Don’t get me wrong, I think John McCain and conservatives in the House are right to emphasize earmark reform and cutting wasteful spending. In 2006, Republicans lost in part because our “brand” was tarnished by the Bridge to Nowhere and the scandals of several Congressmen.
McCain and the conservatives at the Republican Study Committee seemed focused on pocketbook issues alone. With the economy sputtering, I understand. But Americans also vote their values.
Conservatives on Capitol Hill need to start aggressively courting social conservatives if they want to win in November. Right now, the Republican Study Committee looks like they’re lagging behind on pushing a social conservative agenda. Since they applauded the Right to Life march in January, their media shop has been radio silent on pro-life issues.
The clock is ticking.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Good point! A recent Gallup poll is instructive: Republicans have grown much more critical of the state of moral values in the United States, with the percentage rating current moral conditions as “poor” rising from 36% in 2006 to 51% in 2007, and remaining at that level today. No comparable change is seen among independents or Democrats. RSC Chairman Hensarling is by reputation obsessed with economic libertarianism. Under Pence the RSC cared more about moral and life-related issues.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:04 am
When Indiana conservative Mike Pence was chair of the RSC in 2006, one of his stated goals for the RSC was: “Defend the Sanctity of Human Life, which includes banning all human cloning, passing the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, promoting ethical adult stem cell research, and preventing federal funding for destructive embryonic stem cell research.” Under Pence’s leadership, the RSC broadly defended the Culture of Life. Pence, who was once mentioned as a possible Republican presidential candidate, was a unifying force on the American Right. The current “RSC Action Plan for House Republicans” pales in comparison on life issues and other issues of greatest importance to social conservatives.
If you peruse the RSC website here http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc and here http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/pressreleases07.shtml, you will see those running the show at the RSC place a priority on the culture of money rather than the culture of life. Of the 38 stories posted on the RSC’s main web page, not one single post deals with Life issues. When one visits the “Media Center”, only one out of 33 press releases this year (welcoming the Marchers for Life on January 22nd) deals with social conservatism.
They certainly need to incorporate far more issues of greatest importance to social conservatives, and be more nimble in employing strategies and tactics.
Here is one example: you think the RSC would have rang the bell yesterday on the House appropriations committee hearing on renewing the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships (schools of choice for poor kids in Washington, D.C.), but they did not. It is a winning issue for social conservatives.
They could have contrasted themselves with Obama as well. Considering this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080615/ap_on_el_pr/obama;_ylt=A0WTcW.r.1VIzvYANwxI2ocA that captures the exhortation Obama gave black fathers on Sunday to be more present to their children, you think the RSC could ask him why he does not support giving DC kids the second chance that he received.
July 25th, 2008 at 4:04 am
A recent Gallup poll is instructive: Republicans have grown much more critical of the state of moral values in the United States, with the percentage rating current moral conditions as “poor” rising from 36% in 2006 to 51% in 2007, and remaining at that level today. No comparable change is seen among independents or Democrats.
i agree with you