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 Daniels’s telling, all other issues fade to comparative insignificance. He’s an agnostic on the science of global warming but says his views don’t matter. “I don’t know if the CO2 zealots are right,” he said. “But I don’t care, because we can’t afford to do what they want to do. Unless you want to go broke, in which case the world isn’t 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. We’re 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 they’re 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 don’t 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.
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.
PERIOD.
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...
***
Exactly.
I will NEVER vote for a RINO, GOP or GOPe who supports “a pathway to citizenship” for criminal invaders.
(((
Ditto!
“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 don’t 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, let’s 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. We’re 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 don’t 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?
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.