Posted on 07/14/2010 8:29:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I spent some time yesterday with Rand Paul, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Kentucky and the son of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul. He dropped by National Review for a long interview with the editors and then did an event in the evening at Webster Hall in New York. I found him surprisingly impressive. A few thoughts:
1. Rand Paul cares about the national debt. It’s his No. 1 issue. It’s also his No. 2 issue and his No. 3 issue.
2. Rand Paul is willing to go after his fellow Republicans on spending: “They didn’t balance the budget a single year when they were in power,” he complains. “We have to cut taxes—but we also have to cut spending.” Music to Exchequer’s ears.
3. Rand Paul is a committed vote to repeal Obamacare.
4. Rand Paul said the Five Magic Words: “Nothing Is Off The Table” when it comes to cutting government spending. No hedging, no hemming and hawing. You want to get serious about putting Leviathan back in his box, Rand Paul is your kind of guy. Of all the office-seekers and politicians I’ve spoken with in the past two years, Paul is easily the most confidence-inspiring when it comes to the question of debt and deficits.
5. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul. Paul fils may not appreciate my saying so, but this is a very good thing. Ron Paul has a unique talent for taking very good ideas and extending them to the point of absurdity. Ron Paul is the kind of libertarian who makes libertarians wish they weren’t libertarians. Rand Paul is not that kind of guy.
6. Rand Paul is not Sharron Angle. Whereas Angle comes off as the emotionally charged crusader, Paul’s style is a little bit detached and ironic, his humor self-deprecating. He has a strong command of the issues and presents his case persuasively. The paint-’em-all-as-kooks strategy is going to be hard for Democrats to pull off against him.
7. Rand Paul has strongly libertarian leanings, but he is much more of a traditional conservative than is his father and the movement associated with him. He prefers to call himself a “constitutional conservative.” He’s not shy about talking about abortion or immigration. His views on national security, Iraq, and the Patriot Act are not Rich Lowry’s or Andy McCarthy’s, but they’re reasonable.
8. Rand Paul got a rock star’s welcome at Webster Hall. Not a huge crowd, maybe a couple of hundred people — almost all of them under 40, I noticed — but that’s a pretty good showing for a week night, in Manhattan, for a Republican from Kentucky. (The oldsters with the money were at a separate event, with Steve Forbes.)
9. Rand Paul knows he blew that Rachel Maddow interview, big time. He totally owns up to it, says he knew that they had it in for him going into the interview but overestimated his own ability to shine through the media fog. “I was feeling my oats,” he says, sheepishly, and then shakes his head. Unspoken conclusion: That was stupid. He is understandably a little media-shy now.
10. Rand Paul is winning the fund-raising race. Paul raised $1.1 million in the last quarter. His opponent raised $1.4 million, but $400,000 of that is a personal loan—from himself. The polls are neck-and-neck, Cook Political Report calls it a tie, but the fact that the other guy is dipping into his own bank account is a good sign for Paul, given that the other guy is not named Mike Bloomberg.
For those of us whose top issue is the debt, Paul is pretty refreshing. From my perspective, there are really two things going on here: One is the question of whether Republicans retake one or both houses of Congress in the next couple of elections. The other question—and, in some ways, the more important one—is: What is the character of that (potentially) emerging Republican majority? The GOP is really at an ideological crossroads, and it’s not clear whether the future of the party looks more like Mitt Romney or Rand Paul. The reality is that the case for small government is not being made most effectively by Rand Paul, the tea parties, or by pundits and activists: It’s being made by a worldwide financial meltdown, followed by a worldwide recession, followed by a serious of sovereign-debt crises. For Rand Paul, the times are on his side.
– Kevin D. Williamson is deputy managing Editor of the National Review
His father Ron Paul is a NUT!
Good thing nobody saw it.............
I still don’t understand how he could have been so stupid to go on her, or any other PMSDNC freak show, him, or any self respecting Republican, or decent human, and not expect to get abused, slimed, slandered, screamed at, by any of these LibPerv LIARS? The only thing any Republican or Conservative can ever expect to get from going on *any* PMSDNC freak show, is a soupsong of STDs from sitting in the chairs that the usual parade of Leftie Perv “uests” sit in, while they spew their mutually supporting hate speech Leftie “progressive” lies on a daily basis.
Rand Paul might not to be able to completely recover from the Maddow interview, but it would be nice if he would try to float a statement along the lines about how dismayed he is that after all the gains that were made in voting rights that the DOJ now stands by while racists intimidate voters without fear of prosecution. Bull Connor (A violent racist DEMOCRAT!) would be so proud!
When Rachael Maddow is shown to be your intellectual superior, you have a lot to answer for.
11. He (like his father) is a “fan of [atheist, pro-abortionist, adulterer, anti-altruist] Ayn Rand”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD-R_OeP6tU
Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Whoever advised him to go on the Rachel Maddow who, or whoever didn’t do everything in their power to talk him out of it, IS NOT HIS FRIEND.
Nice, very nice. In a few words you’ve captured the absurdity of Rand Paul. I suspect I’ll take a hit from usual elitest libertarian suspects for saying that.
Which I would assume would include Defense spending and the wars.
Well, they are our number one expense. If one is serious about restoring fiscal sanity then nothing can be off the table.
Yep, this one was pretty bad. If Republicans are not ready for political rhetorical war then need to stay the hell away from MSNBC. If you go on those shows you must be able to put the liberal hosts and guests on the defensive, not be on the defensive.
Yesterday someone from Heritage Foundation went on Mathhews Hardball to argue the economic merits of not paying unemployment compensation forever. Matthews repeatedly mistated his position never once correctly characterizing it to create a strawman that he could ridicule, two against one (Matthews and a liberal guest against him.) . Why don't Republicans study the shows they go on before they go on?
Defense is no longer the number one expense. In the planned 2009 budget, defense was 23% and entitlements 56%. Most of the added spending by Dims this year were not in the defense area.
Second to Social Security, actually. But not by much. And I agree that nothing, but nothing can be off the table. The fact of the matter is if you elimnated every dollar of discretionary spending in the 2010 budget except Defense, Homeland Security, and Veteran's Affairs, you would still be running a trillion dollar deficit. So I agree with you and Paul in this area. If we are to get government spending back into balance then there can be no sacred cows, no exempt programs, and nothing off the table. That includes discretionary as well as non-discretionary spending.
Wish I had more money. West and Rand should get some help for sure. Neck and neck and his 1, 2, and 3 issues are the deficit.
I got a better impression of Rand Paul watching some long form interviews with KY newspapers. They tried to play gotcha like Maddow, but it was a long form interview and Rand Paul got to explain his positions in detail. Even his Iraq position is thought out and intelligent, not some cookie cutter spiel. He was for Afghanistan, which is quite a bit different than his dad.
He comes across a lot more thoughtful and level headed.
The problem is TRUE conservatism takes a long time to explain, it isn’t emotional like liberalism.
The author of the story is correct in that Rand Paul is NOT his dad. His dad doesn’t even sound overly enthused about Rand’s candidacy to tell the truth...when he talks about it.
Rand Paul gave one of the best answers on abortion I’ve every heard.
He went into detail about how the “choice” was made when the man and woman decide to have intercourse, there isn’t a “choice” after that. At that point, the life becomes a living person to be PROTECTED by the constitution, and the privacy or choice of the mother has nothing to do with it.
You are protecting a life, not removing a choice. The choice made to have sex comes with a responsibility for the consequences.
I don’t agree with ANY politician 100%, but the control of the bankers, the Fed, the Federal Govt, debt and the strangling of the states by the Federal Govt are THE issues now. If those aren’t fixed, there would be nothing for terrorists to terrorize.
I am tired of status quo politicians who talk the talk and do nothing, it is time to radically alter the size of the Federal Govt. Period.
Agreed 100%
“(For one, he knows he blew the Rachel Maddow interview)
Good thing nobody saw it............. “
LOL!
Trey Grayson needed to be knocked out of GOP politics, and Rand did it.
Paul leads Grayson among pro-lifers by a 50%-32% margin. Grayson leads Paul among pro-abortion Republicans by a 42%-27% margin.
Conservatives, Christians, social conservatives, and the statewide Kentucky voting population support Rand Paul.
“Conservatives favor Paul by 51 percent to 29 percent with 16 percent undecided. Those who attend religious services regularly or occasionally favor Paul by double-digit margins. Gun owners back Paul 48 percent to 22 percent with 22 percent undecided.”
Rand Paul leads by double digits among men and women, among conservatives, pro-life voters, gun owners.
“Grayson leads today only among the 1 in 5 Republican primary voters who say they are pro-choice.
Oh, I'm sure Ron's thrilled with how Rand is doing (what dad wouldn't be?). I think he probably just keeps a bit of a low tone because he:
1.) ...doesn't want to butt in too much on his son's campaign; and
2.) ...does know that while he and Rand are in something like 90-95% philosophical agreement, they do differ on some of the details (particularly Rand's somewhat-more-hawkish foreign policy views) and he doesn't want to dwell publicly on their differences -- when he knows that he can at least count on Rand, if elected, to be a high-90s Fiscal Conservative like Coburn and DeMint.
Just my $0.02
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.