Saturday, March 22, 2014

Rand Paul: I’m done answering questions about my father.

On Thursday, I reported that Alex Pappas of Daily Caller had a one on one interview with Rand Paul before Rand spoke at Berkeley. The Pappas report on the interview is up and it seems as though Rand is getting sick of being asked why he is not as principled a libertarian and not as non-interventionist as his father:
A mile from one of the most famous liberal campuses, Rand Paul is sipping coffee in a packed college café and answering a question about Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea...

Reporters sometimes ask Paul, he said, to comment on his father’s beliefs. But he said he’s done doing that. “I’ve pretty much quit answering” those questions.

“I’ve been in the Senate three years, and I have created a record of myself,” he said. “And I have my opinions.”

15 comments:

  1. “And I have my opinions.”

    None of which would have mattered without his Dad's coattails. The power trip has gotten the better of him - and brought out the worst.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "None of which would have mattered without his Dad's coattails."

      Very true. He's nothing more than a Justin Amash/Ted Cruz style neocon and offers nothing outside the current political paradigm.

      I would much rather though see him continue to be honest about him having different view from his father and be honest about not being a libertarian than trying to dance on the line between his philosophy and his fathers.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely correct.

      Had his name been Rand McCarthy, nobody would have given a crap about him.

      Also, if he and his dad aren't the same in terms of political views, then why doesn't he stop trying to get them on board to vote for him? Fact is he would love every vote he would get just because he is Ron Paul's son.

      Delete
  2. I believe that many (perhaps most) libertarians are getting this Rand Paul analysis incorrect. Politics is a dirty and evil game. Presumably anyone who enters into that game, including any libertarian, aims to win and change public policy. (If "education" is the primary goal become an educator or writer...not a politician.) Now what strategy is appropriate for a libertarian to win? I say ANY strategy short of force or fraud. You libertarian purisits might want to wait 70 years for the masses to be converted and libertarians elected on their merits. I can't wait that long and can't think of a good reason why I or anyone else should have to wait so long. If you want to mix with liars and criminals--the political class--than you have to beat them with any means available. As I once argued, if you were called before the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer and asked questions, it would be pefectly appropriate to lie or obscure the truth. We have no obligation to follow any truthful code of conduct when we are dealing with the political criminal class bent on taking our property and liberty. If Rand Paul has libertarian principles (I don't know this...but I know his Dad) and he has decided, for political advantage, to obscure those principles to win some major political victory, I say more power to him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you get elected King of tribe of cannibal's and then try to suggest to the tribe they should not eat people, guess who is next on the menu?

      Delete
    2. You're dreaming pal. Open your eyes idiot.
      Jeez, eternally brain dead.

      Delete
    3. The problem with your strategy is that once he is in office and has to actually solve problems the libertarian ideology will go out the window. It's not possible to govern as a libertarian. That is why he can't win running as a libertarian.

      Delete
    4. "It's not possible to govern as a libertarian."

      IMO, a true libertarian would not want to govern. Troll.

      Delete
    5. Another one who wants to give legitimacy to the state on the basis of pure WISHFUL THINKING.

      Another one who wouldn't mind the blood on his hands for his vote for a guy whom - other than his blind faith that Rand is a "libertarian" (just because his dad is) who is "playing the game" - has not given anybody any reason to assume that he is hiding true pro-freedom, non-interventionist views from his fellow GOP-ers.

      Seriously, Dominick, if you choose to be gullible and naive, don't you think it is rather presumptuous to claim that we are "analyzing" this wrong? You can only make an analysis on the basis of FACTS, not on the basis of blind faith, wishful thinking and/or unwarranted hope.

      P.S. Even if you were right, there is virtually NOTHING Rand Paul would be able to change, especially long term, about the system. Where are the historical facts on which you base your analysis that a secret libertarian would be able to infiltrate, win and then make great and important changes to a system that serves all other politicians as well as a massive voter bloc?

      John F. Kennedy was hardly a "revolutionary", and look what happened to him.
      You're not analyzing ANYTHING at all. So please don't tell us we're analyzing things wrong.

      Delete
    6. In this case i think we are being a bit too hard on Wolfgang.

      I think he is actually right, here. You cannot "govern" as a libertarian. You can only stop governing, which is precisely the point.

      Delete
    7. You have a point. Most libertarians it seems are nihilists. The attitude is that whether we have a government that takes one percent of our money or 100 percent of it, it's all the same because any government is aggression. So don't bother trying to change things through politics because that's dirty, instead wait until everyone in the world becomes a libertarian which is impossible because libertarianism only makes sense to a few high-IQ people.

      Delete
  3. more sour grapes from the Rand-haters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sour grapes? What are you an idiot? The question answers itself.

      Delete
    2. Yawn...

      Pray tell, why should we have "sour grapes" if not for good reason?

      We have sour grapes for Rand just as we do for all statists, so are we to take your assertion as some kind of offense?

      And we don't "hate" Rand. We just expose him, and will keep doing so, no matter how brain dead Rand-apologist sheep like you feel about it.

      Delete