Skip to comments.Rand Paul: Voters Ready for libertarian Republican
Posted on 02/17/2013 11:35:25 AM PST by JohnPDuncan
Sen. Rand Paul says he'll wait until 2014 to decide whether to run for president, but he believes voters are ready for a Libertarian-minded Republican candidate.
"I would absolutely not run unless it were to win," the Kentucky Republican said on "Fox News Sunday." "Points have been made, and we we will continue to make points. But I think the country is really ready for the narrative coming the Libertarian Republican narrative."
Voters want a "different face," he said.
In order to expand the party's reach, Paul believes the GOP should embrace candidates who are willing to push a less aggressive foreign policy, comprehensive immigration reform and less punitive measures on first offenders of nonviolent drug possession.
"We're doing fine in congressional seats, but we're becoming less and less of a national party," Paul said.
Paul has been making it clear for months that he's leaning toward a presidential run, but he added he won't make a final decision before next year.
In the interim, he said, he'll continue to make his points in the Senate, including over immigration. On the same program, Paul said he'll offer an amendment to the forthcoming bipartisan immigration bill that would require the Government Accountability Office to report annually whether the border is secure and force Congress to vote on those reports. That would occur before the 11 million illegal immigrants can achieve permanent residency, under Paul's plan.
"I do support the concept of telling the 11 million people here that if you want to work and you don't want to be on welfare, we're wiling to find a place for you in America," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
The original intent of the Constitution was to create a national government that was the “government of the States”. It was not intended to involve itself in the day-to-day affairs of individual citizens. That was the pervue of the individual state governments. At the national level, “libertarianism” is effectively the same as “original intent republicanism”. (Note: capitalization is significant).
“Not recognizing that we helped create the conditions for 9/11 by enabling the mujaheddin is no better than calling Hasan and Fort Hood workplace violence. It is a studied ignorance of the nature of what we are dealing with.”
Your argument is so flawed, it’s difficult to begin.
We did not arm OBL, nor the mujahedin, which were foreign grouops. We armed the local Afghan Alliance to fight the invading Soviets.
Your leap away from logic to connect that to 9-11 is extraordinary. You further weaken you argument by making another leap away from logic and comparing your first failed analysis to the Hassan “workplace violence” act.
But in the end I cant go around changing other people, I have to focus on changing myself.
Government can't change people anyway - all it can do by banning a commodity or service is hyperinflate the profits (by restricting competition) and channel those profits into criminal and terrorist hands.
Twenty years, what history started the day you were born?
Happy to hear it, where are you?
You are correct—to a point. Nixon originally coined the term “War on Drugs” and created the DEA, but his efforts were mostly aimed at border enforcement and foreign suppliers. It was Reagan who created a cabinet level “drug czar”, and brought in asset forfiture, enhanced mandatory penealties for minor offences within states, etc.
Land war in Asia was something that no one contemplated as a solution other than the international policeman like Truman and LBJ.
MacArthur and Lemay both wanted to use air power on the Chinese in 1951 and the Vietnamese communists in the 1960’s.
Its the failure of air power in Asia for those wars definitely.
I’m voting for anyone who isn’t an anti 10th Amendment, New World Order, crony capitalist, globalist. I’m voting against anyone who is friends with a Bush, a Romney, or a Rove. They are our country’s greatest enemies.
Rand Paul is drinking Daddy’s Kool Aid.
If the Establishment won’t vote for a Palin, Gingrich, or Cain, they certainly won’t vote for a Libertarian.
The only thing Rand is going to do is filter votes out of the conservative base to once again give the nomination to a RINO like Jeb Bush or worse, Christie.
Enjoy Hillary for 8 years after the next 4 of Obama.
I bought a huge stack of OLD NY newspapers at a yard sale at least 15 years ago, and they ALL had stories of the War on Drugs-—they dated mostly from 1912.
You’re correct there. It mentions nothing about morality; only that that the 9th and 10th (We the People) reign supreme.
Aside from abortion (I think they’re wrong here, and at least they’re open to debate about things) they’re spot on the rest. Either you are a Citizen/adult, or you are needing to be looked after by the community/State. There is no in-between. Again, I would bet no ‘safety net’ = no need to worry (aside from Hagi) about the border so much (it’s all about the Law).
We were fine for many a year, until the turn of the last century. Amazing that in approx. 100 years a Free people (who would brave the Oceans to immigrate...again, lawfully) would so easily shackle themselves (16th A, Income Tax, Min. Wage, etc.)
The (L) party (and Constitution) have the way back to that prosperity and Freedom. Maybe the surrender monkeys in Congress will finally open the way to breaking the 2-party cartel.
It’s unfortunate that the only people who wish to shake up the D.C. scene are the 3rd party folks; and yet, still, there are those, even here, who turn a blind eye and hope beyond hope their party will, not only do what’s RIGHT, but follow the Oath they all swore.
Then along comes other like-minded people, not 100% the same...and instead of noting the similarities, they chastise and chase them away. And every other year, all you hear is ‘WHY?!’, and I just shake my head.
Dr. Paul was the lone voice, I hope his son picks up the mantle. I suspect, though, it won’t won’t be enough with the panty-waist bunch in leadership to overcome.
I’m afraid even the staunch GOP goose-steppers are going to find fault with much of your post.
Somehow, their flavor of Fascism is ‘better’ than the ‘other guys’. I’ve yet to understand how the Conservative morality police would be anything to support?
We survived, hell PROSPERED, up until the early 20th century. Then, somehow, the People started losing that idea of Freedom and Liberty.
“..An anti-military candidate who is womewhat squishy on social issues. ..”
You nailed it.
Our country needs a REAGAN CONSERVATIVE, not a LIBertarian.
You mean besides the fact that they're a bunch of drug-addled, baby-killing, packer/munchers?
“How is Rand Paul on social issues?..”
“KY U.S. Senate Jr Rand Paul Republican 33”
If Rand Paul is really pro-life, why did he get a 33% rating from Planned Parenthood?
LIBertarians - even those who are somewhat prolife - have some whacky ideas on the life issue.
So did Ron Paul have some whacky views, when he voted to allow minors to travel interstate to get abortions w/o their parents’ consent.
Be careful of the LIBertarian mindset, folks.
No, it wasn’t Reagan who started the “war on drugs,” it was Nixon.
The DEA was created by an EO signed by Nixon.
The DEA got a big boost during the Reagan administration when Reagan retained the services of Wm. Bennett, a sanctimonious whinge and preening moralizer to be “drug czar.”
Then the statism really took off. It takes a Catholic to really make statism take off, (look at their early examples to the western world with the Inquisition) and in Bennett, Reagan found the perfect statist who had also been to Harvard Law School, and therefore knew how to try to fat-finger his policies past the courts.
I wasn't expecting that.
Paul Ryans “plans to balance the budget” are a sham.
The only people who believe that Ryan has a plan to balance the budget are the people who haven’t actually READ his plan.
His plan NEVER balances the budget. NEVER. At the end of his time horizon, we still have a $400B/year deficit. That’s certainly lower than it is now, but that’s not balanced, unless he’s got a new dictionary of which I’m not aware in which the term “balanced budget” has been redefined.
The only way to get the budget balanced now is to make severe cuts and start making them soon, because at the rate were racking up debt, when interest rates start going back up the situation is going to explode upwards on us, and then we won’t ever be able to get control of the debt without repudiating it.
No one expected it. ;-)
I found his speech to be the most substantive speech on foreign policy uttered by a Republican since 9/11. No one in the Bush administration was as clear-headed a thinker on the issue, especially not Condi once she was captured by the Foggy Bottom intellectuals.
It’s high time that the GOP rid itself of the people who are leading us down the road to financial ruin, and these wars that have no end goal in sight (eg, trying to build Afghanistan into what it never has been and never will be - a civil society of sane people) have to grow up and realize what Islam is and isn’t. It isn’t a religion in the sense that it isn’t at all like other religions to which we show tolerance. It’s an expansionist military doctrine posing as a religion - and in that matter, Rand Paul’s idea of containment is a sound one. Without deciding that we will simply kill on massive scales, we have to fence this ideology inside their own borders, then starve them into defeat, much as we did with communism.
Many of the anti-paul people are anti-libertarian, because they’re moral whinges who want a government that sticks it’s nose into people’s nether regions. I’ve had my fill of such people, both from the left and the right. I want to be able to drink whisky and own guns, and I won’t take kindly to sermonizing from a bunch of sanctimonious pecksniffs of any stripe about why I’m evil and wrong to do these things.
I will never vote for a social libertopian
“yes the libertarian wing wants to cut spending (foreign aid to all countries not just israel”
Then why is it that they always mention Israel when they talk about cutting foreign aid? Why is that the only nation they name?
If conservatives and right libertarians are as passionate and committed as they say they are about keeping America and its ideals alive, they will get over and/or work out what ever differences they have so they can fight as one big, encompassive movement. Simple as that.
How about a true Conservative instead? I’ll never be or vote for a pro-homosexual marriage, pro-prostitution, anti-natural law libertarian
He’s not a believing Christian if he supports Homosexual Marriage.
This is truly the dumbest and ignorant argument that libertarians put forth regarding their abdication of the natural law. Marriage is the foundation of society and is responsible for the producing of productive and well-rounded citizens.
I don't approve of fag marriage, but regulating marriage isn't an enumerated power of the federal government. It's a state problem.
Then it should still be private and personal, not something the gov’t could control. Let people and the religious communities and the churches and private businesses define marriage for themselves. The people themselves can make a vast array of decisions better than the gov’t and this is no exception.
“Just what we need.
An anti-military candidate who is womewhat squishy on social issues.
The Reagan coalition used to stand for pro-defense, Judeo-Christianity vis a vis social issues, and fiscal conservatism.
Paul is fiscally conservative, and to the left of some blue dog Democrats on the others.”
I don’t think it’s accurate to call Paul “anti-military.” I think there is plenty of wasted/mismanaged money in defense that should be cleaned up. We also don’t need to have bases in every stinking country when our military can be anywhere in the world in 24 hours!
What we need is a president who will:
1. Make our military smarter (technology, spending, training, efficiency, etc...)
2. Enter a war with the intent of ENDING it DECISIVELY.
BTW, Reagan would not have won in today’s republican party. Rove would have sought to destroy him.
GOP needs to become the party of common sense. Here’s where I feel we can improve while still maintaining conservative principals:
Current stance: no gay marriage anywhere... ever
Improved stance: leave it up to the states
Current stance: spend as much money as we can on defense
Improved stance: make military more efficient
Current stance: no drugs
Improved stance: leave it up to the states
Current stance: arrest and deport illegal immigrants
Improved stance: secure border (first) and create guest worker program. (second)
Current stance: abortion is wrong
Improved stance: abortion is really wrong
FYI, I believe homosexuality is a sin. However, gay marriage is coming regardless. The GOP can get ahead of this issue and declare it a states’ rights issue BEFORE the libs can make it a national law!
Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy.
Sounds good to me. The social conservatives have nothing to fear from a Classical Liberal. Such a person has a biblical definition of good and evil and will side with good. Abortion and same sex marriage are evil.
To each their own, brother. I’m sure you have your reasons.
To me, he’s one of the only national level GOP that has balls.
Yeah I meant to add that combination too...hit “send” before I finished...
“This is one of the reasons I loathe libertarianism, large L or small.”
I promise you the GOP isn’t offering anything better. They’re fighting the democrats over that voting block.
Completely agree, I like Rand Paul, I don’t always agree with him but I like the fact he does not lie about his positions to curry favor and win votes. He and Ted Cruz are my favorite senators.
He’s a decent guy. He’s a scrappy fighter,and he’s not afraid of the brawl with the Dems.
More than we can say for most other GOPers.
Classic liberalism, ie. John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, is the ideology America was founded on. The conservatives of the day were Tories, who wanted to "conserve" monarchy and state religion. They left after the revolution. So in America "the right" is conserving classic liberalism. While in Europe "the right" includes a strong streak of statism. That's why fascism is considered to be on "the right", even though it is totally opposed to American conservative values.
Minimal regulation is required - 1. Ensure the marriage is between man and woman. 2. That they are not closely related 3. They are of age. 4. They are acting of their own free will and not already married 5. That they are free of communicable disease. 5. That it is properly witnessed.
This has been done for the last forever number of years with no issue but somehow now it is an issue the government should not get involved with. It doesn't make any logical sense. If anything falls under the general welfare clause - and I know conservatives hate that clause - it has to be the overseeing of marriage which ensures the best possible crop of well-adjusted citizens.
And also, the state is not free to change natural law which would be injustice. The State is required to work within the natural law which our founders recognized and is non-negotiable.
Well, there is that too.
That's nice. Show me the clause. America has a Constitution that lays out a Republic with a federal government for a few things like the military and navy and state governments for the rest. America is exceptional in the world for this reason.
The Federal Any government has an absolute vested interest in the pillar of the society it is supposedly governing. The regulation of marriage has been part and parcel of every single government that has ever existed. The abdication of that responsibility to groups that are intent on promoting immorality and anarchy serves no ones best interest especially the society of the governed.
Minimal regulation is required and minimal regulation has existed.
These primarily are:
1. Ensure the marriage is between man and woman. 2. That they are not closely related 3. They are of age. 4. They are acting of their own free will and not already married 5. That they are free of communicable disease. 5. That it is properly witnessed.
This has been done for the last forever number of years with no issue but somehow now it is an issue the government should not get involved with. It doesn't make any logical sense. If the government cannot take care of basic record keeping we are beyond screwed and there is no hope for any government. If anything falls under the general welfare clause - and I know conservatives hate that clause - it has to be the overseeing of marriage which ensures the best possible crop of well-adjusted citizens that will be needed for society to continually exist and improve.
As marriage continues to break down so does our society along with it. Basically giving up and stating that the government should get out of the marriage business is not an option because it is a responsibility that it cannot shirk as it will be its own undoing.
America is certainly excpetional because it is a religious and God fearing nation as well. (unfortunately there are less and less God fearing citizens)
Does the government regulate private contracts via the public courts? Please tell me of any other private contract that is more important than the marriage contract between husband and wife.
It's time to stand on principle and justice and keep our house built on rock rather than the sand of liberalism/social-libertarinaism.
What are those socal issues that Rand is not conservative on that makes you willing to form the usual circular firing squad?
Not marriage contracts. The states issue marriage licenses. The states exercise power over marriage contracts. State issue. State problem.
Again, it is not an area the federal government is empowered or enumerated to act on per the U.S. Constitution.
Marriage belongs to the states. If all the good states outlaw fag marriage, but massholechussetts allows it, then all the fags can move to MA. And that's fine with me.
All the people bashing Rand Paul is ridiculous. I want an outsider, either him or Ted Cruz. Not a Bushie/Dole/McCain/Romney GOPe controlled tool like Rubio/Jeb/Ryan.
The more I think about it, the more I think Ted Cruz- Rand Paul could be THE dream ticket for 2016. A genuinely principled member of the Tea Party movement combined with a genuinely principled member of the Liberty movement - neither of whom will sell themselves short to the GOP establishment or let their opponents across the aisle pressure them to compromise their integrity. I don’t see what more non-Leftist Americans could ask for.
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.