Even though Iowa’s presidential caucuses are more than two years away, an interesting debate is taking place about the role of Christian conservatives and the effect they could have on the Hawkeye State’s influence in 2012.

The debate is nothing new. Longtime Republicans strategists like Doug Gross and Rick Schwarm have been warning their party for years that the rising dominance of social conservatives in Iowa could result in presidential candidates abandoning the state for fear that they have no chance.

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder rekindled the discussion in a recent column, concluding “unless you’re beloved by conservative Christians, don’t bother campaigning in Iowa.” The logic goes that because the caucus system is dominated by each party’s base, social conservatives voting on primarily social issues are going to rule the day, and candidates who don’t fit that profile would be wise to avoid Iowa altogether.

This drew the ire of conservative blogger and former Republican Party of Iowa Political Director Craig Robinson, who said looking at previous caucuses shows the argument that  “social conservatives dominate Iowa” just doesn’t carry water.

After reading countless articles on the Iowa caucuses, you might think that the past winners were Pat Robertson who finished 2nd, 12 points back in 1988, Pat Buchanan who finished 2nd, 3 points back in 1996, or Alan Keyes who finished 3rd, 27 points back in 2000. It’s a disservice that the traditional media continues to paint the caucuses as some sort of Christian revival contest. Christian conservative candidates have done well in the caucuses, but many times their voting-block has been split between multiple candidates, which has prevented them from winning.

Robinson goes on to say that it is insulting to think that Iowans “blindly vote for candidates based on social issues,” as they take their role in presidential politics seriously.

Controversial Christian radio host Steve Deace said the debate sets the table for the media and Democrats to dismiss a social conservative who wins the caucuses as simply “those crazy Christians closing ranks.”

On the other hand, I’m not sure why I should be offended as a Christian that I’m being criticized for actually being consistent between my voting patterns and my principles?  Why do I care if the media doesn’t like the fact we vote our conscience?  Why do I care if the [Republican In Name Only] elites don’t like that?  I’m not accountable to either one ultimately for my vote, but to God.  Should I vote for candidates in opposition to my moral conscience just so I can be considered “enlightened” by the very same people that hate me no matter what anyway?

It isn’t “insulting” to say Christians vote primarily on social issues as Robinson contends, Deace said, adding: “Is there a better basis from which to choose a candidate to support?”

We are the customer here, not the Republican Party.  Therefore, the onus is on them to provide we the customer what we want.  Instead of having debates about why the customer won’t buy a product he doesn’t want, why not have a debate about why the business fails to provide the product the customer wants?  Republicans are starting to sound an awful lot like Democrats — whining and moaning when they don’t get the outcome they want and demanding the rules be changed so they can get what they want.