Cons afraid Rand too peacenik & not uptight enough

[GreenLP]

Cons displaying their love of world's policeman and a Nanny state...


redsoxfan626: "Is Rand Paul good for national security? I completely agree with him on social and economic issues, but he said he wouldn't have voted for the War in Iraq. Can we really trust him for national security? "

Nyte_Byrd: "I hope so. I am just hoping he doesn't attempt to carry over any of 'dad's' ideas concerning drug policies. "

redsoxfan626: "I agree. My only concerns with Rand Paul are national security and drugs. "

http://www.conservativesforum.com/cgi-bin/conservatives-forum/YaBB.pl?num=1288756094

[Indy Vidual]

...and some of us our concerned about the opposite on both issues.

[ronaldo23]

I don't think he will be an advocate for legalizing drugs at all. I suspect he will just not dabble at that issue at all, since you have to pick your battles, and that is just not a winning issue for Kentucky. I'm sure he'd rather use his clout on other things. But with foreign policy, I think he will be very much like Ron, but he will just approach it in a different way.

For example, Ron will say things like let's have a full withdrawal from afghanistan and close all our bases around the world, whereas Rand talks more about starting a national debate about whether Afghans are taking over fast enough, and in recent days has really been emphasizing how defense cuts are very much on the table. Not as overt as Ron, but really, along the lines of the same message.

[BuddyRey]

Now that he's in office, I sincerely hope that he does actively espouse a non-interventionist position, both in foreign policy and the role of government in private behavior. Belief in a Nanny State, whether personal or international in scope, is anathema to conservative principles.

[BenIsForRon]

The only reason he needs to be worried about his reputation now is because he needs to make sure he can have enough clout to pass meaningful legislation. He shouldn't be worried about reelection, and I think he indicated that he wasn't on ABC.

So yeah, in time he should deal with both the war and drugs, in that order.

[Modern_Matthew]

He made it very clear when he campaigned here before the primaries that he had no interest in making a career out of politics and that he does want to return to his business full-time eventually.

So, unless he has decided differently since then, I see no reason for him to be worried about reelection.

[Andrew-Austin]

He can rationalize his opposition to interventionism and the drug war in a way that conservatives can at least grudgingly accept, so that he does not lose that much clout. He did that well enough in the election.

[fletcher]

What does the war in Iraq have to do with national security?:confused:

[Todd]

Now that he's in office, I sincerely hope that he does actively espouse a non-interventionist position, both in foreign policy and the role of government in private behavior. Belief in a Nanny State, whether personal or international in scope, is anathema to conservative principles.

Yep.. If indeed he was being cautious......Nows the time to clarify his postition on foreign policy

[Libertea Party]

He can rationalize his opposition to interventionism and the drug war in a way that conservatives can at least grudgingly accept, so that he does not lose that much clout. He did that well enough in the election.

Official editorial position of National Review, the most respected opinion magazine of the conservative movement.


The War on Drugs is Lost (http://old.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html)

NATIONAL REVIEW has attempted during its tenure as, so to speak, keeper of the conservative tablets to analyze public problems and to recommend intelligent thought. The magazine has acknowledged a variety of positions by right-minded thinkers and analysts who sometimes reach conflicting conclusions about public policy. As recently as on the question of troops to Bosnia, there was dissent within the family from our corporate conclusion that we'd be best off staying home.

For many years we have published analyses of the drug problem. An important and frequently cited essay by Professor Michael Gazzaniga (Feb. 5, 1990) brought a scientist's discipline into the picture, shedding light on matters vital to an understanding of the drug question. He wrote, for instance, about different rates of addiction, and about ambient pressures that bear on addiction. Elsewhere, Professor James Q. Wilson, now of UCLA, has written eloquently in defense of the drug war. Milton Friedman from the beginning said it would not work, and would do damage.

We have found Dr. Gazzaniga and others who have written on the subject persuasive in arguing that the weight of the evidence is against the current attempt to prohibit drugs. But NATIONAL REVIEW has not, until now, opined formally on the subject. We do so at this point. To put off a declarative judgment would be morally and intellectually weak-kneed.

Things being as they are, and people as they are, there is no way to prevent somebody, somewhere, from concluding that ``NATIONAL REVIEW favors drugs.'' We don't; we deplore their use; we urge the stiffest feasible sentences against anyone convicted of selling a drug to a minor. But that said, it is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far.
....

[georgiaboy]

Rand seems to be wanting to focus on reducing spending and balancing the budget. He should be able to indirectly impact lots of areas, including foreign policy and the drug war, through across the board budgetary/fiscal restraint.