CNN Poll: Rand Paul goes where his father never went

CNN ^ | 03-16-2014 | CNN

[PaulCruz2016]

Washington (CNN) - Rand Paul has done something his father never did - top the list of potential Republican presidential candidates in a national poll.

According to a new CNN/ORC International survey, 16% of Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP say they would be likely to support the senator from Kentucky for the 2016 nomination.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee, garnered 15%, with longtime Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who's considering another bid for the White House, at 11%.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a 2008 GOP presidential candidate, is the only other Republican tested in the survey to crack double digits.

The poll's sampling error means that statistically it's not a win for Paul, but his finish is a breakthrough for his family.

A national Quinnipiac poll found Paul tied with Ryan in January for the top spot. That appears to be as close as either Rand Paul or his father, Ron Paul, has ever come to nabbing first place all by himself in any national poll.

Among the other potential presidential hopefuls in the new CNN survey, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is at 9%, with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas each at 8%.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida registered 5% and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who battled eventual GOP nominee Mitt Romney deep into the 2012 GOP primary and caucus calendar, polled 3%.

[Norseman]

I’ll accept your statement. How many people, in how many states, were prosecuted for the felony of sodomy in the 20th Century?

Prohibition made alcohol production and sale illegal. You could conceivably view that as a social conservative triumph. It didn’t work out as intended and the best move was to get the feds out of the alcohol business and return the matter to the states.

Ditto for sodomy. Or do you really think that we need a federal law against it? More pertinent to the issue at hand, do you think anyone can get elected today by advocating making sodomy a federal felony? (Maybe it already is; I don’t know. But if it is, it’s gathering dust for sure.)

[Drew68]

I’m open to what he has to say. I’ll listen.

Same here. He actually has a shot at getting elected.

[Norseman]

See my tagline (which is completely consistent with dramatically reducing the role of the federal government, by the way.)

[Kazan]

You may believe in reducing the size of government. Does Rand Paul have the guts to fight to eliminate funding for PP? Given his desire to soften the party’s stance on social issues, I’m not so sure.

[ansel12]

We aren’t political rookies here.

A social conservative politician does not come out and declare himself as the candidate who is going to push back against the social conservatives and the party platform, if he is a true conservative.

You can’t defeat Roe v Wade without a conservative party platform, a conservative party, conservative candidates, and selling conservatism to the American people in our campaigns, and choosing conservative nominees, and office holders.

You keep ignoring the facts, the feds recognize state law on marriage, and therefore we have gay marriage at the federal level, in the military, federal employment and immigration.

We also have libertarian recognition of gay equality and marriage in the military.

Only conservative politicians can end the libertarian/leftist agenda of federal acceptance of the gay agenda and abortion.

The battle is especially intense when fighting federal abortion in federal hospitals and on federal land.

Libertarians are libertarians, at every level of government.

[Norseman]

I think you’re misinterpreting Paul’s position. He’s not jettisoning his principles as much as he’s putting Constitutional principles first. The Constitution, as written, put significant limits on federal powers, limits that Paul wants to see invoked again.

Given that, would he really appoint Supreme Court Justices who think the Constitution is the “living document” the Left always claims it to be?

What he’s saying, I think, is that the Constitutional principles are paramount and, yes, trump personal principles, as they should since many of us don’t like where the Left’s “personal principles” have taken the nation.

[ansel12]

First, in most states homosexuality was not illegal.

Man you are full of it, homosexuality was even illegal at the federal level in the military, George Washington himself sentenced a man for homosexuality.

[ansel12]

Too bad Paul holds and is running for federal office as he signals his rejection of social conservatism.

The federal government also has to make laws regarding marriage and abortion, and homosexuality at the federal level, and has for 234 years.

[Norseman]

>>Only conservative politicians can end the libertarian/leftist agenda of federal acceptance of the gay agenda and abortion.<<

And how’s that been working out for us so far? What state, no matter how conservatively governed, has reduced the influence of gays, or outlawed abortion, in the past two decades, say?

What Senator Paul is saying is that conservatives need to broaden their base by becoming more inclusive and to do that they need to back off from their insistence that certain actions be taken at the federal level in favor of reducing federal influence overall.

I happen to think he’s right, and that the way to gaining younger voters, female voters, HIspanic voters, and even black voters is to argue for getting the federal government out of our lives and back in the Constitutional box the Founders designed for us. This isn’t betrayal; it’s coalition-building.

[Norseman]

I stand corrected, I guess. How many states in prosecuted homosexuals in the 20th Century successfully, and how often?

I’m under the impression such prosecutions were few and far between, but that’s based only on decades of reading the news during which time only Texas stood out as a place where prosecutions were attempted. Ironically, Houston in the sixties was a noted destination for gays nationwide, so even there the prosecutors must have been out to lunch most of the time.

[ansel12]

I’m born and raised in Houston and watched Montrose transition in the 70s, you are again way off base if you think homosexuals were free and open in Houston during the 60s.

One has to ask why you are do willing to bend things and search so desperately to promote anti-conservative, pro-homosexual arguments.

[ansel12]

You oppose this?
“”Only conservative politicians can end the libertarian/leftist agenda of federal acceptance of the gay agenda and abortion.””

Rand who is a Senator voting on federal policy and law and is campaigning for federal office as he signals his rejection of social conservatism?

You aren’t interested in ending federally performed abortions, and federally recognized gay marriage in the military and federal employment and immigration, and gays in the military?

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

To clarify the timeline a bit, here is an excerpt from a speech that I gave in 2007. Add seven years to the dates given, and you have a timeline of some of the more significant landmarks. I have more, but this perhaps covers enough without being tedious.

Forty-seven years ago, homosexual behavior was not legally endorsed anywhere in the United States. Five years ago, it was still illegal in thirteen states. Now, due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, it is legal in all fifty states.

Nineteen years ago, homosexual civil unions were not legal anywhere in the world. Eight years ago, homosexual civil unions were not permitted anywhere in the U.S.

Seven years ago, homosexual marriages were not legal anywhere in the world. Five years ago, homosexual marriages were not legal anywhere in the United States–nor anywhere else in the world outside of the Netherlands.

[ClarenceThomasfan]

If Rand Paul is the nominee, I won’t vote for him. He basically said we have to give up our basic principles (pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion) to win the election.

We don’t need another squishy moderate to follow McCain and Romney into disaster.

[Norseman]

I didn’t say that they were “free and open” in the 60’s. I did say that it was a noted destination for gays in the 60’s and I’ll stand by that because it was.

[Moorings]

Same here. He will win the moderates, independents and even a lot of democrats and cruise to victory like we did in 2012.

[ansel12]

"Ironically, Houston in the sixties was a noted destination for gays nationwide, so even there the prosecutors must have been out to lunch most of the time."
"First, in most states homosexuality was not illegal. There have been open homosexuals around forever."

You do search for ways to promote the homosexual agenda, but Houston was not as breezy on homosexuals as you want to imply, nor was the rest of the nation.

Why are you straining so hard to push the gay agenda?

[Norseman]

>>He basically said we have to give up our basic principles (pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion) to win the election.<<

He said no such thing. And I’ll stand by that until you produce a direct quote of his that shows that I’m wrong. Not an “interpretation” of what he really meant, but a quote that demonstrates his rejection of pro-life, pro-family principles.

I can’t speak to his religious beliefs, nor do I care to. That’s his business, not mine, so long as he’s not trying to force his religious beliefs, or non-beliefs, on me.

[Crimson Elephant]

Where did he say that?

[Norseman]

ansel, a few days ago you said you wouldn’t talk to someone who put words in your mouth.

I’ll now exercise the same option.