Rand Paul: GOP Should Abandon Social Issues

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) at CPAC 2013 (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) at CPAC 2013 (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Since Rand Paul was elected to the U.S. Senate from Kentucky in 2010, there has been a lot to like about him. He didn’t seem to be displaying any of the crazy notions that made it impossible for a serious conservative to support him. I was even entertaining the idea of supporting him for president in 2016.

Not anymore.

This interview posted today with Vocativ.com removed any question of whether I can support him.

Ted Cruz 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

There was a consensus among young people at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference that the GOP needs to get out of social issues. Do you agree?

I think it’s partly that. But I also think young people are very concerned with privacy. I think most young people’s lives revolve around their cellphones. They communicate with their parents by cellphone even when they’re in the house. And I think they are horrified by the idea of the government searching their records and being in possession of their records when they’ve not been suspected of a crime.

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

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.

As a libertarian, you believe in the sovereignty of the individual. But when it comes to the right for gays to marry, you said it should be left up to the states. Isn’t that a contradiction?

On issues that are very contentious, that involve social mores—I think that allowing different parts of the country to make their decision based on the local mores and culture is a good idea. But when it comes to taxes and benefits, the [federal] government out to take a neutral position—a way where marriage wouldn’t have an effect, positive or negative, on those things.

So he wants to make the GOP bigger by bringing in people who are enemies of our documented values, while spitting on the people already in the tent who are the most ardent supporters of our documented values?  What kind of moron comes up with that strategy for “success”?

It’s the same strategy that lost us the White House in 2008 and 2012…and apparently “Republican” leaders are chomping at the bit for a third-in-a-row loss. John McCain and Mitt Romney were at least clever enough to pay empty lip service on the campaign trail to the social values they had trampled with their records. Rand Paul apparently doesn’t even want to pay lip service to traditional American social values.

Why is it so many “Republicans” these days can’t seem to grasp the concept of leadership???  They’re big into followership–following the winds of pop culture ideas–but can’t be bothered to exercise leadership.

Our nations’ leaders following the flightly fetishes and preferences of today’s young people makes about as much sense as parents letting their children rule the home–a sure-fire recipe for chaos and disaster.  Thank God my parents stuck to their guns and told me to pull my head out of my *** when I was young; I was smarter than most my age back then, but I was still an idiot, thanks to pop culture influences.

Ronald Reagan didn’t worry about what pop culture thought. Ronald Reagan didn’t concern himself with getting hip with the empty-headed nonsense common to my generation back then.  Reagan articulated the right ideas, he explained the right ideas, he advocated the right ideas, and then he led the nation in pursuit of those right ideas.  And America went from an on-the-ropes has-been country with no confidence…to world leader once again, with a revived economy and the power to break a 70-year-old evil empire that had terrorized the world.

Real conservatives understand that the social issues form the foundation, the bedrock of all other issues.  You can’t have limited government and fiscal conservatism without social conservatism. When you have sexual anarchy in the culture resulting in the degradation of marriage and family, you have a host of societal ills which make it impossible to be fiscally conservative and limited in our government because government will be called on to deal with the mess created from a lack of social conservatism.  Those ills come from broken homes, poor academic performance from our nation’s children, juvenile delinquency, rising crime rates, poverty, the welfare state, and so on.

The men who created our country and set up its government understood this very well; they wouldn’t be caught dead abandoning social issues for the vultures of the Left to rip to shreds:

I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this divine book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and all those sober and frugal virtues which constitute the soul of republicanism. – Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. – Benjamin Franklin

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams

It is absolute insanity for a so-called “conservative” (not to mention for a Godless liberal) to surrender on social issues.

As for this business about “let the states decide?”  That might be acceptable…if the Leftist federal government hadn’t already declared all-out war on marriage, family, morality and normality. The Leftist-controlled federal government, through the executive branch and the activist judicial branch if not the legislative branch have already carpet-bombed American society and state governments with their heavy-handed social rot.

For conservatives to give up on fighting social issues would be unilateral disarmament on December 8, 1941.  Insanity!

I was already starting to get cautious about Rand Paul even before he said this, because I already knew Paul was backing RINO sellout Mitch McConnell. Paul sealed it in this interview:

You said you endorsed Mitch McConnell in Kentucky’s Republican senatorial primary because “there was nobody else in the race.” Would you have preferred to endorse someone else?

No, I’m happy with my endorsement, and I think Mitch McConnell is a good conservative.

If “conservative” is measured by the tone of the BS you can spin, sure McConnell is a conservative.

If conservative is measured by the ideology of the policies you support and oppose…McConnell is revealed as a pro-ObamaCare, pro-amnesty, anti-limited government, anti-Tea Party liberal.

And as always for rational people, actions speak infinitely louder than empty BS words.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic: how “Republicans” today are so willing to urinate on the values of their most ardent supporters in the vain hope of getting the support of people who aren’t likely to support them anyway and would be lukewarm supporters at best.

Too bad. Rand Paul was looking so good on so many issues. But there is no way in Hades I’m supporting a “Republican” who calls for surrender on the most important issues our nation faces. A “conservative” who surrenders on social issues isn’t a conservative and a “Republican” who surrenders on social issues isn’t a Republican.


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • thisoldspouse

    The apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree.

    And Daddy Ron is a kook.

  • Paula Dagnel

    Amen Mr Ellis! I’ve only recently come to understand why a true libertarian view can never work; and it’s exactly for the reason that you stated so perfectly here:

    “…because government will be called on to deal with the mess created from a lack of social conservatism. Those ills come from broken homes, poor academic performance from our nation’s children, juvenile delinquency, rising crime rates, poverty, the welfare state, and so on.”

    I said “libertarian,” here, because the younger Paul talks more like one of that stripe than a Republican. But the Party label really doesn’t matter; whatever he IS, he’s no conservative!

    Your article is completely spot on!

  • Gordon Howie

    So disappointing! Unfortunately, he has a lot of company. Republican leaders from the State House to the White House have said this for years. I wonder what it will take for them to understand that until we turn our hearts to God and deal with “social” issues in a way that pleases Him, our other problems will never be solved. Thanks for the article!

    • SDJammer

      Mr. Howie, there is a principle that conservatives must come to accept and that principle is: “In order to govern, you must first get elected”.

      My personal opinion is that for conservatives to get elected, they must LEAD with the 3 core values of the TEA Party:

      Constitutionally limited government
      Fiscal responsibility
      Free market capitalism

      The political landscape is littered with failed efforts from the likes of Ted Akin to Richard Mourdock in the last election. It has been shown many times that politicians who base their campaign efforts on social issues are sure to eventually shoot themselves in the foot somewhere along the campaign trail.

      I do not advocate that conservatives discard their strong socially conservative principles. However, I do advocate that conservatives get behind conservatives who will run on the core TEA Party values and when elected will govern and legislate like conservatives. And yes, while there are surely going to be a FEW who disappoint us in some social areas there is another principle that I think will then apply. That principle is: “A rising tide lifts all boats”.

      I think conservatives will be pleased to see the TREND that develops when all levels of government are dominated by conservatives rather than liberals. There will be a dramatic change in the perception of the electorate when they better understand conservative principles and see the good they can deliver. However, for that to happen a conservative must first get elected.

      If the goal of conservatives is to be able to proudly proclaim they are the “last conservative standing” as they cast aside everyone else for some flaw they see in them, we are well on our way. However, if our goal is to change the culture and landscape of this country then I think we need to understand that “In order to govern, we must first get elected”.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        As a Tea Party patriot who was there from Day One of the Tea Party movement and helped found two Tea Party groups, I understand very well the appeal and importance of the core Tea Party values.

        But those are NOT the foundation of conservatism, nor are they the foundation of this great nation. They are the infrastructure which is supported by the foundation.

        The foundation is the traditional moral values (known these days as “social issues”) of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

        Without this foundation, the infrastructure is built on sand, and will not endure (Matthew 7:24-27).

        I won’t help elect someone who advocates surrender on social issues and, as 2008 and 2012 shows, neither will most across-the-board conservatives.

        Which means, Republican candidates should quit surrendering on social issues and urinating on social conservatives if they want to get elected.

        • SDJammer

          Your statement of: “You can’t have limited government and fiscal conservatism without social conservatism.” is probably accurate. However, to say that electing social conservatives will give us a limited government and fiscal conservatism is an urban legend that it not true.

          There are many examples of this and I will merely provide South Dakota’s very own Kristi Noem as the poster child. Take a look at the Christian Coalition scorecard.

          http://cc.org/sites/default/files/13/2011%20Scorecard_8.5×11.pdf

          She clearly scored a 100%. However, take a look at the Americans for Prosperity scorecard and note the dismal 43% she scored on spending issues:

          http://afpscorecard.org/#member#N000184#house
          I challenge you to list all the candidates who meet your standards for being a conservative and can be elected. I am afraid as we approach the next election cycle we will see that most if not all of them fall by the wayside either because they were not electable or they will sooner or later say something that disqualifies them for the title of “last conservative standing”.

          I am amazed at how some conservatives think we can win everything back with an “all or nothing” strategy. It took conservatives decades of sitting on the sidelines to lose control and now we think that jumping up and down screaming “all or nothing” will put us back in control overnight. I wish it was possible, but I am afraid it will never happen.

          I am also amazed how some conservatives who all of a sudden hear a candidate’s position on an issue or two that goes against conservative principles can then immediately throw the candidate under the proverbial bus. I would think that if you have a candidate who is 80% - 90% of what you think is the perfect candidate you would be better off trying to change their position on the few things that you feel they are wrong on rather that casting them totally aside.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            I am sadly well aware that there are some social conservatives who will sell us out on fiscal issues.

            Even more unfortunate is the reality that those who are liberal socially will usually sell us out on EVERYTHING.

            There are few conservative candidates who truly can’t be elected; these are the ones who can’t seem to tie their shoelaces, or repeatedly (not just a slip) go off on wild-eyed tangents. The overwhelming majority of across-the-board candidates are not like this, and any of them can get elected…

            …provided conservatives do not allow liberals to decide the viability of their candidates, leading conservatives to abandon those candidates.

            I am stupified and infuriated by dumb-ass gutless “conservatives” who are willing to allow liberals to tell us who is electable and who isn’t. We have plenty of perfectly electable candidates…if we’d only stick with them, put our backs into it and help them get elected.

            But no. The “mainstream” Leftist media tells us they’re unelectable, and we dutifully obey. Democrats tell us they’re unelectable, and we dutifully abandon our conservative candidates. Illustrations: http://www.americanclarion.com/children-executed-fathers-crimes-29316

            If we’re that stupid and gutless, we deserve to lose.

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              Or to answer your query more simply, the conservative candidate who can’t get elected = the conservative candidate conservatives allow themselves to be misled into not supporting.

              • SDJammer

                I understand what you are saying about Mourdock. I supported him and actually donated to his campaign. However, he did not get elected and therefore I maintain: “In order to govern, you must first get elected”.

                I am still interested in your list of acceptable candidates who are perfectly electable.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                I already gave you the “list”, and it’s vastly longer than the list that can’t. Any conservative who can tie their shoelaces and not go off on wild-eyed tangents can get elected if conservatives will support them. I’m not going to name those few who can’t because there are some good people among them who don’t deserve the humiliation that is better reserved for those liberals who truly betray us.

              • SDJammer

                I’m sorry, but the “any conservative” category is really not a list and that is our problem - we don’t have a list. There are so very few conservatives who MIGHT meet the hurdle of the “perfect conservative” and have any degree of experience it is embarrassing.

                Conservatives are not willing to take a step at a time and develop candidates. They have the “giant leap - all or nothing” mentality that destroys many good candidates who would have done well if they would have had the patience to take it a step at a time.

                I maintain that the path to success begins with being directionally correct. If we are pointed somewhat in the correct direction, any step of any size gets us closer. We can always make midcourse corrections as we go, but the goal should be to get closer to our objective. And yes, a giant leap would be great, a single step would be wonderful and I am even willing to accept a half of a step if necessary. I am just so disappointed in all the conservatives who are willing to take a step backward when they can’t get the “giant leap they demanded.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                We take a giant step backward when we support any candidate who has made it clear they will betray us on any conservative values. You know adderal surrenders on conservative issues are only going to make a few naive people feel good temporarily. Liberals will never stop even for one second and their push to advance liberalism can crush conservatism. If we aren’t fighting to advance conservative values, then we’re taking a giant step backwards because liberals will push us back.

                As for conservative candidates you can win, there are many. A few examples include Stacy Nelson, chip Campbell, Phil Johnson, and Ted Cruz. What makes a conservative candidate elect a bowl is the fact that conservatives will stand behind and support that candidate.

      • thisoldspouse

        “In order to govern, you must first get elected.”

        I’m sorry to say this, but your personal opinion is self-destructive bunk. And that’s being nice.

        I recognize that you repeatedly assure us that you “do not advocate that conservatives discard their strong socially conservative principles,” but your repeated assurances sound like someone who “doth protest too much” - they ring hollow and betray the fact that you agree with Paul about, frankly, abandoning social issues.

        You seem to have no idea how assassin this statement is in all of its implications. If we, as a party, must jettison fidelity to so-called “social” issues to get elected, whatever motivation would there be to later re-establish fidelity to social issues once elected in order to stay elected? In other words, if social issues are a liability for the party now, what would change this imputed characteristic down the road, after the party has signaled to the public their disdain for these values as unimportant to public policy? Was the Party being deceitful by pretending to disclaim values that they later intended to promote once in power? That is exactly what such a strategy entails, and the voting public will recognize this, with or without the help of the opposition party, and disrespect the Republican Party exponentially more for exercising such deceitful dealings.

        The answer, of course, is that once jettisoned, the GOP-e will never re-establish any meaningful semblance of respect for “social” conservative values again. This talk of “softening to win” is simply thinly veiled CONTEMPT for conservative values they consider “social.”

  • SDJammer

    When I read what Rand Paul said, I am not sure if he strayed that far from conservative principles. He certainly didn’t “spit” on anybody in our tent who are the most ardent supporters of our values.

    He said: “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.”

    My interpretation of that is that he would welcome others to join the party even if they were not completely in support of 100% of the party platform. I think he realizes that if we are to win elections we need more votes and that doesn’t come from calling those who don’t think 100% like us “dumb azzes & gutless”. He said that the Republican Party was not going to give up on traditional marriage.

    He also said: “On issues that are very contentious, that involve social mores—I think that allowing different parts of the country to make their decision based on the local mores and culture is a good idea. But when it comes to taxes and benefits, the [federal] government out to take a neutral position—a way where marriage wouldn’t have an effect, positive or negative, on those things.”

    I believe that is 100% completely in line with conservative principles. It follows the system of federalism and states rights. I see it as being in-line with a constitutionally limited government. He is also in-line with the conservative principle regarding taxation. If you are going to have a tax, it should do one thing and one thing only - it should raise revenue. The tax code should never be used to influence behavior.

    Bottom-line, I don’t see his comments being that far out of line with conservative principles.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Here’s the interview exchange, once again:

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

      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.

      Agree to disagree? What does that mean? It clearly means “abandon the fight for social issues.” Because the GOP Platform CLEARLY advocates social issues, and if we’re going to “agree to disagree,” then that also clearly means “we’re not going to fight for social issues” because we’re going to “tolerate” our enemies in our own midst.

      And

      But when it comes to taxes and benefits, the [federal] government out to take a neutral position—a way where marriage wouldn’t have an effect, positive or negative, on those things.

      Anyone with half a brain knows there will NEVER be any “neutrality” on these issues. The Left will not rest until they have destroyed marriage and family, or until we have utterly defeated them. There can be no “neutrality.” The only faux “neutrality available is SURRENDER.

      And the rest of the quote damns him even further.

      Rand Paul is, unfortunately, right in line with libertarian principles…but way off course from conservative ones.

      You are full of it when you claim he said the Republican Party wasn’t going to give up on traditional marriage. That is EXACTLY what he said.

      You’re seeing what you want to see, in pursuit of some fantasy of being able to make peace with our enemies. You’re apparently like so many others who just can’t come to terms that there is very real evil in the world, and it will not be appeased, placated, or compromised with.

      Until a significant number of people wake up to the fact that there are people out there-even within what used to be the conservative party of record-who are intent on destroying the foundation of this nation, we are going to continue to lose and lose this great nation along with our political loss.

      There is no middle ground.

      AS Ronald Reagan said, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

      Oh, and I didn’t say it was those who don’t think like us 100 who are dumb-asses; I said it was conservatives who are stupid enough to allow liberals to tell us who is electable and who isn’t. It doesn’t get much dumber than that.

      • SDJammer

        Well, you have whittled your core base down to 24% tops, let me know how many elections you can win with 24%. While I may only have half a brain as you claim, I really don’t think you are going to win many elections with only 24% of the vote. But then again, maybe you have figured out how to govern without getting elected.

        http://www.rasmussenreports.com/content/pdf/7017

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          We’d have a lot more than 24% who were consistently conservative across the board if so-called “conservatives” would actually stand up for and defend their values instead of running for the tall grass every time a liberal says “Boo!”

          As is the case with RINOs (i.e. why in the world would Joe-average low-information voter ever put their confidence in a “Republican” who doesn’t believe in their own party’s documented values), why in the world would Mr. Low Information Voter ever sign on to conservatism when “conservatives” seem afraid to defend their own values?

          The evil and the weak only respect one thing: strength. If conservatives look strong and act strong, (1) the evil will be less likely to act brazenly and (2) the weak are more likely to come over to us because we give the appearance of confidence and strength.

          As long as we behave as if we are afraid to defend our own values, (1) the evil will be embolded to attack more viciously on more fronts, and (2) the weak will not come to us because they’ll be afraid of being attacked along with the conservatives by the evil ones; if they stay unaffiliated, at least they’re not drawing any fire.

          As you have said many times, and I wholeheartedly agree with you, we must educate the low-information voter as to what conservatism is and why it is the right path for our nation.

          Part of educating them is acting like we believe in it to begin with! Surrendering on the foundation of conservatism-social issues-is “educating” them that we don’t really believe what we claim to believe, that we don’t believe in it enough to fight for it in the face of attack.

          For the past 15 years, the “Republican” establishment has been “educating” the public and teaching them that the establishment doesn’t really believe in our moral foundations, fiscal conservatism or limited government. And for that same past 15 years or so, conservatives have for the most part been “educating” the public and teaching them that we’re afraid to fight for what we claim to believe in. We’re “teaching” the average public that we’re clueless to the fact that we are in the middle of an all-out WAR against everything good in and about America. Would YOU be inspired to support someone who was clueless that they were in the middle of a life-and-death conflict???

          The liberals (regardless of what party they’re in), meanwhile, have been “educating” the public with their actions that they will not surrender an inch, that they will keep coming back and fighting for what they want no matter how stupid they look, and will never, ever surrender.

          It’s no wonder conservatism and the country are in such a shambles with “lessons” being taught like that.

          We need to start educating the public on what is right, why it is right, and that it is important enough to fight tooth and nail for.

          • SDJammer

            Well, that should get a good test in the South Dakota US Senate race as you have a candidate doing exactly what you want. It will be interesting to see how he does. I hope he wins, but I am afraid it doesn’t look good to me.

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              I’m not sure why you want to create strawmen or make stuff up, because I’m not aware of ANYONE who has said or advocated saying to voters that “unless they are 100% PURE conservatives, they are not welcome to vote for a conservative candidate.” What kind of asinine nonsense is that?

              If a candidate stands for what is right (i.e. conservative values), and people will not allow liberals to convince them the candidate is not viable, many people who are not completely conservative will support them for a variety of reasons, including (a) he doesn’t behave like he’s ashamed of his own values, (b) his supporters don’t behave as if they’re ashamed of their values, (c) his supporters behave as if they believe he can win ,(d) and hopefully both the candidate and the candidate’s supporters will proactively articulate WHY their conservative values are the best way to go.

              Of course, if one or several of these are not accomplished, there will be no way to get around the disinformation and “jamming” campaign of the liberals.

              So we have to decide: do we want to play to win, or do we want to play games?

              It’s a war for the soul and the future of our country, and I”m not into playing games. I wan’t to win.

              • SDJammer

                I am sorry, but it is no strawman it is what you said. Rand Paul is not recruiting candidates to run as a Republican, he is recruiting voters to consider themselves as Republicans and vote as Republicans and you condemn him for it.

                As for himself, he has a pretty good record when it comes to legislating as a conservative. The Heritage Foundation has him at 96%.

                http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com//members/member/P000603

                Americans for Prosperity has him at 96%.

                http://afpscorecard.org/#member#P000603#senate

                The Club for Growth has him at 99%.

                http://www.clubforgrowth.org/projects/scorecard/?year=2013&chamber=1&state=KY&party=Any&memberName=

                The Christian Coalition has him at 100%.

                http://cc.org/sites/default/files/13/2011%20Scorecard_8.5×11.pdf

                The Family Research Council has scored him at 100%.

                http://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?i=PG10J03&state=ky

                That is about as close to perfection as you are going to come. My God, just what in the world do you expect from a politician? For the life of me I don’t understand where this extremism comes from? The guy makes a comment that you somehow blow way out of proportion and a 99.5% conservative voting record is tossed aside as not conservative enough for you.

                I must say, I do not understand how that kind of logic can ever draw enough support to win any elections. I am truly mystified.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                Yes, he HAD a good record…until he urinated on conservatives who understand how important social issues are to the health of our country.

                His record, up until yesterday when he advocated surrender on social issues, is why I really liked him and was considering supporting him in 2016.

                This “extremism” is simply expecting someone who wants to be president to boldly support the most important issues in our nation.

                Rand Paul just told the most ardent, the most reliable and most fervent part of the Republican Party (otherwise known as “the base”): “Your issues aren’t important to me. We’re just going to have to ‘agree to disagree’ and let the country go to Hell in a handbasket.”

                That’s a sure-fire recipe for a third-in-a-row loss in 2016.

                I suppose I should be grateful. At least he isn’t trying to BS us into thinking he’s good on social issues, like the last two did.

              • SDJammer

                So let me see if I have this correct. Rand Paul has voted 99.9% of the time in-line with conservative principles. Or another way to say it is on almost every single legislative vote, he has acted like a true conservative.

                However, he then gives an interview where he makes a comment that confirms his support of the conservative principle of a constitutionally limited government and states rights. During the same interview he says he hopes that the Republican Party can welcome voters who may be social moderates to vote as Republicans even though most Republicans will retain their traditional family values and as a result he is now dog do do?

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                Yes, let’s get it straight. Rand Paul HAD a great record…and he urinated it away by telling conservatives that he’d rather compromise the most important issues in our republic, in the hopes of enticing liberals who hate most of our issues anyway to somehow believe that because we’re willing to betray the values we DOCUMENTED in our platform, they should join us instead of the Democrat Party.

                That’s pretty much it.

                I won’t trust a candidate whose record tells me he won’t fight for social conservatism, and I darned sure won’t support one who TELLS ME UP FRONT he won’t fight for socially conservative values.

              • SDJammer

                If you want to attack the root cause of our social problems in this country, I suggest you initiate your attack tomorrow when you go to church. The decline in morality and social well being in this country resides primarily with the failure of our churches and not Rand Paul.

                It is also interesting how 6 million evangelicals could have voted for Obama but we want to blame our social problems on Rand Paul?

                http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2957237/posts

                And I remember how you once thought Allen West was the savior for conservatives even though his voting record was around 60% and south of John McCain.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                I see you’ve dragged out another strawman; I think you’ve been spending too much time with the gutless wonders at the South Dakota War on Conservatives. Their guile is wearing off on you.

                I have ALWAYS held Christians and the Church primarily responsible for the mess we’re in.

                That doesn’t give a pass, however, to ANYONE who is in a position to do something about it. In fact, Rand Paul is in one of the best positions possible to do something to arrest the slide on the political front. But instead of choosing to do something about it, he’s choosing to cop out and send the message that things like protecting innocent human life, protecting marriage and family, stopping the insanity of the homosexual agenda, stopping secularism, protecting religious freedom and the like…that these aren’t really important. “We’ll just have to ‘agree to disagree’ to make room for the people who would be lukewarm supporters at best and likely will never join our ranks anyway.”

                Real smart.

                You might also recall that while West’s record with some fiscal groups was on the low side, his record was very high with social conservative groups. The overall average would put him somewhere in the “fair to good” category.

                What’s more, he understood and articulated those foundational values, educating people on their importance and why they are important.

                Rand Paul, whom I thought highly of until yesterday, just articulated the message: America’s foundational heart and soul doesn’t matter.

              • SDJammer

                And Rand Paul has voted 99.5% of the time in-line with conservative principles. I realize that is not pure enough for you, but I can live with it and refuse to demonize him for it. If that means I am no longer a conservative, so be it. I find it difficult to believe you can build a voting coalition to support your candidates when you keep declaring people unfit to be conservatives.

                However, if there is one thing that is disappointment with Rand Paul is his endorsement of Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, I am puzzled by that move. However, as long as he continues to legislate 99% of the time as a conservative, I refuse to demonize him. As for a presidential candidate, he never has been my top choice. However, if he was to win the Republican primary I would have no problem in supporting him against a lame democrat.

                It appears that it will come down to either you or thisoldspouse to be declared the last conservative standing. I am sure it will be a satisfying victory.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                As I have said many times now, I have no problem whatsoever with his record (up to yesterday) ; it’s why I was seriously considering him as a presidential candidate.

                But he just told us-told us-we need to surrender on social issues now. I can no longer trust him. He made the choice to tell social conservatives their issues aren’t important (can you imagine a Republican candidate saying “we’ll just have to agree to disagree” on fiscal issues or issues of limited government?) He’s going to have to live with the consequences now. Thankfully we have other options out there.

                Finally, I don’t know where this crap about “last conservative standing” is coming from, but it sounds like you think we’re extreme for expecting a candidate to be conservative 80 percent of the time (I’ve embraced Reagan’s standard multiple times in public, and I think Spouse could go along with that). Social issues (innocent human life, marriage, family, morality, religious freedom, etc.) make up far more than 20%.You’re really starting to sound like the RINOs at the War on Conservatives. If it’s too much to ask that someone who calls themselves a “Republican” be right on the issues at least 80% of the time, we’re truly doomed.

              • SDJammer

                Well you have now called me a RINO and spouse said I wasn’t a conservative. I am sure you both think that kind of strong talk makes a person more endeared to your position, but it doesn’t.

                Rand Paul did NOT say that he was going to compromise his conservative principles. If he had said that, I would no longer support him as a candidate for anything.

                Rand Paul did NOT say the he was going to vote against any conservative positions on any social issues. If he had said that, I would no longer support him as a candidate for anything
                .
                Rand Paul did NOT say the Republican Party should change its platform in regard to any social issues. If he had said that and the Republican Party did change their platform and turn away from conservative principles, I would leave the party.

                Rand Paul did NOT say that social issues should be the responsibility of the federal government. If he would have, I would not support him as a candidate.

                Rand Paul DID say that states rights should prevail in these issues. If he would have said differently, I would not support him as a candidate.

                Rand Paul DID say that the Republican Party should seek the support of voters who many not agree with us on every issue. While I realize that may have long-term implications unless conservatives remain strong in the principles and values, I am not worried unless good conservatives get sick and tired of being called RINOs at the drop of a hat.

                Rand Paul clearly indicated that he was interested in attracting young voters to the party. Many young people are more liberal in their youth only to turn more conservative as they get older. I for one think that if we can surround these young people with rational conservatives they will see the value of conservative principles. On the other hand, not being willing to mentor these young people and just calling them names may not work all that well.

                And since I am considered a RINO on this site, I will be gone. There is no need to hang around where one is not welcome. Unfortunately, there have been way too many conservatives chased away from the political process. Perhaps that is a reason there is a shrinking number of people at TEA Party meetings these days. You do realize I hope that people tend to stay away from places where they are not welcome.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                I don’t really care whether you’re endeared or not. If I cared what people thought, I wouldn’t publish a conservative website-I’d just be a liberal.

                No, Rand Paul didn’t say any of the things you say he didn’t say.

                Again, here’s what he DID say:

                There was a consensus among young people at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference that the GOP needs to get out of social issues. Do you agree?

                I think it’s partly that. But I also think young people are very concerned with privacy. I think most young people’s lives revolve around their cellphones. They communicate with their parents by cellphone even when they’re in the house. And I think they are horrified by the idea of the government searching their records and being in possession of their records when they’ve not been suspected of a crime.

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

                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.

                As a libertarian, you believe in the sovereignty of the individual. But when it comes to the right for gays to marry, you said it should be left up to the states. Isn’t that a contradiction?

                On issues that are very contentious, that involve social mores—I think that allowing different parts of the country to make their decision based on the local mores and culture is a good idea. But when it comes to taxes and benefits, the [federal] government out to take a neutral position—a way where marriage wouldn’t have an effect, positive or negative, on those things.

                What does it amount to? Surrender on social issues-the most important of all issues. You can’t “agree to disagree” when what you clearly disagree on is under assault from the Democrat Party-and now under heavy assault from within our own party. “Agree to disagree” is a fancy, naive way of saying “I’m not going to fight for that issue anymore.”

                You made the decision to defend-repeatedly defend-someone who came right out and told us to surrender on the social issues which form the bedrock of the Republican Party. In doing so, you put yourself on the side of the RINOs. You did it all yourself, so you have no one to blame but yourself. When you align with evil, don’t be surprised when you’re identified with it.

                You’re welcome back here any time. I just hope you’ll be of a mind to defend conservatives and conservatism when you do, and not be of a mind to defend those who want to sell it and us out.

              • SDJammer

                I am not sure why I am wasting my time. However, Michael Reagan stated the issue quite clearly in an article that I just read this morning. He addressed several things including the group of people who seem to be committed to splitting conservatives and dividing them into such small groups that they will never have the opportunity to govern anything except the protest sign they are carrying.

                He also addressed the issue where some people like to falsely hide behind a distorted view of Ronald Reagan that they paint. All and all it was a pretty good article that deals rationally with the political problem facing conservatives who want to win elections and change the course this country is on. Unfortunately, not all conservatives shared that mission.

                http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20140316/OPINION05/303160002/Michael-Reagan-Rand-Paul-gets-helping-GOP

                And here is the article on Breitbart that Rand Paul wrote and was referred to in the Michael Reagan story above.

                http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/03/10/Rand-Paul-Reagans-Foreign-Policy

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                You should pass this on to Rand Paul. He’s the one trying to divide the party by advocating surrender on several of our most important planks.

                And send this article to Michael Reagan; I doubt he was aware of Paul’s call to surrender on social issues when he wrote his column.