Is Social Conservatism now a political liability for the Republican Party?

Are Social Conservatives a liability. The answer is not only yeah. It's hell yeah. Each time they tell women that they don't have a right to an abortion, they lose the women vote. The country as a whole is okay with gay marriage. Only Social Conservatives think that God will punish the country for gay marriage.

Social Conservatives drag the Republican Party down. Even Social Conservative candidates can't win the Republican nomination. In the last 2 election cycles the hard right produced 2 strong Social Conservatives. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum. Did they get the nomination? No.

Social Conservatives can't get the nomination. They can't win the general election. They are a dead weight. The only reason Republicans tolerate them is because they win in rural bible thumbing areas of the country.

 

Apparently..... on the flip side, a democratic president lying to the American people to get elected, does not reflect badly on any democrats at all.

Those two examples you gave were social cons, as in religious men who hapened to be Republicans. Yes they were idiots giving idiot answers, so please do not force us to break out idiot things democrats have said.

 

The right candidate just has to come along, and play it just right, and a social conservative could win the White House. Imagine this scenario: on the left, Hillary Clinton. On the right, a white guy who is pro-life, but like GWB, will generally avoid the issue. He's against gay marriage, but uses canned responses of "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" and, again, generally avoids the issue. But, this Republican candidate says "I will legalize marijuana". BOOM! He's already stolen half of the Democrat votes with that one issue. What would a typical liberal prefer to have, the ability to get a gay marriage, or the ability to get stoned? I submit that stoners far outnumber gays. And this position fits well with economic conservatism as well. Downsizing government.

 

We had socially conservative presidents in Regan, Bush and GW Bush, and none of them overturned Roe V Wade, or tried to force the entire nation to adopt marriage as one man, one woman. Ironically it was a Democratic president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

 

Is Social Conservatism now a political liability for the Republican Party?
As the immoral population increases and the moral population decreases, then yes, social conservatism becomes a liability for any party.

 

No, that is not absolutely true. In fact, many things that are good about this country come from Liberal minds. No, it's not all about "Conservatism".

 

Remember how the military was going to "lose unit cohesion" and have "roving gangs of gays" if gays were allowed in the military (thought they were already there, it's just "don't ask don't tell" wouldn't be enforced). I think there may be a slight gap as social conservatives would not vote for small government candidates, but they would pick up the youth vote without issue. Ron Paul shows this rather well. The Republicans fought tooth and nail to defeat him despite the fact that he was bringing in votes that the social conservatives could never get. It will unfortunately persist for a while longer, but eventually I think the Republican party will become respectable. The social conservative block just needs to die off. Sooner the better; I don't like what the dems are doing any more than I like what the reps are doing.

 

Yeah social liberalism would be awful. I mean that whole concept of individual being free to live how they wish, totally anti-America.

 

Look at it like this; Democrats, despite blatantly lying and running the nation into the ground, are winning. Clearly there is a problem with the Republicans if they cannot gain votes in this climate. The fact that Obama was reelected should be a huge wakeup.