Social Conservatives Still Looking for a Candidate in Iowa

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney gives away paperback copies of his book, 'No Apologies,' after addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference in February 2011. (Getty)

With less than a month until the Iowa Caucus, social conservatives still do not have a clear choice for in the GOP primary. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have been leading in polls, but both candidates have come under fire for their lack of conservative bona-fides. And as for Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry it's an open question whether they can gather enough conservative voters to pull a win. To make matters worse the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition has declined to endorse any candidate. What is a social conservative to do?

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, tries to answer that question.

 

Guests:

Richard Land

Produced by:

Posey Gruener

Comments [2]

David Holzman from Lexington MA

Here's more counterargument to Land, on the myth of the Hispanic vote:

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/myths-of-the-hispanic-vote/?comments#permid=1

Dec. 06 2011 03:12 PM
David Holzman from Lexington MA

Richard Lamb is wrong when he says 70 percent of Americans want "comprehensive immigration reform" (read amnesty). In fact, even Americans of Hispanic extraction oppose amnesty by a whopping 52 to 34 percent (Zogby, feb. 2010). Democrats are almost evenly divided on this issue.

Lamb may be confused because many polls on this issue give respondents the choice of amnesty vs deporting 12 million in one fell swoop. Most Americans doubt that the latter is feasible. But when the poll gives the choice of amnesty vs. attrition through enforcement--measures like making e-verify mandatory nationwide so that illegal immigrants can't get jobs, so that they deport themselves (which they will do--see for example http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/12arizona.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=immigration+arizona+mexico+&st=nyt/), by far a majority of Americans, and almost half of Democrats favor attrition through enforcement.

This is not surprising. Mass immigration really does take jobs from the most deprived Americans as the NYT's Nicholas Kristof showed in his column, "compassion that hurts".

select.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/opinion/09kristof.html

And mass immigration of low-skilled, no-skilled people (as 75% of all immigrants to the US are) is incompatible with social welfare, as Paul Krugman described:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/the-curious-politics-of-immigration/

Additionally, the US population is exploding. 310 million today will go to 438 million by 2050, according to the Pew Research Center and the Census. 82 % of that growth will be due to mass immigration, according to Pew. We don't even have enough water now (google "the future is drying up", an NYT Mag cover story). Experts say we need to reduce greenhouse emissions 80% by 2050 to avoid climate disaster. In the face of 40% growth? I doubt it.

Contrary to Richard Lamb on your show, President Obama is shooting himself in the foot by supporting amnesty. But if he runs against Gingrich, Gingrich's views on that subject will help Pres. O.

Dec. 06 2011 09:27 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.