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

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

[Responsibility2nd]

There are direct social and fiscal connections between 2 gays getting married and the welfare surveillance state. If you don’t care about about queers getting married, then you don’t care about what really matters to conservatives.

[trisham]

I don’t like Paul.

[SoConPubbie]

Does Ted Cruz advocate for those Amendments? Any of the candidates?

Not yet, as far as I know.

One thing he hasn't done though, quite the opposite, is advocate for de-emphasizing the social issues.

I do know that Ronald Reagan did and I expect that Ted Cruz will follow in his footsteps when his policy statements on these issues are fleshed out.

[SoConPubbie]

Rand Paul actually connects with people.

Except for conservatives who he is alienating more and more each day.

[SoConPubbie]

I'm doubtful there are the votes to get something done on abortion at this point in time. Maintaining marriage defined as a man and women would easily pass a popular vote but getting 2/3rd's of the states on board could be another issue. Also, the courts are a huge problem with gay marriage.

It definitely won't happen if our leadership does not fight for it.

Rand Paul has already staked out his position for surrendering on this issue.

[SoConPubbie]

Reagan was able to unite the conservatives and libertarians.

Who can do that now?

Ted Cruz can, Rand Paul won't because of his stance on Amnesty and the Social Issues.

Reagan united both camps by pursing the policy positions that were most important for each group:

1. For Social Conservatives, he took a strong Pro-Life position, complete with the Human Life Amendment (Pro-Life Amendment to the Consitution)
2 For Fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians, he was constantly taking limited government positions and lowering the tax rate
3. For Neo-Cons and those who felt having a strong military was important, he took the stand that we needed a strong military.

This is the only approach that will win. Spiting one group by belittling their core principles is the pathway to ruin for the GOP candidate, and Rand Paul has already started down that path with his surrender on the Social Issues and his Amnesty position.

[SoConPubbie]

Rand Paul actually connects with people.

Actually, Rand Paul connects with Libertarians, and as time goes on, he is connection less and less with conservatives as his positions are made known on the issues.

[SoConPubbie]

The implication is that two dudes who want to get married is the moral equivalent of slavery. That’s absurd.

Actually, your position is not correct, God called the perversity of Homosexuality an Abomination and if you read Romans chapter 1, you'd see that the Apostle Paul describes it as something that is horrible in God's eyes.

Add to that the declaration by Jesus that if you have committed one sin, you've committed all sins in the eyes of God.

[Zeneta]

Listen, I like Rand Paul.

He wouldn’t be on my Republican ticket for 2016, but I see him as a stepping stone for Independent/Libertarian/former zombies that will ease their pain as they move off the 0bama plantation and into reality.

Maybe, if hard core conservatives continue to attack him, his popularity among the above group will be enhanced.

[Zeneta]

I understand.

And I agree, {insert Monkey here}, Libertarian issues in 1980 are a lot different than they are now. I support Cruz. Paul can pull in the middle, not as the headliner or even VP, but as someone that can bridge the gap and make voting Republican an option that had never existed before.

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

What I would ask is, what exactly can an anti-homosexual marriage, anti-abortion President do about these issues, other than reverse some of Obama's EOs.

At this point it's in the hands of the states and the courts, (and the MSM, unfortunately).

We had a solidly pro-life President from 2001-2009, did that have any measurable effect on the abortion rate??

[Berlin_Freeper]

Boldly going where no man has gone before, Steve Deace has mapped out a complete battle plan to winsomely convince Patriots to take up political, nay, principled arms and fight the good fight to restore both our culture and nation to the Christian heritage it was birthed from. Ignoring the stale, predictable, mindless talking points of the typical political hack, Deace’s approach is Biblical (theologically correct), principled, and perhaps most importantly (what the conservative movement has sadly missed over the past decades) solidly practical and applicable. While many of the current cultural hot button topics are addressed they are done so on a much deeper level that causes one to think why they really believe the way they do and perhaps to re-think why they do so. Folks, this is not a sport! We are not to be mindlessly rooting for one team because our players aren’t as bad as theirs. We are not to be buying the jersey and looking to get an autograph from our favorite player. We are the team owner and we choose who we want on our team. So stop acting like we are stuck with the worst player’s out there. We are not. This is the crux of this book. WE (you and I) have the power to shape (or be) the candidate. WE have an obligation to God to simply live out our faith in all we do so that winsomely we can win some to our side for a change. Politics is just another sphere of influence for the believer. If we forfeit living and standing for righteousness in any realm have we not forfeited the high ground in all? Let’s stop accepting candidates simply because money, power, and the party politics pushed them through. Let us again advance those principles that once did and yet will make this nation the beacon of hope and freedom it was meant to be. Let us start governing according to our founding documents. Steve Deace teaches us just how to do that in Rules For Patriots.

[mac_truck]

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.

Rand Paul made headlines in 2010 when he expresssed criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Perhaps the author is trying to remind readers of that 'controversy' by making such comparisons.

Pretty weak stuff if you ask me.

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

If Cruz runs, sooner or later he will say something that will cause a couple of Freepers to scream "Sellout!! RINO!! Rove-ite!!"

I say this not because I have any problem with Cruz, but because the track record at FR is that this happens to every single candidate without fail.

The mission for the rest of us will then be to tell those screamers to STFU.

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

I take exception to Paul's wanting to kick social issues to the back of the closet.

But if it's him against Hillary in 2016, I have no problem voting for him.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or Rick Perry. Any of the three are fine people and qualified to be President. I would happily vote for any of them.

[MarMema]

But Ted Cruz might be.

Is.

[MarMema]

Yes.

[Zeneta]

BTW.

I voted for Romney.

I didn’t care for some of his positions. I was concerned about the Mormon thing. Romney care etc...

But Mitt Romney is a man of character.

I couldn’t stand listening to G.W. Bush during his campaign for President in 2000. But, I voted for him and G.W. Bush turned out to be a man of character.

In the 1980 election I thought Bush senior was my guy until Reagan’s character was established.

Regretfully, I voted for Perot in ‘92 because, MR.(read my lips),had lost his integrity and I saw the birth of RINOs.

Bob Dole was a Tool.

Jack Kemp, very smart, but a Tool.

George W. Bush, a tool, but circumstances trust upon him exposed him as a man of character.

As a conservative, I find it interesting that most of us look to the character of the man vs. the liberal that looks to what they can get for themselves.

I trust Ted.

I trust Scott Walker.

I trust Allen West.

I think Paul Ryan is really smart, but he doesn’t project a leadership quality that I think is necessary.

I love Sarah Palin, but she may be “damaged goods”.

Rand Paul is very intelligent and he seems to be walking a fine line in order to keep his options open. I’m OK with that, right now.

The 2016 election will be fought on issues that we have never seen in this country.

The democrats will have their war on women, the war on gays, the war on illegals, the war on the middle class, the war on the environment, the war on blacks, the war on bullying, the war on guns, the war on the rich, the war on success, the war on social justice, the war on government.

Alas.

All a Republican candidate needs to express is the war on the “Individual.”

[MarMema]

I agree. Additionally stop wasting money and time on the war on drugs, which is a failure.