New York Times: Rand and Rubio

[sailingaway]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/opinion/20douthat.html

be prepared to fall off your chair at the conclusion.

[low preference guy]

great last sentence

[specsaregood]

great last sentence

You mean this one?

Paul Krugman is off today.
Totally agree.

[low preference guy]

You mean this one?

Totally agree.

Haha. I was referring to this one: "[...] now I think Rand Paul is right."

But the Krugman line is awesome too. He would be calling Rand Paul racist.

[malkusm]

You mean this one?

Totally agree.

+rep .... Although the correct answer is: "Paul Krugman is off every day."

[Napoleon's Shadow]

great last sentence
Which part, "Rand is right" or "Paul Krugman is off today" ?

:D

[low preference guy]

Which part, "Rand is right" or "Paul Krugman is off today" ?

:D

well, let's call it a tie.

[ctiger2]

Paul, on the other hand, has smoothed the crankish edges off his famous father’s antiwar conservatism, reframing it in the language of constitutionalism, the national interest and the budget deficit. (As Matt Continetti noted in The Weekly Standard, “Whereas Ron Paul criticizes U.S. interventionism in tropes familiar to the left — anti-imperial blowback, manipulation by neocons, moral equivalence — Rand Paul merely says America doesn’t have the money.”)

Ron's paved the way for Rand and Ron didn't have the scapegoat of the bankruptcy we're in now to use.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ron's paved the way for Rand and Ron didn't have the scapegoat of the bankruptcy we're in now to use.

I do not like the argument that we don't have money as anything other than an ancillary tidbit you throw in at the end. Otherwise, as soon as the economy starts to get back on track (conceiving a successful Paul Presidency), the argument will become moot. Unless you drill into peoples heads that war always leads to fiscal ruination, and no country at any time can afford war as it socializes and destroys economies then that is one acceptable argument, but most people just say -- look we have no money now so even if you wanted to bomb the world you can't. Hence, why I prefer Ron's approach to Rand's because one is sustainable long-term and one is not. We have to whip the interventionists philosophically to have any lasting impact.

[AuH20]

Ron's paved the way for Rand and Ron didn't have the scapegoat of the bankruptcy we're in now to use.

Rand doesn't utilize progressive language like Ron does. Ron's message isn't flawed, but rather his tact. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I think certain members of our society reflexively tune out Ron when they hear certain buzzwords.

[low preference guy]

There is more than one way to skin a cat. I think certain members of our society reflexively tune out Ron when they hear certain buzzwords.

The unthinking ones. That's why it's good to have both Pauls. Ron reaches the rational ones, and Rand some rational people but also those beasts driven by their emotions.

[Brian4Liberty]

Great article. Rubio, the last of the neocons...

[DeadheadForPaul]

Great article

The final battle for America will be between Rubio and Rand.

If Rand loses, I fear the worst for this nation

[Brett85]

Great article. Rubio, the last of the neocons...

I'm afraid there's still a lot of neocons left in the Senate.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Rand doesn't utilize progressive language like Ron does. Ron's message isn't flawed, but rather his tact. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I think certain members of our society reflexively tune out Ron when they hear certain buzzwords.

Ron uses Classical Liberal words. Per chance you should open a book about War from Liberals in the 18th and 19th Century. They also had their own Class Analysis, which you probably haven't checked out either. I happen to think it's the language of the Prince of Peace too, but, how often has Rand brought up the Just War Theory?