Replies

Chickensoup:

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.

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.

You seriously misrepresent libertarian military philosophy, and need to relook at it. A policy that says strong defense and staying out of other people’s business is a wise policy IMHO.

Having Chomskey be totally correct in his predictions about US overseas adventures engagements twenty years later is an indictment of our present policies of adventurism and world cop status. No I do not want our country to become a UN baby, as a matter of fact the faster we are out of the UN and the UN is out of the States the more I will celebrate.

However, sending our troops overseas to die for issues that apparently are mostly related to oil and propping up dictatorships of the most unseemly kind is not what your minimizing “a bit overcommited” implies.

I disagree with your perspective that the next candidate needs to be strongly politcally prolife. We do not live in a country that will make that a reality on a national basis, but by bringing the issue back to a very libertarian state’s rights issue, it very will could become a reality. As far as homosexual and lesbian marriage, this is a hot button issue that isnt worth its drama or damage. Marriage IMHO should be relegated to the sphere of religion and not to government.

I have been a conservative for a very long time. And I was a leftist before that so I have had the good fortune of seeing issues from both sides. I can say without reservation that there is no room in the current two party system for small government, large defense, border protection, and financial continence. Thus I am very comfortable in being a conservative within a libertarian structure.

KEY, as you say, is a drop dead date for conservatives to throw their own pick overboard and come together behind ONE candidate, to save what is left of the Republic. Looking back, I regret underestimating MONEY, the killer of being on financial life support and in no condition to even think of running a campaign.

The Tea Party found its glue on looming fiscal collapse, bailouts and the sure appearance of nationalizing this and that, at will. THAT issue remains a winner.

Rand Paul is at the helm on matters of fiscal reorganization.
He is no Ron Paul, so far, on much of anything else, and no one accuses him of being a clone of the socialist Mitt Romney.

I don’t hear Rand P speaking much on the scourge of our nation— abortion, or on legislating for gay marriage and against all things that support the structure of, and help salvage, the American family.

Christians are coming under increasing attack in their own land. Surely, Rand Paul recognizes the urgency of turning it back, as well as saving the Constitution, written by Christians.

Rand has returned from Israel and made no secret that the US is funding their enemies and ours. Israel must know by now, and appreciate, that he wants to cut some of the funding to Israel and replace it with trade? I forget. Help me, here.

The Libertarian machine was rising with a phenominal measure of rowdiness, suitable for the times, and force against the GOP. It was far more than we conservatives mustered. Harness that and we have a resistance.

Last, your number 8, is a must. No answer to America for Action is a sure defeat for the Republic.