Sioux City Journal

What happened to GOP's 'big tent'?

Posted: Wednesday, August 27, 2008

SIOUX CITY -- Why do the social conservatives have such a stranglehold on the GOP? A review of the Iowa GOP platform shows only two of the 13 planks fully devoted to social issues. Yet these narrow social issues are always a litmus test for a Republican candidate. Why? It’s hard to understand how social conservatives can embrace Republican tenets of less intrusive government while at the same time demanding the government intrude into the most personal areas of a citizen’s life.

Now we hear threats that if Sen. McCain chooses a V.P. that is not pro life, the social conservatives may not vote. Remember that “big tent” where all conservatives were welcome n so long as you can live with the requisite social litmus test? Today is a new world - it’s time for the social conservatives to leave their social issues behind and stand as a conservative. It’s the only way we Republicans have a clean shot at winning.

For many years conservative Independents and Republicans who don’t share these narrow social values have ground their teeth and voted Republican n until now. The Democrats have fielded some viable alternatives and the public knows it.

I’m a conservative that believes the government has no place telling a citizen how live their life. -- Phillip R. Docken

Story Comments

yeah_right wrote on Sep 2, 2008 12:34 PM:

" Why don't YOU leave YOUR social issues behind, Phillip? Quit trying to force your apathetic attitude on to the rest of us. I will never leave behind my concern for the defenseless or the utter moral collapse of our once great nation. "

Moderate Observer wrote on Aug 29, 2008 9:53 AM:

" The recent trend to get votes by mixing religion and politics will slowly die out. The Bushies abused It so badly that it won't work, except in the Bible Belt South. In the Midwest, voters want their politicians concerned with the declining economy, energy, jobs, health care, infrastructure, and taxes. This silly idea of voting for somebody because of the politician's alleged core values is impractical. We don't know anybody's core values, and most of us, are not single-issue voters. What is important is not what a politician thinks or says, it is what he does. The Bushies were not true conservatives! "

Tom T wrote on Aug 28, 2008 4:56 PM:

" Joe: Not all "conservatives" support carpet bombing and wholesale slaughter. That's like saying that ll liberals embrace socialism. While it's most likely true in BOTH examples cited, generalizations are seldom helpful to a rational discussion.

Keith: The judgement HAS been made, and by someone WAY above my pay grade or your's. "

Keith wrote on Aug 28, 2008 9:46 AM:

" Ryan - There is only one power qualified to make that judgment, and He is certainly above your pay grade. The Journal continues to allow posts that violate their own rules in an attempt to lower the level of discourse here and you prove that it works.

Joe - Your single line post contains more depth and morality than all the "conservative" rantings here together. Keep it up. "

Ryan wrote on Aug 28, 2008 9:41 AM:

" Counselor, according to your logic, the government should never arrest someone who's committing a crime such as murder, robbing a bank, etc. because they would be "regulating matters of conscience." However, in looking at the role of a government we see that its purpose IS to regulate morality WHEN individual conscience fails a person. The whole intent of having a government instead of anarchy is so that moral behavior is maintained in a culture where people would have a bent toward evil. In a state of anarchy, no order (moral or otherwise) would exist. Therefore, it would be logical to conclude that those people who don't put a "moral litmus test" on their candidate of choice is a selfish anarchist and is against the greater well-being of society. "