Posted on 02/26/2013 6:34:06 PM PST by SoConPubbie
Kentucky's junior U.S. Senator says the Republican Party must broaden its appeal to voters by toning down some of its rhetoric on social issues. Rand Paul also thinks the GOP too often presents itself as a party "eager to go to war."
Paul, a first-term Senator from Bowling Green and rumored 2016 Presidential candidate, spoke to more than 500 Cincinnati-area Republicans over the weekend.
Paul said if Republicans hope to rebound from recent electoral disappointments, the GOP must find new ways to reach out to voters who disagree with the party on hot-topic issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
“We’re going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party,” Paul told the audience.
This isn't the first time Paul has spoken out on the need for the GOP to refashion its approach. He was recently quoted as saying Republicans must "evolve and adapt", or else face continued losses on election day.
(Excerpt) Read more at wkyufm.org ...
Not much to look forward to in the political arena. Rand Paul is just another opportunist making his move and pivoting. Here we go again.
If Ron Paul had a son.........oh wait.
I agree with him on being hands off on certain issues, only in that they are not Federal issues, and Washington must have nothing to say about them!! Keep them at the state level and then net the people decide under which state laws they want to live!! If you study the founding, that is how it was originally established, and why the “Civil War” was wrong!! And before I’m flamed, I’m defending states rights, and not slavery!!!
He'd like to blindfold and tie us up, and take us down to the river to worship Aqua Buddha.
Yes we can. Whistles vs Glocks.
Looks like that apple didn’t fall too far from the tree.
Ditto, Jim!
Color me very disappointed!
Nomination for post of the week!!
Rand Paul doesn’t need a face lift, he can just use his other one.
First, the political reality is that there is going to be change in this area. Second, there is no reason two people in a committed relationship cannot get legal rights for hospital visits, etc. Whether it is two gay people, two unmarried straight people, etc. Let’s say a husband and wife are married 40 years and one dies. Life expectancy is such that the remaining spouse may well develop a second relationship, but never marry. Those people should be able to gain many rights of a married couple in their later years.
Personally, I think the best route is to remove ‘marriage’ from the legal system all together. Marriage is a religious union, and the idea was adopted by government with little foresight we would reach this point. In the eyes of government, marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. Given the current situation, it needs to be remade to serve that purpose.
Our party needs to learn to talk about the issues that drive people away. Not capitulate on the issues, but handle them better. George Bush handled social issues magnificently and won two elections. Romney was the most socially liberal candidate we’ve had (based on his record in MA), and got trounced on these issues. Additionally, the needle has moved dramatically on gay marriage in the past 6 years. California overwhelmingly reject gay marriage not so many years ago, yet three states voted for it in 2012. We have to look for practical solutions to some of these realities...and not by adopting the other side’s position.
Well played. But I didn’t write the excerpt. ilgipper did. Duly pinged.
The Republican Party is in need of an enema.
I never was comfortable with Rand Paul and allways felt the apple did not fall far enough from the tree. Choosing him as the “tea party” front man in the presidential rebuttal makes the tea party a laughing stock. This is what RINOS GOPES the Roves and the Rands don’t know how to deal with this ...and because they refuse to refuse them time to place them into the refuse pail.
Does anybody remember what the Democrats did at their 2012 convention ??? First they eliminated any mention of the word GOD...and when they thought twice about doing that they reintroduced the resolution what happened ? They booed God..thrice..That resolution was rammed through just like the Affordable Health Care Act ...That’s a wedge issue within the democrat party.which was not exploited by Roves RINOS and GOPES and the Republicans generally to this day
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Just so all the pingees know where Rand Paul stands on social conservative issues. I guess he is like his father after all.
Freepmail me if you want on/off either ping list.
I said earlier today the GOP needs a series of high colonics, plus some heavy parasiticide. Or vermifuge.
F’ing Traitor
I sense your position is based more on government than on God. If I misunderstand, I am open to correction.
In your OP on this subject you said:
"We have to explain that individuals can do whatever they want." -- I submit to you that, especially in the area of health for homosexuals, and the known statistics regarding life expectancy of homosexual men and the burdens their lifestyle places on the health care system, that this is more a libertarian position than a conservative one. Do you agree? Are you in line with Paul and other Libertarians on this point?
"The gay marriage issue is a very split issue, but we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be painted as anti-gay." -- On this site, the gay 'marriage' issue isn't split at all. We're against it and JimRob has made that abundantly clear. If you want the social conservative base to go away, go ahead and shout that message from the rooftop. The uber-RINO Mitt Romney learned what happens when you take your base for granted.
You did say one thing that really intrigues me:
"We have to look for practical solutions to some of these realities...and not by adopting the other side’s position."
What are some practical solutions? What is 'not adopting the other side's position' if you give the marriage issue to a government led by the most feckless America-hater ever elected to public office? If you want to stay true to traditional conservative positions but instead give the marriage issue over to government, is your purpose truly served?
Thank you for the thoughtful comments.
Holding standards is not about being in the minority, which we are. It's not about winning office, which we are not, it is about Country.
I'd rather not appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Succinct and to the point, not to be reiteratively redundant.
I read these articles and cannot believe I am not in Bizarro World.
Kerry, a traitor, is now Secretary of State.
Hagel is now Secretary of Defense.
Lew will be a shoe-in for the Secretary of the Treasury.
So here is some levity from 1973, involving the then Governor of California, Ronald Reagan and some of his friends:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Chs4xUJlbM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.