Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul on Social Conservatism: 'I Think It's a Losing Position'
CNS News ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: abortion; apaulling; apaulogia; apaulogist; fakeconservatives; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; moralabsolutes; paulbearers; randpaul; randpaultruthfile; ricksantorum; rino; ronpaul; ronpaultruthfile; social; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141 next last
To: mnehring; Diggity

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.


81 posted on 02/20/2012 4:04:56 PM PST by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

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.


82 posted on 02/20/2012 4:06:07 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
See 82 (and the context of what I was responding to). It is the difference between faulty philosophy versus strategy. Two completely different issues.

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.

83 posted on 02/20/2012 4:12:20 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012; mnehring; MrB; shibumi; Dr. Sivana
Ron Paul constantly poses for holy pictures as a pro-lifer and as pro-family guy while consistently REFUSING TO DO ANYTHING about such issues at a national level. The standard Paulistinian party line about the 10th Amendment doesn't cut it while the fedcourts and SCOTUS are busy cramming the infanticide and rump=ranging agendas down our collective throats under the guise of "federal judicial supremacy" so that state legislatures dare not act and will not be able to sustain their legislation (or even statewide initiatives) if they have the normally absent guts to defy the fedcourts and SCOTUS. It is particularly galling to actual pro-lifers who have devoted decades to resistance to federal tyranny to see Ron Paul or anyone else pose as a pro-lifer or as pro-family while being an essential surrender monkey on each issue.

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.

84 posted on 02/20/2012 4:15:04 PM PST by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

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.


85 posted on 02/20/2012 4:19:32 PM PST by APatientMan (Pick a side)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
In the event that you are right, RINOs and independents should prepare to pay a LOT more taxes for a LOT more useless spending programs and suffer the loss of a LOT more rights because social issue conservatives should not and will not give way on the genuinely important issues like baby-killing and rump-ranging posing as tax-subsidized "marriage" and RTKBA issues.

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.

86 posted on 02/20/2012 4:23:54 PM PST by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: APatientMan
...but he’s not trying to lie to us.

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.

87 posted on 02/20/2012 4:25:37 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

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)


88 posted on 02/20/2012 4:38:20 PM PST by APatientMan (Pick a side)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: APatientMan
At least I got the Loon part right. :0)

--------------------------

Crackpot

89 posted on 02/20/2012 4:43:40 PM PST by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: MrB

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.


90 posted on 02/20/2012 4:47:01 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
What do you mean by 'liberate itself from the ideas that Santorum represents'? What ideas should we be liberated from?

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.

91 posted on 02/20/2012 4:59:13 PM PST by SJackson (The Pilgrims Doing the jobs Native Americans wouldn't do !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; mnehring
I hate to intrude on such a pleasant thread, but I read something, somewhere.

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.

92 posted on 02/20/2012 5:16:05 PM PST by SJackson (The Pilgrims Doing the jobs Native Americans wouldn't do !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Sadly, many “conservatives” here think the same thing.


93 posted on 02/20/2012 5:58:22 PM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Call me when a social conservative gets elected dog catcher and we can discuss aiming higher.

Why? You don't like your job?

94 posted on 02/20/2012 5:59:33 PM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Conservatism is a philosophical whole. If you don’t get that, you’re not a conservative.


95 posted on 02/20/2012 6:00:42 PM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012
Ron Paul is not opposing conservatives positions on social issues; he is saying that social issues should be dealt with exclusively at state level.

Which is impossible when politics at the federal level won't allow states to do just that. The attacks on DOMA come to mind.

96 posted on 02/20/2012 6:06:58 PM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: pallis
Just as a practical note, Republicans can’t win without them.

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.)

97 posted on 02/20/2012 6:14:00 PM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Rebel

Dang, missed another’un.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz-oooooooooooooooooootttttt!


98 posted on 02/20/2012 6:17:36 PM PST by Freedom_Fighter_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
And so many say, "If it weren't for his crazy foreign policy...".

But the truth is there are many reasons not to support Rupaul.

99 posted on 02/20/2012 6:18:29 PM PST by rhinohunter (Not voting for RINO Romney...no way...no how)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpringtoLiberty

“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.


100 posted on 02/20/2012 6:28:36 PM PST by apoliticalone (Honest govt. that operates in the interest of US sovereignty and the people, not global $$$)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson