Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul on Social Conservatism: 'I Think It's a Losing Position'
CNS News ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: abortion; apaulling; apaulogia; apaulogist; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; moralabsolutes; paulbearers; ricksantorum; rino; ronpaul; social; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last

1 posted on 02/20/2012 11:57:06 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Call me when a social conservative gets elected dog catcher and we can discuss aiming higher.


2 posted on 02/20/2012 12:05:33 PM PST by Jim Noble ("The Germans: At your feet, or at your throat" - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
"And they're not to be at the national level. We're not supposed to nationalize these problems.

Earth to RuPaul - the Supreme Court already did. Nearly 40 years ago.

3 posted on 02/20/2012 12:06:15 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

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.


4 posted on 02/20/2012 12:08:31 PM PST by SpringtoLiberty (Liberty is on the march!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

“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”.


5 posted on 02/20/2012 12:13:07 PM PST by EyeGuy (2012: When the Levee Breaks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpringtoLiberty; dirtboy
He’s right on about our tendency to Nationalize every single issue.

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.

6 posted on 02/20/2012 12:13:29 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
The headline is misleading. Paul is saying that a nationalized social conservative platform is a losing proposition. He is definitely in favor of a state-by-state social conservative policy.

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.

7 posted on 02/20/2012 12:14:26 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Ron Paul, DOC (Demented Old Coot)

Why haven’t the men in white coats taken him back to his rest home?


8 posted on 02/20/2012 12:15:55 PM PST by Polyxene (Out of the depths I have cried to Thee, O Lord; Lord, hear my voice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
To Dr. Ron Paul — you are an irrelevant, loose cannon. Bye, bye.
9 posted on 02/20/2012 12:17:29 PM PST by MasterGunner01 (11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

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.


10 posted on 02/20/2012 12:18:01 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
He is definitely in favor of a state-by-state social conservative policy.

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).

11 posted on 02/20/2012 12:20:26 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
He has a precise understanding understanding of how these problems are to be solved? I wish he'd tell us, then, how to get rid of Libertarians.
12 posted on 02/20/2012 12:24:39 PM PST by righttackle44 (I may not be much, but I raised a United States Marine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Excellent post.


13 posted on 02/20/2012 12:24:49 PM PST by EyeGuy (2012: When the Levee Breaks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mnehring; Jim Noble; writer33; Morgana

dang if we can only win more votes than the Liberaltrians!!

oh wait...


14 posted on 02/20/2012 12:26:07 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

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).


15 posted on 02/20/2012 12:27:04 PM PST by Jack Burton007 (This is Jack Burton in the Pork Chop Express, and I'm talkin' to whoever's listenin' out there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; Lesforlife; EternalVigilance; ...
"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."

Which once again establishes that Paul IS NOT pro-life, he is pro-choice-by-state.

16 posted on 02/20/2012 12:27:34 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


17 posted on 02/20/2012 12:29:06 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

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


18 posted on 02/20/2012 12:29:42 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

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.


19 posted on 02/20/2012 12:30:40 PM PST by Notwithstanding (1998 ACU ratings: Newt=100%, Paul=88%, Santorum=84% [the last year all were in Congress])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

More like a circus tent if you see the type of people under his big top.


20 posted on 02/20/2012 12:37:02 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

You do not understand politics.

Republicans WIN when we are on the correct side of the social issues.

Moderates and Liberals always lose.


21 posted on 02/20/2012 12:38:16 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SpringtoLiberty

And if the Left does not want to abide by YOUR rules?

What then?


22 posted on 02/20/2012 12:40:37 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Which once again establishes that Paul IS NOT pro-life, he is pro-choice-by-state.

**************************

Exactly right. The "proof" that his fans often offer regarding the claim that he is pro-life is that he delivered babies. What a joke. He's an arrogant fraud whose career is being propped up by those who love his positions regarding drugs and the military.

23 posted on 02/20/2012 12:40:42 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Rampant drug abuse and hedonism aren’t winning positions either, Ron.


24 posted on 02/20/2012 12:41:46 PM PST by bigdirty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Just as a practical note, Republicans can’t win without them. As a political argument, Paul might as well be saying there is no reason to nationalize debates about the right to life, or property rights. Never mind free speech or the 2nd Amendment, all those things social conservatives think are important. Ron Paul is a nuisance.


25 posted on 02/20/2012 12:42:24 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

ha ha, very good


26 posted on 02/20/2012 12:47:32 PM PST by punditwannabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jack Burton007
Bingo!


27 posted on 02/20/2012 12:51:51 PM PST by CainConservative (Santorum/Huck 2012 w/ Newt, Cain, Palin, Bach, Parker, Watts, Duncan, & Petraeus in the Cabinet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

FR Needs New Servers
Please Donate Toward The Purchase And Keep FR Up And Running!


Click The Servers To Donate

28 posted on 02/20/2012 12:53:01 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigdirty

If the drug abusers and hedonists’ consequences weren’t alleviated by “the government”,

there wouldn’t be many drug abusers and hedonists in just a matter of a couple of years.


29 posted on 02/20/2012 12:56:53 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Perhaps you're too young to remember Ronald Reagan.

In point of fact, candidates who are strong fiscal conservatives while also being social liberals are rarely elected to posts above dogcatcher.

Can't think of a single one, actually.

30 posted on 02/20/2012 12:58:06 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
How anyone can stomach Ron Paul is beyond me. At the end of his article, he slips a bit into the liberaltarian vernacular:

"Well, I don't see how that's possible," said Paul. "And this whole idea about that talking about the social issues and who is going to pay for birth control pills, I'm worried about undermining our civil liberties, the constant wars going on, the debt of $16 trillion and they are worried about birth control pills and here he wants to, you know, control people's social lives. At the same time, he voted for Planned Parenthood."

See? So apparently the federal government forcing Catholic institutions to pay for birth control is not a big deal for Ron Paul. It equals "controlling people's social lives". He also flat-out lies, saying that Rick Santorum "voted for Planned Parenthood." As if PP isn't one of Santorum's biggest enemies.
31 posted on 02/20/2012 1:08:56 PM PST by Antoninus (Mitt Romney -- attempting to execute a hostile take-over of the Republican Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Excellent post.

Of course, Paul despises originalism. He is an advocate of the anti-Constitution, anti-Federalist approach known as "strict construction." Yet this Blame America Firster still has boosters on FR.

32 posted on 02/20/2012 1:10:36 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Thank you. Ron Paul is a scurrilous, creepy liar masquerading as a man of principle. He has no principles, only fixations.


33 posted on 02/20/2012 1:13:25 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Eh, he’s right. Nationalizing social issues is a loser position. That stuff needs to be dealt with on a local level—the Feds shouldn’t be having a role in any of this. It shouldn’t even be up for discussion as a national issue.

I also don’t want to be talking about BIRTH CONTROL as a central issue, when it’s little more than a petty distraction from far bigger problems like crippling debt and creeping socialism.


34 posted on 02/20/2012 1:20:04 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
"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."

Did you even read the article you posted? He agrees with you that the definition of a human life beginning at conception should be set at the national level. He just believes that how this is enforced, like with most issues regarding acts of violence of one person against another, should be managed at the state level.

I realize that conservatives have been suckered in by so-called "law and order" candidates whose only act in support of law and order is to federalize a state crime, so they are reluctant to support people who haven't been similarly suckered.

35 posted on 02/20/2012 1:24:43 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

With Paul’s kind of circus it would be a Flea Circus. Him and his occutard followers could all fit in a handkerchief.


36 posted on 02/20/2012 1:30:31 PM PST by Jack Burton007 (This is Jack Burton in the Pork Chop Express, and I'm talkin' to whoever's listenin' out there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

I agree with you on that issue 100%!

I know his personal standing on the right to life is so so strong.

I think his political stance on the right to life issue is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

He is such a anti-federalist that he wants no federal edicts, even ones that have a constitutional backing such as the right to life (As you said the first and foremost right guaranteed by the constitution).

Just a guess to his motives.


37 posted on 02/20/2012 1:32:45 PM PST by SpringtoLiberty (Liberty is on the march!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on much, but I agree with him on this and on cutting $1tril the first year.


38 posted on 02/20/2012 1:34:41 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Another BIG TENT moderate.....when the GOP surrenders the social issues, they’ve given up much of their platform and the distinctions between our choices is blurred. Run on socially conservative issues and people turn out to vote. When both parties run on the DUmocrat platform, people stay home and the Commiecrats win.


39 posted on 02/20/2012 1:36:31 PM PST by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Interesting tactic.

Give up and smile.

Of course, if the social conservatives stay home, or vote Dem, you get to blame them. If they vote, and you lose, you get to blame them. If they vote, and you win, you say it was because of the mussy brainless middle that made you win.

Eventually, we will go somewhere else. The GOP has the social conservatives on a plantation just like the DNC does with minorities. If either group leaves, or rather when they do, we are in for some interesting times.

Assuming we keep having elections that mean anything, which at this stage of our decay I wouldn't bet on to many more. No matter who wins.

40 posted on 02/20/2012 1:37:22 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

He’s absolutely right. Sorry America isn’t obsessed with those damned homosexuals any more.


41 posted on 02/20/2012 1:37:50 PM PST by jmc813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: Utmost Certainty; wideawake
Nationalizing social issues is a loser position. That stuff needs to be dealt with on a local level

Really? So local governments have the right to deprive you of life without due process of law? That right really isn't a right, just a convenience the granted to you by the government? How about freedom of religion? Should local governments be free to restrict that? That 'right' yet another convenience granted to you by the grace of some governemnt body? What about speech? How about ownership of property?

If those things are something not 'retained by the people' and can be legislated away by any government body, be it federal, state, or local, then we aren't free citizens but simply subjects to whatever government body feels free to 'deal with it'.

Far too many people leave out "Or Reserved To The People" when reading the 10th Amendment.

43 posted on 02/20/2012 1:39:36 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
” ... candidates who are strong fiscal conservatives while also being social liberals are rarely elected to posts above dogcatcher.

Can't think of a single one, actually.”

Chris Christie? Despite his recent veto of a same-sex marriage bill in NJ, many people on FR (myself included) view him as a social liberal but a fiscal conservative.

44 posted on 02/20/2012 1:40:47 PM PST by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Ron Paul is a walking, talking, &^#&$&#@ing losing proposition.


45 posted on 02/20/2012 1:40:58 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the fascists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Losers like Ronnie “Rue” Paul don’t know much about losing propositions.


46 posted on 02/20/2012 1:46:13 PM PST by MIchaelTArchangel (Romney ruined Massachusetts. Now he wants to ruin the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Ahhh... I see Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 was another of those parts of the Constitution Paul has blacked out. (per Madison, Standards of Weights and Measures includes definitions used in pursuant laws and contracts. Last time I checked, Marriage was a legal contract of which the has legal definitions that is authorized to congress to define).
47 posted on 02/20/2012 1:49:01 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
"The Constitution clearly states that one can't be deprived of life without due process of law. "

First I'd like to say I believe life begins at conception and I would support a Constitutional Amendment outlawing it and charging those who perform them AND the "mother" with Murder One.

That said, I believe the law is less than clear on when a "fertilized egg" transitions to "unborn baby". Viability outside the womb is only sometimes the the legally recognized transition. I would cite 3rd trimester abortion and the fact that if you kill a woman that is 8 months pregnant that you are charged with two murders.

Absent any clarity in the law as now written and despite your contention (along with many pro-life Freepers) that were talking "Equal Protection"...there is no such legal precedent and an immense body of precedent to the contrary.

For the most part, and it's grey, the law declares personhood as a born child or one that would be viable if born now. The exception being late-term abortions for whatever reason.

48 posted on 02/20/2012 1:54:56 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

He is 100% right. The problem is too much government. That should be the only issue.


49 posted on 02/20/2012 1:58:55 PM PST by Diggity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigdirty
“Rampant drug abuse and hedonism aren’t winning positions either, Ron.”

No but the federal government trying to legislate one’s personal ability to engage in either is not too fundamentally different than deciding what people can and can't eat.

If a free person elects to engage in a life of personal depravity, as far as I am concerned, that is between that individual and his maker so long as his actions are not injurious to others.

This is how as conservatives, we wind up shooting ourselves in the foot over and over. We engage in semantics over where we erect our personal barriers on social issues and are rarely able to coalesce and project a cohesive message.
The left know this and do an excellent job of parsing our inconsistencies and lampooning us on them.

50 posted on 02/20/2012 1:59:01 PM PST by SouthParkRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson