Here is what he wanted for the 2012 budget, has he now reversed himself?
Are you going to try an tell us that he was serious in his fake amendment that got 4 votes and which Cruz didn't vote for?
Posted on 04/07/2015 10:14:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Watching the ads that run during Hannity, it's not a great mystery to figure out who the show's target audience is: retirement savings plans, arthritis cream, and of course, Cialis. But speaking to Sean Hannity on Tuesday night—in an interview taped just after he announced his presidential run—Sen. Rand Paul made his pitch to expand the Republican party beyond the largely older, white party base.
Hannity successfully pushed Paul to nail down his positions on topics from Iran ("we should not trust them with a nuclear weapon ever") to vaccines ("the benefits are a million to one, you should vaccinate your kids").
It's not impossible to guess who Hannity would like to see become president. Just watch the softballs he lobbed to Sen. Ted Cruz at the Conservative Political Action Conference (sample question: "Why does Ted Cruz love America?"). In his considerably tougher interview with Paul, Hannity alluded to Cruz's willingness to lead the government to shut down to stand against Obamacare.
"You talk a lot about the Constitution, and returning to first principles. So, two powers that the Congress has: advice and consent, and the power of the purse. Lot of symbolic votes about repealing Obamacare, but when it came to actually standing, shutting down the government or being accused of shutting down the government, Republicans then would back off in those moments. How do you characterize that?" Hannity asked.
Paul pivoted to the debt ceiling. "I think the problem is we all sort of quietly admit defeat before we get started. We all admit, 'Oh, we're not going to follow through very long,' and then we don't have the willpower to do it," he said. "It's kind of like the debt ceiling vote. To raise the debt ceiling, what I've always said is, let's don't raise it until we do entitlement reform. Let's just hold firm. And people say, 'Oh we would default.' And I say, 'Oh no. Let's take the tax money...we'll meet our obligations. But then everything else would have to just stop. It would bring the picture finally to the American people: we're spending a million dollars a minute. It's insane."
Below are some highlights from Paul's hourlong interview.
On redefining the term "Constitutional conservative":
"We're really good about defending the second amendment...I think if we showed equal deference and love for the Fifth and Sixth Amendment and the Fourth Amendment, the right to privacy, all of a sudden there's a whole new group of people—young kids, college kids, African-Americans—that are going to come and say, 'You know what, this is the party I want to belong to again.'"
On his Republican opposition:
"I think you can find good senators and bad senators, good governors and bad governors. When Republicans ask me the question I say, 'You do remember Jimmy Carter, right?' You know, people think it's automatic that a governor is better than a senator. I think really people should be judged on their entire character, you should get to know them...whether they have wisdom, whether they're well-read, whether they're reckless, whether they're overly emotional and would act in a way without thinking."
On abortion:
Paul said he believes life begins at conception, but "I also understand that there can be a range of opinions, and to make life better, and to protect more life, I'm willing to go for all kinds of in-between solutions. I think the one thing that we agree on more than others is that a 5- or 6-pound baby, even in the womb, absolutely has life." Would he make exceptions for rape, incest or the mother's life? "I've supported both legislation with and without. I want people to know I'm pro-life and open to trying to get incremental change. But I'm also open to promoting that there's something special about life from the very beginning."
On immigration:
"My position has always been we should do little bits of what are doable and what people believe in. Right now, we have 11 million people in the country who are said to be here illegally. If you do nothing, you'll get 11 million more. I think having no immigration reform is a no-starter. The first problem is, you have lawlessness on the border. And there's also a national security risk to people who just walk into our country. The first thing you have to do is secure the border. There's a vast consensus on that. If we had a bill to secure the border, it would pass. But the Democrats, the liberals, the president, they want everything or nothing. They've prevented the border from being secure."
On a $1 million ad campaign criticizing Paul's actions on Iran:
"I would say that almost every element of the ad is a lie...I have no idea really who these people are, but I would say they're part of the neocon community. The neoconservatives sort of believe—these are the same people who wanted to give arms to [former Libyan Prime Minister Muammar] Gaddafi, and then the next year wanted to topple Gaddafi. They've been on both sides of every war. The only thing consistent about their message is, we should always be at war."
On Sen. Lindsey Graham's comment that "everybody on our side, except maybe Rand Paul, could do better" on the Iran deal:
"Well, almost anyone in the Congress would better defend the Bill of Rights than this particular senator. So, touché."
On whether the Iraq War was a mistake:
"There's a lot of things that are difficult to understand in the Middle East. But the one thing that I think I know is true, when we have toppled secular dictators, we've gotten chaos and the rise of radical Islam. Not only Hussein. Iraq was a disaster. They lost their strong man and we had chaos. We did it to Gaddafi. It happened in Egypt as well. It threatens to happen in Syria. Every time we lose the secular strong man—chaos and radical Islam—and we're less safe."
On foreign drone use:
"I'm not against drones as a military weapon...if you're an American, an Arab American living in Dearborn, Michigan, no one has a right to drop a drone on you. They can accuse you of a crime, but most Arab Americans are just like most Jewish Americans, or German Americans, we're innocent until proven guilty."
On his 2007 comments accusing Dick Cheney of pushing the Iraq War to benefit Halliburton:
"That was probably over the top and mean-spirited. I shouldn't have questioned his motives or patriotism. I think he wants what's best for the country. But he's part of a group of Republicans that really believe that war is the answer, and don't, I think, have an adequate belief in peace and deterrence through strength."
On the religious freedom laws in Indiana and Arkansas:
"I think our founders would be aghast that anyone would think that...to do something, to perform a ceremony or be part of a ceremony that's against your religious beliefs. That being said, though, I think the law ought to be neutral. I don't think we ought to treat people unfairly, and I'm all for treating people with respect and tolerance...I don't think you can have coercion in a free society very well. They seem to be antagonistic. So I would think we ought to try freedom in most of these things. And then also, people ought to understand that people's opinions change through persuasion. And if I really want to convince you to come to my political way of beliefs or my religious beliefs...if i go to Africa, I don't evangelize by forcing you to accept my religion. I've got to convince you to. So if people want to convince people that other forms of marriage are fine, they need to do it through persuasion."
On the difference between him and Cruz:
"What I've tried to do is a little bit different. I spent a lot of time over the last two years trying to show that the Bill of Rights is not just the Second Amendment. And I'm not saying he's not in concert with what I'm doing. But I'm saying the difference is I'm really trying to expand that party to new people. And I don't think that it's always just sort of dangling red meat for our people. I want our people to be brand new people who come in the door, who have never thought about being a Republican and say, 'You know what, I've never heard a Republican say that before. I'm going to listen to you.'"
Here is what he wanted for the 2012 budget, has he now reversed himself?
Are you going to try an tell us that he was serious in his fake amendment that got 4 votes and which Cruz didn't vote for?
Well, it certainly refutes your claim that he was some sort of nut. You;re clearly a partisan of the RINO McVain, which makes me question your worldview.
I called him flaky, and you are lying to try and pretend that I am a McCain partisan by explaining why Governor Palin endorsed McCain in 2010.
The 2008 ticket turning on itself would have be devastating to 2010, and McCain would still have won.
It is interesting what you will do to defend Rand Paul, whose endorsements and Romney support and anti-tea party candidate politics, cannot be explained.
Not lying at all, and if he’s so flaky, how come he was in the House for several terms from a relatively conservative state like Arizona?
Sarah either staying out of Arizona or supporting JD would in no way have been “devastating to 2010”. It would merely have been devastating to McVain. I can see no way it would have harmed our candidates in any other state. In fact, it might have helped a couple of other conservatives get nominated.
Rand endorsed Romney AFTER he was a lock for the nomination. Did you support Romney over Obama? Most Republicans did. Even many conservatives (to the consternation of a lot of conservative independents.)
If you did, you took exactly the same position as Rand Paul.
As i see it a fanatical religious sect has declared WAR on the US and the west
that was a while back and they have not let up.....
I don’t want war all the time but I think we have it whether we like it or not
The 2008 ticket at war with itself in 2010, would have killed 2010.
Hayworth left office well over 8 years ago.
Rand campaigned for Romney, and announced in 2013, that he opposed a tea party challenge to McConnell
Paul is pro-choice, anti-military, and doesn’t support marriage, and wants the GOP to move left and become libertarian on social issues.
Why would you be so dedicated to that agenda?
“Rand Paul to steer clear of Mississippi runoff”
“Rand Paul: It’s a ‘misnomer’ to say McConnell isn’t conservative”
“Rand Paul To Campaign for Romney”
March, 2013—”Rand Paul endorses Mitch McConnell in 2014 Senate race, won’t back tea party challenge”
“You need to start trying to be accurate as you push Paul”
No I’m accurately recounting what was said on Sean Hannity last night. Get it? last night. That’s what we are talking about on this thread. Last night.
Did you watch the interview?
Are you saying that Rand Paul did not say he would significantly build up the military last night or are you saying he lied?
If you think he lied well that’s fine. Just say “Rand Paul lied” or “that’s not what he said last month” That’s your opinion.
Don’t say he didn’t say something I and millions of other viewers heard him say. And I know how concerned you are about accuracy. :-)
All three of thse statements are flasehoods.
The 2008 ticket at war with itself in 2010, would have killed 2010.
Asserting it over and over doesn't make it so.
This is why I suspect your views. This kind of "truth by repeated assertion" is what liberals do.
Hey, I am not a professional writer. I have only limited time each day to discuss news items on internet. I type quickly my thoughts. There are lot of typo’s in my posts. Please ignore all that. Sorry if I did not use quotation marks. And I always try to stick to facts and reality. Wishful thinking is long gone after 6 decades on earth.
And yes, I agree that debates will be very interesting for the 2016 cycle. The quality of candidates IMO is better than in 2012. First debate is barely 3 months away!
All three of those statements are accurate, and you are fighting to move the party left as you push for Paul.
Paul wants to reduce the number of GIs and weapons for them, at a time when they are already exhausted and over extended, yet face new threats in Europe and Asia, along with the Middle East and global Islam.
Paul opposes fighting for marriage and opposes DOMA, and says straight out that we need to accept the gay marriage views to “grow the party”.
Paul is not pro-life, and continually becomes more pro-choice as he moves from “1000s of exception” to what we read in this interview.
“”Paul said he believes life begins at conception, but “I also understand that there can be a range of opinions, and to make life better, and to protect more life, I’m willing to go for all kinds of in-between solutions. I think the one thing that we agree on more than others is that a 5- or 6-pound baby, even in the womb, absolutely has life.” Would he make exceptions for rape, incest or the mother’s life? “I’ve supported both legislation with and without. I want people to know I’m pro-life and open to trying to get incremental change. But I’m also open to promoting that there’s something special about life from the very beginning.”””
No, they contradict Paul’s public positions, but you WANT them to be accurate, so yo you they are.
I don’t know when you intend to start sticking to facts, but your attack on the conservative voter as old white men, wasn’t accurate.
Whites, being the native Americans and not immigrants and their recent offspring, are majority republican voters, whether female, male, or under 30.
LOL, no, they don’t contradict his public positions, they ARE his public positions.
Did you not see post 41, did you not see his abortion quotes in the article?
Paul DOES oppose DOMA and he DOES want to move the party left and have it accept gay marriage.
“I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues,” Paul advised. “The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.”
Wrong, and you know it, troll.
Rand is strongly pro-life (as his father is — one of Daddy’s sensible positions.)
His view on marriage is (properly) that it’s a state issue.
And I think we should all be in favor of Defense cuts — as long as they do not reduce the ability of our military to do its job when we need it. (Which is not as often as Obama and the neocons seem to think.)
Evidently you don’t know his positions and can’t even read quotes when they are posted to you and his own budgetary proposals for reducing the military and their arms.
So you support stripping the military of even more people and equipment.
You ignore that Paul opposes DOMA and fighting gay marriage.
You ignore Paul’s actual positions on abortion, even when it is at the top of this very page.
I also type quickly and I’m not a professional, either. The preview screen is there for a reason-—so that we can correct our mistakes. Sloppy writing doesn’t reflect well on the site.
If you believe Rand Paul is a conservative, you have yet to make your acquaintance with reality.
I know his positions better than you do, troll.
ansel22 is a troll.
You obviously don’t, you can’t even read the thread article and see them.
You can’t even look at his own military proposals posted in post 41 and see it.
Do you think that Jim Robinson is a “troll”?
To: Starstruck
Yup. Only he wants to adapt, evolve and advance the homo agenda and open borders more than the older democrats were able to do. Sorry, young Turk Rand. Young comrade Obama beat you to it. Forward!
25 posted on 4/6/2014 6:03:30 PM by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
To: SeekAndFind
FURP! Rand Paul is randomly unreliable, ie, a liberaltarian squish.
4 posted on 06/26/2013 5:46:32 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
Even my fading memory is clear on this...I never said “Rand Paul is a conservative”. See..I can use quotation marks after you remind me..haha
AFAIK, and I confess, have not done a detailed study, Rand Paul may be a fiscal conservative because he wants to reduce size of government spending. He is pro-life but willing to compromise for progress in steps. As it exists now, abortions are available on demand at any stage of gestation. He is liberal on use of marijuana and prison time for non-violent drug abusers. On military matters, AFAIK he is a mixed bag. He says he wants a strong military but wants to avoid wars. Why have a strong military if not fighting wars?
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.