Steve Deace Show discussion of Rand's speech to Iowa evangelical leaders

[jct74]

from 3:25 to 10:50

http://stevedeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/deace_hour3_071913.mp3

basically they said Rand speech was good but not great, and he got the loudest reception when talking about foreign policy and cutting off foreign aid to countries that burn our flag.

[WD-NY]

What was his review of Cruz?

[Sola_Fide]

They said that the biggest applause line was about non-interventionism.

[jct74]

What was his review of Cruz?

that's in hour 1, I didn't listen to it though.

http://stevedeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/deace_hour1_071913.mp3

[AlexAmore]

So basically their critique is he didn't spell out a 19 point plan on eliminating gay marriage. Of course it's a highly divisive, unpopular, low priority vote....yeah let's talk about that in detail.

[jct74]

also Deace wrote this review on his facebook page:


Just finished Rand Paul's speech to a packed house of Iowa pastors. It's hard not to compare he and Ted Cruz, who are both clearly trying to make their presidential cases to the same audience on the same day. Frankly, that's not a good comparison for Rand. Cruz just eclipses him in stature, presence, and depth of worldview. Cruz actually does a better job discussing some of Rand's issues than Rand does at times. I'm really trying to be as objective as I can, but honestly comparing Cruz and Rand as alpha males is like comparing Aquaman to Superman. Sure, Aquaman is a super-hero, too, but he's not in charge of the Justice League.

Now, I did like the fact that Rand had the chutzpah to openly describe himself as a libertarian to this audience. Rather than pandering to them he tried to find common ground with them. That's a refreshingly honest approach. I also think he did a good job explaining his worldview, because he's still trying to sell himself to these people. Cruz, on the other hand, doesn't have to so he focused on his accomplishments instead. The most enthusiasm Rand received was for his foreign policy views, so even though the D.C. punditry believes that will hurt Rand in 2016 based on what I saw it will help him. Rand explains his foreign policy views in a way they are pro-America, rather than soft on our enemies like his father was at times. Plus, let's face it, we're tired of nation building for Islamists.

Rand's reception was positive, but not as enthusiastic as Cruz's. And he never addressed the marriage issue or how it pertains to religious liberty. There is simply no way he will be able to avoid it in a primary. He seems almost as uncomfortable talking about it as his father was. You may think that won't hurt him with his father's base, but Rand is going to have competition for his father's base from Cruz, who showed today he is just as at home talking about auditing the Fed as he is marriage.

https://www.facebook.com/SteveDeaceShow/posts/10200173432643519

[WD-NY]

also Deace wrote this review on his facebook page:



https://www.facebook.com/SteveDeaceShow/posts/10200173432643519

Ugh.

[Occam's Banana]

You may think that won't hurt him with his father's base, but Rand is going to have competition for [Ron Paul's] base from Cruz, who showed today he is just as at home talking about auditing the Fed as he is marriage.

What I may think is that Deace does not seem to have a very good understanding of Ron Paul's base ...

[Origanalist]

What I may think is that Deace does not seem to have a very good understanding of Ron Paul's base ...

I'm thinking what you're thinking........

[Sola_Fide]

What I may think is that Deace does not seem to have a very good understanding of Ron Paul's base ...

Deace knows what he wants. Like most evangelicals, he loves the Roman Catholic church-state conception of force in spiritual matters. Christianity is much different than Deace or Rome.

[ObiRandKenobi]

that dude is a prick.

[Warlord]

Deace is another one who just needs any excuse to back out of support for him even if it makes him look ridiculous

[Sola_Fide]

Deace is going to support Gingrich, Santorum, Cruz or whatever Roman Catholic who is going to promise him state sanctioned marriage enforcement.

[Warlord]

Deace is going to support Gingrich, Santorum, Cruz or whatever Roman Catholic who is going to promise him state sanctioned marriage enforcement.

Somewhat predictable.

[MRoCkEd]

Deace knows what he wants. Like most evangelicals, he loves the Roman Catholic church-state conception of force in spiritual matters. Christianity is much different than Deace or Rome.
He seems a little more thoughtful on the issue.

[Part 1] (http://stevedeace.com/news/national-politics/laissez-faire-marriage/)
[Part 2] (http://stevedeace.com/news/national-politics/marriage-faqs/)

Not perfect, but I think it's better than the people who say, "The government shouldn't be in marriage but if they are, they should legally recognize gay marriage too."

[Brett85]

I don't see how anyone can argue with his assertion that the issue of marriage is important to GOP primary voters, particularly voters in Iowa. That seemed to be what he was saying.

[Warlord]

He's probably the most influential in Iowa and will play some long and convoluted game. I just hope whatever happens he gets a fair sake because Rand transcends the talking heads and sniping by just meeting the public an being so charming and reasonable.

[lib3rtarian]

Is there even one Ron Paul supporter in America who would pick Cruz over Rand? I don't think so. If there is, it just shows that the person never understood the principles behind supporting Ron Paul in the first place.

[Brett85]

Is there even one Ron Paul supporter in America who would pick Cruz over Rand? I don't think so. If there is, it just shows that the person never understood the principles behind supporting Ron Paul in the first place.

Yep, see the Rand VP thread.


I don't think Cruz would run if Rand does, just like Rubio won't run if Jeb does.

However, in the event of both Rand and Cruz entering the primary, the Cuban in me may have to go with Cruz.

[Warlord]

Cruz is pretty much limited to his home state. If he should foolishly run it will be embarrassing.

He reminds me a little bit of Santorum but somehow has a worse screeching and whiney voice combined with the slippery lawyer look

[compromise]

Cruz is pretty much limited to his home state. If he should foolishly run it will be embarrassing.

He reminds me a little bit of Santorum but somehow has a worse screeching and whiney voice combined with the slippery lawyer look

Cruz is an excellent speaker and debater.

He is not going to run against Rand.

[Warlord]

Cruz is an excellent speaker and debater.

He is not going to run against Rand.

you keep saying that but why is he in Iowa? Politicians only go there if they're running for something. Cruz is not that great a debater. He made a fool of himself with Hagel (against John McCain who won the exchange in committee for gods sake) and thinks we can invade Syria and secure their weapons LOL just like Iraq right? come on the guy is out of his depth and is not presidential material. I look forward to him being hyped and failing

The thing with his loose talk on Syria shows you how absurd he is as he is calling for another ground invasion 10 years after Iraq debacle

[Brett85]

you keep saying that but why is he in Iowa? Politicians only go there if they're running for something. Cruz is not that great a debater. He made a fool of himself with Hagel (against John McCain who won the exchange in committee for gods sake) and thinks we can invade Syria and secure their weapons LOL just like Iraq right? come on the guy is out of his depth and is not presidential material. I look forward to him being hyped and failing

The thing with his loose talk on Syria shows you how absurd he is as he is calling for another ground invasion 10 years after Iraq debacle

I don't agree with Cruz's position on Syria, but I don't think he was actually calling for a "ground invasion" of that country. It sounded to me like he was talking about something closer to a covert operation with special operation forces with the goal of securing the WMD's in Syria, and then getting out right away.

[Sola_Fide]

Cruz is an excellent speaker and debater.

So is Obama and Romney and many others. That cant be one of our considerations for who to support.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't agree with Cruz's position on Syria, but I don't think he was actually calling for a "ground invasion" of that country. It sounded to me like he was talking about something closer to a covert operation with special operation forces with the goal of securing the WMD's in Syria, and then getting out right away.

There are so many things wrong with that position.

[Warlord]

Unofficial split thread since we're going off topic:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?421886-Ted-Cruz-Hey-let-s-invade-Syria-to-destroy-its-chemical-weapons

can't believe i got negged for Cruz bashing when he fully deserves it.

[Warlord]

I don't agree with Cruz's position on Syria, but I don't think he was actually calling for a "ground invasion" of that country. It sounded to me like he was talking about something closer to a covert operation with special operation forces with the goal of securing the WMD's in Syria, and then getting out right away.

Read this and post your thoughts.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?421886-Ted-Cruz-Hey-let-s-invade-Syria-to-destroy-its-chemical-weapons

[compromise]

you keep saying that but why is he in Iowa? Politicians only go there if they're running for something. Cruz is not that great a debater. He made a fool of himself with Hagel (against John McCain who won the exchange in committee for gods sake) and thinks we can invade Syria and secure their weapons LOL just like Iraq right? come on the guy is out of his depth and is not presidential material. I look forward to him being hyped and failing

The thing with his loose talk on Syria shows you how absurd he is as he is calling for another ground invasion 10 years after Iraq debacle

He went to Iowa with Rand, on the same flight.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPgAAe_CMAIlsCZ.jpg:large

They're clearly co-ordinating things together. These allegations that he's conspiring with the neocons against Rand are as stupid as the allegations that Rand was conspiring against Ron with Romney. Cruz is Rand's 2nd closest ideological ally in the Senate. He is a personal friend of Rand. He will not screw Rand over in 2016. Cruz is not going to run. Cruz running in 2016 is like Graham running against McCain in 2008.

Yeah, the 1992 North American Debating Champion is "not that great a debater".

Hagel is a fraud and Cruz helped expose him. He made a fool of himself to the general populace, but he made himself a hero to the majority of grassroots conservatives.

His views on Syria are pretty bad, but I think he meant a covert operation as opposed to a proper invasion.

[compromise]

So is Obama and Romney and many others. That cant be one of our considerations for who to support.

Warlord mentioned a "worse screeching and whiney voice"

[Bastiat's The Law]

If anything, Cruz will be a top tier VP choice for Rand. I don't see him running.

[Warlord]

I'm not going to argue with you about Cruz because we keep hitting the same points. The longer he opens his mouth the more you're going to be upset so get ready for it.

Calling Hagel unpatriotic due being less of a fan of the military and the 2006 "surge" in Iraq shows you what his game is. He predictably follows up wanting to invade Syria! So far he's doing exactly what I expect

[helmuth_hubener]

Now, I did like the fact that Rand had the chutzpah to openly describe himself as a libertarian to this audience. Rather than pandering to them he tried to find common ground with them. Wait, was he naked or was he doing drugs? Which was it?!?!

Or both?

[Valli6]

...Cruz, on the other hand, doesn't have to so he focused on his accomplishments instead.
What exactly are Cruz's "accomplishments" - beyond talking?

[Rocco]

I can tell you right now that Steve Deace disagrees with all of you in your assertion that Cruz is not running. Frankly, I am completely unsure right now whether Cruz will run. Though an article just came out about how he brushed off 2016 talks and his words seemed genuine to me. I can see it a few ways.


Pros:
-Cruz is the ONLY candidate besides Cucinelli who can successfully bring together the liberty wing, the social conservative wing and the mainstream conservatives. Rand can chip into the latter two groups, particularly mainstream conservatives, but I think Cruz and Cucinelli are the only two who would stand a chance at getting the social conservative majority away from Santorum/Huckabee.

-Cruz has been to ALL of the early states multiple times. At some point this has to matter.

-I'll just be honest about it, I saw both at CPAC, and Cruz is a better speaker then Rand. That's not a knock on Rand though, I think if Cruz doesn't run he is the best speaker running. But Cruz is probably the best speaker/debater in the party.


-Cruz is literally the embodiment of a modern day tea party conservative. A genuine "Ron Paul on everything except foreign policy" type of candidate. If he runs and overshadows everybody else he could run away with this election.

Cons:

-While Cruz is a choice for everybody, it seems like he is nobodies first choice right now. He's a clear and distant second behind Rand to the liberty movement, he's a clear and distant second behind Santorum to social conservatives, and I think has a little work to do with mainstream conservatives. He would come into the campaign an underdog, and at the end of the day I think he risks being everyones second choice.

-With the exception of Texas, Cruz hasn't eclipsed 10 percent in any 2016 poll released thus far and leads only Texas. Rand has had the lead in 5 states in real, scientific polls so far this year (2nd in 3 states, 3rd in 4 states). We seem to have a larger popular base at this juncture.

-Cruz will come into the race behind Rubio, Ryan, Paul and Christie in money, and behind Paul and Santorum in organization on the ground in early states. It's hard to see him raising more money or having more people on the ground in Iowa then Rand.

-Outside of Iowa, it's hard see Cruz winning some of these early states (New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada) and I wonder if there's a path to victory for him, considering Rand is surely running.

-Cruz and Rand both running virtually guarantees that neither of them will be president. The polls show this to some extent, whenever Cruz is included he just about never wins but he just about always takes enough from Rand to make it a very close 1st place or even knock him down to second (latest Iowa poll we're down 0.9% to Rubio and Cruz gets 6.1% of the vote).


Overall, looking at the list of pros and cons, I don't think Cruz runs. There's simply no path to victory for both him and Rand, and at this point its pretty clear Rand is running.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rand still wins polls when Cruz is included and that's a good sign. I bet 90% of Cruz supporters have Rand as their second choice.

[Rocco]

Agreed, and vice versa. The difference is that I think Cruz's people are a LOT more likely to jump ship if their guy isnt showing as well in the polls then we are. The more I think about it the more I think Cruz doesn't run.


Rand still wins polls when Cruz is included and that's a good sign. I bet 90% of Cruz supporters have Rand as their second choice.

[Warlord]

STOP calling Cruz part of the liberty movement. He never has been and never will be. He's a megarich corp lawyer who's wife worked for Bush and that was his climb up the poll

Name me one liberty event he attended before his election beyond Tea party meetings. Probably zilch. He runs a PAC with Bush's son!

[Rocco]

Like it or not, despite some misgivings on foreign policy, most of us consider Cruz to be someone who can attract the support of the liberty movement. His civil liberty and economic stances alone are enough for me to get behind him if he were the nominee. Would I vote for him over Rand? Never. If Rand weren't running though, I'd be 100% for Cruz.


STOP calling Cruz part of the liberty movement. He never has been and never will be. He's a megarich corp lawyer who's wife worked for Bush and that was his climb up the poll

Name me one liberty event he attended before his election beyond Tea party meetings. Probably zilch. He runs a PAC with Bush's son!

[Warlord]

Like it or not, despite some misgivings on foreign policy, most of us consider Cruz to be someone who can attract the support of the liberty movement. His civil liberty and economic stances alone are enough for me to get behind him if he were the nominee. Would I vote for him over Rand? Never. If Rand weren't running though, I'd be 100% for Cruz.

You're right I don't like it because it's not true. All he's done is help on the 2nd Amendment and helped fight gun control, Good. Nearly every GOP senator does this. Most however support PATRIOT Act, foreign entanglements etc and that what Cruz is. He's another worthless clueless senator. The more he opens his mouth the more embarrassing it gets for him..

Also he never attended liberty movements and no one knew who the heck he was before his election

See numerous threads IN GP for more information. I posted on here today.

[Rocco]

When did Cruz support the Patriot Act?


You're right I don't like it because it's not true. All he's done is help on the 2nd Amendment and helped fight gun control, Good. Nearly every GOP senator does this. Most however support PATRIOT Act, foreign entanglements etc and that what Cruz is. He's another worthless clueless senator. The more he opens his mouth the more embarrassing it gets for him..

Also he never attended liberty movements and no one knew who the heck he was before his election

See numerous threads IN GOP for more information. I posted on here today.

[Warlord]

When did Cruz support the Patriot Act?

He's had opportunities to tell us what he'd do but hasn't said anything. There is also legislation he hasn't signed on to

[Rocco]

That is not support.


He's had opportunities to tell us what he'd do but hasn't said anything. There is also legislation he hasn't signed on to

[Bastiat's The Law]

STOP calling Cruz part of the liberty movement. He never has been and never will be. He's a megarich corp lawyer who's wife worked for Bush and that was his climb up the poll

Name me one liberty event he attended before his election beyond Tea party meetings. Probably zilch. He runs a PAC with Bush's son!

Calm down. Your Cruz obsession makes you appear unhinged. Cruz was simply a strategic choice over Dewhurst. Electing the corpse of Murray Rothbard to that Senate seat wasn't a possibility. As adults we should be able to deal with political reality.

[Warlord]

Calm down. Your Cruz obsession makes you appear unhinged. Cruz was simply a strategic choice over Dewhurst. Electing the corpse of Murray Rothbard to that Senate seat wasn't a possibility. As adults we should be able to deal with political reality.

Of course I realize this but I dont at all see him as part of the liberty movement. He's a shameless political operator. Did he attend any liberty events ? No. That's where people like Rocco should be looking for our leaders not in the US Senate which is pretty bad apart from 1 or 2

[torchbearer]

it doesn't bother me to think that people who hate gay people so much they want government to create laws of force against them aren't going to like rand.

[JCDenton0451]

Hagel is a fraud and Cruz helped expose him. He made a fool of himself to the general populace, but he made himself a hero to the majority of grassroots conservatives.

His views on Syria are pretty bad, but I think he meant a covert operation as opposed to a proper invasion.

Are you serious? Cruz "exposed" that Hagel is an Arab and North Korean spy. lol

He was parroting the most ridiculous neoconservative smears.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Of course I realize this but I dont at all see him as part of the liberty movement. He's a shameless political operator. Did he attend any liberty events ? No. That's where people like Rocco should be looking for our leaders not in the US Senate which is pretty bad apart from 1 or 2

You have view people like Cruz and Mike Lee as 80% allies. Compared to people like Dewhurst who would be 80% enemies. That doesn't mean we stop pushing for better candidates and maybe even replace them at some point with a more liberty orientated person. They are just transitional candidates. You can't throw your car in reverse when you're going 80mph. I view the rank and file GOP voters the same way. Allow the Mike Lee and Ted Cruz candidates to hold the hand of these voters and lay the groundwork when we run stronger liberty candidates in the future. You might not like it, but Cruz is making it easier to elect more Ron Paul types into office.

[Warlord]

You have view people like Cruz and Mike Lee as 80% allies. Compared to people like Dewhurst who would be 80% enemies. That doesn't mean we stop pushing for better candidates and maybe even replace them at some point with a more liberty orientated person. They are just transitional candidates. You can't throw your car in reverse when you're going 80mph. I view the rank and file GOP voters the same way. Allow the Mike Lee and Ted Cruz candidates to hold the hand of these voters and lay the groundwork when we run stronger liberty candidates in the future. You might not like it, but Cruz is making it easier to elect more Ron Paul types into office.

Cruz hasn't done anything. Mike Lee is a different story. He's able to be validated over 2 years. Wait until Cruz attracts major disappointment. This is my point; neocons always let the mask slip and i've called him one from day 1

[twomp]

I don't agree with Cruz's position on Syria, but I don't think he was actually calling for a "ground invasion" of that country. It sounded to me like he was talking about something closer to a covert operation with special operation forces with the goal of securing the WMD's in Syria, and then getting out right away.

LOL you make it seem like WMD's are something you throw in your backpack and walk around with. Have you ever stopped to think of the logistics of going into another country, breaking into a secure facility and taking it out? Don't you think they would need like special suits and equipment? It's not like going to Wal Mart and picking up a vacuum cleaner or something. While they are at it, maybe they can go "secure" the nuclear weapons from North Korea too, no big deal right. Just go in, get it and go out! No problemo!

[T.hill]

What a deluded comparison of Rand and Cruz. Cruz is physically bigger in stature, but I think Rand is thought of as the leader of the Tea Party and other like-minded senators easily by most people. Hes actually considered a leader of the entire GOP in a lot of regards now.

Rand can challenge Ted in terms of intellect and charisma I believe, he might be a superior debator, but Rand is no lightweight either. Besides Rand has a warmer and more whimsical

[T.hill]

personality

[Brett85]

LOL you make it seem like WMD's are something you throw in your backpack and walk around with. Have you ever stopped to think of the logistics of going into another country, breaking into a secure facility and taking it out? Don't you think they would need like special suits and equipment? It's not like going to Wal Mart and picking up a vacuum cleaner or something. While they are at it, maybe they can go "secure" the nuclear weapons from North Korea too, no big deal right. Just go in, get it and go out! No problemo!

Then tell that to Cruz. I was just explaining his position, not agreeing with it.

[Christian Liberty]

Deace is going to support Gingrich, Santorum, Cruz or whatever Roman Catholic who is going to promise him state sanctioned marriage enforcement.

Much as I don't like Cruz, I don't think he's as bad as those other two.


He seems a little more thoughtful on the issue.

[Part 1] (http://stevedeace.com/news/national-politics/laissez-faire-marriage/)
[Part 2] (http://stevedeace.com/news/national-politics/marriage-faqs/)

Not perfect, but I think it's better than the people who say, "The government shouldn't be in marriage but if they are, they should legally recognize gay marriage too."

I pretty much agree with what Deace said there. Granted, he did mention that early America did criminalize certain sexually perverse actions, which I am opposed to, but he's still not wrong that that's what he did.

In the short term, if government is going to be defining marriage, they should define it correctly (ie. between a man and a woman.) But as they have no right to define it whatsoever, that's not a fight I'm going to be getting into.


Is there even one Ron Paul supporter in America who would pick Cruz over Rand? I don't think so. If there is, it just shows that the person never understood the principles behind supporting Ron Paul in the first place.

Indeed.

Calm down. Your Cruz obsession makes you appear unhinged. Cruz was simply a strategic choice over Dewhurst. Electing the corpse of Murray Rothbard to that Senate seat wasn't a possibility. As adults we should be able to deal with political reality.


You have view people like Cruz and Mike Lee as 80% allies. Compared to people like Dewhurst who would be 80% enemies. That doesn't mean we stop pushing for better candidates and maybe even replace them at some point with a more liberty orientated person. They are just transitional candidates. You can't throw your car in reverse when you're going 80mph. I view the rank and file GOP voters the same way. Allow the Mike Lee and Ted Cruz candidates to hold the hand of these voters and lay the groundwork when we run stronger liberty candidates in the future. You might not like it, but Cruz is making it easier to elect more Ron Paul types into office.

Cruz was likely better than the other guy but he's still terrible. At some point principles have to come into play and you've got to vote your principles, even if that means voting for a hopeless candidate or not voting at all.

I think Ron Paul was seriously, SERIOUSLY in error on this endorsement.

I mean, would you vote for Lindsey Graham just because he's not Adolf Hitler? If you had the deciding vote, maybe, but otherwise what would be the point?


Then tell that to Cruz. I was just explaining his position, not agreeing with it.

This seems to be a common mistake people make on here...

[WD-NY]

-Cruz and Rand both running virtually guarantees that neither of them will be president. The polls show this to some extent, whenever Cruz is included he just about never wins but he just about always takes enough from Rand to make it a very close 1st place or even knock him down to second (latest Iowa poll we're down 0.9% to Rubio and Cruz gets 6.1% of the vote).

Overall, looking at the list of pros and cons, I don't think Cruz runs. There's simply no path to victory for both him and Rand, and at this point its pretty clear Rand is running.

This.

If Cruz stays out, Rand wins. If Cruz runs, they both lose.

Can the establishment turn Cruz? That's the trillion dollar question.

[Brett85]

Getting back to the original point of this thread, how exactly is Rand's position on marriage any different that Cruz's position? Both of them have said that marriage is between a man and a woman but that the issue should be handled by the states. It seems like Deace is trying to misconstrue Rand's position on the marriage issue. Rand has never said anything to suggest that he doesn't support traditional marriage. The fact that he doesn't talk about it in every single speech he gives doesn't mean that he's "soft" on the issue or supports gay marriage.

[eleganz]

Calm down guys, Cruz being in the race is not a bad thing, he will be in the race until he doesn't have to anymore. Get with the program.

[compromise]

STOP calling Cruz part of the liberty movement. He never has been and never will be. He's a megarich corp lawyer who's wife worked for Bush and that was his climb up the poll

Name me one liberty event he attended before his election beyond Tea party meetings. Probably zilch. He runs a PAC with Bush's son!

It's almost impossible to dig up information on most political candidates before election. Can you find information about the liberty events Lee attended before 2009? What about Amash before he became a state Rep? We only know about Rand's liberty activism pre-election because he was Ron's son, Massie because Rand wrote about him in his book and Brannon because of word of mouth from Glen Bradley. It's not exactly easy to just look up people's histories.


Famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz ranks Sen. Ted Cruz among the school’s smartest students, adding that the Canada-born Texan can run for president in 2016.

Cruz was a “terrific student,” Dershowitz told The Daily Caller. “He was always very active in class, presenting a libertarian point of view. He didn’t strike me as a social conservative, more of a libertarian.”

[compromise]

Cruz hasn't done anything. Mike Lee is a different story. He's able to be validated over 2 years. Wait until Cruz attracts major disappointment. This is my point; neocons always let the mask slip and i've called him one from day 1

We know for a fact that Cruz will not vote for the NDAA.

Cruz will also be "validated over 2 years" and that validation process has already begun.

[whoisjohngalt]

I don't see how anyone can argue with his assertion that the issue of marriage is important to GOP primary voters, particularly voters in Iowa. That seemed to be what he was saying.

Maybe for one last cycle. But the balance is extremely delicate because you risk turning off youth support by taking an aggressive anti-SSM position. The demographic shift in age groups is staggering. Over 80% of people under 30 support SSM. The GOP is mistaken in thinking it needs to appeal to ethnic collectives to win national elections. It just needs to win over the youth. And sadly the youth, on whole, is more concerned with social policy than any other issue.

Rand has clearly laid out his position. He is a federalist on the issue. That's pretty clear. No reason to go beyond that.

[Brett85]

Rand has clearly laid out his position. He is a federalist on the issue. That's pretty clear. No reason to go beyond that.

Right, and I don't have any problem with that position. Also, I've read that Cruz believes that marriage is a state issue, so I'm not exactly sure why Deace would criticize Rand's position on marriage and praise Cruz's position when it seems to be the same.

[supermario21]

Right, and I don't have any problem with that position. Also, I've read that Cruz believes that marriage is a state issue, so I'm not exactly sure why Deace would criticize Rand's position on marriage and praise Cruz's position when it seems to be the same.

I don't know. Seems as if Cruz may be against gay marriage in totality. He disagreed with the ruling on DOMA strongly whereas Rand seemed to be ok with it or not really care at the very least. I think the Iowa folks see him as their Santorum. I just can't see the two running against each other. I see Cruz as a good surrogate to shore Rand up with that right flank.

[whoisjohngalt]

Right, and I don't have any problem with that position. Also, I've read that Cruz believes that marriage is a state issue, so I'm not exactly sure why Deace would criticize Rand's position on marriage and praise Cruz's position when it seems to be the same.

Cruz has been far more vocal in criticizing gay marriage and gay pride. In fact, it was his main point of attack on Tom Leppert in the primaries here in the Lone Star because Leppert marched in a number of pride parades. I was all set to donate a lot of my time phone banking and door knocking for Cruz, but this caused me to withdraw all support outside of my vote.

Cruz said, "When a mayor of a city chooses twice to march in a parade celebrating gay pride that's a statement and it's not a statement I agree with."

While saying it's a state's rights issue, he has been a lot more demonstrative in making it clear how he thinks state's should come down on this issue.

[Brett85]

I doubt if Rand personally supports gay pride parades either, although he wouldn't be so vocal about it. He probably understands that vocally speaking out against the gay rights movement is beginning to become a very unpopular thing to do in America.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Deace and other social cons really go off the rails when they delve into homosexuality. They become mindless rabid dogs frothing at the mouth at how someone can believe and live completely in contrast to their worldview. Maybe that's their inner Napoleon coming out.

[whoisjohngalt]

I doubt if Rand personally supports gay pride parades either, although he wouldn't be so vocal about it. He probably understands that vocally speaking out against the gay rights movement is beginning to become a very unpopular thing to do in America.

Exactly, what I was trying to capture. They aren't considering someone's beliefs. They want someone who is willing to be an attack dog on the issue if Deace's comments are to be believed. And that's where he marks the differentiation.

It's a losing issue and should be mentioned as little as possible. Even if it means losing Iowa.

I don't see Cruz running though.