losing election it has to be pointed out to these people that “the base” turned out in the same proportions as they ever have.

The base is a clown act. They’re there to be laughed at, not listened to. The only scenario in which the GOP has a future is one in which the GOP only runs candidates who specifically disavow the sclerotic, entombed, irrelevant Conservative brand.

eh on April 3, 2013 at 8:51 PM

eh on April 3, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Democrat-light, IOW. Correct?

avagreen on April 4, 2013 at 12:15 PM

The base is a clown act. They’re there to be laughed at, not listened to. The only scenario in which the GOP has a future is one in which the GOP only runs candidates who specifically disavow the sclerotic, entombed, irrelevant Conservative brand.

eh on April 3, 2013 at 8:51 PM

President Romney agrees.

ddrintn on April 4, 2013 at 1:46 PM

It so hard to tell what side your on though.

FlaMurph on April 3, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Not really. It is really easy to tell which side Romney was on, even if he was wearing a Republican jersey, he has always been playing for the other team. From his time running to the left against Teddy Kennedy until the vote began in Novembers 2012. About his only redeeming feature is that he is less likely to order someone to shoot me than Obama. And even if he did make the order, I think fewer government lackeys would follow that order.

astonerii on April 4, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Replies to my comment:

Democrat-light, IOW. Correct?

President Romney agrees.

The reason Democrats are always smiling is written between the words above. Democrats are out there being liberal as they wanna be and enjoying the good will of the people. Republicans have a tumor called “Conservatism” pushing on their lobes. Consequently, they are trapped in a dissociative hallucination in which it is 1979 and calling someone a liberal can effectively reduce the accused to the status of an elevator fart.

eh on April 4, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Eh seems to think the path to power is complete and total capitulation on everything. If only ever single person was a total leftist, the world would be awesome!

I think the reason the Democrats are smiling is because they have successfully infiltrated the party with people like Willard my views are progressive Mitt I like mandates Romney and that they are allowed to be as far left as they want to be because the Republican party never stands for its principles. When the party stands on principles it governs well and is rewarded with votes. The last time we ran on principles of good leadership was Reagan.

astonerii on April 4, 2013 at 3:08 PM

The reason Democrats are always smiling is written between the words above. Democrats are out there being liberal as they wanna be and enjoying the good will of the people.

eh on April 4, 2013 at 2:41 PM

So what’s your problem with being as liberal as one wants to be? You’re a lib yourself, you just don’t have the guts to admit it, elevator farts and all.

ddrintn on April 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM

^ The point is, eh, if your “moderation” or wherever the hell you are on the political spectrum were as palatable to the public as you seem to have deluded yourself into thinking, Romney would’ve won going away. As a lot of you Mittfans also deluded yourself into thinking would happen. He didn’t. Delusion vs reality.

ddrintn on April 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3