A really good article that gives insight into Rand's upcoming debate skills vs Cruz and others

[T.hill]

Rand didn't propose increases in military spending, he just tried to add an amendment to an already existing bill.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

If you don't want to increase defense spending, then dammit! don't propose increasing defense spending ...

It was Rubio's proposal to increase defense spending. Rand proposed an amendment to that proposal.

 

[Rudeman]

You see, this is the biggest problem I have with Rand.

I am pretty much at the end of my tether when it comes to all the ploys and panders and triangulations and etc.

If you don't want to increase defense spending, then dammit! don't propose increasing defense spending ...

Your problem with him is that he proposes better solutions? You're completely looking at what Rand is doing in the wrong way. Someone proposed to increase defense spending, Rand proposed a better solution where the defense increases were off-set with spending cuts elsewhere. Not sure why that is considered a bad thing. It is completely inline with standing on principle because he is. Just because you're willing to compromise doesn't mean you aren't principled.

 

[Occam's Banana]

It was Rubio's proposal to increase defense spending. Rand proposed an amendment to that proposal.

Your problem with him is that he proposes better solutions? You're completely looking at what Rand is doing in the wrong way. Someone proposed to increase defense spending, Rand proposed a better solution where the defense increases were off-set with spending cuts elsewhere. Not sure why that is considered a bad thing. It is completely inline with standing on principle because he is. Just because you're willing to compromise doesn't mean you aren't principled.

The "better solution" Rand proposed was an amendment that he knew did not stand a chance in hell of actually being adopted.

And why? Just to illustrate a fact that EVERYBODY already knows - namely, that the senate is composed of fiscally irresponsible & spendthrifty hacks?

We have a military budget that is larger than the military budgets of all other countries in the world combined.

Our military spending does NOT need to be increased in any way, shape or form - not even with offsetting cuts elsewhere.

If you're going to make doomed gestures, at least make them grand ones. (At least then, maybe you'll get something out of them - otherwise, why bother at all?) Propose an amendment to slash military spending, not increase it - and use the opportunity to pound home why it is so important to do the former. But instead, Rand merely tried to make a pedestrian point which did not come as news to anyone who was paying attention and which has only served to make him look like a flip-flopper to both his critics and to people who might otherwise have become supporters.

 

[T.hill]

The "better solution" Rand proposed was an amendment that he knew did not stand a chance in hell of actually being adopted.

And why? Just to illustrate a fact that EVERYBODY already knows - namely, that the senate is composed of fiscally irresponsible & spendthrifty hacks?

We have a military budget that is larger than the military budgets of all other countries in the world combined.

Our military spending does NOT need to be increased in any way, shape or form - not even with offsetting cuts elsewhere.

If you're going to make doomed gestures, at least make them grand ones. (At least then, maybe you'll get something out of them - otherwise, why bother at all?) Propose an amendment to slash military spending, not increase it - and use the opportunity to pound home why it is so important to do the former. But instead, Rand merely tried to make a pedestrian point which did not come as news to anyone who was paying attention and which has only served to make him look like a flip-flopper to both his critics and to people who might otherwise have become supporters.

While it may be true that his gesture was misinterpreted as proposing spending increases, I'm not sure if you can say he believed it was always with absolute certainty doomed to failure. Anyway, the initial focus of your original point was your belief that he actually did flip-flop and proposed increases in military spending unprovoked and without context. As it relates to that point it is evident this did not occur.

When it comes to the negative perceptions that followed, we can say they were mistaken and for that reason he has every chance in the future to correct it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

While it may be true that his gesture was misinterpreted as proposing spending increases, I'm not sure if you can say he believed it was always with absolute certainty doomed to failure.

You see, this is a perfect example of the very thing I'm trying to get at ...

On the one hand, you are saying that you are not sure that Rand thought his proposal was going to fail (which can only mean that you think it's possible that Rand thought it might have succeeded) - in which case Rand either really did want to increase military spending (with offsets), or he really didn't but was daring the chance that it might pass anyway. On the other hand, Brett85 said earlier that he didn't think Rand actually wanted to increase defense spending and that his proposal was just a ploy to show up Rubio and Cruz. Meanwhile, I do not think that Rand really thought the proposal would pass - but I have no idea whether he actually wanted it to or not.

One event, with an abundance of confusion and varied interpretations. And the damnable thing about it is that any one of us could be right - or all of us could be wrong. Does he want to increase military spending - or doesn't he? Is he willing to increase it (as a bargaining chip for something else), even if he doesn't want to? Or was his proposal just a ploy all along? Who the hell knows? Rand certainly isn't giving us much help here.

At least with Ron, you knew where he stood on these kinds of things, whether you agreed with him or not. He opposed increasing military spending, period - and he would have offset cuts in the defense budget to do things like reduce overall spending and make Social Security more solvent until it could be put on an "opt in" basis and eventually phased out. Whatever one thought about the particulars, pro or con, at least Ron was clear and consistent about these things (allowing for changes in the finer details). With very few exceptions (such as the death penalty), you knew what he opposed & supported yesterday, you knew he still opposed & supported the same things today, and you could be pretty damn sure he was going to oppose & support the same things tomorrow ...

Anyway, the initial focus of your original point was your belief that he actually did flip-flop and proposed increases in military spending unprovoked and without context. As it relates to that point it is evident this did not occur.

In my original post, I said that Rand had proposed and supported decreasing defense spending in 2011. That did occur. I also said that "now" (actually a few months ago, with the amendment under discussion) he had "proposed increasing defense spending while offsetting the increase with cuts elsewhere." That also did occur. I did not refer to this as a "flip-flop" - I merely pointed out the inconsistency (as many others have done). As I noted just above, I have no idea whether he actually wanted his proposed military spending increases (with offsets) to pass or not - or if he was just engaging in gamesmanship (as Brett85 has suggested). But he DID, in fact, propose increases in military spending. (I don't understand what you mean by "unprovoked and without context," unless you are referring to the offsets - but I explicitly acknowledged the offsets in my very first post.)

When it comes to the negative perceptions that followed, we can say they were mistaken and for that reason he has every chance in the future to correct it.

Which perceptions? The perception that he had previously proposed decreased military spending, but was now proposing increased military spending? Becasue that particular perception was not at all mistaken. Rand actually did both of those things. (Whether he "really meant it" or not in the latter case seems to be anybody's guess - one person says he did, and was using it as a "compromise" for overall spending cuts - another person says he didn't, and it was just a ploy to expose irresponsible spendthrifts - and so on ...)

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Both Ron and Rand have made a distinction about what they mean by "defense" spending since 2011, to distinguish it from military spending. Real "defense" spending is about funding things that are actually vital to the defense or protection of the nation, whereas military spending in general (most of the hundreds of billions annually poured into all the bases around the world, that Iraq 'embassy' monstrosity, bloated and faulty weapons systems, etc) is absolutely not.

Ron explicitly spelled out this difference during the debates of 2011-2012, whereas Rand is doing it quietly, by not bringing up military waste (i.e., most military spending), so most people hearing him talk up increased defense spending think he's talking about all military spending. On substance, he's basically not changed, Rand is just using the word differently to (as usual) give himself "strong on defense" rhetorical cover to beat back the war hawks.

 

[cindy25]

Rand knows the issues, but he needs to sharpen up on one liners that will be played over and over. Rand's weakness is his retail skills and his campaign handlers.

 

[acptulsa]

While it may be true that his gesture was misinterpreted as proposing spending increases, I'm not sure if you can say he believed it was always with absolute certainty doomed to failure.

The thing is, if it did pass it would have made Cruz' bill revenue neutral. It was a modification of a bill that increased military spending (I think it's time we stopped pretending the Department of Imperialism has anything to do with defense). It was a case of, if you insist on spending more, here, let's pay for it. Let's cut all this crap like the federal Department of Education that you pretend to hate and let's free up some money so you can buy more bombs.

If the amendment didn't pass it would continue to be what Cruz designed it to be--a ticket to more national debt. If the bill didn't pass it didn't matter if the amendment did or not.

And the reason it amounted to a 'proposed increase' even over what Cruz was trying to get the arms merchants of death is because it was kind of spur-of-the-moment. To paraphrase: Oh, want to increase the military budget? Well, you claim to be a conservative, and pretend to hate X, Y and Z. Let's cut X,Y and Z. Let's see, what does that add up to? Why, it saves more than you wanted to spend on bombs. Well, good, you should like that. Let's spend it all on bombs.

He was just trying to do his old pal Cruz a favor. He was just giving the guy a chance to prove he's a Republican because he's conservative, and not just because he likes bombing babies who are as brown as he is.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

It is not fiscally neutral in defense spending. It is fiscally liberal in defense spending. (Rand now wants to increase defense spending.)

No, Rand does not *want* to increase defense spending. [How do you know what Rand wants anyway, do you work for the NSA?] Rand wants to cut spending. He introduced an amendment to Rubio's amendment to raise defense spending by $170 billion to decrease other spending by $212 billion.

 

[jkob]

You see, this is the biggest problem I have with Rand.

I am pretty much at the end of my tether when it comes to all the ploys and panders and triangulations and etc.

If you don't want to increase defense spending, then dammit! don't propose increasing defense spending ...

Tell me about it, I think its a losing strategy to boot too. If Rand doesn't win it all then he'll have set the movement back years by prostituting himself, winning the hearts and minds is the only way we can save this country. We're not going to trick or sneak by anyone.

 

[acptulsa]

Oh?

Funny. I thought leading RINOs to expose their complete lack of conservatism was just as legitimate a tactic as his father causing McCain to expose his complete lack of economic and fiduciary knowledge, myself.

But whatever suits you.

 

[jurgs01]

Tell me about it, I think its a losing strategy to boot too. If Rand doesn't win it all then he'll have set the movement back years by prostituting himself, winning the hearts and minds is the only way we can save this country. We're not going to trick or sneak by anyone.

The guy has taken libertarian issues further than any sitting senator in 100 years and further than any presidential candidate (other than his father) in a long time.

We sure do set the bar high. I'm sure you as a guy sitting in your house ragging on Rand have done so much more to set the liberty movement up for success :roll eyes:

Edit: If you wanted to actually help the liberty movement you could direct some of that negative Rand energy into actually getting people elected who meet your criteria for liberty. Or, you could start a grassroots effort to encourage jury nullification in your state. Or, you could do...something.

 

[RabbitMan]

The guy has taken libertarian issues further than any sitting senator in 100 years and further than any presidential candidate (other than his father) in a long time.

We sure do set the bar high. I'm sure you as a guy sitting in your house ragging on Rand have done so much more to set the liberty movement up for success :roll eyes:

Edit: If you wanted to actually help the liberty movement you could direct some of that negative Rand energy into actually getting people elected who meet your criteria for liberty. Or, you could start a grassroots effort to encourage jury nullification in your state. Or, you could do...something.

It shouldn't shield Rand from criticism but....jurge has a point.

 

[Krugminator2]

The guy has taken libertarian issues further than any sitting senator in 100 years and further than any presidential candidate (other than his father) in a long time.

We sure do set the bar high. I'm sure you as a guy sitting in your house ragging on Rand have done so much more to set the liberty movement up for success :roll eyes:

Edit: If you wanted to actually help the liberty movement you could direct some of that negative Rand energy into actually getting people elected who meet your criteria for liberty. Or, you could start a grassroots effort to encourage jury nullification in your state. Or, you could do...something.

It used to drive me berserk when I saw certain libertarian groups say Ron Paul was hurting libertarianism, a guy who basically created a majority of the ilibertarians alive today. All the Ron is racist and bad on drugs and gay marriage and immigration and trade libertarians. Now it is just a different groups saying the same thing about Rand Paul.

Think about how nuts that is. And saying Rand prostitutes himself? Rand is Sisyphus. He is pretty darn libertarian. If Rand were not in the Senate, you want to know how often you would hear about libertarianism in the media? About the same as you heard back in 2005, when I first became a libertarian, which was about 2 times a year when John Stossel did 20/20 specials.

 

[jkob]

The guy has taken libertarian issues further than any sitting senator in 100 years and further than any presidential candidate (other than his father) in a long time.

We sure do set the bar high. I'm sure you as a guy sitting in your house ragging on Rand have done so much more to set the liberty movement up for success :roll eyes:

Edit: If you wanted to actually help the liberty movement you could direct some of that negative Rand energy into actually getting people elected who meet your criteria for liberty. Or, you could start a grassroots effort to encourage jury nullification in your state. Or, you could do...something.

I like his father better, simple as that. The further away Rand moves from him, the further he moves away from me. At best, I think Rand's strategy of pandering and essentially lying to get elected won't work and at worst I question whether or not we should even trust him. If he wasn't his father's son would you guys still be as enthusiastic? Rand needs to be bold and excite the base or he will lose it, he can't play both sides of spectrum with just a wink and nod to us.

 

[Crashland]

Rand does more than wink and nod to the libertarian base. Almost every position he has laid out is consistent with libertarian principles, but to libertarians they only look at the few areas of differences and because of that, the whole package is unacceptable. Libertarians are getting more than a wink and nod but they aren't happy because Rand isn't giving them the same red meat that Ron offered. The "all or nothing " approach is what has been and what will continue to confine libertarians to relative obscurity when it comes to influence in politics.

 

[65fastback2+2]

In 2011, Rand proposed and supported decreasing defense spending. That was fiscally conservative.

Now, he has proposed increasing defense spending while offsetting the increase with cuts elsewhere.

That is not fiscally conservative. At best, it is fiscally neutral.

So Rand has gone from being fiscally conservative to being fiscally neutral. IOW: He has become more fiscally liberal ...

lol...you havent been paying attention.

What Rand proposed was an AMENDMENT to a bill that he VOTED AGAINST.

Rand proposed that CONGRESS be fiscally neutral, while he was being fiscally conservative, and they couldnt even do that.

Rand wouldnt have voted for the bill even if his amendment passed.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Rand does more than wink and nod to the libertarian base. Almost every position he has laid out is consistent with libertarian principles, but to libertarians they only look at the few areas of differences and because of that, the whole package is unacceptable. Libertarians are getting more than a wink and nod but they aren't happy because Rand isn't giving them the same red meat that Ron offered. The "all or nothing " approach is what has been and what will continue to confine libertarians to relative obscurity when it comes to influence in politics.

yup! he's doing a good job too...in his speech friday he said that you could be a minority by more than the color of your skin...he also said by your political ideology and he said, quote "or if you're a Libertarian!"...direct hint to his crowd.

 

[65fastback2+2]

I like his father better, simple as that. The further away Rand moves from him, the further he moves away from me. At best, I think Rand's strategy of pandering and essentially lying to get elected won't work and at worst I question whether or not we should even trust him. If he wasn't his father's son would you guys still be as enthusiastic? Rand needs to be bold and excite the base or he will lose it, he can't play both sides of spectrum with just a wink and nod to us.

he isnt lying to get elected...he's taking certain stances that the general public want him to take that he can and that are constitutional and there are just some who hope once elected he becomes even more libertarian.

I am fine where he is at. Expecting to go from bloated government to a 100% libertarian in a single election cycle is moronic for people to even expect that that is remotely possible. It isnt, so quit expecting it.