Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 75

Thread: Justin Raimondo: Why they hate Rand Paul

  1. #1

    Justin Raimondo: Why they hate Rand Paul

    The rise of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) as an alternative to Bush era GOP dead-enders has the two principal anti-libertarian factions in American politics snarling and spitting in fury – and real fear.

    The progressives – in the drivers’ seat at the moment – are especially miffed that this upstart ophthalmologist, and son of Ron Paul, has become a pole of attraction not only for libertarians and their conservative fellow-travelers, but for a growing number of their own liberal-leftie base. Disappointed – outraged would be a better word – by the serial betrayal of their fondest hopes, cosmopolitan urban liberals of the sort who join the ACLU and remember Hillary Clinton’s fulsome support for the Iraq war have found in the country boy from Kentucky an unlikely hero. Sen. Paul’s famous anti-drone filibuster enraged the Obama administration, which could hardly conceal its contempt for the Senator’s concerns – but was finally forced to respond. They and their Praetorian Guards among the punditocracy complained it was just plain silly – an indication of Black Helicopter Syndrome – to contend the US government is targeting Americans in its endless "war on terrorism." Then along came Edward Snowden to prove him right.

    This was too much for the neocons, whose response to the Paul filibuster was best expressed by their chief Senatorial sock puppet, who sputtered that Paul and the rest of the "wacko birds" who took to the floor in support of the libertarian insurgent had better get the heck off his lawn. Paul had done much to console and "reach out" to the emerging anti-Paul faction of the GOP, even earning a few tentative plaudits from such hardcore neocons as the Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin: his visit to Israel helped. Rubin opined that he might not be his father’s son after all – no one in contemporary political life ratchets up their ire more than the elder Paul – but for some people it’s never enough, and Paul was soon out of Jenn’s good graces. After all that flirty prose about how Rand just might be the future of the Republican party, in a Bizarro World inversion of the original tale the handsome prince suddenly turned into the loathsome frog, and jilted Jenn turned on her sometime prince in a fury:

    "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has strenuously insisted that he is not the ideological twin of his father. But recent events – his paranoia about drones; his praise of Edward Snowden; his defense of his aide, the "Southern Avenger" Jack Hunter; and his lashing out at "neocons" – suggest he’s not far enough from his father to achieve respectability with a substantial segment of the GOP."

    In the neocon lexicon, "respectability" means meeting the approval of Rubin and her fellow neocons, among whom there had been a debate on the Rand Paul Question. Softies likes Rubin had been willing to give the newbie a chance, while the hardcore folks over at Commentary, notably Jonathan Tobin, detected disturbing signs of "isolationist" deviationism, and other politically incorrect notions that All Serious People reject out of hand. The hardliners are now crowing about how right they were, with poor Jenn abashedly chiming in as Jonah Goldberg lays down the law in National Review.

    With the original "conservative pope" dead, buried, and largely forgotten, and with David Frum absent from his role as Chief Enforcer after having himself been purged for deviationism, the conservative papacy is apparently embodied by a public figure who owes his elevation to having direct access to the semen stains on Monica Lewinsky’s dress. With such impeccable credentials as a moral arbiter, Goldberg comes down hard on Sen. Paul for not only hiring one Jack Hunter, aka the "Southern Avenger," who allegedly made racist remarks as a “shock jock” radio host, but for the pursuit of a "sinful strategy." Goldberg’s interdict cites the neocon cheat sheet the Washington Free Beacon, which ran a superficial piece attacking Hunter as a racist – without quoting a single racist statement the poor guy ever made! Hunter’s major sin appears to be raising a glass to John Wilkes Booth on the infamous assassin’s birthday – a cardinal sin in the neocon theology, and a mortal one in the progressive church, where the Big O’s supposed resemblance to the Great Emancipator is a favorite conceit of the Obama cult.

    What is this "sinful strategy" Pope Jonah speaks of? Raising tired old accusations of racism-anti-Semitism-etc. against the elder Paul, Goldberg pontificates:

    "Both controversies stem from the same sinful strategy adopted by so-called paleolibertarians in the 1980s. The idea was that libertarians needed to attract followers from outside the ranks of both the mainstream GOP and the libertarian movement – by trying to fuse the struggle for individual liberty with nostalgia for white supremacy. Thinkers such as Murray Rothbard hated the cultural liberalism of libertarians like the Koch brothers (yes, you read that right) and sought to build a movement fueled by white resentment. This sect of libertarianism played into the left-wing view of conservatism as racist. The newsletters, probably ghostwritten by Rothbard and former Ron Paul chief of staff Lew Rockwell, were the main organ for this effort."

    Goldberg is a liar, and not a very good one at that: unlike the conservatives at National Review, no libertarians I have ever heard of have defended white supremacy, and there is nothing in the newsletters that validates this charge. That he thinks Rothbard wrote them is on a par with his prediction that those "weapons of mass destruction" would be found in Iraq: toward the end of Rothbard’s life, when the newsletters were published, the great libertarian theorist was too busy writing his magisterial An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought (in two volumes) to do work normally assigned to Paul’s aides. As for the newsletters themselves, if you actually read them instead of just reading about them, the gravity of the charge quickly dissipates. In the present atmosphere of "anti-racist" witch-hunting, however, it is enough to know that the "neo-Confederate" sympathies of Hunter, and of "this sect of libertarianism" supposedly brand them as Beyond the Pale.

    The "sinful" strategy advanced by Rothbard was based on his critique of the libertarian movement as it existed in the late 1980s and early 90s: it was, he thought, too oriented to would-be "hipsters" who cared only about legalizing drugs, endorsing "alternative lifestyles," and played down the harder edges of a philosophy that opposes not only affirmative action and the welfare state but also "civil rights" laws that violate the rights of free association and property. Rothbard certainly hoped libertarians would be able to make gains by championing the entirely justified resentment of Americans, whatever their color, who oppose racial set asides and question the utility of "anti-discrimination" legislation designed to make white liberals feel good about themselves. You may disagree with this orientation, but for Goldberg to smear it as promoting “white supremacy” makes him look less attentive to the facts than Al Sharpton.

    Goldberg goes on to cite one Steve Horwitz, a "libertarian economist," who makes all the appropriately sanctimonious noises:

    "The paleo strategy was a horrific mistake, though it apparently made some folks (such as Rockwell and Paul) pretty rich selling newsletters predicting the collapse of Western civilization at the hands of the blacks, gays, and multiculturalists."

    If the "paleo" strategy was such a big mistake, how does Horwitz explain the Ron Paul phenomenon, which propelled a formerly marginal congressman from a rural district in Texas to the leadership of a national movement that today threatens the Republican establishment – and the Democratic establishment as well? The enormously successful Paul for President movement was the direct outgrowth of the very "sect" of libertarianism Horwitz and his buddy Goldberg disdain.

    The reality is that the only "sect" in this equation is the tiny but vocal and well-connected group of Beltway libertarians who have always hated Ron Paul – and are now projecting their hostility on his son. Horwitz, as one of the founders of the "Bleeding Heart Libertarian" movement – which spends much of its energy proving how politically correct libertarians can be if they really try – represents the extreme "left" wing of this anti-Paulian grouplet. I put "left" in scare quotes because any left-winger worth his salt would not have written or published the embarrassing defense of Israel’s vicious attack on Gaza penned by Horwitz, whose heart apparently doesn’t bleed for the Palestinians. The Bleeders even have room for a "libertarian" foreign affairs commentator who supported the Iraq war.

    Horwitz represents nothing and no one but himself: neither does one Jason Kuznicki, cited in a Washington Post piece on the "libertarian war over the civil war." Bemoaning the fact that "it’s difficult to police any political movement – but especially one that prides itself on championing freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas," the WaPo goes on to cite Kuznicki, a low-level apparatchik at the Cato Institute, who complains: "We don’t have a pope. It’s very hard to excommunicate anyone and make it stick." I suppose Pope Jonah will have to do for the moment.

    Isn’t it funny how often the media comes up with these cockamamie stories about all these alleged "splits" in our movement? First it was the alleged libertarian "split" over the Iraq war, with Reason magazine running dueling pro and con editorials at the outset of hostilities – as if 99.9 percent of libertarians weren’t unalterably opposed. Then there was that supposed intra-libertarian "debate" over the Snowden revelations, with Fox News talking head and corporate shill John Stossel coming out in support of universal surveillance – again, with the overwhelming majority of libertarians on the other side. Now we have yet another phony "libertarian split," this time over which side to take in the Civil War, no less. Before I go into the intricacies of this burning question, I would just note that in the process of smearing the only major politician to come out against the imminent prospect of another war in the Middle East, we are now being asked to refight the battle of Gettysburg.

    Libertarians oppose all wars of aggression, and certainly the brutal military campaign by the North to forcibly reincorporate the South into the Union qualifies as such. While it would be an overstatement to say slavery had nothing to do with the outbreak of the war, it is certainly true that in the absence of other issues – the tariff, federalism, and the economic imperatives of the industrialized crony-capitalist North, which depended on government subsidies and taxes extracted from the South – war would never have come. The first congressional resolution on the war doesn’t so much as mention slavery, and the Lincoln administration pledged not to interfere with "local institutions" if the Confederates would simply return to the loving arms of the Great American Family. In anticipation of slavery’s end, Lincoln’s own state of Illinois even passed a law forbidding the emigration of blacks, and several other northern states followed suit. The ugly truth is that the Republican party, with the Great Emancipator at its head, did not demand the end of slavery because they feared the prospect of a mass black migration northward.

    If it is now evidence of "racism" and "neo-Confederate" sympathies to hold that the Civil War was a horrific tragedy which might reasonably have been avoided – and slavery abolished peacefully, as it was in every other nation on earth – then we have truly entered Bizarro World, where up is down and opposition to mass murder by the State is a hate crime.

    I’ve had my share on run ins with Jack Hunter, nor have I exactly been an uncritical fan of Rand Paul, but it’s not too hard to detect the pattern in all this. The Beltway’s anti-libertarian cabal has been extra busy this week, with no less than a baker’s dozen of anti-Rand Paul screeds, from Goldberg to Michael Gerson to every neocon known to man and then some, all of them hankering for Sen. Rand’s scalp. Why do you suppose that is?

    Three reasons: 1) He’s ahead in the Iowa polls, and the buzz about his much anticipated presidential campaign is getting louder. 2) Sen. Paul and a small but vocal group in Congress have apparently succeeded in calling attention to the utter folly of getting involved in Syria’s civil war, and that crazy notion is now officially on hold, and 3) Alone among our presently serving elected officials, Paul has come out with some favorable comments about Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker who exposed the government’s vast and highly secret spying program. This last is a major "sin" – as Pope Jonah puts it – as far as the political class is concerned, and there can be no forgiveness.

    Worse, from the Golbergian-neocon-"progressive" perspective, Sen. Paul is introducing legislation, in coordination with co-thinkers in the House like Rep. Justin Amash, that would repeal legislation authorizing government spying on Americans and restore the Fourth Amendment. The neocon-"progressive" alliance is out to scotch that movement, along with burgeoning pro-Paul sentiment in the GOP.

    To add a bit of comic relief to the scenario, the anti-Paulians have been joined by Rep. Peter King (R-IRA), who has opined that Hillary Clinton would "cream" Paul in a 2016 face-off, and is floating the idea of launching a presidential bid of his own. Just what the 2016 race needs – a highly mockable loudmouthed New Yorker who wants to prosecute journalists for reporting the news. Get out the popcorn, and pull up a chair: this is going to be fun. Bets are on as to whether he’ll get even less support than that other warmongering loudmouthed New Yorker of a GOP presidential candidate – who only got a single delegate. Perhaps King can hire Jonah Goldberg as his chief speechwriter, a position the former holder of the secret of Monica’ Dress is eminently qualified for.
    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...ate-rand-paul/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    F the neo cons and the democrat ass they rode in on.
    Last edited by Working Poor; 07-24-2013 at 07:30 AM.

  4. #3
    The reality is that the only "sect" in this equation is the tiny but vocal and well-connected group of Beltway libertarians who have always hated Ron Paul – and are now projecting their hostility on his son.
    ...
    Isn’t it funny how often the media comes up with these cockamamie stories about all these alleged "splits" in our movement? First it was the alleged libertarian "split" over the Iraq war, with Reason magazine running dueling pro and con editorials at the outset of hostilities – as if 99.9 percent of libertarians weren’t unalterably opposed.
    A good point. Those who would sow division are not always outsiders. Some are within.

    It's likely that a good portion (not all, of course) of the Gary over Ron supporters came from that corner of the room. Even Gary himself probably didn't know anything about who some of his encouragers really were.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    It's likely that a good portion (not all, of course) of the Gary over Ron supporters came from that corner of the room. Even Gary himself probably didn't know anything about who some of his encouragers really were.
    That's what started clicking in my head during Gary's campaign which is why I wrote in Ron instead. Those are the real phony libertarians.

  6. #5
    You are guys suggesting that neocons and Koch bros encouraged Gary Johnson to run? That doesn't make any sense. Gary won 1% of the vote. This is 1% that did not go to Romney.

    What's your beef with Gary Johnson anyway?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by JCDenton0451 View Post
    You are guys suggesting that neocons and Koch bros encouraged Gary Johnson to run? That doesn't make any sense. Gary won 1% of the vote. This is 1% that did not go to Romney.

    What's your beef with Gary Johnson anyway?
    In 2008, the RP movement had more intensity. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say GJ was more libertarian than RP, however, he was an alternative option that clearly the beltway gang would not have as much trouble with.

    Not saying it was necessarily so, but if the plan was to fragment the RP movement to try to dull the intensity, it worked to a point.

  8. #7
    I voted for Gary Johnson over Romney. I donated to Gary Johnson once Ron was out of the race. Chill out, everyone is not out to get you.
    "Freedom, then Pizza!" - Oklahoma State GOP Convention 5/11/2012

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by JCDenton0451 View Post
    You are guys suggesting that neocons and Koch bros encouraged Gary Johnson to run? That doesn't make any sense. Gary won 1% of the vote. This is 1% that did not go to Romney.

    What's your beef with Gary Johnson anyway?
    No beef with Johnson. I voted for him in the General. Do I have to agree with every single one of his other supporters?
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Steve Horwitz is no libertarian. He is actually objectivist (google it). The reason why Ayn Rand originally split from the libertarian movement was because she loved Israel too much and didn't like the implications of libertarianism (and libertarian foreign policy) for the Jewish state.

    When you're talking about "beltway libertarians" you're talking primarily about these kind of people.

    There is a very simple fix for this problem: just get rid of any pro-Israel elements in the GOP. "Friends of Israel" will never embrace non-interventionst foreign policy. They are smart enough to understand that without a constant stream of US financial and military support, Jewish state will wither and die.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    No beef with Johnson. I voted for him in the General. Do I have to agree with every single one of his other supporters?
    I voted for him too, and I can't imagine why would any neocon support Gary Johnson.

    He is not the enemy.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfly View Post
    In 2008, the RP movement had more intensity. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say GJ was more libertarian than RP, however, he was an alternative option that clearly the beltway gang would not have as much trouble with.

    Not saying it was necessarily so, but if the plan was to fragment the RP movement to try to dull the intensity, it worked to a point.
    Maybe it had more intensity then, but it wasn't until 2012 that it we finally started to make an impact. I wasn't even aware of RP back in 2008.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by JCDenton0451 View Post
    I voted for him too, and I can't imagine why would any neocon support Gary Johnson.

    He is not the enemy.
    The undercurrent was that Johnson would be more friendly to Israel and interventionism than Ron. This was a major motivation for some Johnson supporters.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  15. #13
    They hate him for his freedom.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by RabbitMan View Post
    I voted for Gary Johnson over Romney. I donated to Gary Johnson once Ron was out of the race. Chill out, everyone is not out to get you.
    this.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The undercurrent was that Johnson would be more friendly to Israel and interventionism than Ron. This was a major motivation for some Johnson supporters.
    Well, this is guilt by association argument. Just because some Zionists hoped to use Johnson to distract people from Ron Paul doesn't mean that Johnson himself embraces Zionist agenda.

  18. #16
    They hate him because he is the son of Ron Paul ... If anyone threatens their perpetual, fake, wars on drugs and terrorism he will go down.

    We have no government ... we have Mafia, who gain personal wealth from wars and drug running. They will take Rand down if he continues to threaten their mafioso cartels.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Great article.
    "We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% [the same on issues]." Ron Paul

  21. #18
    Awesome article. Thanks.

    Hits the nail right on the head.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by FSP-Rebel View Post
    That's what started clicking in my head during Gary's campaign which is why I wrote in Ron instead. Those are the real phony libertarians.
    I honestly view Gary as a moderate liberal. Which is better than being a hardcore liberal like Romney or Obama, but he was still fundamentally and philosophically a liberal.

    At the time I would have voted for him, but I'm not 100% sure now. I do kind of want the Libertarian Party to grow (I mean, I prefer Ron Paul types getting elected in the GOP of course, but barring that, I want the LP to make some noise) and so I kind of view voting for the LP to be only half voting for the candidate and half voting for the LP platform (Which admittedly is not great in and of itself.) If this scenario comes up again in 2016, I'd be open minded depending on who exactly the candidates are.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by JCDenton0451 View Post
    Steve Horwitz is no libertarian. He is actually objectivist (google it). The reason why Ayn Rand originally split from the libertarian movement was because she loved Israel too much and didn't like the implications of libertarianism (and libertarian foreign policy) for the Jewish state.

    When you're talking about "beltway libertarians" you're talking primarily about these kind of people.

    There is a very simple fix for this problem: just get rid of any pro-Israel elements in the GOP. "Friends of Israel" will never embrace non-interventionst foreign policy. They are smart enough to understand that without a constant stream of US financial and military support, Jewish state will wither and die.
    Define "Pro-Israel."

    Rand Paul would probably technically apply as "Pro-Israel" but not in a Zionistic sort of way.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianne View Post
    They hate him because he is the son of Ron Paul ... If anyone threatens their perpetual, fake, wars on drugs and terrorism he will go down.

    We have no government ... we have Mafia, who gain personal wealth from wars and drug running. They will take Rand down if he continues to threaten their mafioso cartels.
    No harder to understand than that.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by JCDenton0451 View Post
    Well, this is guilt by association argument. Just because some Zionists hoped to use Johnson to distract people from Ron Paul doesn't mean that Johnson himself embraces Zionist agenda.
    I never said or implied anything about Johnson himself. As a matter of fact, I went even further and said that he would probably be unaware of all of the sub-groupings and libertarian infighting.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by VoluntaryAmerican View Post
    Great article.
    My favorite paragraphs:

    If it is now evidence of "racism" and "neo-Confederate" sympathies to hold that the Civil War was a horrific tragedy which might reasonably have been avoided – and slavery abolished peacefully, as it was in every other nation on earth – then we have truly entered Bizarro World, where up is down and opposition to mass murder by the State is a hate crime.

    I’ve had my share on run ins with Jack Hunter, nor have I exactly been an uncritical fan of Rand Paul, but it’s not too hard to detect the pattern in all this. The Beltway’s anti-libertarian cabal has been extra busy this week, with no less than a baker’s dozen of anti-Rand Paul screeds, from Goldberg to Michael Gerson to every neocon known to man and then some, all of them hankering for Sen. Rand’s scalp. Why do you suppose that is?

    Three reasons: 1) He’s ahead in the Iowa polls, and the buzz about his much anticipated presidential campaign is getting louder. 2) Sen. Paul and a small but vocal group in Congress have apparently succeeded in calling attention to the utter folly of getting involved in Syria’s civil war, and that crazy notion is now officially on hold, and 3) Alone among our presently serving elected officials, Paul has come out with some favorable comments about Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker who exposed the government’s vast and highly secret spying program. This last is a major "sin" – as Pope Jonah puts it – as far as the political class is concerned, and there can be no forgiveness.

    Worse, from the Golbergian-neocon-"progressive" perspective, Sen. Paul is introducing legislation, in coordination with co-thinkers in the House like Rep. Justin Amash, that would repeal legislation authorizing government spying on Americans and restore the Fourth Amendment. The neocon-"progressive" alliance is out to scotch that movement, along with burgeoning pro-Paul sentiment in the GOP.

  27. #24
    2016 is do or die. Rand Paul may be an imperfect candidate but its what we've got. Roll of the dice? Sure, but what else are we going to do?

    And if your answer is "Civil disobedience", that in no way precludes you for rolling the dice on Rand Paul.

    To think otherwise, as I have thought at times in the past, is to underestimate the stakes.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    Define "Pro-Israel."

    Rand Paul would probably technically apply as "Pro-Israel" but not in a Zionistic sort of way.
    When I say "Pro-Israel" I always mean it in a Zionistic kind of way.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    2016 is do or die. Rand Paul may be an imperfect candidate but its what we've got. Roll of the dice? Sure, but what else are we going to do?

    And if your answer is "Civil disobedience", that in no way precludes you for rolling the dice on Rand Paul.

    To think otherwise, as I have thought at times in the past, is to underestimate the stakes.
    I tend to agree with you on this. As critical as I've been of Rand for some of the things he's said (and may be again, if necessary), I'm coming around to the notion that he is the last best chance for a liberty candidate getting this close to the White House in my lifetime. He's not my perfect candidate (that would be his Father), but I've accepted the difference, as it is tolerable, whereas the possibility of President Rubio, Jeb Bush, or Hillary is not. It will be interesting to see how the establishment reacts to the possibility of a President Rand Paul as the time for the 2016 primaries grow nearer.








    Somebody bookmark this post for when I get accused of being a "hater" again.

  31. #27
    What do you mean last chance? What happens if Rand fails in 2016? Do you just quit?

    There will never be a president Rubio or a president Bush. Unless they run as Democrats, demographics won't allow it. Rand Paul is the only future Republican party has, assuming it has a future.
    Last edited by JCDenton0451; 07-24-2013 at 07:07 AM.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by JCDenton0451 View Post
    When I say "Pro-Israel" I always mean it in a Zionistic kind of way.
    OK.

    I'm personally somewhat pro-Israel by the standards of this forum (Although of course an anti-semite from the perpsective of the lamestream media)) but I support no US involvement in the region. If they fall, they fall, none of our business.

    If a bunch of Zionists want to personally pool their resources to help Israel, be my guest.

    I have better things to spend my money on personally but YMMV.

    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    I tend to agree with you on this. As critical as I've been of Rand for some of the things he's said (and may be again, if necessary), I'm coming around to the notion that he is the last best chance for a liberty candidate getting this close to the White House in my lifetime. He's not my perfect candidate (that would be his Father), but I've accepted the difference, as it is tolerable, whereas the possibility of President Rubio, Jeb Bush, or Hillary is not. It will be interesting to see how the establishment reacts to the possibility of a President Rand Paul as the time for the 2016 primaries grow nearer.








    Somebody bookmark this post for when I get accused of being a "hater" again.
    Will do.

    This doesn't mean I'll refrain from criticizing Rand when its warranted, but I'm literally terrified of any result that doesn't mean him winning.

    Much as I don't like the compromises, I guess this is how you win the White House. Personally, I couldn't play the game that way, and I'd never win.

    The principles I stand on are the principles I stand on, nonetheless, I'm voting for Rand. Both in the primary and the general.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCDenton0451 View Post
    What do you mean last chance? What happens if Rand fails in 2016? Do you just quit?
    More like the establishment might force us to quit...
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  33. #29
    Wonder if they'll try to bring out the newsletters again. Maybe CNN can have Dondero on and he can claim to have seen Rand Paul reading/writing them back in the early 1990s.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by JCDenton0451 View Post
    What do you mean last chance? What happens if Rand fails in 2016? Do you just quit?

    There will never be a president Rubio or a president Bush. Unless they run as Democrats, demographics won't allow it. Rand Paul is the only future Republican party has, assuming it has a future.
    What I mean by last chance: simply that there aren't too many qualified liberty people out there, coupled with the fact that I probably have only so many presidential elections left in the tank. #reality

    What if Rand fail in 2016? then I will probably either vote for the LP candidate or sit it out.

    Do I just quit?
    I doubt it, but we will have to see what the landscape looks like after 2016 if Rand doesn't succeed.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Rand Paul in Retrospect - Justin Raimondo
    By Rad in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 04:53 PM
  2. Justin Raimondo really likes Rand Paul's new book
    By jct74 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-28-2015, 08:47 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-27-2014, 02:54 PM
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-08-2013, 01:37 PM
  5. Justin Raimondo: I seem to have seriously misjudged Rand Paul
    By sailingaway in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 11-11-2010, 06:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •