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
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 !
DUH!
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 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.”
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.
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.