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 ...
Conservative Freepers are progressive fascists? You sound like a ranting Paulestinian. Whatever. People like you are the reason I would never support Rand Paul. Not interested.
When the republican party practices and implementation strictly conservative policy, it will win.
The part of America, regardless of color, that is worthy will follow.
But not before.
Dang iPad and auto spel....
Those who want the most freebies will always vote Dem. Paul is deluding himself.
Like the rest of the beltway GOP he is taking the easy way out and decided they have to pass amnesty to stay relevant. Surrendering on amnesty is what this rant is all about.
I agree with freebilly’s remark about those here and elsewhere who are big government fans, even though they don’t believe they are.
I’m a fan of Cruz, Rand Paul, Lee and all the rest who believe limited government means just that-limits on-or getting rid of-the programs/laws that, according to the Constitution, restrict personal liberty-and that means the ones you don’t like, but also the ones that you do like because they benefit you and yours.
I’m willing to wager that most of us have said “there ought to be a law” when confronted by something we really disapprove of-and we probably meant it. We’ve also likely applauded a program that might get us something from the government that looks to be “free”, forgetting for the moment that anything from the government that benefits us restricts or costs someone-including us. But we howl blue murder-and rightly so-when a program gives “free” phones or EBT cards, because it is OUR tax money.
My point is that if we really believe in liberty and limited government as defined by the Constitution, we should be opposed to government subsidizing any giveaway or turning “freedom of religion” into “freedom from religion”, as they do now. I’m guessing I’m not the only one who won’t tolerate being told I can’t go to Mass, or pray my rosary one of these days...
What limited government should do is deal with what are real crimes-murder, (including infanticide/abortion), theft, fraud, assault, etc, and forget the nanny nonsense. Free people can’t benefit from that, no matter how many rebates daddy government gives us...
Apologies for the rant-my rebel in charge today...
It is a betrayal of Republicans when minority people join the Republican Party or vote for minority candidates? I have to wonder what kind of diseased thinking that is to even pose the question.
I’m a fan of Cruz, Rand Paul, Lee and all the rest who believe limited government means just that-limits on-or getting rid of-the programs/laws that, according to the Constitution, restrict personal liberty-and that means the ones you don’t like, but also the ones that you do like because they benefit you and yours.
Here’s a much simpler and more precise method of what Fedgov should/should not do; no vague “restricting personal liberty” slogans needed.
Fedgov should do ONLY that which the Constitution enumerates as its duties. NOT ONE THING MORE.
Everything else up to States and people.
Jive slogans can mean everything and anything.
See my comment above.
He’s revealing his noxiousness more and more every time he speaks. Another slimey weasel politician with a few good points to him. He voted for Hagel (”respect for the president’s choices” or some crapola like that) and wants open borders, just like the Libertarian Party platform, and IIRC he came out for fag adoptions. (Or was that Ryan? I think Paul came out for some kind of fagdom stuff lately,)
when the Republican party stops allowing the left and the press to pick our candidates from among a select group of RINO’s we will win again. (cough cough McCain, cough Romney)
Is it really a win if you must twist, change or abandon all your values? What have you won then?
Reagan won a landslide victory and he did it advancing Conservative ideas.
I like Paul but he should drop this big tent crap and replicate Reagan’s strategy of promoting Conservatism.
I was a young single mother from a Catholic family with both parents-after a foolish elopement and annulment-and I didn’t use it as an excuse to go fornicating with guys, churchgoing or otherwise-I got my ass to college and work to support my child-likely because I was brought up with a sense of responsibility...
I think the reason those slogans even exist is, in great part because states’ and individual rights have been ceded to the fed for so long that people can’t be pried from the trough any other way-the idea or liberty resonates with the sheep, where responsibility does not, even though they are sides of the same constitutional coin.
I agree, and I’m at a loss as to why so many states are in thrall to the fed, based on the temporary nature of the goodies-I don’t see what part of “you have to pay it back with outrageous interest and your sovereignty “ is so damn difficult to understand-like with obamascare-fed pays for a couple years, then the state gets the bill, and becomes even more enslaved. How do responsible people put a stop to that, short of tar and feathers?
The GOP won huge in 2010, held the House in 2012. Won big in Governor’s races all over the country. Will likely win in both VA and NJ later this year.
If he means the WH, the GOP lost the WH in 2008 when it was going for a 3rd term(which has only been done once since WWII). They had an incumbent President with a 25% approval rating in the midst of the worst economic collapse in 75 years. They lost in 2012 to an incumbent President with a 53% approval rating while running a bland, milquetoast, uninspiring candidate against him.
What is Paul talking about?
Once you are just part of the mob, what’s the point in winning? We have Democrats for that. Someone once said, “Pantheism is just paneverythingism,” and as a metaphor for popular politics, I have to agree. How much do Republicans and conservative have to concede and compromise before they stand for everything?
What an incredibly assinine, PC comment! The idea, Rand baby, is to communicate winning ideas, converting the clueless—not taking the lead of the clueless to form GOP policy! Big tent idiocy—who’dathunk it from Rand Paul?
No, when the rest of America looks more like the Republican Party, AMERICA will win.
This could go 1 of 2 ways:
1 - The party dumbs itself down and dilutes the conservative principles to the point it's not discernable from progressivism.
2 - A large majority of the electorate realizes smaller, limited government, personal responsibility, and individual freedom works better than the current trend.
We're living the first scenario. The second, while possible, is probably not going to occur in my lifetime, if ever.
“It is a betrayal of Republicans when minority people join the Republican Party or vote for minority candidates? I have to wonder what kind of diseased thinking that is to even pose the question.”
I think you are making erroneous assumptions — minorities should join the Republican party because it’s a pro-business, pro-opportunity, pro-freedom party, not because it tries to outdo the Dems in handouts/”bribes” to get votes.
Rand Paul was also trying to present himself as a big environmentalist — it’s towards the end of the article.
He is clearly willing to pander to any and all, to advance his political career. Sad.
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.