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 ...
Dr RP’s son alright!
But is he another lesser of evils?????
Time will tell, but on whose time/dime will he prove disprove?
In America’s case, it’s Bro Can Ya spare A Dime?
We ain’t got no dime to monkey around with!!!!!
Semper Semper!
*****
Rand is a christian and very socially conservative but doesn’t believe the Feds should be involved and that states should set their own policies when it comes to drugs which is what they’re doing in Washington and CO ?
Personally I never agreed with any Republicans on everything, even Ronald Reagan. It was Reagan who got the War on Drugs started, which IMHO has done more to promote statism than anything else in my lifetime. It would be nice to have a president who actually believes in rolling back the intrusive power of government.
And he does support the platform unlike previous presidents and candidates.
More like Andrew Johnson. Than Willard who was only governor of Mass-of-2-$h!t$
Sacramento, California.
I think Republicans want a conservative candidate, not one who does not understand national defense, along with other conservative values.
BS. I was a teenager in the '70's, and the "War on Drugs" was going strong.
“he is not with traditional conservatives on the social issues”
BS. This is from one of his recent speeches:
“The question remains, can a nation long endure or can a civilization long endure that does not respect Life? Our Liberty comes from our Creator and our freedoms depend upon a respect for Life.
In order to protect the unborn from the very moment life begins, I introduced the Life at Conception Act during my first year in the Senate. I have also cosponsored several other pro-life bills including the Life at Conception Act, the Protect Life Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.
I also strongly support a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would confirm in law that an unborn child is a person entitled to the right to life and support legislation that would restrict federal courts from hearing cases involving abortion. State governments must be allowed to implement laws that protect life.
It is the government’s duty to protect life, liberty, and property, but primarily and most importantly, a government must protect life. Today, tragically our nation wavers; our moral compass is adrift. Today, I worry about our nation’s future. Together a brighter tomorrow is possible if we join hands to restore our nation’s virtue.
To respect life and to listen to the voice of God that lives and breathes and beckons and yearns for our attention. When America remembers and restores her respect for life, when America refinds her moral bearings then we will thrive again, then we will find our way.
I will never give up fighting for the lives of our unborn children. May God bless America.”
http://www.randpaul2016.com/2012/01/senator-paul-2012-march-for-life-remarks/
My ideal is nothing more than equal solidness on all three legs of the stool... small-government fiscal conservatism, traditional values/social conservatism, and strong on national defense/sovereignty.
And in regards to the latter leg, a strong national defense and military is ‘not’ synonymous with wasteful nation building and unnecessary foreign entanglements.
Whenever just one leg of the stool is missing, liberal/progressive thought always manages to worm its way in and turn everything to crap.
Fed – Less
States – More
That’s what I want!
He'll have to drop the Libertarian connection for me to give him any more consideration. Even bringing this up showed to me, at least, that he's not all that bright politically....plus he's roiling things up at a time we need cohesion against the GOP-lite.
But I'm not opposed to discussing his statements even though I think he's raising a hybrid flag no one will salute.....except the Libertarian tribe....and the Dems.
Leni
Rand is not talking about "libertarian Republicans" by accident. You realize that has a meaning, right?
The libertarian wing of the party wants to drop talking about the culture and social issues, would be happy with massive defense cuts, would like to stop sending money to Israel, is not much interested in whether Iran builds nukes or not, would like to legalize all the illegal aliens in the country, etc.
Rand is trying to walk a tightrope right now, but he can't hold the mask forever. Personally I like him so far, but I suspect he is much more like his father than he lets on (and I think his Father is loon). When Rand says voters are ready for a "libertarian Republican", it means something - and it's not a something that traditional and social conservatives will probably like very much.
i don’t think Rand Paul is anti-military, he is
anti national defense.
Just like his ol man, he also supports queer marriage, open borders, lots and lots of drug use, and a weak military with no support for Israel.
Face it, there is a reason Liberaltarians can't get elected to anything.
Nope, Ronald Reagan did not start the war on drugs, Nancy Reagan used the catch phrase “just say no”.
The “war” has been going on since the federal government decided all drugs were bad.
lol, I watched most of it this morning, but missed that bit.
Well, I’ll just keep refuting the lies with facts:
Senator Rand Paul Takes Surprising Pro-Israel Stance
Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul has taken what very well could be considered his most pro-Israel stance yet, saying in an interview that an attack on Israel should be treated as an attack on the United States
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/164638
More facts to refute the lies:
“millions of illegal immigrants are crossing our border without our knowledge and causing a clear threat to our national security. I want to work in the Senate to secure our border immediately. In addition, I support the creation of a border fence and increased border patrol capabilities.
Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation’s security. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.”
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=12
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.