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 ...
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.
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.