Video: Rand Paul sees a Libertarian future for the GOP

posted at 7:46 pm on September 9, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Senator Rand Paul was singing a bit of a different tune on the weekend shows than he was at the convention. On ABC’s This Week he told George Stephanopoulos that it might be time to look at candidates outside the social conservative base if there is ever hope to pull in some seats currently seen as “safe” for liberal Democrats. Let’s go straight to the video.

Rand Paul: “You know, what I’ve been talking to leaders in the national Republican Party about is, there’s certain parts of the country we’ve given up on. The whole west coast and New England. What I keep telling them is, maybe we need some libertarian type Republicans who might be popular in those areas. Maybe a less aggressive, more socially tolerant but still fiscally conservative policy that may be more libertarian. Might do better in California, might do better in Oregon and Washington and New England, and I think if we had that it would be a great strategy. Our problem in the presidential election is we’ve given up 150 electoral votes before we even get started.”

As I noted above, this is a bit different than his presentation at the convention, as Politico noted.

Rand Paul did not hoist the flag high for the libertarian cause Wednesday.

The Kentucky senator instead used his prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention to play footsie with the GOP establishment and offer support for “our nominee:” Mitt Romney.

Paul then focused on areas of agreement between conservatives and supporters of his father Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign: antipathy toward Obama, opposition to the federal health care law, support for the Keystone XL pipeline and alarm about the national debt.

“There’s only one option left,” he said. “We have to have a new president.”

Is Rand Paul signaling support for some sort of “third way” a la Bill Clinton? Perhaps there is some shifting going on under the covers, particularly after Mitt Romney appeared to walk back some of his talk about a full repeal of Obamacare on the same weekend.

“I’m not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place,” he said on NBC’s “Meet The Press. “One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like.”

The remarks could have huge implications as they signal a marked shift from Romney’s strong, unequivocal support for full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which he has consistently held since the Republican primaries.

Perhaps there’s a hint of change on the wind? Here’s the video of Paul’s speech from the convention for comparison, lest we forget.

Is this something new? Or just… “nuance?”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I can not tell you. As a leftist? It gives me enormous pleasure that so many Republicans haven’t figure out how easy it would be for them to win national elections if they allowed for a strong libertarian wing to exist in particular states. Yes social conservative ideals wouldn’t get those folks votes, but you’d have your way on every other issue

What nonsense.

Actual libertarian parties exist in those states, and they can’t even get a state rep elected, forget about national elections.

Rebar on September 9, 2012 at 10:41 PM

libfreeordie on September 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Just taste the dark side. it is tempting. You can control it you know…

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 10:42 PM

He’s right, Mitt is our nominee and O has got to go. Beyond that, the slide will just slow down a little bit. The crooks have their hands on our money and will not let go. I didn’t understand it at the time, but my grandmother detested FDR. Now I do.

Kissmygrits on September 9, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Paul says the GOP needs to be more “socially tolerant” to win in New England and California. Since he claims to be pro-life and opposes same sex marriage and opposes legalizing drugs like heroin and cocaine, is he calling his own positions intolerant? Is he saying he only has those positions because he had to get elected in Kentucky?

Furthermore, is he unaware that a Republican just won the Governorship of Maine and the last Senate race in New Hampshire? Does he not know that the rest of us evil Republicans supported Scott Brown since he was about as good as we could get in Massachusetts despite him not being a solid conservative on everything? We are already very tolerant.

I really do believe this should upset conservatives and libertarians. Again, is he calling his own positions “intolerant” ? Are those actually his positions? Is he really a man of principle? Or is he just doing what he needs to appease the people who fund his “moneybombs” and support the political machine that several members of his family have grown wealthy from?

D0WNT0WN on September 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

No evidence he’s anti-gun.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Are you out of your mind? He stated on Meet The Press in 2007 that he would have renewed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

MadisonConservative on September 9, 2012 at 11:38 PM

I’m sorry, but tossing the So-cons is a massive step backwards. The libs like to claim the mantel of science and “progress” in the actual sense of the word, but as in so many other things they’re not. Human beings have been around for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. Every form of relationship and intercourse has been tried (often with fatal results). Repeatedly. Only those relationships considered “traditional” have been proven to benefit all involved. From the partners, to the offspring, to society at large. “Traditional” relationships have withstood real world testing, and real research shows their children are more like to succeed in life than offspring from any other relationship. Why do you think the PC/Gay/Lib establishment went bonkers over the studies that proved children raised in gay relationships have numerous issues?
In failing to champion traditional marriage, conservatives would place themselves on the wrong side of science and history. Just where the libs are now.
Do you think it a coincidence that the party of abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia is now presiding of the death and decline of this country?

Iblis on September 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Iblis on September 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM

+1,000,000

INC on September 10, 2012 at 12:01 AM

This is an insightful article from Jennifer Roback Morse:

Privatizing Marriage Is Unjust to Children

I was once a libertarian activist. I was on the platform committee of the national libertarian party twice in the late seventies. I used to give introductory talks about libertarianism in people’s homes when I was a graduate student.

I would begin these talks by describing the problems that contracts between consenting adults could solve. Often someone would ask, “What about children?” I would always admit that children posed a tough problem for libertarianism, but that we would deal with it in a more advanced lesson. Somehow the time for that more advanced lesson never came.

It was only when I had children of my own that I came to see that something was deeply wrong with the way I had been avoiding the “tough questions” about children….

children cannot defend their rights themselves. Nor is it adequate to intervene after the fact, after harm already has been done. Children’s relational and identity rights must be protected proactively.

Marriage is society’s institutional structure for protecting these legitimate rights and interests of children.

This is not only a humane answer, it is also the proper libertarian answer, indeed the only possible truly libertarian answer. For only this answer allows the possibility of a society in which every individual person is recognized as valuable, as bearing intrinsic human dignity, of holding rights against other people and against the state….

INC on September 10, 2012 at 12:10 AM

She goes on to discuss “contractual parenting” in its various guises. Here’s the kicker:

…Good intentions do not suffice to overcome the structural tendency for “contract parenthood” to objectify children far more often and deeply than natural parenthood.

When a child is conceived naturally, inside marriage, the child is biologically, legally, and practically the child of both parents. The child can be a focal point for unity between the two people. Of course, things don’t always work perfectly or smoothly. But the biological parents, married to each other, have a great advantage: they both have a connection with the child. They’ve both got skin in the game, literally. When they are married to each other, they have made a commitment to work together to build a common life. The children are their common project.

INC on September 10, 2012 at 12:16 AM

INC on September 10, 2012 at 12:16 AM

Thanks for that. It was a very interesting article.

sharrukin on September 10, 2012 at 12:29 AM

The article I’m quoting is from Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good. It’s an online publication of the Witherspoon Institute, and it offers some excellent articles. In Ryan Anderson’s introduction, he explains its purpose. My emphasis:

We live in a sound-bite age. Rhetoric often replaces reason. Considered judgments often yield to the pressure for quick reactions. Serious moral reasoning often gets short shrift in our public discussions. Public Discourse seeks to fill this vacuum….

We are not a Journal. We are not a Blog. Our aim is to provide a venue where readers can find out what our associated scholars are thinking about or working on—whether in their own academic scholarship or in informed commentary on contemporary events.

…we contend that at the heart of our public debates are ethical questions—questions about good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust.

INC on September 10, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Thanks for that. It was a very interesting article.

sharrukin on September 10, 2012 at 12:29 AM

You’re very welcome. I quoted the purpose of Public Discourse because Anderson is describing far too many Hot Air discussions.

I realize hits and page views are the name of the game, but we’re discussing the basic building blocks of life and society—who we are—and that’s far, far worth more than advocating upheaval without any consideration of consequences.

INC on September 10, 2012 at 12:38 AM

I realize hits and page views are the name of the game, but we’re discussing the basic building blocks of life and society—who we are—and that’s far, far worth more than advocating upheaval without any consideration of consequences.

INC on September 10, 2012 at 12:38 AM

To be honest I don’t think most people think that far ahead or that deeply. The majority of people just go along with what seems popular, or with what they desire and rationalize those beliefs as an after thought. The life that far too many people lead in this day and age is paid for in one way or another by someone else and they are insulated from the consequences of their own behavior, or the effects of their beliefs on society in general.

Children fundamentally change how you see the world because you are forging who they are in large part, even if they come with their own inborn personality. Thats a scary responsibility with very far reaching effects on others for decades to come. If you raise a monster or a dysfunctional child then society has to deal with that monster or dysfunctional individual. The idea that you can do your own thing as a parent and it won’t effect others is insane. You can see what others do having an effect on your child and what you do will also effect others through the behavior of that child in the years to come. The radical individuality that many libertarians speak of exists only in their own minds.

sharrukin on September 10, 2012 at 12:54 AM

sharrukin on September 10, 2012 at 12:54 AM

I agree with you. It amazes me that here we are decades past the 60s, with plenty of examples of those consequences to consider, yet insular thinking persists.

INC on September 10, 2012 at 1:01 AM

It’s not just pot, people should be free to ruin their chances at a high paying job with whatever substances they want to get involved in.

abobo on September 9, 2012 at 8:02 PM

??

svs22422 on September 10, 2012 at 1:03 AM

We don’t need the GOP to be more libertarian. There’s already a libertarian party. We don’t need to GOP to be morphed into another one.

Don’t let the libertarians corrupt our party.

Conservative Samizdat on September 10, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Failing to learn from the fallout of the 60s, reminded me of what C. S. Lewis wrote about reading old books to help remove blind spots and prevent being trapped in the thinking of your own time.

It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.

The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction.

He was speaking of Christian classics, but I think the thought applies here.

One of Russell Kirk’s principles of conservatism was also on learning from the past:

The past is a great storehouse of wisdom; as Burke said, “the individual is foolish, but the species is wise.” The conservative believes that we need to guide ourselves by the moral traditions, the social experience, and the whole complex body of knowledge bequeathed to us by our ancestors. The conservative appeals beyond the rash opinion of the hour to what Chesterton called “the democracy of the dead”—that is, the considered opinions of the wise men and women who died before our time, the experience of the race. The conservative, in short, knows he was not born yesterday.

All wisdom did not begin and end with us. On the contrary, today there’s perpetration of considerable folly.

INC on September 10, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Conservative Samizdat on September 10, 2012 at 1:13 AM

I think Rand Paul knows he has ready-made loyalty from his dad’s supporters, and he wants to mainstream them into the Republican party for his own political ambitions. I’m with you.

INC on September 10, 2012 at 1:19 AM

I think Rand Paul knows he has ready-made loyalty from his dad’s supporters, and he wants to mainstream them into the Republican party for his own political ambitions. I’m with you.

INC on September 10, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Ron Paul wanted to mainstream his followers into the GOP and could never quite accomplish that. Now, his son is attempting to do what his crazy father could never do.

I keep saying the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree. Ron Paul and Rand Paul are NOT welcome to the GOP party.

Conservative Samizdat on September 10, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Conservative Samizdat on September 10, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Rand has his differences with his dad on foreign policy, but I always wondered what their other discussions were on. It’s my guess with his dad saying he won’t run again that Rand thinks that will be enough for crucial growth in numbers.

I’d also lay odds that Ron Paul only ran this time to keep his loyal troops together for this election cycle so they’ll be there for his son next time.

INC on September 10, 2012 at 1:39 AM

I wasn’t very clear–it’s my guess that because of his differences on foreign policy, Rand thinks he’ll be able to bring in those who wouldn’t have voted for his dad, while at the same time keep his dad’s followers.

INC on September 10, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Don’t kid yourselves, us “losertarians” will migrate towards Gary Johnson.

Reap what you sow you elitist assclowns.

Sammy316 on September 10, 2012 at 3:50 AM

Your lies consist of the fact that you claim that there would be a Libertarian Party if the potheads were factored out of the mix.

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I have to hand it to you, abobo, for trying to deal with narrow-minded Puritans like Happy Nomad, who try their very best to Alinsky-ize and ridicule a divergent conservative movement by reducing it to a bunch of drug addicts. Should we mention that libertarians also believe States could legalize prostitution, just to make their self-righteous sensibilities explode? It is hopeless to maintain a discussion based on logic with social conservatives who are compelled by emotion. They know what’s best, so shut up and sit down.

John the Libertarian on September 10, 2012 at 5:52 AM

that’s a good idea along with that you losers need to stop the obsession with make believe sky friends with super powers. This “god” mania of yours cause rational people to run from you maniacs which is a reasonable response to mental illness.

Your Mamma loves me on September 10, 2012 at 7:04 AM

I think Rand’s just acknowledging that letting the states choose their own destiny is the way to go. He’s not compromising his own beliefs, he’s stating that what may work in Alabama wouldn’t fly in Oregon, and that he’d be perfectly happy living in gay-marriage-free Kentucky while the folks in Massachusetts can marry all the same-sex couples they want, and this variety and choice in state government options will help keep America strong (especially where personal-freedom integrity is concerned).

TMOverbeck on September 10, 2012 at 7:05 AM

Out into Reaganesque language. “I won’t have left my party, my party will have left me!”

Don L on September 10, 2012 at 7:09 AM

that’s a good idea along with that you losers need to stop the obsession with make believe sky friends with super powers. This “god” mania of yours cause rational people to run from you maniacs which is a reasonable response to mental illness.

Your Mamma loves me on September 10, 2012 at 7:04 AM

Let’s see now, God is the source of all truth, love and goodness and you’re on the other guy’s side? Actually that’s not a question, just an observation.

Don L on September 10, 2012 at 7:12 AM

that’s a good idea along with that you losers need to stop the obsession with make believe sky friends with super powers. This “god” mania of yours cause rational people to run from you maniacs which is a reasonable response to mental illness.

Your Mamma loves me on September 10, 2012 at 7:04 AM

Let’s see now, God is the source of all truth, love and goodness and you’re on the other guy’s side? Actually that’s not a question, just an observation.

Don L on September 10, 2012 at 7:12 AM

Faith in God is not obsession. Atheists believe that rocks came from nothing and then turned into people. I think atheists have more faith than I do.

Mojave Mark on September 10, 2012 at 7:23 AM

As someone who in recent times, has shifted to a more Conservative Libertarian stance I have to ask…. why do we NOT want the people who agree with the vast majority of Conservative issues? If it’s simply because of the Social issues, it’s a bit silly since for most of them, there is a certain level of common ground that can still be established on them.

It seems to me, that after a big win for small government candidates courtesy of the Tea Party, we’re now sitting on our hands, while the Liberal RINOs take back over. And they welcome people like Donald Trump who’s more solely in it for the attention, and Mitt Romney which people still won’t question enough if he’s really changed a number of his liberal views and will act like conservative once in office, instead of real examples of conservative views. This SHOULD be raising red flags amongst conservatives. And it isn’t, which frightens me that we’re going into an election with very little conservative substance.

Razgriez on September 10, 2012 at 8:03 AM

I think atheists have more faith than I do.

Mojave Mark on September 10, 2012 at 7:23 AM

As it is with the eco-pagans. Though I suspect that the environment worship is tied directly to their fear of their mortality and look for ways to live forever. Gotta have a neato environment to do that, or find belief in our Creator.

By the way, if Nature’s God doesn’t exist, upon what authority do we place our rights–power, man, government, astronomy, evolution (from what to what?) Who or what decides that?

Those non-social cons don’t seem to have a rational answer to that fundamental question. Social cons do. Our rights coe from Nature’s God, and thus our dignity, our responsibility, our special skills and gifts, and this one is a doozy, our Hope for Change from the morally corrupt society we’ve become.

Don L on September 10, 2012 at 8:14 AM

Iblis on September 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM

The right to your own life is irrefutable. The right to “issue-free” parenting and upbringing does not exist. No amount of science can validate the claim to the contrary. Tossing the So-cons, therefore, cannot be said to be a step backward if the gay parent child-rearing thing is your supporting argument.

Tossing the So-cons is a positive thing because the fundamental principles that support their fiscal conservatism are at odds with their edicts on issues like gay marriage and abortion.

beselfish on September 10, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Should we mention that libertarians also believe States could legalize prostitution, just to make their self-righteous sensibilities explode? It is hopeless to maintain a discussion based on logic with social conservatives who are compelled by emotion. They know what’s best, so shut up and sit down.

John the Libertarian on September 10, 2012 at 5:52 AM

STFU and get stoned. It is what you “Libertarians” do best.

Happy Nomad on September 10, 2012 at 8:25 AM

I’ve said it before, but the definition of “libertarian” is “Democrat with a budget.”

Thanks, but no thanks.

psrch on September 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM

Faith in God is not obsession. Atheists believe that rocks came from nothing and then turned into people. I think atheists have more faith than I do.

Mojave Mark on September 10, 2012 at 7:23 AM

Since we know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, the more likely scenario is that existents (i.e. “things” for those in Rio Vista) have always existed. Therefore rendering your “rock-from-nothing” retort as more arbitrary pap meant to inflame rather than explain.

But, then again, immersed in faith as you evidently are, one should not be surprised at your indifference to explanation.

I would say, faith in god is more a rationalization than an obsession. Given the nature of rationalization as emotional, this supports the idea that at root, faith is emotional.

beselfish on September 10, 2012 at 9:09 AM

By the way, if Nature’s God doesn’t exist, upon what authority do we place our rights–power, man, government, astronomy, evolution (from what to what?) Who or what decides that?

Don L on September 10, 2012 at 8:14 AM

Our rights do not follow from any authority. They follow from the nature of man and the facts of reality in which he lives.

I do believe that many religious people (even zealots) are interested in a rational approach to living, hence the question from Don L. But, as so often happens with many big mistakes, in their search they drop context. They see the 10 commandments, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, all very sensible. Then why are they commandments? These are honest hardworking people that when confronted with seemingly sensible commandments which are nothing more than edicts, they forget about their quest for a rational approach to living.

Did they get lazy? maybe. But, if more religious people were seriously interested in the answer I offered to Don L. at top of this post, it’d be easier to explain the futility of the So-cons crusade.

beselfish on September 10, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Libertarian thought has nothing to do, and wants nothing to do with religion, major rhetoric fail. Also, getting government out of the marriage business abandons nothing and allows churches to discriminate as they see fit while allowing the degenerates to do their thing in whatever “sacred” ceremony will accept them. Win-win my good man.

I agree. In California my wife and I were only legally married when we signed the paperwork at the City Hall, not the ceremony we had for our family and faith. So at least in CA, what the state recognizes is the legal contract of marriage, not the ceremony. I don’t see how allowing 1% of the population access to the legal contract process is a threat to traditional marriage, and if that’s permitted, then the State has no power to force a church and congregation to marry anybody they don’t want to.

So in CA, what Paul is saying makes total sense. The state is just too generally socially liberal for a “traditional” Republican to win across much of it, but many people want an alternative to the crazy spending/union-controlled Democrats, but since they are hung up on emotional social issues they can’t bring themselves to vote GOP despite acknowledging how screwed up the state is and how tired they are of being pushed around by the public employee unions.

EasyEight on September 10, 2012 at 10:08 AM

They see the 10 commandments, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, all very sensible. Then why are they commandments? These are honest hardworking people that when confronted with seemingly sensible commandments which are nothing more than edicts, they forget about their quest for a rational approach to living.

beselfish on September 10, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Some of those commandments have been subject to debate, which may be part of the problem. Some think adultery is just sleeping around while married (which I believe), others believe it’s ANY type of sexual activity other than between two people married to each other. The “graven images” commandment… is it wrong to make the images, or can you make them and just not worship the objects themselves (instead of what they represent)? Everything’s up for debate, and will always be up for debate, as long as we’re under the protection of the First Amendment.

I think the vast majority of us ARE on that quest for a rational approach to living, and I would feel it best to take on the “live and let live” approach. Protect life, liberty and property, and as long as you respect those three in regards to other people, do as you see fit.

TMOverbeck on September 10, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Actual libertarian parties exist in those states, and they can’t even get a state rep elected, forget about national elections.

Rebar on September 9, 2012 at 10:41 PM

You are so right. There maybe 15% Libertarians out there. Good luck winning elections.

KBird on September 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM

So too is Romney as the standard bearer of the Republican, the once conservative now preservative, party.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 10:14 PM

You make my argument for me. The fact that Romney is the GOP nominee is precisely, and ONLY, because the social liberals, including the libertarians, within the Republican party refuse to tolerate a nominee with bedrock convictions. Romney is a decent man with respectable values in a number of ways, I will not trash him as a human being. But he is not in the slightest an originalist regarding Constitutional law, he has never in his political life taken a firm stand on hardline social issues (until he determined that the shifting winds favored those positions), and I believe that he will disappoint often regarding issues that seem small, but are in fact hugely important to this nation’s well-being. And I’m not referring to legalizing dope.

However, the disappointments we can expect from Romney aren’t even in the same zipcode as the anti-constitutional, tyrannical, despotic actions of a second Obama term. For one such as you to argue so, wipes any credibility you could hope to have with any audience possessed of common sense.

Freelancer on September 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Tossing the So-cons is a positive thing because the fundamental principles that support their fiscal conservatism are at odds with their edicts on issues like gay marriage and abortion.

beselfish on September 10, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Liberals and libertarians push this meme all the time.

It’s a lie.

The fact is, it’s the strong social conservatives in congress who are also the strongest fiscal conservatives. It’s the squishy “moderate” RINOs who are liberal on social issues, who are the first to cave in to the democrats on spending.

Rebar on September 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM

People who are not socially conservative do not have a problem with shifting the burden of payment onto other social groups. Thus they do not have incentive to remain fiscally responsible that a social conservative has.

astonerii on September 10, 2012 at 11:13 AM

The right to your own life is irrefutable. The right to “issue-free” parenting and upbringing does not exist.
beselfish on September 10, 2012 at 8:18 AM

I never said you had a right to a issue free upbringing (if only). You’re conflating rights and results to obfuscate the argument because you lost. I wrote and science proves that the best outcomes come from what we now call “traditional” relationships. That’s not about your rights that’s just simple results.

Politics is about the direction society is to take. It makes sense that if you want society to continue you adopt those policies most likely to have the best outcomes for society in general. See this is where the extreme individualism of libertarians clashes with the ideas of a societal good. We’re not all hermits (again if only).

Conservatives oppose abortion not only because it is morally abhorrent, but because it denies the future. We oppose gay “marriage” again not only because of its moral pitfalls, but for the dead-end nature of the relationship as no offspring arise, not to mention the monetary costs due to higher medical costs and shortened life expectancy. I keep saying that if the gay lifestyle was treated like a simple health issue like cigarettes, it would be banned.
These issues are more than just moral issues, there is a negative economic costs associated with them, and drug abuse too come to think of it. So the argument that “Leave me alone, I’m not hurting anyone” isn’t really true when you factor in the cost to society. Look at the costs to society because of the disintegration of the black family.
The question isn’t whether or not gay or single parents have good outcomes. The question is what is best for society? What policies will bring the most good to the most people? The values and policies of So-Cons work. They’ve been proven and time tested. Society benefits when they’re followed. We know this. Its time to stand up and defend them.

Iblis on September 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Rush was right this morning when he said that if Romney can’t win this and the inevitable economic collapse happens. Conservatives will form their own Party. A Party that is unapologetic, bold, and energetic and will articulate the limited government message. We will slash spending, eliminate government departments and programs, simplify the tax system and cut taxes.

Decoski on September 10, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I think it’s a message to the Romney camp that they need to fine-tune their message more along the small-government, TEA Party, side of the river. Sort of like what Bob McDonnell did in winning election to the Governorship in VA.

Another Drew on September 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM

The idea of small government vs big government is a second philosphical axis that is totally separate from the idea of convervative vs liberal values.

1)concervative libertarian
2)convervative interventionists
3)liberal libertarian
4)liberal interventionists

It is possible to fight vehemently for concervative values but without demanding government programs to help you do so. It seems some social concervatives can not even conceptualize this for some reason.

Resolute on September 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

I think Rand Paul knows he has ready-made loyalty from his dad’s supporters, and he wants to mainstream them into the Republican party for his own political ambitions. I’m with you.

INC on September 10, 2012 at 1:19 AM

If Rand Paul is such a fan of Libertarianism, why doesn’t he champion the Libertarian party rather than trying to mainstream libertarians into the GOP?

In the market place of ideas, Rand and Ron Paul aren’t even trying to convince people to join their party. They have to invade the GOP party to remake it into another Libertarian party. If that happens, the GOP will be irrelevant third party as just as the Libertarian party is.

Progressives used to belong to the communist party. They’ve infiltrated the Democratic party. Lets not allow Libertarians to infiltrate the GOP and corrupt it.

Conservative Samizdat on September 10, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Another thought has come to me. If Rand Paul thinks Libertarianism is so awesome, why is he a member of the GOP? Why not join the Libertarian party and promote it?

Conservative Samizdat on September 10, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Another thought has come to me. If Rand Paul thinks Libertarianism is so awesome, why is he a member of the GOP? Why not join the Libertarian party and promote it?

Conservative Samizdat on September 10, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I’ll make a guess: It’s because the capital-L Libertarians in most places have no ground game to speak of. I’ve watched them since the 1980s, shaking my head all the time, because all they seem to want is the big win — the Presidency. They seem to think that if they can just focus all their efforts, they can elect a Libertarian President, and then he’ll be able to fix everything.

But that’s magical thinking. How could a hypothetical Libertarian President fix everything without any Libertarians in Congress? With executive orders? We deplore that in Obama, and it would be equally unconstitutional no matter who the President was.

No. While I admire small-l libertarian principles, I don’t have much respect for the capital-L Libertarian Party. They remind me of my ex-brother-in-law: They want the big corner office without having to work their way up through the ranks.

If Libertarians really want to make headway in changing the politics of this country, they need to start with the smallest offices. IMHO, most of the damage to society starts at the local level. Homeowner’s Associations, neighborhood councils, town councils, city and county offices — those are the real cradles of oppression.

Those small, even petty offices are where our leftie friends get their start. That’s where they learn that (1) being a busybody pays handsomely and (2) the sweet, sweet feeling of wielding power over your neighbors just because they can is better than crack, better than s*x, better than Heaven, better than anything. And that is the arena where we have to fight them. Do that successfully, and higher offices will follow.

Mary in LA on September 10, 2012 at 3:56 PM

“your neighbors” s/b “you and your neighbors”

Mary in LA on September 10, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Iblis on September 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM

I agree the results of the science is not about one’s rights. YOU are the one conflating. You want to say that as a result of the science, public policy should therefore follow accordingly. It’s in your very next paragraph!

Politics is about the direction society is to take. It makes sense that if you want society to continue you adopt those policies most likely to have the best outcomes for society in general.

The question is what is best for society?

No, the question is, if I choose a lifestyle YOU and your science find useless and pointless, do I still have the right to exist?

beselfish on September 10, 2012 at 4:23 PM

No, the question is, if I choose a lifestyle YOU and your science find useless and pointless, do I still have the right to exist?

beselfish on September 10, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Sure, you have the right to exist.

You don’t, however, have the right to force everyone else to approve of your lifestyle.

Rebar on September 10, 2012 at 5:17 PM

We oppose gay “marriage” again not only because of its moral pitfalls, but for the dead-end nature of the relationship as no offspring arise, not to mention the monetary costs due to higher medical costs and shortened life expectancy. I keep saying that if the gay lifestyle was treated like a simple health issue like cigarettes, it would be banned.

So… two men can’t pay surrogate moms to have their kids? Lesbians can’t be artificially inseminated? And how do you go about enforcing a ban on homosexuality? As for the comparison to cigarettes, no one catches “secondhand gay” from a gay person.

These issues are more than just moral issues, there is a negative economic costs associated with them, and drug abuse too come to think of it. So the argument that “Leave me alone, I’m not hurting anyone” isn’t really true when you factor in the cost to society. Look at the costs to society because of the disintegration of the black family.

Detail-oriented solutions would work best here. Why is it costing society? Is the cause the lack of incentive to get off welfare? The cost to incarcerate drug offenders vs. the cost to rehabilitate those who can’t handle their habit? There’s lots and lots of people who are productive members of society AND use illicit substances in careful moderation, ya know.

The question isn’t whether or not gay or single parents have good outcomes. The question is what is best for society? What policies will bring the most good to the most people? The values and policies of So-Cons work. They’ve been proven and time tested. Society benefits when they’re followed. We know this. Its time to stand up and defend them.

You can promote your socially conservative lifestyles without banning the lifestyles you don’t agree with. Having to conform to one kind of family unit, or banning stuff that can be easily controlled or moderated, doesn’t sound a lot like “individual liberty” to me.

TMOverbeck on September 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM

It is possible to fight vehemently for concervative values but without demanding government programs to help you do so. It seems some social concervatives can not even conceptualize this for some reason.

Resolute on September 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

We have the welfare state fighting against conservative values every day. So long as it continues we will never reverse the progressive slide.

astonerii on September 10, 2012 at 5:37 PM

No, the question is, if I choose a lifestyle YOU and your science find useless and pointless, do I still have the right to exist?

beselfish on September 10, 2012 at 4:23 PM

No, the question is should your lifestyle have a government imprimatur? No one says you can’t be gay. On the other hand no one says the government has to support you in being gay. Or to force others into accepting your lifestyle and paying for it. There’s nothing that says government MUST support every and all lifestyles. The government only has to ensure that society continues.
And why the hostility to science? There’s nothing wrong with letting science inform public policy. Our founding documents are informed by Natural Law! In this situation science and religion are on the same side. Whoda thunk it?

Iblis on September 10, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3