Remember: Rand Must Choose His Battles

[DeadheadForPaul]

I know what will inevitably happen in the first year of his term.

The purists over in the general forum are going to throw a hissy fit because Rand isn't simultaneously pushing for ending the fed, reducing the debt, stopping military interventionism, etc.

Some will act like Rand should fly in on a chariot of gold and wave a magic wand so that every liberty talking point will become reality.

In the real world, though, Rand may only be able to take 1 or 2 really big principled stands. Remember that it took Obama 1.5 years to get his pet project BARELY accomplished: healthcare overhaul.

Rand needs his colleagues and cannot alienate ALL of them.
He also cannot fight on 5 fronts or else he will fail on all.

The debt is the central issue and that is what he will focus on.

Remember this and defend Rand when half of RPF calls him a sellout and a poor man's Ron Paul

[sailingaway]

I just posted something like this on another thread. Rand needs to act, not react, plan a strategy and stick to it, and use the fiibuster sparingly enough that the rest of the senate doesn't vote to get rid of that useful tool. It is a tightrope he will be walking, and he needs the benefit of the doubt from us, as he does it.

[MRoCkEd]

He needs to compromise, but always and only in the direction of more liberty.

[AuH20]

The debt ceiling is the battle of all battles. It's his destiny to filibuster.

[Elwar]

Definitely. Ron Paul did a tremendous job of getting as much support for getting just an "audit" of the Fed...before it was summarily torn apart by the power brokers.

Rand would be lucky to get even half of that accomplishment in his first year.

All of those folks calling on Rand to look into 9/11 or legalize prostitution or impeach Obama are going to be disappointed.

He won and he has our principles. But he's one Senator out of 100 in the minority party.

The best we can ask is for him to vote on his principles consistently. Hopefully he doesn't have to comprimise but he's not his father and this isn't the House.

[sailingaway]

Definitely. Ron Paul did a tremendous job of getting as much support for getting just an "audit" of the Fed...before it was summarily torn apart by the power brokers.

Rand would be lucky to get even half of that accomplishment in his first year.

All of those folks calling on Rand to look into 9/11 or legalize prostitution or impeach Obama are going to be disappointed.

He won and he has our principles. But he's one Senator out of 100 in the minority party.

The best we can ask is for him to vote on his principles consistently. Hopefully he doesn't have to comprimise but he's not his father and this isn't the House.

I think Rand and Ron should be able to get the audit through the first year, if that is where they want to put their energy. Then Obama would have to decide whether to veto it or not. And even then, a veto could be overcome in the house...

[Elwar]

I think Rand and Ron should be able to get the audit through the first year, if that is where they want to put their energy. Then Obama would have to decide whether to veto it or not. And even then, a veto could be overcome in the house...

I'm thinking that they'll say "but we already passed the audit"...

Ron has talked about his main push next year being an audit of the gold in Fort Knox.

Who would be against counting our own gold....

[Promontorium]

Apologists already apologizing.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Fighting the debt will no doubt be an uphill battle.

This is not a Repubs vs. Dems issue which can easily be overtaken with a majority.
This is outsiders vs. the establishment, which is much harder

Rand will probably be fighting both Dems and Repubs over the issue. I would be surprised if more than 5-10 other Senators would want to go as far as he wants to go with it.

This will definitely take an entire session to fight at least

[malkusm]

Apologists already apologizing.

Trolls already trolling.

[sailingaway]

I'm thinking that they'll say "but we already passed the audit"...

Ron has talked about his main push next year being an audit of the gold in Fort Knox.

Who would be against counting our own gold....

No one thinks they really passed the audit. Even Norquist said he wouldn't count votes for Sanders' watered down version when he tracked who voted for and against the audit. It was a blatant sell out and could easily be made a litmus test.

[TheeJoeGlass]

The debt ceiling is the battle of all battles. It's his destiny to filibuster.

No it's not. A simple no vote is all thats required. Rand will be accused of starting the next depression if he goes that route and will easily be the most hated politician in Washington if he does that. That is not a recipe for success.

[AuH20]

No it's not. A simple no vote is all thats required. Rand will be accused of starting the next depression if he goes that route and will easily be the most hated politician in Washington if he does that. That is not a recipe for success.

Bunning filibustered the unemployment extension until a debate ensued. Why can't Rand do the same? We can't keep ignoring this paramount issue and hope it goes away.

[Andrew-Austin]

I know what will inevitably happen in the first year of his term.

The purists over in the general forum are going to throw a hissy fit because Rand isn't simultaneously pushing for ending the fed, reducing the debt, stopping military interventionism, etc.

Some will act like Rand should fly in on a chariot of gold and wave a magic wand so that every liberty talking point will become reality.

In the real world, though, Rand may only be able to take 1 or 2 really big principled stands. Remember that it took Obama 1.5 years to get his pet project BARELY accomplished: healthcare overhaul.

Rand needs his colleagues and cannot alienate ALL of them.
He also cannot fight on 5 fronts or else he will fail on all.

The debt is the central issue and that is what he will focus on.

Remember this and defend Rand when half of RPF calls him a sellout and a poor man's Ron Paul


Why do you make it sound like focusing on one or two goals is compromising? It isn't. He can push towards certain goals himself, and he can vote accordingly on other issues when they are brought up.

Now that he is in power being a "purist" isn't impractical. Don't go stumbling over yourselves in apologia if he does sell out on some issues. Hold him to a greater standard than you hold Ron, so you don't demean yourselves and liberty.

[jmdrake]

Definitely. Ron Paul did a tremendous job of getting as much support for getting just an "audit" of the Fed...before it was summarily torn apart by the power brokers.

Rand would be lucky to get even half of that accomplishment in his first year.

All of those folks calling on Rand to look into 9/11 or legalize prostitution or impeach Obama are going to be disappointed.

He won and he has our principles. But he's one Senator out of 100 in the minority party.

The best we can ask is for him to vote on his principles consistently. Hopefully he doesn't have to comprimise but he's not his father and this isn't the House.

I know you're probably using hyperbole here, but I haven't heard anyone hoping that Rand will legalize prostitution or introduce articles of impeachment on Obama. (He can't do that anyway. It's the house that impeaches. And I haven't seen Ron introduce articles of impeachment). Further I haven't seen Ron introduce any measure for a new 9/11 investigation. Sure he supports that, but he hasn't mad that his "battle" either.

Ok, so now that the hypothetical battles are out of the way, here's two things that Rand can't compromise on. If the neolibs push for war with Iran to save Obama's skin (as David Broader has already done) Rand can't compromise there. Such a war would be a total disaster economically and militarily. Debt ceiling? The sky's the freaking limit if we do something that stupid. Plus China, which holds most of our debt, is friendly with Iran. Plus we have 50,000 sitting ducks (I mean troops) in Iraq right now and the Iraqis are loyal to Iran. All of the camel dung in the middle east will not be able to contain the Mahdi Army (which is now successfully "integrated" in the Iraqi army) should we attempt to topple Iran. If Obama just does a bombing raid he can (illegally) exclude congress so that won't affect Rand anyway. But if he comes to congress for an authorization of the use of force, I'll count a "yes" vote on that the same as I'd count a "yes" vote on raising the debt limit or a "no" vote on auditing the fed or a "yes" vote on some new bailout. He promised no more military deployments without a proper declaration of war and no more wars without good cause. I intend to hold him to that.

The next thing Rand can't compromise on is civil liberties. When Patriot Act IV comes up (or are we up to V now?) I expect him to vote no. Same for any new "warrantless wiretapping" authorization. Same for any approval of torture (excuse me "enhanced interrogation tactics"). I could care less about closing Gitmo at this point or military tribunals. Most people don't realize it, but testimony from torture isn't allowed in military tribunals either. (After all, these tribunals are used to try are own servicemen). It matters not where terror suspects are house or in what forum they are tried as long as they are treated humanely and fairly. After all, according to the MIAC reports we are all terrorists now.

Sorry if that makes me a "purist". But I haven't spent the past two years telling my Obama supporting friends how badly he's betrayed principles they thought he believed in only to give a "free pass" to Rand. I think Rand's a great guy. I've met him in person now three times. I was at the victory party in Bowling Green last night. I watched his father introduce him via video feed. Ron told a story where Rand gave him a present that had an inscription on it that said (paraphrasing here) "It doesn't matter what position you get elected to if you are going to compromise your principles once you get there." Ron didn't specifically mention foreign policy or civil liberties, but he did mention not growing government at all. (Something everybody in the "tea party" can agree on). Well any increase in the "security state" or in foreign interventionism grows government.

Here's a crazy idea. Instead of spending our time trying to lower our own expectations of Rand, why don't we work to move the rest of the tea party to Ron's positions? We have not as a movement capitalized on the growing skepticism among conservatives like Michael Savage and Laura Ingram to the Iraq war. We have not fully capitalized on the fact that the security state is now aimed at conservatives and the only logical course of action is to start rolling it back. Rand will do whatever it is Rand needs to do. We need to stop compromising ourselves.

[jmdrake]

Why do you make it sound like focusing on one or two goals is compromising? It isn't. He can push towards certain goals himself, and he can vote accordingly on other issues when they are brought up.

Now that he is in power being a "purist" isn't impractical. Don't go stumbling over yourselves in apologia if he does sell out on some issues. Hold him to a greater standard than you hold Ron, so you don't demean yourselves and liberty.

This. I don't expect Rand to lead the charge on everything, but I do expect his voting record to be 100% pro liberty.

[K466]

Excellent points. As much as I hate it we are not going to turn into a libertarian nation overnight. Taking baby steps is our only hope, and Rand Paul represents several steps forward.

[K466]

This. I don't expect Rand to lead the charge on everything, but I do expect his voting record to be 100% pro liberty.

Yes, I think we should expect him to have a strongly pro-liberty record; he just won't push hard on every issue that's important to us.

[Modern_Matthew]

This. I don't expect Rand to lead the charge on everything, but I do expect his voting record to be 100% pro liberty.

Exactly.

I can understand not pushing legislation, but there will be no excuse to sacrifice principle on voting on the issues.

One vote away from principle and support should be withdrawn.

[silverhandorder]

I will defend Rand as long as he votes right. W.e fight he picks to fight first I will support him 100%.