Video update - Rand Paul on Fox News with Frank Luntz focus group 1/8/12

[squirrelbrewer]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/08/primary-preview-special/

I just flipped on Fox and saw this bizarre Frank Luntz infomercial pushing Newt. So I looked it up and it seems Rand is coming on soon...sorry if this has already been posted....




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lqojhMKv-8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lqojhMKv-8

[opinionatedfool]

stream?

[eok321]

stream here

http://www.hqcast.tv/watch.php?live=foxnews001

[Carehn]

Tell me what goes down will ya. I don't have T.V.

[Carehn]

Ahhh. A stream. Nice thinking.

[jax]

im watching it too. its very bizare. its newt in a room full of newt supporters and they are giving him all day to explain away all the attacks hes recieved, with his little conieving slimeball speaking style

[bluesc]

It's going to be all about Iran.

[pauliticalfan]

This is gonna be so awkward/hard to watch. I feel sorry for Rand. Who thought it was a good idea to put him through this? I hope he keeps his cool, and is able to convince at least one of them.

[Lafayette]

I was going to make a post about this, i was thinking to myself.."wtf is this a 1 hr Newt infomercial? Why are they not pumping Huntsman or Santorum?"

The program description doesn't give any details as to what this crap is.

[AhuwaleKaNaneHuna]

Wow, it's non stop Romney comercials during the breaks. Is that just an in Florida thing, or is everyone watching this on TV seeing the Romeny comercial ads?

[pauliticalfan]

Yeah, Mitt's served for 4 years, but he's been running for 18.

[bluesc]

Wow, it's non stop Romney comercials during the breaks. Is that just an in Florida thing, or is everyone watching this on TV seeing the Romeny comercial ads?

He's just pushing for Florida.

[nyrgoal99]

Very important here

People are voting for Romney because they believe he can beat Obama, and people want Obama out

What can we do about this?

[Lafayette]

Wow, it's non stop Romney comercials during the breaks. Is that just an in Florida thing, or is everyone watching this on TV seeing the Romeny comercial ads?

I see no political ads here in CA, they must be local ads airing for you. No one is running in ads out here, way to soon.

[pauliticalfan]

These people are, um...

[Lafayette]

These people are, um... Right... we know.

[Wren]

I'm getting to see the typical american voter on full display here. dammit, where's rand?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Wow. Luntz is seriously going to play the China Jon ad. Unreal.

[bluesc]

Why did they send Rand into this hellhole?

[zerosdontcount]

This should be a shit show, set up by the one and only Luntz. Should be entertaining...

[Machiavelli]

God, what a bunch of morons

[bluesc]

Wow. Luntz is seriously going to play the China Jon ad. Unreal.

Did he say he would? I didn't hear it.

[Lafayette]

Who wants to bet the buttons on Luntz's (F U FRANK!) little remote thingies get stuck on the negative setting once they show Paul?

[pauliticalfan]

Why did they send Rand into this hellhole?

He must've done something bad and is being punished.

[Ssd]

Rand Paul is the perfect person to talk to these people. He explains things very well. He better blow the minds of these people.

[pulp8721]

Rand will be on in about a minute. Hope he's prepared for:

"why does your father want Isreal destroyed?", and "Why do you want Kids to be able to smoke dope?"

[Bruno]

Someone say Frank Luntz? *restrains self*

[bluesc]

Someone say Frank Luntz? *restrains self*

Do it.

[squirrelbrewer]

I think Rand may have his work cut out for him with Frank's special group of....um, what's the word? And they call us bots?!?

[wilcox71]

This is a little goofy, Newt had to show up himself nobody would go for him.

[KramerDSP]

The first ever positive Frank Luntz poll was used for a Ron Paul debate moment. Shocking.

[A. Havnes]

Rand is great for this type of interview, in my opinion. He states things very clearly.

[Bruno]

http://i41.tinypic.com/2dmdxzb.jpg

[ShaneEnochs]

This stream is horrid.

[dctg44]

Rand is going to be president someday!

[KingNothing]

Rand is going to be president some day. Holy moses, this is perfect.

[sunghoko]

He's taking Iran head on

[KramerDSP]

First question - What is the first thing he will do upon entering office?

Rand - deftly switches to saying Ron wants to balance the budget and cut a trillion dollars, eliminate five departments. First woman nods approvingly but cautiously.

Second question - How can Congress cooperate with him?

Rand - missed the answer

Third question - Which departments?

Rand - Lists all five departments. Reagan conservative moved to eliminate DOE. Many want to be Reagan conservative but voted for Medicare part D

Crowd shots - enraptured with Ron

Man - Gov . is way too big now. No one disagrees with economic policy. IOt is the foreign policy.

Rand: If you take all the revenues, 40% of every dollar is borrowed. Something has to be change.

Only a few raise their hand on agreeing with Ron s foreign policy

Rand - chuckles.. we have work to do. Ron agrees we need to work on strong national defense.

Man - comes off as isolationist

Rand - He doesnt want them to get a nuclear weapon. He does care. Three previous chain of command heads said preemptive attack on Iran could have dire consequences. We survived Cuban Misslecrisis through diplomacy.

Audience respectfully claps.

[kylejack]

Those paintings in the background are awful.

[bluesc]

Holy shit. Rand. Is. God.

"No! No! Give me another 5 minutes, I can get more!" haha

[Muwahid]

It's not so bad really

http://d37nnnqwv9amwr.cloudfront.net/entries/icons/original/000/001/253/everything_went_better_than_expected.jpg

[KingNothing]

Rand is going to be president someday!

HA! EXACTLY what i was thinking! He's freaking perfect!

[pauliticalfan]

Rand speaking epic truths, crowd too dense to understand. It boggles my mind.

Looks like he convinced about half of them though.

[opinionatedfool]

Stupid talking head wouldn't let him talk properly.

[camp_steveo]

Luntz needs to shut up and let the man speak already.

[Libertea Party]

The man has game.

[opinionatedfool]

Rand speaking epic truths, crowd too dense to understand. It boggles my mind.

Looks like he convinced about half of them though.

They picked a bunch of neocons for the audience.

[SchleckBros]

These people are sooo dumb.

The reason his foreign policy is misunderstood is because you get your news from HANNITY, RUSH, CNN, AND FAUX NEWS.

Wake up America!!!!

[squirrelbrewer]

Rand is absolutely slaying it on the Iran issue....

[A. Havnes]

Crappy stream. I'm missing it! Still, it sounds like Rand is knocking it out of the park.

[islather]

I think he is doing good at explaining to these people

[KingNothing]

Rand's explanation on Iran was tremendous. Like, way, super, unbelievably tremendous.

[TIMB0B]

Did FU frank give the audience a primer before the show? "Anything Rand says on foreign policy, disagree with him."

[Ssd]

There were two (young people under 30) initially who agreed on foreign policy but Paul then explained more and I think 4 or 5 more agreed. Paul said all he needs is 5 more minutes and he'll win the rest over but the host wished him a happy birthday and booted him.

Rand Paul is simply amazing and should be the VP pick.

[opinionatedfool]

Rand is going to be president someday!

Rand Paul 2016? 2020? !

[bluesc]

Rand's explanation on Iran was tremendous. Like, way, super, unbelievably tremendous.

If Ron spoke like that in debates he would have won Iowa.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

The last time Rand was on with Luntz, he got very favorable reactions with his little meter.

[Evilfox]

Watching this live, he is doing so well

[The Binghamton Patriot]

its a room full of neocons. these are the same people who won't open up the tent. to hell with them if they don't. they are clueless on foreign policy and need to listen to the other 70% of the country

[GoRon2008]

stream not working for me.

[Carehn]

http://i41.tinypic.com/2dmdxzb.jpg
I'm making this my computer background.

[Xelaetaks]

Rand definetely seems like a future president !!!! I feel like the Ron Paul campaign should make some kind of foreign policy for release stating all these points to win people over

[KingNothing]

Did FU frank give the audience a primer before the show? "Anything Rand says on foreign policy, disagree with him."


Nah. They are just dunderheads in the audience. I mean, honestly, they vote in two days and they're still undecided and trying to choose between one status quo candidate or another.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Rand stepped in the entitlements need to be cut pile - but I'm not sure if seniors connect "entitlements" with SS, Medicare, etc. Judging from the statements from some Tea Party supporters, I would guess a sizable chunk don't.

He did well in naming US and Israeli security heads in his answer, but he advocated blockades.

Kinda misrepresented Ron a bit, but I really don't care at this point.

All in all, excellent response for a Fox News viewer.

[Chris_Redfield]

I can not wait for Rand Paul to run for President. He is articulate. :)

[Ssd]

Every single person agreed on the economic message and I think 7 eventually agreed on foreign policy after Rand worked his magic. People were angry that the host ended the segment as it was clear that Rand was starting to win every single one of them over.

[Bruno]

Those paintings in the background are awful.

Agreed. Santorum's looks like the guy from Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

[A. Havnes]

its a room full of neocons. these are the same people who won't open up the tent. to hell with them if they don't. they are clueless on foreign policy and need to listen to the other 70% of the country

That's why we need to educate them. These people are a huge voter block, and they need to be convinced that Ron Paul's foreign policy is safe, and it secures our borders.

[MMXII]

frankie definitley has some "plants" in the audience. what a joke and master manipulator!

[kylejack]

That's right Rand, when you vote for sanctions some of us get angry with you.

[Libertea Party]

Oh no Rand just lost RPF forever.

[RonPaulRules]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4

[A. Havnes]

Only two people raised their hands for agreeing with Ron's foreign policy? We need education! Support the troops = vote for Ron Paul.

[Jtorsella]

Oh no Rand just lost RPF forever.
Exactly what I thought. Kind of sad.

[cindy25]

and getting positive reaction, from Luntz and audience

[Evilfox]

He is KILLING it.

[KramerDSP]

Rand made UNBELIEVABLE in-roads!!!

[Tyler_Durden]

Why is a painting of Judd Nelson in the Background? Lol

[ShaneEnochs]

Exactly what I thought. Kind of sad.

What happened??

[Jack Bauer]

Oh no Rand just lost RPF forever.

Nonsense.

He was obviously playing to the crowd.

[Chester Copperpot]

not bad
'

[Esoteric]

Holy shit. Rand. Is. God.

"No! No! Give me another 5 minutes, I can get more!" haha

I don't think it's fair to compare Rand Paul to God. He's good, but he's no Rand Paul.

[No Free Beer]

crushed it

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Great segment IMO. That had to have softened some peoples' negative opinions towards Dr. Paul.

[bluesc]

At least Rand is aware of what's happening online.

[No Free Beer]

"Some of them get mad at me" - Rand Paul

hgahahahahaha

no we dont! We love you!

[jcarcinogen]

You have to keep in mind that that group was unanimously pro-newt.

[Jtorsella]

What happened??
He said that he disagreed to a degree with his father on fp, troops probably could not be gone from overseas immediately. He was probably just playing to the audience.

[jersdream]

OMG guys, why does Rand need to be so confrontational to you? What is he suppose to say to Frank? "You deserve the 'F*ck You, Frank' that is posted all over the internet." "You bring it upon yourself, Frank."

Seriously guys, I honestly don't know what you want Rand to do...make enemies? Give him a friggin break.

[Paulistinian]

I missed what rand said about us on the web

[amabala]

Oh no Rand just lost RPF forever.
RPF?

[dctg44]

Rand Paul 2016? 2020? !

If Ron doesn't win hopefully both!

[Bruno]

I liked his "degrees of response" at the end. Left people thinking.

[Lafayette]

I noticed 1 guy started to raise his hand, but looked around to see if anyone else was besides the two in the bottom row, seeing that he was on the losing team he quickly put it back down.

Sheep!

[opinionatedfool]

Only two people raised their hands for agreeing with Ron's foreign policy? We need education! Support the troops = vote for Ron Paul.

It's a canned neocon audience, but, yeah I agree.

[A. Havnes]

Why was this moved to media spin? I thought it was pretty good.

[jersdream]

I don't think it's fair to compare Rand Paul go God. He's good, but he's no Rand Paul.


Rand Paul is no Rand Paul? That doesn't make sense.

[eok321]

Hmm. People are idiots and need Ron's policy spoon fed to them before it makes sense.

How the f*** do we overcome that:confused:

[nyrgoal99]

Why was this moved to media spin? I thought it was pretty good.

agreed

[Agorism]

http://www.dailypaul.com/201682/rick-santorum-says-internet-should-not-be-free#comment-2103628

+1 this thread on dailypaul to promote this there too

[opinionatedfool]

I noticed 1 guy started to raise his hand, but looked around to see if anyone else was besides the two in the bottom row, see that he was on the losing team he quickly put it back down.

Sheep!

Lol, there were probably a lot of them like him.

[Libertea Party]

For the record I was being sarcastic.

[jersdream]

This was not media spin. The mod that moved this definitely did not watch, this was a fair and perfect opportunity for Rand to talk about Ron.

[Jtorsella]

Rand Paul is no Rand Paul? That doesn't make sense.
God is no rand paul lol.

[ShaneEnochs]

RPF?

Ron paul forums

[Jtorsella]

For the record I was being sarcastic.
I was being cynical and predicting an overreaction. Hopefully I am wrong. He was just being diplomatic.

[No Free Beer]

I seriously don't get/understand why people on here get angry at Rand.

It really does bother me.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

I missed what rand said about us on the webHe just said that "sometimes they get made at me!" and "being the son doesn't guarantee the love."

[pauliticalfan]

Ron Paul voters make up 20% in New Hampshire, yet only 2% of that crowd. Wow.

[Muwahid]

Geez people are so sensitive.

[bluesc]

I seriously don't get/understand why people on here get angry at Rand.

It really does bother me.

They disagree with his position on sanctions. Some people take it too far though.

[AhuwaleKaNaneHuna]

Huntsmans wife just said that their daughters have been the secret weapons of the campaign

[amabala]

Ron paul forums
Thanks bro.

[Jtorsella]

They disagree with his position on sanctions. Some people take it too far though.
He's a perfect liaison to the right neocons.

[musicmax]

Rand stepped in the entitlements need to be cut pile.

Why shouldn't he? Entitlements need to be cut.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

If Rand said you can't draw down all the troops day one then he is correct. It would be a disaster to do so, and we don't have the resources either.

In my view it would be best to bring back 85% within the first two months.

[kylejack]

Why shouldn't he? Entitlements need to be cut.
Because we're trying to win old people, who collect some of the biggest entitlements. Rightly so, after paying payroll taxes their whole life.

[bluesc]

If Rand said you can't draw down all the troops day one then he is correct. It would be a disaster to do so, and we don't have the resources either.

In my view it would be best to bring back 85% within the first two months.

Ron agrees. Rand either thinks they should remain overseas permanently, is misunderstood about Ron's views, or was playing to the audience.

[opinionatedfool]

He just said that "sometimes they get made at me!" and "being the son doesn't guarantee the love."

He said "SOMETIMES" people. He knows the MOST times we are mad at him. Big deal. Rand Paul after Ron Paul for President!

[No Free Beer]

They disagree with his position on sanctions. Some people take it too far though.

No one is perfect.

[kylejack]

Kind of sexist, Luntz doesn't really give the wife much of a chance to respond on policy questions like he did with Rand.

[Bruno]

That ad was lame.

[kill the banks]

for the life of me I can't stand to watch frank ... undefined mind wash expletive

[squirrelbrewer]

This just confirms that Rand needs to campaign as much as his schedule will allow and focus on Foreign Policy. The managers have to get him in front of undecideds and supporters of Romney. How you do that, I have no idea whatsoever beyond radio and television commercials.

[kylejack]

No one is perfect.
You gotta kill a few Iranians to make an omelette, eh?

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Rand made a great point about us giving foreign aid to China. I didn't know about that, and I'm sure many in that audience didn't either. He surely scored some points there.

[pauliticalfan]

Wtf that wasn't even Huntsman's ad.

[Jtorsella]

No one is perfect.
FALSE.
Ron Paul

[KingNothing]

Mrs. Huntsman is definitely an attractive woman.

[opinionatedfool]

Kind of sexist, Luntz doesn't really give the wife much of a chance to respond on policy questions like he did with Rand.

She really wasn't giving much of a response to his questions.

[A. Havnes]

Huntsmans wife just said that their daughters have been the secret weapons of the campaign

No, she means their daughters' race have been the secret weapons. You know, I had a professor who went to China to adopt a daughter, but she doesn't treat her at all like Huntsman does his girls. She simply called her daughters (both adopted, one from China, one from US) "my daughters" rather than "my adopted daughters". Doing that would have made those two kids feel like outsiders their whole life.

[opinionatedfool]

That ad was lame.

Yeah, what the heck. Our ad guy kicks butt.

[kylejack]

She really wasn't giving much of a response to his questions.
None of his questions were about policy. "Tell us about his character", bla bla bla

[Justinfrom1776]

"Some of them get mad at me" - Rand Paul

hgahahahahaha

no we dont! We love you!

Speak for yourself, I like Rand, but he's not Ron.. And he's dead right, count me as one that is mad at him over voting for sanctions.

[No Free Beer]

You gotta kill a few Iranians to make an omelette, eh?

Yeah, I think that is a real fair comment.

That is sarcasm for you.

[No Free Beer]

Speak for yourself, I like Rand, but he's not Ron.. And he's dead right, count me as one that is mad at him over voting for sanctions.

Who said he was Ron? I know I didn't.

[jcarcinogen]

I wish he would have pointed out to that group that Interventionism = Big Government = Corporate Welfare. They seemed to want to ask him a lot of questions and were interested.

[Esoteric]

Rand is IDENTICAL to his dad ideologically. I got that from a pretty good source. He's playing the game perfectly.

[No Free Beer]

Rand is IDENTICAL to his dad ideologically. I got that from a pretty good source. He's playing the game perfectly.

thank you!!!!

Sometimes I wonder on here...

[kylejack]

Rand is IDENTICAL to his dad ideologically. I got that from a pretty good source. He's playing the game perfectly.
Rand voted to sanction Iran and Ron never would. I got that from a pretty good source (the Senate Roll Call).

[Esoteric]

Rand voted to sanction Iran and Ron never would. I got that from a pretty good source (the Senate Roll Call).

He's playing the game. He's identical ideologically. No, he doesn't play the game like Ron played the game, but he doesn't have to.

[kylejack]

He's playing the game. He's identical ideologically. No, he doesn't play the game like Ron played the game. He doesn't have to.
What game? This is real life. These are real people that are going to die because of this vote. Rand can play whatever rhetorical games he wants, but when he votes to sanction another nation he is no longer playing games, he is complicit in oppressing people.

[Fermli]

Frank Luntz asking Rand where he disagrees with his dad reminded me of the time when Gary Johnson got into his 2nd debate and one of the only questions he got was "why are you better than Ron Paul?" lol media.

Frank Luntz should have asked that POS "conservative" who endorsed Romney about where he disagrees with him.

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

What game? This is real life. These are real people that are going to die because of this vote. Rand can play whatever rhetorical games he wants, but when he votes to sanction another nation he is no longer playing games, he is complicit in oppressing people.

This.

Treating politics and the whole system like "some game" is what has gotten us to where we are today.

[WD-NY]

The last time Rand was on with Luntz, he got very favorable reactions with his little meter.

He actually got "the highest favorable rating ever" according the Luntz. lol

[No Free Beer]

FALSE.
Ron Paul

If you believe that, you need to get a hold of yourself.

[No Free Beer]

What game? This is real life. These are real people that are going to die because of this vote. Rand can play whatever rhetorical games he wants, but when he votes to sanction another nation he is no longer playing games, he is complicit in oppressing people.

Could it be that Rand just disagrees with you?

OH, NO! We can't have that here! Disagreements can never be allowed.

I, for one, do not agree with Rand on the sanctions. But disagreements are going to happen.

[gerryb]

What game? This is real life. These are real people that are going to die because of this vote. Rand can play whatever rhetorical games he wants, but when he votes to sanction another nation he is no longer playing games, he is complicit in oppressing people.

How many votes did it pass by?

IF it means President Paul in 2016, I'm all for it.

[No Free Beer]

How many votes did it pass by?

IF it means President Paul in 2016, I'm all for it.

Exactly.

It would have been 99-1.

There it is! Rand would have stopped it!

[kylejack]

Could it be that Rand just disagrees with you?

OH, NO! We can't have that here! Disagreements can never be allowed.

I, for one, do not agree with Rand on the sanctions. But disagreements are going to happen.
Disagreement is fine. "I" is a good word. You should use that one instead of "we". Some of "we" do get mad at Rand, and don't love him.

[kylejack]

How many votes did it pass by?

IF it means President Paul in 2016, I'm all for it.
Well, I suppose you would have to measure how many voters and donors he gains against how many he loses, because I'm never going to donate a dime to him.

[No Free Beer]

Disagreement is fine. "I" is a good word. You should use that one instead of "we". Some of "we" do get mad at Rand, and don't love him.

I was having a little fun.

Sorry, I didn't know there was so much anger in here.

I am done with this thread.

Some of your are incredibly stubborn, sorry to say that.

I believe that morals are right and you should always try to do the right thing.

But what good is it, in this case, for Rand to be the only one to vote against sanctions? Then, when he decides to run in 2016, the GOP hold his feet to the fire, when he could have just voted for it, then change things when he is in the White House.

[kylejack]

But what good is it, in this case, for Rand to be the only one to vote against sanctions?
Dr. No could explain. You have to stand up for what's right, even if you're standing alone.

At the very least Rand should have abstained from the vote, not vote Yes.

[klamath]

All I can say is I am thrilled the nutjob RP supporters hate Rand. He might actually win because he isn't being misrepresented by their cracked opinions that they claim are Ron's. and sold as Ron's. Yippee I am actually starting to get some hope for Rand.

[jcarcinogen]

I used to not like Rand but I am starting to warm up to him. He will never be a Ron especially on monetary policy and sheer integrity. These forums do get schismed when people try to say Rand is a little Ron because he isn't so you should keep in mind these are Ron Paul Forums and we are focusing on this election.

[Bergie Bergeron]

TUUUUUBE.

[Cinderella]

16 pages...where is the tube?

[jcarcinogen]

Its going to repeat on Fox News soon.

[Esoteric]

Its going to repeat on Fox News soon.

PLEASE capture the tube, someone!

[ShaneEnochs]

I tried watching the stream but it was terrible.

[Nathan Hale]

tubez????

[jcarcinogen]

tubez????

Its on now http://nowwatchtvlive.com/2011/07/foxnews-live-streaming-breaking-news-latest-news-current-news/

[ONUV]

Rand can articulate the message better. The future is bright. Kudos to Ron for raising him right.

[Liberty Shark]

Could it be that Rand just disagrees with you?

OH, NO! We can't have that here! Disagreements can never be allowed.

I, for one, do not agree with Rand on the sanctions. But disagreements are going to happen.

I frequently talk with several friends of mine who also consider themselves to be libertarians, and we often debate the issues. I'd say that a little less than half of them are of the "beltway" or "liberaltarian" type, meaning as most of us here know to be the Reason magazine type (without getting into stereotypes). We disagree on many issues including abortion, the gold standard, and the concept of states' rights. In my opinion, this is a pretty good example of the "paleolibertarian" vs. "liberaltarian" split often talked about. And in the future assuming that Rand Paul runs, and probably Gary Johnson runs also, I would vote for Rand over Gary, without a doubt.
While I disagree with Rand on the Iran sanctions, I find that to be less of an issue with me than abortion. I am "pro-life" and think that in terms of libertarianism this is the correct position, I completely disagree with people who consider this to be an issue of a "parasite" in the woman's body - I think its absolutely absurd. In addition to this, I see no path for the "liberaltarians" to achieve any kind of success in electoral politics, on the national level. The reason why I feel this is an important issue is because I believe that this country has become so messed up that many people, especially average voters, pay little serious attention to the local and in-state-level races, and focus almost entirely on state-wide and national races. If the goal is to advance the libertarian message, and the majority of the average people focus on state-wide and national politics, then you need a candidate capable of having electoral success on these levels.
So, while I respect their opinions and respectfully disagree, personally I find it absolutely absurd that some people here seem to be implying they would not vote for Rand Paul in a potential future presidential race. While I disagree with him on some issues, or methods/process, I think he may actually have the best chance of really changing people's opinions, at least among conservatives and republicans in general on the most important issues. I believe the republican party is the vehicle to use to advance this message, and am skeptical of the democrat and liberal outreach strategy, as they seem to be hardcore socialists above all else. In addition to this, he actually has an extremely good chance of winning the nomination in the future, and if he does he can essentially kick the neocons out of positions of power and clean out the whole party on the national level. This is an opportunity that cannot be allowed to be botched or messed up. You have all seen how good of a communicator he is, and I think its absurd to let this opportunity be wasted over a few disagreements, but I wouldn't put it past the "liberaltarians" to try to screw this up. At some point you have to realize that in terms of electoral politics, if you can get 75% of what you want, and the 25% you don't get is minor stuff in the grand scheme of things, you got to think in terms of reality. Personally, I'm just as concerned (if not more) about the millions of deaths via abortions in this country than I am about some people who might be negatively effected by sanctions in Iran. I think both are horrible, but if I was forced to make a choice that's my answer. Just my opinion.

[anaconda]

Huntsmans wife just said that their daughters have been the secret weapons of the campaign

That's more information than I needed. Are there photos?

[Cyberbrain]

Like a few said, Rand plays the "game" more than Ron and that's exactly what makes me so sick of politicians. Ron Paul doesn't even exactly share my ideology (John Locke, Adam Smith flavor of liberalism) but the fact that he is similar enough and votes on beliefs, not what will help him get reelected, even if he's the only one is what we desperately need more of. Doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Rand, but I'm not sure I'd ever be as passionate about him.

[Jtorsella]

Like a few said, Rand plays the "game" more than Ron and that's exactly what makes me so sick of politicians. Ron Paul doesn't even exactly share my ideology (John Locke, Adam Smith flavor of liberalism) but the fact that he is similar enough and votes on beliefs, not what will help him get reelected, even if he's the only one is what we desperately need more of. Doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Rand, but I'm not sure I'd ever be as passionate about him.
I don't know. I think that I'd get pretty excited if a Paul came close to winning the WH.

[Cyberbrain]

I don't know. I think that I'd get pretty excited if a Paul came close to winning the WH.

I'd still be out pushing signs around for Rand, raising money =). Neocons <<<<<<<<<< Rand Paul < Ron Paul

[nbruno322]

tubeee

[Sola_Fide]

It was good guys. Rand is a natural...and he has got the cred to back it up (and the people realize it).

[jersdream]

Why is this still in media spin?

[speciallyblend]

I'd still be out pushing signs around for Rand, raising money =). Neocons <<<<<<<<<< Rand Paul < Ron Paul

Ron Paul 2012

[kylejack]

So, while I respect their opinions and respectfully disagree, personally I find it absolutely absurd that some people here seem to be implying they would not vote for Rand Paul in a potential future presidential race.
I didn't say I wouldn't vote for him. I'm always willing to vote for a candidate that is less bad than the other. I said I'm not going to give him any of my hard-earned money.

[Cinderella]

where is the tube of this?

[KingNothing]

Rand doesn't play the game. Rand is an ornery, playful guy who has confidence in his views and the conviction to stand by them. Look at the smirk on his face when he's "politicking" -- he knows it's horsecrap, and he knows that his audience knows its horsecrap. That is EXACTLY how a politician should be. It's making a mockery of the superficial tripe that others spew... and it's what Ron has done his entire life.

The two are much more similar than the Rand detractors would like to admit. IMO, the only difference is that Ron wanted to move the needle on foreign policy so he's taken a much more vocal and belligerent stance against neo-conservatism.

[No Free Beer]

I frequently talk with several friends of mine who also consider themselves to be libertarians, and we often debate the issues. I'd say that a little less than half of them are of the "beltway" or "liberaltarian" type, meaning as most of us here know to be the Reason magazine type (without getting into stereotypes). We disagree on many issues including abortion, the gold standard, and the concept of states' rights. In my opinion, this is a pretty good example of the "paleolibertarian" vs. "liberaltarian" split often talked about. And in the future assuming that Rand Paul runs, and probably Gary Johnson runs also, I would vote for Rand over Gary, without a doubt.
While I disagree with Rand on the Iran sanctions, I find that to be less of an issue with me than abortion. I am "pro-life" and think that in terms of libertarianism this is the correct position, I completely disagree with people who consider this to be an issue of a "parasite" in the woman's body - I think its absolutely absurd. In addition to this, I see no path for the "liberaltarians" to achieve any kind of success in electoral politics, on the national level. The reason why I feel this is an important issue is because I believe that this country has become so messed up that many people, especially average voters, pay little serious attention to the local and in-state-level races, and focus almost entirely on state-wide and national races. If the goal is to advance the libertarian message, and the majority of the average people focus on state-wide and national politics, then you need a candidate capable of having electoral success on these levels.
So, while I respect their opinions and respectfully disagree, personally I find it absolutely absurd that some people here seem to be implying they would not vote for Rand Paul in a potential future presidential race. While I disagree with him on some issues, or methods/process, I think he may actually have the best chance of really changing people's opinions, at least among conservatives and republicans in general on the most important issues. I believe the republican party is the vehicle to use to advance this message, and am skeptical of the democrat and liberal outreach strategy, as they seem to be hardcore socialists above all else. In addition to this, he actually has an extremely good chance of winning the nomination in the future, and if he does he can essentially kick the neocons out of positions of power and clean out the whole party on the national level. This is an opportunity that cannot be allowed to be botched or messed up. You have all seen how good of a communicator he is, and I think its absurd to let this opportunity be wasted over a few disagreements, but I wouldn't put it past the "liberaltarians" to try to screw this up. At some point you have to realize that in terms of electoral politics, if you can get 75% of what you want, and the 25% you don't get is minor stuff in the grand scheme of things, you got to think in terms of reality. Personally, I'm just as concerned (if not more) about the millions of deaths via abortions in this country than I am about some people who might be negatively effected by sanctions in Iran. I think both are horrible, but if I was forced to make a choice that's my answer. Just my opinion.

My favorite line from you was the following:


Personally, I'm just as concerned (if not more) about the millions of deaths via abortions in this country than I am about some people who might be negatively effected by sanctions in Iran. I think both are horrible, but if I was forced to make a choice that's my answer.

You are exactly right. Think about it like this, if Rand were the only one to vote "no", then it would have been 99-1. Morally, it would have been the right thing to do. Ron would have done it and that is why we love Ron. But you must understand, in order to have a real chance, you must play a long for a little bit. So, in the grand scheme of things, his one "yes" on this vote wouldn't have mattered. Now, someone on the forums made a good point by saying "he should have just not voted on it."

But the point is to not gain attention. Again, what good is it for Rand to look more and more like Ron on foreign policy (just perception) and run for the White House in 2016? Look what is happening to Ron right now. The only thing, THEY ONLY THING holding people up is their ignorance on foreign policy. So, why would Rand want to suffer the same consequences and not be given the chance to really change things? Rand can get to the White House and actually bring our troops home and force the hand of the GOP, rather than allowing it to be the other way around.

This is what I meant by stubbornness, it seems a lot of people on here get too caught up on certain things, things that are just plainly unrealistic. For all of you that always point to our Founding Fathers as examples, they weren't perfect either. They made concessions to get things moving. They realized that patience is a virtue. So a lot of people on these forums, in my opinion, need to get a hold of themselves. Nothing is going to be perfect. No one is ever going to be like Ron. Ron is the idea. Rand is the product. And if you don't think Ron knows that, than it is on you.

[Eric21ND]

Got a tube yet?

[jct74]

tube


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lqojhMKv-8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lqojhMKv-8

[Brett85]

Oh no Rand just lost RPF forever.

Yep, since Rand only agrees with Ron on 99% of the issues, a large number of Ron Paul supporters can't support him. It's all or nothing.

[Eric21ND]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lqojhMKv-8

[blazeKing]

He's gonna be President some day :)

[zHorns]

I thought he did a great job!

I think some of you need to give him a break.

[Student Of Paulism]

He's gonna be President some day :)

Yea, i have come to really enjoy listen to ran speak, he is very skilled in that area, for sure. How about FOX being fair to Ron lately too the last couple of weeks? I mean, yea, by no means am i saying they are saints lol, but fuck, they have been saints when you compare them to CNN lately. CNN has just been brutal.

[Sola_Fide]

I said I'm not going to give him any of my hard-earned money.

Pfffft. Whatever. You know you will.

[kylejack]

Not a chance in hell.

[LiveForHonortune]

Why are the people so stupid about understanding Paul's foreign policy?

[kylejack]

Why are the people so stupid about understanding Paul's foreign policy?
Many years of propaganda and being taught that the United States is the benevolent father figure trying to raise the world to be good and just.

[otherone]

Cold War Fear left over.

[KingNothing]

Why are the people so stupid about understanding Paul's foreign policy?

What luck for leaders that men do not think. It's why they blindly accepted, demanded even, the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq, on Drugs, on Terror, on Poverty. People hear rhetoric based on fear and respond. Leaders take advantage of it. What a shame.

[Eric21ND]

That's the average brainless American on display right there.

[otherone]

What luck for leaders that men do not think. It's why they blindly accepted, demanded even, the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq, on Drugs, on Terror, on Poverty. People hear rhetoric based on fear and respond. Leaders take advantage of it. What a shame.

Don't forget Michele's War on Fat Kids.

[NoPants]

Glad I got to see the video. I thought he had a strong finish with separation of powers and last time united as a nation and declared war. It makes the point in an understandable way and relieves some of the unwarranted fear of Paul's foreign policy we so often lose votes over.

[SilentBull]

Rand would be crushing everyone right now if he were running.

[Varin]

Rand would be crushing everyone right now if he were running.

This

[tremendoustie]

I seriously don't get/understand why people on here get angry at Rand.

It really does bother me.

Sanctions are in no way moral, or acceptable. They cause incalculable damage, and he voted for them. It's not rocket science.

The man's no Ron Paul, but he's better than most of the other jokers, I'll give you that.

[teacherone]

guess we can't say FU Frank anymore :(

[Student Of Paulism]

(your post about Rand)

+1 on that, and great insight there. Basically i feel the same way when comparing Ron and Rand.

Very true about the Founders as well, they weren't perfect and no one is, after all. Alexander Hamilton did a lot of shady crap, hell, you can even say he was sorta like the 'Newt Gingrich' of his time (ok not THAT bad lol), but he had affairs, was pro-central banking, and even tried to rig an election to stop TJ from winning. The 75% to 25% works fine for me. If you can keep that scale of liberty tipped in the + side of things, more than the - side, well what more could you want then, right?

Excellent point on the sanctions with Rand too. He knows how to play the game, in some areas, maybe a touch better than Ron. It sucked to watch all the no-hands when Frank asked about the FP issues. Yes, people are uninformed so badly and just flat out stupid in why they can't understand it (tons of factors for that, wont bother getting into it), but yet they love his economic policies. Hell, even most major neocons do. What they sadly can't seem to get, is that YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH. Our current FP and the endless warring and nation building, WILL NOT ALLOW for those economic policies to take place. It is beyond me why they cant see this. We will be 100x worse off going the route of Romney or Santorum :rolleyes:

I often question sometimes the 'what if' factor about Ron. I wonder if maybe he just 'gave a little bit' in an area or two, without going too far outside his core principle beliefs. I mean, like give the neocons 'something'. Just something that they can work with so he wouldn't be smothered by them so much. Maybe not dump foreign aid altogether, but LOWER IT quite a bit. This would at least not alienate all the pro-israel people so much. Maybe agree to stay in the UN/NATO, but to be clear that we don't take orders from them, rather than leave them completely.

Meh...i dunno, but we all know how politics work, guys. You gotta give a little bit sometimes, and in this area, you have to admit, Ron falters badly.

Jan Mickelson made a great point when i called into his show some weeks back, and i was irate about Bachmann calling herself so conservative and xtian, yet she wants to blow everyone up around the globe. I was going on about why people like her and the voters tied to her can't understand Ron's FP and how catastrophic things will become if we stay on this same path, and he made a great point about all the evangelicals in IA. He said they basically make up close to 60% of the population there, and that, yes, ISRAEL IS A HUGE DEAL TO THEM, for several profound reasons, one being the effect it has on the political landscape and marketplace, as well as eschatological reasons. He said whether we agree with that or not and that it shouldn't have any bearing at all, the fact is, IT DOES, and there reallly isn't a thing you can do about it.

[ronpaulitician]

This makes it pretty clear. The ad that is needed is one where Paul explains his view on war.

Congress ought to declare it.
The president ought to instruct the troops/generals to wage it.
Clear directives.
Win.
Come home.

[Jingles]

Wow, did I just watch Frank Luntz do a fair piece?

He must see the writing on the wall.

[robskicks]

if ron paul gave in to the establishment even a little bit, i would not support ron paul like i do.

[devil21]

Rand looked good up there, though I wish he had been a little more specific about Ron's version of foreign policy. The history lessons are great but Rand has a better ability to throw out the sound bites that Ron has trouble with. Forget the stuff about the Cuban missile crisis. Talk about bringing the troops home to defend our own borders. Talk about how much we spend on foreign policy. All of those people liked the idea of cutting domestic spending but do they realize how much we spend overseas? Appeal to their fiscal conservative nature. Mention again that GWB won in 2000 on Ron's foreign policy platform. I bet at least half of the people in that room voted for GWB's foreign policy, right? Remind them of it. Stuff like that.

Still was a good segment and Luntz was pretty decent though Ill never trust him.