Posted on 05/20/2014 7:46:33 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says in a new interview that Republicans should embrace a more tolerant view of those who don't hold conservative positions on social issues.
"I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues," Paul told vocativ.com. "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."
Paul's comments harken back somewhat to former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels's (R) call for a "truce" on social issues within the GOP. The comment at the time drew a rebuke from social conservatives.
At that same time, those groups aren't as influential in today's Republican Party, where an increasing number of people now support gay marriage, for instance.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Just run on the ‘Rat party ticket Ru Paul.
wonderful (/s) he has drunk the DC koolade about social vs economic. Beltway disease has struck.
There is only conservative not types.
there is good and evil
dividing up and nuancing is a game for evil.
Minding your own business is not in the Conservative DNA.
They have a voice, they are heard, and they have no scruples about cheating. Conservatives are the ones inactive in the House, and the Senate. Harry Reed has the power and thus nothing sent to the Senate by the House is ever brought to the floor to be voted on or ever discussed in the Senate.
God bless America. God help America.
Being passive and doing nothing is a losing strategy. Proved by history, again and again.
cotton1706: “When the democrats “agree to disagree,” Rand, come talk to us.”
Definitely! Why is it that Democrats vote in lockstep on these issues, and we’re stuck with idiots who want compromise? Any truce or compromise on social issues is really just a unilateral surrender by our illustrious GOPe, of which Rand Paul is one. Actually, they can’t surrender since they’re Democrats in all but party affiliation to start with.
America is already no longer recognizable, and progressive trash like Romney is part of the reason. Romney helped push fag-marriage onto the country, which makes him just as complicit in turning the country into the depraved sewer it’s now becoming. May the bastard burn in hell. He’s a degenerate piece of human filth. Scum like him will never get my vote or my family’s vote.
You’re confused. Why would jobs come to an immoral America?
Well, at least we’ll know what’s more important to the Rand Paul types. They claim they really, really want smaller government. If a “small government” libertarian votes Democrat because he or she can’t stomach restrictions on abortion or favors homosexual “marriage,” then we know they’re insincere about smaller government. When it comes down to it, porn and pot mean more to them than true liberty.
like me old (1952) DI always said, .....”very gd simple”...the gubmint is not to involve itself in social issues,,,see Davy Crockett on taxes....our original constitution had none of the potus, congress, and supremes to phvck things up and we defeated the greatest military machine of that time, then we the people, the signers of the preamble got together and overthrew the constitution (coup d;etat, it is called, and illegally snuck in our present big gubming pseud0-constitution, and...since then humbugges/brainwashed the herd/flock along the way...on and on...
Simplicity and Continuity, but...
Semper Watching!
Dick.G: AMERICAN!
*****
In 1993 BJ clinton imposed “Don’t ask don’t tell” on the military. It was considered an extremely LEFT position and was very unpopular. That — along with HillaryCare — led to the rats losing control of congress for the first time in 40 years.
Fast forward to 2010 — just 17 short years. When scrubama eliminated “don’t ask don’t tell” it was considered an extreme RIGHT wing position.
For an issue to fully cross the political spectrum from extreme LEFT to extreme right in less than a generation is truly astounding.
Judging a “cultural shift” by popular referenda that have never been held in the past is specious—aside from the fact that they can be manipulated if the politicians so wished. Same goes for politicians legislating and then not being booted out of office, where their “machines” keep them entrenched.
The biggest activist decision came out of the SCOTUS last year too, with DOMA being declared “unconstitutional”. This is driven by the activists, not the people, especially as more power is grabbed by said activists in power.
There’s a free-market economy still here? Kinda hard to judge that by all the regulations, never mind the highest corporate tax rate on the planet.
Without the force of government behind it, the "social issue" of the homosexual agenda would be DEAD IN THE WATER. Most Americans would civilly, peacefully reject the pretend marriages of homosexuals on their own; that this is true is WHY homosexuals require government involvement in such "social" issues.
Government is the problem. The solution to many ills, social to economic, is the conservative use -- the sparing use -- of government. Rand, here you are, you and Romney and heaven only knows how many other Republicans, urging to use government force to regulate something as imaginary and pretend as homosexual "marriage."
You think like a Democrat. There is no point in being Republican if your kind of approach to government is what I'm voting "for."
I will vote for the opposite, thank you.
So, since the “youth”, an inherently and historically foolish group with no foundational life experience to show them that traditional values are superior,
disagree with traditional views of marriage,
we’re supposed to just let that slide to get their support?
Another case of the child behaving proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honorable. This is what happens when too many children are left to themselves.
Or left in the hands of “satanists by default” for discipling (ie, public schools).
Was America more productive and more stable in that era? Yes.
Well said.
Conflating license and liberty is a trick pulled by the left on those who do not have a solid moral foundation. John Adams was not joking when he said that the US Constitution cannot govern anyone who is neither moral nor religious.
In other words - we won't represent your views in Washington, but support us anyway...
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.