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 ...
Thanks mnehring.
“Libertarianism _could_ work if we didn’t use government to alleviate the consequences for behavior.”
I agree. That would be the evental result. But too many conservatives aren’t willing to let go of their desire to shape the culture by way of a powerful central gov’t.
He was smart enough to keep the socons pacified while running a remarkably socially tolerant administration. He was very clever with that - never once appeared at the March for Life, but always sent a tape. Nominated Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, to balance Scalia and Rhenquist's elevation, and make sure Roe would be protected.
Socons always had a sympathetic ear at Justice, and at HHS, but Education could continue to run wild.
What do YOU remember, other than speeches, that he did to move the socon agenda forward?
..and yet in Paul's world, States can regulate rights away and leave fundamental rights like life to the whim of whatever governmental body isn't 'Federal'. That doesn't reduce government, it hands away your rights to the whims of 50 governments. In his world, there are no fundamental rights but simply legislation that is passed down so you have no real protection of fundamental rights. It is a bastardization of original intent and in no way reduces government.
Ron Paul can call me when abortion is devolved back to the “...to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Mostly “social conservatives” want to be left alone (and their children, too!). That doesn’t seem to be in the Fed’s interests. So, until then I’ll vote for Santorum or Gingrich.
Social conservatives are not providing most of the votes or platform issues, conservatives are. There’s a place for social conservativism in the primary and general. Out in front isn’t necessary, or probably even wise.
If the party needs a total disaster to finally liberate itself from the ideas that Santorum represents, so be it. I am prepared to accept the consequences.
What do you mean by 'liberate itself from the ideas that Santorum represents'? What ideas should we be liberated from?
Ron Paul is not opposing conservatives positions on social issues; he is saying that social issues should be dealt with exclusively at state level.
As I’ve stated before in several comments, the Conservative position on issues such as life is a national position. Saying States can regulate away those fundamental rights is liberalism at its finest and creates 50 tyrannies with the authority to trample your rights.
Either rights are fundamental and can’t be ‘dealt with by any government’ or they aren’t rights and you are simply a subject.
As I’ve stated before in several comments, the Conservative position on issues such as life is a national position. Saying States can regulate away those fundamental rights is liberalism at its finest and creates 50 tyrannies with the authority to trample your rights.
Either rights are fundamental and can’t be ‘dealt with by any government’ or they aren’t rights and you are simply a subject.
To state the negative, social conservatives are powerful enough to cause any liberal Republican to lose.
What they are not is powerful enough to ELECT one of their own to statewide or national office. The only way a socon-sympathizing Republican can win a general election is if RINOs and independents think that he doesn't really mean it.
That's why the prospect of a Santorum nomination is so bad. The socons may be powerful enough to nominate him, but they are far, far away from being able to elect him.
So is Sarah Palin...
We have a tyranny now at federal level trampling rights on an unprecedented level.
We have social issues being dealt with at federal level right now.
Do you like the results?
Sending issues to the states would achieve much better results.
Exactly which social positions are you claiming don’t sell to independents?
I’m a pro-life independent who opposes “gay marriage” and “hate speech” laws, the war on Christianity, etc.
Has Ron Paul ever solved or contributed to the solution of one of our many problems? I know he got a bill passed that named a building in Houston and I know that he has brought home a lot of bacon, AKA earmarks, to his district and I assume that these earmarks have led to a lot of money contributed to his campaign, but has he accomplished anything?
..and how is replacing 1 with 50 any better? Rights are rights that shouldn't be trampled by any. This is one of those fundamental flaws of Paul that make him completely unacceptable to Conservatives. To think that he considers fundamental rights something that can be legislated away by any power is disturbing and not in the least bit Conservative. If you think there is big, tyrannical government now, wait until your rights are just considered privileges that can be legislated away at a whim by any little body that sees fit.
(..and if you think moving it from the Feds to the States will in any way keep the feds out, you have another thing coming- see the seatbelt laws & highway financing- the feds will always find a way.)
He has passed four bills in his entire career. A statement declaring square dancing a national folk art. A congressional medal for a baseball player from his district. The building naming bill you mentioned. And one of substance regarding setting currency value to numismatic collectible coins.
That would not be the result.
For example, on abortion, many states would ban it.
In contrast, right now the legality of abortion is decided at federal level and so it being legal is forced on all 50 states.
Abortion isn't the only thing Paul has said this on. Paul has made statements in the Heller case that the Feds have no authority to protect your 2nd Amendment rights from State regulation and he said it in the Kelo decision where he believes State governments can confiscate your property without due process of law.
In Paul's world, you might as well throw out the Constitution.
It’s GONE.....!
When Republicans turn their backs on social conservatives they abandon a key component of the Reagan coalition - blue collar Democrats. Those are the folks who may like the Democrat message on EI benefits, health care, unions, etc., but who are repulsed by the strident amorality of the Democratic Party on marriage, abortion and euthanasia. Drop social conservatism and many of these folks lose the key reason to vote Republican.
Rupert Murdoch also tweets that Rick Santorum's rise in polls shows "Values do count in America."
Libertarians don’t seem to grasp the situation. I think most social conservatives would prefer to fight social issues on a state by state basis, but the left took that choice away from us. Gay marriage? That seems to be leading to a SCOTUS ruling that gay marriage must be performed in every state as an equal rights issue. As for abortion, that decision was also seized from the states long ago.
So even though I agree with Ron Paul that I’d like these power struggles to be dealt with by the states, I think his position is incredibly naive. We social conservatives didn’t ask for this battle. The left took it to the federal level, and that is why we’re forced to respond in kind. How Ron Paul intends to return social issues to the states against strident judicial opposition, I’d love to know.
Agreed, but for example, many so-called conservative groups - including nominally "right to life" groups - weasel out of supporting strong pro-life measures at state level via a line of total bull that goes "oh, we are for a national [only] strategy" and nothing gets done.
I'm for a tiered approach:
Turn things like abortion back to the states and go for things like a national pro-life amendment.
So basically, have it at state level while working to get it at Constitutional level.
I'm fine in principle - with massive distrust of Congress - with a few negative laws on social issues like "no state can recognize or compel anyone to recognize same sex unions of any kind".
I agree 100%.
Diggity: “He is 100% right. The problem is too much government. That should be the only issue.”
Granted. We have too much government, but how does Ron Paul expect to get from here to his libertarian ideal? A president can’t just waive a wand and return gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues to the states when the judicial system is doing everything it can to make one rule fit all. When a federal judge rules that gay marriage is mandatory per the US Constitution (as an equal rights issue), then that must be fought at the federal level. The president can’t change that. Same thing with abortion. How do you propose to return that to the states short of some sort of effort at the national level to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I have a great deal of sympathy with Paul’s libertarian domestic/social views. But these won’t carry the day, nor will Santorum’s conservative views. “It’s the economy, stupid,” remain four words-to-live-by. Especially now.
FTR, I’d a lot sooner vote for RS or RP, than Romney. We could survive either one and his mistakes. Neither, however, has the candle power of Newt Gingrich.
With all due respect, I have to ask you the same question I asked Diggity. I understand your argument that life is constitutionally protected, but how do you, too, intend to change what exists? Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion in every state. I seriously doubt you’d get the Supreme Court to ever rule that life begins at conception and must be protected as such throughout the nation. I also doubt you’d ever get enough states to sign onto a constitutional amendment to ban abortion nationwide. Saying you want something isn’t the same thing as making it happen. Personally? I’d consider the overturning of Roe v. Wade, returning abortion decisions to the states, to be a wonderful victory.
I agree on their ‘national only or be damned’ strategy. We can differ on strategy but it is when you get the philosophy extremes like Paul’s philosophy or the national only philosophy that is when you go off the wagon. IMHO, Paul’s is the worse philosophy because it rejects fundamental rights are inalienable while at least the nation-only side holds firm to inalienable rights.
A state-by-state strategy is good because it would be effective, but it is completely unacceptable to have the philosophy that the right isn't inalienable and can be governed away. Paul isn't arguing for the former but the latter. He believes rights can be legislated away at the whim of states. That puts rights and individuals subservient to the government. Others like Palin or Cain (just to use an example) have rightly argued for the former as a strategy while holding on to the belief the right is inalienable.
Finally, states' rights is an approach that will not work in any event. The purpose is to crush baby-killing and rump-ranging posing as "marriage" and being subsidized by law. We are either serious or we are not. Serious means insisting on real results. If we take a state's rights approach, at the very least, California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, and several other states will keep "legal" abortion and residents of all states will be facilitated in getting abortions by simply traveling to the nearest baby-killing Mecca. Ditto for gay everything. Thanks but no thanks.
Ron Paul is a fake, a phony and a fraud every time he poses as a social conservative, as a military conservative, and as anything but the useless crackpot that he is.
At least he’s honest about it. He’s loonier than all get out but he’s not trying to lie to us.
Refreshing in a really weird kind of way.
If the remaining candidates, only Santorum and Gingrich are acceptable. First, we must destroy Romney and then Obama. If we do not accomplish both goals, it won't be for lack of determined trying now and in every future election. If Romney is nominated it will be time to stand down.
Sorry, but he has been one of those 'all things to all people' type of politicians. He signed the 'Personhood' pledge then turned around and wrote in Liberty Defined how he rejected any role with the Federal Government in protecting the unborn. It is of the reasons why the National Right to Life rejected his pledge. (similarly, he claims to stand for the 2nd Amendment but then on Lew Rockwell's site, wrote that in McDonald v Chicago, that the city had every right to restrict gun ownership and the feds should keep their nose out of 2nd Amendment issues regarding anything but Fed restrictions)..
He is as honest as any old career politician or used car salesman.
No need to be sorry. I’m here to learn as much as anything.
I stand corrected. Appreciate it.
At least I got the Loon part right. :0)
--------------------------
Exactly. And there are plenty of folks who are more than happy to pass the debts their behavior incurs to others. Communism and socialism demand social liberalism so the ever-expanding state can stay in business.
Catholicism. Actually religion, other that the Obama version. This election will have an important secondary focus on faith, won't be called that. Whether a Catholic or a Mormon. Joe (should I call him Jew like the left) Lieberman would not be a national candidate today.
Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
Must have been some cult, it's under the heading of Values. Worse yet, the get into marriage next.
Ron needs to stand up and run as a libertarian, or something else that provides money bombs. It's not like this is that controversial an issue amongst Republicans. Back in 1980 it read
There can be no doubt that the question of abortion, despite the complex nature of its various issues, is ultimately concerned with equality of rights under the law. While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general--and in our own Party--we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children. We also support the Congressional efforts to restrict the use of taxpayers' dollars for abortion.
Back in the day followed by strong families. No one was thinking about marriage I guess.
Sadly, many “conservatives” here think the same thing.
Why? You don't like your job?
Conservatism is a philosophical whole. If you don’t get that, you’re not a conservative.
Which is impossible when politics at the federal level won't allow states to do just that. The attacks on DOMA come to mind.
Good point. The Left, libertarians and fake republicans try to marginalize and belittle conservatives (WHOLE conservatives) but the truth is that they are a HUGE voting block. Impossible to win any election without them.
Romney remains the only candidate I will NOT vote for if he gets the nom. I will even vote for Paul (gag!!) but I'll have to take 20 iodine baths afterwards (I took 15 when I voted for McCain.)
Dang, missed another’un.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz-oooooooooooooooooootttttt!
But the truth is there are many reasons not to support Rupaul.
“He’s right on about our tendency to Nationalize every single issue.”
I couldn’t agree more, and it is both Rs and Ds that are guilty. States rights used to be a core conservative belief. No child left behind still ring a bell?
We need states serving as laboratories of innovation and competition and not the national bureaucracies run by political hacks owned by crony corporatists wanting a cut of taxpayer money.
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.