Justin Raimondo: I seem to have seriously misjudged Rand Paul

[sailingaway]

Personally, I'm still pissed at him; the timing couldn't have been worse, but here you go....

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/11/07/lindsey-grahams-desperation/

Also, I suspect I don't know why Rand says he probably will end up being against the new start treaty w/ Russia, but knowing Obama's idea that agreements with foreign countries can circumvent our Constitution, I think the Russia treaty may well have globalist aspects we wouldn't want. Haven't read it. Anyone here know?

[Agorism]

I think unilateral disarmament is a better idea.

Same thing with trade deals. You don't need trade deals when all you have to do is unilaterally lower the barriers. Or if that is too politically difficult just set you rate a little lower than the person who you are trading with. If they are 20%, then you go with 10%.

[TheTyke]

While I am a big non-interventionist, I believe we should make our country strong here at home so no one would dare attack us. Disarmament treaties seem counterproductive??

[Agorism]

Why would we want to have an enormous number of weapons that are meant for civilian populations.

[MaxPower]

That was a pretty wild reversal for a guy who just a couple months ago dubbed Rand "the hollow man," called him a "liberventionist," said he had betrayed every principle and come to tear down everything his father had worked for, and suggested he was going to vote for an invasion of Iran! This is particularly striking given that the comments from Rand which apparently swayed Justin were really fairly milquetoast and non-committal; Rand has actually said things to this effect on more than a couple occasions pretty well throughout his campaign. Even in August, he wrote on his website that he would "not let America be the world's policeman."

That said, I sympathize with Justin's sentiments (both then and now)- I have felt somewhat betrayed and apprehensive at times when Rand has used borderline-neoconservative rhetoric on the campaign trail (although I wouldn't have gone nearly so far as Justin did in his criticisms), and I do feel relieved when he comes out off his shell and gives us glimpses of non-interventionist libertarianism at the heart of his philosophy.

[low preference guy]

Rand is young, he’s very presentable, and, although he does a good job of hiding it, he’s just as radical as his father. Why, he even had me fooled.
..

[Dripping Rain]

Justin is a expletive
He attacked Rand viciously during the primary because he didnt pass his purity test. yet in 2008 he went on a limb to fully endorse Barack Obama who never made his foreign policy views a secret.
after all was said Im glad he came around. maybe hell stop being such a jerk

[MRoCkEd]

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/11/07/lindsey-grahams-desperation/


His remarks [on ABC News] not only validate his anti-interventionist credentials, but they also show what a good politician he is becoming: in these war-weary days, you can’t say “bring the troops home” often enough. I’m glad to admit I was wrong about Rand Paul because I can breathe a lot easier, now, knowing he’s going to be a credit to the libertarian movement and his father’s legacy.

[malkusm]

I really just don't understand why libertarians didn't read his writings or watch his videos from the time before he was running a campaign. He did what he needed to do to win the election. No one here should be surprised, and as I've said all along, Rand's voting record in the Senate will be more like his father's than a lot of people think.

[sailingaway]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=267805

You might want to merge them........

I'm inclined at the moment to take the worst view of JR's actions -- that he was trying to get Rand to pander to him before the election by causing a shitstorm, at the worst possible time; when that didn't work, he now finds Rand elected, not only without his help, but seemingly against his preference. And he has zero leverage. And he wants some.

I may become more charitable later, but right now, I'm still steaming over his reading everything Rand did in the worst POSSIBLE light during the election -- and writing it up as if it were actually fact.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I really just don't understand why libertarians didn't read his writings or watch his videos from the time before he was running a campaign. He did what he needed to do to win the election. No one here should be surprised, and as I've said all along, Rand's voting record in the Senate will be more like his father's than a lot of people think.

Agree, Agree, Agree.

Those people must have really short memories to completely forget all of his speeches from 2007/2008.

A good chunk of RPFers not only stood w/ their hands in their pockets during Rand's campaign but even openly bashed him and caused other RPFers to not support him.

You will see the more stubborn members of the latter group refuse to give him a chance at all because either their egos or ideological self-righteousness/purity will not allow it. We have already seen several members post that "_____ was the last straw for Rand" even though the man hasn't even taken office yet LOL

It's sad that they could not understand the need to play the game in a major state-wide race. Ron has just spoiled us with his carefree attitude and his willingness to say literally anything. But then again, that's also why he got a small % of the primary vote. He was the educator that created the foundation so candidates like Rand could actually run, win, and put those ideas into action

[Brett85]

I really just don't understand why libertarians didn't read his writings or watch his videos from the time before he was running a campaign. He did what he needed to do to win the election. No one here should be surprised, and as I've said all along, Rand's voting record in the Senate will be more like his father's than a lot of people think.

He also didn't say anything different then he did during the campaign. He talked about cutting military spending during the campaign as well. That said, I still don't think that people should expect Rand to be quite as much of a non interventionalist as Ron is. Rand will call for reducing our military presence around the world and will still be the most non interventionalist Senator we have, but he isn't going to go as far as Ron and say that we shouldn't have any allies, shouldn't sell weapons to Israel, etc.

[sailingaway]

He also didn't say anything different then he did during the campaign. He talked about cutting military spending during the campaign as well. That said, I still don't think that people should expect Rand to be quite as much of a non interventionalist as Ron is. Rand will call for reducing our military presence around the world and will still be the most non interventionalist Senator we have, but he isn't going to go as far as Ron and say that we shouldn't have any allies, shouldn't sell weapons to Israel, etc.

Ron NEVER said we shouldn't have allies.

[radiofriendly]

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/08/not-your-typical-politician-rands-plan/
He wasn't hiding anything.

[sailingaway]

Agree, Agree, Agree....

A good chunk of RPFers not only stood w/ their hands in their pockets during Rand's campaign but even openly bashed him and caused other RPFers to not support him.

You will see the more stubborn members of the latter group refuse to give him a chance at all because either their egos or ideological self-righteousness/purity will not allow it. We have already seen several members post that "_____ was the last straw for Rand" even though the man hasn't even taken office yet LOL



Some of them have their own candidates they wanted people to get excited about after Ron, and given Ron's age, were looking forward to a transfer of the enthusiasm RON built. And didn't like when Rand, who people have known forever, was given the benefit of the doubt before their untried candidates were. Those types won't come around because they simply want us supporting other people.

I think we need LOTS of good candidates, and really regret BJ and John Dennis, for starters.

[radiofriendly]

[Sorry, I meant to make this a seperate post]

Not your typical politician – Rand’s plan
Published on 06 August 2010
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/08/not-your-typical-politician-rands-plan/

Dear Patriot,

Sometimes, the political process makes us all just a bit cynical and jaded -- my self included. We look at what the Washington DC establishment -- the career politicians, the corporate lobbyists, and the entrenched bureaucracy has brought us, and we throw up our hands, thinking, they're all the same.

I don't like to yell too loud, or beat my chest. But I want to take a moment to remind you why I am not your typical politician, and why this is not a typical campaign or movement.

"But I want to take a moment to remind you why I am not your typical politician, and why this is not a typical campaign or movement.

Among the many reasons:

•I will never, ever vote for a taxpayer bailout of a private industry. Whether it's big banks, automakers, or any other industry -- you succeed or fail on your own.
•I will not vote for an unbalanced budget. I will not vote for a tax increase. Ever.
•I will fight for new rules like a Balanced Budget Amendment and Term Limits.
•I will not take ANYTHING off the table in the fight to balance the budget. Anyone who says something like they will "freeze non-defense discretionary spending" is blowing smoke at you and hoping you won't notice. That would balance the budget -- MAYBE -- in about 80 years.
•We have to keep our promises to seniors and keep our country strong, but every area has things that can be cut. Every agency has things that are duplicative or that could be done better or cheaper.
•I will propose and force a vote on an Enumerated Powers Act, to force Congress to point to the part of the Constitution that justifies their bills.
•I will fight for the Bill of Rights. Democrats often love the 4th amendment. Republicans the 2nd. I will fight for them all, which means fighting for your free speech, gun rights, and civil liberties. Laws that infringe on ANY of these make the federal government more powerful, and we cannot continue to allow that.
(*****************)
•I will not allow our troops to be the world's policeman, and I will force a vote on a Declaration of War if any President seeks to commit our military to battle.
(*****************)
What you've just read above is an agenda unlike any politician in the country. While solidly conservative, it also shows first, a great loyalty to the Constitution and to our freedom. You cannot fight for liberty while voting for bills that embolden the state. You cannot fight for some of our founding rights without others. And you cannot enable change in Washington by sending the same old people there.

For anyone who thinks elections don't matter, or all candidates are the same, I urge you to read this one more time. I don't think it's a stretch to say that few candidates running for office this year will so fully embrace this agenda of freedom and prosperity, of fighting the power of the federal government while working to ensure that the rights of Americans are restored.

If you agree, I ask for your help.
http://www.randpaul2010.com/

________________________________________
And if that wasn't enough, there is this damning evidence:

http://www.colleenebarnett.com/web%20IMG_0055_1.JPG

[TheDriver]

I'm inclined at the moment to take the worst view of JR's actions -- that he was trying to get Rand to pander to him before the election by causing a shitstorm, at the worst possible time; when that didn't work, he now finds Rand elected, not only without his help, but seemingly against his preference. And he has zero leverage. And he wants some.



Good summary ^

[Brett85]

Ron NEVER said we shouldn't have allies.

Ron never said that we shouldn't be friends with other countries and trade with them. However, he said that we shouldn't have any "entangling alliances." He believes that we should treat all countries exactly the same. I'm just saying that I don't believe that Rand will go quite that far.

[BamaFanNKy]

Good to be on the ground floor of President Rand Paul. hehe. I still find it odd that people even hint at that notion.

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=267805

You might want to merge them........

I'm inclined at the moment to take the worst view of JR's actions -- that he was trying to get Rand to pander to him before the election by causing a shitstorm, at the worst possible time; when that didn't work, he now finds Rand elected, not only without his help, but seemingly against his preference. And he has zero leverage. And he wants some.

I may become more charitable later, but right now, I'm still steaming over his reading everything Rand did in the worst POSSIBLE light during the election -- and writing it up as if it were actually fact.

Yup and where is Lew Rockwell's apology for that disparaging article he wrote about Rand Paul right before the election?

EDIT: I stand corrected. It is NOT clear that Lew did that at all. The only thing I see right now is this, and he did not specifically mention Rand. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/prepare-for-betrayal155.html

[Sola_Fide]

BUMP


I have been saying that the Rand critics will all be silenced when he got to the Senate. It is starting to happen:)

[specsaregood]

Yup and where is Lew Rockwell's apology for that disparaging article he wrote about Rand Paul right before the election?

Yeah, there are a number of people that showed their true colors. And now Rand owes them nothing.

[TheDriver]

Ron never said that we shouldn't be friends with other countries and trade with them. However, he said that we shouldn't have any "entangling alliances." He believes that we should treat all countries exactly the same. I'm just saying that I don't believe that Rand will go quite that far.

I call BS.


If he wants to treat every country the same, why is he rallying against selling weapons to this one?
YouTube - Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk 11/1/10: Saudi Arms Deal is About Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUgy89zAhDc)

[sailingaway]

Ron never said that we shouldn't be friends with other countries and trade with them. However, he said that we shouldn't have any "entangling alliances." He believes that we should treat all countries exactly the same. I'm just saying that I don't believe that Rand will go quite that far.

I think RON wouldn't go that far. I think he is against the sort of 'forever, someone else essentially decides if we go to war' kind of treaties, not general agreements. There is treaty power in the Constitution for a reason. But now treaties are being used to circumvent our Constitution, and we could take a long hard look at those.

[low preference guy]

Yup and where is Lew Rockwell's apology for that disparaging article he wrote about Rand Paul right before the election?

i don't care whether Lew apologizes or not, but out of curiosity, do you have a link to Lew disparaging Rand? as an avid reader or LRC, I don't recall seeing it.

[LibertyEagle]

i don't care whether Lew apologizes or not, but out of curiosity, do you have a link to Lew disparaging Rand? as an avid reader or LRC, I don't recall seeing it.

I don't have it saved, no. It was posted on here though. It was an article by Lew, himself, and I think it was just a few weeks before the election.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm inclined at the moment to take the worst view of JR's actions -- that he was trying to get Rand to pander to him before the election by causing a shitstorm, at the worst possible time; when that didn't work, he now finds Rand elected, not only without his help, but seemingly against his preference. And he has zero leverage. And he wants some.

I may become more charitable later, but right now, I'm still steaming over his reading everything Rand did in the worst POSSIBLE light during the election -- and writing it up as if it were actually fact.

Time for a trip in the wayback machine...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=261878

[MRoCkEd]

I don't have it saved, no. It was posted on here though. It was an article by Lew, himself, and I think it was just a few weeks before the election.
Was it this?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/prepare-for-betrayal155.html

Doesn't mention Rand specifically, though.

[LibertyEagle]

Was it this?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/prepare-for-betrayal155.html

Doesn't mention Rand specifically, though.

Yeah, I was looking too. That's the only thing I can see right now and you are right, he didn't mention Rand specifically.

I guess it is possible that he wrote that during the time that a bunch here were claiming that Rand was selling out and when I saw Lew's article, I thought he was doing it too. If that is the case, I was wrong in saying he was specifically bashing Rand, because it is not clear that he was.

[low preference guy]

This is the worst I can recall that Lew said referring to Rand:


It seems incredible that in the last days, a fundamental right of the whole of humanity, the freedom of association, has been denounced by the New York Times and all major opinion sources, even as a national political figure was reluctant to defend his own statements in favor of the idea, and then distanced himself from the notion. Has such a fundamental principle of liberty become unsayable?

And that is actually not unfair at all to me.

Link (http://mises.org/daily/4465)

[Matt Collins]

"There is a greater good that is achieved by winning. The battle to get there is often messy but does require compromise. That doesn't mean that you can't compromise along the way and still be steadfast once victorious. But it is a tightrope wire. " - anonymous.

and

"I have closely analyzed and scrutinized Rand Paul's positions, and they are identical to his father's... the only difference is the wording" -- a very well known intellectual who shall for now remain nameless.

[ItsTime]

Disarmament treaties do not work. Pre-WW2 Germany was "disarmed". How'd that work out for everyone?

[DeadheadForPaul]

Yup and where is Lew Rockwell's apology for that disparaging article he wrote about Rand Paul right before the election?

EDIT: I stand corrected. It is NOT clear that Lew did that at all. The only thing I see right now is this, and he did not specifically mention Rand. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/prepare-for-betrayal155.html

Sorry to go off topic here, but I just gotta say screw what Lew Rockwell thinks.

The man was responsible for the racist newsletters, which are quite damaging to Ron. There are many other reasons I don't trust him or like him, but that really sealed the deal

[LibertyEagle]

This is the worst I can recall that Lew said referring to Rand:



And that is actually not unfair at all to me.

Link (http://mises.org/daily/4465)

Well, he made sweeping generalizations of Tea Party candidates here, http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/prepare-for-betrayal155.html (Prepare to be Betrayed), and he most certainly did not except out Rand.

[low preference guy]

Well, he made sweeping generalizations of Tea Party candidates here, http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/prepare-for-betrayal155.html (Prepare to be Betrayed), and he most certainly did not except out Rand.

The article you posted has this:


The Tea Party does not have a coherent view of liberty. Its activists tend to be good on specific economic issues like taxes, spending, stimulus, and health care. They worry about government intervention in these areas and can talk a good game.

But this is a statement about the Tea Party in general, and the statement is true. Where is the generalization about Tea Party candidates? He only mentions that watching Tea Party candidates is one of the things he took into his analysis to arrive to his conclusion about the Tea Party. In my book, even with a lot of stretching you still can't say that he insulted Rand.

I'm sorry but wanting Lew to apologize to Rand for that article seems pretty hilarious to me.

[LibertyEagle]

The article you posted has this:



But this is a statement about the Tea Party in general, and the statement is true. Where is the generalization about Tea Party candidates? He only mentions that watching Tea Party candidates is one of the things he took into his analysis to arrive to his conclusion about the Tea Party. In my book, even with a lot of stretching you still can't say that he insulted Rand.

I'm sorry but wanting Lew to apologize to Rand for that article seems pretty hilarious to me.

I suggest availing yourself of the little "find" option in your browser and search for the word "candidate".

[low preference guy]

I suggest availing yourself of the little "find" option in your browser and search for the word "candidate".

I did. The word candidate appears four times.

1:
Candidates that the Republican Party doesn't like are making big inroads into the party structure and, quite possibly, the election itself

Not a criticism of Rand.

2:
As they debate with their neighbors, follow election coverage, listen to the candidates, and watch the process, people learn and study and, most importantly, think and rethink.

He is just saying listening to the candidates is part of the process to figure out what the tea party is about.

3:
Just as telling are the structural problems in politics that lead all political candidates toward the center as a matter of maximizing votes.

The something lead candidates doesn't mean the candidates will necessarily have to sell out. Otherwise, you should also be asking for an apology to father Paul.

4:
This is why all candidates tend to water down their positions after the primaries, that, and to get funding from the corporatists allied with both parties.

Again, candidates tend to do something. It doesn't mean they do.

So I did what you told me, looked for all instances of the word "candidate", and still haven't found anything that implies something bad about Rand, let alone to warrant an apology. Could you please tell me which of the four instances is the one you're referring to and why it is negative enough about Rand to warrant an apology?

[specsaregood]

The article you posted has this:

But this is a statement about the Tea Party in general, and the statement is true. Where is the generalization about Tea Party candidates? He only mentions that watching Tea Party candidates is one of the things he took into his analysis to arrive to his conclusion about the Tea Party. In my book, even with a lot of stretching you still can't say that he insulted Rand.


Just for future refence purposes, where is the line between "speaking in general" and speaking in collectivist?

[LibertyEagle]

LPG, did you even read my post? I said he didn't explicitly mention Rand, in his article titled "Prepare To Be Betrayed". But, he made sweeping generalizations about the tea party and its candidates. Rand Paul is certainly one of those and I did not see Lew excepting him out of his statements in the article. Perhaps you could show where he did?

[low preference guy]

LPG, did you even read my post? I said he didn't explicitly mention Rand. But, he made sweeping generalizations about the tea party and its candidates. Rand Paul is certainly one of those and I did not see Lew excepting him out of his statements in the article. Perhaps you could show where he did?

Which of the four instances in which the word candidates appears imply something negative about the candidates in general, and by extension about Rand? He used words like "tends to". Do you think Lew should apology for saying candidates "tend to" do something?

[low preference guy]

Just for future refence purposes, where is the line between "speaking in general" and speaking in collectivist?

Saying that the Tea Party as a whole doesn't have a coherent philosophy is an accurate statement in my book.

[LibertyEagle]

Which of the four instances in which the word candidates imply something negative about Rand? He used words like "tends to". Do you think Lew should apology for saying candidates "tend to" do something?

The ENTIRE article is about the tea party and its candidates. Not just the specific sentences in which he used the word, candidate.

Sheesh.

[low preference guy]

The ENTIRE article is about the tea party and its candidates. Not just the specific sentences in which he used the word, candidate.

Sheesh.

And I mentioned that he talks about candidates just to make a conclusion about the tea party in general. Then you told me to look for the word candidate. I did. And it didn't change the fact I mentioned. In those instances, he also said things about candidates in general. Like candidates "tend to do" certain things. Is that what you think Lew should apologize for? Saying that candidates "tend to" do something?

In other words: Could you be specific about what Lew should apologize for? Is it because one of the conclusions of his article is "Tea Party doesn't have a coherent philosophy", and you take that as an implication that Rand doesn't have a consistent philosophy?

[specsaregood]

Saying that the Tea Party as a whole doesn't have a coherent philosophy is an accurate statement in my book.

I didn't ask if it was accurate. I take it your answer is that speaking "in general" == "collectivist"?

[low preference guy]

I didn't ask if it was accurate. I take it your answer is that speaking "in general" == "collectivist"?

No. Saying the Tea Party in general is, let's say, for the Second Amendment, just means that most Tea Partiers support the second amendment. I don't see what's collectivist about that. Could you help me understand your question/point?

[AParadigmShift]

i don't care whether Lew apologizes or not, but out of curiosity, do you have a link to Lew disparaging Rand? as an avid reader or LRC, I don't recall seeing it.


Was it this?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/prepare-for-betrayal155.html

Doesn't mention Rand specifically, though.

Benign enough, if not wholly accurate of Republicanism/conservatism. How else would a libertarian-oriented site look to measure the political reality, with blinders on?

I do recall a lot of comments like this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/67457.html , type of questioning on the blog side about the tea party in general - though Rand is mentioned specifically* (follow link), but such are only more wondering aloud about what change is actually going to take place for the tea party's effort, small gov't to some within that [co-opted] movement reaching its pinnacle circa 2008.

(*It used to be conservatives did not think so much about reforming or downsizing, but actually ridding us of whole agencies. Of course, they don't talk, or conduct themselves that way any more. Except that limited/small gov't comes by way of bigger/more intrusive gov't :confused:)

But, I cannot recall anything specific berating Rand issuing from Lew, or any other contributor to that site.

[BlackTerrel]

Personally, I'm still pissed at him; the timing couldn't have been worse, but here you go....

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/11/07/lindsey-grahams-desperation/

Also, I suspect I don't know why Rand says he probably will end up being against the new start treaty w/ Russia, but knowing Obama's idea that agreements with foreign countries can circumvent our Constitution, I think the Russia treaty may well have globalist aspects we wouldn't want. Haven't read it. Anyone here know?

If anyone actually read this guy's website I'd be pissed that he was badmouthing him before the election. But I'm guessing the number of people who read that site and voted in Kentucky is in the low double digits.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Disarmament treaties do not work. Pre-WW2 Germany was "disarmed". How'd that work out for everyone?

Something tells me they were mighty pissed because of Allied reperations which caused the Weimar inflation. I am sure they weren't all giddy having to pay for the entirity of WWI. You do not need a standing army to provide incentives not to invade. Look at Switzerland. Neutral non-interventionist Militia-State. Hasn't been attacked in 500 years. Since they are a militia and not a standing army, they cannot be used for offense. Win-win. Militia's are defensive -- Standing Armies are offensive. The two are incompatible. It is why there are little to no militias left in the US. The same reason goes for why there are no more Mutual Aid societies and fraternities in the US because of the Welfare State. The US used to have a large and robust plethora of Mutual Aid societies, lodges, fraternities, etc. before the Welfare State, same as before we had these largess Empire-Standing Armies, we had a ton of militia's.

[Fozz]

Raimondo is desperate for donors now so he's pandering to us.

[Eric21ND]

Did he really diss on Rand and endorse Obama? What a tard!

[MicroBalrog]

Why would we want to have an enormous number of weapons that are meant for civilian populations.

Google "counterforce strategy".