at this point will go to update
Free Republic's computer system
We have the need for SPEED before the election!
Donate Just One Monthly
And Become a FR Hero
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
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 ...
He's pro-life and he vetoed that bill, plus he lives the life of family man. He is a walking and talking social conservative as far as I can see.
That he disappointed social conservatives because he talked the talk but didn't do enough for them when elected?
Assuming that this is true, it kind of undermines your original argument - namely that social conservatives can't get elected. If Reagan governed as a social moderate but gave socially conservative speeches and ran as a social conservative in order to get elected, your original thesis is invalid.
“He is a walking and talking social conservative as far as I can see.”
If this is true, then I don’t understand why Christie is regularly vilified on FR as a RINO. I like the guy, myself. He seems to be head and shoulders above the current contenders for the Republican nomination.
With Paul supporters it always eventually comes down to our support for those rascally joos. Why, if we weren't so dead-set on helping those darned joos there would have been no 9-11!
Without government running people’s lifes you have no need for social conservatives. Social conservatives are trying beat liberals by playing the game the same way as liberals do by getting the government to legislate their agenda.
Social conservatives can not win this way.
Best way to win is to get rid of the government that created the social conservative movement backlash to begin with.
Government is the root of all that ailes the country. The less the better.
Have you noticed that everything Ron Paul says has to be parsed by his bots?
They have to twist every single thing he says to mitigate the damage done thus proving that he is a crazy old racist lying fool.
That's largely due to his support for Romney and his practical attitude toward immigration.
Plus he's from the Northeast.
I’ve become very cynical. The thing we overlook about “social issues” (and I’ll include illegal immigration) is that they will never ever be resolved with clear outcomes. They aren’t intended to be resolved. They are intended to be USED by politicians to get votes or donations. Republicans could have solved illegal immigration and the abortion issue when Bush was in office but they were not even seriously addressed.
To resolve them and extinguish the burning embers would be the same as curing cancer, or diabetes, or heart disease. It would leave an enormous void in the status quo establishment that use and get rich on the fight, whether it be to cure disease or fix the social issues. There are embedded self interests on all sides that want the status quo to last forever. I am not at all hopeful on our society.
Why would you say that?
You aren’t MSM? I ask because the media has perfected the art of dividing us, and calling people racists, as they did with the Tea Party and with Glen Beck if it suits their underlying goal. They keep the masses dumbed down too by stuffing us full of their crap entertainment.
How much longer must we hear them “memorializing” (aka brainwashing us) Whitney Houston so they can sell more of her copyrighted music to clueless Americans? They are surely working on movies too to boost sales further, all subsidized by taxpayers, thanks to their crony crooked politicians.
I will answer you question with a question: which "entangling alliance" is most concerning to you?
“I will answer you question with a question: which “entangling alliance” is most concerning to you?”
Every single one. If the philosophy was good enough for George Washington, the country’s founding father to support it, it is good enough for me.
Why don’t I like entangling alliances, or supporting others with our tax money, or go to war for them? Because we don’t have any money. Let these countries get their own ducks in order, or their own killed, and they must pay for it too. I’ve come to the belief that not one country is worth the death of a US serviceman.
We need to put all of our emphasis and eggs into rebuilding the USA first and only, or we won’t have a country. To those who think we should sacrifice the USA, I disagree. USA Love It or Leave it.
Fortunately most Americans have not shared your attitude. If they had, we'd all be speaking German.
Sorry I don’t buy your theory that the USA would have ever fallen to Germany.
But have you looked at Germany lately? Maybe we should see what they are doing right. While the USA is going down the potty hole in most areas of measurement, infrastructure, fiscally, and except for a perpetual desire to send our troops into wars for other countries, the Germans have little debt.
Instead they have trade surpluses, and their people are generally doing much better with real production jobs that pay much better than most Americans who work in a pathetic service economy. While Americans attack each other, Germans stick together. They weren’t as culturally decimated by non-producers, thanks an intentional policy of the elite looking for cheap labor while destroying our common Euro bond.
There is something to be said for being on the receiving end of aid instead of having rented government leaders that give away our taxes, economy and will co-sign the credit card for every other country that asks. Instead of real leaders we have puppets.
I certainly am.
While Reagan was a good deal better than his predecessor, I can't find any indication he actually cut-out full government agencies.
From this article:
Reagan arrived in Washington with a full head of steam, vowing, as he put it in the major economic speech of his 1980 campaign, "to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending." To conservatives, and many others, he seemed destined to fulfill campaign pledges to abolish entire government agencies, rein in the excesses of the welfare state, and end Americans' overreliance on government.and
But after his initial victories on tax cuts and defense, the revolution effectively stalled. Deficits started to balloon, the recession soon deepened, his party lost ground in the 1982 midterms, and thereafter Reagan never seriously tried to enact the radical domestic agenda he'd campaigned on.
It's too bad he mellwed-out/toned-down; we'd honestly be better off if he had... esp. WRT the Dept. of Education.
You do realize that "anti-federalist" is a well-reasoned position put forth in the anti-federalist papers; and Brutus (who eloquently laid out the anti-federalist position & reasoning) had a level of insight that borders on prescient.
In short; calling someone an "anti-federalist" is much more a complement than anything else.
You are holding a european socialist state up as a model for the USA? LOL. No Republican or conservative wants us to be "more like Europe". And no Republican or conservative would throw our allies under the bus. There are web sites for people who love europe and hate Israel, and this isn't one of them.
I know that you are not opposed to social conservative goals. Also that the moral and spiritual degeneracy of our people is far advanced.
There is hope nonetheless. La Rochefoucald observed that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. Many who engage in fornication or adultery, for that matter, do not advocate that others should do so. Thank God for the beneficial effects of hypocrisy.
Many men who cheat on their wives are not eager for their wives to cheat on them. Many wives who have cheated on their husbands REALLY don't want their husbands cheating on them. They make exceptions for their own dalliances which they deem somehow special and unique. Straight boyfriends, straight girlfriends, etc. There are probably even philandering lesbians who don't want to be cheated on as they cheat on their significant other. Homosexual men are notoriously promiscuous but even a few of them either practice monogamy (of sorts) or wish their significant others to do so.
Santorum is the daddy figure whom we expect to object to lives lived promiscuously. In that respect, he is consistent in resisting abortion and even birth control in his role as husband and father. His position on abortion as a Catholic needs no further explanation. His position on birth control is quite consistent with Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, that each act of marital intimacy should be open to the conception of a child as well as providing a unitive function of binding the married couple closer together. There are those who intentionally distort that teaching to suppose that a couple incapable for whatever reason of conceiving a child should not marry including those who are beyond the age when childbearing is possible. All that the Church requires of parties to such a marriage is frank revelation of any facts known which would lead to the conclusion that conception and childbearing are not possible or very likely.
As to candidates, in this exhausting nomination cycle, I have found myself supporting Sarah Palin, then Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and now Rick Santorum. Whichever of them is the most likely anti-Romney du jour will get my vote in the Illinois primary. Right now that would be Santorum. Three weeks from now, who knows? Never have I or would I support Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, or Ron Paul, each for various reasons.
I do believe that Santorum has forced Romney to publicly promise (not that I believe him) to defund Planned Barrenhood, re-establish the Mexico City policy of Ronaldus Maximus not to fund overseas abortions and a few other worthwhile positions.
Had I been voting in New Hampshire's primary, I might well have been voting with you for Gingrich. Now he would have to get back into a position ahead of Santorum against Romney to get my vote. Either Gingrich or Santorum, for very different reasons, would make a first class candidate. If the choice were strictly up to me, I would choose Santorum because he is an outstanding husband and father. Gingrich's past indiscretions would neither qualify him nor disqualify him and his potential to really rock the GOP-E's boat and infuriate the Demonrats would be a compelling argument for his candidacy.
I dare hope that Gingrich and Santorum will forge a partnership to restore our nation. I also hope that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain will have a significant role to play in a new GOP administration taking office next January. I could tolerate even Romney so long as his role was strictly limited to something somewhat alien to him: restoring industrial jobs to our economy. I suspect that Romney would reject that role.
In any event, may God continue to bless you and yours.
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.