Krauthammer labels Rand 'socially liberal'; immediately dismissed

If that's the case, then being socially liberal is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't care what labels pundits like him try to apply to people; it's the person's actions that matter to me.
 
Moreover, other than abortion and immigration, I don't see what's wrong with being socially liberal.
 
The word "liberal" is a dirty word in GOP circles. They know this and so will try and label him as such... 'he's a crazy liberal libertarian and isolationist"
 
Rand hasn't shown himself to be as socially liberal as his father (unfortunately IMO), but I think its a fair assessment to call them both socially liberal.

lib·er·al
/ˈlib(ə)rəl/
Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values
Click to expand...

Not supporting the Patriot Act would be considered socially liberal if the context is compared to the current GOP-- which is exactly how Krauthammer used it "He is very much liberal on social issues. And that is a challenge to the whole conservative movement over the last 30 years.".

He should wear that title like a badge of honor IMO. People on the left right and center are seeking a socially liberal fiscal conservative.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

"Within the American political spectrum, Krauthammer has been called a conservative.[33][34] However, on domestic issues, Krauthammer is a supporter of legalized abortion;[35][36][37] an opponent of the death penalty;[38][39][40][41] an intelligent design critic and an advocate for the scientific consensus on evolution, calling the religion-science controversy a "false conflict;"[42][43] a supporter of embryonic stem cell research using embryos discarded by fertility clinics with restrictions in its applications"

That's what I would call a "social liberal."
 
Yeah, I'm pro-life, pro-death penalty (With solid, solid evidence), believe in young earth creationism.... I'm not a social liberal. But I am a libertarian.
 
Krauthammer throws out a lot of things and hopes they stick. He's great at pontificating and is horribly inconsistent. That's why he's a commentator. He can always be relied upon to have an opinion, often controversial and scathing. That's good for ratings and attention for his employers.

I don't know why he's so widely respected. I find him amusing.
 
If we listen to Charles you can rest assured 2016 will be like 2008 and 2012.
 
Krauthammer personifies the adhoc nature of the neocons. Should we invade Iraq or Iran? Should we get involved in Syria or Libya? Should we build bases in Africa or Asia? Aah, let's just make it up as we go along from the comfort of a studio. That's not how you govern a country and that's basically the neocons approach to foreign policy. Krauthammer just casts a wider net.
 
ItsTime said:
A socially liberal (civil liberties), fiscally conservative Republican will beat the democrats.
Click to expand...

Why give into Moss-Covered propaganda stereotypes? Why not call a stand on civil liberties "constitutionally conservative" or something? Instead of "liberal?"
 
Last edited:
Traditional Conservative said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

"Within the American political spectrum, Krauthammer has been called a conservative.[33][34] However, on domestic issues, Krauthammer is a supporter of legalized abortion;[35][36][37] an opponent of the death penalty;[38][39][40][41] an intelligent design critic and an advocate for the scientific consensus on evolution, calling the religion-science controversy a "false conflict;"[42][43] a supporter of embryonic stem cell research using embryos discarded by fertility clinics with restrictions in its applications"

That's what I would call a "social liberal."
Click to expand...

Lets not forget his wish to eradicate the 2nd amendment:

Charles Krauthammer "Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet. " Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

In an election year you expect Washington to be full of phony arguments. But even a cynic must marvel at the all-round phoniness of the debate over repeal of the assault weapons ban. Both sides are blowing smoke.

The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of "assault weapons" will reduce the crime rate is laughable. (The term itself is priceless: What are all the other guns in America's home arsenal? Encounter weapons? Crime-en\abling devices?) Dozens of other weapons, the functional equivalent of these "assault weapons," were left off the list and are perfect substitutes for anyone bent on mayhem.

On the other side you have Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.) demanding in trembling fury that the ban be repealed because his wife, alone in upstate New York, needs protection. Well, okay. But must it be an AK-47? Does, say, a .44 magnum -- easier to carry, by the way -- not suffice for issuing a credible, "Go ahead, make my day"?
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate. I am not up for reelection. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban:

It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country, but the frontier has been closed for 100 years. In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one might note) had 128; Britain, 33.

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.

De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.

What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first -- and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end -- is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.

True, part of the reason for the high crime rate is the ubiquity of guns -- which makes the argument circular and a solution seem impossible. But gun control advocates ignore other, egregious encouragements to crime at their peril. The lack of swift and certain retribution, for example. Judges like Harold Baer in New York, for whom four men loading $4 million worth of drugs into the trunk of a car at 5 in the morning, then running away from police, is insufficient cause for a search. Judg\es who need the president himself to yell and scream and threaten before reversing a decision to let serious criminality go unprosecuted.

In the United States, 4 (!) percent of all robberies result in time served. Tell your stickup man, "You can go to jail for this," and he can correctly respond, "25 to 1 says I don't." So long as both the law-abiding population and the criminal classes doubt that serious crime leads to serious punishment, attempts at serious gun control will prove futile.

Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God's work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm. But there is not the slightest chance that it will occur until liberals join in the other fights to reduce the incidence of and increase the penalties for crime. Only then will there be a public receptive to the idea of real gun control. The passionate resistance to even the phony gun control of the assault weapons ban shows how far we have to go.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Sen. Rand Paul Calls for Elon Musk to Be Named Speaker of the House
Replies
17
Views
3K
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
unknown
Rand's social security amendment fails to pass.
Replies
0
Views
761
unknown
unknown
V
Donating to Rand Paul without going through WinRed
Replies
2
Views
268
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
jct74
[Updated] UFO community is pissed at Rand for supposedly blocking transparency legislation
Replies
2
Views
3K
dannno
dannno
Matt Collins
Rand Introduces Free Speech Protection Act
Replies
2
Views
657
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Back
Top