PDA

View Full Version : Elections Ron Paul: Social Conservatism is a losing position


Taco John
02-20-2012, 01:11 PM
Crowley: "Are you uncomfortable--certainly Rick Santorum is the one who has been in the forefront of some of this talk on social issues, but there have been others in the race," Crowley asked Paul. "Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?"

Paul: "No. I think it's a losing position.

I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved," Paul continued. "And they're not to be at the national level. We're not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.


http://youtu.be/ewcBygxGfVk?t=6m12s

Donger
02-20-2012, 01:13 PM
Well, he is an expert on the matter.

Taco John
02-20-2012, 01:19 PM
Well, he is an expert on the matter.

From this past week:

http://i.imgur.com/aAtmW.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/6t8AY.jpg

Taco John
02-20-2012, 01:20 PM
http://i.imgur.com/qEdcb.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/T86iz.jpg

Taco John
02-20-2012, 01:23 PM
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/9b8827e2d9e8f8bf88bfe6fcb/files/MoscowIdaho1_500x371_.jpg

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/9b8827e2d9e8f8bf88bfe6fcb/files/TriCities_500x282_.jpg

prhom
02-20-2012, 01:28 PM
"And they're not to be at the national level. We're not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.

I really wish more people had this attitude. It would make a lot of people on both sides of the aisle much happier.

DementedLogic
02-20-2012, 02:50 PM
Anyone who fails to see that any social conservative is unelectable, is an idiot. A vote for Santorum before November, is a vote for Obama in November.

alnorth
02-20-2012, 03:13 PM
Anyone who fails to see that any social conservative is unelectable, is an idiot. A vote for Santorum before November, is a vote for Obama in November.

Well, obviously a social conservative can win. (Reagan, Dubya) The people for whom social issues are a high-priority make or break issue are pretty hard-core conservatives or liberals who the other side can't get.

The moderate voters who decide elections (and who tend to be somewhat liberal on social issues) usually just have an acceptability range from pretty liberal (though perhaps short of national gay marriage) to somewhat conservative. If you are in that range, the moderate voters nod and move on.

Santorum's problem is he's pretty far out there on social issues, well outside what the middle will accept, and those social issues will become toxic for him if he's the nominee.

VAChief
02-20-2012, 03:33 PM
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/9b8827e2d9e8f8bf88bfe6fcb/files/MoscowIdaho1_500x371_.jpg

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/9b8827e2d9e8f8bf88bfe6fcb/files/TriCities_500x282_.jpg

Amway mania!

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=100148&stc=1&d=1329777075

Taco John
02-20-2012, 04:08 PM
Well, obviously a social conservative can win. (Reagan, Dubya) The people for whom social issues are a high-priority make or break issue are pretty hard-core conservatives or liberals who the other side can't get.

The moderate voters who decide elections (and who tend to be somewhat liberal on social issues) usually just have an acceptability range from pretty liberal (though perhaps short of national gay marriage) to somewhat conservative. If you are in that range, the moderate voters nod and move on.

Santorum's problem is he's pretty far out there on social issues, well outside what the middle will accept, and those social issues will become toxic for him if he's the nominee.

Reagan won because he attracted libertarians and Democrats and built a coalition. And Bush won touting Ron Paul's foreign policy. I don't know that Paul will be able to pull the upset, but what I do know is that he and Romney are the only two out of this crop who have any hope of beating Obama. Also, whether Paul wins or not, his movement will help to shape the party/nation for a long time to come.

Brainiac
02-20-2012, 07:12 PM
Well, obviously a social conservative can win. (Reagan, Dubya) The people for whom social issues are a high-priority make or break issue are pretty hard-core conservatives or liberals who the other side can't get.

The moderate voters who decide elections (and who tend to be somewhat liberal on social issues) usually just have an acceptability range from pretty liberal (though perhaps short of national gay marriage) to somewhat conservative. If you are in that range, the moderate voters nod and move on.

Santorum's problem is he's pretty far out there on social issues, well outside what the middle will accept, and those social issues will become toxic for him if he's the nominee.
Reagan and Dubya weren't really social conservatives. They paid lip service to it, but they didn't live and die by it the way Rick Santorum does.

The tea partiers and evangelical Republicans should be careful what they wish for. They can get a guy like Santorum nominated, but he'll never stand a chance in a general election.

Chocolate Hog
02-20-2012, 07:17 PM
Rick Santorum aide gaffe: Obama’s ‘radical Islamic policies’



Rick Santorum’s spokeswoman Alice Stewart said in a TV interview on Monday that Santorum was referring to President Barack Obama’s “radical Islamic policies” when he said the president’s agenda was driven by “phony theology” — but then quickly called up MSNBC after the segment aired to say she misspoke.

“There is a type of theological secularism when it comes to the global warmists in this country. That’s what he was referring to. He was referring to the president’s policies in terms of the radical Islamic policies the president has,” Stewart said on “Andrea Mitchell Reports.”

Continue Reading
Text Size
-+reset Listen
Latest on POLITICO
Gingrich burns through cash
Mitt spending outpaces fundraising
Santorum donations soar after wins
Huntsman camp owed $2.6M to him
Mark Kelly writing children's book
Adelsons gave big to pro-Newt PAC
Mitchell later said on the air that Stewart phoned the show after the interview to say she had slipped up and said “radical Islamic policies” instead of Obama’s “radical environmental policies.”

Mitchell noted she had missed Stewart’s phrasing of “radical Islamic policies” during the live interview.

“She had repeatedly said during that same interview ‘radical environmental policies’ and she said she slipped when she apparently said [it],” Mitchell said. “I did not hear it, or I would have caught her on it and tried to get a correction at the moment. I really, frankly, did not hear her use the word Islamic, but the tape tells the tale.”

Santorum said in Ohio on Saturday that Obama’s agenda is “not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology.”

Santorum stood by his remarks later, telling reporters he wasn’t suggesting Obama is less of a Christian.

“No one’s suggesting that,” he said. “I’m suggesting, obviously we all know in the Christian church there are a lot of different stripes of Christianity. I’m just saying he’s imposing his values on the church and I think that’s wrong. … If the president says he’s a Christian, he’s a Christian.”

Santorum said on Sunday that he was referring to what he described as Obama’s radical views on the environment and on Monday, he continued attacking the president’s environmental record on the campaign trail.

During a panel discussion on MSNBC on Monday after Stewart’s slip of the tongue, The Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut said she thought Stewart would apologize for the comment, but that it may not stop conspiracy theorists from grabbing onto her statement.

“I expect we’re going to hear more from Alice Stewart apologizing about those remarks. But there will be conspiracy theorists thinking it was some kind of message she was trying to get out or it was really on the mind of the Santorum campaign when they are talking about President Obama,” Kornblut said.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73084.html#ixzz1mykFE57U



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73084.html#ixzz1myk94LPV'

dirk digler
02-20-2012, 07:29 PM
Well, he is an expert on the matter.

LMAO