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
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.
“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”
My biggest fear coming true.
He is more like his nutty father than I thought.
Crossing off my watch list.
If he can’t grasp that “seemingly eager to go to war” is “peace through strength” mixed in with standing up to the Jihadist terrorists (who just hit our Embassy in Turkey btw)...He is is daddy’s boy and I want nothing to do with him.
He led the fight to stop the sale of F-16s to Egypt and the cash giveaway. Don't blame Paul if the filthy republicans in the Senate are arming and funding the jihadis.
I'm putting him at the top of my 2016 vote for list.
I kind of agree with Him.
Here’s my thoughts. I don’t mind going to war when necessary. I view the Afghanistan and Iraq war as necessary. What I don’t like is what’s happened since the initial stuff. I don’t like the ROE’s our government has chained our soldiers to abide by. They get our troops killed. I don’t like that we don’t just kill the enemy with overwhelming force and then get out. I don’t like how we don’t fund our troops with the best possible equipment.
In short; If we are going into a necessary war, I am fine with that. But we better support and allow our soldiers to do their job. If we don’t, then I don’t want any part of it.
I agree with not wishing war on anyone. We all know, though, as the Bible says, “there is a time for war and a time for peace.”
Unfortunately, Rand spoke poorly here and seems to indicate that “republicans” adore war. Two things: (1) That’s tremendously unfair when one looks at which party has been in power over the centuries of this nation, and (2) There is no party more appealing to our troops right now than the republican party, and there is no group more knowledgeable about the horrors of war than those who’ve served.
I think Rand Paul spoke poorly here and did himself no good.
And I’ve not even touched on the “gay marriage” thing, a danger to any society in that it will change that society for the worse. (There’s a reason it’s been rejected throughout history. Others have seen such societies and seen their ills and rejected them.)
As a parting shot, let me suggest that the first shot of the Civil War was fired by democrats at Ft Sumpter and that the president of the Confederacy, Jeff Davis, was a democrat secretary of war, democrat member of the House, and democrat Senator.
Abe Lincoln did not start the Civil War. He was heavy-handed, but he finished it.
“I’m putting him at the top of my 2016 vote for list”
And you’ll have company with the 3 % of Ron Paul’s Cult following.
...said every smug RINO who championed romney - oh wait, how did that work out?
Libertarians are usually all in on Rule of Law
Fixed it for you. Most of us L have only been ‘open borders’ 1) when the above is followed 2) The W.o.Poverty (social nets/etc.) are rolled-back 3) Min. wage laws rolled-back
From any discussion, noting the above, would (most likely) stem the illegal flow and get the gov’t out of where its nose doesn’t belong.
You are already practicing being irrelevant and being incorrect.
Not a champion of Romney.
Palin and Cain guy.
My concern about Libertarians is ENTIRELY their position on LEGAL immigration.
I’m not aware of any “L” who has called for reductions in Legal Immigration and Chain Migration.
We are creating at least 1 million new citizens EVERY year.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, first generation Hispanics vote 80% for the Democrat Party.
Fourth generation Hispanics vote 60% for the Democrat Party.
Since John Kennedy was elected in 1960, no Republican candidate has received more than 40% of the Hispanic vote (the 44% claim for Bush in 2004 is vigorously disputed).
In New Mexico, the female Hispanic Republican governor received only 39% of the Hispanic vote!
On the issue of LEGAL immigration, the Wall Street Journal, the Chamber of Congress, and Libertarians are avidly working for their own political destruction!