The reasonable verdict on Rand Paul

[wormyguy]

Is Rand an enemy of liberty? Of course he isn't.

What is our goal? To live in a world where the answer to that question is "of course he is."

[Christian Liberty]

He already is. Every single senator is. All one hundred of them are traitors. I said ninety-eight 48 hours ago but every single one of them voted to betray America for Israel and "If necessary" to kill innocent children in Iran.

He won't be getting my vote.

And if people keep asking this question, I'll be here with an answer.

[alucard13mm]

Does this mean USA is doomed? lol.

Cause if Rand (who can be seen as a traitor to some) loses.. then another Obama or another Bush will come into office. Is that a better situation?

[PaulConventionWV]

He's not establishment. That's good enough for me.

[GunnyFreedom]

As anybody who knows me or my record will testify, I take the Ron Paul approach. In the General Assembly, I stood hard and fast on principle even when that meant being the sole dissent, and that happened over, and over again. That beng said, I know what Rand is doing and I support it.

If you want to forge a fine piece of steel, you need both the hammer AND the anvil. To temper it, you need both the fire AND the water. You cannot turn out a quality product with just one half of the equation. You need the whole thing to produce a quality product. Just like in a political movement, you need both the resolute ideologues to keep on the path, and you need determined chameleons to clear the brush away so forward movement can commence.

The bottom line is you need both the Ron Pauls and the Rand Pauls to achieve both long range and short range victory. I don't know why this isn't obvious to people of our moral and rational stature. I find the people who embrace Rand and reject Ron just as ridiculous as the people who embrace Ron and reject Rand. Ron is the compass and Rand is the machete. You are not getting anywhere in the jungle without both. With a compass alone you are going in the correct direction but you aren't getting anywhere. With the machete alone you are moving fast enough but meandering all over the place and will never arrive at the destination.

I myself have chosen to be a compass rather than a machete, but I know damn good and well that I wasn't going anywhere fast in the legislature without a machete type as an ally. Nothing is going to happen here if we do not have both. Hating on one or the other is desperately counter-productive, and that's a fact. We are cutting our nose off to spite our face, because we are pissed that the nose doesn't perform the same function as the eyes.

SMH - we should be smarter than this.

[CPUd]

If it comes down to Rand versus Joe Biden in 2016, I suspect the number of people who voted for Ron, but will not vote for Rand will be inconsequential.

Yes there will still be Garys on here campaigning again in 2016.

[talkingpointes]

As anybody who knows me or my record will testify, I take the Ron Paul approach. In the General Assembly, I stood hard and fast on principle even when that meant being the sole dissent, and that happened over, and over again. That beng said, I know what Rand is doing and I support it.

If you want to forge a fine piece of steel, you need both the hammer AND the anvil. To temper it, you need both the fire AND the water. You cannot turn out a quality product with just one half of the equation. You need the whole thing to produce a quality product. Just like in a political movement, you need both the resolute ideologues to keep on the path, and you need determined chameleons to clear the brush away so forward movement can commence.

The bottom line is you need both the Ron Pauls and the Rand Pauls to achieve both long range and short range victory. I don't know why this isn't obvious to people of our moral and rational stature. I find the people who embrace Rand and reject Ron just as ridiculous as the people who embrace Ron and reject Rand. Ron is the compass and Rand is the machete. You are not getting anywhere in the jungle without both. With a compass alone you are going in the correct direction but you aren't getting anywhere. With the machete alone you are moving fast enough but meandering all over the place and will never arrive at the destination.

I myself have chosen to be a compass rather than a machete, but I know damn good and well that I wasn't going anywhere fast in the legislature without a machete type as an ally. Nothing is going to happen here if we do not have both. Hating on one or the other is desperately counter-productive, and that's a fact. We are cutting our nose off to spite our face, because we are pissed that the nose doesn't perform the same function as the eyes.

SMH - we should be smarter than this.

Nobody is hating, and I appreciate what you've done. Rand sold himself as a piece of fine forged damascus steel when really he's a back alley rust bucket. All the other politicians are doing the exact same thing (isn't that what makes them dispicable, or is there honor know?) - so why should I hate them. Their intentions are good, all of them say literally the same thing.

What are all the Obama people saying right now - the guy is under 3- possibly 4 scandals. Yet, they still stand by their man because he represents power and position.

Psychologically we are in very precarious times and we do need all sides. But let's not waste all our time on a guy that states he is in it to win it - but nothing else.
We have to just wait and see. That is just insane. One man is going to take on the entire system playing by their rules. That is just insannnneeeeee... I like Ron because I knew he would never win, but I knew he couldn't.(and did he not prove it) Ron sacrificed a part of himself so we could grow up.

Do you honestly believe one man will change everything by pretending it's ok long enough until he can scream the sky is falling and get away with it. Do people here think we are like a secret society and noone knows what Rand or Ron was up to? Do we undermine our enemies with that type of thinking or ourselves. In the end where are as strong as Rands worst lie if that is that case.

Gunny you have way more talent and intelligence then throwing any weight behind him, and I only say that in the most respectful manner because I know you're a man of character - not a man after power.

[LibertyEagle]

What is INSANE is calling Rand the enemy.

[MaxPower]

He failed to object to a non-binding resolution that he himself had amended in committee to demand constitutional authorization for any military action and to specify that nothing in the bill will be considered an authorization for war or use of military force. There is some seriously objectionable rhetoric in that resolution, mind you, but Rand did not "vote for pre-emptive war" or anything of the sort. It is absolutely legitimate for members of our movement to hold Rand's feet to the fire and criticize him when he falls short in defense of liberty, but what we certainly don't need are wild histrionics of the kind we've been seeing from so many members on these forums. Rand's record as a Senator clearly shows that he is generally a friend to liberty, not its enemy, and that has not changed because he allowed unanimous consent for an objectionable non-binding resolution-- which, thanks to Rand, is itself not nearly as bad as some are making it out to be.

[paulbot24]

https://questionabletopic.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/hillary-ft-mccain.jpg?w=720

Yes, yes, we are all so pretty with our principles. Meanwhile people like this are running the country. Why don't we try to grind Rand through yet another purity check so we can argue about the results and speculate on whether Ron is just as unhappy with his evil Judas sellout of a son as we are. We can't ever have anybody who succeeds or what would we have to complain about? Where would we go? Jesus people. Come to think about it, maybe Jesus will come back wearing pure white in the clouds and solve this problem for all of us. In the meantime, we can STFU and rally behind lowly mortal Rand who believes in liberty.

[GunnyFreedom]

Nobody is hating, and I appreciate what you've done. Rand sold himself as a piece of fine forged damascus steel when really he's a back alley rust bucket. All the other politicians are doing the exact same thing (isn't that what makes them dispicable, or is there honor know?) - so why should I hate them. Their intentions are good, all of them say literally the same thing.

What are all the Obama people saying right now - the guy is under 3- possibly 4 scandals. Yet, they still stand by their man because he represents power and position.

Psychologically we are in very precarious times and we do need all sides. But let's not waste all our time on a guy that states he is in it to win it - but nothing else.
We have to just wait and see. That is just insane. One man is going to take on the entire system playing by their rules. That is just insannnneeeeee... I like Ron because I knew he would never win, but I knew he couldn't.(and did he not prove it) Ron sacrificed a part of himself so we could grow up.

Do you honestly believe one man will change everything by pretending it's ok long enough until he can scream the sky is falling and get away with it. Do people here think we are like a secret society and noone knows what Rand or Ron was up to? Do we undermine our enemies with that type of thinking or ourselves. In the end where are as strong as Rands worst lie if that is that case.

Gunny you have way more talent and intelligence then throwing any weight behind him, and I only say that in the most respectful manner because I know you're a man of character - not a man after power.

We don't have 30 years to make some kind of educational effort, and we don't have the trillions of dollars to counter monstrosities like Common Core that will be turning out kids twice as zombefied as the ones today. America is dying right now, and we will either be a raging tyranny or a banana republic by the time we start gaining real traction with education.

Now I have a ten year plan to fully restore the Constitutional Republic, but that plan involves winning, not intentionally losing. We have to have Constitutionalists in place when the economy crashes in December 2014-January 2015, who will publicly attach economic recovery to measures that will restore the Constitutional order. That's the only way you will draw major public support, connect it to their wallets.

If we let the socialists or the neocons claim credit for the post-correction recovery in 2016, then we will see nothing but socialism or neoconservatism for the rest of our lives.

I appreciate very much that you recognize me as a Ron type, zero compromise on principle, but I don't think you really read what I posted. Without both you lose. Without both, we fail. America dies, and we descend into Marco Rubio's or Elizabeth Warren's tyrannical hell. We don't have to like it, but that's just the way it is.

When you are sitting down to high stakes gambling, you play the cards you are dealt. You don't dump your holdings in the pot and walk away because you don't like the cards. America is what it is. We have to deal with the people who vote based on someone's perfect hair or another's singing voice. We have to deal with "low information voters" and lunatic ideologues who want to nuke any country that doesn't speak English. We have to deal with people who want to write the Bible into secular law, and who will rally millions and dump tens of millions of dollars to stop us.

Ron Paul is the compass, and Rand Paul is the machete. You can't do anything with only one, you have to have both. Without both we may as well give up, go home, and start digging shelters for the coming apocalypse. That's what I'm telling you, and you aren't hearing me. We either have both Rons and Rands, or there is no point to trying because all we are going to do is spend ourself broke and die homeless in the streets as our nation gets worse and worse. The only hope we have is to have both kinds fighting together. I'm not guessing, I know.

And if you think I'm throwing my weight behind some neocon because of the happy accident of a last name, you are dreaming, and you do not know me as well as you think you do. Rand is not a neocon, he is the point of the spear and he's going to get bloody. This politics business is not for the faint of heart. You have to have the Rand types to penetrate the lunacy and the Ron types to guide the spear.

Without both we are dead, and there is no point in even trying. Hear me well, because I am telling you the truth.

[schiffheadbaby]

We don't have 30 years to make some kind of educational effort, and we don't have the trillions of dollars to counter monstrosities like Common Core that will be turning out kids twice as zombefied as the ones today. America is dying right now, and we will either be a raging tyranny or a banana republic by the time we start gaining real traction with education.

Now I have a ten year plan to fully restore the Constitutional Republic, but that plan involves winning, not intentionally losing. We have to have Constitutionalists in place when the economy crashes in December 2014-January 2015, who will publicly attach economic recovery to measures that will restore the Constitutional order. That's the only way you will draw major public support, connect it to their wallets.

If we let the socialists or the neocons claim credit for the post-correction recovery in 2016, then we will see nothing but socialism or neoconservatism for the rest of our lives.

I appreciate very much that you recognize me as a Ron type, zero compromise on principle, but I don't think you really read what I posted. Without both you lose. Without both, we fail. America dies, and we descend into Marco Rubio's or Elizabeth Warren's tyrannical hell. We don't have to like it, but that's just the way it is.

When you are sitting down to high stakes gambling, you play the cards you are dealt. You don't dump your holdings in the pot and walk away because you don't like the cards. America is what it is. We have to deal with the people who vote based on someone's perfect hair or another's singing voice. We have to deal with "low information voters" and lunatic ideologues who want to nuke any country that doesn't speak English. We have to deal with people who want to write the Bible into secular law, and who will rally millions and dump tens of millions of dollars to stop us.

Ron Paul is the compass, and Rand Paul is the machete. You can't do anything with only one, you have to have both. Without both we may as well give up, go home, and start digging shelters for the coming apocalypse. That's what I'm telling you, and you aren't hearing me. We either have both Rons and Rands, or there is no point to trying because all we are going to do is spend ourself broke and die homeless in the streets as our nation gets worse and worse. The only hope we have is to have both kinds fighting together. I'm not guessing, I know.

And if you think I'm throwing my weight behind some neocon because of the happy accident of a last name, you are dreaming, and you do not know me as well as you think you do. Rand is not a neocon, he is the point of the spear and he's going to get bloody. This politics business is not for the faint of heart. You have to have the Rand types to penetrate the lunacy and the Ron types to guide the spear.

Without both we are dead, and there is no point in even trying. Hear me well, because I am telling you the truth.

If Rand Paul wasn't named Paul at the end, would you still support him? Probably not. So we are therefore told to support someone simply because of who his father is. Aren't we trying to combat this type of thinking in the in world?

[fisharmor]

If Rand Paul wasn't named Paul at the end, would you still support him? Probably not. So we are therefore told to support someone simply because of who his father is. Aren't we trying to combat this type of thinking in the in world?

What, you don't support George P. Bush for president? I mean, considering that the hispanics cost the R team the election last time, it makes total sense! A Bush who's a half Mexican? We ARE in it to win, right?

/Derp

[NOVALibertarian]

Rand Paul is liberty's mortal enemy. We must find someone else!!!

[pcosmar]

Rand Paul is liberty's mortal enemy. We must find someone else!!!

I would not say that.
I doubt that this utterly stupid shit of a vote could have been stopped,, But it would have been nice to see him speak against it.
To interject some sanity. and to not vote for it.

It is disappointing.

[GunnyFreedom]

If Rand Paul wasn't named Paul at the end, would you still support him? Probably not. So we are therefore told to support someone simply because of who his father is. Aren't we trying to combat this type of thinking in the in world?

Yes, everything else being equal, I would support him even if he was named Bo Billy Bob Jenkins, and not descended from Ron at all. An anvil without a hammer is just an overly large paper weight. What part of "you need both" is so difficult to understand?

[mello]

He won't be getting my vote.

And if people keep asking this question, I'll be here with an answer.

Like him or not Rand will be the candidate ideologically closest to Ron Paul. So what if he's only with his father on 90% of the issues, that's 90% more than the other candidates will be come 2016. Also Rand has the luxury of having a growing base of Ron Paul supporters that can help him win. We have seen all the dirty tricks that happened to his father in the previous two elections & we can learn from that to prevent it happening to his son.

[pcosmar]

We have seen all the dirty tricks that happened to his father in the previous two elections & we can learn from that to prevent it happening to his son.

On that point,,get real.

If Rand is in anyway a threat to the plans and agenda of TPTB he will by NO Means be allowed to be anything but a minority voice in a powerless position.

If he becomes any threat to plans,, he will be removed. (these people murder at will)

WWIII in the Middle East will occur. The US is either a pawn or will be removed from the table. (I would prefer that)

Rand makes no difference in the long run,,

[GunnyFreedom]

On that point,,get real.

If Rand is in anyway a threat to the plans and agenda of TPTB he will by NO Means be allowed to be anything but a minority voice in a powerless position.

If he becomes any threat to plans,, he will be removed. (these people murder at will)

WWIII in the Middle East will occur. The US is either a pawn or will be removed from the table. (I would prefer that)

Rand makes no difference in the long run,,

I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't think we could make a difference. I've seen it from the inside, and I firmly believe we can stop it and restore America, but not if we keep dividing ourselves up with one lot saying that we need knights but bishops are garbage and the other group saying we need rooks but queens are garbage. We sure can turn this whole bucket of asparagus piss around, but only if we can come together around all 16 pieces and start playing chess. If we keep jabbing pencils into our own eye, however, we're better off bunkering in to ride out the coming conflagration.

[pcosmar]

I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't think we could make a difference.

I did once,, but no longer.
I have hope that we can delay, or impede the inevitable. And I believe we should resist,, in any way our conscience allows.

But I also believe that some things are inevitable,, and in the end,, can not be stopped.

A cataclysmic war will occur. A one world government will happen,,
Lucifer will stand and rule from Jerusalem.

And eventually,, Christ will return and put an end to that shit.

[Christian Liberty]

Does this mean USA is doomed? lol.

Cause if Rand (who can be seen as a traitor to some) loses.. then another Obama or another Bush will come into office. Is that a better situation?

He's definitely the least bad of bad options, but I don't see how I can seriously trust him anymore..


As anybody who knows me or my record will testify, I take the Ron Paul approach. In the General Assembly, I stood hard and fast on principle even when that meant being the sole dissent, and that happened over, and over again. That beng said, I know what Rand is doing and I support it.

If you want to forge a fine piece of steel, you need both the hammer AND the anvil. To temper it, you need both the fire AND the water. You cannot turn out a quality product with just one half of the equation. You need the whole thing to produce a quality product. Just like in a political movement, you need both the resolute ideologues to keep on the path, and you need determined chameleons to clear the brush away so forward movement can commence.

The bottom line is you need both the Ron Pauls and the Rand Pauls to achieve both long range and short range victory. I don't know why this isn't obvious to people of our moral and rational stature. I find the people who embrace Rand and reject Ron just as ridiculous as the people who embrace Ron and reject Rand. Ron is the compass and Rand is the machete. You are not getting anywhere in the jungle without both. With a compass alone you are going in the correct direction but you aren't getting anywhere. With the machete alone you are moving fast enough but meandering all over the place and will never arrive at the destination.

I myself have chosen to be a compass rather than a machete, but I know damn good and well that I wasn't going anywhere fast in the legislature without a machete type as an ally. Nothing is going to happen here if we do not have both. Hating on one or the other is desperately counter-productive, and that's a fact. We are cutting our nose off to spite our face, because we are pissed that the nose doesn't perform the same function as the eyes.

SMH - we should be smarter than this.

How do we know that Rand really is on our side? I see no way we can possibly know that. When actual war with Iran is voted on this may well happen again and the Rand defenders will say "But just one vote wouldn't have stopped it" or some such.

Then again, you have a lot more hope in the political process than I do. I don't think any of the real neocons are going to ever vote for Rand, they'd rather vote for the Democratic option even if Rand kisses their feet over and over like with that Iran vote.

If it comes down to Rand versus Joe Biden in 2016, I suspect the number of people who voted for Ron, but will not vote for Rand will be inconsequential.

Yes there will still be Garys on here campaigning again in 2016.

Gary Johnson was probably worse than Rand. If the LP doesn't do better I may well just write in Vance...


What is INSANE is calling Rand the enemy.


https://questionabletopic.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/hillary-ft-mccain.jpg?w=720

Yes, yes, we are all so pretty with our principles. Meanwhile people like this are running the country. Why don't we try to grind Rand through yet another purity check so we can argue about the results and speculate on whether Ron is just as unhappy with his evil Judas sellout of a son as we are. We can't ever have anybody who succeeds or what would we have to complain about? Where would we go? Jesus people. Come to think about it, maybe Jesus will come back wearing pure white in the clouds and solve this problem for all of us. In the meantime, we can STFU and rally behind lowly mortal Rand who believes in liberty.

And people like Rand Paul vote along with them way too often.


We don't have 30 years to make some kind of educational effort, and we don't have the trillions of dollars to counter monstrosities like Common Core that will be turning out kids twice as zombefied as the ones today. America is dying right now, and we will either be a raging tyranny or a banana republic by the time we start gaining real traction with education.

Now I have a ten year plan to fully restore the Constitutional Republic, but that plan involves winning, not intentionally losing. We have to have Constitutionalists in place when the economy crashes in December 2014-January 2015, who will publicly attach economic recovery to measures that will restore the Constitutional order. That's the only way you will draw major public support, connect it to their wallets.

If we let the socialists or the neocons claim credit for the post-correction recovery in 2016, then we will see nothing but socialism or neoconservatism for the rest of our lives.

I appreciate very much that you recognize me as a Ron type, zero compromise on principle, but I don't think you really read what I posted. Without both you lose. Without both, we fail. America dies, and we descend into Marco Rubio's or Elizabeth Warren's tyrannical hell. We don't have to like it, but that's just the way it is.

When you are sitting down to high stakes gambling, you play the cards you are dealt. You don't dump your holdings in the pot and walk away because you don't like the cards. America is what it is. We have to deal with the people who vote based on someone's perfect hair or another's singing voice. We have to deal with "low information voters" and lunatic ideologues who want to nuke any country that doesn't speak English. We have to deal with people who want to write the Bible into secular law, and who will rally millions and dump tens of millions of dollars to stop us.

Ron Paul is the compass, and Rand Paul is the machete. You can't do anything with only one, you have to have both. Without both we may as well give up, go home, and start digging shelters for the coming apocalypse. That's what I'm telling you, and you aren't hearing me. We either have both Rons and Rands, or there is no point to trying because all we are going to do is spend ourself broke and die homeless in the streets as our nation gets worse and worse. The only hope we have is to have both kinds fighting together. I'm not guessing, I know.

And if you think I'm throwing my weight behind some neocon because of the happy accident of a last name, you are dreaming, and you do not know me as well as you think you do. Rand is not a neocon, he is the point of the spear and he's going to get bloody. This politics business is not for the faint of heart. You have to have the Rand types to penetrate the lunacy and the Ron types to guide the spear.

Without both we are dead, and there is no point in even trying. Hear me well, because I am telling you the truth.


I'm not saying Rand is a neocon but how in the world do we know he's really on our side here? Because he's the least bad of a bad group known as "Senators"? Because he's Ron Paul's son? Or something more substantial? I honestly think its far more likely that the latest vote was just showing us what's happening, Rand is falling to the establishment like everyone else in the senate...

Like him or not Rand will be the candidate ideologically closest to Ron Paul. So what if he's only with his father on 90% of the issues, that's 90% more than the other candidates will be come 2016. Also Rand has the luxury of having a growing base of Ron Paul supporters that can help him win. We have seen all the dirty tricks that happened to his father in the previous two elections & we can learn from that to prevent it happening to his son.

What the 10% of issues are does matter. If the "Only thing" I disagree with Rand on is an Iranian War, that's enough for me to go third party.


I did once,, but no longer.
I have hope that we can delay, or impede the inevitable. And I believe we should resist,, in any way our conscience allows.

But I also believe that some things are inevitable,, and in the end,, can not be stopped.

A cataclysmic war will occur. A one world government will happen,,
Lucifer will stand and rule from Jerusalem.

And eventually,, Christ will return and put an end to that shit.

This is very likely what happens...

[fisharmor]

I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't think we could make a difference. I've seen it from the inside, and I firmly believe we can stop it and restore America

Which America?
The America that picks fights with religious weirdos and burns entire buildings full of women and children?
The America that drops C4 from helicopters on black activists' houses, burning down entire neighborhoods?
The America that guns down college student demonstrators?
The America that looks the other way while minorities get strung up?
The America that rounds up all the yellow people, confiscates their property, and sends them off to camp?
The America that uses whatever economic downturn it can to push for more socialism?
The America that kicks in your door for wanting to enjoy a beer?
The America that decides winners and losers in European wars that have absolutely nothing to do with us?
The America that spreads its hegemony throughout backward Pacific islands at bayonet point?
The America that commits genocide against its natives?
The America that wantonly kills 700,000 of its own people because some of them wanted to leave?
The America that steams into Edo harbor and forces the inhabitants to do business under threat of being destroyed?
The America that makes war with its southern neighbors simply to be able to compete with Europe?
The America that adopts war with its natives as policy?
The America that sends military forces to crush tax protests?

Any farther back than that, and you don't have a constitution any more.

Perhaps that's the issue. Perhaps it's that Rand also seems like he wants to save America... and the naysayers here are simply demanding that we clearly define "America" before adopting that goal.

[GunnyFreedom]

How do we know that Rand really is on our side? I see no way we can possibly know that. When actual war with Iran is voted on this may well happen again and the Rand defenders will say "But just one vote wouldn't have stopped it" or some such.

Then again, you have a lot more hope in the political process than I do. I don't think any of the real neocons are going to ever vote for Rand, they'd rather vote for the Democratic option even if Rand kisses their feet over and over like with that Iran vote.

He's not trying to win over the neocons, that's impossible. He is developing credibility with the average-joe voters who have been brainwashed by the neocons. The Drone Filibuster was a success largely because of the credibility he had built with the earlier nominee support that so many here had fits over. It's like tacking a sailboat into the wind, neither the sail nor the rudder point in the direction you actually want to go, yet you go in that direction.

I don't see him voting for a preemptive war with anybody for any reason. Indeed, he traded his lack of objection for the non-binding resolution by requiring language demanding congressional oversight and rejecting preemption.


I'm not saying Rand is a neocon but how in the world do we know he's really on our side here? Because he's the least bad of a bad group known as "Senators"? Because he's Ron Paul's son? Or something more substantial? I honestly think its far more likely that the latest vote was just showing us what's happening, Rand is falling to the establishment like everyone else in the senate...


I know because I can see what he's doing. Pretty much everything he's done that has had the purists in apoplectic fits, has turned out to be him building a platform from which to stand against the horror. The support for the meaningless resolutions will give him public credibility to oppose a war resolution. I watch the man in the Senate and I completely comprehend the strategy he is deploying. None of the things that horrify the purists surprise me because they are what I would expect someone using his strategy to do.

The 2013 NDAA gave him a platform to reject indefinite detention in a way that more people than ever agree with us now.

The Hagel confirmation gave him the platform to filibuster the Brennan confirmation.

The rhetorical interventionism on Iran, will give him a platform to object to the war they are going to push.

Pretty much everything the base has objected to thus far (except for the Iran central bank sanctions and meaningless resolutions) has led to him being in a position to oppose the larger, real move that follows.

I can see what he's doing with my own two eyes. It's not the path that I would take, but it's pretty obvious to me the strategy he is using. It has nothing to do with him being least bad, or Paul's son.

[GunnyFreedom]

Which America?
The America that picks fights with religious weirdos and burns entire buildings full of women and children?
The America that drops C4 from helicopters on black activists' houses, burning down entire neighborhoods?
The America that guns down college student demonstrators?
The America that looks the other way while minorities get strung up?
The America that rounds up all the yellow people, confiscates their property, and sends them off to camp?
The America that uses whatever economic downturn it can to push for more socialism?
The America that kicks in your door for wanting to enjoy a beer?
The America that decides winners and losers in European wars that have absolutely nothing to do with us?
The America that spreads its hegemony throughout backward Pacific islands at bayonet point?
The America that commits genocide against its natives?
The America that wantonly kills 700,000 of its own people because some of them wanted to leave?
The America that steams into Edo harbor and forces the inhabitants to do business under threat of being destroyed?
The America that makes war with its southern neighbors simply to be able to compete with Europe?
The America that adopts war with its natives as policy?
The America that sends military forces to crush tax protests?

Any farther back than that, and you don't have a constitution any more.

Perhaps that's the issue. Perhaps it's that Rand also seems like he wants to save America... and the naysayers here are simply demanding that we clearly define "America" before adopting that goal.

Why should I even dignify this garbage with a response?

As if I am pushing for any of that list of bovine feces.

Yeah, I've given my whole life to this cause just to help enable tyranny and genocide. :rolleyes:

Your implications as to my motives are revolting.

[PaulConventionWV]

What is INSANE is calling Rand the enemy.

I like your sig, LE. I hadn't seen that before. Why would people be against Rand if Ron himself has already denounced this sort of division? Even Ron Paul says people are making a bigger deal out of it than it ought to be. I think some people just like to be the one who scrutinizes Rand even though he's Rand's son so they can prove how skeptical they are, as if it were a contest of sorts: "How ideologically pure can you be?"

My rule of thumb is and has always been that, if they're not establishment, they at least deserve support in their campaign if establishment candidates are the only other choices, which is almost inevitable. When the media starts supporting Rand like they do establishment candidates and stop running smear campaigns against him and his dad, then I'll stop supporting him, but I haven't seen that yet. It's still in the media's best interest to smear Rand because he's not establishment and he threatens their credibility with Joe Schmeaux.

[fisharmor]

Your implications as to my motives are revolting.

I implied nothing about your motives.
I implied that "America" did all of those things, and more.
It's therefore not enough for some of us to accept that some other than you are pushing in the right direction, when they could be pushing in exactly the direction I demonstrated America went in since the very beginning.
The fact that he takes soft stances on things identical to what I listed is a problem.

[PaulConventionWV]

If Rand Paul wasn't named Paul at the end, would you still support him? Probably not. So we are therefore told to support someone simply because of who his father is. Aren't we trying to combat this type of thinking in the in world?

I don't see why not. I would. A lot of people here supported Gary Johnson, and he was even less ideologically pure than Rand.

[GunnyFreedom]

I implied nothing about your motives.
I implied that "America" did all of those things, and more.
It's therefore not enough for some of us to accept that some other than you are pushing in the right direction, when they could be pushing in exactly the direction I demonstrated America went in since the very beginning.
The fact that he takes soft stances on things identical to what I listed is a problem.

Actually, yes, when you read your reply in the context of my post to which you replied, it directly impugned my motives.

Me: "I want to restore America."

You: "The America that commits genocide?"

so yeah, quite revolting indeed.

[whoisjohngalt]

It's amazing how many people who seem to be intelligent are so utterly incapable of reading between the lines, seeing the big picture, and any other cliches that deal with critical thinking of this manner.

There is no way that its not contrived. I get so sick of the constant nonsense. Isn't embarrassing that you guys (the Rand detractors) post 60% of the Rand related content on this website yet comprise somewhere between 10-15% of the user base.

If you don't like him or choose not to support him, I'm well over that. He doesn't need or want you guys because his strategy (which gains 10 avg joe GOP voters for every 1 of you he loses) is completely incompatible with your demands for purity. I can't wait for you guys to eat crow when Rand wins the presidency and you see his true nature come out.

It's so maddening to have people who claim to love liberty actively work against it though. Why can't you guys just shut up about your Rand hate. Why is it necessary to go out there and try to convince others to hate him too? Why do you keep doing it when its obviously having 0 effect (as evidenced by our three weekly rand polls)? You get off on Rand hate. Pretty fucking pathetic.

[Christian Liberty]

He's not trying to win over the neocons, that's impossible. He is developing credibility with the average-joe voters who have been brainwashed by the neocons. The Drone Filibuster was a success largely because of the credibility he had built with the earlier nominee support that so many here had fits over. It's like tacking a sailboat into the wind, neither the sail nor the rudder point in the direction you actually want to go, yet you go in that direction.

I've seen the kind of brainwashed people that you're talking about, so I get your point.


I don't see him voting for a preemptive war with anybody for any reason. Indeed, he traded his lack of objection for the non-binding resolution by requiring language demanding congressional oversight and rejecting preemption.


As if its going to matter. Even if Rand, even if we assume Mike Lee and even Ted Cruz just to give you the benefit of the doubt, are truly against war with Iran, and voted for this just for reasons like this, its still going to pass 97-3 once Israel targets the Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel can stop this, President Obama can probably stop it (I'm not saying either one will) but the senate will pass it next time. Why does Rand need to wait until then to vote against it? Its "Not going to matter" because it will still pass. Why not just vote on principle NOW? Its not as if AIPAC was going to endorse him anyway, and I don't think most people even know this vote happened...



I know because I can see what he's doing. Pretty much everything he's done that has had the purists in apoplectic fits, has turned out to be him building a platform from which to stand against the horror. The support for the meaningless resolutions will give him public credibility to oppose a war resolution. I watch the man in the Senate and I completely comprehend the strategy he is deploying. None of the things that horrify the purists surprise me because they are what I would expect someone using his strategy to do.
Not sure how we know for sure whether its really strategy or just slow corruption of a man who used to be a hardcore libertarian.


The 2013 NDAA gave him a platform to reject indefinite detention in a way that more people than ever agree with us now.


Isn't anyyone who SUPPORTS indefinite detention kind of a lost cause anyway? And yeah, I wish he hadn't voted for that one. I realize this wasn't the indefinite detention bill but still: why vote to give the military such a bloated budget?

The Hagel confirmation gave him the platform to filibuster the Brennan confirmation.

This one actually didn't matter to me so much, but may have been unwise for him politically. Laurence Vance had already pointed out that Hagel would almost certainly reverse his policies once he got in, and he did, but as I understand it, Hagel wasn't really bad at the time...

The rhetorical interventionism on Iran, will give him a platform to object to the war they are going to push.
Just out of curiosity since you said the resolutions were "Meaningless": What's your take on this?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/senate-votes-unanimously-toward-war-against-iran.html

[Christian Liberty]

I can't wait for you guys to eat crow when Rand wins the presidency and you see his true nature come out.

I can't either. I really hope that you're right, and that I'm wrong. Because if I'm right, we're in SERIOUS trouble.

[MaxPower]

He's definitely the least bad of bad options, but I don't see how I can seriously trust him anymore.

How do we know that Rand really is on our side? I see no way we can possibly know that. When actual war with Iran is voted on this may well happen again and the Rand defenders will say "But just one vote wouldn't have stopped it" or some such.

Then again, you have a lot more hope in the political process than I do. I don't think any of the real neocons are going to ever vote for Rand, they'd rather vote for the Democratic option even if Rand kisses their feet over and over like with that Iran vote.


Gary Johnson was probably worse than Rand. If the LP doesn't do better I may well just write in Vance...





And people like Rand Paul vote along with them way too often.




I'm not saying Rand is a neocon but how in the world do we know he's really on our side here? Because he's the least bad of a bad group known as "Senators"? Because he's Ron Paul's son? Or something more substantial? I honestly think its far more likely that the latest vote was just showing us what's happening, Rand is falling to the establishment like everyone else in the senate...


What the 10% of issues are does matter. If the "Only thing" I disagree with Rand on is an Iranian War, that's enough for me to go third party.



This is very likely what happens...
1. Rand had language inserted into the resolution specifying that any and all military actions have to be constitutional and thus congressionally-authorized.
2. Rand had language inserted into the resolution specifying that nothing in the resolution was a declaration of war or authorization for military force (which should have obvious already, since it is a non-binding resolution with no legal force, but the administration tried to suggest "congressional authorization" for the Libyan incursion on the basis of a non-binding resolution, so this was significant).

After that, he allowed it to pass without objection. It has a lot of ugly and bellicose rhetoric, but it is impotent. The very fact that Rand amended the resolution with the specifications mentioned above indicates that he is still concerned about constitutionality and restraint in foreign policy. He has stated dozens of times that he is categorically opposed to pre-emptive, offensive warmaking, and devoted an entire chapter to it in his book. He truly would alienate his father forever if he voted for an outright war of aggression, and he knows it full well. Rand will not vote for pre-emptive war with Iran.

[fisharmor]

Actually, yes, when you read your reply in the context of my post to which you replied, it directly impugned my motives.

Me: "I want to restore America."

You: "The America that commits genocide?"

so yeah, quite revolting indeed.

Well, I apologize for offending you. It was not my intent.
Do you see that it's a point worth a candidate's time to clarify once in a while which America he wants to "restore", before I and others who think like me will support him?
I don't doubt your motives, because you're here explaining them.
But Rand has a history of sending us some pretty mixed messages.

[noneedtoaggress]

Actually, yes, when you read your reply in the context of my post to which you replied, it directly impugned my motives.

Me: "I want to restore America."

You: "The America that commits genocide?"

so yeah, quite revolting indeed.

I didn't read it as him questioning your motives at all. I read it as him having a different concept for what it means to "restore America" over concerns about people putting "rose colored glasses" on that idea. That's how he ended the post, as well.

I don't think anyone here was implying that your motives were immoral. I'd imagine what you're referring to was to "restore [the values that made] America [positive in many aspects]".

Looks like fisharmor was questioning what people's concepts of "America" is and what it means to "restore" it, rather than taking it at face value. Seems like he wanted to talk about principles and values rather than putting it in the context of a nation-state which historically seems to have betrayed many of the values it was founded on at any given time during it's history. He's trying to separating the ideals from the historical reality and (and nationalistic & nostalgic rhetoric) questioning what the word "restore" even means in this context.

At least that's what I seem to have gotten out of the exchange.

[Brett85]

Rand will not vote for pre-emptive war with Iran.

I sure hope not, but he's said many times he thinks the military option should be on the table.

[Christian Liberty]

1. Rand had language inserted into the resolution specifying that any and all military actions have to be constitutional and thus congressionally-authorized.
2. Rand had language inserted into the resolution specifying that nothing in the resolution was a declaration of war or authorization for military force (which should have obvious already, since it is a non-binding resolution with no legal force, but the administration tried to suggest "congressional authorization" for the Libyan incursion on the basis of a non-binding resolution, so this was significant).

After that, he allowed it to pass without objection. It has a lot of ugly and bellicose rhetoric, but it is impotent. The very fact that Rand amended the resolution with the specifications mentioned above indicates that he is still concerned about constitutionality and restraint in foreign policy. He has stated dozens of times that he is categorically opposed to pre-emptive, offensive warmaking, and devoted an entire chapter to it in his book. He truly would alienate his father forever if he voted for an outright war of aggression, and he knows it full well. Rand will not vote for pre-emptive war with Iran.

I really hope not. As I said though, I'm not sure how what Rand wrote in the past is really relevant, he could have changed his mind/been corrupted/exc. Not saying that IS the case but it seems like some of you guys don't even consider it.

Rand also wants to be "Somewhere, some of the time" whatever that means...

[Brett85]

I really hope not. As I said though, I'm not sure how what Rand wrote in the past is really relevant, he could have changed his mind/been corrupted/exc. Not saying that IS the case but it seems like some of you guys don't even consider it.

Rand also wants to be "Somewhere, some of the time" whatever that means...

Jack Hunter wrote Rand's book.

[Christian Liberty]

Jack Hunter wrote Rand's book.

Wait, so they're telling me I should trust Rand Paul on foreign policy because of something he didn't even write?

Is that literally what they're saying?

:rolleyes:

I'll stick with Rand's actual, CURRENT actions; thank you...

[MaxPower]

Jack Hunter co-wrote Rand's book. Rand may not have been solely responsible for all of its content, but he obviously participated in and endorsed every word of it, and has spoken to the effect of that chapter, as I said, dozens of times. You keep pointing out that he has not been a radical non-interventionist like his father ("somewhere, some of the time") but ignoring the fact that at the very same time, he has made it a foundational doctrine of his that he is against preemptive and presidential warmaking. This is also one of his father's key, cornerstone positions-- if Rand actually voted for a preemptive, illegal war, it would break the Ron Paul/Rand Paul alliance. I am virtually certain Ron would not endorse or campaign for him in 2016 after Rand did such a thing, the personal problems it might create between them aside. He would also lose the endorsements of Judge Napolitano, Jack Hunter, and nearly every other major leader of the liberty movement he currently has on his side. Not only does Rand have no record of flip-flopping on foundational issues, and a strong anti-war record in the Senate-- see his various speeches, bills to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq, vigorous opposition to Obama's Libyan incursion, 13-hour filibuster full of denunciations of imperialism and war without limits, etc.-- but even beyond that, it would be politically devastating to him to actually outright flip-flop on one of the core issues of the liberty movement, one of his father's core issues and one of his own since he first launched his senatorial campaign four years ago, and vote for a preemptive, illegal war on Iran. Even though he has some cross-over appeal with mainstream Republicans, the heart and soul of his support and grassroots enthusiasm now does and always has come from us. The resolution he allowed to pass-- after inserting language that significantly decreased its pro-war implications-- has no legal force, does not authorize preemptive war, and explicitly denies that it does, thanks to Rand.

In fact, let me make this clear:
-As things stand, I am fully prepared to vote for Rand Paul in 2016.
-If Rand Paul votes in favor of a preemptive war with Iran (***not "If Rand Paul fails to object to a non-binding resolution which does not authorize war with Iran after inserting language into it which specifies that it does not authorize war with Iran"***) I absolutely will not vote for him in 2016.
-If Rand Paul votes in favor of a preemptive war with Iran, I will eat my hat.

[Ender]

1. Rand had language inserted into the resolution specifying that any and all military actions have to be constitutional and thus congressionally-authorized.
2. Rand had language inserted into the resolution specifying that nothing in the resolution was a declaration of war or authorization for military force (which should have obvious already, since it is a non-binding resolution with no legal force, but the administration tried to suggest "congressional authorization" for the Libyan incursion on the basis of a non-binding resolution, so this was significant).

After that, he allowed it to pass without objection. It has a lot of ugly and bellicose rhetoric, but it is impotent. The very fact that Rand amended the resolution with the specifications mentioned above indicates that he is still concerned about constitutionality and restraint in foreign policy. He has stated dozens of times that he is categorically opposed to pre-emptive, offensive warmaking, and devoted an entire chapter to it in his book. He truly would alienate his father forever if he voted for an outright war of aggression, and he knows it full well. Rand will not vote for pre-emptive war with Iran.

That's pretty much my take on it.

Because of Rand- the president cannot act on his own; only congress can declare war on Iran.

[dillo]

Rand Paul is the closest thing we can get into office right now. He definitely has flaws but they aren't as deep or corporate as the people surrounding him.

[fisharmor]

At least that's what I seem to have gotten out of the exchange.

Dead on.

http://rlv.zcache.com/restore_america_romney_ryan_button-r6bd7929818de43c8bbbe3cb0257e3316_x7j1f_8byvr_512. jpg
We need to qualify that whenever possible.

[pcosmar]

That's pretty much my take on it.

Because of Rand- the president cannot act on his own; only congress can declare war on Iran.

Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Pakistan?
Syria

oh,, and lets not forget the proxy wars in South America and the African Continent that the US has been directly involved in.

[osan]

Why don't we try to grind Rand through yet another purity check...


You should have stopped right here, and yes, we should be doing just that. It's called paying attention and keeping our so-called representatives on short leashes. I would do the same with Ron Paul even. Nobody is exempt because the temptations are too great, even for saints.

The political solution should be less focused on the Oval Office and more on Congress. Put Jesus himself in the White House and he will be hamstrung with a congress such as what we now enjoy. We are drowning in the fruits of corruption. Fixing one element (president) isn't going to take us far without addressing the rest.

As for Rand Paul, one can speak of the necessity for such men who are willing to sell their principles out for the sake of winning all day long, but that doesn't reduce the hazards of placing such characters into positions of power. History is littered with the detritus that resulted from people doing so. The problem with such people is they can never be trusted and must be watched closely. Get him into office if you can - he would probably be a lot better than Bammy, but do not for a split-moment think that you can trust him without supervision.

When you're putting your balls in the hands of such people you are well behooved to keep your eyes on them with leashes tightly foreshortened.

Just my worthless opinion.

[Galileo Galilei]

He already is. Every single senator is. All one hundred of them are traitors. I said ninety-eight 48 hours ago but every single one of them voted to betray America for Israel and "If necessary" to kill innocent children in Iran.

He won't be getting my vote.

And if people keep asking this question, I'll be here with an answer.

Rand Paul watered down the sanctions as to make them almost meaningless. This is a lot better than Ron Paul ever did. Bullheaded Ron got outvoted 434-1 and then went home. That does nothing for out liberty. What Rand is doing protects liberty. Do the math, a vote of 99-1 and it still passes.

[osan]

If Rand is in anyway a threat to the plans and agenda of TPTB he will by NO Means be allowed to be anything but a minority voice in a powerless position.


Raising the question: if not Rand Paul, then who?

Any speculations? Please don't say "Frothy". :(

[Anti Federalist]

Rand Paul watered down the sanctions as to make them almost meaningless. This is a lot better than Ron Paul ever did. Bullheaded Ron got outvoted 434-1 and then went home. That does nothing for out liberty. What Rand is doing protects liberty. Do the math, a vote of 99-1 and it still passes.

Rand Paul would not be in the Senate if it was not for Ron Paul.

[surf]

Rand Paul watered down the sanctions as to make them almost meaningless. This is a lot better than Ron Paul ever did. Bullheaded Ron got outvoted 434-1 and then went home. That does nothing for out liberty. What Rand is doing protects liberty. Do the math, a vote of 99-1 and it still passes.good point. a watered down version passing 99-1 is, in my opinion, much better than a watered down bill passing unanimously.

this was just another vote for more war. no one, including the guy i'll probably support in a couple years, voted for peace.

[osan]

Why should I even dignify this garbage with a response?

As if I am pushing for any of that list of bovine feces.

Yeah, I've given my whole life to this cause just to help enable tyranny and genocide. :rolleyes:

Your implications as to my motives are revolting.

I think you may have mistaken his tone and meaning. He does raise a legitimate point, but emotions are high and we may not be expressing ourselves as clearly as we might. Though we have emergency contingencies on the plate, we should also be devoting some thought as to what the vision shall be for the future. We are at war in a very real sense and this thing could get very sideways in any of a number of bad ways in a hurry.

We do need to keep perspective, but we also need to know there is a very bright line in the sand somewhere over which anyone who steps earns our unequivocal enmity and gets shown the door.

[Brett85]

Rand Paul watered down the sanctions as to make them almost meaningless.

Rand never watered down any sanctions bill. He just added a sentence to the bill saying that the bill can't be used as an authorization for the use of military force against Iran. I'm not saying that isn't important, but it's not true that Rand has ever watered down harsh sanctions into less harsh sanctions. They wouldn't allow him to do that even if he wanted to.

[Anti Federalist]

Rand never watered down any sanctions bill. He just added a sentence to the bill saying that the bill can't be used as an authorization for the use of military force against Iran. I'm not saying that isn't important, but it's not true that Rand has ever watered down harsh sanctions into less harsh sanctions. They wouldn't allow him to do that even if he wanted to.

Yeah, pretty much this, sadly.

[Christian Liberty]

You should have stopped right here, and yes, we should be doing just that. It's called paying attention and keeping our so-called representatives on short leashes. I would do the same with Ron Paul even. Nobody is exempt because the temptations are too great, even for saints.

The political solution should be less focused on the Oval Office and more on Congress. Put Jesus himself in the White House and he will be hamstrung with a congress such as what we now enjoy. We are drowning in the fruits of corruption. Fixing one element (president) isn't going to take us far without addressing the rest.

As for Rand Paul, one can speak of the necessity for such men who are willing to sell their principles out for the sake of winning all day long, but that doesn't reduce the hazards of placing such characters into positions of power. History is littered with the detritus that resulted from people doing so. The problem with such people is they can never be trusted and must be watched closely. Get him into office if you can - he would probably be a lot better than Bammy, but do not for a split-moment think that you can trust him without supervision.

When you're putting your balls in the hands of such people you are well behooved to keep your eyes on them with leashes tightly foreshortened.

Just my worthless opinion.

I honestly doubt that RON would ever sell out, but you're absolutely correct. The reason I trust Ron so much is that he didn't give a hoot about winning. That doesn't really apply to Rand or anyone else that I can think oter than third party people.

Rand Paul watered down the sanctions as to make them almost meaningless. This is a lot better than Ron Paul ever did. Bullheaded Ron got outvoted 434-1 and then went home. That does nothing for out liberty. What Rand is doing protects liberty. Do the math, a vote of 99-1 and it still passes.

Negative Rep for insulting the REAL champion of liberty. Reread this and let me know why its offensive.


That's pretty much my take on it.

Because of Rand- the president cannot act on his own; only congress can declare war on Iran.

False. Because of THE CONSTITUTION he "can't" do that. I seriously doubt he'll follow this bill if he doesn't follow the Constitution.

[anaconda]

As anybody who knows me or my record will testify, I take the Ron Paul approach. In the General Assembly, I stood hard and fast on principle even when that meant being the sole dissent, and that happened over, and over again. That beng said, I know what Rand is doing and I support it.

If you want to forge a fine piece of steel, you need both the hammer AND the anvil. To temper it, you need both the fire AND the water. You cannot turn out a quality product with just one half of the equation. You need the whole thing to produce a quality product. Just like in a political movement, you need both the resolute ideologues to keep on the path, and you need determined chameleons to clear the brush away so forward movement can commence.

The bottom line is you need both the Ron Pauls and the Rand Pauls to achieve both long range and short range victory. I don't know why this isn't obvious to people of our moral and rational stature. I find the people who embrace Rand and reject Ron just as ridiculous as the people who embrace Ron and reject Rand. Ron is the compass and Rand is the machete. You are not getting anywhere in the jungle without both. With a compass alone you are going in the correct direction but you aren't getting anywhere. With the machete alone you are moving fast enough but meandering all over the place and will never arrive at the destination.

I myself have chosen to be a compass rather than a machete, but I know damn good and well that I wasn't going anywhere fast in the legislature without a machete type as an ally. Nothing is going to happen here if we do not have both. Hating on one or the other is desperately counter-productive, and that's a fact. We are cutting our nose off to spite our face, because we are pissed that the nose doesn't perform the same function as the eyes.

SMH - we should be smarter than this.

^This.

[Christian Liberty]

He already is. Every single senator is. All one hundred of them are traitors. I said ninety-eight 48 hours ago but every single one of them voted to betray America for Israel and "If necessary" to kill innocent children in Iran.

He won't be getting my vote.

And if people keep asking this question, I'll be here with an answer.

Since I think this is the post LE was talking about, I will note that there is literally no mention of Rand Paul in this post at all. By itself, its actually a bit illogical since I implied a mention of Rand but did not actually state one in the second line. But I called the entire senate traitors. I didn't mention Rand specifically at all. I stand by my sentiment that this bill was in fact a treasonous document. Make of that what you will.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, I apologize for offending you. It was not my intent.
Do you see that it's a point worth a candidate's time to clarify once in a while which America he wants to "restore", before I and others who think like me will support him?
I don't doubt your motives, because you're here explaining them.
But Rand has a history of sending us some pretty mixed messages.

I understand and I appreciate it, I do think we should understand that kind of statement based on who is making it though, and it was me saying it, not Rand, and certainly not Rmoney.

I could be bitter myself but I am not. I do not really get the benefit of the doubt on fundraising like Rand, and yet I am the Ron Paul no-compromise type. That probably has to do with the scope of the office - now that I am running for a statewide Party office, donations are coming a little easier even though I don't actually want them as much for VC. I had more influence in the State House, and would have had more than that in State Senate, but now that Karl Rove has come into NC to stop me, even though I am doing all that I can to overcome him, I admit I feel guilty taking donations for a longshot. I mean, we've already accomplished a sick amount of good. We are close to a majority on the State Executive Committee now specifically because of this effort. So it's accomplished more than the amount taken in, but it doesn't feel good to me, you know?

There is some chance that I may run for US Senate in 2016, and I know what it's like to try and raise money when all the oxygen is being sucked out by a Presidential race. I could look at the rhetorical Rand as detracting from my principled run, but I do not. I recognize that we need both penetration AND guidance.

As to Rand's motives, the man campaigned heavily for Ron in 2008, and as much as he could in 2012. Every dubious move thus far (except the Iran stuff because the other shoe has yet to drop on that issue) has set up a principled stand later. He uses a pander to put himself into a position to oppose. He's done that for every dubious move so far except the Iran stuff, and that I see as being because the critical cusp on Iran has not yet arrived.

I trust Rand. I admit that I trust Brannon an order of magnitude more, but I see Rand being the machete and Brannon being the compass. We need both kinds in the same chamber at the same time to make real progress. Rand without Brannon is moving fast without direction. Brannon without Rand will be moving very slowly in the correct direction. Put them both together and you have the potential to move very quickly in the correct direction, which is precisely what we need.

Ron and Rand are different. Quite different indeed. Problem is either one of them alone doesn't get it done. You have to have both to make real progress. That's why I am so discouraged by all the Rand hate. Sure, Rand types alone won't get much more done than Ron types alone. The two types working together will do more than we could hope for. So say we manage to hurt Rand enough that he's not around anymore when we manage to put another Ron type into office. We just cut our nose off to spite our face, and won't accomplish nearly as much as we want to.