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 ...
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”
snip http://votesmart.org/interest-group/1578/rating/6093
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.
I have.
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. ;-)
Indeed.
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.
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.