Posted on 03/21/2014 2:24:28 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Rand Paul is an appealing candidate to many conservatives. But he has a fatal libertarian streak on social issues that will make his candidacy in 2016 a non-starter for convictional conservatives.
According to Breitbart.com, Paul is urging the Republican party to "soften on social issues." But this is the one thing it cannot do and remain the Republican party.
The GOP was founded in 1854 to fight slavery and bigamy, those "twin relics of barbarism." In other words, the GOP came into existence to declare and defend a principled stand on the two leading social issues of its day.
Says Paul,
"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."
(I'm not sure "festooned" is the word he was looking for here, as it means "a decorative chain or strip hanging between two points," but his overall meaning is clear.)
Let's take Paul's template and see if it would work for the GOP in 1854 on the leading social issue of its day. Would Rand Paul have said that because of the need to grow the party, we must "agree to disagree" on slavery? Hardly. And it would not have mattered how many "millennials" thought otherwise.
The Republican party changed history precisely because it decided not to "agree to disagree." It took a stand on the most significant moral issue of the time and told millennials and everyone else, here's where we stand. If you stand somewhere else, then your home is in the Democratic party, the party of slavery.
There certainly were many at the time that thought it was political suicide to take such a fixed stand on such a controversial issue. "Why, if we're going to grow this party, we've got to have a big tent on social issues. We've got to make room for slaveholders if we don't want to alienate half the country. We just ought to keep the government out of the slavery business, and just leave that whole issue up to individuals. That's how you get the young'uns on board, tell 'em they can have their slaves if they want 'em because we're gonna be the party that wants to keep the government out of those pesky social issues."
To waffle on the major social issues of the day would have been wrong for the GOP in 1854, and it's just as wrong in 2014. The GOP did not go soft on slavery, and every black man in America today has the GOP to thank for standing without compromise on the side of the unalienable right to liberty.
If the GOP wouldn't go soft on liberty because of pro-slavery millennials, it shouldn't go soft on marriage because of pro-sodomy millennials.
Christianity says unambiguously, "Let marriage be held in honor among all" (Hebrews 13:4). I looked up the word "all" in the Greek lexicon, and it means "all." That includes you and me, Sen. Rand Paul, the GOP, and the United States of America.
The GOP needs to grasp that leadership is not capitulating to pro-homosexual millennials, but persuading them of the superiority of natural marriage.
That's not as difficult as it sounds. Millions of millennials know the pain and heartache of fractured homes and the soul-crushing impact of divorce. They want something better for their marriages and their children, and they need political leadership that will raise the guardrails that protect natural marriage, not lower them.
There is much I admire about Sen. Paul. He is principled and unbudging on matters of his political convictions. This makes him an enormous force for good when he is right, and a danger when he is wrong.
On marriage, he has made it clear that he will not fight for the fundamental social values that have made America morally and spiritually strong. What good is it to have a country in which the government is not listening in on the phone calls of millennials if their lives have been wrecked by family implosion and their bodies ravaged by sexually transmitted diseases?
Liberty unrestrained by morality is just license. We've had enough of that to last us for the rest of the century.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand, was asked by the Des Moines Register to respond to Sen. Paul's "Let's just go AWOL" on social issues. He said,
"There are some who say the Republican party should no longer stand for life. I don't agree with that. There are some who say the Republican party should no longer stand for traditional marriage. I don't agree with them either. I think that we should continue to defend our shared values....We should continue to defend life and we should continue to defend traditional marriage."
Bottom line: when it comes to 2016, Rand Paul is not the guy. But Ted Cruz might be.
Did not expect Breitbart to hit us with a “Paul is racist” article.
Paulista’s suck.
Rand Paul is an appealing candidate to many conservatives. But he has a fatal libertarian streak on social issues that will make his candidacy in 2016 a non-starter for convictional conservatives.
_____________________________________
Boom. Right from the gate this article is right on.
Is that a hairpiece on Rand Paul’s head?
“Liberty unrestrained by morality is just license”
That’s a great quote. I just googled it to see who said it. Apparently Brian Fischer said it.
Ted Cruz is good to go, if had something defamatory in his NSA file he’d already be crying in the corner in tandem with Boenher and sharing a bottle of scotch.
This needs to be spread far and wide.Thank you.
Any average looking man who so much as criticizes Hillary will be vilified as 'sexist' in the media, just as they are now vilified as 'racist' for criticizing 0bama.
A REALLY REALLY good looking man could steal female voters away from Hillary, since all they're really focused on is style (not substance), anyway. The other hopeful scenario is 'female vs. female' which negates any charges of 'sexism' in the media.
Sad, but this is today's America. Why do think the Dems run black candidates and then a female candidate? 'Protected class (blacks, Hispanics and females)' beats 'evil white guy' EVERY TIME.
here we go again. Hillary has to be pleased.
In 1859, people who advocated stuff like this were called "doughfaces". The non-doughfaces ran the table, burned down South Carolina and Virginia, and won it all as decisively as a million dead people could avail to define "decisively". Anyone who'd opposed them was dead, in exile, in prison, or stripped of his civil rights by government decree, and essentially a prisoner in his own country. That's pretty "decisive".
Paul's pretty close to saying that conservatism has been defeated in detail .... without having any evidence for his claim.
Other than that it walks right past both Pauls' gigantic deficiencies in foreign and defense policy.
The author gives us a phony, head-faking "concession" on the libertarianism on "social issues" (while muttering under his breath, "who cares about social issues already?!"), and then tries to sneak the other stuff past us, on his way to concluding that "Paul's gotta be the guy".
Paulbot bullsqueeze from the git.
Wrong Paul the less is not the candidate for ever.
Can't comment candidly on this statement.
Say what? From the headline, to the opening sentence, to the conclusion...
“Bottom line: when it comes to 2016, Rand Paul is not the guy. But Ted Cruz might be.”
This is as anti-Paul as it gets.
Who was that democrat Congressman used to run around with a badger on his head?
That's why we got McCain and Romney. They could pretend to be conservatives who shared our values, but they couldn't inspire anyone to change their vote since they didn't believe their own campaign rhetoric.
Cruz/Paul could win easily, and do it without RINO elitist backstabbers. Paul's Libertarian bent as VP might stir things up a bit, sure, but he'll be mostly busy dealing with privacy issues.
Traficant. Whatever happened to that guy?
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.