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 4 5

“If that becomes unmoored, then I think a lot of things would be up for grabs.”

What if people could not be entered into any contract without their explicit consent, regardless. In other words, what if people must specifically draft legal documents and agree to terms, rather than have such things imputed upon them by the State and enforced at the point of a gun?

The idea that the State has a compelling interest in marriage is due to the fact that the State has a compelling interest in people’s property, and relieving them of it. It is odd to see religious people, who by their own beliefs state that all creation belongs to God first, demand government involvement in their own marriages.

This reduces the significance of our lives and the lives of our children to a ledger entry, to be disposed of as a State run by avaricious men see fit.

Another Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 9:15 PM

Yeah, yeah. Your candidates couldn’t win a primary but you think that they would have won a general election. Keep dreaming.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Yeah, yeah. That was Romney in 2008, and you actually thought that retread was going to win in 2012.

3. The GOP leadership no longer believes in the GOP platform, and is thus eager to kneecap any candidate who does want to implement the GOP platform as passed by GOP delegates at GOP conventions.

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Exactly, and then we’re left with “SuperElectable” political losers who couldn’t get elected mayor of Podunk.

ddrintn on March 14, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Resist We Much on March 14, 2014 at 9:11 PM

It is a tough process. Me and my wife understand that. No one I have ever met that has gone through it has told me they support amnesty. Two started out thinking they supported amnesty when first asked, until I asked them a few more questions. Then they realized what amnesty meant for their family and friends back in their original home countries. Longer waits, harder hurdles and less likely to even then be accepted, as all the slots have been taken up by those who refuse to assimilate and make room for them.

astonerii on March 14, 2014 at 9:16 PM

“In the face of that, Reagan launched a positive, proactive campaign and proclaimed that the US was not in decline. There would be morning in America. It was more hopeful than anything else at the time, and people responded to that hope with votes.”

And yet that is not what is going on with all the “Con” (both So- and Neo-) fearmongering. There is no positive message of renewal, just more demands for the use of force against fellow human beings.

The idea that we just need a real conservative messaging to turn back the tide of Marxism depends on people agreeing on the definition of conservative. What we have witnessed though is that people are unwilling to visit this definition and solidify it, because that would involve asking difficult questions and opening fissures in fragile alliances.

Another Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 9:19 PM

Rand Paul needs to stay out of the weeds. What is this Country and every American screaming about? None of what he is talking about.

Obamacare is destroying jobs, our health care, Doctors quitting their practice, hospitals closing and on and on.

I’d like someone to ask Mitch Daniels today what he thinks is the priority.

David Jolly just won his seat in Florida in the midst of more obstacles than I’ve seen anyone have. He won on REPEAL OBAMACARE.

Now the Establishment Republicans & the Karl Roves et al and the Democrats are issuing dire warnings!!!!! Don’t run on Repealing Obamacare!

bluefox on March 14, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Rand Paul is going nowhere anyway. The GOP nominee in 2016 will be yet another establishment pet, probably Jeb or Christie with Rubio or Martinez tacked on as VP.

ddrintn on March 14, 2014 at 9:20 PM

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 9:00 PM
Ironically my husband and I were Reagan Dems who in summer of 1984 decided to become Reagan Republicans. It wasn’t over fiscal issues either.

INC on March 14, 2014 at 9:10 PM

Much respect to you! I hope your disappointment since then hasn’t been too crushing.

I believe that fiscal conservatism is hard to make sense of in the absence of social conservatism (things like living within your means and not passing debt on to your progeny). There is a moral aspect to the financing of our country that too few comprehend.

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM

The idea that we just need a real conservative messaging to turn back the tide of Marxism depends on people agreeing on the definition of conservative.

Another Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 9:19 PM

“Conservative” definitely doesn’t mean “anything goes”. It seems that what is happening is that libertarians, who could never really sell their ideas on their own, are glomming onto the GOP. For all I care, they can have it.

ddrintn on March 14, 2014 at 9:23 PM

There is no positive message of renewal, just more demands for the use of force against fellow human beings.

What are you talking about here?

The idea that we just need a real conservative messaging to turn back the tide of Marxism depends on people agreeing on the definition of conservative. What we have witnessed though is that people are unwilling to visit this definition and solidify it, because that would involve asking difficult questions and opening fissures in fragile alliances.

Another Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 9:19 PM

So why don’t you start?

You seem to want to define ‘conservative’ in such a way that excludes social conservatives.

One thing I’ve noticed is that people on the Right lately seem to use the term “conservative” interchangeably with “social conservative”. I’m not sure that is accurate or justified.

sharrukin on March 14, 2014 at 9:24 PM

I believe that fiscal conservatism is hard to make sense of in the absence of social conservatism (things like living within your means and not passing debt on to your progeny). There is a moral aspect to the financing of our country that too few comprehend.

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM

Well, exactly. How many successful fiscally conservative- socially liberal politicians can anyone here name?

ddrintn on March 14, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Social Conservatives have to learn how to play the game of politics, which means you must win a sting of victories and win long wars, not throwing all their energy into one apocalyptic battle.

In other words, focus on late term abortion. That is a winnable issue that most Americans agree on. Win that battle first. They also have to learn to use arguments for why late term abortion should be banned other than just waving the bible around and talking about their personal faith. That is only preaching to the choir and not going to win any converts. For example, use the creepy similarities of Planned Parenthood and the eugenics movements back in the first half of the 20th century.

Also social conservatives have to realize that people like Todd Akin hurt the movement. You notice Palin did not support Akin, and for good reasons. No one would accuse Palin of not being sufficiently socially conservative, but she also has enough political common sense to realize Akin was not swift enough to be a politician. Akin on the other hand was backed by Huckabee. Huckabee may be a wonderful Christian, but he also let a psycho murderer out from prison, who then proceeded to kill again, just because the nut job said he found god. That kind of naivety is no different than the typical leftist hippy from Berkley ranting on about pacifism and a socialist paradise.

William Eaton on March 14, 2014 at 9:26 PM

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM

In truth, we were already conservatives across the board, but the final kicker for us leaving the Dems was over abortion. It’s been so long ago, I can’t remember the specifics, but I think there was something that happened or was said at the DNC that made us realize we had nothing in common with the Democrats’ thinking.

INC on March 14, 2014 at 9:26 PM

IOW: SoCons, march arm in arm with your pot smoking brothers.

Lets march.

faraway on March 14, 2014 at 9:28 PM

It is odd to see religious people, who by their own beliefs state that all creation belongs to God first, demand government involvement in their own marriages.

Another Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 9:15 PM

I’lll bite; an example, if you please, of exactly who it is that is demanding government involvement in their marriage. I know the answer as to who is actually daily demanding this, but I’m curious as to who, right now, today, which religious people you claim are demanding this for themselves?

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Also social conservatives have to realize that people like Todd Akin hurt the movement.

William Eaton on March 14, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Good lord, man give it up. [cough] McCain [cough] Romney

Let he who is without sin… you know.

faraway on March 14, 2014 at 9:30 PM

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM

And I certainly agree that there is a moral aspect to a country’s finances.

INC on March 14, 2014 at 9:31 PM

I’lll bite; an example, if you please, of exactly who it is that is demanding government involvement in their marriage.

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 9:29 PM

I always find that “keep government out of marriage” thing to be funny anyway, as if any couple or trio or quartet or octet could say at any moment “hey folks, we’re married” and that would be that. Government’s always been involved in marriage to some extent, and holding to a belief that a marriage should consist of one man and one woman isn’t “prying into people’s bedrooms”.

ddrintn on March 14, 2014 at 9:36 PM

And yet that is not what is going on with all the “Con” (both So- and Neo-) fearmongering. There is no positive message of renewal, just more demands for the use of force against fellow human beings.

Another Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 9:19 PM

I’m sorry, but what the heck are you blabbering about?

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 9:36 PM

Also social conservatives have to realize that people like Todd Akin hurt the movement.

William Eaton on March 14, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Isn’t he the guy that was backed by the democrats and not the conservatives? He was not the first choice of the conservatives, he was put over the top.

There’s a reason why Democrats spent over $1.5 million trying to help Akin win his three-way primary.

yes, yes he actually was the democrats man.

And if they were spending millions of dollars to get the Republican they wanted to face, do you not think they were also stuffing the ballots?

Missouri has what is known as an “open” primary. In an open primary, voters may take a ballot for any party and vote for those candidates. Missouri does not require voters to “affiliate” with any political party when they register, however, you must choose a specific party ballot or a non-contested ballot.

Damn, not only financed by the democrats, but given the votes by the democrats as well.

And he, the guy the Democrats put up as their strawman, is the guy you keep going back to!

astonerii on March 14, 2014 at 9:38 PM

I blame a lot of this fight on GWB and Huckabee, because until they came around I don’t think social cons were associated with, or accused of loving big gov.

It may surprise some to know that Huckabee did not have the support of some prominent Southern Baptist (his denomination) leaders, not did he have the support of conservatives who knew what happened in Arkansas when he was governor. Phyllis Schlafly said Huck left the AR Republican party in shambles. I know in 2008 when Huck ran for president, I read AR homeschool blogs written by those who were very angry at Huck over AR educational issues.

As for GWB, well, he wouldn’t have learned about small government from his dad. I don’t know that he had political mentors who would help him think it through, or that he would have sought them out. The Bushes all seem to have this huge gap in their political DNA that’s part of their Northeastern GOPe heritage.

INC on March 14, 2014 at 9:39 PM

And yet that is not what is going on with all the “Con” (both So- and Neo-) fearmongering. There is no positive message of renewal, just more demands for the use of force against fellow human beings.

Another Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 9:19 PM

I’m sorry, but what the heck are you blabbering about?

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 9:36 PM

Shorter version: Socons are against gay marriage.

ddrintn on March 14, 2014 at 9:39 PM

As for GWB, well, he wouldn’t have learned about small government from his dad. I don’t know that he had political mentors who would help him think it through, or that he would have sought them out. The Bushes all seem to have this huge gap in their political DNA that’s part of their Northeastern GOPe heritage.

INC on March 14, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Ronald Reagan’s biggest mistake was choosing Bush Sr for his VP. We’ve had Bush Inc ever since.

ddrintn on March 14, 2014 at 9:41 PM

bluefox on March 14, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Rand Paul is going nowhere anyway. The GOP nominee in 2016 will be yet another establishment pet, probably Jeb or Christie with Rubio or Martinez tacked on as VP.

ddrintn on March 14, 2014 at 9:20 PM

During the 2012 debates, my opinion was that Romney was “selected” so he could lose. I stated at that time the reason was to make a clear path for Jeb Bush & Rubio as VP.

I still think it will be Jeb Bush, but unless Rubio can repair the damage over Amnesty, it may be another for VP.

I can’t see Christie tho. Martinez, maybe.

bluefox on March 14, 2014 at 9:43 PM

And yet that is not what is going on with all the “Con” (both So- and Neo-) fearmongering. There is no positive message of renewal, just more demands for the use of force against fellow human beings.

Another Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 9:19 PM

I’m sorry, but what the heck are you blabbering about?

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 9:36 PM

Or maybe it’s because socons don’t mirror Ron Paul’s foreign policy views. Probably a mixture.

ddrintn on March 14, 2014 at 9:43 PM

bluefox on March 14, 2014 at 9:43 PM

And the thing is that overall I like Rand Paul, although I sometimes disagree with his tactics and theatrics. He’s just not going to get anywhere near the nomination, and neither will Ted Cruz.

ddrintn on March 14, 2014 at 9:45 PM

Good lord, man give it up. [cough] McCain [cough] Romney

Let he who is without sin… you know.

faraway on March 14, 2014 at 9:30 PM

LOL!

I despise McCain and Romney was not my first choice. I am not a fan of the big business, country club GOP elite. That does not change the fact that Akin was a goofball, Huckabee is naive (and somewhat fiscally liberal), and Santorum is not going to win jack. It does not mean they are wrong about everything, and having a strong moral base is important. If I was running for president I would hammer Planned Parenthood and late term abortion.

SoCons need to start somewhere. In WWII we did not start the war by trying to do a direct invasion of Japan and Germany. Some SoCons (keyword: some) seem to be convinced that all abortion can be banned at once if you just pray to god really, really hard, and will not vote unless that candidate tells them they will do so. Simply saying they will do their best to rid America of late term abortion and stop sending federal tax dollars to planned parenthood is not good enough.

They want Jerusalem and want it now…

William Eaton on March 14, 2014 at 9:46 PM

Take a lesson from America’s Socialist Party, AKA the Democratic Party.

It is a coalition of interest groups very much at odds with each other on many, many issues. One example — Midwestern blue collar workers and Princess Pelosi and her court.

If the the Dems had total unchalleged power tomorrow they would be slitting each others’ throats the day after that, as socialists of different feather are wont to do. See Stalin vs Trotsky, or Bolsheviks vs Mensheviks vs Russian Socialists circa 1918-20 for examples.

farsighted on March 14, 2014 at 9:46 PM

ddrintn on March 14, 2014 at 9:41 PM

Do I ever agree. Interestingly enough, GHWB had to give on the issue of abortion and Reagan’s voodoo economics.

In fact, it was only in large measure because George Bush agreed, at the very last minute, to embrace that [pro-life] plank and the Reagan economic program (both of which he had strenuously opposed in the primaries, calling Reagan’s economic plan “Voodoo economics”) that Bush received the nod to be Reagan’s running mate in 1980. Absent that wholehearted embrace of the two key points of the Reagan position, Bush would not have had a chance.

The problem was the embrace wasn’t wholehearted. GHWB was just another GOPe.

INC on March 14, 2014 at 9:48 PM

ddrintn on March 14, 2014 at 9:20 PM

bluefox on March 14, 2014 at 9:43 PM

I still think Jeb is over and done. Common Core is the stake through his political career. He doesn’t know it yet, because he’s another narcissistic politician who can’t grasp the depth of antagonism towards CC.

INC on March 14, 2014 at 9:51 PM

INC on March 14, 2014 at 9:10 PM

.
I believe that fiscal conservatism is hard to make sense of in the absence of social conservatism (things like living within your means and not passing debt on to your progeny). There is a moral aspect to the financing of our country that too few comprehend.

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM

.
Boy ….. and how.

Fiscal waste and irresponsibility are just as immoral as sexual immorality.

Sexual immorality is just as mathematically wrong as fiscal waste and irresponsibility.

The atheist libertarians can see much more clearly the ‘mathematics’ of fiscal matters and most things relating to science, than they can sexual morality.

listens2glenn on March 14, 2014 at 9:52 PM

And he, the guy the Democrats put up as their strawman, is the guy you keep going back to!

astonerii on March 14, 2014 at 9:38 PM

That “strawman” was supported by the self appointed “Mr. Social Conservative” himself: Mike Huckabee.

I did not give Todd Akin lots of airtime on my radio show, or promoted him, or supported his campaign. I know the GOP elite always go back to Akin to hurt the Tea Party, but the Tea Party did not support him and Palin certainly did not. But Huckabee did, and like it or not he has become the face, along with a few others, of the social conservative wing of the GOP.

William Eaton on March 14, 2014 at 9:54 PM

And yet that is not what is going on with all the “Con” (both So- and Neo-) fearmongering. There is no positive message of renewal, just more demands for the use of force against fellow human beings.

Too true, and that was pretty much my point. I was agreeing with you. However, the So- and Neo- aspects of conservatism are only the two that get the most press; they aren’t the entirety. Many socons don’t care at all about limited government. I think most neocons actually want to expand government (despite their protestations against it).

There is another and growing group of conservatives who desire to go back to founding principles enshrined in the words of the Constitution (constitutional conservatives? concons?). I believe doing so would create the renewal we need.

The idea that we just need a real conservative messaging to turn back the tide of Marxism depends on people agreeing on the definition of conservative. What we have witnessed though is that people are unwilling to visit this definition and solidify it, because that would involve asking difficult questions and opening fissures in fragile alliances.

Another Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 9:19 PM

I have to disagree with you a bit here. The critical bit isn’t that the term conservative is adequately defined, as it can cover a multitude of positions on many issues; it is that we understand the constitutional concepts that support conservative positions.

I sense that you desire to redefine conservatism as libertarianism. While I agree that traditional, constitutional conservatism has a lot in common with modern libertarianism, they are not the same thing. Generally speaking, traditional conservatives want a little more of the Judeo-Christian morals written into law than modern libertarians, many of whom desire for all but the most basic morality to be stripped from our statutes.

I respect the views of modern libertarians and understand to a large degree where they are coming from. In truth, I am somewhere in between Conservative and Libertarian. But the term conservative is broad enough to cover much of libertarianism, and I believe it should stay that way.

TL;DR I don’t see much to gain from closely defining the term conservatism.

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 9:56 PM

IOW: SoCons, march arm in arm with your pot smoking brothers.

Lets march.

faraway on March 14, 2014 at 9:28 PM

I may be in favour of drug decriminalisation because ‘This War On Drugs Is Lost!’but I don’t do them.

Resist We Much on March 14, 2014 at 9:57 PM

True conservatives will never give up any social issues…Why is it we social conservatives are always the ones who a expected to give up their convictions??
Paul–You just need to go away with you libertarian ideas

Bullhead on March 14, 2014 at 9:58 PM

I may be in favour of drug decriminalisation because ‘This War On Drugs Is Lost!’but I don’t do them.

Resist We Much on March 14, 2014 at 9:57 PM

I’ll make the case that at this point, the money we spend on the war on drugs is irreconcilable with fiscal conservatism. We like to think of issues as always having a conservative point of view and a liberal point of view, reality isn’t that black & white.

midgeorgian on March 14, 2014 at 10:10 PM

True conservatives will never give up any social issues…Why is it we social conservatives are always the ones who a expected to give up their convictions??
Paul–You just need to go away with you libertarian ideas

Bullhead on March 14, 2014 at 9:58 PM

No one is asking you to give up your beliefs on any social issue. All we are asking is if you are willing to form a coalition with people like me, with whom you most likely agree with on an overwhelming number of issues, or are you more interested in ideological purity and losing elections?

Most certainly, I am not demanding that you entire give up your beliefs or conform your thinking with mine. Quite the contrary. I, like Rand Paul, am asking if you are willing to ‘agree to disagree’ a small number of issues, agree on an overwhelming majority of issues, form a coalition, and win some elections.

Resist We Much on March 14, 2014 at 10:10 PM

bluefox on March 14, 2014 at 9:43 PM

And the thing is that overall I like Rand Paul, although I sometimes disagree with his tactics and theatrics. He’s just not going to get anywhere near the nomination, and neither will Ted Cruz.

ddrintn on March 14, 2014 at 9:45 PM

I’ve always liked Rand too. His stand for liberty and not being shy about speaking out against the Administration. He has changed somewhat in the last several months. And this is just my personal opinion, but McConnell has become a stumbling block to him. I would think it would be difficult to endorse someone and disagree with their political positions and that’s where I see the change in Paul.

Rand Paul has not been as clear in his positions as before and I hear McConnell’s “voice” in his statements.

Whether Paul or Cruz runs, it may be too early to know.

I wish we would concentrate on 2014, which I think is more important.

bluefox on March 14, 2014 at 10:12 PM

What is a surrender on abortion to you, given that abortion is legal for 2 out of 3 trimesters regardless of state law? What is a victory?

Another Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 9:03 PM

State law is constantly being overturned due to Roe v Wade and PP v Casey. If those are ever overturned, then we will have a real state by state referendum. As it stands now, we can’t.

cptacek on March 14, 2014 at 10:18 PM

Most certainly, I am not demanding that you entire give up your beliefs or conform your thinking with mine. Quite the contrary. I, like Rand Paul, am asking if you are willing to ‘agree to disagree’ a small number of issues, agree on an overwhelming majority of issues, form a coalition, and win some elections.

Resist We Much on March 14, 2014 at 10:10 PM

You aren’t. MJBrutus and others are. They want to kick us out from under the tent.

cptacek on March 14, 2014 at 10:25 PM

Yeah, the democrats win because they respect all views on social issues. “What? They don’t?”
Never mind.

Rand is becoming a mind numb RINO. Sad!

fight like a girl on March 14, 2014 at 10:38 PM

I still think Jeb is over and done. Common Core is the stake through his p He doesn’t know it yet, because he’s another narcissistic politician who ca depth of antagonism towards CC.

INC on March 14, 2014

I remember thinking the same thing about Romney when Ocare passed. Don’t underestimate the GOPe or the lemming mentality of many GOP voters.

ddrintn on March 14, 2014 at 10:38 PM

Why is it we social conservatives are always the ones who a expected to give up their convictions??

Bullhead on March 14, 2014 at 9:58 PM

It’s not just socons. With this reckless and backstabbing GOPe, constitutional conservatives who believe in limited government and fiscal conservatives who believe in balanced budgets are also expected to give up their convictions. It’s been this way since 9/11/01.

But any way you cut it, it IS ONLY conservatives that the GOPe expects to give up their convictions.

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 10:43 PM

Lately, Rand has spent a lot of time chastising the Republican Party and very little time going after the democrats. Just something I have noticed.

fight like a girl on March 14, 2014 at 10:54 PM

How do you “agree to disagree” on abortion. It’s life or it’s not. It’s murder or it’s not. Rand is 100% wrong.

Rundstedt on March 14, 2014 at 11:01 PM

Why are Conservatives always the ones being asked to compromise their beliefs?

Probably because Liberals (such as Another Libertarian and MJBrutus) change their belief systems as often as George Clooney changes girlfriends.

I have written my thoughts on Rand Paul’s demand…err…suggestion in my Blog for tomorrow.

kingsjester on March 14, 2014 at 11:01 PM

I would like to ask what could anti-abortion politicians really do to stop abortion. Since Roe v. Wade no legislation could get passed that would stand up in court even if the house and senate passed it, and we had a president that signed it.

The way I see it is that we would only be able to overturn Roe v. Wade if we got Senators and a president that would nominate constitutionalist justices, and then someone would have to sue somehow to get Roe v. Wade overturned.

However it seems that we get to elections this issue comes up and we get painted as extremeist, and if someone like Guliani runs, he pledges to appoint constitutionalist judges, but that was not enough.

Leopard1996 on March 14, 2014 at 11:05 PM

Social Conservatives have to learn how to play the game of politics, which means you must win a sting of victories and win long wars, not throwing all their energy into one apocalyptic battle.

In other words, focus on late term abortion. That is a winnable issue that most Americans agree on. Win that battle first. They also have to learn to use arguments for why late term abortion should be banned other than just waving the bible around and talking about their personal faith. That is only preaching to the choir and not going to win any converts. For example, use the creepy similarities of Planned Parenthood and the eugenics movement…

William Eaton on March 14, 2014 at 9:26 PM

…and Gosnell. I remember sitting in my dentist’s waiting room, with Fox News on (I know!) covering the trial. A woman sitting with me was staring, open mouthed, at the TV, in obvious shock. She looked at me and said, “I’m pro-choice, but this is just horrible.”

We can reach LIVs like this, but it takes focus. Don’t waste it on interfamily infighting.

ncinca on March 14, 2014 at 11:18 PM

Leopard1996 on March 14, 2014 at 11:05 PM

They can do lots.
As politicians they can take the message to the people and inform them.
As politicians with votes they can block expanding it.
As politicians with enough votes they can put large enough restrictions on it that it lowers the number.
As politicians they could even put it in the constitution that a human life cannot be terminated without trial and that human life begins at conception or implantation.

astonerii on March 14, 2014 at 11:25 PM

That “strawman” was supported by the self appointed “Mr. Social Conservative” himself: Mike Huckabee.

I did not give Todd Akin lots of airtime on my radio show, or promoted him, or supported his campaign. I know the GOP elite always go back to Akin to hurt the Tea Party, but the Tea Party did not support him and Palin certainly did not. But Huckabee did, and like it or not he has become the face, along with a few others, of the social conservative wing of the GOP.

William Eaton on March 14, 2014 at 9:54 PM

And there you have it. He was never a person I trusted. Considering the fact that his ideal on spending other people’s money is, I do not care where you get the money to pay for it, just get the money and pay for it. Not an exact quote, but the jist is there.

astonerii on March 14, 2014 at 11:30 PM

My take on the whole shebang is like this:

• Gay rights/mandates: Some mold in your house’s walls.
• Legal abortion: Your house’s broken heating and air-conditioning unit.
• Potential amnesty: A lot of loose roof tiles that may develop into severely leaks in your house.
• All other issues anathema to social conservatives: Structural cracks in your house’s foundation.
• Out-of-control spending spiralling headlong toward complete national insolvency: Your house is on fire. Like, right now.

Now, someone tell me about priorities.

No doubt I’ll catch a lot of flak for the above and for this: Staunchly inflexible social conservatism won’t make a financial wasteland any less devastated.

Alas, this is just my opinion, mind you; indeed, your opinion may be diametrically opposed to mine. But please be Christian, not pharisaical in any responses you may proffer.

Dime IV on March 14, 2014 at 11:44 PM

William Eaton on March 14, 2014 at 9:54 PM

Just a question. Was Huckabee “Team Akin” from the beginning, or did he start supporting him after he won the primary and everyone else abandoned him? I wasn’t paying that close attention to the MO senate race till he dropped his proverbial turd in the punch bowl.

cptacek on March 14, 2014 at 11:46 PM

A lot of loose roof tiles that may develop into severely leaks.

FIFM

Dime IV on March 14, 2014 at 11:53 PM

Ok, so the answer is ‘yes’. Yes, you are high, and completely don’t get it. Got it.

Midas on March 14, 2014 at 5:21 PM

Must you continually be so rude and condescending to someone who simply (and politely) disagrees with you on a handful of issues? The libertarian has been quite polite and articulate, and you just keep sneering and belittling him, without ever acknowledging he has even a minor point anywhere. Really, with nasty people like you, we are truly doomed. Let’s just hand the SCOTUS over for the coming century because we’ll never have a majority among ourselves if we can’t even have a civil conversation.

idalily on March 15, 2014 at 12:12 AM

No one is asking you to give up your beliefs on any social issue. All we are asking is if you are willing to form a coalition with people like me, with whom you most likely agree with on an overwhelming number of issues, or are you more interested in ideological purity and losing elections?

Most certainly, I am not demanding that you entire give up your beliefs or conform your thinking with mine. Quite the contrary. I, like Rand Paul, am asking if you are willing to ‘agree to disagree’ a small number of issues, agree on an overwhelming majority of issues, form a coalition, and win some elections.

Resist We Much on March 14, 2014 at 10:10 PM

THIS. THIS. 1000X. THIS.

idalily on March 15, 2014 at 12:16 AM

THIS. THIS. 1000X. THIS.

idalily on March 15, 2014 at 12:16 AM

Ironic how we can agree more with those we disagree with than with those we agree with, no?

ncinca on March 15, 2014 at 12:31 AM

I’ve made it no secret that I espouse libertarian ideals when it comes to social issues. But I also respect the rights of those who wish to live by the tenets of their religion. I’ll let you have your idyllic community of traditional values if you’ll let me have my idyllic community of live-and-let-live libertine-yet-responsible values. That’s what I wish the social conservatives would understand, that libertarians would let them run their own corner of the society as they see fit, without having to resort to nanny-state blanket-ban tactics. Drop the talk of federal marriage amendments or nationwide drug prohibition, and let the states decide what is and isn’t allowed inside their jurisdiction.

TMOverbeck on March 15, 2014 at 12:46 AM

Most certainly, I am not demanding that you entire give up your beliefs or conform your thinking with mine. Quite the contrary. I, like Rand Paul, am asking if you are willing to ‘agree to disagree’ a small number of issues, agree on an overwhelming majority of issues, form a coalition, and win some elections.

Resist We Much on March 14, 2014 at 10:10 PM

It’s not the number of issues, it depends on the specifics. There are many I could ‘agree to disagree’ upon – there are a few that are, for me – and honestly we all have a couple of these – that are simply non-negotiable.

Talk specifics and we can talk. Talk general percentages and platitudes, well – ‘everything sounds great and works at the trade show’ – when the rubber starts meeting the road is when reality hits.

Midas on March 15, 2014 at 12:53 AM

’ve made it no secret that I espouse libertarian ideals when it comes to social issues. But I also respect the rights of those who wish to live by the tenets of their religion. I’ll let you have your idyllic community of traditional values if you’ll let me have my idyllic community of live-and-let-live libertine-yet-responsible values. That’s what I wish the social conservatives would understand, that libertarians would let them run their own corner of the society as they see fit, without having to resort to nanny-state blanket-ban tactics. Drop the talk of federal marriage amendments or nationwide drug prohibition, and let the states decide what is and isn’t allowed inside their jurisdiction.

TMOverbeck on March 15, 2014 at 12:46 AM

Sounds great. Really. And please, for a change, aim that logic at the left who are trying daily to use the force of government in the opposite direction. Social conservatives would immediately feel no need to push back. In the end, that’s all you’re seeing from ‘socons’ – a reaction, not a pro-active attempt to force anything on anyone.

Midas on March 15, 2014 at 12:56 AM

Midas on March 15, 2014 at 12:53 AM

Midas, I support SSM, but it is not an issue that would ever drive me to the polls neither is the legalisation of drugs or prostitution. I believe in letting people decide what is best for their communities and staying out of the lives of consenting adults. As long as adults grant informed consent, it matters not to me what they do to one another, including hurting one another. Quite obviously, this does not apply to children and the unborn.

I have long made it clear here that when it comes to the conflict of rights in the arena of gays and people of faith that, even though I am an atheist, I will stand and defend the explicit constitutional right to exercise one’s freedom of religion and not limit such to the home and/or 11:00 on Sundays.

For some Socons, the fact that I don’t condemn and vilify homosexuals for their lifestyle choices makes me some sort of traitor or suspect. That is the kind of asininity and small-mindedness of which I speak. If that is what will be demanded of me, then you’re right. There are issues that are simply non-negotiable.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2014 at 1:09 AM

“Probably because Liberals (such as Another Libertarian and MJBrutus) change their belief systems as often as George Clooney changes girlfriends.”

When did I change my beliefs Jester? Do you even know what I believe? Ok, I’ll tell you.

The basis of the libertarian belief system is The Golden Rule, otherwise known as The Non-Aggression Principle. No person may initiate force or fraud against another.

I also do not believe a just society is dominated by a government that has powers forbidden to the individual. For example, an agent of the State should not be able to use force on people or murder them in any situation that would not apply to the private citizen, i.e. self defense. No one should be above the rules of civil society.

I believe in the right of free association, which encompasses all other rights such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The right to associate (or not associate) with other people is a matter of individual conscience, and is not up for debate or censure by the master class that dominates the State.

I believe in the right of self-ownership; the individual person is responsible for themselves, and need not answer to others for any behavior that does not harm others.

It’s this last part where libertarians run into trouble with conservatives. Conservatives, like most people in society, have been indoctrinated with the idea that there will be chaos and destruction without strict, draconian controls enforced by the almighty State (which has a monopoly on the use of violence).

This is nothing more than propaganda that seeks to deny our inborn, or God-given if you will, instincts and traits. People (other than psychopaths) are born with an innate empathy and social conscience that guides our behavior in society. It takes the cold, brutal machine of State indoctrination in institutional “schools” and years of agitprop to divest us of this genetic heritage.

I think this is our greatest challenge going forward. If libertarians and conservatives are going to work together we have to get past this idea that brute government force is necessary for our continued existence as a society.

Another Libertarian on March 15, 2014 at 1:24 AM

They can do lots.
As politicians they can take the message to the people and inform them.
As politicians with votes they can block expanding it.
As politicians with enough votes they can put large enough restrictions on it that it lowers the number.
As politicians they could even put it in the constitution that a human life cannot be terminated without trial and that human life begins at conception or implantation.

Your first three points, I can get behind even with my more libertarianm leanings. I think your fourth point about putting it in the constitution would never fly and anybody that would propose that would be slitting their own political throats.

Leopard1996 on March 15, 2014 at 1:26 AM

For some Socons, the fact that I don’t condemn and vilify homosexuals for their lifestyle choices makes me some sort of traitor or suspect. That is the kind of asininity and small-mindedness of which I speak. If that is what will be demanded of me, then you’re right. There are issues that are simply non-negotiable.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2014 at 1:09 AM

.
Who … makes you out as a traitor for failing to “condemn and vilify homosexuals for their lifestyle choices”?

listens2glenn on March 15, 2014 at 1:53 AM

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.

Senator Rand Paul

.
No Senator, we need to be the party of DISCIPLINE.

“Same-sex” marriage has no business being accepted as a new standard of “normal”, no matter what the kids or anyone else thinks about it.

listens2glenn on March 15, 2014 at 2:05 AM

Abortion will never be banned.

And the gay marriage thing is here to stay.

The sooner you accept reality, the better your day will be. This stuff is done. You can’t change it.

You’re wasting your time thinking otherwise. And any politician that tells you that you can is just yanking your chain.

Moesart on March 15, 2014 at 2:19 AM

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2014 at 4:25 PM

You are none too bright, r u?

John the Libertarian on March 15, 2014 at 4:56 AM

Certainly smarter than you, john

Monkeytoe on March 15, 2014 at 6:49 AM

We need to make a list of things we agree upon.

Things we don’t agree upon cannot be national party platforms. It sows disunity and division if national party resources are used to push fringe issues.

Karmashock on March 15, 2014 at 7:30 AM

Social issues should not be dealt with nationally. They should be up to the states. The Supreme Court should have kicked abortion for instance, back to the states.

crankyoldlady on March 14, 2014 at 5:01 PM

This is exactly what I’ve been saying for years, that social issues have no place in politics, and liberals use social issues to villify conservatives by twisting their words or outright using them in certain cases (Aikin!).

Argue social issues where it matters, at the social, local, and religious level. Leave it out of politics. If the repubs refuse to see this they’ll continue to see nothing but pasture for eons to come.

Diluculo on March 14, 2014 at 5:02 PM

Well, you are two that get it! What happened to most of the other
posters who are trying to twist the words of Rand Paul and the subject in general into a pretzel? Geez Louise!

Amjean on March 15, 2014 at 8:21 AM

During the 2012 debates, my opinion was that Romney was “selected” so he could lose. I stated at that time the reason was to make a clear path for Jeb Bush & Rubio as VP.
I still think it will be Jeb Bush, but unless Rubio can repair the damage over Amnesty, it may be another for VP.
I can’t see Christie tho. Martinez, maybe.
bluefox on March 14, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Jeb Bush is also for Amnesty, so Rubio will be the VP. Christie is for amnesty as well. If the GOP will push Romney the father of Obamacare, then Christie is still in it

Brock Robamney on March 15, 2014 at 8:22 AM

Amjean on March 15, 2014 at 8:21 AM

They’re getting their own Noah’s Ark movie with Russell Crowe and everything. You would think they would just be happy :-)

MJBrutus on March 15, 2014 at 8:28 AM

It sows disunity and division if national party resources are used to push fringe issues.

Karmashock on March 15, 2014 at 7:30 AM

So worshipping the God of Nature who alone gives us ALL of our rights is now a fringe issue?
Obama need not make a fundamental change to America–it has already been done by the Godless left and right.

Don L on March 15, 2014 at 8:28 AM

Don L on March 15, 2014 at 8:28 AM

Right on, right on, right on.

My take.

kingsjester on March 15, 2014 at 8:42 AM

I am still waiting for one of you secularists or atheists to explain why your beliefs can be forced on me but I am not even suppose to utter mine, much less have a political party that espouses them. FOUR MILLION REPUBLICANS STAYED HOME IN 2012! It wasn’t because the party was too conservative.

fight like a girl on March 15, 2014 at 8:45 AM

They’re getting their own Noah’s Ark movie with Russell Crowe and everything. You would think they would just be happy :-)
MJBrutus on March 15, 2014 at 8:28 AM

A movie where there is a disclaimer after the radio trailer? A movie about the global warming myth is somehow Christian? Don’t worry, Santorum is going nowhere. Being a Socon and fiscal progressive doesn’t get you anywhere with conservatives

Brock Robamney on March 15, 2014 at 9:01 AM

I will make it short and sweet, Paul has no shot get over it.

KBird on March 15, 2014 at 9:02 AM

Brock Robamney on March 15, 2014 at 9:01 AM

LOL! Is it really about global warming? That’s priceless.

MJBrutus on March 15, 2014 at 9:12 AM

LOL! Is it really about global warming? That’s priceless.
MJBrutus on March 15, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Ummmmm…. That would be yes

Brock Robamney on March 15, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Diluculo on March 14, 2014 at 5:02 PM

If we do not respond to attacks on social issues at the federal level then we give up the battle completely, because the democrats will not give up that fight.
The Supreme Court, not the Republican party made abortion a national issue lest you all forget!
So in closing, live in the world in which you exist, not the one in which you imagine you would prefer to be in. LOSERS

astonerii on March 15, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Brock Robamney on March 15, 2014 at 9:22 AM

So I guess that they want neither bible fans nor secularists to want to watch it :-)

MJBrutus on March 15, 2014 at 9:30 AM

LOL! Is it really about global warming? That’s priceless.
MJBrutus on March 15, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Yes…and Noah is also a drunk, who is ‘very concerned’ about ‘overpopulation.’

lolz

Resist We Much on March 15, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Another Libertarian on March 15, 2014 at 1:24 AM

Like all people, the argument of does not harm anyone else is fluid and based on the individual.
Having a bunch of gays marching naked down the street play acting out their sexual deviancy in view of my children for instance… Is that a harm to me and my children?
Having a crazy anti-gay church destroy the peaceful mourning service of a child of the community… Is that a harm to those at that service?

You see, it is not as open and shut as you make it out to be.

astonerii on March 15, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Reagan forged a coalition that was useful to him in his time. Times change.

MJBrutus on March 14, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Principles don’t.

Flora Duh on March 15, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Paul’s another lying nutter like his old man. Why did he record robo-calls for Rove’s PAC?

Mr. Arrogant on March 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Flora Duh on March 15, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Yours don’t. But societal values and attitudes do change and you have been left behind.

MJBrutus on March 15, 2014 at 9:52 AM

There is a moral aspect to the financing of our country that too few comprehend.

yaedon on March 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM

Bingo. Economic issues are merely the passenger on the bus driven by moral values, without which we allow the government to take from us, make us do, and even enslave us for daring to use and follow our God-given consciences.

It is no small accident that the God-booing left has successfully captured America via the moral corruption of our culture. Now its citizens, filled with moral corruption of a million flavors eagerly choose to vote against their own freedom.

Morality and family values are the mortar of every institution that is the façade of this nation.

That the GOP has turned its back and joined the anti-freedom forces who are fighting to win this culture war, is to enable and join freedom’s enemy…all for their tainted 30 pieces of silver.

Don L on March 15, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Yes…and Noah is also a drunk, who is ‘very concerned’ about ‘overpopulation.’

lolz

Resist We Much on March 15, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Noah? Isn’t he the anti-nature nut who chopped down cubits of living trees to build a Zoo-boat for his private pleasure?

Don L on March 15, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Don L on March 15, 2014 at 9:58 AM

He is the hero in a highly immoral bedtime story.

MJBrutus on March 15, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Midas, I support SSM, but it is not an issue that would ever drive me to the polls neither is the legalisation of drugs or prostitution. I believe in letting people decide what is best for their communities and staying out of the lives of consenting adults. As long as adults grant informed consent, it matters not to me what they do to one another, including hurting one another. Quite obviously, this does not apply to children and the unborn.

I have long made it clear here that when it comes to the conflict of rights in the arena of gays and people of faith that, even though I am an atheist, I will stand and defend the explicit constitutional right to exercise one’s freedom of religion and not limit such to the home and/or 11:00 on Sundays.

For some Socons, the fact that I don’t condemn and vilify homosexuals for their lifestyle choices makes me some sort of traitor or suspect. That is the kind of asininity and small-mindedness of which I speak. If that is what will be demanded of me, then you’re right. There are issues that are simply non-negotiable.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2014 at 1:09 AM

Right there with you; I have strong convictions on both of those issues, but those are one on which I could ‘agree to disagree’. Those are not the ones I’m talking about.

Specifically, ‘amnesty’ is one for me – it’s a complete deal breaker. How about you? Is there *something* for you that’s a deal breaker?

My point is that we can talk all day about how great it would be if we could just ‘agree to disagree’ on a few issues since we may agree on many others – ok, sounds great, really does.

Name *your* issue that’s a deal breaker, then put that on the table as one that you’re being asked to ‘agree to disagree’ about, get over it, and go along to get along. For some that’s abortion, or same sex marriage, or drug legalization, or amnesty, or XYZ.

When you start talking *specifics* finally meet the ‘agree to disagree’ platitudes, reality once again kicks in.

Midas on March 15, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Conservative candidates haven’t been able to win the Repub presidential primary recently for 3 reasons: …”

One thing I’ve noticed is that people on the Right lately seem to use the term “conservative” interchangeably with “social conservative”. I’m not sure that is accurate or justified.

Another Libertarian on March 14, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Interesting because I’ve noticed lately that the libertarians seem to think THEY own the definition of Conservative. When did the term become appropo of libertarian positions?

Just as strong Soc Con nominees have not been successful in getting elected the same can be said for Libertarian candidates.

katiejane on March 15, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Don L on March 15, 2014 at 9:58 AM

He is the hero in a highly immoral bedtime story.

MJBrutus on March 15, 2014 at 10:03 AM

idalily will no doubt be along shortly to chastise you both for being rude, condescending, and sneering.

Midas on March 15, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Specifically, ‘amnesty’ is one for me – it’s a complete deal breaker. How about you? … When you start talking *specifics* finally meet the ‘agree to disagree’ platitudes, reality once again kicks in.

Midas on March 15, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Finally???

I think that I have made myself quite clear on the subject of amnesty. As a naturalised American, who came here legally, bade my time, spent a great deal of money, and was honoured to be ‘admitted to this particular club,’ I am most offended by the notion of amnesty and find the language like that used by Paul Ryan – he called criminaliens ‘undocumented AMERICANS – odious and unforgettable. Until I took my oath, I was neither referred to as an ‘undocumented American’ nor considered myself one. Of course, I didn’t sneak into the country or overstay my visa.

Resist We Much on March 14, 2014 at 9:11 PM

I could NEVER vote for Huckabee or Santorum. I’d either vote Libertarian or stay home. On the other hand, I could vote for Rand, Cruz, or Lee. I could have voted for Rubio before his amnesty betrayal. The same with Paul Ryan, who outraged this naturalised American, who came here legally and went through the proper channels to become a citizen, when he called criminaliens ‘undocumented Americans.’

Resist We Much on March 14, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Resist We Much on March 15, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Resist We Much on March 15, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Sorry, I was using the general ‘you’, not *you* ‘you’. I had a number of times last night said the same things to others that were throwing out things like ‘only disagree on 30% of things’, ‘a few things’, etc.

My point was that until ‘you’ start talking specifics, the platitudes sound great and reasonable.

Sorry for the confusion.

Midas on March 15, 2014 at 11:15 AM

That Rand! He’s such nut, trying to forge a coalition of the different factions that call themselves conservatives. (sarc intended)

Tater Salad on March 15, 2014 at 11:33 AM

A party of social issues is what the Democrats became. Much to the dismay and failure of the Republicans, they are following that agenda.

Grow up!!!!

Hening on March 15, 2014 at 11:38 AM

bluefox on March 14, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Jeb Bush is also for Amnesty, so Rubio will be the VP. Christie is for amnesty as well. If the GOP will push Romney the father of Obamacare, then Christie is still in it

Brock Robamney on March 15, 2014 at 8:22 AM

In order for Christie to still be viable, we have to know who is trying to destroy him over Bridgegate. We can answer that somewhat by seeing who is supporting him.

In my opinion, the RNC and the powers that be have already selected the R Nominee and I don’t think it’s Christie.

bluefox on March 15, 2014 at 1:20 PM

In my opinion, the RNC and the powers that be have already selected the R Nominee and I don’t think it’s Christie.

bluefox on March 15, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Paranoid much?

As for myself, I like CC but I don’t give him a chance of winning the nomination nor would I want him to.

MJBrutus on March 15, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Unless there is freedom of association — something the Government currently denies us, we will see more wedding photographers and bakers in the dock, and, possibly in the future, churches — for if a minister can decline a transaction to marry a gay couple on sacred ground controlled by said minister, but a photographer or a baker cannot decline in similar commerce, there we are — an establishment of religion which can go only one way — eventually, ministers will be required to be “equal” in their provision of services, or photographers and bakers will no longer be required to be “equal” in their provision of service.

I know which way the left would take this, and I know which way the right would take this, but I fear the left will win.

unclesmrgol on March 15, 2014 at 1:46 PM

bluefox on March 15, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Paranoid much?

As for myself, I like CC but I don’t give him a chance of winning the nomination nor would I want him to.

MJBrutus on March 15, 2014 at 1:45 PM

There wasn’t anything paranoid about my opinion. If N.J. is content with Christie, that’s one thing. Presidential material?
No. The only reason he was being discussed was because of some polling that thot he was the only one that could beat Hillary.

Nonsense.

bluefox on March 15, 2014 at 2:03 PM

bluefox on March 15, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Here’s the paranoid bit.

In my opinion, the RNC and the powers that be have already selected the R Nominee

bluefox on March 15, 2014 at 1:20 PM

MJBrutus on March 15, 2014 at 2:23 PM

ATTENTION REPUBLICAN PARTY

TO ATTRACT MORE VOTERS, ESPECIALLY THE LIBERTARIAN LEANING YOUTH
THE GOP NEEDS TO OPENLY PREACH STATES RIGHTS, LEAVING SOCIAL ISSUES UP TO A VOTE OF A STATES CITIZENS, NOT JUDGES

ABORTION, SAME SEX MARRIAGE, HEALTHCARE,
EDUCATION, MARIJUANA, MINIMUM WAGE, etc

AS LONG AS THIS IS A TENANT OF THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM,
THOSE WHO HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS ON SOCIAL ISSUES CAN STILL FEEL
CONFORTABLE VOTING FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATE
WHO WILL STAND FOR AND CAMPAIGN FOR A MUCH SMALLER, FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE, CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

(Sorry for the CAPS but I pasted this from my own diary)
I consider myself a fire-breathing social CON and if I am willing to abide by this platform in order to increase the size of our party, I cannot see how others would object. We must be realists – we will never be able to change the minds of millions who have been subjected to the liberal mindset thru public education, Hollyweird and just the general pop culture. But we can appeal to the hidden libertarian soul of every sane American. No, I am not a libertarian – I am ProLife, Pro Traditional marriage and anti-pot BUT believe mostly in the will of the American people.

IF WE DO NOT CHANGE, WE MAY NEVER WIN ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. AS A VERY SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE PRO-LIFE

REPUBLICAN, I WRITE THIS IN ORDER TO

SAVE THIS PARTY AND SAVE THIS GREAT NATION

BabysCatz on March 15, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5