Laura Ingraham: Neoconservative view has clearly hurt the GOP (Rand Paul interview 3/8/13)

[jct74]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QM3fiScfvg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QM3fiScfvg

[supermario21]

Laura has really come around. Pat Buchanan has set her straight I think, to go along with the Pauls.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why does Laura care about young voters (she mentioned this in the opening monologue)? With rare exception, the youth vote doesn't change the outcome of presidential elections. That's why politicians spend more time trying to bribe the old folks.

[thoughtomator]

Why does Laura care about young voters (she mentioned this in the opening monologue)? With rare exception, the youth vote doesn't change the outcome of presidential elections. That's why politicians spend more time trying to bribe the old folks.

If the GOP doesn't turn around the youth vote in a big way, and do it soon, it is finished as a going concern.

[TaftFan]

Why does Laura care about young voters (she mentioned this in the opening monologue)? With rare exception, the youth vote doesn't change the outcome of presidential elections. That's why politicians spend more time trying to bribe the old folks.
Young people do grow older.

[Christian Liberty]

Ugh... Don't get me started on the social security and "Entitlements" ponzi scheme. If it wasn't for the mass murder this would be my #1 issue with the status quo. Which, of course, the elderly vote keeps propped up. This is one issue where RON Paul is actually wrong. Ron Paul wants to phase them out with the money saved from foreign wars. While a reasonable, compassionate position, its also politically impossible. The elderly voters would just vote in a Democrat in four years, and nothing would change. The programs need to be brutally crushed, killed, and utterly wrecked so that they can never be created again. Immediately. Or ASAP. That, and we need immediate default on debt so we literally can't do it again.

[Quark]

Why does Laura care about young voters (she mentioned this in the opening monologue)? With rare exception, the youth vote doesn't change the outcome of presidential elections. That's why politicians spend more time trying to bribe the old folks.

Because it is foresight for the future. Elderly people will die and the young people will be the new elderly some day.

[heavenlyboy34]

Because it is foresight for the future. Elderly people will die and the young people will be the new elderly some day.
Yeah, but it's typically when people get to likely voter ages that the bribes kick in. Not only does this ensure a solid voter base, it keeps the old and young perpetually at odds instead of working together against the Regime. For the kids, they usually try using student loans and increased benis for new recruits into the military machine.

[twomp]

Ugh... Don't get me started on the social security and "Entitlements" ponzi scheme. If it wasn't for the mass murder this would be my #1 issue with the status quo. Which, of course, the elderly vote keeps propped up. This is one issue where RON Paul is actually wrong. Ron Paul wants to phase them out with the money saved from foreign wars. While a reasonable, compassionate position, its also politically impossible. The elderly voters would just vote in a Democrat in four years, and nothing would change. The programs need to be brutally crushed, killed, and utterly wrecked so that they can never be created again. Immediately. Or ASAP. That, and we need immediate default on debt so we literally can't do it again.

You say that but then there will be literally millions of people who need their high blood pressure pills/ diabetes medicine, kids with sicknesses that will be completely fked over if you do that. Although I'm sure you won't care, unless it's someone YOU know. The program needs to be phased out, or else the person who completely cuts it out won't get re-elected.

[thoughtomator]

Because it is foresight for the future. Elderly people will die and the young people will be the new elderly some day.

At the rate things are going I wouldn't be too sure on that last point. Life expectancy is already dropping, largely because the old are being kept alive by sucking the lifeblood out of the young.

[Liberty74]

I will say this.....

I had been working on many coworkers and friends during the last election to support Ron Paul. Some liked but most were so so or simply repeated the Rush Limbaugh line or Fox New pundit line, "I agree with RP on about 90% but his foreign policy scares me." Guess what people???, all these same folks are coming up to me and saying, "I LOVE LOVE LOVE Rand Paul."

While Ron has the right message, he didn't always come across to people mainly because Rush, Beck, Hannity, Fox News idiots and even Laura told the masses so i.e. crazy old man. But Rand has a different appeal for whatever reason even though the message is almost the same. My point is to have a liberty candidate nationally, it's important to have both a messenger and message that can attract the masses with talking heads behind you. Something Ron had difficulty in attaining for various reasons. I think Rand just bumped himself up nationally within the potential Republican Presidential contenders. Imagine how big the money bombs could be in 2015/2016 if we have the Ron Paul supporters, plus talking heads (at least not trashing Rand), Republican grass roots, the fake Tea Partiers lol and a good support from Independents... $10 million easily in one day or at least a 3 day weekend. :D

[supermario21]

Lol, a moneybomb during the filibuster would have been such a great idea.

[lakerssuck92]

Why does Laura care about young voters (she mentioned this in the opening monologue)? With rare exception, the youth vote doesn't change the outcome of presidential elections. That's why politicians spend more time trying to bribe the old folks.

Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because of the youth vote. IIRC, McCain and Romney were even with Obama amongst all voters 35 & older...

[Bastiat's The Law]

I will say this.....

I had been working on many coworkers and friends during the last election to support Ron Paul. Some liked but most were so so or simply repeated the Rush Limbaugh line or Fox New pundit line, "I agree with RP on about 90% but his foreign policy scares me." Guess what people???, all these same folks are coming up to me and saying, "I LOVE LOVE LOVE Rand Paul."

While Ron has the right message, he didn't always come across to people mainly because Rush, Beck, Hannity, Fox News idiots and even Laura told the masses so i.e. crazy old man. But Rand has a different appeal for whatever reason even though the message is almost the same. My point is to have a liberty candidate nationally, it's important to have both a messenger and message that can attract the masses with talking heads behind you. Something Ron had difficulty in attaining for various reasons. I think Rand just bumped himself up nationally within the potential Republican Presidential contenders. Imagine how big the money bombs could be in 2015/2016 if we have the Ron Paul supporters, plus talking heads (at least not trashing Rand), Republican grass roots, the fake Tea Partiers lol and a good support from Independents... $10 million easily in one day or at least a 3 day weekend. :D
I think $10 million would be very doable.

[mad cow]

Lol, a moneybomb during the filibuster would have been such a great idea.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?406484-RAND-PAC-2013-show-some-support-for-his-filibuster-efforts

It's not too late you know.

[FSP-Rebel]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?406484-RAND-PAC-2013-show-some-support-for-his-filibuster-efforts

It's not too late you know.
Yep, +reps are on sale right now.

[fletcher]

Mrs. "Here Comes the Peace Train" thinks the neoconservative foreign policy has hurt the GOP? She has no one to blame but herself.

[FSP-Rebel]

Mrs. "Here Comes the Peace Train" thinks the neoconservative foreign policy has hurt the GOP? She has no one to blame but herself.
Perhaps but you know how talk hosts are. They never want to admit to being wrong. That's fine, she can bow out gracefully as long as she runs cover for us and leaves John and Lindsey holding the bag.

[supermario21]

Perhaps but you know how talk hosts are. They never want to admit to being wrong. That's fine, she can bow out gracefully as long as she runs cover for us and leaves John and Lindsey holding the bag.

She just labeled McCain and Graham the War Party. Let her come around.

[jmdrake]

Yeah, but it's typically when people get to likely voter ages that the bribes kick in. Not only does this ensure a solid voter base, it keeps the old and young perpetually at odds instead of working together against the Regime. For the kids, they usually try using student loans and increased benis for new recruits into the military machine.

Okay. But what would be the motivation for a young voter who's against GOP foreign policy to become a republican as he got older instead of a democrat? Also the SS ponzi scheme might not last long enough for today's younger voters to get bribed.

[supermario21]

Senior citizens will vote Republican. They didn't buy Mediscare this year.

[heavenlyboy34]

Okay. But what would be the motivation for a young voter who's against GOP foreign policy to become a republican as he got older instead of a democrat? Also the SS ponzi scheme might not last long enough for today's younger voters to get bribed.
The best goodies OPM (Other People's Money) can buy. SS has been bankrupt for what, 30 years now? I highly doubt they'll let that kind of bribery go away. You don't touch the 3rd rail of politics if you want to be a successful politician. Nothing short of a catastrophe I can't imagine is going to keep that massive welfare machine from dying.

[Sola_Fide]

Why is Rand so reticent to engage the philosophical differences between him and McCain? I mean, gee Rand, throw us a bone here. Give us something to hang on to from this interview. Laura Ingraham tried repeatedly to get Rand on the topic and he repeatedly refused to engage. How frustrating.

[itshappening]

The best goodies OPM (Other People's Money) can buy. SS has been bankrupt for what, 30 years now? I highly doubt they'll let that kind of bribery go away. You don't touch the 3rd rail of politics if you want to be a successful politician. Nothing short of a catastrophe I can't imagine is going to keep that massive welfare machine from dying.

You don't need to abolish SS, just keep moving the age up. It needs doing anyway to match demographics but you can move it up more to make it solvent (70, 75...) then you can give everyone under 30 the ability to opt out and put the money into a private plan.

That should pretty much kill it off over 20-30 years

[itshappening]

Why is Rand so reticent to engage the philosophical differences between him and McCain? I mean, gee Rand, throw us a bone here. Give us something to hang on to from this interview. Laura Ingraham tried repeatedly to get Rand on the topic and he repeatedly refused to engage. How frustrating.

McCain was the party nominee in 2008 there's no benefit to laying into him beyond respectfully disagreeing

[dinosaur]

McCain was the party nominee in 2008 there's no benefit to laying into him beyond respectfully disagreeing

Rand skewered McCain in the Greta interview, he outed McCain for admitting support for the idea of sending American citizens to Guantanamo indefinitely with no trial.

[Sola_Fide]

McCain was the party nominee in 2008 there's no benefit to laying into him beyond respectfully disagreeing

Yeah, but what was the reason he needed to "play politics" in this exchange? Laura wanted to have a conversation about how neoconservatism has hurt the GOP. Why wouldn't Rand at least acknowledge her point?

For me, it all goes back to Rand not painting bold enough colors. Whenever Rand does paint bold colors, he has success. Whenever he doesn't, he gets a "meh" from me and many other people.

[dinosaur]

Yeah, but what was the reason he needed to "play politics" in this exchange? Laura wanted to have a conversation about how neoconservatism has hurt the GOP. Why wouldn't Rand at least acknowledge her point?

For me, it all goes back to Rand not painting bold enough colors. Whenever Rand does paint bold colors, he has success. Whenever he doesn't, he gets a "meh" from me and many other people.

Rand knows WHEN to do it for maximum effect and publicity. Had Rand said some of the things that he said, outside the context of an Obama blunder, it would have benn passed over and laughed at.

[Christian Liberty]

You don't need to abolish SS, just keep moving the age up. It needs doing anyway to match demographics but you can move it up more to make it solvent (70, 75...) then you can give everyone under 30 the ability to opt out and put the money into a private plan.

That should pretty much kill it off over 20-30 years

Yeah, if you do it that way you'll run out of money in SS. If that's your ultimate goal, go for it.


I will say this.....

I had been working on many coworkers and friends during the last election to support Ron Paul. Some liked but most were so so or simply repeated the Rush Limbaugh line or Fox New pundit line, "I agree with RP on about 90% but his foreign policy scares me." Guess what people???, all these same folks are coming up to me and saying, "I LOVE LOVE LOVE Rand Paul."

While Ron has the right message, he didn't always come across to people mainly because Rush, Beck, Hannity, Fox News idiots and even Laura told the masses so i.e. crazy old man. But Rand has a different appeal for whatever reason even though the message is almost the same. My point is to have a liberty candidate nationally, it's important to have both a messenger and message that can attract the masses with talking heads behind you. Something Ron had difficulty in attaining for various reasons. I think Rand just bumped himself up nationally within the potential Republican Presidential contenders. Imagine how big the money bombs could be in 2015/2016 if we have the Ron Paul supporters, plus talking heads (at least not trashing Rand), Republican grass roots, the fake Tea Partiers lol and a good support from Independents... $10 million easily in one day or at least a 3 day weekend. :D

Rand doesn't hold to Ron's foreign policy, or even that close. He's a moderate. Admittedly, a moderate is better than a neocon, and the majority of both parties are neocons. I'd say if you've got Ron at one extreme (Let's just call it "Good") and the neocons at the other extreme (Let's just call them "Evil") Rand is somewhere in the middle. I think Rand is probably just as far from his dad as he is from the neocons. Maybe he is a little bit closer to his dad, but I'd say that he's just in the middle. Rand wants to cut back, but not abolish, the American Empire. He's a very different man from his dad.

I don't say that as a Rand-hater. As I have said, if it came down to Rand Paul against basically anyone, or at least anyone I can imagine running on the Democratic side. Even the best democrats, guys like Dennis Kucinich and the like, who genuinely oppose the war machine, they suck on the fiscal and social issues and even on foreign policy they're really not much better than Rand anyway. They aren't neocons, of course, but they are not non-interventionists. I'd actually think more highly of my countrymen if a Rand vs Kucinich election ever actually happened, but there is absolutely no question that between the two I'd vote for Rand Paul. And while I'm willing to "Waste a vote" on the LP or CP in order to vote against neoconservatism and economic irresponsibility, if I can vote against neoconservatism and economic irresponsibility by voting Republican than I'll do that. Rand would be a huge improvement over anyone the GOP is ever actually likely to pick, and I would support that improvement. I don't demand that a candidate that I support have the correct answer on everything.

But Rand is not Ron. He doesn't have the same message. If they really had the same message, you'd be just as happy with Rand in the White House as Ron. I'd question the libertarian or even constitutionalist credentials of someone who would be just as happy in that situation. Granted, I'd be happy either way, but I'd be ten times as happy with Ron as I would with Rand. Possibly more than ten times.

Honestly, when push comes to shove, Ron would veto the budget. Therefore, he would almost certainly get a lot of what he wants. Rand would cave, compromise, and make things marginally better but I don't think he'd ever be as unwavering as his father, even on his watered down convictions when compared to Ron.

Dr. Ron Paul >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>neoconservatives and socialists
>>>>>>>>Hitler







You say that but then there will be literally millions of people who need their high blood pressure pills/ diabetes medicine, kids with sicknesses that will be completely fked over if you do that. Although I'm sure you won't care, unless it's someone YOU know. The program needs to be phased out, or else the person who completely cuts it out won't get re-elected.

I'd appreciate not making assumptions about "Caring." This is something I have a tough time with because ultimately, I'm aware that people are going to suffer if you pull the plug. People will also suffer if you don't. Its also a massive, massive form of theft. Slowly phasing it out would probably be the best way to minimize everyone's pain (Paid for by spending cuts, not tax increases, as Ron says). However, that's literally politically impossible. Immediate abolition by executive order might be.

Then again, I sure as heck am never getting elected President. If Ron Paul did maybe the Political system would be dramatically different than the real world where only big gov. neocons actually get elected President.

I don't claim to have all the answers. I definitely think the "Gradualist VS radical" debate is an in-house debate. Just because you want to do something more slowly than I do doesn't mean that you're against me. I'd tend to think that if we can agree that we eventually need to get rid of it, we want to move in the same direction. Ultimately, however, I don't think there's a fix for this suffering. Government has stolen a lot of money and government should pay for it. Why don't we make congress put all their assets into the pot to pay out to current SS recipiants? If they aren't willing to do so, why should the rest of us have to?

And since someone mentioned student loans, I'm 18 years old. If student loans help anyone, they help me. Although I suspect they just raise the prices for college anyway. I will of course take what's available, but if I had the chance to vote them out I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'm definitely not saying "Cut everything except mine!"

[mad cow]

Yeah, but what was the reason he needed to "play politics" in this exchange? Laura wanted to have a conversation about how neoconservatism has hurt the GOP. Why wouldn't Rand at least acknowledge her point?

For me, it all goes back to Rand not painting bold enough colors. Whenever Rand does paint bold colors, he has success. Whenever he doesn't, he gets a "meh" from me and many other people.

Rand proved to all and sundry a couple of days ago that he knows just how this game is played.

If he lost your vote this week by his actions,"meh",he just might have picked up one or two more.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand has my vote. He's not a libertarian, but as far as the broader "Liberty movement" goes, he's on my side. Too close to the center, but ultimately on our side of the fence. That doesn't mean I'm just going to pretend like everything's good or that he's a philosophical clone of his daddy but with a different style. The reality is that Rand is, not just in style but in substance much more moderate and "Pragmatic" than his libertarian father. I don't hate Rand. I don't dislike Rand. I like him a lot. I think that out of any options that realistically have any kind of a shot at the White House in 2016, Rand is the best of that field (I dunno if Gary Johnson actually has a chance.... I might say Gary is a bit better than Rand, but not by too big a margin). The only way I could vote for a typical GOP or Dem is to vote against the other candidate. And I refuse to do that. Rand, on the other hand, I agree with on a lot of issues. I could actually vote for him. But he is NOT the libertarian dream. He's a moderate. And I refuse to forget that just because he happened to have done something amazing two days ago that I totally give him a ton of kudos for.

When it comes down to it, I trust Rand to stick with his values, albeit to compromise a little. But Ron doesn't compromise on principle, and his principles are better than Rand's.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand proved to all and sundry a couple of days ago that he knows just how this game is played.

If he lost your vote this week by his actions,"meh",he just might have picked up one or two more.

It's not about losing votes, its about generating enthusiasm, which is the key to a grassroots victory. I thought his filibuster was epic (although he should have argued against ALL drone strikes everywhere, not just in the US), but why take this philosophical stand if you are not going to back it up by educating people about the differences between neoconservatism and freedom? Especially if the host of the show is asking you to talk about it?

[supermario21]

See, to me, Gary Johnson was probably worse than several of the other GOP primary candidates. He likes humanitarian missions, and he's pro-state sanctioned gay marriage and abortion, absolute non-starters with me.

[heavenlyboy34]

See, to me, Gary Johnson was probably worse than several of the other GOP primary candidates. He likes humanitarian missions, and he's pro-state sanctioned gay marriage and abortion, absolute non-starters with me.
So you're pro-state sanctioned straight marriage? If so, why? What's magic about monogamous heterosexuals that warrants them special State privilege? Either anyone can marry anyone else, or return marriage to its natural state as a religious ceremony.

[supermario21]

I'm pro government out of marriage. I'd also be ok with it being left up to the states, where if I had the option, I'd vote against marriage but support full civil unions/rights for everyone.

[mad cow]

It's not about losing votes, its about generating enthusiasm,

Yeah,and Rand generated so much enthusiasm in half a day,despite the media and TPTB of both parties being dead set against him,that he is as of today,the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President Of The United States Of America in 2016.

In 12 hours and 50 odd minutes.

"Meh"indeed.

[Sola_Fide]

Yeah,and Rand generated so much enthusiasm in half a day,despite the media and TPTB of both parties being dead set against him,that he is as of today,the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President Of The United States Of America in 2016.

In 12 hours and 50 odd minu
"Meh"indeed.

What is Rand's strategy though? Take an awesome Constitutional stand and then not go forward to engage the issue that everybody in the GOP wants to talk about? I mean, come on Rand...let's compare and contrast a little bit. Rand had a golden opportunity to talk about neoconservatism, so why not talk about it?

[supermario21]

What is Rand's strategy though? Take an awesome Constitutional stand and then not go forward to engage the issue that everybody in the GOP wants to talk about? I mean, come on Rand...let's compare and contrast a little bit. Rand had a golden opportunity to talk about neoconservatism, so why not talk about it?

He has been. The momentum is still going. Right now John McCain and Lindsey Graham are doing even more to damage neoconservatism though. Let them destroy themselves.

[Christian Liberty]

See, to me, Gary Johnson was probably worse than several of the other GOP primary candidates. He likes humanitarian missions, and he's pro-state sanctioned gay marriage and abortion, absolute non-starters with me.

While I agree with you on leaving SSM type issues to the states and getting the government out of it. I'm also so apathetic about it now though. I'm so tired of conservatives telling me that God is going to destroy the country if we legalize SSM, completely taking Sodom and Gomorah out of context. I'm so tired of hearing liberals say that gay marriage is anything like the civil rights movement of the 60's. And I'm so tired of people pretending like it actually matters. So gays can marry, big deal! So gays don't get their marriages recognized, big deal! Frankly, I care a heck of a lot more about our dying economy and our insane foreign policy than I do about gay marriage. So yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you on the issue, I just don't really care all that much. Its really, really low on my hierarchy on issues. Frankly, if I had a choice between getting my way on the freedom of association (Getting The one part of the CRA that Rand used to oppose out) or getting my way on SSM, I'd care much more about the freedom of association. And there are a lot of things I care about more than the CRA issue.

Abortion is more important to me, but ultimately, the same things apply to it that apply to gay marriage, its a distraction issue by statists and for statists. Let me be clear, when I say I am "Pro-life" I mean that I want abortion outlawed and people who murder innocents in the womb to be treated exactly like any other killer. My pro-life stance is not mild at all. My pro-life makes Rick Santorum look pro-choice (Sory of, see why in a sec.) I don't believe in the rape or incest exceptions either. Killing an innocent person, except to save your own life, is murder.

That said, none of the Republicans or Democrats really care about this issue. Its a scam to make "Values voters" and whatnot vote GOP. Here's the thing, while I want government to outlaw abortion, treat it as murder even, I realize that this will have only a modest effect on abortion in this country. People will still murder and get away with it. Frankly, I'm scared of the (Mainstream, not guys like Rand/Ron/exc.) GOP using this issue as an excuse for the police state. If I have to pick between letting the occasional vigilante and the eventual judgment of God be the punishment for the abortionist, or a police state, I will pick the former situation in a heartbeat. On the other hand, the government can COMPLETELY END our insane foreign policy fairly easily, and yet they don't. While I'm certainly no pacifist, and have no problem dishing out (Proportional) punishment on the guilty, and am even fine with the death penatly for murder , what did Iraq or Afghanistan ever do to us? Can you support going over there and slaughtering them and seriously claim to be "Pro-life"? Is a moderate on the issue of abortion (And Gary is in fact a moderate, probably even really pro-life when we use the watered down terminology, I'll also address this in a sec.) who wants to seriously limit the empire really better than someone who wants to outlaw all abortion (Read: Punish people for murder, a reasonable position) and yet commit lots of murder himself? Honestly, I'd rather the governmetn allow murder than commit it if I had to pick. Obviously I'd prefer them to both outlaw it and not commit it, but the lesser evil is always doing nothing when compared to doing evil.

As for Johnson, somewhat ironically Johnson while being pro-choice stumbles upon (And I say "Stumbles upon" since he admittedly isn't really all that much of a constitutionalist, although he's certainly better than pretty much any GOP candidate in 2012 other than Ron Paul) the correct constitutional view on abortion. Rand, while being pro-life (A position I like better) misses it. Rand believes the Federal government has the right to, and should, ban abortion. Gary believes, correctly, that the states, and only the states, have the right to ban abortion. Granted, I'd much rather him hold Ron Paul's position, which is "Look, it is a state's issue, but I'm pro-life and abortion is murder, I'm going to advocate for its abolition at the state level." Gary does want abortion restricted somewhat, he did vote for pretty much everything the (Watered down) pro-life movement asked him for. But yeah, he is personally pro-choice. In a better world, maybe that moral weakness would be a dealbreaker. But right now, he's way, way better than most others. I actually think Gary VS Rand would be an interesting discussion, and I'd be happy, although not thrilled, with either of them. But Gary is CLEARLY better than the GOP status quo to any liberty lover.

Oh, and the humanitarian war thing. True. I never believe in humanitarian war. Of course, Rand Paul also sometimes believes in humanitarian war. Both of them fail when compared to Ron. When compared to the mainstream GOP field, however, both Gary and Rand want to greatly reduce our foreign entanglements. Gary seems to want to get involved with serious human rights abuses, while Rand seems more inclined to want to go to protect our foreign interests. I disagree pretty strongly with both of them, indeed, Gary's moderation on this issue is enough to make me consider him not to really be a libertarian, but rather a libertarian leaning moderate (Not sure if he truly leans conservative or liberal, its both depending on the issue, but he usually leans libertarian on both sides and just isn't radical about it.) So I disagre with Gary, its a pretty big issue, but I disagree with Rand on it too. Neither is good.

Ultimately, here's the thing. Gary also supports the legalization of marijuana, and while he's not pro-legalization of harder drugs (Remember when I said he was libertarian leaning and not libertarian? Another reason why) he isn't in favor of locking up users either. Gary, ironically, has the correct constittuional vview on abortion as well. Admittedly, if 75% of the country were against abortion, I'd vote "Yes" on a constitutional amendment, but that's not realistic and giving Leviathan more power to stretch at the expense of strict separation of powers is NOT smart. No matter what the perceived benefit. In addition, Gary said he'd rather DIE than endorse Romney or Obama. Rand caved and endorsed Romney. I realize that it was politics and I don't assume that Rand is a secret Mitt lover because of it, but honestly, I do prefer Gary since he didn't cave.

I'd say on a "Liberty scale" on a scale of 1-100 I'd say Ron is probably like a 90% while Rand is more like a 60%, Gary more like a 70%, and the mainstream at like 20% or lower (ALL of them, Bachmann, Romney, Santorum, Obama, doesn't matter, they're all varying degrees of "Suck.")

So you're pro-state sanctioned straight marriage? If so, why? What's magic about monogamous heterosexuals that warrants them special State privilege? Either anyone can marry anyone else, or return marriage to its natural state as a religious ceremony.

While I do agree with you here, I don't really think "Legalizing" (State-recognition) of SSM is really a great way to move in the direction you want to go. Marital contract law isn't exactly my biggest issue, and I'd probably never bring it up if nobody else did, but I still think refusal to vote on silly questions like this is better than voting for or against SSM.

[mosquitobite]

What is Rand's strategy though? Take an awesome Constitutional stand and then not go forward to engage the issue that everybody in the GOP wants to talk about? I mean, come on Rand...let's compare and contrast a little bit. Rand had a golden opportunity to talk about neoconservatism, so why not talk about it?

Why jump the shark so soon? He's got another 3 years.

Remember, Tuesday these people still thought McCain & Romney were good picks against Obama. Wednesday their eyes have been opened quite a bit, but they're still babies! They still need milk, not solids yet!

Most of these bandwagon hoppers ARE STILL NEO-CONS and it's not time to define that just yet.

I think he's playing BRILLIANT strategy. just like Rush said, he's sneaky about it!

[supermario21]

See, I think Rand is much closer to Ron on FP than most of the diehard RP people think. Wednesday proved that to me. Rand pretty much said the only military intervention he would have supported was Afghanistan post 9/11, and has also said that AUMF should be ended. So if he supports humanitarian wars I don't know which ones. I think GJ may have supported Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia in the mid-90s. Even GWB in 2000 said he was against all 3 of those! I think up until Wednesday he was careful with his rhetoric to not lose mainstream conservatives and then seized Wednesday to go full-out Ron. That filibuster was gold. We're still on very thin ice, and for Rand to have this much momentum after such a bold repudiation of our foreign policy the last decade is incredible. Also, about SSM. I said it was a non-starter with abortion. I misspoke. Honestly SSM is very low on my priority list.

[fr33]

I will say this.....

I had been working on many coworkers and friends during the last election to support Ron Paul. Some liked but most were so so or simply repeated the Rush Limbaugh line or Fox New pundit line, "I agree with RP on about 90% but his foreign policy scares me." Guess what people???, all these same folks are coming up to me and saying, "I LOVE LOVE LOVE Rand Paul."

While Ron has the right message, he didn't always come across to people mainly because Rush, Beck, Hannity, Fox News idiots and even Laura told the masses so i.e. crazy old man. But Rand has a different appeal for whatever reason even though the message is almost the same. My point is to have a liberty candidate nationally, it's important to have both a messenger and message that can attract the masses with talking heads behind you. Something Ron had difficulty in attaining for various reasons. I think Rand just bumped himself up nationally within the potential Republican Presidential contenders. Imagine how big the money bombs could be in 2015/2016 if we have the Ron Paul supporters, plus talking heads (at least not trashing Rand), Republican grass roots, the fake Tea Partiers lol and a good support from Independents... $10 million easily in one day or at least a 3 day weekend. :D

I have a theory that is pretty much what you are saying.

Many conservatives are just too plugged into the right wing propaganda arm so Ron was spoiled right from the start to them.

But those same conservatives are capable of slowly questioning themselves of how things are going with the advice they had been getting from these propagandists.

They also see our wing of the party and how we have a hero (Ron). They secretly would like to have a hero and Rand is offering them that chance since he carries some of his father's perceived "revolution" with him.

[Christian Liberty]

Well, as I said, I'd vote for Rand. I'm not willing to say "The son of Paul is just like his dad" over this one incident. I should mention that in spite of my expressed skepticism among fellow freedom lovers here, I have defended Rand Paul quite strongly in real life. I told people he was a national hero both on a left-leaning forum and to students and teachers I know in my high school. I don't love him the way that I love Ron, but I am still a pretty big fan of his, at least compared to the rest of the field. And I do acknowledge that moderates like Rand have a role to play with guys that wouldn't support a hardcore like Ron.

As for Rand and humanitarian wars, I think I misspoke with the word "Humanitarian." I did kind of clarify it later in the post but maybe you missed it. It was kind of subtle. I still have in mind the speech he gave to Heritage a few weeks ago. I'll try to find it again if you don't remember. As I remember, Rand was saying we needed a foreign policy "More like Reagan's" and that the current GOP was too neoconservative but that isolationism (I know some people here hate the term "Isolationism", that's the term that Rand has used, and I've sometimes slipped into using it to describe my own views even while I technically mean "Anti interventionism") is also the wrong idea. He sounded moderate and sensible, but not "Defense only" and most definitely not libertarian.

Granted, Rand has the right to change his mind, and maybe he will. But Rand has always been pretty strong when it comes to civil liberties vs "National security." He's always been strong on that and strong on the economy. Its personal freedom issues (like drugs and such) and foreign policy where he's always been weaker (Note: "Weaker" means "Less in line with my views" not "Favoring a stronger government" or anything like that. As you've probably figured out, I agree with Ron Paul on most stuff other than a few things related to "How quickly do we implement this", the death penalty [IIRC he's against that now], and I'm not totally sure what Ron's immigration view is, none of which do I consider to be major issues). I was impressed that he droned on (Pun intended) about drones for thirteen hours, but I definitely knew he was opposed to that. But he's OK with the killing of foreigners if its "For our national interest." Granted, as I said, he's still a lot better than the others, but I won't truly think of him as half of who his dad is until he clearly supports non-interventionism. Same thing with Gary for the record. I'm not a huge fan of him either. I would have voted for him in '12 if I had been old enough, and would vote for either Gary or Rand in '16 if they were the best option available, but I'm not a huge fan of either one and I don't consider either one a real libertarian.

Thanks for clearing up SSM BTW.

[supermario21]

Save the time. I did watch Rand's speech. I know he was probably a little more aggressive on issues such as containment which probably irked some of us here to varying degrees. Rand does have a mixed record, such as being the 1 in the 90-1 Iran sanctions vote. Again, sometimes I think Rand votes the way he does because he personally knows he wouldn't go farther. For example, sanctions being an act of war. I don't think Rand Paul would be beating his war drums if he voted for a particular sanction. It's an issue where I honestly probably need to do additional educating as to why Ron says it's an act of war. I really haven't studied it much because until Rand, all we had was the John McCain approach or the Paul approach essentially. So yes, Rand sometimes gets a little too far from non-interventionism for comfort, but I think he still has good intentions. And as for drugs, I get the sense he's already for decriminalization, and I think he's working on full out legalization of drugs such as marijuana. I think he wants to get the hemp bill passed first and then keep pushing for more.

[itshappening]

This is a fun interview and shows Rand at his best.

Ingraham is trying desperately to get him to say something disparaging about McCain but Rand is far too smart for her. He's just talking and talking and not saying much but managing to hold an engaging conversation. She's totally wrapped up in it and Rand has played her beautifully.

By the end of the interview she's calling for the Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, Rand gives one of his chuckles, cya later Laura... HAHA

Ingraham is another one who used to hate Ron and probably finds Rand very difficult to pin down. She's given up on that a long time ago and seems to respect him .

[Christian Liberty]

Save the time. I did watch Rand's speech. I know he was probably a little more aggressive on issues such as containment which probably irked some of us here to varying degrees. Rand does have a mixed record, such as being the 1 in the 90-1 Iran sanctions vote. Again, sometimes I think Rand votes the way he does because he personally knows he wouldn't go farther. For example, sanctions being an act of war. I don't think Rand Paul would be beating his war drums if he voted for a particular sanction. It's an issue where I honestly probably need to do additional educating as to why Ron says it's an act of war. I really haven't studied it much because until Rand, all we had was the John McCain approach or the Paul approach essentially. So yes, Rand sometimes gets a little too far from non-interventionism for comfort, but I think he still has good intentions. And as for drugs, I get the sense he's already for decriminalization, and I think he's working on full out legalization of drugs such as marijuana. I think he wants to get the hemp bill passed first and then keep pushing for more.
I don't really think sanctions are an act of war, so I'd actually agree (At least at first glance) that Ron is wrong there. If we refuse to trade with you, even if we convince others to do likewise, and you attack us, you are at fault. However, sanctions are still completely stupid and are basically asking to get attacked. I believe the rest of the world would leave a libertarian nation (At least one that ensured it could defend itself, I guess someone will always take easy pickings, if not the American Empire than someone else) but the rest of the world is not strictly libertarian. Even though I think from a libertarian viewpoint declaration of war over sanctions is unjustified, its still understandable and some people might do it. It also leads to the death of children, and even if we have no obligation to trade with them, I frankly see no good reason not to. Also, Rand voted for Sanctions, didn't he?

So yeah, I'm not a hardcore "Support for sanctions is the same as wanting to declare war" type of libertarian, but I'm definitely a "Sanctions are morally wrong and I'm going to think less of someone for voting for sanctions" kind of libertarian.

The post above kind of demonstrates my concerns with Rand though. The reality is that Rand is NOT his dad. Bastiat already neg repped me for saying that. Oh well. He's not. Its obvious. I'm still going to vote for him if I get the chance, but he's not half the man his father was. Ron Paul was truly one of a kind. He ALWAYS opposed imperialism, and he ALWAYS told the truth. Rand is already showing his compromise.

Granted, I can understand that he might just be lying to the neocons, but then, he could just be lying to us. I actually think Rand is fairly honest and he means what he says, namely, that he's a moderate and not anti-interventionist.

As for marijuana, I think he said he doesn't want to legalize it, just hemp. Granted, he does want to let states decide on marijuana, which is enough to give a candidate a passing grade on the issue (I'm not a single issue voter on anything but "I won't vote for people who support lots of war" anyway) but he seems opposed to or at least indifferent to legalization. Oh well. Drugs isn't my #1 either. I know I mentioned my young age so I should just be clear, I don't use any of that crap. But the way I look at it, I don't use any cigarettes either, and I think its a stupid idea, doesn't give me a right to use violence against those who do. Same with drugs. I think a little more of any candidate who agrees with my stance on that and a little less of those who don't. And a LOT less of the "You support legalization therefore you support use" type people.

[jmdrake]

The best goodies OPM (Other People's Money) can buy. SS has been bankrupt for what, 30 years now? I highly doubt they'll let that kind of bribery go away. You don't touch the 3rd rail of politics if you want to be a successful politician. Nothing short of a catastrophe I can't imagine is going to keep that massive welfare machine from dying.

I don't think you understood my question. Let me rephrase it. Why would a young voter who's turned off by neocon foreign policy adopt neocon foreign policy just to get social security when he could just become a democrat? As for SS not being "bankrupt" I think you're missing the big picture there as well. We're about to reach the point where the entire system will be bankrupt and the PTB won't be able to fund social security at all. The status quo that has lasted for the past 30 cannot continue indefinitely.

[Christian Liberty]

I think if anything, Neocon foreign policy would kill SS faster. If it comes to that or their war against Iran, they'll kill SS and keep their war. Ironically, in trying to eventually remove SS Ron Paul might save it for longer than any of the others.

[supermario21]

I think if anything, Neocon foreign policy would kill SS faster. If it comes to that or their war against Iran, they'll kill SS and keep their war. Ironically, in trying to eventually remove SS Ron Paul might save it for longer than any of the others.

In fact he has ALWAYS said this in debates and interviews. Of course the warfare state usually subsidizes the welfare state in one way or another especially with the Fed just always able to print money.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't think you understood my question. Let me rephrase it. Why would a young voter who's turned off by neocon foreign policy adopt neocon foreign policy just to get social security when he could just become a democrat? As for SS not being "bankrupt" I think you're missing the big picture there as well. We're about to reach the point where the entire system will be bankrupt and the PTB won't be able to fund social security at all. The status quo that has lasted for the past 30 cannot continue indefinitely.
This is an interesting question. I need to think of a way to explain it properly instead of hastily typing stuff out and confusing things even further. I'll mull over it and get back to you.

[Christian Liberty]

The SS issue is one where I actually disagree with Ron. We need to get rid of it right now. Yes, I know this will cause some suffering (I'm hoping that individuals, families, and churches will pick up the slack, but I certainly can't guarantee this) but it has to be done. Theft is wrong and doing more of it is still wrong, government promises aside. Even more importantly, if we try to do it gradually, it'll never happen. I might be willing to compromise on the idealism in that first point were it not for the stark realism of the second point.

All that said, the warfare state is even worse than the welfare state. The welfare state makes some people worse off to make other people better off (Not really long term but that's another story.) War, by contrast, makes everyone worse off, and some people dead. That's why I proritize foreign policy over everything else. Not that I'd actually vote for someone who got everything but foreign policy wrong, but I wouldn't vote for someone who only got foreign policy wrong either if his getting foreign policy wrong was serious enough. As I've said, Rand and Gary don't cross that line, but plenty of Republicans do.

[compromise]

This is a fun interview and shows Rand at his best.

Ingraham is trying desperately to get him to say something disparaging about McCain but Rand is far too smart for her. He's just talking and talking and not saying much but managing to hold an engaging conversation. She's totally wrapped up in it and Rand has played her beautifully.

By the end of the interview she's calling for the Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, Rand gives one of his chuckles, cya later Laura... HAHA

Ingraham is another one who used to hate Ron and probably finds Rand very difficult to pin down. She's given up on that a long time ago and seems to respect him .

She didn't hate Ron. She was pretty mild on Ron compared to some of the others.

[Liberty74]

Rand has my vote. He's not a libertarian, but as far as the broader "Liberty movement" goes, he's on my side.

During Rand's Senate run he differentiated himself from his father by saying his dad was a libertarian and he himself a "Constitutional conservative." This of course was done in vain of being a Republican candidate statewide, hence conservative. WTF does that mean anyway these day uh? Regardless, if one is for the Constitution as Rand proclaims to be, then by default I damn you, you are a LIBERTARIAN.

Ron came out in his recent Canada speech saying what I have been saying for years - people misuse "labels" not really knowing WTF they mean today. Is the Left really liberal and the Right really conservative under all the BS rhetoric?

We are now "non interventionists?"