Posted on 06/02/2013 7:39:36 AM PDT by Innovative
Rand Paul is the latest Republican to tell his party to open up to a wider range of views within its ranks.
"The party can be big enough to allow people who don't all agree on every issue," Senator Paul told an audience in California, a state that produced three Republican presidents in the 20th century but now votes reliably Democratic.
"When the Republican Party looks like the rest of America, we'll win again," he said.
"It's not going to change who I am or what I talk about but I think we can be a big enough party to include people," Paul said at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., Friday evening.
In his Friday talk, Paul sought to define himself, among other things, as a Republican who cares about the environment.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Yes I do feel the same.
I guess you feel the same the way about giving AIDS to a child?
or are you a hypocrite?
Figuring out Rand Paul is pretty simple. He’s using the political tactics that Democrats have been using pretty effectively for the last 20 years. There is little doubt as to the general direction of his ideology. He’s at least as committed to limited, Constitutional government as any Senator up there, and is solidly pro life.
When there’s a controversial issue that could hurt him, Rand triangulates. That’s very obvious on immigration. So obvious that it’s a little disappointing that more Freepers can’t see it. These “big tent” speeches are the equivalent of “where do I get me a huntin’ license?” The media hasn’t been able to lay a glove on him yet. The meme is that the GOP has to broaden its base, so he goes out and says the GOP needs to do just that, but he’s not going to change his position on anything.
I don’t know anyone with AIDS. Why would you bring that up? Are you mentally ill?
But let’s go back to your comment that you believe anyone who gives alcohol to a child should be shot. Are you mentally ill...?
What possible reason would a grown up have for giving alcohol to a minor?
There is no good reason for that.
Why do you give a damn if I left my 17 year old son have a glass of wine?
Why don’t you give a damn that an 18 year old can get killed in Afghanistan but cvan’t drink a beer?
Why are you a staist?
What an effing idiot
I agree....only guy with stature saying the right things
And I don’t give a spit about his heritage
Only white women who don’t vote like the men are the single moms
...and Jewish women
Even Yankee white women outside that vote slightly GOP
Your right, where are my manners, did I say an 18 year old was a minor? An 18 year old can choose to join the military bit not choose to break the law, sorry.
Who are we to judg him and his 5 year old girlfriend? Nobody’s business. You’re so right.
/jk
Not sure what you're trying to say....
Who are we to judg him and his 5 year old girlfriend? Nobody’s business. You’re so right.How and why did you leap from shooting people for giving a pot brownie or alcohol to a minor to pedophilia...?
Your giving booze to minors, next step is treat them like full little adults right?
Wait, let me see if I’ver got this right—
You want to come and shoot me for letting my teenage son have a glass of wine at dinner because it’ll turn me into a pedophile....
I want some of your meds...!
I used to be a teenage alcoholic, and when weed got more available, switched to weed.
Weed is much, much worse; what to speak of the kind they have now, which is thousands of times more potent.
A person can easily drink in moderation, occasionally, etc. But marijuana smoking really does make a fair number of people psychotic, taking it does often lead to much worse drugs, and if people start smoking it as teenagers it makes them measurablys stupid. Enough studies have been done, all this is scientifically proven, and dopers don’t like it. Too freaking bad.
I’ve BTDT. And btw I’ve taken nothing harder than a couple of periods of too much coffee since I stopped it all, many decades ago.
When there’s a controversial issue that could hurt him, Rand triangulates.
IOW, he’s using the same duplicitty that leftist creeps use. He’s therefore losing a lot of conservative support. So what does that make him?
A. Stupid
B. He won’t win the presidency, if he runs.
If he’s as committed to Constiutional government as you claim, he’s certainly doing a realistic impersonation of someone who isn’t.
Sounds like me in a way - I don’t have medical insurance because I can’t afford it, don’t see doctors unless absolutely necessary because I can’t afford it, treat myself and others with herbs, cook from scratch, owe not a penny, don’t have any state or fedgov “bennies” even though I could probably qualify - I don’t want any!!!
If someone comes upon very hard times (plenty now) and take Uncle bennies, I’m not going to criticize them; but taking the man’s money means doing what the man tells you to do. I refuse to be dependent on the government. I’d rather do without things other people consider necessities. Scrimping, saving, doing without is my method, and it works.
Yes, he’s coming out in favor of a few things the leftists in the media like, until there are details. Like Bill Clinton was for welfare reform, but he just couldn’t quite find a bill he could sign (until the 3rd or 4th try). He’s for “immigration reform”, “comprehensive” even, but says the bill reminds him of Obamacare. He says the GOP needs to expand it’s base, but he’s not going to change his stance on anything. Pure political strategy.
A. We’ll see if it works or not, and that will determine how stupid he is for doing it. I think it’s probably too clever by half. Still, he’s not really losing any conservative support he would have had anyway at this point in the game.
B. Probably not, no matter what he says or does. His last name is not Bush or Christie, so he won’t be winning the Republican nomination in 2016, and a 3rd party has no chance. I can wish all day for Paul, or Cruz, or Walker, but the establishment isn’t going to allow it.
I think he is being clearly unprincipled on immigration, trying to have it both ways, when his leadership against the bill would be very helpful or even kill it. Apart from that, I’d say he’s a strong advocate for shrinking the government to its intended size and scope.
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.