In a recent blog post, Evangelical leader Douglas Wilson says that any pastor who supported or voted for Barack Obama should resign.
Wilson starts off his post by mentioning that of the 25% of American voters who identify as Evangelicals, 21.6 million voted for Barack Obama in 2012. Wilson makes and odd distinction by referring to Evangelicals as “white, born-again types” in his post, but I digress. Douglas reasonably concludes that if 21.6 million Evangelicals voted for Obama, a number of these voters must have been pastors. In Wilsons’ eyes, any person who voted for President Obama is not fit to be a Christian leader.
“Any evangelical leader — by which I mean someone like a minister or an elder — who voted for Obama the second time, is not qualified for the office he holds, and should resign that office,” Wilson said. “Unless and until he repents of how he is thinking about the challenges confronting our nation, he should not be entrusted with the care of souls. A shepherd who cannot identify wolves is not qualified to be a shepherd.”
Wilson says President Obama’s pro-choice stance is the primary reason for his stance. Later in his post, Wilson again feels the need to make a strange distinction between white and black Christian leaders.
“I also believe the same principle applies to black Christian leaders,” Wilson says. “Not only must the dignity of human life be upheld by white and black Christian leaders alike, to the extent we may allow any differences, it should be to expect a greater vehemence in opposing abortion (in the person of its advocates and enablers) from black leaders. This is because it is their people who are being disproportionately targeted by the white Sangerites. And a black Christian leader who cannot identify a Sangerite is a rabbit leader who does not know what a hawk looks like.”
He concludes the post by equivocating pro-choice policies with the eugenics policies of Hitler.
“A generation later, it is easy for us to cluck our tongues at the German leaders who did not see what Hitler was doing, but it is very hard for us to see our complicity in things that are every bit as atrocious.”
All in all an odd post in which Wilson applies razor-sharp focus to one issue while ignoring hundreds of other policies endorsed by both parties that his doctrine likely speaks against.
When Mitt Romney lost the 2012 Presidential Election to Barack Obama, he did so with only 27 percent of the Hispanic vote on his side. As the Hispanic population in the United States grows by leaps and bounds, it would make sense for Republicans to be concerned with their outreach to that demographic, right?
Not if you ask Brit Hume.
The Fox News panelist and political analyst called the assertion that House Republicans must prioritize immigration reform to cozy up to Hispanics “baloney” on Monday and insisted that the influence of the demographic is not putting the GOP in danger.
Hume claimed the Hispanic influence in the 2012 election was aided by the low turnout of white voters, which supported Romney over Obama on the whole. That, coupled with the relatively smaller amount of Hispanic voters, contributed to Romney’s downfall, he said.
“Now, that doesn’t mean that if they turned out that Romney would have gotten them all,” Hume said. “But it shows you that this Hispanic vote, which is I think now 8.5 percent of the electorate or something like that, is not nearly as important as, still, as the white vote, which is above 70 percent.”
Hume added: "So, if you look at it from an ethnic point of view, that addresses the question of whether you need to get right with the Hispanics."
Unfortunately for Hume, the math is not quite on his side. As demographers predict that racial and ethnic minorities will become the majority in the United States by 2043, a state with incredible political importance is already on the brink of a minority majority.
In 2010, California, a nationally Democratic stronghold with a prominent in-state Republican contingent, was made up of 40.1 percent white citizens and 37.6 percent Hispanic citizens, according to that year’s census. By 2020, the state is projected to hold 40.8 percent Hispanic citizens versus 36.6 percent whites.
While California has not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since George H.W. Bush in 1988, a lack of appeal to Hispanic voters will virtually eliminate the chances the 2020 GOP candidate has at winning the state. For that reason alone, Hume may wish to look into his claim a little deeper.
Hundreds of young conservatives gathered in Washington recently for the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Attendees discussed a variety of topics, most of which dealt with how to remain relevant to a millennial generation which views the GOP as a dated, out of touch party.
As noted by Salon, among the most headline-worthy discussions from the conference was the groups approach to the issue of abortion. Rather than discussing how to make the moral or legal case behind the issue more convincing, the conference focused on this: “How do you make abortion funny?”
Many have been telling the GOP that they must stray from hard line social conservatism if they wish to win over young voters. On the issue of gay marriage, for example, the vast majority of millennial voters support marriage equality. But the tone at the conference wasn’t one of compromise. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Check out Hawkins words for any conservative groups at the conference hoping to gain some political funding: “You’ve got to be pro-life, you’ve got be pro-marriage, or else you’re not going to get our money.”
So, it seems, leaders at the conference are still spouting the same reasoning that cost them the 2012 election: The problem isn’t that we’re too conservative. It’s that we’re not conservative enough.
This line of thinking, especially with the amount of money involved in elections, is mind-boggling. Despite every poll in the nation saying that young voters think the GOP is too conservative, the GOP’s answer continues to be that it needs to be more conservative.
In nature, if a species fails to adapt to changes in their world, they eventually go extinct. The GOP would be wise to remind themselves of this.
A report taken from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration on Sunday revealed that a campaign scrutinizing conservative groups began as early as June 2011, and was brought to the attention of director of tax-exempt organizations Lois Lerner months before the 2012 presidential election began.
"I don't care if you're a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican,” Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers said, “this should send a chill up your spine. It needs to have a full investigation."
The information contradicts IRS Commissioner Doulas Shulman’s initial statement, who told congressional investigators in March 2011 that specific groups were not being targeted.
In addition to flagging files that included the words “Tea Party” and “patriot”, a select number of IRS employees also targeted groups with relation to the 9/12 Coalition (a Fox News segment hosted by Glenn Beck), limiting or expanding government, education on the Constitution and Bill of Rights and criticism of how the country is governed.
Justin Sayfie, former Senior Policy Advisor to Jeb Bush, questioned the culture of the IRS, a place in which the word “patriot” is questioned rather than celebrated. He proceeded to say that, had the IRS flagged liberal groups, people would have “been up in arms” and Obama would have already taken action.
Sayfie furthered that Obama’s continued silence will be perceived as a wink and nod that the IRS’ behavior is acceptable.
Maine Rep. Senator Susan Collins was also disappointed in the president’s passivity, and asserted that the activity was not limited to a few “rogue” IRS employees.
"After all," Collins added, "groups with 'progressive' in their names were not targeted similarly."
Obama finally commented this morning, stating that if IRS personnel intentionally targeted conservative groups, they should be held accountable.
“That's outrageous,” he said, “and there's no place for it.”
The IRS admitted to flagging conservative political groups who submitted applications for tax-exempt status with keywords like “tea party” and “patriot” during the 2012 election. The applications were delayed for additional review to determine the validity of their tax-exempt claims.
Applicants were asked lengthy and sometimes intrusive questions about social media usage and family members. Some were even asked for a list of donors, which violates IRS policy.
Other requests included identifying volunteers, relationships with political candidates and printed copies of their Facebook pages.
When many conservatives complained during the 2012 election, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told congress that IRS was not targeting select groups.
“This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people” who apply for tax-exempt status, he said.
Lois Lerner, head of IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, stated today that low-level workers in a Cincinnati office had indeed singled out conservative groups. The lengthy reviews were intended to ensure that charitable groups were not conducting political activities as their primary function, and had no political bias, according to Lerner.
“That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate.” Lerner said. “The IRS would like to apologize for that.”
The black voter turnout rate in the 2012 election was, for the first time, higher than the white turnout rate, according to a new study from the Pew Research Center.
While the number of minority voters rose overall in the November election, blacks voted more than other minority groups in 2012. White voter turnout dropped.
Until the Census Bureau reports in a few months, however, definitive figures will not be available. If blacks showed a higher voter turnout than whites, it would be the first time in the history of blacks having the right to vote, since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Despite concerns over new voter-identification laws in many states, minority voting was at a historic high. If 2012 voter turnout had been at the same rate as 2004, when black turnout was lower, Mitt Romney would have won, according William H. Frey, a demographer for the Brookings Institutions who analyzed data from the 2012 election for the Associated Press.
New voter-identification measures, which led some organizations to accuse Republicans of “voter suppression,” may have been responsible for motivatings so many blacks to turn out.
"The 2012 turnout is a milestone for blacks and a huge potential turning point," said Andra Gillespie, a professor of political science at Emory University. "What it suggests is that there is an `Obama effect' where people were motivated to support Barack Obama. But it also means that black turnout may not always be higher, if future races aren't as salient."
Republican leaders have recently purported the grim outlook if the GOP does not double down efforts to engage black and other minority voters.
Whit Ayres, GOP consultant to Floridao Sen. Marco Rubio, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said the Republican Party needs "a new message, a new messenger and a new tone."
"It remains to be seen how successful Democrats are if you don't have Barack Obama at the top of the ticket," Ayres said.
Republican support for immigration reform complicates efforts to woo minority voters. In 2026, Latino voters could be as high as 16 percent. With nearly 11 million immigrants the country illegally, who could be on a 13-year track to citizenship, the white vote could shrink to less than 64 percent.