Posted on 03/12/2013 9:23:45 AM PDT by US Navy Vet
Since arriving in the Senate in 2011, Rand Paul has been probing here and there for issues of populist resonance. Audit the secretive, sinister Federal Reserve. Rein in those TSA screeners patting down little girls. In each instance, Paul (R-Ky.) has evoked the fear of oppressive government without tipping over into the paranoia of his father’s most dedicated supporters. It has been a diluted, domesticated, decaffeinated version of the ideology that motivated Ron Paul’s presidential races.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
So, what we have is judicial and fiscal restraint coupled with a not-so-isolationist foreign policy. So where's the problem?
Don't you SEE?
He's guilty by paternal association!
[running around screaming in full RINO mode]
LOL!
Scribblers at the WP are the philosophical and intellectual heirs to the Nazi propaganda hierarchy.
Personally I’d like to stop wasting lives and resources trying to civilize the savages of the mideast and return to something more akin to the Monroe Doctrine. After all those mideastern savages are happily infecting central and south America and need to be stopped.
We can do that and still stand by Israel with minimal forces in the mideast.
I just LOVE how the gope states it has the power to know a man’s inner thoughts when they can’t even articulate their own...because if they did, their hair would catch on fire.
Karl Rove in pink tights. Is that you, Karl?
I don’t agree with some of Rand Paul’s positions, but he seems to have incorporated the libertarian stuff of his father without all the crazy. He is papabile.
He should be.
If there’s a credible conservative candidate in 2016 who actually is fiscally conservative and starts laying out why we should no longer be “cop to the world,” he’s going to win.
The neo-con Jews are going to hyperventilate and scream, because they know that the Democrats, for all the Jews who gullibly vote Democratic, don’t like Jews or Israel. They like Jewish money... and maybe votes, but that’s about it. So the neo-cons, seeing no other parties in the US, are going to put everything they’ve got into destroying people like Rand Paul and anyone else who doesn’t enjoy foreign mis-adventures in the middle east.
I think that now is the time for conservatives to give the neo-cons the heave-ho and send them packing. If the neo-cons want to talk about supporting Israel, then they can tell American Jews “If you want to see Israel survive, you’d better start sending your money and support there, rather than into American politics...” because the rest of us are tired of sending out money, national reputation and young people into the middle east to counter “threats” which aren’t a threat to the US at all.
The GOPe is trying to “Alinsky” Rand Paul but don’t realize that they’ve already lost.
It reminds me of some comments Robert E Lee made about a particularly bloody defeat. He said he tried to turn an obvious defeat into a victory and ended up costing far more lives than necessary. Basically he let his pride get in the way of wisdom and that’s what the GOPe is happily doing with their attacks on Rand Paul.
The Bible I read says that, Genesis 12:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
I believe it means Isreal NOT individual Jewish People. G*D will(and has) judged his chosen people thoughout time and history.
Sadly , we cant afford influence in the middle east. The bamster has pissed away our abilities.
Ron Paul may be right or wrong or crazy, but it's moronic or deceitful to claim to know what's really on his mind if you don't deal with what his supporters are most worried about.
Support for scumbags like Chuck Hagel and willingness to pass amnesty for illegals, for starters.
So who is better?
The smearing of Rand Paul begins.
Memo to Micheal Gerson:
1. Some of us are a little uncomfortable with the plan to deploy up to 30,000 drones over the sunny skies of Amerika spying on every move we make.
2. Some of us are a schosh concerned about a govt agency named “Homeland” Security sticking their hands down our pants at the airport, buying 2 billion rounds of ammo, 7,000 full auto assault rifles and 2717 armored trucks.
3. If the terrorists were so desparate to destroy us they could have waltzed an army across the largely open SW border at anytime in the past 10 years but for some unknown reason they have not.
Some of us are more afraid of the US govt than the terrorists. Arguably the US govt is the terrorist.
He was George Bush's evangelical speech writer. He got in the dispute with Bush's NeoCon speech writer(David Frumj) over that phrase "axis of evil"
What? You can’t say GOD????
I did, G*D
Thanks for saying that. I am soooo tired of conservatives always whining about why Jews always vote against themselves.
I support Israel, but I do not support liberal Jews.
Just to remind everyone:
Waco- Clinton Administration
Ruby Ridge- G.H.W.Bush Administration
Both parties have innocent American blood on their hands.
Just because you don’t agree with Senator Paul on every issue doesn’t mean his skepticism about the domestic use of drones is wrong.
I agree with about 85% of what Senator Paul espouses and I agree with 5% of what US Rep(ret) Paul espouses.
Scott Walker/Ted Cruz would be at the top of my list now. People are confusing Ron Paul style libertarianism with conservatism. There’s some overlap but libertarians are wrong on numerous issues from border security to gay rights.
You make a mistake when you equate either of the Pauls with the ignorant young liberals that think that the Pauls’ isolationism - or better - their emphasis on National Defense rather than Offense - is the same as pacifism. It’s not.
Ron Paul supported and voted for going to Afghanistan. He quit supporting it when it was turned into a welfare state where we were building infrastructure - more roads to put IEDs, and doing wealth transfers to the corrupt leaders, and trying another failed ‘regime change’ or democratization.
Anyone listening to the filibuster could not have possibly come away thinking the Rand Paul was a pacifist after multiple times, emphatically supporting the use of force against imminent threats in the US and to us overseas - something with which the ignorant pacifist liberals do not support.
The aryan types that would support it and the Israel supporters that don’t, confuse cuts in foreign aid across the board for free market reasons, to ‘anti-semitism’ are just as ignorant as the liberals.
The people of other countries have to do what our forefathers did - pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honors. Only then is true liberty possible. It can’t be handed to a country, just like you can hand out welfare and expect things to change. The Pauls, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey and a few others understand this. McCain, Graham, the Bush’s, and others who don’t understand the basis of liberty and either can’t defend it or only offer ‘pragmatic/fascistic’ solutions, don’t have a clue.
The attack on Rand is to make way for Jeb Bush in 2016.
Rand Paul agrees with his dad on almost every issue (I've never seen him publicly oppose dad on a major issue) and wholeheartedly supported his dad's campaign for President. Their "tone" is somewhat different but they have a very similar worldview and Ron Paul's "Liberty" movement was instrumental in getting Rand in office and strongly supports him. Your post makes no logical sense. It would be like me saying I like 85% of the ingredients in a Whopper Jr. sandwich, but only 5% of the ingredients in a Whopper.
So you’re OK with Walker’s support for Obamacare?
“Personally I’d like to stop wasting lives and resources trying to civilize the savages of the mideast and return to something more akin to the Monroe Doctrine. “
Do you remember when George W. Bush first ran for President? That was part of his platform...stop with the foreign interventions..that was one reason I voted for him....didn’t last long, did it?
The real world has a way of doing that.
Reagan was the last republican to show any kind of restraint about going to war.
Pauls stance on Amnesty is better than the rest of them. At least he’d cut off the magnets.
As he states, we already have defacto amnesty, because few of them, including criminals are being deported. We’re going to have amnesty shoved down our throats. I think I’d rather have Paul in charge of it than anyone else.
Sen. Rand Paul: Trust but verify on immigration reform
www.washingtontimes.com
“I am in favor of immigration reform. I am also wary of reforms granted now for a promise of border security later.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/8/sen-rand-paul-trust-verify-immigration-reform/
I don’t think Rand paul is willing to simply ignore the will of the people and do as he wishes even if he disagrees.
Boehner/McCain 2016 - Let the republican leadership lead!
..
.
.
.
.
..
Can you imagine how well they will do?
/sarcasm
Lets end the GOPe.
I agree creek, I think Paul would uphold the law even if he might work to change it. Works for me.
Right. Objecting to Rand Paul's stance on amnesty and votes in favor of Hagel & Kerry means I want "Boehner/McCain 2016". We all know the choice is either Rand Paul or those two.
/ sarcasm
Any more straw men arguments you got left?
Righttttttttt.
Figures, you’re not man enough to answer. LOL
You may go now.
I’m no fan of Hagel either, but considering what else this douchebag administration would throw out there, he’s the least worst of the bunch.
Which would you prefer, Palin/Paul 2016 or Boehner/Graham?
Now think about who has the power in the GOP.
Have fun joining hands with these guys in 2016:
“Drank the Paulbot movement = true conservative”
How in the hell did you get there???? I merely expressed some appreciation for Rand Paul having been one of the few Repubs to show something that resembles a spine and you’re categorizing that as being a disciple of his nutcase dad? That’s quite a presupposition you’ve made there.
You’re wasting your time appealing to Michael Gerson. He can’t put into the Washington Post what the paper doen’t want to have included. Just like the person who cooks MacDonald’s hamburgers doesn’t decide the menu or the man who paints your house doesn’t decide the color of the walls, the writer for a president or a newspaper doesn’t decide the political slant.
>> he seems to have incorporated the libertarian stuff of his father without all the crazy.
Libertarianism is the opposite of statism. The crazy is tangential.
Nonsense.
Statism is evil. Don’t perpetuate it.
In fighting Rand Paul on this they’re fighting a battle they’ve already lost and had no chance of winning anyway.
Why is that the big-tent republicans always accept establishment liberals like Specter, Scott Brown, or Olympia Snowe, but shun conservatives with a few anti-establishment positions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.