Will Security Trump [Insert Social Conservative Issue Here]?
Yesterday, I was listening to the podcast of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Focus on the Family, the radio ministry of Dr. James Dobson.
As you know, Dobson is pro-life and opposed to gay marriage. He is also rumored to be very influential on certain politicians in Washington, and arguably carries a lot of influence over evangelical voters.
But his conversation with Gingrich was not about abortion or same-sex marriage. It was about the security of America. It was about the level of seriousness of the threat against us. It was about the American politicians' unwillingness to take this threat serious. And about Gingrich's own intentions to do so.
Gingrich has several speeches and interviews on his website outlining his concerns, including this one.
There seems to be this belief that the influence of social conservatives has waned, as evidenced by the lack of action on their core issues, and that social conservatives, disillusioned with the Republican Party, will no longer constitute a meaningful voting bloc.
What will it mean in the next election, though, if instead of voting based on conservative social issues, the "religious right" rallies around the issue of national security?
3 comments:
One can only hope that the influence of radical cleric Dobson are on the wane. He's one of those 'agents of intolerance' that McCain was talking about in the days before he started bending over for them.
The reason their influence has waned is I suspect that most Americans aren't enthralled by Rapture-readiness, homphobia, and basically the idea of having someone else tell you what your private behavior should be. Their obsession with what you do with your private parts is a bit of a turn-off, dontcha think?
What will it mean in the next election, though, if instead of voting based on conservative social issues, the "religious right" rallies around the issue of national security?
Uh, Charity, where you been, girl? They already have! They were one of the most vocal groups supporting this illegal war and 'smacking it to the towelheads', and it should be quite evident that they're just as clueless on issues of national security as they are on matters of the origins of the universe and tolerance. Heck, most of em can't even understand the message of Jesus fer Crisssake.
It was about the security of America. It was about the level of seriousness of the threat against us.
You mean the 'threat' from Iraq or the 'threat' of all those Mexicans sneaking across the border and mating with our white women and taking tose shitty jobs no one here wants? Once again, clueless.
You need to prepare yourself, Charity. As always, these people are on the losing side of history and progress. Reality does indeed have a liberal bias.
"Uh, Charity, where you been, girl? They already have!"
It is almost frightening how little you know about this group that you have made it your life mission to hate.
In the past, people like Dobson were not encouraging people to vote national security over social issues. You do not understand the social conservative voter. There is no other issue that comes first. And in case you missed it, there is no viable GOP candidate, including Gingrich, that passes the social conservative test.
If they decide to make national security the #1 issue, over all social issues, and actively support the GOP candidate who is tough on national security issues, I think you will be surprised.
I do understand it. Life's mission ot 'hate'? No. Life's mission to prevent them from doing anymore damage than they've already done? Definitely. they hate freedom, for they have no concept of what the word means, due to thier authoritarian nature.
Yes, maybe Dobson's group hasn't emphasized it, but by and large, social conservatives have been some of the biggest cheerleaders for this war. They tend to be a more gullible and fear-based lot than average people, so they are also the easiest to be manipulated, as the last few years have shown. And most of em don't have a clue about the origins of terrorism, and when that conversation comes up , they tune it out, writing it all off as 'Blame America', while unable to recognize that America's policies (our government, not necessarily 'Americans') DO share some of the blame. But many of these people also think we're right no matter what we do.
What does 'tough on national security issues' mean as you're referring to it? Because all I've heard from cons so far is 'toughness'. And we're all paying the price for it.
Post a Comment