Skip to comments.Ron Paul on Social Conservatism: 'I Think It's a Losing Position'
Posted on 02/20/2012 11:56:59 AM PST by mnehring
(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas.), who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that social conservatism is "a losing position" for the Republican Party.
"Do you--are you uncomfortable--certainly Rick Santorum is the one who has been in the forefront of some of this talk on social issues, but there have been others in the race," Crowley asked Paul. "Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?"
"No," said Paul. "I think it's a losing position.
"I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved," Paul continued. "And they're not to be at the national level. We're not supposed to nationalize these problems.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Call me when a social conservative gets elected dog catcher and we can discuss aiming higher.
Earth to RuPaul - the Supreme Court already did. Nearly 40 years ago.
He’s right on about our tendency to Nationalize every single issue.
It’s at the heart of our problems, a one size fits all solution to every problem we have.
Let communities and states try their own thing out. The laboratories of democracy.
The fed should have such little power compared to what they have now.
“I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved,”
Putting aside the immense ego revealed by such a statement, only confused, “nuanced”, self-congratulatory intellectual liberaltarians like Paul, could confuse themselves into a perspective that views the murder of babies as a “difficult problem”.
Yet Mr. Constitution misses that one of they key platforms of Social Conservatives, abortion, is a national issue per the US Constitution- No one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (paraphrased). The right to one's own existence is a fundamental platform that can't be abridged. Without that, no other rights exist. To say that is something that can be legislated away by lesser governments, ie the States, is a slap in the face of original intent.
There is definitely disagreement in the conservative community in general, and on FR as well, about whether a socially conservative agenda should be fought at the national level, the state level, or a combination of the two.
The headline incorrectly implies that Paul doesn't care to fight for any socially conservative issues at any level.
Ron Paul, DOC (Demented Old Coot)
Why haven’t the men in white coats taken him back to his rest home?
Libertarianism _could_ work if we didn’t use government to alleviate the consequences for behavior.
This would naturally lead to a socially conservative society, because living your life otherwise leads to serious consequences, many of them deadly.
However, liberals have the viewpoint that if there are consequences for choices, then those choices can’t be freely taken. This is what we see from the left - forcing those of us who live socially conservative to pay for the consequences of those who do not in order to enable them to do so.
Which isn't the Social Conservative philosophy because if one doesn't have the basic rights of one's own existence protected, there is no place for any other rights. The Constitution clearly states that one can't be deprived of life without due process of law. That is something the State's have no say in under the 10th Amendment. That is a fundamental right you own that no legislative body should be able to take away (be it federal, state, or local). It is one of those things that pure 10thers miss by not understanding Madison's writings and the 10th Amendment. There was a clear line in the 10th between the States and 'Retained by the people'. As Madison pointed out in Federalist 45, what rights were given to the States were legislative roles of governance while the 'retained by the people' were rights clearly individual rights (speech, bearing arms, etc).
dang if we can only win more votes than the Liberaltrians!!
Hey Paul. STFU and go back to the liberaltarian party where they think you’re a genius. Or go hang around the OWS hippies who believe you’re going to give them free pot and hookers.
You’re NOT a conservative.
You’re not a Republican.
You know very little about the constitution (regardless how much you claim you do).
Which once again establishes that Paul IS NOT pro-life, he is pro-choice-by-state.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
I guess the libertarians are doing just fine without them.
Ron Paul definitely isn’t one of those ‘big tent’ guys, he’s a pup tent kind of guy
Paul is flat wrong.
We need a national social conservative platform just to be able to roll back the liberal crap that has been federally imposed upon us. Even if we take Paul’s comments about issues not being national issues, there is no local solution to undo liberal federal dictates.
So Paulistinians could not be more wrong.
More like a circus tent if you see the type of people under his big top.
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.