Skip to comments.Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance
Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins
The Republican Party needs to broaden its appeal by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war," U.S. Sen. Rand Paul told hundreds of Greater Cincinnati Republicans Saturday.
"We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue," the Kentucky Republican said at the Northeast Hamilton County Republican Club's annual pancake breakfast at the Sharonville Convention Center.
To help the party rebound from two successive losses in presidential races, Republicans must find new strategies and messages to reach voters who now often look askance at the GOP, Paul told a crowd of more than 500.
Toward that end, the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage, Paul said.
We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party, Paul said.
Paul, a tea party favorite whose name is among those mentioned in the early speculation over the 2016 presidential campaign, expanded on that theme in a brief interview with The Enquirer after his speech.
Even bigger to me than the social issues is the idea of war, Paul said.
Republicans, he said, might attract voters put off by the party's hawkish image if we had a less bellicose approach, if we were for a strong defense but a little bit less aggressive defense around the world.
If we didn't have to be everywhere all the time, if maybe we tried to reserve it for when our national interests were impacted or a vital interest of ours was - and if Republicans didn't seem so eager to go to war - I think we'd attract more young people. wtsp.com
War and gay marriage....libertarian issues.
I guess it’s in his DNA.
Without turning the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Eastern Europe into seas of glass, there is no way to win the "War on Terror".
Transcript please, sounds slightly like creative editing to marginalize the Senator
Transcript please, sounds slightly like creative editing to marginalize the Senator
The “War On Terror” isn’t much different than the “War On Poverty”....ect....ect.
Anyone know what Rand Paul thinks about Amnesty?
Libertarians are usually all in on “Open Borders.”
Well, I certainly don't trust Press TV (aka Iranian state media), but this sounds like stuff Rand would say. He's something of a libertarian, and I will bet much more like his Dad than he lets on. He has an isolationist (anti-war) foreign policy and isn't very interested in fighting over the social issues. Very much like his father.
McCain was never going to be able to or allowed to defeat Obama. I agree that the Republican party is going to have to change but I just don’t think Republicans have the spines to stand up and be true Constitutional adhering Conservatives. Nor do I think they will ever agree on why we lost in 2012, what we should do about it in the future or even have enough imagination to come up with a list of other things that could possibly go wrong.
I do believe it’s high time for a lower profile foreign policy. It’s not our job to democratize the world. We do have some interests abroad, but helping jihadis overthrow stable Middle Eastern countries is not one of them. Plus, it’s related to our immigration policy. Since we import 100,000 Muslims annually, we are importing a growing terrorist threat within our own borders.
Can you explain our need to get involved in Libya? (and now apparently dozens of other African nations)
Wrong, Rand. In fact, instead of being lazy and speaking in generalities, invite voters who actually care to examine the record. More liberal DEMOCRAT leftists are responsible for sending more American men and women to war than are the 'Pubbies.
And, thse same DEMOCRATS are responsible for those troops remaining at war than are Republicans. While the 'Pubbies usually take a harder stance toward defending America and talking a good story, it is the left that actually sends more American military to war because they think it makes them "look presidential" and they get a footnote in history of being a "wartime president".
IOW, it's all about who is full of more crapola! Tell people THAT story, Rand!!
Avoiding conflict, ditching principles, setting aside morality, taking a puff on the bong, and engaging in some inconsequential gender neutral free love -BUT limiting government and being fiscally conservative?
Who does this morally devoid anarchist idiot think he is fooling?
Just exactly how many of my principles, values, religious beliefs and God given rights to I have give up for a bunch of pussy Republicans? We have a cry baby for a Speaker and a vast majority of Republican house members votes for him. There are only three Republican Senators that voted against John F'n Kerry, a communist traitor.
Rand Paul can shove it up his ...
sorry for the rant.
If we are going to send our children to fight a war, we need to at least give them the tools to win it.
We were right to go into Afghanistan and kick the Taliban out. We should have been a bit more brutal in our initial entrance and we should have left 10 years ago. We might have had to go back once or twice but clearly we shouldn’t be “nation building” in an Islamic cesspool like Afghanistan.
As I have stated numerous times, we lost the war in Afghanistan when we ordered the Army to burn Bibles. We lost our moral authority when that happened. IMHO we can’t get out of there soon enough.
It is our job to destroy our enemies. Rebuilding their countries and giving them a government that they didn't earn by spilling their own blood is not our job. That was a Bush idea. Obama just wants to make love to them ...f'n faggot.
No need to apologize....thats the way many of us feel....and you said it quite well. Thank You
First things to cross my mind, too.
I agree with Paul that we shouldn’t try to democratize any more Islamic countries, and should avoid getting involved in wars in Africa.
But I don’t get the comments on gay marriage. The GOP already has plenty in its ranks who support gay marriage or civil unions. The question which Paul fails to address is how the question ultimately gets decided.
Will it be left to the states to decide for themselves as it should? Will Congress retain the power to decide for federal purposes, as it should? Or will the Courts usurp power and impose recognition of gay unions on the entire nation?
That’s what worries me when Republicans talk like this. It makes me think they are okay with the Courts hijacking the issue and imposing the Left’s will. The people of Kentucky overwhelmingly voted to ban gay marriage, and that decision should stand forever unless the people of Kentucky decide to reverse course. I hope Paul at least agrees with that.
Yeah, Democrats never start wars.
Will he protect religious orgs/churches and children from gay rights groups then? Doubt it.
Rand Paul is a lot more socially conservative than he lets on ... he is a christian social conservative and is raising his kids that way but he doesn’t think the Federal gov’t should be involved in many of these issues. He would be different as governor of Kentucky than president for example because if he were the governor he can dictate what goes on in the state like banning gay marriage but if he were president he would not do that.
Yes he would. One of the problems with those calling for federal bans of marriage, do you really want the Democrats in the Senate defining marriage and getting involved ? NO. Rand points out that this is bad for Christians and that they should work at state level and not call for more Federal involvement.
” - - - To help the party rebound from two successive losses in presidential races, Republicans must - - - “
_________________ STOP BEING REPUBLICANS IN NAME ONLY !
And Rand Paul continues his decline into RINOism.
Why don’t you RINO’s just wave a white flag and switch to the Dem party since you want to “soften” everything and “appeal” to (fill in the blank).
What next? More welfare? Triple Obamacare spending?
Any Repubican tyring to out pander a Dem will always lose.
Might as well change their name to “The Whigs”
There is only one political party in the US, the Fabian Communist Gobalist Party of which the democrats represent the left wing and the republicans, the right wing.
I don’t think it matters what Republicans say about any issue. It will just be distorted by the media in order to shape public perceptions that will favor their leftist agenda.
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party, Paul said.And less bellicose, y'know, like, stop supporting our allies and let his foreign employers overrun the world.
“But I dont get the comments on gay marriage. The GOP already has plenty in its ranks who support gay marriage or civil unions. The question which Paul fails to address is how the question ultimately gets decided.”
A few years ago, Texas approved a constitutional amendment that marriage is between a man and a woman. So, it’s decided in this state.
Thus far no one advocating giving up on social issues have offered any protections for religious orgs/children. Gay rights orgs will sue churches, go after children in schools and they will be fighting back on their own because Republicans have been told to surrender. That's what will happen,
Gays rights groups work on all levels of govt. They push first and we shouldn't surrender.
no it’s great. I really enjoyed it.
I think we need to bring the troops home, no more nation building. Kill the bads and come home. But soften the stance on social issues??
Well, he will never get my vote.
I don’t approve of using our military for nation building/social engineering other nations. We can’t afford it and it does not work.
We need to ditch the Powell idea of ‘You break it, you fix it.” When we are attacked by someone’s terrorists and need to take them out, that is all we should do and leave.
I appreciated Reagan’s approach with Quadafi when he flapping his anti-american lips and doing terrorist hits against us. He bombed his house, killed some of his family members, and then we had no further problems with the creep.
Obama’s drone take out is the way to target problems and not do all out war. But I despise our troops being used as nation builders/peace corps volunteers. I could give a crap about building up Muslim nations. Our nation needs building up. You wack the problem and get out.
That’s a pleasant surprise.
I like a lot of things about Rand Paul.
But I do worry about his semi-isolationist views on foreign policy, the military, and Israel.
Warmongers! Boo, hiss!!
What, did Dalton Trumbo write the script for this speech?
It isn't even isolationism any more, if he drags out the President of the United States for cracking open a giant can of whoopass on people who committed mass terror-murder on our soil unsanctioned by any belligerent nation or lawful declaration of hostilities.
Seems the real Rand Paul is beginning to show itself.
Goodbye, Rand. We hardly knew ye.
I'm ALL for that policy! Either nuke 'em and nix the rebuilding or stay out completely. But since their intentions are jihad, we must get out and then nuke!
I get so sick of having a party that is enough correct to attract you, but then there are some blatant red flag concerns. It seems they are using a hegelian dialectic to push us to immorality and loss of freedom. Give us choices between good + mixture of bad versus bad + mixture of real bad. The direction is gradually toward the bad.
1. Social Issues
2. Fiscal Issues
3. National Security Issues
4. (Issues of Independence?)
I’m not sure if the 4th isn’t assumed in each of the others, but wouldn’t it be great is we had a party that
1. Social: Promoted life and wholesomeness
2. Fiscal: Promoted Living within our means in rational policies of taxation and budgeting.
3. Nat’l Secuity: Promoted a firm but fair “Don’t Tread on Me”
4. Independence: Get out of our lives and let us pursue happiness as God gives us the ability to do so with alertness to not doing harm to others .
Where is THAT political party?
This is virtually identical to what was in the Cincinnati Enquirer (the largest city near me), but whatever news corp they are associated with doesn’t permit any posting of any of their material on Free Republic. So, I found another report of the same event.
Aside from that, the only way I can think of for you to get a transcript would be for you to write to the Hamilton County, Ohio, Republican Party, the sponsors of this event.
And we’d have all that if they’d simply abide by the Declaration and Constitution. The founders knew what they were doing. And they we’re infinitely better statesmen and stewards of state than our modern cabal of corrupt power-grabbing politicians.
I believe those two documents are priceless treasures borne of centuries of longing for true freedom. I do think that God smiled on their production.
The intelligentsia want to get rid of the Constitution now and are even bold enough to begin a campaign against it. I’m sure they believe they have the power to control a constitutional convention and rewrite this God-ordained constitution. (Refer to the 2nd amendment at this point.)
What they can’t do is change the Declaration. It details the reasons why the 2nd amendment is legitimately used against the tyrants. They can only hope to burn it. Along with Bibles.
These truly are times that try men’s souls.
We are confronted with the choice of taking control of the Republican Party or founding a real, new party. The ONLY way either will happen is if there’s a revival of faith in Almighty God, the advocate of the words: “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
Leave God Lose Freedom
Follow God Find Freedom
But the GOP is the marketing department for the military-industrial complex, and John McCain is the Senior VP of Sales. If McCain stopped constantly pushing for war in every part of the world that he claims have “terrorists”, he wouldn’t make quota.
BTW, the “terrorist” meme may be the best marketing ploy ever invented.
I interpret the Constitution to allow War, operations short of war, and clandestine operations, all with the approval of Congress.
Declaration of War
Letter of Reprisal
Letter of Marque
Like with Reagan’s treatment of Libya, Afghanistan & Iraq should have been a Reprisal, carried out with ruthlessness and then redeployment, if the Congress didn’t have guts to declare war.
And even with a declaration of war I would have done just as you said, gone in, smashed the hell out of things, governments, and leaders, and then left with a promise to do it again if they bothered me again.
Attempting to civilize Afghanistan was a fool’s errand from the beginning. We should have left after the punitive expedition phase, and never started the meals on wheels phase.
We’d have been there maybe a year.
An interesting website to watch regarding democrat and republican wars. Click play after it loads.
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.