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 ...
- Ronald Reagan to Reason Magazine in 1975.
Rand Paul needs to be careful. I heard McCain lump him in with his establishment bunch this morning, saying the Republican Party needs more like Rand!!! Be Careful!
Rand Paul needs to be careful. I heard McCain lump him in with his establishment bunch this morning, saying the Republican Party needs more like Rand!!! Be Careful!
A. I don’t worship at the shrine of Reagan. He was good about some things, not so good about others, a pretty good president compared to most.
B. If he read the current LP party Offical platform, I doubt he’d agree with a lot of it.
He’s definitely right about the younger generation. We should not underestimate how many of them have refused to put their support behind Obama or the vast majority of Republican candidates - simply because they can’t distinguish among any of them on critical domestic or foreign issues. And while there were a ton of problems with Ron Paul - and so do not get me wrong here, I am not a Paulbot in any way, shape or form - the reality is that no candidate was anywhere near as effective as Ron Paul in uniting younger voters with vastly different views on social and foreign policy issues. Rand Paul seems to be essentially Ron Paul only without the excessive conspiracy mongering and without some of his father’s more problematic foreign policy views. Obviously, not everyone here is gonna be particularly happy with all of his views, policies or actions - since when is that true for any state, local or federal politician - but at least in my view, those of us who are truly serious about keeping America alive should be celebrating this guy.
Discussing with you is a mindless and pointless waste of time. Just so you know why I won’t reply to you (other than this).
Agreed. Reagan wouldn’t like the LP platform. Not nearly enough Nanny State in it...
I recognize sophistry for what it is (the clever lie of half truth) and point it out when I see it. I understand that pisses some people off, but I learned a long time ago that I can't make everybody happy. Sociopaths can do that, but it just isn't in me.
I would posit too much promotion of vice, totally open borders including no Border Patrol, and anyone who wanders is is fine, and the consequent ensuing anarchy.
Basically hardcore anarchy.
Libertarians are not anti-military, they are anti-adventurism.
I can live with that.
We need a strong defense, a strong border and strong civil defense as well as a removal of this entitled class of royalty that has gathered in Washington DC.
“”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.”
Amnesty by any name or conditions is still an invasion gone unchallenged.
No one is promoting vice. If you can’t make your point without lying... Don’t bother.
Also. It’s the Nanny State welfare most of the leaches and criminals are coming here for... How’s that working out for us?
Once again you’re here posting your pro-liberal crap and trying to tie Rand Paul into the liberaltarian party.
Are you looking at the negative responses to Rand as a liberaltarian? Maybe I’ve been wrong about your intentions.
Maybe you really don’t like Rand Paul and your here throwing dirt his way in order to discredit him.
Reverse psychology. Cool.
Even without welfare, regular aka legal AMericans need jobs.
The LP platform is pro-vice because they want no laws against any vices. That means “pro”. Also all homonazi agenda. They want it all legal. A nice leftist agenda.
Seems like LP pushers can’t argue without straw men. As though I want welfare and huge fedgov. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Being anti-Nanny State isn’t being pro-vise. You lose again...
Well some critical things to consider here:
1. I know how controversial the issue of support for Israel is with both Ron and Rand Paul. It is something I have thought over very intensely in recent times, considering that I consider myself a proud, unapologetic Zionist and agree with the notion that God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who curse Israel.
That said, I think that unconditional foreign aid to any nation is problematic and counter productive. I believe that the US can support Israel by actively doing business and engaging in trade with Israel,exchanging military technology and treating an attack on Israel exactly as an attack on our own nation.
The issue is whether or not it is productive to have excessive intervening and adventurism on the Middle East with the claims that it is needed because Israel might be in danger. If it is an issue of electability, well Americans of any political affiliation are overwhelmingly not gonna be throwing their support behind a candidate because they promise to have repeated military interventions and “nation building” adventures like with Libya and claim it is needed because we must look after Israel. For starters, political leaders are often complete liars so it is a given that when they claim they need to protect Israel, it could well be that there are other objectives.
Rand Paul’s position seems to be reduction on foreign aid to all nations. I think that should be something we can live with. We have seen tragically few political leaders and candidates who have been serious at all about stopping foreign aid to clearly malevolent, terror supporting nations like Egypt and Pakistan and serious about working on limiting the amount of oil money sent to the Rich Arab States and taking them head on. Democrats and Republicans alike are too often content to let the Rich Arab states use trillions of oil dollars to fund massive terror networks and terror schools in every corner of the earth.
I would find it incredibly refreshing to have more political leaders say it bluntly - Egypt, Pakistan and the Rich Arab states are not our allies nor are they are “staunch allies” and never have been. Even among so called tough conservatives, haven’t we had more than enough of them pretend that these hostile nations are our good friends and buddies and refuse to get serious about them?
I would only truly consider Rand Paul to be throwing Israel under the bus if he pledged to stop aiding Israel while continuing to send aid to the Muslim Brotherhood, terror supporting Islamic nations and Islamic terror groups. Then I would be the first to call him 100 % unacceptable. But as far as I can see, he is not doing this. And he is advocating that the US allows Israel to defend itself and take care of itself without American intervention. I find this a lot harder to object to than I used to because, frankly, Israel is supposed to be founded on self determination and independence. Zionism is ideally meant to stress not depending on anyone for protection and being able to fight your own battles. As a die hard and enthusiastic supporter of Israel I firmly believe Israel is capable and tough enough to to handle itself without massive American aid and intervention under the guise of keeping Israel safe. Otherwise, what is the point of having Israel as an independent state? Why not just make Israel the 51st American state or have the Jews in Israel live in Jewish Quarters of European or Arab nations? So God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who curse Israel. I don’t think that blessing Israel necessarily has to mean reducing Israel to complete dependence on our government. Government dependency has been a disaster for everyone who has relied on it.
And then there is the issues of drugs and gay marriage. Now if Rand Paul and Right Libertarians were advocating that the federal govt legalize gay marriage and force all churches, businesses and Americans across the nation to recognize gay marriage, I would wholeheartedly agree that is a problem. But I have not seen proof that they are doing this. To the best of my understanding, they are arguing for getting the government out of the marriage business, which would allow businesses and religious communities to decide for themselves how to define marriage. They do advocate for the Federal govt to recognize same sex civil unions, and I understand that a lot of conservatives would not agree with this. But I simply find that the Right Libertarian viewpoint - of letting the people decide for themselves instead of the Feds as to what defines marriage - to be the solution that makes the most sense.
And as far as drugs, well it has been discussed ad nausuem why the Federal War on Drugs has been a catastrophe and a giant waste of taxpayer money. Not to mention how severely it contradicts small gov’t principles on at least several different levels. At the very least, it would be far more efficient to have drug laws be a state’s rights issue - aren’t conservatives ideally supposed to be really big on states’ rights anyway - treat drug use more as a health issue than a law enforcement issue and yes, pardon all drug offenders who were jailed solely for possession and not for any violent crime.
Now, I can understand if Right Libertarians advocated for certain stances that you found you just could not work with, for example unrestricted abortion on demand, massive defense spending cuts without analyzing them to make sure they don’t reduce our defense abilities below what is needed and a complete open borders policy with no immigration restrictions and amnesty for all illegals. But as has been discussed in this thread, Rand Paul is not advocating for any of these issues - which I would understand would be too problematic for many Conservatives.
And I am not advocating for everyone here to like Rand Paul and be enthusiastic about everything he says. If you still dislike a lot of things he says, I fully understand. I fully understand if you would have serious objections to everything I just got done saying above. We’re not gonna concur with everything and let’s be semi realistic, whoever our top candidates are for President in the next election are, chances very high they will have some stances you have objections to and they will do things you consider highly disappointing. I am fairly certain that is called politics. I believe it is time for those who are serious about keeping America alive to analyze what issues are truly the most vital issues and unite as one on these issues and learn to come together despite any disagreements they may have in other domestic or foreign policy issues. Regardless or personal issues you may have with Rand Paul, if he becomes the most electable Republican we have in 2016, I hardly find that to be cause for mourning or panicking or doom and gloom attitudes.
Slinging slogans, especially about shop tools, is meaningless. I’ve been around this topic with you before, and all I can think of is that even though Libertarians all claim (most on FR that I’ve seen, anyway) to not use dope, (though they want it all legal), they must be lying. No one can be such a lame-o debater without being “wasted”.
There’s not a chance in a million of rationally discussing this topic with you. If there was, I would do it.
Ad hominem.
You lose again.
Quack, Waddle - Fiscally “Conservative” RINO
Next?
you forgot to mention the conditions America attaches to the aid most of which is military and they have to buy weapons from Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon. Israel is barred by America from exporting weapons and competing in the lucrative arms market and that’s damaging to Israel’s economic interest. They have the technology and the capability (jews are educated and smart) to be able to develop a weapons industry and compete with the likes of Lockheed rather than be clients of them. In the end this is worth far more than whatever hardware they’re getting off the US (”teach a man to fish...” )
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.