Posted on 03/14/2014 12:08:38 PM PDT by US Navy Vet
In an interview with Vocativ.com, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) expressed a desire for factions within the Republican Party to “agree to disagree” on hot-button social issues so that the GOP tent may expand to include more young people and alternative viewpoints.
Asked whether the general consensus at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference was that the party must butt out of social issues, Paul replied:
I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.
Paul maintained that his own view of gay marriage is one that allows the states to make decisions based on local mores, while the federal government “ought to take a neutral position” on the tax and benefit issues that arise from marriage.
The libertarian-leaning senator’s comments about the GOP echoes that of former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels who, in 2011, suggested the party ought to call for a “truce” on social issues in order to focus on the economic recession.
His comments were immediately rebuked by social conservative types likes former Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Sen. Rick Santorum.
Sen. Paul will likely face similar criticism, as certain conservatives eye the 2016 primaries and continue the push to rally the base and distance themselves from each other in unique ways.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
Small "l" libertarian simply means a lover of freedom. I also don't fit into that pre-formed ID mold. Nobody does. That's why we have states so people can vote and live in a state with like-minded people. As the name of this site says, we are a free republic (free to pursue our lives without centralized governmental power).
The federal government forcing their perversions on all of us is the big problem. Those who don't recognize that by thinking government done another way is the solution are unwittingly helping the Left.
Seriously? Every liberal agenda item is a social issue.
Small “l” libertarian simply means libertarian, and social liberalism, which leads to economic liberalism and opposes conservatism.
That is why this site is conservative, not libertarian.
You're very careful to hide your views on what a "conservative " is.
What issues do you think the federal government should be trying to fix?
This site is about free, and republic, that is why it is conservative and not libertarian.
Didn’t you read post 60?
Right. The liberals are correct on this?
You want to fight them in an arena no one belongs in, that they are using to heir advantage at the country’s expense, and in an arena tgat depends on the media, which the liberals rule, the republicans need to stay out of it
If they could win the country over on an anti abortion conservative culture campaign great but they’d half ass it the same way Romney did, who should’ve run on the yeah I’m not going to get 47%. That’s what dems do. Republicans wimp out. And because they don’t belong in there in the first place
How is a campaign for smaller government going to win on telling us how to be culturally
And find it in the constitution it’s not there
Anyone who wants to run on cultural issues from the right has to be willing to do a no holds barred anti abortion campaign. Pictures statistics birth control the works.
Otherwise sta
Writing forThe Human Life Review in 1983, as reprinted by National Review Online in 2004, President Ronald Reagan gave his take on life and federal action regarding it. He praised legislation prohibiting "the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother."
He continued:
I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life. [My emphasis.]
President Reagan admitted that an HLA Amendment would be difficult, perhaps beyond his reach. He might have been more reluctant to embrace the federalism on this issue endorsed by Thompson (and Romney) because of his own experiences therewith.
Your definition(And Rand Paul's Apparently) and the definition that apparently Ronald Reagan used, and he was a big proponent of being a small "l" Libertarian as even a cursory examination of his writings will prove, is apparently miles apart.
Reagan wasn’t a libertarian, he called himself conservative, and he was.
Im not not gonna “festoon” guys at war with God with my vote. It wouldn’t be prudent.
That's my point. Constitutionally, the feds have NO authority to interfere with abortion, marriage or employment (except federal employment). Your enemy is not libertarian, its the excesses of federal government and those who support its excesses whether in its current form or in its revised form.
ansel12 has a whole bunch of definitions that make no sense as far as I’m concerned. And he absolutely refuses to define what he claims to be - a conservative.
No, it is you that wants to create definitions to conceal libertarianism and your supporting it.
Libertarians are social liberals, that is the reason to never support one, for instance the feds have to have federal laws regarding gays, and gay marriage, and abortion, we don’t want libertarians who support leftist views on those issues being elected.
We sure don’t want to tolerate libertarians wanting to rewrite the GOP platform to reflect those left wing politics.
So in your book, a “lover of freedom” “lacks an adherence to social issues”. (I assume you mean lacks adherence to traditional American social values.) How so?
How so?
See, that is someone just making up definitions, social liberals are not “lovers of freedom”.
Rand Paul = Rodney King
I'm not a "social liberal" and you know it. At least be honest.
for instance the feds have to have federal laws regarding gays, and gay marriage, and abortion, we don’t want libertarians who support leftist views on those issues being elected.
The feds UNCONSTITUTIONALLY make those laws. Apparently you acquiesce to such federal governmental power. I do not. My fight is to give those things back to the states where they belong. If you think that the fight is just to get the right politicians in there so the government can do the wrong thing the right way, then you are delaying the inevitable.
I'm sure you'll construe what I'm saying to mean "I'm against conservatives" but that is also a dishonest statement. My ideal candidate is a Reagan or a Palin who knows the greatest threat we have is big government, but who also hold to traditional Christian values. The mistake is to unconstitutionally put these things into the hands of the federal government where they don't belong and where sooner or later they will be twisted and perverted as we see now.
Please tell me where our federal government who have unconstitutionally commandeered laws regarding traditional American values has advanced such values in the last 50-100 years?
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.