--------------------------
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 ...
With all due respect, I have to ask you the same question I asked Diggity. I understand your argument that life is constitutionally protected, but how do you, too, intend to change what exists? Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion in every state. I seriously doubt you’d get the Supreme Court to ever rule that life begins at conception and must be protected as such throughout the nation. I also doubt you’d ever get enough states to sign onto a constitutional amendment to ban abortion nationwide. Saying you want something isn’t the same thing as making it happen. Personally? I’d consider the overturning of Roe v. Wade, returning abortion decisions to the states, to be a wonderful victory.
I agree on their ‘national only or be damned’ strategy. We can differ on strategy but it is when you get the philosophy extremes like Paul’s philosophy or the national only philosophy that is when you go off the wagon. IMHO, Paul’s is the worse philosophy because it rejects fundamental rights are inalienable while at least the nation-only side holds firm to inalienable rights.
A state-by-state strategy is good because it would be effective, but it is completely unacceptable to have the philosophy that the right isn't inalienable and can be governed away. Paul isn't arguing for the former but the latter. He believes rights can be legislated away at the whim of states. That puts rights and individuals subservient to the government. Others like Palin or Cain (just to use an example) have rightly argued for the former as a strategy while holding on to the belief the right is inalienable.
Finally, states' rights is an approach that will not work in any event. The purpose is to crush baby-killing and rump-ranging posing as "marriage" and being subsidized by law. We are either serious or we are not. Serious means insisting on real results. If we take a state's rights approach, at the very least, California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, and several other states will keep "legal" abortion and residents of all states will be facilitated in getting abortions by simply traveling to the nearest baby-killing Mecca. Ditto for gay everything. Thanks but no thanks.
Ron Paul is a fake, a phony and a fraud every time he poses as a social conservative, as a military conservative, and as anything but the useless crackpot that he is.
At least he’s honest about it. He’s loonier than all get out but he’s not trying to lie to us.
Refreshing in a really weird kind of way.
If the remaining candidates, only Santorum and Gingrich are acceptable. First, we must destroy Romney and then Obama. If we do not accomplish both goals, it won't be for lack of determined trying now and in every future election. If Romney is nominated it will be time to stand down.
Sorry, but he has been one of those 'all things to all people' type of politicians. He signed the 'Personhood' pledge then turned around and wrote in Liberty Defined how he rejected any role with the Federal Government in protecting the unborn. It is of the reasons why the National Right to Life rejected his pledge. (similarly, he claims to stand for the 2nd Amendment but then on Lew Rockwell's site, wrote that in McDonald v Chicago, that the city had every right to restrict gun ownership and the feds should keep their nose out of 2nd Amendment issues regarding anything but Fed restrictions)..
He is as honest as any old career politician or used car salesman.
No need to be sorry. I’m here to learn as much as anything.
I stand corrected. Appreciate it.
At least I got the Loon part right. :0)
--------------------------
Exactly. And there are plenty of folks who are more than happy to pass the debts their behavior incurs to others. Communism and socialism demand social liberalism so the ever-expanding state can stay in business.
Catholicism. Actually religion, other that the Obama version. This election will have an important secondary focus on faith, won't be called that. Whether a Catholic or a Mormon. Joe (should I call him Jew like the left) Lieberman would not be a national candidate today.
Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
Must have been some cult, it's under the heading of Values. Worse yet, the get into marriage next.
Ron needs to stand up and run as a libertarian, or something else that provides money bombs. It's not like this is that controversial an issue amongst Republicans. Back in 1980 it read
There can be no doubt that the question of abortion, despite the complex nature of its various issues, is ultimately concerned with equality of rights under the law. While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general--and in our own Party--we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children. We also support the Congressional efforts to restrict the use of taxpayers' dollars for abortion.
Back in the day followed by strong families. No one was thinking about marriage I guess.
Sadly, many “conservatives” here think the same thing.
Why? You don't like your job?
Conservatism is a philosophical whole. If you don’t get that, you’re not a conservative.
Which is impossible when politics at the federal level won't allow states to do just that. The attacks on DOMA come to mind.
Good point. The Left, libertarians and fake republicans try to marginalize and belittle conservatives (WHOLE conservatives) but the truth is that they are a HUGE voting block. Impossible to win any election without them.
Romney remains the only candidate I will NOT vote for if he gets the nom. I will even vote for Paul (gag!!) but I'll have to take 20 iodine baths afterwards (I took 15 when I voted for McCain.)
Dang, missed another’un.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz-oooooooooooooooooootttttt!
But the truth is there are many reasons not to support Rupaul.
“He’s right on about our tendency to Nationalize every single issue.”
I couldn’t agree more, and it is both Rs and Ds that are guilty. States rights used to be a core conservative belief. No child left behind still ring a bell?
We need states serving as laboratories of innovation and competition and not the national bureaucracies run by political hacks owned by crony corporatists wanting a cut of taxpayer money.
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.