Rand Paul is not the guy for 2016 but Ted Cruz might be

renewamerica.com ^ | March 20, 2014 | Bryan Fischer

[lentulusgracchus]

Did not expect Breitbart to hit us with a “Paul is racist” article.

"Paul is racist"? Where'd he say that?

[lentulusgracchus]

Federal prison, bribery and influence-peddling charges. (Other than being Out of Step.)

[GSWarrior]

You could go to any leftist/Democrat site and read about how Rand Paul leans dangerously to the right on social issues. Are both sides correct?

[Responsibility2nd]

I read that to be an encapsulation of what Ted Cruz thinks, not the writer’s own POV. Guess you read that differently?

_____________________________________

Of course. Ted Cruz does not speak of himself in the third person. He’s no Bob Dole.

This is an encapsulation of what everyone thinks. Unless they are a Paulbot.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Says Paul,

“I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.”

[The Iceman Cometh]

The problem for many Republicans and conservative voters is that they are fatally purists and readily dismiss a candidate permanently if they don't pass the test 100%.

Liberals, on the other hand, will take the chosen candidate regardless of any warts, fallacies, illegalities, or lies and vote like zombies.

Conservatives are generally more principled people and the strict adherence to those principles splits us and we lose.

[Drill Thrawl]

By slyly implying that he would have supported slavery. The word slavery is used 6 times just on the excerpt.

[Mariner]

The potential exists that CA, in early June 2016, could decide the GOP nomination.

Let's hope not.

The ideal would be a strong, consensus candidate locks everything up early.

But CA has been the deciding state in past close races.

Goldwater in 1964.

CA ALMOST put Reagan over the top in 1980.

There are oodles of delegates there and Paul would have an advantage. Maybe one he's counting on.

[Carriage Hill]

He and Trafficant shop at the same Roadkill Hairpiece Shoppe...

[SoConPubbie]

By slyly implying that he would have supported slavery. The word slavery is used 6 times just on the excerpt.

Sorry, your the one implying that Breitbart is calling Paul a racist. I see no implication there, just you trying to discredit the author of this article, for whatever your reason is, with a very, very shaky foundation of logic.

[lentulusgracchus]

Well, I took the reference to slavery to be a historical reference to the GOP's roots, and an attempt to point out that when one takes away the social issues, you are left with a rootless party that cannot prosper.

He took the long way to say something I agree with, which is that without social issues, the GOP is gutless and people will reject it as such. They'll spit out a party that is just a bunch of bankers singing for their suppers. (Howbeit that that has been a major element of the GOP since 1856: catering for the old Whig financial interests in the East Coast's financial and manufacturing centers.)

[SoConPubbie]

The problem for many Republicans and conservative voters is that they are fatally purists and readily dismiss a candidate permanently if they don't pass the test 100%.

The problem with GOP-E types and Libertarians is that they expect conservatives to put their principles on the back shelf, shut-up and support candidates that directly go against their most important principles.

Then their supporters go around falsely claiming that they are purists.

Paul, with his support for Amnesty, and his surrender on Social Issues, is not someone a committed and principled conservative can support.

He's a dead man walking where the nomination is concerned and doesn't even know it yet.

By walking away from the social issues, he's not fit to be POTUS. He is not a leader.

[PoloSec]

As far as I’m concerned Cruz is not a might be...but a must be.

We need a man of vision, strength, trustworthiness, and Conservative all around values.

A man who’s leadership expects the other guy to compromise, because he is right, too much work to do for some one who is not dedicated turn this ship around, by taking charge; not willing to sacrifice integrity for popularity.

Cruz 2016!

[Drill Thrawl]

By repeating (six times) that Rand does not support social issues and comparing that to the GOP founding on the social issue of anti-salvery it is clear that the implication is that he is for slavery, therefore racist.

[lentulusgracchus]

....then tries to sneak the other stuff past us, on his way to concluding that "Paul's gotta be the guy". Paulbot bullsqueeze from the git.

Ummmmm, I may have misread the writer's intentions on this one. Now I'm not sure where he was going with all the pattyfingers stuff on social conservatism. He may be trying to point us toward Ted Cruz rather than boosting Paul, which is how I read the article originally.

Comments?

[GSWarrior]

Take gay marriage, for example. Apparently Paul would prefer to leave it up the states. To many on the right this is the same as supporting gay marriage. To many on the left this is the same as opposing gay marriage. People hear what they want to hear.

[lentulusgracchus]

I think he's trying to point out that Paul's out of step with the GOP's history of supporting social issues.

Not that that's accurate or anything .... you could argue that the RiNO's don't care about social issues and never have done, except as cudgels with which to beat the voters to the polls to vote for the Fortune 500's candidate.

[SoConPubbie]

You could go to any leftist/Democrat site and read about how Rand Paul leans dangerously to the right on social issues. Are both sides correct?

Well, let's see....

Anything to the right of Obama is considered leaning dangerously to the right to Democrats. They lie a lot.

Rand Paul has made it quite clear by his words that he wants to give social issues a much less prominent position in GOP Policy.

So, No, both sides are not correct. The Democrats are lying, but you knew that, and conservatives have correctly assessed that Rand Paul is not all that conservative because of Rand Paul's own words.

Add in his support for Amnesty, his continued support for GOP-E McConnell and against the Tea-Party backed Bevin, and the assessment of Rand Paul not being truly conservative is complete.

[Drill Thrawl]

Well, I took the reference to slavery to be a historical reference to the GOP's roots, and an attempt to point out that when one takes away the social issues, you are left with a rootless party that cannot prosper.

The first time that comparison was made I agree with your assessment but since the social issue\slavery comparison was made six times it went in a different direction.

[SoConPubbie]

Take gay marriage, for example. Apparently Paul would prefer to leave it up the states. To many on the right this is the same as supporting gay marriage. To many on the left this is the same as opposing gay marriage. People hear what they want to hear.

Sorry, but trying to put Gay Marriage in the States Rights column only ensures that Gay Marriage win, across all of the states because of the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Therefore, by extension, Rand Paul is supporting Gay Marriage.