Rand Paul: Republicans must agree to disagree on social issues in order to grow the party

posted at 3:21 pm on March 14, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via WaPo, compare and contrast. Here’s Mitch Daniels four years ago:

Beyond the debt and the deficit, in Daniels’s telling, all other issues fade to comparative insignificance. He’s an agnostic on the science of global warming but says his views don’t matter. “I don’t know if the CO2 zealots are right,” he said. “But I don’t care, because we can’t afford to do what they want to do. Unless you want to go broke, in which case the world isn’t going to be any greener. Poor nations are never green.”

And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved. Daniels is pro-life himself, and he gets high marks from conservative religious groups in his state.

Lots of righties took that as a sign that social conservatism would be a conspicuously low priority for President Daniels. Now here’s Rand Paul last week:

[Q:] Right. But it seems what they’re saying is that the Republican Party should stay out of issues like gay marriage.

[A:] 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.

Daniels wasn’t calling a truce for electoral reasons, and he wasn’t calling it on behalf of the GOP specifically. Both parties would have no choice but to place social issues on the policy backburner, he argued, because dealing with the national debt before it reached critical mass would consume political energies. (In a sane world, perhaps, but alas, not in this one.) Paul really is making an explicit electoral argument, though. If you want to win, you’d better make room for people who support gay marriage. That’s more radical than Daniels’s position because Daniels’s truce in theory would lift once the country had been set on a more sustainable fiscal course. Paul’s truce wouldn’t. In order to steer the party back towards social conservatism, you’d need to show him that doing so would grow the GOP faster than a more pluralistic approach to social policy would. Good luck convincing a libertarian of that.

True blue social cons like Huckabee and Santorum will have field day with this next year. Social conservatives like Rubio or Ted Cruz, whose political brand is broader-spectrum conservatism and who themselves take a federalist approach to gay marriage, will tread more lightly. Paul’s got some cover on it from the fact that he’s personally pro-life and supports traditional marriage, but then again so was Daniels and that didn’t help him much. I think it all depends on which issues, specifically, he thinks there’s room for disagreement on and how much room there is. Gay marriage isn’t abortion; marijuana legalization isn’t gun rights. As long as Paul holds the line on the party’s truest cultural litmus tests, he’ll probably get some slack on the rest. But that’s what I mean in asking how much room there is: What would it mean to “hold the line”? Would Paul be willing to choose a vice president who supports legalizing gay marriage and marijuana? What about one who’s pro-choice and supports an assault weapons ban? The problem with “truce” statements, especially in the context of making the tent bigger, is that it’s never clear how much bigger the pol in question would be willing to make it. We’ll find out next year.


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 5

There will be war, soon, but not on social issues.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2014 at 3:23 PM

LilliPutin gets the US secrets and the lilliputian in the WH is out golfing.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2014 at 3:23 PM

The Rs love squirrels, the fools.

Hannity claims that the lost plane is “the most important topic right now”.

News to Hannity – LilliPutin is the most important, because he can.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2014 at 3:25 PM

He’s absolutely right. Especially since, nationally, there isn’t a damned thing to be done about any of it.

There are not going to be any bills passed that would restrict abortion, ban gay marriage, etc., no matter WHO is president, be it Cruz, Paul, Santorum, or Huckabee.

And if by some small miracle there WERE ? That would make GWB’s shellacking look like child’s play.

deadrody on March 14, 2014 at 3:25 PM

I disagree, we should all agree.

Flange on March 14, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Young people didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 because of homosexual marriage, because he was against it back then.

They voted for Obama because he was black.

They are morons.

sentinelrules on March 14, 2014 at 3:26 PM

I thought we already did have something of a truce. Dick Cheney didn’t agree with George W. Bush on gay marriage. Yet they were on the same ticket twice. Rudy Guiliani is a social liberal, yet conservatives have embraced him.

We can have a pretty big tent. But there have to be some issues that the base is not forced to “compromise” on. I can’t speak for anyone else, but support for climate change legislation, taxpayer-funded abortion, and amnesty are all non-starters for me. I can agree to disagree on a lot of issues, but not those.

Doughboy on March 14, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Does this mean I have to celebrate sodomy from the highest mountaintop and see insignificant homosexual figures highlighted in history textbooks not for significance but merely for homosexuality?

BuckeyeSam on March 14, 2014 at 3:27 PM

He’s absolutely right. Especially since, nationally, there isn’t a damned thing to be done about any of it.

There are not going to be any bills passed that would restrict abortion, ban gay marriage, etc., no matter WHO is president, be it Cruz, Paul, Santorum, or Huckabee.

And if by some small miracle there WERE ? That would make GWB’s shellacking look like child’s play.

deadrody on March 14, 2014 at 3:25 PM

How about Supreme Court justices?

I want another Scalia or Thomas to replace Kennedy.

sentinelrules on March 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM

And if by some small miracle there WERE ? That would make GWB’s shellacking look like child’s play.

deadrody on March 14, 2014 at 3:25 PM

When did GWB get “shellacked”?

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2014 at 3:30 PM

MM sets them straight.

Listen to this, for a good blood-boiling. Then throw the scumhag out of the congress.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Of course, you can’t get everyone to agree on everything…some “social” items are just not that important. They are used to cloud the important issues like the economy.

Wait, never mind I just read this:

Doughboy on March 14, 2014 at 3:26 PM

About covers it all…

right2bright on March 14, 2014 at 3:32 PM

As one of those pesky social conservatives who happen to think issues like life, marriage and drugs are important, I also think were must embrace the word COALITION. We have to find a way to respect our differences, not beat each other up over them, for the common goal of beating the Dems. We can do it!

ncinca on March 14, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Senator … you know I love you . . . . . but, what is a non-social issue ?

listens2glenn on March 14, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Rand needs to shut his face.

dforston on March 14, 2014 at 3:35 PM

I would like to either him or Scott Walker run. Of course with Rand Paul they are going to lock his father away.

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Rand is certainly growing on me. To this point I have recognized that he is politically astute. This further cements that impression with me.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 3:40 PM

It may escape Rand that we already do that. To no results.

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Social issues are why the government is spending so much money.

sharrukin on March 14, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Rand needs to shut his face.

dforston on March 14, 2014 at 3:35 PM

.
Rand or Scott would be fine by me.

There still isn’t any obvious “second coming” of Ronald Reagan.

listens2glenn on March 14, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Rand is certainly growing on me. To this point I have recognized that he is politically astute. This further cements that impression with me.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 3:40 PM

That’s all Conservatives need to know….to start looking in the other direction.

kingsjester on March 14, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Right is right.

Life is life.

Gay marriage is still gay marriage.

Nothing has changed, no surrender.

Fortitude on March 14, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Social issues are why the government is spending so much money.

sharrukin on March 14, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Yep.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, EDU, etc. Border security is the only social issue that we don’t touch.

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 3:44 PM

okay but how does he feel about photographers, bakers, etc being forced to participate in gay weddings? that is an important social issue to me. is he saying people in the republican party can disagree on that? hope not.

and what about abortion? we should disagree on whether killing innocent people should be allowed?

and there are other social issues too. how come social issues are seen as unimportant? does he think that social issues and other issues are separate? does he think we can sweep social issues under the rug? believe it or not, social issues are very important to talk about. it’s not all about fiscal issues. it’s not all about foreign policy. if we ignore social issues, we ignore many of our country’s problems.

Sachiko on March 14, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Why don’t we agree to disagree on every issue?

We can have both communists and libertarians sharing the same banner!!

We can have Marxists and Neocons under one roof!

Why have any party-wide positions on anything at all?

that way, the party can be huge. We can be for and against everything!!! Everyone would be a republican. And we would win, win, win baby! Every election in the bag!

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 3:46 PM

sharrukin on March 14, 2014 at 3:40 PM
nobar on March 14, 2014 at 3:44 PM

I see what you did there. However, deliberately distorting his clear message in your post will not change his meaning in the ears of rational listeners.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 3:48 PM

As we head toward the 2014 Midterm Elections, it is up to us as Americans to decide what kind of country we want.

Do we want to return to an America that is fiscally sound, with a culture and character that is admired all over the Free World?

Or, do we want to watch the “Shining City Upon a Hill” continue to tarnish and decay as those who are supposed to be serving us, serve themselves instead, while following, intentionally or unintentionally, the failed nanny-state philosophy of Marx and Lenin?

This November, this country will, once again, make a choice.

I pray that it is the right one.

kingsjester on March 14, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Why don’t we agree to disagree on every issue?

We can have both communists and libertarians sharing the same banner!!

We can have Marxists and Neocons under one roof!

Why have any party-wide positions on anything at all?

that way, the party can be huge. We can be for and against everything!!! Everyone would be a republican. And we would win, win, win baby! Every election in the bag!

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 3:46 PM

THIS.

i mean, we might as well! i really don’t like this idea of giving up values and principles in order to grow the party.

Sachiko on March 14, 2014 at 3:49 PM

I’m very socially conservative. I’ll work politically with anyone who shares my beliefs in smaller govt, liberty, Amer. exceptionalism, free markets, etc because I’m a grownup who realizes that someone that I disagree with 30% of the time is not my enemy.

jdpaz on March 14, 2014 at 3:49 PM

There really isn’t a definition of conservative these days. That’s part of the problem with Republican branding.

Another Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 3:50 PM

I see what you did there. However, deliberately distorting his clear message in your post will not change his meaning in the ears of rational listeners.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Yeah, you’re always so “rational”.

Screw principles. Who needs those?

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2014 at 3:50 PM

jdpaz on March 14, 2014 at 3:49 PM

+1

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 3:51 PM

Young people didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 because of homosexual marriage, because he was against it back then.

They voted for Obama because he was black.

They are morons.

sentinelrules on March 14, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Wasn’t just young people doing that, by the way.

And they were all morons.

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 3:52 PM

I see what you did there. However, deliberately distorting his clear message in your post will not change his meaning in the ears of rational listeners.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Rand is not advocating a truce here. As I pointed out, we already are “agreeing to disagree”. What has it gotten us? What Rand is asking for those with strong convictions to sit down and shut up.

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 3:52 PM

As one of those pesky social conservatives who happen to think issues like life, marriage and drugs are important, I also think were must embrace the word COALITION. We have to find a way to respect our differences, not beat each other up over them, for the common goal of beating the Dems. We can do it!

ncinca on March 14, 2014 at 3:35 PM

I agree. The key to most of the social issues is the 10th Amendment. Individual states ought to be in control of gay marriage in their state. Ditto with legal pot, prostitution, etc. Abortion, to my mind, is the only sticky wicket there. Murder is murder. I think taking the position of sending abortion back to the states to decide would be the hardest one for most conservatives, but for me, I’d take comfort in knowing that would mean the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which to my mind, would be the greatest victory of conservatives in decades.

idalily on March 14, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2014 at 3:50 PM

The p word has become nothing but a cliched fig leaf. It has morphed into the word pure meaning any variation from dogma is cause for burning at the political stake. As Reagan said and jdpaz said above, realize that the pol you disagree with 30% of the time is not your enemy.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 3:55 PM

sentinelrules on March 14, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Ignore my generation for 7 years. You’ll never regret giving up on their votes.

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Rand is not advocating a truce here. As I pointed out, we already are “agreeing to disagree”. What has it gotten us? What Rand is asking for those with strong convictions to sit down and shut up.

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 3:52 PM

That’s *always* what this kind of thing means.

To Dems, ‘bipartisan’ means “we get what we want, and you stfu.”

To GOP, ‘agree to disagree’ means “we keep doing what we’re doing, working with the Democrats, steering the country over the cliff, and you stfu.”

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Fiscal issues unite the whole party. They also bring in others from across the political spectrum.

Once we get our nation fiscally sound, then lets see what we can do on soothing our differences.

portlandon on March 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Rand Paul: Republicans must agree to disagree on social issues in order to grow the party

“Social issues” don’t create jobs.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Did I mention that I am liking Rand more and more?

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM

I see what you did there. However, deliberately distorting his clear message in your post will not change his meaning in the ears of rational listeners.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Its not a distortion. Its fundamental to the problem.

Rand Paul is talking about the shallow end of the pool where nothing of substance will ever get done, but some politicians can make a pretty good living while the economic train wreck carries on.

Social issues have to be dealt with honestly, or you really aren’t being serious about the financial issues at all.

sharrukin on March 14, 2014 at 3:57 PM

B-b-but social cons are right about everything. Just ask them.

John the Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Here is the truth that the GOP and those who want to jettison “social conservatism” never realize:

A large swath of the GOP base (let’s say about 1/3) are social conservatives (i.e., pro-life and anti-gay marriage) but are not necessarily conervative on other issues (i.e., spending, size of gov’t). These are Huckabee type republicans. In fact, their religious beliefs may even tend to drive them left on fiscal issues and immigration.

So, abandoning social conservatism will likely result in those people leaving the GOP in droves.

Now, on the flip side, just how many potential fiscal conservatives are out there who would vote GOP BUT FOR abortion and gay marriage?

I’d put that number at far, far less than the lost social conservatives.

this belief that there is a large voting pool of fiscally conservative but socially liberal people out there is delusional. That is a very small contingent at best.

And, almost no politician in history who claims to be “socially liberal” but fiscally conservative has remained even remotely true to fiscal conservatism. They all have moved left on those issues.

So, while I am not personally a passionate social conservative, I do look for it in my politicians because I know that if they run on a socially conservative platform, they have (to a larger degree than otherwise) the cojones to stick to fiscal conservatism as well.

The GOP without social conservatism would lose by enormous margins.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Did I mention that I am liking Rand more and more?

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM

I can’t say that I’m surprised. Rand’s stand on cronyism is right up your ally (see free enterprise zones).

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM

As Reagan said and jdpaz said above, realize that the pol you disagree with 30% of the time is not your enemy.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Nice platitudes.

Now quantify the 30% disagreement. Make your own 10 point bullet list that you agree with 70% of and virulently disagree with the other 30%. Would you vote for someone that held those 30% positions?

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Rand has the right idea. IF the GOP factions cannot set aside differences there is a real possibility that the Democrats will permanently pit the millenials against the GOP. When there is no money left to bleed from Defense they will go after social security that makes CPI seem like a mild impact.
“You created the mess you need to pay for it” will become the mantra.

Bradky on March 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM

The p word has become nothing but a cliched fig leaf. It has morphed into the word pure meaning any variation from dogma is cause for burning at the political stake. As Reagan said and jdpaz said above, realize that the pol you disagree with 30% of the time is not your enemy.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Well my “cliched fig leaves” are not going to allow me to give in on gay marriage, abortion, nor amnesty.

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Would you vote for someone that held those 30% positions?

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM

I’m usually lucky if it is only 30%.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM

And, I think the subconscious belief that people who advocate getting rid of social conservatives have is that the media will be nice to the GOP if it weren’t for abortion and gay marriage.

this again is delusional. The left (and media) is essentially Marxist. They want a huge (well, huger) federal gov’t and wealth redistribution. They are not going to ease up on the GOP even if the GOP turned pro-abortion and pro-gay-marriage tomorrow.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM

If you’re not willing to give special recognition to the institution that keeps your society and culture going (traditional marriage), the rest will eventually crumble whether you want it to or not.

Ricard on March 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Social issues are why the government is spending so much money.

sharrukin on March 14, 2014 at 3:40 PM

As a corollary to that fact, I told my friend Sam just yesterday that if we focus on fiscal responsibility, then some of the social issues of conservatism will work themselves out.

For example, truly fiscally responsible politicians would not spend taxpayer money on abortions or unaffordable entitlement programs regardless of how they feel about them morally or politically.

Here’s another corollary: without social conservatism, fiscal conservatism makes no sense.

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Well put.

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Ricard on March 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Oh I knows! Everything will simultaneously combust!

John the Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 4:03 PM

So this means the the support of the libertarian wing can be counted on for social conservatism this time? I mean, this reciprocity thing does go both ways, does it not? Lord knows we’ve done our fair share of compromising.

anuts on March 14, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Bad couple of weeks for Rand.

First he sounds his crazy father on Ukraine, then he takes a page from über-loser Mitch Daniels.

Norwegian on March 14, 2014 at 4:04 PM

I’m very socially conservative. I’ll work politically with anyone who shares my beliefs in smaller govt, liberty, Amer. exceptionalism, free markets, etc because I’m a grownup who realizes that someone that I disagree with 30% of the time is not my enemy.

jdpaz on March 14, 2014 at 3:49 PM

That makes sense, although it does depend partly on what the 30% disagreement is.

cat_owner on March 14, 2014 at 4:05 PM

The GOP without social conservatism would lose by enormous margins.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Or be an even further-left party than it already is.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Would you vote for someone that held those 30% positions?

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM

I’m usually lucky if it is only 30%.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Nice non-answer. It’s a rhetorical question, one that defeats your rhetorical bleating. You could agree *90%* with someone, but if that 10% alone is egregious enough, you *will not*, *can not* support them.

Vomit whatever nonsensical percentages you want; until you’re talking specifics, it doesn’t really mean anything.

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 4:05 PM

this belief that there is a large voting pool of fiscally conservative but socially liberal people out there is delusional. That is a very small contingent at best.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM

You just described Independents and half the Democrat party.

John the Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 4:05 PM

What exactly to “social conservatives” want?

Another Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 4:06 PM

Can we all agree that we need to elect someone who will get government spending under control and actually shrinks the size of government?

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2014 at 4:07 PM

I see what you did there. However, deliberately distorting his clear message in your post will not change his meaning in the ears of rational listeners.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 3:48 PM
Rand is not advocating a truce here. As I pointed out, we already are “agreeing to disagree”. What has it gotten us? What Rand is asking for those with strong convictions to sit down and shut up.

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 3:52 PM

No one is asking you to “sit down and shut up.” But surely you know that if we don’t coalesce, we will not take the Senate in November and we will not take the Presidency in 2016. And if those things don’t happen, there will be more Kagans and Sotomeyers on the SCOTUS, and all will be lost, probably forever. You don’t have to surrender your principles on social issues. But you will need to adopt a longer view. You will NEVER find a candidate who agrees with you on EVERY social issue who can WIN. That is an impossibility. Does your spouse agree with you on EVERY issue? No. That’s where compromise and slowly working to change hearts and minds comes into play. The progressives understand this. They have been taking us progressively toward their ideal for over 100 years, baby step by baby step. Do you really think we can undo all that in one or two election cycles by refusing to compromise with others in our own party on anything? Rand is saying let’s focus on what we agree on and run with that, and save our internal battles for a time when we are strong enough to fight them.

idalily on March 14, 2014 at 4:07 PM

With respect to taking control of the government, that is. What do social conservatives want with the government?

Another Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 4:07 PM

okay but how does he feel about photographers, bakers, etc being forced to participate in gay weddings? that is an important social issue to me. is he saying people in the republican party can disagree on that? hope not.

The MSM has already hounded Rand Paul because of his opinions of freedom of association, but that’s not what he’s talking about anyway. Paul has long supported taking a federalist approach to social issues, the people of Oregon shouldn’t impose their morals on the people of Alabama or vice-versa.

midgeorgian on March 14, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Sure, I prioritize. I am not a purist who demands everything all the time be my way. Yeah, a lousy economic agenda, for example, counts against a candidate a whole lot more than thinking religious graffiti belongs in courthouses.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:08 PM

And, I think the subconscious belief that people who advocate getting rid of social conservatives have is that the media will be nice to the GOP if it weren’t for abortion and gay marriage.

this again is delusional. The left (and media) is essentially Marxist. They want a huge (well, huger) federal gov’t and wealth redistribution. They are not going to ease up on the GOP even if the GOP turned pro-abortion and pro-gay-marriage tomorrow.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM

This is spot on. The media constantly call for more and bigger government regulation whenever the flimsiest perceived injustice is mentioned. Interestingly, as soon as the government makes a small step to control their industry, they (rightfully) kick and scream (see reactions to the FCC’s recently aborted news study).

Typical liberalism/fascism: government for thee, but not for me!

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 4:09 PM

For example, truly fiscally responsible politicians would not spend taxpayer money on abortions or unaffordable entitlement programs regardless of how they feel about them morally or politically.

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Except of course that isn’t what happens. Solely fiscal conservatives seem to have this odd habit of voting for politicians who agree with them on social issues while ignoring fiscal responsibility. You saw a lot of libertarians voting for Obama for exactly that reason.

For them social issues frequently trump financial issues.

sharrukin on March 14, 2014 at 4:09 PM

this belief that there is a large voting pool of fiscally conservative but socially liberal people out there is delusional. That is a very small contingent at best.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM

You just described Independents and half the Democrat party.

John the Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Like he said, ‘delusional’. ‘Laughable’ would be another way to describe the notion that half of the Democrat party is anywhere near ‘fiscally conservative’.

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Ignore my generation for 7 years. You’ll never regret giving up on their votes.

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM

I’m part of your generation.

We’re morons.

sentinelrules on March 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM

You just described Independents and half the Democrat party.

John the Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 4:05 PM

You are delusional.

If there was such a call for fiscal conservatism, we’d have it.

Self-deluding lies don’t make good arguments.

There is no pool of fiscal conservative voters out there that would vote GOP but for abortion. It’s truly delusional to claim so.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Can we all agree that we need to elect someone who will get government spending under control and actually shrinks the size of government?

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Yes, for most social conservatives the answer is yes.

The problem is finding a fiscal conservative who will agree to actually do that rather than vote more cash for his liberal agenda.

sharrukin on March 14, 2014 at 4:12 PM

idalily on March 14, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Those time to sort out our differences never come. That is because too many on our side don’t want to take on the false premises of the media. If you want a truly long term victory, then advocate national divorce.

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Young people didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 because of homosexual marriage, because he was against it back then.

They voted for Obama because he was black.

They are morons.

sentinelrules on March 14, 2014 at 3:26 PM

I’ll disagree…people I know voted for Obama because he was a DEMOCRAT and they were personally disgusted at how much Republicans focused on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. It worried them that if they had control over all branches that they would focus exclusively on social issues.

Not saying it’s an educated view of politics, but what average voter is truly educated on policies? And the more the Republicans re-enforce those views the easier it is for them to write off all Republican views/ideas as worthless! Lots of voters seem to be trending towards a single issue type of voting.

nextgen_repub on March 14, 2014 at 4:13 PM

sentinelrules on March 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM

I had not seen you post your age before. I was speaking to the older folks.

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Sure, I prioritize. I am not a purist who demands everything all the time be my way. Yeah, a lousy economic agenda, for example, counts against a candidate a whole lot more than thinking religious graffiti belongs in courthouses.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:08 PM

That’s idiotic. You prioritize differently than other people. that is all.

Calling anyone who disagrees with you a “purist” is being a purist.

Such silliness. You want the GOP your way. Otherwise you would not be on here telling other people to shut up and get in line – which is essentially what you are doing.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 4:14 PM

this belief that there is a large voting pool of fiscally conservative but socially liberal people out there is delusional. That is a very small contingent at best.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM

You just described Independents and half the Democrat party.

John the Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 4:05 PM

If that were true, our budget would be balanced and gay marriage would be legal nationwide by federal law.

The reality is that practically all social liberals of any stripe either don’t care about government spending or want to increase it. Too many social conservatives fit that statement, too.

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Oh please, explain what you mean by national divorce. (This will be entertaining)

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Sure, I prioritize. I am not a purist who demands everything all the time be my way. Yeah, a lousy economic agenda, for example, counts against a candidate a whole lot more than thinking religious graffiti belongs in courthouses.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:08 PM

So you’re perfect candidate w/r great economic agenda (however you personally define that) would still be OK with you if he promised to write EO’s mandating that every government building in the country be festooned with religious graffiti? Let’s say that’s 10% and look for another couple of points that you’d really, deeply, truly hate this candidate for – but would, of course, vote for them anyway…

Where do you stand on abortion? This candidate is diametrically opposed to your standpoint.

Where do you stand on amnesty/immigration? This candidate is diametrically opposed to your standpoint.

Gay marriage? Affirmative action? Climate change? Foreign policy? Defense? Entitlements?

C’mon, pick another couple, envision the worst possible position that individual could espouse from your point of view, imagine they *do* espouse that view, and tell me you’d still whistle happily as you rolled up to vote for this person…

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM
Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 4:12 PM

That’s what I love about socons. They are right about everything, all the time. Just ask them.

John the Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Oh please, explain what you mean by national divorce. (This will be entertaining)

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM

It’s quite simple, divide the country according to the principles of the people. This will necessarily break states apart, but it will allow them to form a more perfect union.

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Except of course that isn’t what happens. Solely fiscal conservatives seem to have this odd habit of voting for politicians who agree with them on social issues while ignoring fiscal responsibility. You saw a lot of libertarians voting for Obama for exactly that reason.

For them social issues frequently trump financial issues.

sharrukin on March 14, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Read what I typed. I spoke specifically about truly fiscally responsible politicians. Not voters.

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Nope. Purists don’t prioritize. That is what makes them, well, purists. They have their lists of deal breakers and any violation means they will sit at home or even vote the other way out of spite. Is this your first day at Hot Air?

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:17 PM

So when the Republican party embraces abominations like homosexuality or transexual deviancy we should all agree to disagree just to go along to get along? I’m sorry but there are some truths where compromise has no place. The Republicans can progress ‘forward’ without the social conservatives.

iamsaved on March 14, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Can we all agree that we need to elect someone who will get government spending under control and actually shrinks the size of government?

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2014 at 4:07 PM

You might want to check some recent polls – this is overwhelmingly what people are saying they want.

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 4:17 PM

First off, the Daniels flap had more to do with his disparaging comments about how “anti-science” some conservative were.

And the only ones really calling for a truce are ones who agree with the social left’s vision for America. If they didn’t agree, they would realize that calling a “truce” on social issue is like Israel calling a truce on Palestine. One party will honor it while the other party forges straight ahead like a locomotive ramming everyone in their way. There is no truce when private businesses get sued because of “social issues.” There is no truce when private businesses have to pay for “social issues.”

melle1228 on March 14, 2014 at 4:18 PM

It’s quite simple, divide the country according to the principles of the people. This will necessarily break states apart, but it will allow them to form a more perfect union.

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Oh. You mean like they tried in 1861, right?

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:18 PM

’ll disagree…people I know voted for Obama because he was a DEMOCRAT and they were personally disgusted at how much Republicans focused on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. It worried them that if they had control over all branches that they would focus exclusively on social issues.

Not saying it’s an educated view of politics, but what average voter is truly educated on policies? And the more the Republicans re-enforce those views the easier it is for them to write off all Republican views/ideas as worthless! Lots of voters seem to be trending towards a single issue type of voting.

nextgen_repub on March 14, 2014 at 4:13 PM

yeah, I’ve heard people (friends) make the claim that they “would” vote GOP except for abortion or gay marriage, but when you talk to them about any other issues, you learn pretty quickly that they are liberal. They can almost never name a program they’d like to see take a cut in spending except for “corporate welfare” and defense.

Everyone claims to be “fiscally conservative” because being fiscally conservative translates as “pragmatic”. Which is why even the Dems pretend to be fiscally responsible during elections. But, they aren’t and their voters aren’t.

The idea that a vast swab of people is waiting to vote GOP except for abortion is, again, delusional.

It is the same type of delusion as believing that amnesty will result in big gains in the Hispanic vote for the GOP.

It sounds good in your head, but it is based on no facts.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Nope. Purists don’t prioritize. That is what makes them, well, purists. They have their lists of deal breakers and any violation means they will sit at home or even vote the other way out of spite. Is this your first day at Hot Air?

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:17 PM

You might want to think that over a bit longer, a bit deeper.

The people you decry as ‘purists’ are that way precisely *because* they have *priorities*, and even if they agree with a candidate on some things, if those *priorities* are not met, well…

Is English not your first language, perhaps?

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Can we all agree that we need to elect someone who will get government spending under control and actually shrinks the size of government?

SC.Charlie on March 14, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Sure, and they will ignore social issues, and the left will still tar them as homophobic, sexist, and racist. And because they “ignored” the issues instead of trying to sell the small government position on those issues; the meme will stick.. Binders full of women- Romney..

melle1228 on March 14, 2014 at 4:19 PM

I’ll disagree…people I know voted for Obama because he was a DEMOCRAT and they were personally disgusted at how much Republicans focused on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. It worried them that if they had control over all branches that they would focus exclusively on social issues.

nextgen_repub on March 14, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Then they’re stupid. GOP had control over three branches of government for four years and there wasn’t an extreme focus on social issues. Obama, at the time, hated homosexual marriage, but they still voted for him.

They chose Obama over Hilary because he was black.

They voted for DeBlasio because his son had a huge Afro.

sentinelrules on March 14, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Oh.
You mean like they tried in 1861, right?

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:18 PM

In 1861, whole states left with little recourse for counties that disagreed (WV being the exception). But I defy you to find the principles that keep this country united. One side wants a totalitarian state, the other doesn’t. There is no reconciliation.

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 4:20 PM

So when the Republican party embraces abominations like homosexuality or transexual deviancy we should all agree to disagree just to go along to get along? I’m sorry but there are some truths where compromise has no place. The Republicans can progress ‘forward’ without the social conservatives.

iamsaved on March 14, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Yeah, and in the meantime the moderates and liberals are ‘agreeing to disagree just to go along to get along’ on… what exactly?

Exactly nothing.

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 4:20 PM

melle1228 on March 14, 2014 at 4:19 PM

It worked for them because Mitt, and I loved the guy, was a particularly ineloquent candidate.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Nope. Purists don’t prioritize. That is what makes them, well, purists. They have their lists of deal breakers and any violation means they will sit at home or even vote the other way out of spite. Is this your first day at Hot Air?

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:17 PM

SO sick of the trucon-purist BS. You realize that the current GOP isn’t following ANY of their own fvcking platform INCLUDING FISCAL ISSUES. So yeah, the deal breaker for me is when the GOP is NO LONGER THE FVCKING GOP; it’s a deal breaker.

melle1228 on March 14, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Nope. Purists don’t prioritize. That is what makes them, well, purists. They have their lists of deal breakers and any violation means they will sit at home or even vote the other way out of spite. Is this your first day at Hot Air?

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:17 PM

I’ve been here longer than you.

If this is the depth of your thinking, I’m not sure you’ll ever understand anything, so I won’t bother.

You are wise and intelligent, and everyone who disagrees with you is a dirty “purist” who should shut up and do what the GOP says.

got it. but, you are not placing your wishes above others. those people who want different things than you – they are just wrong. You are wise and compromise. They are dirty and stupid.

So clear, and so persuasive. I will definitely vote for whoever you say is the right candidate.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 4:22 PM

It worked for them because Mitt, and I loved the guy, was a particularly ineloquent candidate.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:21 PM

He ignored it.

melle1228 on March 14, 2014 at 4:22 PM

SO sick of the trucon-purist BS. You realize that the current GOP isn’t following ANY of their own fvcking platform INCLUDING FISCAL ISSUES. So yeah, the deal breaker for me is when the GOP is NO LONGER THE FVCKING GOP; it’s a deal breaker.

melle1228 on March 14, 2014 at 4:21 PM

*points finger at you and makes horrific noise like Donald Sutherland in ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’*

PUUUUUURRRRIIIIISSSSTTTTT!

/

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 4:23 PM

As Reagan said and jdpaz said above, realize that the pol you disagree with 30% of the time is not your enemy.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Once again, the quote is 20%, not 30%.

Would you vote for someone that held those 30% positions?
Midas on March 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM

I’m usually lucky if it is only 30%.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:01 PM

And once again, Reagan’s quote is referring to politicians working together and how one politician should treat/speak about other politicians. This was not and is not advice on how to select a candidate. There is a significant differences.

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 4:23 PM

nobar on March 14, 2014 at 4:20 PM

So please, if you don’t want whole states to secede tell us what you mean by national divorce? Do we draw a white line down the middle of each state and segregate the minutemen from the worse-than-Hitlers or what?

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5