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 ...
Won’t be agreeing to disagree.
Also won’t vote for any ticket with a libertarian in the mix.
Open up the GOP up to the homosex, dope and depravity agenda? Yeah, right. As if the GOP isn’t already a major mess of a Party that’s doing everything it humanly can to push me away. And now, the prospect of the GOP ditching the last few tiny threads that kept me connected to them, and joining the Dem Party in the same putrid, degenerate sewer?
This pretty much cinches it for me. I’ve had major qualms about Rand Paul (primarily due to his weakness on amnesty), but I never entirely closed the door on him. Well, that door is now closing. I just don’t see how I could ever give this guy my vote.
but I was talking about “Conservatives” not Republicans.
but I was talking about “Conservatives” not Republicans.
>Evidence the Libertarian party is infiltrating the Republican Party with their immoral stances
>FOR POT!
FOR BOOZE!
Don’t forget the alcohol!
"All those who share the vision of the human community as part of one world should be willing to take nay measures that will awaken world opinion to bring it about." --Lucile W. Green
What does state rights have to do with libertarian social liberalism and federal law?
The feds recognizing state gay marriages, and abortion on federal land, gay marriage and immigration, we know that "libertarian" means liberal on social issues at all levels of government and American culture.
By now you should know that you can't compromise with the left, they never stop.
Either libertarians will vote for our economics and choke down that they are allowing conservatism, or they will vote for the democrats on social issues, and choke down that they are supporting democrat economics, and that social conservatism is all that works for economic conservatism.
At some point, individual libertarians will grow up enough to realize that social liberalism makes economic conservatism and small government, impossible.
federal courts imposing it unconstitutionally needs to be stopped as a big first step.
So why doesn’t Rand just “agree to disagree” on his choice of McC!
Social liberals vote against free markets.
notice the compromising always goes one way
bye bye time
Right, because “social liberals” are Socialists. Why don’t we call them what they are? Tyrants and Socialists. They’re certainly not “liberals” (lovers of freedom which by definition means an absence of government).
What Rand Paul proposes IS a losing strategy. Some things you can compromise on. Some things you can’t.
I’m not now nor will I be a member of the GOP-e. I see no reason to become a member of the GOP-libertarian wing. Either way is a compromise too far.
The libertarians have far more to gain by joining conservatives than the other way around. I’m tired of being told that if I just sacrifice my values, I can win. Maybe but at that point I couldn’t care less about your hollow victory.
“Paul maintained that his own view of gay marriage is one that allows the states to make decisions based on local mores”
Just because you believe that gay marriage should be a states rights issue does not a Libertarian make you. It does not even mean you are advocating for gay marriage.
Just like laws agains’t driving too slow in the left hand lane should be decided by the individual states. :-)
How much bribe money is Rand Paul getting from the democrat party?
Libertarians fighting social conservatism, is social liberalism.
It is why they call themselves libertarians.
What does state rights have to do with libertarian social liberalism and federal law?
The feds recognizing state gay marriages, and abortion on federal land, gay marriage and immigration, we know that “libertarian” means liberal on social issues at all levels of government and American culture.
States don’t make the laws that I just brought up on abortion, marriage and immigration and employment at the federal level.
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.