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 ...
“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.
RE Rand:
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.