Rand Paul Is Not A Neocon

[Sola_Fide]

I'm reading through The Tea Party Goes To Washington again just for fun, and as I look back on it, I am amazed at how almost this entire book is an argument against neoconservatism. Chapter 7 especially (its called A Conservative Foreign Policy) is a concise and effective critique of foreign interventionism.

When Rand talks about the first time he spoke to President Obama, he says, "I told him that I was a Republican who wished to end our two wars in a safe and expeditious fashion and that we might find common ground there."

Chapter 7 is a devastating critique of neoconservatism. There are too many good quotes to type out, but suffice it to say, the entire chapter reads like a Ron Paul speech. All the arguments are there (I will go out on a limb and say the arguments are BETTER than the ones I've heard and read from Ron...imo).

I wonder if the Rand-detractors have ever read this book or understood what Rand is trying to do. I think Rand is trying to teach conservatives in his own way. Sometimes he is a little less strident than Ron, but I chalk that up to Rand's style of teaching. He's not a neocon and he clearly rejects the entire philosophy of neoconservatism.

[Fozz]

lol @ anyone who thinks Rand is a neocon.

[bluesc]

Anyone claiming Rand is a neocon is delusional and I've yet to see that specific accusation thrown around here.

Criticism of Rand =/= accusing him of being a neocon.

So, did you just create an argument to defeat it, or do I spend too little time on the forums?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Anyone claiming Rand is a neocon is delusional and I've yet to see that specific accusation thrown around here.

Justinjj1.

[bluesc]

Justinjj1.

A troll. Last activity... 6 months ago. Also is permabanned.

[specsaregood]

lol @ anyone who thinks Rand is a neocon.

Yay Fozz!

[NoOneButPaul]

Rand is no Ron but he's still better than everyone else...

[John F Kennedy III]

I'm reading through The Tea Party Goes To Washington again just for fun, and as I look back on it, I am amazed at how almost this entire book is an argument against neoconservatism. Chapter 7 especially (its called A Conservative Foreign Policy) is a concise and effective critique of foreign interventionism.

When Rand talks about the first time he spoke to President Obama, he says, "I told him that I was a Republican who wished to end our two wars in a safe and expeditious fashion and that we might find common ground there."

Chapter 7 is a devastating critique of neoconservatism. There are too many good quotes to type out, but suffice it to say, the entire chapter reads like a Ron Paul speech. All the arguments are there (I will go out on a limb and say the arguments are BETTER than the ones I've heard and read from Ron...imo).

I wonder if the Rand-detractors have ever read this book or understood what Rand is trying to do. I think Rand is trying to teach conservatives in his own way. Sometimes he is a little less strident than Ron, but I chalk that up to Rand's style of teaching. He's not a neocon and he clearly rejects the entire philosophy of neoconservatism.

I agree his detractors don't understand what he is doing. I need to buy this book by the way.

[lib3rtarian]

I will never say that Rand is a neocon. It's just that I have been spoiled silly by Ron's purity that everyone else seem like a sellout, even if it's in a minor way. I like Rand and the only thing which troubled me was his voting for sanctions against Iran. That was unnecessary and I don't know what he was thinking.

I wish more of Ron's family got into politics.

[John F Kennedy III]

lol @ anyone who thinks Rand is a neocon.

Lol this

[No Free Beer]

I love Rand.

I love Ron as an idea, Rand as a politician.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Rand is probably like me. Foreign intervention is rarely appropriate but options must be kept on the table. I would highly doubt any war being started during a Rand Paul administration.

His book is very good by the way, I highly recommend it.

[BlackTerrel]

Thanks for posting. I've been looking for my next book.

[anaconda]

Rand is super cool.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZYs4cNVKqs

[Henry Rogue]

Originally Posted by lib3rtarian

I will never say that Rand is a neocon. It's just that I have been spoiled silly by Ron's purity that everyone else seem like a sellout, even if it's in a minor way. I like Rand and the only thing which troubled me was his voting for sanctions against Iran. That was unnecessary and I don't know what he was thinking.

Originaly Posted by GeorgiaAvenger


Rand is probably like me. Foreign intervention is rarely appropriate but options must be kept on the table. I would highly doubt any war being started during a Rand Paul administration.

His book is very good by the way, I highly recommend it.
I like Rand Paul. I believe he is Liberty Legitimate, however sanctions lead to war, war leads to loss of Liberty. Ron Paul taught me that. I will read the book, thanks.

[Galileo Galilei]

I think Ron and Rand believe the same thing, but Ron is more of an educational prophet, while Rand uses a more highly sophisticated & aggressive political strategy that is geared more for winning elections.

[LibertyEagle]

Rand is not a neocon. Anyone who thinks he is is whacked.

[Galileo Galilei]

"He [Ron Paul] is ready, like Moses, to withdraw from the battleground having never entered the Promised Land, entrusting that task to his Joshua, his son [Rand Paul]."

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-permanent-campaign/103116/ron-paul-libertarian-election-2012-supporters-delegates

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Rand isn't but Mike Lee is as evidenced by his endorsement of Romney. So is Jim DeMint.

My concern with Rand is that he will sell out once his father retires after the campaign is over and he won't have as much influence over him. Rand seems not to be as solid in his convictions as his dad. He wants to remain on good terms with the GOP establishment. Remember, he launched some ads in his 2010 campaign where he criticized his opponent for not being "tough enough" on Iran and said he did not want to close Gitmo. I know he was just playing politics to get the support of the hicks in KY, but still. I have some doubts about him.

[LibertyEagle]

Rand isn't but Mike Lee is as evidenced by his endorsement of Romney. So is Jim DeMint.

No, they most certainly are not.

Seriously, people need to stop calling everyone who is not lockstep with Ron Paul a frickin' neocon. It makes the word absolutely meaningless.

Please go read what a neoconservative really is and where they originated.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

Romney is a Rockefeller-Republican. They were the big government folks in the Republican Party, long before the neocons ever thought of becoming Republicans and taking over the conservative movement.

Welcome to the forums. :)

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nbT1tTefzs&feature=channel&list=UL

[LibertyEagle]

Your point is?

[Karsten]

I'm reading through The Tea Party Goes To Washington again just for fun, and as I look back on it, I am amazed at how almost this entire book is an argument against neoconservatism. Chapter 7 especially (its called A Conservative Foreign Policy) is a concise and effective critique of foreign interventionism.


Rand is not a neo-con. However, you should also know that almost no one (not even Ron) writes his own books in politics.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand is not a neo-con. However, you should also know that almost no one (not even Ron) writes his own books in politics.

Right, but if it bears my name, what I've put into the public record in my book is the same as if I said it alone. I will be held by my words in my book.

[Karsten]

I've heard that Thomas Woods was the ghostwriter of ron's recent books (end the fed, the revolution, liberty defined), and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he also wrote rand's book. the writing style is VERY similar, i've noticed, to each other, and to tom's known works.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I've heard that Thomas Woods was the ghostwriter of ron's recent books (end the fed, the revolution, liberty defined), and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he also wrote rand's book. the writing style is VERY similar, i've noticed, to each other, and to tom's known works.

Jack Hunter wrote Rand's book

[ProIndividual]

Rand is no Ron but he's still better than everyone else...

I like Judge Nap better, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Doug Casey, Bob Murphy...and about a half dozen other guys and gals.

Rand isn't a neocon...he's more neocon than Ron and less libertarian than everyone I just named. An inch closer to neocon than Ron is an inch too far and a mile from where I'm willing to put my vote.

Sanctions are an act of war. Rand was for sanctions on Iran...that's one of a dozen things that are too much for me.

[ssjevot]

He just keeps getting worse over time as people on here try to convince me I should support him in 2016. The latest is him saying he didn't think Obama's stance on gay marriage could get any gayer. Not only does he come across as some petty juvenile, it flies in the faces of a lot of the young people that are the heart of the Ron Paul movement and overwhelmingly support gay marriage. By 2016 a lot of the old social conservatives will be dead, and he'll come across as another Santorum at this rate.

[Sola_Fide]

He just keeps tingeing worse over time as people on here try to convince me I should support him in 2016. The latest is him saying he didn't think Obama's stance on gay marriage could get any gayer. Not only does he come across as some petty juvenile, it flies in the faces of a lot of the young people that are the heart of the Ron Paul movement and overwhelmingly support gay marriage. By 2016 a lot of the old social conservatives will be dead, and he'll come across as another Santorum at this rate.

Wow. Rand will be a Santorum in 2016? Now I've heard it all...

[Karsten]

He may not be a neo-con, but if today is any indication, he's a big time so-con
http://youtu.be/t9tlQXbeL3s

[Sola_Fide]

He may not be a neo-con, but if today is any indication, he's a big time so-con
http://youtu.be/t9tlQXbeL3s

Ron Paul is a social conservative.

[RonRocks]

No, they most certainly are not.

Seriously, people need to stop calling everyone who is not lockstep with Ron Paul a frickin' neocon. It makes the word absolutely meaningless.

Please go read what a neoconservative really is and where they originated.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

Romney is a Rockefeller-Republican. They were the big government folks in the Republican Party, long before the neocons ever thought of becoming Republicans and taking over the conservative movement.

Welcome to the forums. :)

Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio are CERTIFIED Neo-Cons, the rest of the establishment GOP like McCain and DeMint are definitely on the same page as well, you know how I'm so sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Both Romney and Rubio gave speeches touting 'The new American century' which is a bird call to all Neo-Cons and AIPAC saying 'Hey, this birdie is on your side'

[Cowlesy]

Ron Paul is a social conservative.

He has social conservative values, but I haven't seen him try and legislate them. He put a hold on a bill to ban bath salts (used as an illicit drug), and has had people whose kids have died using them say he has blood on his hands.

Rand is anti-patriot-act, anti-NDAA --- yeah, he's a real authoritarian so-con.

:rolleyes:

[RonPaulFanInGA]

He has social conservative values, but I haven't seen him try and legislate them.

Ron Paul has introduced the Sanctity of Life Act four different times, most recently in 2011. It's a bill to define life as beginning at conception at the federal level.

[jmdrake]

He just keeps tingeing worse over time as people on here try to convince me I should support him in 2016. The latest is him saying he didn't think Obama's stance on gay marriage could get any gayer. Not only does he come across as some petty juvenile, it flies in the faces of a lot of the young people that are the heart of the Ron Paul movement and overwhelmingly support gay marriage. By 2016 a lot of the old social conservatives will be dead, and he'll come across as another Santorum at this rate.

I don't know how many young people that support Ron Paul support gay marriage, but Ron Paul is overwhelmingly against gay marriage, at least from the standpoint of it being imposed as a "right". He voted for DOMA, seeks to have the issue taken away from the Supreme Court, and said he'd do the same thing at the state level if he was in the Texas legislature. In Ron Paul's world the only way forward for gay marriage is through the state legislature or popular referendum. Or better yet, he would simply disentangle marriage from the federal government by restructuring the tax code (as in no income tax), decoupling health insurance from employment, and allowing young people to "opt out" of Social Security and instead go to individual retirement accounts. I'm fairly certain that Ron and Rand's practical positions on gay marriage (as in the policies they would enact) are 100% in sync.

[jmdrake]

He has social conservative values, but I haven't seen him try and legislate them. He put a hold on a bill to ban bath salts (used as an illicit drug), and has had people whose kids have died using them say he has blood on his hands.

Rand is anti-patriot-act, anti-NDAA --- yeah, he's a real authoritarian so-con.

:rolleyes:


Ron Paul has introduced the Sanctity of Life Act four different times, most recently in 2011. It's a bill to define life as beginning at conception at the federal level.

The Sanctity of Life and We The People Acts are Ron's attempts to get the federal government out of the issues of abortion and gay marriage and let the states handle it. To be honest, the Sanctity of Life Act is what the pro live movement aspired to before the "Let's invade Canada to stop abortion" personhood movement took over. I really think they don't want the abortion issue resolved because then their fundraising would dry up.

[Brett85]

Maybe I'll have to read Rand's book to see what he actually says about his foreign policy views.

[seyferjm]

Rand is still not a neo-con, but he needs to be careful how far he goes with his foreign policy views and who he decides to associate with.

[surf]

I hate to say it, but, to copy from the LRC Blog:
'We'll absolutely we stand with Israel,' [Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY]] said in an interview with Breitbart News, 'but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.'"

So very sad. And how far the nut fell from the tree.

he toed the party line in grilling Hillary rather than asking what the hell we're doing there or whether or not this was a CIA operation.

he's our guy in the Senate and he's sucking Israel's balls like his fellow bumblef#cks. how can anyone not be concerned about his neocon stances he's taking is beyond me.

[Matt Collins]

Did any of you also happen to notice Rand's -




-Anti-war grilling of Kerry?

-Bringing up unconstitutional war in Libya?

-Bringing up foreign aid while in Israel?

-Being on TV against drone use this week?

-Getting FOX to cover, ad naseum, not selling arms to Egypt from OUR point of views?

-Pushing foreign aid cuts to Pakistan again to Kerry?

-Being the sole vote against Iranian containment language?


Just saying, put in context and perspective, his recent comments about Israel are not as big of a deal as everyone's making them out to be.

[Sola_Fide]

Did any of you also happen to notice Rand's -




-Anti-war grilling of Kerry?

-Bringing up unconstitutional war in Libya?

-Bringing up foreign aid while in Israel?

-Being on TV against drone use this week?

-Getting FOX to cover, ad naseum, not selling arms to Egypt from OUR point of views?

-Pushing foreign aid cuts to Pakistan again to Kerry?

-Being the sole vote against Iranian containment language?


Just saying, put in context and perspective, his recent comments about Israel are not as big of a deal as everyone's making them out to be.

You know Matt, I am a huge Rand supporter, and I still don't think he is a neocon...but he is getting harder and harder to defend.

[K466]

Did any of you also happen to notice Rand's -




-Anti-war grilling of Kerry?

-Bringing up unconstitutional war in Libya?

-Bringing up foreign aid while in Israel?

-Being on TV against drone use this week?

-Getting FOX to cover, ad naseum, not selling arms to Egypt from OUR point of views?

-Pushing foreign aid cuts to Pakistan again to Kerry?

-Being the sole vote against Iranian containment language?


Just saying, put in context and perspective, his recent comments about Israel are not as big of a deal as everyone's making them out to be.

Yep, but he has undeniably moved closer to neocon positions. Isn't that cause for concern?

[Matt Collins]

Yep, but he has undeniably moved closer to neocon positions. Isn't that cause for concern?Please understand the difference between rhetoric and policy.

[fj45lvr]

for anyone who cares about liberty for man it is UNFATHOMABLE to say that a attack on Israel is an attack on the U.S. unless you have a seriously flawed or corrupt way of seeing things.

Why is a racist police state involved in denying rights to people something that any liberty minded person would want to protect in any way?? ridiculous

[Rudeman]

Yep, but he has undeniably moved closer to neocon positions. Isn't that cause for concern?

Maybe his rhetoric, but how many times here have we said that rhetoric doesn't matter only votes do. Now all of a sudden rhetoric is important? Think about it, if he went neocon why would he even think about proposing to cut aid to Israel (in Israel no less)?

If you want to see what Rand is accomplishing then go visit one of the conservative websites on this and read through the comment sections. For a lot of us Ron was maybe in the 95-100% approval range, where as Rand may be more in the 85-100% approval range but the difference is Rand has broadened his appeal. Which is absolutely needed if we hope to win.

[kathy88]

It's really nice to see long time members posting more around here.

[surf]

you know, I was really hoping that I wouldn't see Rand on the daily show and Colbert report lumped in pictures and sound bites with McWar and Graham and Rubio and McConnell and...

Ron was never lumped with anyone (and respected even when pictured as a hobbit master). I sold Ron to my (mainly democrat) peers, I'm gonna have a very tough time (they want peace) selling Rand if he keeps offering to swallow what the Israelis keep... well, you know.

hah, i'm forum-older than all you guys.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Maybe his rhetoric, but how many times here have we said that rhetoric doesn't matter only votes do. Now all of a sudden rhetoric is important? Think about it, if he went neocon why would he even think about proposing to cut aid to Israel (in Israel no less)?

If you want to see what Rand is accomplishing then go visit one of the conservative websites on this and read through the comment sections. For a lot of us Ron was maybe in the 95-100% approval range, where as Rand may be more in the 85-100% approval range but the difference is Rand has broadened his appeal. Which is absolutely needed if we hope to win.

The "rhetoric doesn't matter, votes do" mantra has been completely removed from its original context. The original context was that you shouldn't listen to conservatives or Republicans who sound like libertarians; they always do that when out of power to sucker actual limited government types into supporting them. With libertarians, this mantra almost can be flipped on its head - education is the prime goal for libertarianism, as a libertarian society is not possible until a large number of people have either been converted or have been raised to view a free society as virtuous. Obviously, voting record is still important in this context (you can't have a total statist using libertarian rhetoric, otherwise you're right back in the "republican who suckers libertarians"), but rhetoric is equally if not more important. If we aren't even going to defend our ideals and ultimate goals (or worse, disavow them), how seriously are non-libertarians going to take them?

Which brings me to my next point. If Rand snookers GOP voters into voting for him (assuming he hasn't shifted any ideological positions, and assuming he's simply lying to get ahead), what will he be able to do? He won't have a libertarian or even limited government conservative Congress. The voting populace won't have rejected Social Security, Medicare, foreign bases overseas, drone strikes overseas, income taxation, etc. So even if he gets into the White House undercover and decides to disrobe his GOP mask, what's he going to do? Shut down the Post Office? Yeah, okay. How? Send in the military and shoot the people striking and refusing to leave? You know the media will show a bunch of crying workers complaining about how they won't be able to feed their children. God forbid any sort of skirmish breaks out, headlines of "THIS IS LIBERTARIANISM" will be broadcast from here to kingdom come. This is a criticism people had of Ron, and Ron was and is far more rhetorically and ideologically libertarian than Rand.

Best case, Rand will win the presidency and be able to do very little, most of it coming from executive order. Worst case, Rand will associate all of his pandering with libertarianism, or his (potentially compromised) actions as president will be associated with libertarianism, and libertarianism will be a dead letter for generations.

[LibertyEagle]

I haven't heard Rand claiming to be a libertarian.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I haven't heard Rand claiming to be a libertarian.

Whenever he goes on Glenn Beck's show and Beck asks him about it, or when Rand was going on morning talk shows saying that the GOP needs to be more libertarian in order to win, or whenever a political outlet describes Rand as the "libertarian Senator from Kentucky," or "the GOP Senator from Kentucky who holds libertarian values," what do you think the listener/reader hears/sees? Mind you, some of that was Rand's own doing.

[LibertyEagle]

Whenever he goes on Glenn Beck's show and Beck asks him about it, or when Rand was going on morning talk shows saying that the GOP needs to be more libertarian in order to win, or whenever a political outlet describes Rand as the "libertarian Senator from Kentucky," or "the GOP Senator from Kentucky who holds libertarian values," what do you think the listener/reader hears/sees? Mind you, some of that was Rand's own doing.

Fair enough. Thing is, without Rand where he is, no one would even be mentioning the word libertarian.

[Rudeman]

Rand is libertarian leaning but he isn't as libertarian as Ron Paul. If Rand is elected will he be able to bring sweeping reforms that every libertarian would love, most likely not. For that we need to continue to do our part in electing more libertarian/libertarian friendly conservatives in office.

The 3 biggest things Rand could do is:
1. Get the budget under control.
2. Limit foreign adventurism (who knows if Obama gets us involved in another war).
3. Eliminate awful EOs.

He would also have the bully pulpit of the presidency to push civil liberties, end the war on drugs and the like.

[Rudeman]

you know, I was really hoping that I wouldn't see Rand on the daily show and Colbert report lumped in pictures and sound bites with McWar and Graham and Rubio and McConnell and...

Ron was never lumped with anyone (and respected even when pictured as a hobbit master). I sold Ron to my (mainly democrat) peers, I'm gonna have a very tough time (they want peace) selling Rand if he keeps offering to swallow what the Israelis keep... well, you know.

hah, i'm forum-older than all you guys.

How many Democrats are going to even vote for a Republican when the Democrats will also be having primaries? At least in 2012 it was a forgone conclusion that Obama would be the Dem nominee and even then a lot of them didn't want to switch parties. The problem with recruiting Dems is they aren't that reliable when it comes voting time.

Especially since there will likely be some Kucinich type on the Dem side, but excluding that if you think about it Rand will more than likely be the most peaceful candidate from the 2 parties even with the Israel comments.

[compromise]

I haven't heard Rand claiming to be a libertarian.
He calls himself a libertarian in the book this topic is about, although it was mostly ghostwritten by Jack Hunter.

Rand also personally calls himself one in many interviews, such as this one:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/04/im-very-serious-about-running-ron-pauls-son-says/

[Brett85]

Rand is libertarian leaning but he isn't as libertarian as Ron Paul. If Rand is elected will he be able to bring sweeping reforms that every libertarian would love, most likely not. For that we need to continue to do our part in electing more libertarian/libertarian friendly conservatives in office.

The 3 biggest things Rand could do is:
1. Get the budget under control.
2. Limit foreign adventurism (who knows if Obama gets us involved in another war).
3. Eliminate awful EOs.

He would also have the bully pulpit of the presidency to push civil liberties, end the war on drugs and the like.

Yeah, he could repeal every single one of Obama's executive orders, and even every one of Bush's executive orders and every President throughout history. He would at least have a lot of power over that.

[Matt Collins]

Fair enough. Thing is, without Rand where he is, no one would even be mentioning the word libertarian.Ironically, if people had been mentioned the word "libertarian" Rand wouldn't have gotten elected.

[Matt Collins]

The 3 biggest things Rand could do is:
1. Get the budget under control.
2. Limit foreign adventurism (who knows if Obama gets us involved in another war).
3. Eliminate awful EOs.

He would also have the bully pulpit of the presidency to push civil liberties, end the war on drugs and the like.
And you forget, lots of like-minded people will get top-down help for their local, state, and even Congressional elections. Rand will inspire an entire generation of people to become more libertarian and run for office just like his dad did, except Rand's organization will be bigger, stronger, and have more resources.

[Matt Collins]

He calls himself a libertarian in the book this topic is about, although it was mostly ghostwritten by Jack Hunter.

Rand also personally calls himself one in many interviews, such as this one:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/04/im-very-serious-about-running-ron-pauls-son-says/That's fascinating because during the Campaign he always called himself an independent Republican or a Constitutional conservative

[kathy88]

That's fascinating because during the Campaign he always called himself an independent Republican or a Constitutional conservative

So you're basically calling compromise a liar?

[fj45lvr]

Ran is not a libertarian, no libertarian would ever say that they would expect the U.S. gov. to pay for or fight to protect the state of israel...pretty clear litmus test on where people stand as far as non-aggression principle and private property. Ron at least mentioned the "open air prison"....

[Sola_Fide]

And you forget, lots of like-minded people will get top-down help for their local, state, and even Congressional elections. Rand will inspire an entire generation of people to become more libertarian and run for office just like his dad did, except Rand's organization will be bigger, stronger, and have more resources.


Matt, I 1000% agree with you on this. In fact, we've seen this first hand in Kentucky. Rand has changed what it means to be a conservative in the state of Kentucky. There would be no Thomas Massie without Rand Paul. There is no doubt in mind that a Rand presidency would foster a tidal wave of new constitution-minded candidates across the country.

[Rudeman]

Anyone can say they're a libertarian or try and define what a libertarian actually is. The other day I saw a video saying libertarians were the original neocons, as in neoconfederates.