Posted on 02/20/2012 6:31:00 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Yesterday on CNN's State of the Union, Candy Crowley asked Ron Paul about the new focus in national politics on social issues and whether a national debate focusing on them would help Republicans in November. Paul called it a "losing position" but neglects to mention that he has campaigned on his opposition to abortion at least since the Ames straw poll, an omission caught by CNS News:
“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. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”
Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the “Personhood Pledge” published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”
The current context of the debate on social issues hinges on federal mandates, a point which Paul acknowledges in this interview. Why would that be a loser? It’s practically the entire context of his campaign — reducing the power of federal government to issue the kind of mandates like the HHS mandate for employers to essentially provide free contraception to their employees. Tying that in with social issues should make the argument stronger, at least if it’s handled correctly.
Matt Lewis argues that not only is Paul wrong, but history shows that Republicans do well when social issues are in play:
As Jeffrey Bell’s forthcoming book (per the Wall Street Journal’s review) notes,
“Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964. … The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period.
“. . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”
(Emphasis mine.)
As much as moderate Republicans and cosmopolitan conservatives might lament the resurrection of the culture wars (which were foisted upon us, and appear to have been rekindled once again by liberal overreach), they were electorally fruitful for the GOP.
What is more, the notion that running on the economy (what Mr. Romney presumably seems comfortable doing) is a panacea, is dubious. The economy appears to be recovering (at least, the unemployment rate is dropping), a point which will obviously make it harder, should the trend continue, to oust Obama.
Even more to the point, history does not seem indicate that a struggling economy — regardless of who is to blame — or who currently occupies the White House — will benefit the Republican candidate in a general election. (This, of course, is controversial. Jimmy Carter’s handling of the economy was surely one cause of his 1980 defeat, but would he have been defeated had it not been for the Iranian hostages?)
If the economy starts heating up — which the CBO, among many others, predicts won’t happen — the election will have to hinge on larger, basic issues of limited power and Obama’s overreach. If we shy away from challenging Obama on those positions now, we probably won’t have a candidate willing to do it in November.
Paul called it a “losing position”
What ever Paul says,
What ever Paul does,
Where ever Paul is standing...
is a “Loosing Position”.
Then why did he vote against the bill which would prohibit transportation of minors across state lines for the purpose of abortions without parental consent.
does he think the GOP will win without the social conservative vote?
That's just damage control. The fact is that Paul hates social conservatism.
Maybe so, but he’s right on this one. Santorum is too easily drawn into these religious/social discussions and it’s going to kill us if he’s our candidate. The other candidates have the sense to call this crap for what it is—media manipulation. But Santorum takes the bait. The Obama media would love for nothing more than to turn this into a birth control/women in the workplace/church and state election to deflect from Obama’s disasterous economic policies. Paul may be a nut, but he’s right on this one.
Avoiding So-Con issues like Dr. Nutjob suggests WILL KILL OUR CHANCES.
Paul called it a “losing position”
What ever Paul says,
What ever Paul does,
Where ever Paul is standing...
is a “Loosing Position”.
__________________________________________________________
Can’t top that post....nuff said.
Ron Paul should be personally well versed in what it takes to be a (perennial) loser.
Ron Paul 2012: Because the Constitution doesn’t say that twelve-year-olds can’t become prostitutes.
RE: Ron Paul 2012: Because the Constitution doesn’t say that twelve-year-olds can’t become prostitutes
Now that would not characterize his position. He would argue that it would be a STATES ISSUE because he trust the states to handle this situation better than the Federal government.
But I AM EQUALLY PASSIONATE in my rejection of goverment meddling and intrusion on personal freedoms. I think there are a lot of Americans like that. They want the freedom to behave morally and they want liberty from oppressive, punitive government.
Where do I fit in the "conservative" picture? I hate oppressive punitive government as much as I hate abortion and the gay agenda. The way I see it, we're NEVER going to resolve those social issues until we restore limited government. Think about all the social decay in our America --
- abortion, Roe v Wade...
- open homosexuality in our churches, our schools, our military, our workplaces, our civic groups, and our communities......
- a slothful, avaricious population that lives off of Government charity, from food stamps to welfare...
...... THIS MALAISE that we Social Conservatives passionately reject, has been created, fed, and grown by our oppressive, punitive Federal government.
Because that government is punitive, we are HANDCUFFED and unable to lawfully, peacefully reject open homosexuality in our societies, workplaces, clubs, schools, etc. We are forced to standby as abortion is made accessible and legal on demand. We are PREVENTED from having any say over how our charity is distributed, and CHARITYY is a major and crucial part of Christian morality. Our oppressive government has removed charity from us as a tool.
Our oppressive, punitive government has been a MAJOR cause of the social ills we so passionately reject.
America needs a Republican president who is as outspoken and dedicated to the cause of dismantling oppressive, punitive government, as he is to shunning abortion and the gay agenda.
A president who moralizes can only moralize. A president who sets to work with the stated goal of dismantling oppressive government, including activist judges, is the one who will help restore morality to the U.S.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
From your keyboard to God's eyes!
Godspeed Newt.
Of all people, Ron Paul should not care about whether "social issues" (false trichotomy) are a "winning issue". The truth is the only thing that matters. Santorum has made many mistakes that trouble me. He has supported a lot of indefensible spending and I'm not sure he hates covetousness as much as Ron Paul, but I don't think he could kill a baby.
If Newt is the nominee, Obama will find an excuse not to debate. Mr. Gingrich needs to show that he can win / rise in the polls on other strengths besides debating.
If Newt is the nominee, Obama will find an excuse not to debate. Mr. Gingrich needs to show that he can win / rise in the polls on other strengths besides debating.
The man has no true conception of God-given, unalienable rights.
Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the “Personhood Pledge” published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”
Obviously Ron Paul doesn't see that as a state's rights issue.
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.