Politic
o reports on Rand's appeasement of the Republican establishment:
Rand Paul is no wacko bird. Just ask Lindsey Graham.
“Rand Paul’s been incredibly responsible,” Graham (R-S.C.), who has clashed with Paul in the past, said just before the Senate voted to end the government shutdown. “I’ve seen a side of Rand I haven’t seen before. That’s one of the pluses of this whole deal. He’s been great.”
According to many moderate GOP observers, the Kentucky Republican and likely 2016 contender has deftly maneuvered the past several weeks of shutdown politics, toeing the conservative line without alienating the rest of the party — especially compared to his frequent sidekick, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
A key challenge for Paul if he runs would be to make himself acceptable to — if not win over — traditional Republicans. His low-key approach to the shutdown and debt limit drama could help that cause.
“He was a reasonable voice in a very difficult time for the party,” said one top national GOP strategist. “He wasn’t as strident as Cruz. When he recognized there was no real end game in sight, he recoiled. He wasn’t on the tip of the spear. I think that did him a lot of good with a lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives.”
Rand Paul has no chance of getting the nomination. He's like Sarah Palin with a toupee. He is stupid. As soon as he goes off script, it's all crazy talk. He may have scored points with the RINOs but he lost points with the 6000 year old Earth crowd. Ted Cruz picked up 47% of the vote at the Values Voter Summit straw poll. Rand picked up 6%, same as Rubio.
ReplyDeleteRand Paul 2016, and there is nothing you can do about it.
DeleteRand is, as you yourself say, stupid. Yet he has an at least 40 point IQ advantage over you.
DeleteYour statement about Rand says a lot more about than it does him.
Oh really? Last i checked, the Democrats won the last two elections.
DeleteAnd real libertarians certainly aren't going to vote for him.
It's great that Rand may be a contender for the 2016 GOP nomination because this is signalling a shift in the party toward libertarian ideas. While Rand isn't perfect and some may prefer Cruz, the moving of the party in the right direction is useful.
ReplyDeleteWith surrender-Boehner in charge of the House, there was nothing to be gained politically on this issue. Rand being low-key was wise, and he voted our way when he voted against the increase.
http://www.louisville.com/content/senator-rand-paul-refuses-vote-debt-ceiling-compromise-arena
"Kentucky’s junior senator, Republican Rand Paul, announced today that he would not be voting in favor of the debt ceiling compromise pending in the Senate."
Seems to me Rand is moving more establishment rather than him moving the GOP toward libertarianism. It's a fantasy. You can't reform the mafia.
Delete"It's great that Rand may be a contender for the 2016 GOP nomination because this is signalling a shift in the party toward libertarian ideas."
DeleteYes, I agree. It is about moving the football down the field. People like Rothbard supported Old Right people like Robert Taft and then Pat Buchannan in the 1990s. I agree with Rothbard and I support Rand Paul for the purpose of continually shifting the debate towards liberty.
"It's great that Rand may be a contender for the 2016 GOP nomination because this is signalling a shift in the party toward libertarian ideas."
DeleteDon't make me laugh, please. If there was a shift toward libertarian ideas, Ron Paul would have won.
The only things shifting is the manipulation through rhetoric, once again. When will you people ever learn? The Republican Party has always talked out of the side of its mouth about "small governments" and "free markets". I have yet to hear a single valuable idea from Rand Paul that suggests "libertarian ideas". And whenever he comes close, his subsequent actions or words sabotage it (stop foreign aid, then saying "but not Israel")
Rothbard said there is no problem voting, as long as its not for someone that is making UNlibertarian proposals. Gradualism would be okay, as long as it is gradualism in the right direction. Since when it came to the government shutdown, Rand Paul whined about it and said government needs to re-open, he obviously moved in the statist direction. He alligns himself with Mitch McConnell, one of the WORST neocons in politics. He endorsed Mitt Romney, who would have been as bad, if not worse than Barack Obama. And so on.
DeleteRead "For a New Liberty" and you can see Rothbard did not claim you should vote for someone who takes unlibertarian action.
So why did he find Robert Taft and Pat Buchannan acceptable? IMO Rand is much better than these two.
DeleteRothbard also supported Bush I over the choice of Clinton and Perot. Still think Rand is anathema?
DeleteYes, in YOUR opinion. It says it all.
DeletePersonally, i wouldn't vote for any of them no matter what Rothbard would have done.
Either way, Rothbard was clear in his book. Whether you like it or not. So if you invoke his name to achieve some kind of "appeal to authority", don't ignore what you find inconvenient.
So you give up? Or do you have a better and effective way to change the course?
ReplyDeleteUsing politics has proven mightily effective in increasing liberty over the last 200 years, hasn't it?
DeleteAnd your approach is to do what? I've volunteered on local campaigns. Get off the talk boards, find a candidate you like, and volunteer! Or stay on the talk boards and complain.
Delete"And your approach is to do what?"
DeleteNot to do what has always failed miserably, while pretending to fight for liberty and giving the rest of us a bad name.
P.S. Aside from what i would NOT do, you have no idea what i do. So stop making assumptions, sunshine. You obviously don't know it, but problems can be worked at without resorting to politics. If you were a libertarian you would actually know this, since this belief is the very core of the libertarian philosophy.
P.P.S. Find a candidate i like? Are you living under a rock? That's like saying: we need to get rid of cancer, so find the best possible brand of cigarettes and buy them..
"When he recognized there was no real end game in sight, he recoiled. He wasn’t on the tip of the spear. I think that did him a lot of good with a lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives.”
ReplyDeleteTranslation: He sold out...
He voted against it, so you are wrong.
ReplyDelete