Posted on 01/22/2013 4:16:44 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), son of the recently-retired libertarian Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), was recently announced as a featured speaker for this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
CPAC is essentially a litmus test for the Republican Party; it provides a general sense of the party’s direction. Backed by tremendous Tea Party support, Rand Paul is eyeing a 2016 bid to take the reigns of the country, and he doesn’t care if you know it: "I am different than some in that I'm not going to deny that I'm interested," said Paul.
The GOP finds itself in an identity crisis. Among others attending CPAC are Sen. Marc Rubio (R-Fla.), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). Throw in Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, and you have all the heavy hitters chomping at the bit for the 2016 GOP bid.
With disciplined libertarian Ron Paul retiring, there is some expectation that Rand Paul will succeed his father in spearheading libertarian causes. After Romney’s mystery campaign many await what a reinvigorated GOP will entail. Does Rand Paul’s rise represent anything transformative in the GOP?
Rand Paul is a rare breed: He is a self-described libertarian, but envisions a world where the government controls matters regarding basic women’s rights, even in cases of rape and incest. The libertarian affection for choice, freedom, and minimalist government gains an interesting meaning for Paul: “I think the answer really is that we need to somehow find our way back to God.” Despite the continued moral decay noticed by some after the Newtown tragedy, government imposition of religious morality hardly defines any libertarian worth his salt.
Rand Paul might be characterized by tea party sentiment, “Get the government out of my life!”
(Excerpt) Read more at policymic.com ...
Good luck with Bush or Christie then.
Good luck with kookery and trutherism then.
Rand is a strong social conservative and a church going christian.
Please check his wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul
He is against abortion with no exceptions and supports a Life at Conception Act.
What more do you want?
He is also for a strong national defense, he just doesn’t think every dollar at the Pentagon is spent wisely and that it shouldn’t be immune from the looming budget fights.
He’s also against the overseas spending.
He’s said he might be interested in building missile defense system to protect US cities rather than bridges and infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Walker '16, if there is anything left by then.
Yep, but there are a lot of thick-headed party-first people around here who don't understand that Conservatives need to find allies and to build coalitions based on common principles with which to beat the Rats at their own game. Until that happens, we're going to get whipped over and over again like mangy mutts.
That’s exactly what Reagan did and it WORKS.
Look at the success he had. Total blowout in 84.
The establishment hated Reagan too and since then have given us Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain and Romney.
I prefer to get back to the principles that gave us Ronnie Reagan.
I like Walker but don’t think he can rise to prominence enough to be the nominee, nor can I see him able to build a winning coalition.
He has his own state and election to worry about.
I think if he’s on the ticket with Rand though that would be perfect as it might open up WI for a path to victory.
I want to know what his stand is concerning the US Military.
1. Will he support our troops and veterans and at what spending levels?
2. Will he use the military for social experimentation as in allowing gays to serve openly?
3. How many troops is he willing to commit throughout the world to support the WOT?
4. Would he be prepared to increase the number of active duty service members to allow for only 2 year long combat deployments in a five year period.
If I had solid answers to those questions it would be a good start.
Rand Paul has some marinating to do. He is not yet ready for prime time, but will be if he can pull off some leadership skills.
I like libertarianism the more I research it.
I do think that there are plenty of Conservative libertarians who are personally conservative and small government. Who believe that things should be handled locally, who want to downsize the feds.
People call Ron Paul a nutcase. They do not have a coherent understanding of libertarianism, and scream about the points that they do not like. A clear understanding of libertarian thought allows one to be conservative within its framework.
Ron Paul is a Maybury libertarian. Rand Paul seems to be libertarian too, and I have to say it, We need someone who can speak to freedom. We lost last time because no one except Paul Ryan spoke aobut freedom, and he wasnt left off the hook much.
Libertarianism is all about freedom and responsibility. I recommend learning more about it to everyone. If little old me is thinking of it, there is something to it, then any one would be interested.
He wants to bring troops home, he’s not interested in a never ending war on terror that is bankrupting America.
He is for a strong national defense but that doesn’t mean he wants troops sent all over the world, they should be in America defending America that’s his basic belief and the money spent on iraqi schools, roads and bridges should be spent on American roads and bridges.
Terrorism can never be defeated, it’s a tactic. US army has been in Afghanistan for 12 years the longest conflict in US HISTORY. Just forget it and think of it as a giant waste of money that needs to be cut out like a lot of things in the Federal budget.
We then no I could not support him..
Supporting the troops would be to bring them home from no-win conflicts so they’re not killed/maimed and left disabled and often homeless when they come back.
That would be really supporting the troops I think.
And why are there still bases in Germany, Korea and Japan? Waste of money right there providing other countries with a security guarantee which they should be paying for themselves not relying on the US taxpayer.
America spends more on national defense than the next 15 countries combined.
You don’t think the Pentagon budget is not bloated?
You can’t be serious.
There is no reason why the Pentagon spending can not be reduced I believe it HAS to be reduced if there is ever to be a balanced budget and fiscal sanity.
That doesn’t mean America can’t have the most awesome military in the world, it must just have a more efficient military and do more with less and come from places where it doesn’t need to be like Germany.
We are at war, we were attacked first and the enemy is determined to destroy the United States and western civilization in general.
I realize you are like many Americans who cannot or will not believe this simple fact....but electing a Libertarian as POTUS who believes as you would only hasten our defeat
Admiral Mullin says the biggest national threat is the debt and deficit... not even an external enemy!
Why?
Because how can the US defend itself when it’s on its knee’s financially? Explain that to me?
The Pentagon spending must be cut for the sake of the budget and I bet you’d barely notice it if BOEING got a few less fat contracts for shiny new toys.
You really think that the taliban can defeat AMERICA??
That they’re going to march on Washington?
Give me a break.
They’re not much of a threat at all.
Do they really scare you?
Anyone who is a Neville Chamberlain think alike IS a nutcase. Ron Paul was rightly judged guilty of being a nutcase.
OTOH, Rand Paul ought not be blamed for his father's insanities. He deserves the chance to be judged on his own track record.
It is not libertarianism per se which disqualifies Paul the Elder. It is his idea that a competent Pentagon need wield only three rowboats, a few blunderbusses and a supply of tri-cornered hats (preferably with beanie propellers on top) and then only for domestic political displays while letters of marque and reprisal will be sufficient to deal with any threats from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Al Qaeda, etc. I can accept the wisdom that we may be a bit overcommitted but Paul the Elder inspired no confidence whatsoever on foreign and military policy.
If Rand Paul (who so far seems quite distinguishable from his father) wants to close some foreign military bases (none that are strategically necessary) and be a bit slower on the trigger finger, fine. Ditto eliminating foreign aid to most of its recipients. Moving toward rediscovery of the Tenth Amendment (judiciously and S-L-O-W-L-Y, feeling our way along) likewise. Eliminating such cabinet level nuisances as Departments of Edumakashun, Energy, Interior, Labor, Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and other nuisances such as BATF, Obozocare, Environmental Protection Agency, all Planned Barrenhood funding, [Here each reader may feel free to nominate a thousand or so other targets for elimination of federal $quander] should have high priority. It would be a nice touch to order take out from McDonald's or Burger King for all diplomatic meal functions and foreign embassy budgets and to devote the savings to effective embassy security to avoid such disgraceful fiascoes as Teheran 1979 and Benghazi 2012.
Rand Paul seems a LOT friendlier to Israel than his dad, a lot less inclined to radical pacifism and rank isolationism than his dad, a lot more effectively pro-life and pro-family than his dad, just as blessedly hostile to the Federal Reserve as his dad. He MAY be a candidate that many of us who opposed his dad may find worth supporting. Time will tell.
Speaking about freedom is good. Re-establishing it is even better.
As Chairman Mao used to say: Let a thousand flowers bloom! When 2014 has rolled around and shown us what each of the thousand flowers have to offer as POTUS candidates, as a movement, we should make the first cut and further tolerate no more than 3-5 candidates. We should strive to pick ONE thoroughly vetted candidate by September of 2015. We should also shut the press and lame stream media out of our selection process altogether. Allow them to cover the debates ONLY if they agree to broadcast the entire debate without ANY commentary during or spin room after. For debates, use the format that Jim DeMint perfected before the 2012 South Carolina primary. CONSERVATIVE questioners only. Deep and serious ISSUE questioning by people like Professor Robert George of Princeton (a noted pro-life scholar) and Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institute (history/foreign policy), Scott Rasmussen??? Let Jim DeMint moderate.
We need a candidate who (for starters):
1. Is absolutely and practically pro-life and pro-family (no fudgepacking posing as "marriage" is tolerable);
2. Is thoroughly committed to the Second Amendment and the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms;
3. Will eloquently articulate the necessity of eliminating entire federal government departments and agencies;
4. Will name to SCOTUS, Courts of Appeal and even District Courts ONLY thoroughly vetted pro-life and pro-family (see #1 above) nominees and also to each and every appointed position in the Justice Department;
5. Will get rid of Romney's new rules for GOP-E governance of the national party;
6. Will exorcise the post-Obozo fedgov eliminating all of the objectionable legal and regulatory detritus and demons Obozo leaves behind;
7. Will campaign as an inclusive, optimistic, bright and witty candidate (capable of self-deprecating humor as appropriate and effective), confident of America's future and in love with this country and her people;
8. Will make a point of campaigning in ghettoes and barrios as comfortably as at country clubs and corporate board rooms;
9. Is not a stiff or a verbal gaffe machine (the 47%, repealing the 17th Amendment, various tax gimmicks to comfort the comfortable, etc.)
With all that in mind, I find Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, interesting. Paul Ryan represents the district to my north and I regard him as an undependable suck-up to the House "GOP" leadership. Chris Christie is OUT! VP consideration should be given to Ken Cuccinelli, Susan Martinez, Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Floyd Flake, and others like them.
Our final ticket should credibly promise to return this country to ALL of its people and to de-emphasize and avoid slobbering all over corrupt Wall Street special interests.
Well said. I agree.
No, actually you are. There is tremendous waste in the DoD, and it's budget could easily be cut by half without having any impact on this country's combat power. Have you ever been to the Pentagon or inside a fixed base headquarters (like CENTCOM's in Tampa)? They are lavish beyond belief, with millions of $$$ spent on such thing as wood paneling, enormous conference tables, leather backed seats, plasma televisions, fancy expensive artwork, and late model motor pools. We're not talking about Private Joe's barracks and PXs (even though they are becoming much nicer), but the ostentatious perks that the senior brass is currently providing for itself at taxpayer expense.
And don't get me started on the golf courses, recreation centers, and water parks that are being built. And not to mention all the failed military hardware contracts out there, like the F-35 fiasco.
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.