>>As a social conservative, it is doubtful that you will find me voting for Rand Paul. You don’t have to like it. That’s just the way it is.<<
Why is that? If Senator Paul stands for a federal government that follows the Constitution, what part of the Constitution needs to be overridden to accommodate your social conservatism?
Do we need to ban abortion at the federal level? Or can that be left to the states?
Do we need to define marriage at the federal level, or can tax laws simply be revised to accommodate partners, i.e, beneficiaries?
What religion does the federal government have to endorse? Christianity? Or is it sufficient that we revert to the Constitution and quit driving Christianity out of the public square (seemingly to substitute Islam, lately)?
Senator Paul isn’t running for governor; he’s running for President (or at least it sure appears that way). What specific social issue does he have to take with him to the Presidency, and seek to incorporate in federal law to meet your needs?
Isn’t Constitutional government (finally) sufficient to let you pursue whatever social contract you desire at the state level?
Aren’t we better off with the federal government reined in by the Constitution?
And aren’t social conservatives likely to be far better off if a President Paul gets to appoint the next 2 or 3 members of the Supreme Court instead of a President Clinton?
Isn’t it sufficient that he’s both pro-life and pro-2nd-Amendment, even if it turns out that he considers only the latter to be a federal issue? Or that he thinks a marriage should be between a man and a woman, but is willing to let the states decide individually how to treat the issue? (I don’t know his position on this issue, by the way.)
There is a culture war going on. Being a non-combatant will not stop the downward spiral.
The President, with his bully pulpit, is a man of influence. He can influence public opinion. For an example of how public opinion has changed, over the last 15 years homosexuality has gone from being illegal to the point that one in many cases cannot simply express one’s view, even politely, that it is sinful, without being fired, fined, not allowed to graduate from college, or even jailed.
The Constitution allows us to choose this path. We don’t need a leader who is OK with that, as long as it is Constitutional. We need a leader to influence public opinion to halt the handbasket that is headed toward the cesspool at the bottom of the slippery slope. Rand Paul will not be that man. He might alter the speed of the handbasket, but not the direction.
Now, I’m headed to church this evening. Perhaps that in itself is becoming a novel concept. Like I said, you don’t have to like it...
Rand Paul has come out against social conservatism, and the GOP platform, he is obviously not a social conservative.
We won’t end federal abortions, federal gay marriage, and federal acceptance of the gay agenda, without a conservative party platform, a conservative party, conservative candidates, and selling conservatism to the American people in our campaigns, and conservative nominees, and office holders.
Libertarians are libertarian at ALL levels of government.