Skip to comments.Rand Paul: Republicans must agree to disagree on social issues in order to grow the party
Posted on 03/14/2014 1:15:19 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via WaPo, compare and contrast. Here’s Mitch Daniels four years ago:
Beyond the debt and the deficit, in Danielss telling, all other issues fade to comparative insignificance. Hes an agnostic on the science of global warming but says his views dont matter. I dont know if the CO2 zealots are right, he said. But I dont care, because we cant afford to do what they want to do. Unless you want to go broke, in which case the world isnt going to be any greener. Poor nations are never green.
And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. Were going to just have to agree to get along for a little while, until the economic issues are resolved. Daniels is pro-life himself, and he gets high marks from conservative religious groups in his state.
Lots of righties took that as a sign that social conservatism would be a conspicuously low priority for President Daniels. Now here’s Rand Paul last week:
[Q:] Right. But it seems what theyre saying is that the Republican Party should stay out of issues like gay marriage.
[A:] I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who dont want to be festooned by those issues.
Daniels wasn’t calling a truce for electoral reasons, and he wasn’t calling it on behalf of the GOP specifically. Both parties would have no choice but to place social issues on the policy backburner, he argued, because dealing with the national debt before it reached critical mass would consume political energies. (In a sane world, perhaps, but alas, not in this one.) Paul really is making an explicit electoral argument, though. If you want to win, you’d better make room for people who support gay marriage. That’s more radical than Daniels’s position because Daniels’s truce in theory would lift once the country had been set on a more sustainable fiscal course. Paul’s truce wouldn’t. In order to steer the party back towards social conservatism, you’d need to show him that doing so would grow the GOP faster than a more pluralistic approach to social policy would. Good luck convincing a libertarian of that.
True blue social cons like Huckabee and Santorum will have field day with this next year. Social conservatives like Rubio or Ted Cruz, whose political brand is broader-spectrum conservatism and who themselves take a federalist approach to gay marriage, will tread more lightly. Paul’s got some cover on it from the fact that he’s personally pro-life and supports traditional marriage, but then again so was Daniels and that didn’t help him much. I think it all depends on which issues, specifically, he thinks there’s room for disagreement on and how much room there is. Gay marriage isn’t abortion; marijuana legalization isn’t gun rights. As long as Paul holds the line on the party’s truest cultural litmus tests, he’ll probably get some slack on the rest. But that’s what I mean in asking how much room there is: What would it mean to “hold the line”? Would Paul be willing to choose a vice president who supports legalizing gay marriage and marijuana? What about one who’s pro-choice and supports an assault weapons ban? The problem with “truce” statements, especially in the context of making the tent bigger, is that it’s never clear how much bigger the pol in question would be willing to make it. We’ll find out next year.
Boom, there it is, the call to move left. The leader’s call to defeat conservatism.
November 2016 will for sure have a candidate for Homo Combos in the Democrats. Why must the GOP be same of this issue?
You CAN’T be everything to EVERYBODY. The Democrats CERTAINLY aren’t and THEY have no problem getting elected.
If you don’t stand for something, you fall for anything.
Paul is right on most domestic issues, wrong on most foreign ones. Cruz is a better choice, but anybody is better than Hillary.
Bingo! Runt Paul exposes his Liberaltarian roots.
RE: Paul is right on most domestic issues, wrong on most foreign ones. Cruz is a better choice, but anybody is better than Hillary.
That’s a good summary of the way things are in a nutshell.
We don’t need to grow the party. We just need to take it over in the same way that the Marxists / socialists have taken control of the Democrat party and are now fixated on total control along with their fellow RINO travelers.
A lot of people already had voted for Romney, what more does this kook want?
It’s actually about even.
I won’t vote for a pro-abortion or pro-gay-marriage “Republican” on principle.
They won’t vote for the reverse, period, mainly on self-interest.
If this were the Democrat Party, both of us would vote for the other because they have no principles except what each can personally get out of it even if it is against something else they believe in. (examples: unions vs illegal aliens, religious Blacks for social justice and welfare vs pro-aborts and gay marriage etc.) If Democrats were like Republicans, the party would explode into 5 or more factions that would win nothing ever.
Let’s see if Mr. Rand Paul can sell his idea to the Platform Committee at the next Convention.
The outcome will be that the Convention will support the social issues and reject Mr. Paul.
Another Republican moron.
tell Rand to get stuffed
Obama won because of the “free stuff” crowd.
So how about we keep social issues and offer twice as much “free stuff”?
Not that I am for it but let’s see how Rand Paul likes that one!
Yep, but Rand Paul's fanclub here kept INSISTING Ron Paul's kid was the "true conservative" Tea Party candidate, and wouldn't give the ACTUAL Reagan Republican in the race (Bill Johnson) the time of day, forcing him to drop out due to lack of fundraising support. If you didn't join them in singing Rand Paul's praises, you were a "RINO" and "pro-GOP establishment". Nevermind that most Paulbots suck on social issues, national security, illegal immigration, etc.
Once again, it doesn't matter what a candidate's track record is on the issues, as long as he or she screams the loudest that they are king or queen of the "Tea Party".
Sharron Angel, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Mark Neumann, etc. This election cycle, it's been gay rights advocate/neo-con warmonger Liz Cheney and "Obama's conservative cousin" in Kansas running against proven solid conservatives.
Conservative grassroot voters have to STOP blindly falling all over themselves for any candidate the "Tea Party Express" says to vote for. Hopefully we see a change in the 2014 primary results.
I agree in that Ted Cruz is the better choice. I just don’t trust Rand Paul on some issues.
I hope that wasn’t a cry out for Trey Grayson.
It's at the family and individual level. At the level of pop culture.
As long as a political party continues to tell people they can't do things that society is telling them is fully acceptable--the left will consistently have issues such as gay rights and the war on women to beat opponents over the head with. The change needs to happen in the society and culture arenas first or else you are fighting a losing battle.
I am not saying an alternative to Marxism party has to condone any behaviors but they should simply not address them. Refuse to engage. Don't play the game. When a leftie tries to engage me on abortion, I tell them it's a non-political issue for me.
Not one dimes worth of difference. FU DemocRat Rand Paul.
Rand Paul: Republicans must agree to disagree on social issues in order to grow the party
Sorry Paul but it is not about the Republican Party. It is about saving this Nation, about doing the right things. If we do not stand on the principles that made this the greatest Nation then this Nation will end...
If Rand Paul is a squish on amnesty, I won’t vote for him, PERIOD.
I will NEVER vote for a RINO, GOP or GOPe who supports “a pathway to citizenship” for criminal invaders.
If you do not understand that protecting the most innocent among us is imperative how will you protect the rest of us from anything(as proven over and over by rinos).
Your morals allow you to kill children. I will not vote for you.
As I said, the Reagan Republican in the race was Bill Johnson, NOT Trey Grayson.
Johnson rightfully pointed out Rand Paul’s libertarian background wasn’t the same as mainstream conservative values, but it fell on deaf ears:
Great, so years later you want to argue about the 2% guy.
Personally, I’m glad that Trey Grayson didn’t win.
Yeah, let’s waste time on this nonsense.
Rand Paul just joined Paul Ryan on my dead-to-me list.
What Daniels and Paul are saying is that the killing of 57 million babies is less important than “fiscal issues.”
Daniels, in particular, was absolutely delusional. There is NOTHING that Democrats care about more than abortion. (And now, gay marriage.)
I have heard this called “The Episcopalian Dream.” It’s the Bush family’s view of the world. They have no beliefs, and they cannot begin to grasp that anyone else has any beliefs. If only we could Reach Across the Aisle more effectively! They don’t care about abortion, and they cannot believe that ANYONE—whether pro-life or pro-abortion—really cares about it, either.
...it is not about the Republican Party. It is about saving this Nation, about doing the right things. If we do not stand on the principles that made this the greatest Nation then this Nation will end...
I will NEVER vote for a RINO, GOP or GOPe who supports a pathway to citizenship for criminal invaders.
“The place for social issues is not really as the political level in a society this far gone......It’s at the family and individual level. At the level of pop culture.”
While it is essential to address social/moral concerns at the “individual” level...you are DEAD wrong to think it shouldn’t be addresses at the political level. Politics - just like holiwood - DO affect our culture and values. We cannot afford to surrender here as you advocate.
“When a leftie tries to engage me on abortion, I tell them it’s a non-political issue for me.”
Then that just means you really do not care about the issue or you are a coward. Either way you are again DEAD wrong.
So Rand is about supporting law that forces the citizens to service, sanction, and support homosexual behavior??? That’s not libertarian, that’s Leftism.
I agree that Cruz is, perhaps, the better choice, too. But how often does he bring up social issues [other than abortion which Rand also strongly and vocally opposes].
Rand's taking a chance by bringing the social issues up -- Cruz is playing it safe. I like them both. FReepers are too quick to jump on Rand.
Rand Paul just took a position against social conservatism.
He is firm here, we are to yield.
“”I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who dont want to be festooned by those issues.””
How are these not political issues? They sure are to the left and the libertarians, is it only conservatives that are supposed to sit by as everyone else votes and elects candidates and write party platforms and have political agendas?
Libertarian Party platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through political boundaries.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Get lost, nappyhead.
After they demoralized the country--they then set out to be the champions of every depraved and derelict cause they could find.
Then they have even more brilliantly have found a way to convince these dumb downed sheep that when negative consequences arise (as they always will) from their lack of impulse control and lack of self restraint it is the fault of those heartless weirdos on the "religious extremist right" who won't just accept how modern life is to be lived.
Quite brilliant. Any one counter to these causes needs to do the same thing and work the country backwards to a moral place. If there is any hope.
Anything short of that is destined for rejection by the masses who now believe it is their RIGHT to do whatever feels good at that moment.
So the left/libertarians win all the elections unchallenged and run the country, and conservatives sit at home and lose their vote, or quit using it, quit running for office?
How can someone post something so absurd?
No one represents America and conservatism in your political dream world?
Johnson got 2% because he dropped out of the race but his name remained on the ballot. Had the "Tea Party" people considered his candidacy early on and not firmly attached their lips to Rand Paul's behind the moment he announced, Johnson would have been a credible challenger to Greyson.
>> Yeah, lets waste time on this nonsense. <<
First you criticize Paul for calling on conservatives to surrender, now you claim you're glad conservatives nominated him. Make up your mind, please.
If conservatives can't admit in hindsight that they should have nominated a mainstream Reagan Republican instead of a Libertarian with a famous nutcase father, we have real problems. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I have no problems admitting I made a mistake when I backed the wrong horse in a primary.
I agree with Palin, Trey Grayson needed to be defeated and Paul was a better choice than Grayson.
Maybe you can waste time about other old races and great guys who got 2%, we can just keep rehashing them.
Johnson went on to lose Kentucky Secretary of State by 61% after he gave up on becoming a senator, didn’t he?
We all know great guys who agree with us, but we can’t carry a torch for them when they never even make it into office anywhere.
I dont think that Rand is a bad Senator so far, considering.
Look at the rest of them.
He’s an interesting character,He’s talking populist.
He’s nothing great either.
But if he voted to repeal the rest of DOMA, or called for it, I would take serious issue with that (good question for him)
But I sure cant imagine him as POTUS.
No partial term Senators, thats calling for a Bush or Christie nominee.
I backed Greyson after Johnson dropped out. But I must acknowledge that was a mistake. Greyson’s detractors turned out to be 100% correct, he was a traitorous pig (started working for a rat PAC the next year). Hard to trust them former rats, many are “former” in name only.
Still don’t like Rand. The Paulookas are a menace to the party, he’s his daddy’s proxy.
Mitch Daniels: <<<<, the next president, whoever he is, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. Were going to just have to agree to get along for a little while, until the economic issues are resolved. >>>>>
The economic issues may never be resolved. You can’t just abandon one front of the war and start nominating pro-fag Republicans.
Rand Paul: <<<<<<I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who dont want to be festooned by those issues.<<<<<<<
“Festooned”? I think that word fell out of use in the 40’s.
What do you want to grow the party into, Rand? A cancerous lump that smells like weed and astroglide?
Amnesty will bankrupt the country
Promoting the most evil to lead the U.S. is an act of tyranny.
Some do it by claiming to be superior beings. What a shame.
His ideas will lose more votes than it gains
What does that mean?
Is that affirmation that you want conservatives and conservatism out of politics?
By the way, I have missed that. Right now Cruz and Palin are up and we are looking to do as well in 2014 as our historical gains in 2010.
On January 22, thousands gathered on the National Mall in Washington for the annual March for Life that takes place on the date that Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court.
The same week, the Republican National Committee decided that it was time for the national party to wade back into the pro-life waters after a perceived hiatus from using it as a platform issue. A Resolution on Republican Pro-Life Strategy formally re-established abortion as a 2014 election issue for the party and seeks to push back on the war on women rhetoric that Democrats have made synonymous with the pro-life movement.
The RNC clearly believes once again that a prominent pro-life position plays well with voters. Perhaps the national party has taken note of whats happening at the state level. Twenty-four states enacted 53 anti-abortion measures in 2013 alone.
Research from the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute shows that in the last three years, states have enacted an unprecedented 205 different abortion restrictions. This was made possible by the fact that over half of the states in the union have pro-life governors and pro-life majorities in their legislatures.
Who could have seen that coming?
Even easier, just change your registration to democratic party.
Paul is right on most domestic issues, wrong on most foreign ones. Cruz is a better choice, but anybody is better than Hillary.
Hush your mouf! There's still a truckload of FReepers who would call such observance of reality heresy. I'm not sure if they're really as foolish as they sound to me or if they have terminal tunnel-vision. Either way, their "principles" are likely to give us Hillary to continue Obama's work with her own special twist-it-in-our-backs agenda.