Hotair: Rand Paul differentiates foreign policy from his father’s brand

[angelatc]

But I'm especially tired - almost done - with these people running around this forum telling people like me that we're "saboteurs". Quite frankly, whatever Rand's comments may actually mean, this movement was about principle.

Principles are important but so is winning elections. THere's nothing unprincipled about basing a decision on a voting record rather than a remark designed to address the attacks the neocons will throw at him.

 

[angelatc]

Pandering is an action, one Ron, if he did it at all, did only on the edges of the margins. There was no question where he stood on things. If you value honesty and trustworthiness, and consider it important to deciding if that candidate is ever going to stand for anything important to you when the chips are down and personal advancement or power lies in another direction, that is going to impact how you feel. And endorsing Romney when he did is also an action. Some think it is a big deal, some don't, but precise platform policy positions pale to me, in many respects, next to knowing I can trust the person I am supporting.

I didn't figure Ron's budget would get through the legislature unscathed, but I knew that to the utmost of his power, he'd have been using his office to fight for priorities for the people and the Constitution, and not special interests, regardless of what he was offered, every time.

For me 2016 is some ways off, and we have another election in between. I don't have to make a hard and fast decision on Rand at the moment, and looking at the likely field from the view today, he would probably end up with my vote - if only for Ron's sake - just because there is no one else in view, right now. I am not bagging out of Ron's idea of taking back the GOP, I just draw my inspiration from Ron, and my current motivation from others in the r3Volution who are fighting the good fight. I want us to be there to support the next Ron Paul - and in the meantime, we'd work to put in the best of the candidates we could find, every time, is how I view it.

Rand is a candidate, but not, to me, the r3VOLution, although he will likely benefit from it, given the current cast of characters likely to run in 2016. But that is just my individual viewpoint, and there may be as many opinions as people here.

But there's never going to be another Ron Paul. You'll be waiting forever. All we have going forward are candidates who pick up pieces of Paul's platform.

And I'm not saying that Rand should lie. I don't believe that we should have allies. But we do.

 

[sailingaway]

I don't agree there will never be another Ron Paul, there are too many who caught fire from his record. I DO agree we can't 'only support' those particularly if we take party positions because you take on responsibilities you have to fulfill. However, my REASON for doing this may be different from yours based on ultimate goals you don't think will occur, then. I look at the crowds Ron gets, I look at Mark Willis and Ashley Ryan and that National Committeeman in Texas who voted for Willis, and at MO caucuses and Brent STafford and at the Louisiana delegates, the North Dakota delegates, the Idaho precinctmen, the Washington state liberty caucus, etc etc and I see people who will fight for what is right. Sooner or later, we will get them in office, and as we spread Ron's principles, and people see us continuing the good fight, more will join.

Meanwhile, politicians will use us like any other 'interest group' trying to come just enough in our direction to get our support while trying to carve those parts of their positions out of a framework that doesn't alienate other, diametrically opposed, interest groups. I understand that. Out of the pool we actually have, we will have to select the candidate we will support for a particular race in our area, or nationally. Or run ourselves. I get that.

I am just working for an ultimate diametrical change from that way of doing business.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

If there is never going to be another Ron Paul, then I won't ever have to worry about voting again... and the '08 and '12 campaigns were for nothing. Well, for nothing political, anyway.

 

[sailingaway]

If there is never going to be another Ron Paul, then I won't ever have to worry about voting again... and the '08 and '12 campaigns were for nothing. Well, for nothing political, anyway.

Consider sticking around and helping us make it so there are others. When I get my inspiration from Ron, part of that is looking back on the 20 years when he DIDN'T have cheering crowds or people faking his positions to sound like him to get elected, when he was just getting squeezed out of committee chairs and other positions of leadership because of his unwillingness to sell out, to no fanfare at all. We at least have eachother. (And I know Ron had a smaller, active group all that time, and I appreciate it, but at that time they weren't in the party to help, and weren't in DC to give him any support. Thanks to Ron's run, and the launch pad they provided, we are much further along now.)

Ron also says 'when you know the truth, you have an obligation to act.'

I know politics are not the sole way to do that, but they are one way, and we are making progress, imho.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Principles are important but so is winning elections. THere's nothing unprincipled about basing a decision on a voting record rather than a remark designed to address the attacks the neocons will throw at him.

Winning elections is important, but only if one sticks to principles. If not, what have we really accomplished by winning?

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Winning elections is important, but only if one sticks to principles. If not, what have we really accomplished by winning?

Uh, if the Congress and state legislatures were thoroughly comprised of 80% pro-liberty people we'd be a lot better off. I'll take a bunch of the 80+ers over the rare one 100% any day, no offense to Ron of course. In fact, if we can get to an environment where all these 80+%ers become elected, that means we're closing in on getting a mentality that will provide additional 100%ers.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Consider sticking around and helping us make it so there are others. When I get my inspiration from Ron, part of that is looking back on the 20 years when he DIDN'T have cheering crowds or people faking his positions to sound like him to get elected, when he was just getting squeezed out of committee chairs and other positions of leadership because of his unwillingness to sell out, to no fanfare at all. We at least have eachother. (And I know Ron had a smaller, active group all that time, and I appreciate it, but at that time they weren't in the party to help, and weren't in DC to give him any support. Thanks to Ron's run, and the launch pad they provided, we are much further along now.)

Ron also says 'when you know the truth, you have an obligation to act.'

I know politics are not the sole way to do that, but they are one way, and we are making progress, imho.

megatron post

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Sure it does. What does that have to do with what we are discussing?

Because you stated Israel provoked attacks. Rand stated an attack on Israel is an attack on us. Israel is provoking many of the threats coming their way. i.e assassinating scientists. It has a lot to do with what we are discussing. Your previous statement explains why I dislike Rand's statements so much. (The only explanation that irks me more is, "because it's the status quo, so he had to say it") Israel provokes, because they rely on us. Other nations can't properly defend themselves, because Israel can rely on us. We get attacked because we support Israel unconditionally. (I'll leave the future attacks to the imagination) This idea that we are obligated to support Israel needs to be addressed. (And not in the way Rand Paul addressed it)

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

People need to find motivation in something else then. Look at the states we've taken or almost taken. Look at, if not winning, Priebus having to fly around the country making concessions to keep his job. The R3VOLution is worth fighting for, even if we are just getting in place so that if the next Ron Paul appears he has a party to push him rather than cheat him. We can't change the world sitting still.

The r3VOLution isn't about who is running for President, necessarily, it is about us.

Regarding finding "motivation in something else": The difference between a liberty movement with a major party Presidential campaign going and one without is gigantic.

Doug Wead said he was converted to the movement after "spitting out his cheerios" when he heard Ron in the Republican Presidential debate explain to Guliani why "they did 9/11".

Even if Ron only got 89 seconds out of an hour long debate, that was 1000 times more valuable than all of the "something elses" (3rd party politics, civil disobedience, etc.) that anyone in the pre-r3VOLutionary liberty movement had ever devised.

If a radical libertarian hadn't snuck into those debates and said things that he knew would make Sean Hannity and Glen Beck squeal, then thousands of people like Doug Wead would still be regular Bush Republicans.

I don't think that most of the people such as Wead and Rand that were attracted to Ron's ideas actually understand why. They just know that there's something honorable and right about the ideas, so they followed him--even when they cringed over and over because they knew that it was going to make Sean Hannity and most of their relatives and co-workers squeal.

The fact that most of Ron's converts don't have the courage of the convictions of the guy who converted them is besides the point.

Unless we have a major party presidential candidate who can't help himself from constantly saying things that make Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh upset, then you can just add "the R3VOlution" to the long list of successful government intelligence gimmick projects to pull libertarian movements toward the center (e.g. Tea Party, Contract with America, 1994 Republican Revolution, Reagan Revolution, etc.). I think it was former NFL player and lifetime CIA operations officer Ralph McGhehee who said that the purpose of the government's intelligence agencies is always to infiltrate and pull to the center.

It would be cool if Judge Nap recognized this and wasn't afraid to challenge Rand for the nomination on these grounds, but I don't think he quite gets it either. I don't think Ron or anybody who mattered really quite understood the nuclear equation that explains the unleashing of libertarian energy by Ron's R3VOLution:

honest politician sneaks out forbidden ideas in debates => all kinds of people spitting out cheerios are converted => angry Rush Limbaughs & Hannitys => 100s of articulate delegates bum rush Sheldon Adelson's caucus => tons of votes/police beatings/etc. => goto next debate...

I can't stomach being a dupe and helping build a party that lacks a Ron Paul caliber candidate who scares the living b'Jesus out of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the military industrial complex, and the corporate-bank-ocracy. Rand doesn't scare them. If by some fluke he should happen to get elected, its clear that they've got him under control just like Reagan and all the rest.

 

[Matt Collins]

Winning elections is important, but only if one sticks to principles. If not, what have we really accomplished by winning?

Very true, which is why you have to also play in legislative season, not just election season. After they're elected they must be held accountable.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Uh, if the Congress and state legislatures were thoroughly comprised of 80% pro-liberty people we'd be a lot better off. I'll take a bunch of the 80+ers over the rare one 100% any day, no offense to Ron of course. In fact, if we can get to an environment where all these 80+%ers become elected, that means we're closing in on getting a mentality that will provide additional 100%ers.

Here's the problem with 80%....you never know what you're going to get with the other 20%. War? PATRIOT Act? TSA? NDAA? SOPA? Will they do the politically expedient thing, or will they stand by their principles? Will they just say that their one vote wouldn't make a difference, or will they dare to be known as the next "Dr. No"? Maybe 80% is good enough for you, but not me.

BTW, please read Wolfgang Bohringer's excellent post on the subject. That is what is destroyed by compromise.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Very true, which is why you have to also play in legislative season, not just election season. After they're elected they must be held accountable.

So HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!! (That includes Rand!!) Don't make excuses and spin when they're playing to the Limbaugh/Hannity audience!!

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I can't stomach being a dupe and helping build a party that lacks a Ron Paul caliber candidate who scares the living b'Jesus out of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the military industrial complex, and the corporate-bank-ocracy. Rand doesn't scare them. If by some fluke he should happen to get elected, its clear that they've got him under control just like Reagan and all the rest.

Rand doesn't scare them in the way Ron does because he packages himself differently. Tho, I doubt Hannity and co are stupid and don't see the route that Rand is taking it's just that they can't really out him the way they want because they'll be offering up a major conspiracy theory that will make them look stupid. Which is precisely why Rand is running the cover he is between now and leading up to the GOP Primary. He's given little hints to his father's supporters while also relaying to the party that they must adapt to become a majority party again, not just regional or permanent minority. You won't hear Rand on Hannity or Levin showing up saying we need to treat non-violent drug offenders at a local level or saying that he palatable to some on the left in terms of civil liberties and changing foreign policy. He was just on the Jerry Doyle show last Wed (which never was posted in his forum) and he was talking about different things besides what we all heard last week about the Hillary thingy. He was in semi-libertarian mode there so I guarantee once he gets through a primary that'll he'll drop the talk and become the libertarian many of us know him to be.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Here's the problem with 80%....you never know what you're going to get with the other 20%. War? PATRIOT Act? TSA? NDAA? SOPA? Will they do the politically expedient thing, or will they stand by their principles? Will they just say that their one vote wouldn't make a difference, or will they dare to be known as the next "Dr. No"? Maybe 80% is good enough for you, but not me.

BTW, please read Wolfgang Bohringer's excellent post on the subject. That is what is destroyed by compromise.

Yeah, I really don't see this whole 80/20 scenario being that realistic anyways. Either you understand Liberty or you don't. Foreign policy, economic policy, and civil liberties all interwine. If you don't get one, you probably aren't going to get the other. And if you do happen to get it, you're getting it for the wrong reasons.. not that that would be unacceptable, I just personally wouldn't vote for them.

 

[itshappening]

Rand doesn't scare them in the way Ron does because he packages himself differently. Tho, I doubt Hannity and co are stupid and don't see the route that Rand is taking it's just that they can't really out him the way they want because they'll be offering up a major conspiracy theory that will make them look stupid. Which is precisely why Rand is running the cover he is between now and leading up to the GOP Primary. He's given little hints to his father's supporters while also relaying to the party that they must adapt to become a majority party again, not just regional or permanent minority. You won't hear Rand on Hannity or Levin showing up saying we need to treat non-violent drug offenders at a local level or saying that he palatable to some on the left in terms of civil liberties and changing foreign policy. He was just on the Jerry Doyle show last Wed (which never was posted in his forum) and he was talking about different things besides what we all heard last week about the Hillary thingy. He was in semi-libertarian mode there so I guarantee once he gets through a primary that'll he'll drop the talk and become the libertarian many of us know him to be.

I doubt it, if he wins the nomination he has to run to the center even more. A libertarian who wants to cut everything will get shredded by the Democrat scare machine i.e see Goldwater.

 

[Matt Collins]

So HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!! (That includes Rand!!) Don't make excuses and spin when they're playing to the Limbaugh/Hannity audience!!

Rand's voting record is almost identical to Ron's.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Here's the problem with 80%....you never know what you're going to get with the other 20%. War? PATRIOT Act? TSA? NDAA? SOPA? Will they do the politically expedient thing, or will they stand by their principles? Will they just say that their one vote wouldn't make a difference, or will they dare to be known as the next "Dr. No"? Maybe 80% is good enough for you, but not me.

BTW, please read Wolfgang Bohringer's excellent post on the subject. That is what is destroyed by compromise.

I thought it was a decent post up until the part I took issue with. In my mind, an 80%+ is in no way hard lined on foreign policy and basically that number I give is based upon what I'd expect their voting record to look like via a scorecard from the likes of JBS, perhaps I should've been more clear. I do not and typically haven't supported candidates that have such an erroneous view on FP. In most areas, you can't win by running on 100% status anyways so pick your message accordingly. I'm not saying that I'm happy to only have 80%ers and agree that we always want to strive for better but I still stand by my comment that if the Congress was comprised of 80%ers+ we wouldn't be in debt nor would the Fed have allowed to do what it has done and is currently doing.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I doubt it, if he wins the nomination he has to run to the center even more. A libertarian who wants to cut everything will get shredded by the Democrat scare machine i.e see Goldwater.

I meant he'll likely use most of what Ron proposed in terms of dealing with entitlements but his lingo on foreign policy will be more in tune to what we hear from Ron to appeal to the many indies that want the wars to end and perhaps some democrats. Calling it running to the center if you want.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Rand's voting record is almost identical to Ron's.

Not speaking of voting record here, Matt. We're discussing the boneheaded comment Rand made about attaching U.S. foreign policy to Israel's hip. The folks at HOTAIR think he's different from his father (see OP)....that's not a good thing, whether he really is or isn't. If he thinks his father's foreign policy approach is the way to go, he should articulate that instead of pandering. When he panders, those of us in the Liberty Movement SHOULD criticize him because it's deserved.