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 ...
You do not understand politics.
Republicans WIN when we are on the correct side of the social issues.
Moderates and Liberals always lose.
And if the Left does not want to abide by YOUR rules?
What then?
**************************
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.
Rampant drug abuse and hedonism aren’t winning positions either, Ron.
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.
ha ha, very good
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.
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.
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.
Thank you. Ron Paul is a scurrilous, creepy liar masquerading as a man of principle. He has no principles, only fixations.
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.
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.
With Paul’s kind of circus it would be a Flea Circus. Him and his occutard followers could all fit in a handkerchief.
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.
I don’t agree with Ron Paul on much, but I agree with him on this and on cutting $1tril the first year.
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.
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.
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.