If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Rand Paul: "The GOP can't completely flip on gay marriage" There are no switch-hitters in politics   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 186
    More: Interesting, GOP, Sen. Rand Paul, libertarian movement  
•       •       •

1660 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Aug 2014 at 8:58 AM (5 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-08 08:15:11 AM
We were never against gay marriage, that was just Democrat propaganda for fund raising purposes.
 
2014-08-08 08:21:29 AM

EvilEgg: We were never against gay marriage, that was just Democrat propaganda for fund raising purposes.


that's gonna become a thing now, isn't it?

"we were never for voter ID, it was just Democrat propaganda to get out the vote and get donations!!"
 
2014-08-08 08:32:55 AM
For once, I agree with Rand Paul. He's right, the GOP can't just flip on issues like Gay Marriage, and he said exactly why in the interview. Their far-right wing base would stay home on election day. Basically, he's saying that the GOP could do the right thing and embrace common decency, but they won't, because they want to play politics, and pander to racists and homophobes.

History will not be kind to Mr. Paul and his ilk.
 
2014-08-08 08:45:53 AM
...because if there's anything that Rand Paul knows, it's that a politician can't reposition themselves and simply ignore their previous position...

Republicans should have been for marriage equality in the first place. It should have been the default position. For reasons of freedom of religion, for equality under the law, for matters of the right to privacy. It should have been the original position for passionate defenders of the Constitution, and damn what the Religious Right thinks, because they are only a segment of the population. Yes, as former Republican, I think that churches should be able to restrict ceremonies within their own ministries. Catholics and Baptists don't want to perform same sex marriages, on grounds that they feel it violates their interpretations of the Bible, I think that is their right. Mind you, not even all Baptists feel this way, but I fully support ministries that feel that it violates their principles in that decision. I don't agree with it, but then again I'm a Buddhist, so it's none of my damn business what these folks are doing in matters of dogma. What I do have exception with, is looking to restrict OTHER ministries, and atheists to conform with their beliefs. It is long past time to put away with meddling in the affairs of folks' privacy and interfering with the freedom to practice their faith. That means, yes, letting the Unitarians and Church of Christ handle their own ministries, and stop the government from being involved in the decisions that adults make. It's none of anyone's business what consenting adults do in their own homes. And that is how you frame it. NOT that you "support" sodomy--if that is how you feel about it though, you might want to look at a LOT of folks' search results for porn to understand that not all of America feels that way--but that you support religious freedom and the right for privacy, and that you are in favor of equality under the law for all citizens. If folks' get in a snit about it, then you say, "that's your right to disagree, but you don't have the right to restrict access under the law for fellow citizens because Jesus."

The GOP has set itself against its own historic principles to cater to the wishes of the Religious Right, because there's cash up in them thar hills, and damn the party for mining these loons. Damn them, and they've damned the country by giving religious whackjobs a seat at the table in favor of restricting rights for citizens as their official position. It is one of the reasons I had to separate myself from the party, because it is simply wrong. Wrong in a way that violates everything that America represents. And if the party wants to show any courage and take some responsibility, they should be backing away from this mess and assert that all citizens have equality under the law. Plain and simple. But Paul is correct, that so much has been invested in courting loons and regressive, backwards, and folks who are antithetical to the principles of religious freedom to now abandon the position, and damn the party for courting their idealistic vision of a nation that NEVER was.
 
2014-08-08 08:50:37 AM
"I think the party will evolve. It'll either continue to lose, or it'll become a bigger place where there's a mixture of opinions," he said.

An impressive attempt at sounding deep while saying absolutely nothing.

Maybe he's got political chops after all.
 
2014-08-08 08:52:11 AM
Anyone want to take a swing as to how this will play out long term?

Maybe a Teabagger party, a reconstituted Republitarian party and the Democrats.  On fiscal issues the Repubs and Tea folks will caucus together, while on social issues the Repubs and Dems will caucus together. It's a thought.
 
2014-08-08 09:01:16 AM

SurfaceTension: Anyone want to take a swing as to how this will play out long term?

Maybe a Teabagger party, a reconstituted Republitarian party and the Democrats.  On fiscal issues the Repubs and Tea folks will caucus together, while on social issues the Repubs and Dems will caucus together. It's a thought.


I don't think the 2-party system will be that easy to break.  I wish we'd get to a true multi-party system, but the laws are really rigged against non-(R) and (D) parties.
 
2014-08-08 09:02:07 AM
If they could flip, they would have done so by now, taken credit for it, and then blamed Democrats for trying to stop it from happening from the very beginning.
 
2014-08-08 09:04:36 AM
Gay sex used to be at the top of Republicans' agenda, now its at the bottom.
 
2014-08-08 09:05:05 AM
I'm against men with bad hair.
 
2014-08-08 09:05:31 AM
Goldwater would have been pro gay marriage, had the topic come up in the 60s, so it isn't like it's some core tenet of the Republican party that has been around forever.

But he's right from a political standpoint - if the right abandoned these social issues, all they would have left is being the party that does whatever it can for the rich and powerful.  Political suicide.  Republicans simply hitched their cart to the wrong horse.

It'd be nice if we could have a parliamentary system or something other than FPTP where we aren't subject to two party rule,  but we don't, and it doesn't seem like that will change.  If we did, our politicians would be able to have more leeway with their beliefs, instead of just following the party line.
 
2014-08-08 09:06:14 AM

MmmmBacon: History will not be kind to Mr. Paul and his ilk.


We'll all be dead by then.
 
2014-08-08 09:10:30 AM

SurfaceTension: Anyone want to take a swing as to how this will play out long term?

Maybe a Teabagger party, a reconstituted Republitarian party and the Democrats.  On fiscal issues the Repubs and Tea folks will caucus together, while on social issues the Repubs and Dems will caucus together. It's a thought.


So if Obama sends troops to Iraq, the GOP will espouse peace and war weariness. They'll have success on this front. They'll try to reach and espouse other things, slowly. The renewal of this war may very well start the 'flip' of the 2 parties. It'll take a decade or 2, however.
 
2014-08-08 09:13:21 AM

vernonFL: Gay sex used to be at the top of Republicans' agenda, now its at the bottom.


Powerful statement.
 
2014-08-08 09:13:46 AM

Nadie_AZ: So if Obama sends troops to Iraq, the GOP will espouse peace and war weariness. They'll have success on this front. They'll try to reach and espouse other things, slowly. The renewal of this war may very well start the 'flip' of the 2 parties. It'll take a decade or 2, however


Oh, don't you kid yourself. They'll still try to be the biggest high-dollar call girl for multinational corporations and anybody else rich enough to afford their services. We've seen how "Doctor" Paul can bend backwards for the right johns.
 
2014-08-08 09:14:09 AM

MattStafford: Goldwater would have been pro gay marriage, had the topic come up in the 60s, so it isn't like it's some core tenet of the Republican party that has been around forever.


I think he would have said, "Let's stay out of this."
 
2014-08-08 09:15:33 AM

MattStafford: It'd be nice if we could have a parliamentary system or something other than FPTP where we aren't subject to two party rule,  but we don't, and it doesn't seem like that will change.


I don't always agree with you, but this.  A true multi-party system would be very nice.  I think the vast majority of voters are like me in that neither of the 2 parties perfectly represents their beliefs, so they just pull the lever for the "best fit."  It makes it hard to get enthusiastic about voting----I can't get too excited about voting for a democrat who shares ~65% of my political beliefs, other than keeping the republican (with whom I share 0% of my political beliefs) out of office.  I'm sure many other people on all areas of the political spectrum find themselves in that situation.
 
2014-08-08 09:17:13 AM
As the party of small government(TM), I'd have thought the Republicans should simply believe that it's not government's role to define marriage one way or the other, and take a completely neutral (or wide) stance on the issue.
 
2014-08-08 09:18:31 AM

Diogenes: "I think the party will evolve. It'll either continue to lose, or it'll become a bigger place where there's a mixture of opinions," he said.

An impressive attempt at sounding deep while saying absolutely nothing.

Maybe he's got political chops after all.


It's a bizarre statement. First he's saying they can't abandon certain core voters, but here he's saying their positions will lead to losing.
 
2014-08-08 09:18:53 AM
"If you tell people from Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia, 'You know what, guys, we've been wrong, and we're gonna be the pro-gay-marriage party,' they're either gonna stay home or - I mean, many of these people joined the Republican Party because of these social issues," the congressman said. "So I don't think we can completely flip."

Ah, so "social issues" is the new dog whistle for naked racism and bigotry. Good to know.

Oh, and I like the veiled reference to "we".

He's sounding more and more like a RINO. How long until he's primaried?
 
2014-08-08 09:19:43 AM

Diogenes: vernonFL: Gay sex used to be at the top of Republicans' agenda, now its at the bottom.

Powerful statement.



So what you're saying is:

The Republican agenda is to be the power bottom when it comes to gay sex?


/sounds about right
 
2014-08-08 09:20:45 AM
He's correct. Much like the segregationists abandoned the Democrats after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act anti-gay bigots would sit out the GOP. It would be the principled stance but the GOP isn't big on principle.
 
2014-08-08 09:20:56 AM
That Putin guy does make a case for just playing the field and not settling down in a marriage.

photos1.blogger.com
 
2014-08-08 09:21:42 AM

Diogenes: MattStafford: Goldwater would have been pro gay marriage, had the topic come up in the 60s, so it isn't like it's some core tenet of the Republican party that has been around forever.

I think he would have said, "Let's stay out of this."


Or let the states decide which is why he was popular with segregationists.
 
2014-08-08 09:23:47 AM

Fart_Machine: Diogenes: MattStafford: Goldwater would have been pro gay marriage, had the topic come up in the 60s, so it isn't like it's some core tenet of the Republican party that has been around forever.

I think he would have said, "Let's stay out of this."

Or let the states decide which is why he was popular with segregationists.


Ahhh, yes, let the states decide basic civil rights.  It's the weenie position.
 
2014-08-08 09:24:39 AM

MmmmBacon: For once, I agree with Rand Paul. He's right, the GOP can't just flip on issues like Gay Marriage, and he said exactly why in the interview. Their far-right wing base would stay home on election day. Basically, he's saying that the GOP could do the right thing and embrace common decency, but they won't, because they want to play politics, and pander to racists and homophobes.

History will not be kind to Mr. Paul and his ilk.



Exactly.  And it speaks volumes about your party when its policies are so unpopular that it requires the votes of racists and homophobes to stay relevant.
 
2014-08-08 09:24:45 AM

EyeballKid: Nadie_AZ: So if Obama sends troops to Iraq, the GOP will espouse peace and war weariness. They'll have success on this front. They'll try to reach and espouse other things, slowly. The renewal of this war may very well start the 'flip' of the 2 parties. It'll take a decade or 2, however

Oh, don't you kid yourself. They'll still try to be the biggest high-dollar call girl for multinational corporations and anybody else rich enough to afford their services. We've seen how "Doctor" Paul can bend backwards for the right johns.


Oh I don't think the current idiots in power for the GOP have any intention of altering their current agendas. The best we can hope for is new blood that is less Southern White 20th Century and more 21st Century.
 
2014-08-08 09:25:07 AM
Republicans just need to agree to disagree on an issue they think God is personally smiting America for. Sure it's against the core tenets of how they define themselves as people, but they just need to bake those wedding cakes for gay marriages because if there's anything conservatives are known for, it's tolerance of people different from them.
 
2014-08-08 09:25:59 AM

HMS_Blinkin: I don't always agree with you, but this.  A true multi-party system would be very nice.  I think the vast majority of voters are like me in that neither of the 2 parties perfectly represents their beliefs, so they just pull the lever for the "best fit."  It makes it hard to get enthusiastic about voting----I can't get too excited about voting for a democrat who shares ~65% of my political beliefs, other than keeping the republican (with whom I share 0% of my political beliefs) out of office.  I'm sure many other people on all areas of the political spectrum find themselves in that situation.


I'm absolutely positive we would be far happier with our political situation if we had a parliamentary system for congress than a two party system.  We'd have centrists, actual leftists, libertarians, conservatives - the debates in congress would actually be worth watching, and voting would be a far more rewarding process.
 
2014-08-08 09:26:42 AM

Chummer45: MmmmBacon: For once, I agree with Rand Paul. He's right, the GOP can't just flip on issues like Gay Marriage, and he said exactly why in the interview. Their far-right wing base would stay home on election day. Basically, he's saying that the GOP could do the right thing and embrace common decency, but they won't, because they want to play politics, and pander to racists and homophobes.

History will not be kind to Mr. Paul and his ilk.


Exactly.  And it speaks volumes about your party when its policies are so unpopular that it requires the votes of racists and homophobes to stay relevant.


On the flip side of that, it speaks volumes about our country when the votes of racists and homophobes can keep a party relevant.
 
2014-08-08 09:27:00 AM

Graffito: Fart_Machine: Diogenes: MattStafford: Goldwater would have been pro gay marriage, had the topic come up in the 60s, so it isn't like it's some core tenet of the Republican party that has been around forever.

I think he would have said, "Let's stay out of this."

Or let the states decide which is why he was popular with segregationists.

Ahhh, yes, let the states decide basic civil rights.  It's the weenie position.


Oh, it's certainly the wrong way to do it.  But whatever gets the job done, I suppose.  It's happening amazingly fast given the sloppy way it's happening.
 
2014-08-08 09:34:38 AM
"Soy un perdedor"

--Rand Paul
 
2014-08-08 09:34:45 AM

MmmmBacon: For once, I agree with Rand Paul. He's right, the GOP can't just flip on issues like Gay Marriage, and he said exactly why in the interview. Their far-right wing base would stay home on election day. Basically, he's saying that the GOP could do the right thing and embrace common decency, but they won't, because they want to play politics, and pander to racists and homophobes.


Yeah, I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything, because his "they're gonna stay home" line made me do an actual dry spit-take.
 
2014-08-08 09:34:50 AM

Wyalt Derp: As the party of small government(TM), I'd have thought the Republicans should simply believe that it's not government's role to define marriage one way or the other, and take a completely neutral (or wide) stance on the issue.


TPM

Small gov't is one of the things I liked about the republican party.  I just wish it were something they actually tried to do once in my lifetime.  Heck I am for many of the things they advertise they hold as ideals.  It would be nice if they actually promoted their advertised ideals (small gov't, personal freedom, etc.).

TPM
 
2014-08-08 09:36:52 AM

Wyalt Derp: As the party of small government(TM), I'd have thought the Republicans should simply believe that it's not government's role to define marriage one way or the other, and take a completely neutral (or wide) stance on the issue.


If they had any internal consistancy, sure, but they're flaming hypocrites so....no.
 
2014-08-08 09:38:07 AM

SurfaceTension: Anyone want to take a swing as to how this will play out long term?

Maybe a Teabagger party, a reconstituted Republitarian party and the Democrats.  On fiscal issues the Repubs and Tea folks will caucus together, while on social issues the Repubs and Dems will caucus together. It's a thought.


It would be an improvement, but I suspect it's more complex than that. There's a genuinely fiscal fundamentalist thread to some parts of the Tea Party, as well as some elements of libertarianism, alongside the noisy social conservative faction. Meanwhile, the rest of the Republican party is divided over numerous other issues too, such as fiscal restraint vs. bringing home the pork; foreign military intervention vs. isolationism; NSA/CIA reform vs. the surveillance society; etc. Sometimes I suspect that what really binds the Republican party is only the things they are against: help for the poor and weak, protection for minorities, poverty relief at home and overseas, and restraint of big business.

Frankly, I'd also like to see the Democratic party split. There's a portion of the party that is every bit as bad as mainstream Republicans on topics like pork barrel spending, pandering to Wall St and other big donors, and the erosion of civil liberties. And while the Dems are years ahead of the Repubs on nearly every social issue, there's a substantial minority of the party that's socially regressive -- look how slow the Clintons in particular were to support gay rights.

On the whole, I'll continue to vote mostly Dem because the social policies of the Repubs are generally so appalling, but I can't pretend to like everything the party backs.
 
2014-08-08 09:40:37 AM

Wyalt Derp: As the party of small government(TM), I'd have thought the Republicans should simply believe that it's not government's role to define marriage one way or the other, and take a completely neutral (or wide) stance on the issue.


That's precisely the position of the most right-wing friend I have: it's none of the government's business. Oddly, we often find ourselves agreeing on social issues for completely opposite reasons.
 
2014-08-08 09:41:26 AM
That's what I like about Rand, He has certain political beliefs, like we all do, but he is aware that steadfastly clinging to an ideology at all costs isn't a winning game plan. As a libertarian, I am sure he doesn't believe the government has any business telling you who you can and cant marry, but he is also aware he is running on the Republican ticket and there are those socially conservative voters to think about.  He evolves his positions to adapt to present day realities.  May not be what he would choose if he were empereror, but someone with that temperament tends not to do well in a representative government that supposedly has a balance of power between the branches.  Reminds me a little of Bill Clinton in that respect.  At his core, Bill is very liberal, but is also very pragmatic and would drift center when it was required.
 
2014-08-08 09:41:47 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Diogenes: "I think the party will evolve. It'll either continue to lose, or it'll become a bigger place where there's a mixture of opinions," he said.

An impressive attempt at sounding deep while saying absolutely nothing.

Maybe he's got political chops after all.

It's a bizarre statement. First he's saying they can't abandon certain core voters, but here he's saying their positions will lead to losing.


There is an addiction to the money within the party that the Idiot Brigade represents. The only way to mine that cash, is to give them something. So long as the GOP is actively courting the Idiot Brigade for their disposable income, we're going to see sh*t like this.

The party is ailing. Not because of just the Idiot Brigade--though, it comes in a couple of camps, with economic idealists and religious idealists and foreign policy hawks--but because it is a cottage industry to garner quick cash from them. Not just for political purposes, though that's shameful enough, but for personal profit as well. Look at Hannity's Freedom Concerts. 90% of the revenue was siphoned off, for "administrative purposes" and that's sort of the issue. Hucksters abound to mine the Idiot Brigade, and Paul is just another of a long line of hucksters in American politics, trading on fear, trading on anger, and using it for gain. That he wields any power at all with his vote in Congress is shameful, not for him, because he has none, but for the people who thought to themselves, "Yeah, I'mma vote for this asshat..."
 
2014-08-08 09:45:55 AM
Well, if you can't flip, how about a reach around?
 
2014-08-08 09:46:06 AM

Tricky Chicken: It speaks volumes about an electorate when they mistakenly buy into the falacy that one party is where all the racists are.


Or all the homophobes. There's a substantial minority of the Democratic electorate that is against gay rights, which is part of the reason that the party was so embarrassingly slow to back gay marriage, to disown DOMA and DADT, etc.

And no, this is not a BSADSVR -- there's no question that the Republican party is far worse than the Democratic party on just about every social issue -- but lets not pretend that one party is all angels and the other all devils.
 
2014-08-08 09:46:29 AM
The Republican party courted, swooned and married stupidity. They can not now act surprised when they're made of stupidity. Their policies - especially their "social" policies - appeal only to unintelligent rubes, insane whackjobs and evangelical taliban types. You've made your bed, Republicans - now lie in it.

/Just wish we didn't all have to lie in it with them.
 
2014-08-08 09:46:30 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Diogenes: "I think the party will evolve. It'll either continue to lose, or it'll become a bigger place where there's a mixture of opinions," he said.

An impressive attempt at sounding deep while saying absolutely nothing.

Maybe he's got political chops after all.

It's a bizarre statement. First he's saying they can't abandon certain core voters, but here he's saying their positions will lead to losing.


That was kind of my point.  There are lots of ways to say things and sound wise without really saying anything.  Tautologies work well for that purpose.  And that's essentially what he stated.

A, B, or C can happen.  That's it.  That's all he said.  It conveys as much meaning as, "It's either raining or it's not."

/pet logic peeve
 
2014-08-08 09:46:50 AM
I think Rand has watched a little man-on-man under the sheets (for research) and found out what a bigger tent is
 
2014-08-08 09:49:54 AM

MattStafford: I'm absolutely positive we would be far happier with our political situation if we had a parliamentary system for congress than a two party system.


You're a Moran if you think that America would be better off if it were a Parliamentary system. You just have to look at Israel to see what a nightmare it is, or Italy, or any number of half baked political systems across the globe to realize that ours has it's advantages,grubby though they are.
 
2014-08-08 09:49:56 AM

MmmmBacon: For once, I agree with Rand Paul. He's right, the GOP can't just flip on issues like Gay Marriage, and he said exactly why in the interview. Their far-right wing base would stay home on election day. Basically, he's saying that the GOP could do the right thing and embrace common decency, but they won't, because they want to play politics, and pander to racists and homophobes.

History will not be kind to Mr. Paul and his ilk.


I agree, by I wonder how many moderates were driven from the GOP by the gay rights issue. I disagree with the republican party on a lot of things, but at least on fiscal issues I've had some interesting, nuanced conversations.

I'm wondering if anyone did the math on that. There has to be a tipping point, right?
 
2014-08-08 09:51:42 AM

HMS_Blinkin: MattStafford: It'd be nice if we could have a parliamentary system or something other than FPTP where we aren't subject to two party rule,  but we don't, and it doesn't seem like that will change.

I don't always agree with you, but this.  A true multi-party system would be very nice.  I think the vast majority of voters are like me in that neither of the 2 parties perfectly represents their beliefs, so they just pull the lever for the "best fit."  It makes it hard to get enthusiastic about voting----I can't get too excited about voting for a democrat who shares ~65% of my political beliefs, other than keeping the republican (with whom I share 0% of my political beliefs) out of office.  I'm sure many other people on all areas of the political spectrum find themselves in that situation.


Unfortunately, as another Farker pointed out, the electoral system in the US favors two party politics. The best we can probably hope for in our lifetimes is another round of realignment.
 
2014-08-08 09:52:23 AM
You know what? Forget I asked. I won't see the response.
 
2014-08-08 09:52:24 AM
"It ain't natural!"
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-08-08 09:54:58 AM

HMS_Blinkin: MattStafford: It'd be nice if we could have a parliamentary system or something other than FPTP where we aren't subject to two party rule,  but we don't, and it doesn't seem like that will change.

I don't always agree with you, but this.  A true multi-party system would be very nice.  I think the vast majority of voters are like me in that neither of the 2 parties perfectly represents their beliefs, so they just pull the lever for the "best fit."  It makes it hard to get enthusiastic about voting----I can't get too excited about voting for a democrat who shares ~65% of my political beliefs, other than keeping the republican (with whom I share 0% of my political beliefs) out of office.  I'm sure many other people on all areas of the political spectrum find themselves in that situation.


Some reading on concrete proposals that would help transform the political landscape and make it a little less dystopian.
 
Displayed 50 of 186 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report