Could Iowa conservatives undermine GOP in 2012?
MIKE GLOVER
Originally published 03:12 a.m., November 19, 2008, updated 02:22 a.m., November 19, 2008

DES MOINES, IOWA (AP) - Possible Republican presidential candidates already are making Iowa a winter destination four years before the leadoff caucuses, but some wonder if the state Republican Party's drift to the right could hurt its influence in choosing a nominee capable of winning back the White House.

Weeks after voters elected Barack Obama president and increased Democratic majorities in Congress, social conservatives in Iowa who have a huge influence in state politics have indicated they won't back down. That has some Iowa Republicans worried the party is adopting too narrow a focus.

"We've gone so far to the social right, particularly in caucus attendees, that unless you meet certain litmus tests you have a very difficult time competing in Iowa," said Doug Gross, the party's 2002 gubernatorial nominee. "I think you'll have some candidates who won't compete here unless they perceive that's somehow changed."

David Roederer, who headed John McCain's Iowa campaign, agreed.

"I would not encourage a moderate to come right now and participate in the caucuses," Roederer said. "It is a danger for the party, and it is a danger for the future of the caucuses."

Or as conservative state Rep. Christopher Rants put it: "Huckabee won the caucuses, but he couldn't go the distance. Maybe some people will bypass Iowa."

Of course, candidates who meet the standard laid down by social conservatives seem eager to swoop into the state. Later this week, 2008 caucus winner Mike Huckabee will hold events in the state as part of a book tour, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has planned appearances a couple of days later.

Both are targeting those social conservatives, a competition that's intensified with the emergence of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Palin was little known in Iowa until last summer, when she was named presidential candidate John McCain's running mate. She drew big crowds at events in several Iowa cities in the last six weeks of the campaign.

"She connected with a lot of people," Roederer said. "The person who has to be the most concerned is Huckabee. He was the only social conservative back then."

In a telephone interview, Huckabee played down speculation that he was starting early in Iowa due to conservative pressure from Palin. Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, won the caucuses largely on support from the party's influential religious conservatives.

"People who say that are just looking for a story to write," said Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas.

Huckabee said his Iowa stops are part of a 56-city book tour, and that it makes sense for him to visit parts of the country where he is popular. In that book, "Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That's Bringing Common Sense Back to America," Huckabee revives his presidential primary feud with Mitt Romney, accusing the former Massachusetts governor of changing positions on abortion rights and gay rights for political expediency.

Romney's record, Huckabee writes in a swipe at the former candidate's wealth, "was anything but conservative until he changed all the light bulbs in his chandelier in time to run for president."

A spokesman for Romney, Eric Fehrnstrom, dismissed Huckabee's comments as "petty stuff," adding, "We need to focus on moving the party forward with new ideas."

In the interview, Huckabee didn't buy the argument that social conservatives in Iowa and nationally could push Republicans too far to the right.

"We don't lose elections by adhering to our principles," Huckabee said. "We lose them because we don't."

Veteran Iowa activist Bob Vander Plaats, a candidate for governor in 2006, said the election defeat has energized conservatives in the state, not burned them out. He expects many Republicans mulling a presidential run to make stops in Iowa.

"If you're a national figure and you have an invitation to appear in Iowa, you would be remiss in not taking it," said Vander Plaats. "You know your message will be well-covered in Iowa."

Given the Republican losses in the election, Vander Plaats said the party must move quickly to debate the GOP's direction and message. That debate is beginning and Jindal could be an essential part of the discussion, he said.

"The message is, 'You can be conservative and win.' Conservatives need to hear that message," Vander Plaats said.

Although much of the country welcomed the end of a nearly two-year presidential campaign, activist Bob Haus said GOP activists are ready to begin the debate about reshaping the party.

"My sense is they are starting the discussion about how to rebuild the party and find a consistent message that takes us forward," said Haus. "I think the discussion should be less about who is the messenger than what is the message."

One candidate for the 2008 nomination who hasn't scheduled any Iowa events is Romney. He created a large organization in Iowa and pinned much of his presidential hopes on a strong showing in the state but finished a distant second in the caucuses to Huckabee.

Romney has said he intends to travel the nation, using his political action committee to back other candidates and focus attention on issues important to him.

"Mitt Romney ran for president in 2008 and he lost fair and square," Fehrnstrom said. "He's not making plans for another campaign."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/19/could-iowa-conservatives-undermine-gop-in-2012-1/

Before anyone jumps on Huckabee's quote:
"We don't lose elections by adhering to our principles," Huckabee said. "We lose them because we don't."

Don't forget this is quote:
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do –– to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Drift to the right? Sink the party's chances? WTF? Over?

How many years are the republicans (leadership) going to pursue this losing quest to the left? Reagan? Landslide. Reagan's VP? Win, until he proved to be a lib. Bush runs as a moderate and barely wins twice. The obvious message, go right if you want to win. You can't out-dem the Dems.

Weeks after voters elected Barack Obama president and increased Democratic majorities in Congress, social conservatives in Iowa who have a huge influence in state politics have indicated they won't back down. That has some Iowa Republicans worried the party is adopting too narrow a focus.

"We've gone so far to the social right, particularly in caucus attendees, that unless you meet certain litmus tests you have a very difficult time competing in Iowa," said Doug Gross, the party's 2002 gubernatorial nominee. "I think you'll have some candidates who won't compete here unless they perceive that's somehow changed."

The press is worried about a drift to the right beacuse they are afraid of it.

You can't out dem the Dems. If you are not at least tolerant of social conservatism find a different party. We will not vote for a lib republican, period.

Obama will steam roll back into the White House in 2012. Republicans probably will not have another shot at it until 2020.

Clearly the implication is that this is an on-off switch. You're either Mike "I want to change the constitution to make it Christian" Huckabee or you're a Faggot.

Geez. Reading comprehension is at a premium nowadays.

Huckabee won the IA caucus, then promptly lost the national election. Reagan didn't want to increase social spending because of his religion, nor did he want to change the constitution because of his religion.

THATS THE POINT.

They are wrong and you are… it is that simple. Any attempt to move further left on social issues is a sure loser for the Republican Party.

Republicans did not lose because of social issues… that is a lie and a particularly stupid lie on top of it.

“It was the economy STUPID.”

Virtually all conservative social ballot issues won.

“It was the economy STUPID.”

The Republicans lost because they became fiscally indistinguishable from Democrats it had nothing to do with social issues.

“It was the economy STUPID.”

Republicans will not win by pissing on 50% of their base and acting like Democrats light… Republicans do this and they lose bigger.

When you're voting for people like Huckabee in IA that are ONLY socially conservative but not anywhere near fiscally conservative, you're setting the party up for a loss. Am I wrong?

In 2004 the voters re-elected Bush despite an unpopular war and specifically identified social issues as why they did it.  In 2008 McCain was headed for a landslide defeat until he nominated a charismatic social conservative as his VP, at which point he led in the polls until the economy tanked.  And we should abandon social issues why?

[>:/]

I only read the first two paragraphs of the story, because I hate the Des Moines Red Star.

A few observations;

The Register is a liberal rag. Everything they print is biased.

The Iowa state Republicans have run to the left like a bunch of pimps. Most of the state level legislators that are Republicans are Rinos. The conservative Republicans are being forced out, or forced to sit down and shut up.

Iowa hasn't voted Republican for a president in years. I don't know why we deserve the media attention we get during caucuses.

No one is saying you should abandon social issues. But when its really your only difference from the democrats, you lose. Did you notice how Obama carefully triangulated himself away from looking like a flaming liberal on social issues?  Made a big push for churches, came out against gay marriage, etc.

Yea you are wrong... I said that already.

Why is it so called fucking libertarians like you hate the Democratic process so much and act like school yard bigots when it comes to large chunks of voters.

If you cannot live with social conservatives in the Republican Party then leave.

Show me where I said we need to abandon social conservatives.

ETA: Like thats even possible.

ETA2: If I was wrong, Huckabee would have gotten the nomination. But, alas, the socialist with a bible did not. Interesting.

McCain got 6 million LESS votes than did Bush.  Obama did not get these voters though, they stayed home.

You are saying exactly that... WTF was the point of this thread.

You have in fact for weeks implied and said as much… you know it, I know it, and so does everyone else, so try the disingenuous routine on someone else.

Huckabee won in Iowa because he ran a better campaign there in a WEAK field… THERE WAS NO STRONG CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE IN THE RACE.

Yea but lets not interrupt the religion bigot with facts.

Don't put words in my mouth. The only thing I've ever said is that if Republicans run as the "God, Guns, and Gays" party they'll never win.
Huckabee won in IA because he was a strong social conservative in a strong social conservative state. Thats the extent of his conservatism. Remember the lovely coalition Reagan put together? That ain't it.

Again you are wrong... Huckabee won in IA because THERE WAS NO STRONG CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE IN THE RACE.

Huckabee got killed in states more socilly conservitive than Iwoa

Obama won because no party has ever been re-elected after the economy tanked to this degree.  Rightly or wrongly, people blame the party in charge when the economy tanks.  McCain was leading in the polls until the economy tanked.

As for Iowa having undue influence, Huckabee lost the nomination.  I wouldn't worry about it.

badfish274 I want you to explain in detail how Huckabee’s win in Iowa undermined anything this year... how it had any impact.

OK, see ya.

Enjoy your regional minority party until demographics destroy it completely.

The democratic process doesn't legitimize the violation of anyones rights, is why.

That's why we were a republic.

I'm not saying it undermined anything, thats never been my point. My point is that if the Republican party is going to run as THE social conservative party while not even trying to be any different from Democrats on damn near anything else, it won't be pretty.

If Huckabee never came out wanting to change the Constitution or spend on social programs, I'd love him. But he did, so I can't. Thats all I'm saying, so save your vitriol for someone else.

Be gone and good riddance.

And the voters saw that as well and his support dwindled.  In other words, the system worked.  If anything, Iowa can give a boost to the more socially conservative candidate, but it by no means determines the outcome.



The more worrisome primary issue is the independent voters and democrats voting to swing the candidates left, hence we had McCain.  

The GOP doesn't need to out-left the left, and shouldn't.  It needs to stick to core principles of conservative government and drop the loony religious crap*.  It has no hope in the long run otherwise.  What's wrong with a party that doesn't give a crap about what religion you practice, but espouses minimal government, minimal budgets, minimal taxes, minimal invasions into our private lives, etc?

* ETA: I'm not calling religion loony - I'm calling dumb ideas like amending the constitution to prop up the values of an individual faith loony.

I think the choice of McCain was a result of a really pretty shitty Republican field (is Fred Thompson awake yet?) and the country as a whole moving left.

But I agree, independents can have a deleterious effect.

You aparently don't have any idea what you are saying and don't seem to have any point.

You say in one breath "I'm not saying it undermined anything" but in the next breath it is "the Republican party".

Huckabee wasn’t the fucking nominee.

You've lost me too. I'm talking about where the party is heading.

Huckabee was thrown in as an example.

"the party is heading"

If you are trying to sell the idea the Republican Party is getting more socially conservative you are flat on full of shit that is simply not true.

Again how did a Huckabee win in Iowa indicate heading anywhere or impact anything… you are full up on vaporous implication and have zero specifics on Huckabee’s impact…

Huckabee did not win the nomination nor impact the elections.

Well, thats like, your opinion, man.


I see a big change from the party of WFB, Jr. and Reagan to the party of Sarah Palin. YMMV.

Well you have a picture, how cute…. No specifics, no argument, but a picture, you cannot answer the question but you have a picture… predictable. But you did let the mask slip a bit there with the implied Palin trashing.

The only thing that kept McCain from being completely blown out after the banking meltdown started was the fact McCain had selected a real conservative as his VP.

The facts of this election were Republics did not turn out in the numbers need to win a turnout election because they were pissed at their party… this had nothing to do with conservative social issue, well it did with one conservative social issues IMMIGRATION.

NEWS FLASH.

WE RAN AN ULTRA LIBERAL REPUBLICAN AND GOT KILLED!

Only reason we had as many votes as McCain did was because of Palin.

87% of Americans think the Republican party isn't conservative enough.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner, folks.

The media LOVED John McCain when he was running against guys like Huckabee and Thompson. There's a reason for this.

Look for the media to start propping up the next RINO very soon to give him a leg up on all the other Republican nominees in 2012. As soon as this RINO gets the nomination...they'll turn on him.

You must have been watching a different race than the reat of the real world then.

McCain was headed for a landslide loss before he picked a conservative to run with him.
If he would have picked a left winged RINO he would have lost by a margin not seen since the '80's.

If the R's don't get back to the Right base then we will continue losing elections.

An Independent (not Ron Paul) will be able to run better if the Rep's keep going towards the Left because they will be indistinguishable from the Dem's.

BigDozer66

If the Obama-love-fest-hugs-for-everyone wasn't still going on they would have already started the props for the next RINO that they want to run.

BigDozer66

Yep

It is no coincidence the same Republican DC establishment operatives that sold us the “compassionate conservative” snake oil that got us here are now trying to scapegoat social conservatives.

No, you're absolutely right, libertarians and authoritarian collectivist "social conservatives" are not allies and don't belong in the same party, and you guys seem to have won the battle for the future of the GOP.

Congrats, seriously.

The arguement that running to the left is a losing proposition is one I tend to agree with, the problem is that there aren't enough people who agree on what a "real conservative" is to win at this point.

I think an inclusive platform of small government and individual liberty is our best path back to power, but it isn't going to happen because the GOP as a whole doesn't really believe in those things.

I've had enough of fighting over what purposes statism should serve.

Social conservative showing its ass again...

I think Badfish's point is that making social conservatism the focal point of the platform is a sure loser.

And he's right.

He's not suggesting abandoning it entirely, just saying that social issues should not be the only thing differentiating R's from D's.  And lately, it has been.

You must do well at lotto... They guy hasn't even been sworn it yet, guess about 2012 is a pipe dream.

You said "see ya"

Adios, goodbye, get along little doggie

Go fire up the bong, molest a cat or something… have a snack

Reagan won because Carter wrecked the economy and failed at dealing with Iran.

Reagan did not win because he waved the bible in people's faces or said he'd overturn Roe v Wade. He talked in general about God and our nation's failing moral compass, but avoided "Jesus talk" and fingerpointing at fornicators. His mantra was "Get Gov't Off Our Backs!" not "Get Jesus Back In Gov't."

Having said that, I suppose what's the problem here is that the fiscal conservatives have, in effect, all but disappeared from the Republican party leaving only the social conservatives still waving the Republican flag.

So they're blaming the social conservatives for still standing their ground when the fiscal conservatives have fled to the caves????

What, did you think convincing me to leave the GOP would shut me up?



It isn't going to matter how many people you run out of the party, we're all still going to be breathing, voting, opining...

No he is wrong… people did not decide who to vote for on social issues, they did not. If they had the Republicans would have won California.

This election had nothing to do with social issues. A pro-abortion, pro gay marriage McCain loses by another 6 million votes.

A McCain strong on immigration, socially conservative, minus McCain-Feingold and able to communicate a coherent fiscally conservative economic policy makes the race winnable even with the bank meltdown.

Shut you up

You were the one that said bye... you lied? You didn't mean it?

NO SHIT.

Trouble is, no one has done that since before 2000.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, thats exactly what I've been saying.

How dense are you?

Encouraging people to leave the party is fucking stupid, if you haven't noticed, we're already a minority.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's not what you've been incessantly saying for the past two weeks.

From what I've read you've simply espoused the "drop all that religous stuff" agenda that every liberal Republican/Media outlet has been pushing for the past 20 years after every GOP defeat.

This is a big part right there. The ability to communicate is HUGE.

Reagan had it.
Clinton had it.
Obama had it.

GWBush and his father only had it only by default over the dullanddry Dukakis, wierdlywooden AlGore and that boringstiff Kerry.

Well yes and until the fiscal conservatives find their backbones and quit trying to blame others for their failing nothing will change.

What is going on with this is the same sack of crap as “compassionate conservative” we didn’t win because we are toooo mean…. This time it is we didn’t win because we are toooo mean to gays and because we want to keep irresponsible morns from murdering babies… a different label the same sack of crap. Instead of facing the truth the Republican lost because they acted like Democrats thy want to find a scapegoat.