Mark Levin: "Ron Paul is different than Rand Paul"

[Christian Liberty]

Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman are both libertarians and very similar, but they get very different treatment by different groups. I personally like both but they seems to be a minority position.

The analogy of Rothbard and Friedman is probably appropriate for Ron and Rand. I happily voted for Ron, but he says and does a lot things that show very poor judgement. He is going to shutout people whereas Rand sounds more reasonable to the average political watcher.

Rothbard and Friedman aren't similar at all. Personally I think Rothbard goes a little too far while Friedman doesn't go nearly far enough on monetary policy, but they aren't "The same" at all.

For one thing, they didn't agree on the Fed, or the State, for that matter.

Rand Paul is a libertarian leaning conservative, at least in public. Ron Paul is a consistent minarchist. They aren't the same at all. They have completely different foreign policy viewpoints. Same general ballpark in a "Not Lindsey Graham neo-conservatives" sense, but nowhere near the same thing.

I don't see how anyone could argue that its the same thing, it isn't.

Rand Paul also has not actually stated, at least not anytime recently (I'm not going to assume he still stands by statements he made back before or right after I was born) that he actually wants to get rid of entitlements. I have no doubt he'd like to in the back of his head, but he's not pursuing it. Ron did.

 

[krugminator]

Rothbard and Friedman aren't similar at all.

They have completely different foreign policy viewpoints. .

Rothbard became a libertarian because of literature Friedman published.

You should let the media and all the people who are attacking Rand know that they have it all wrong. You have a special insight that Ron and Rand have completely different views.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Think about what you are saying and to whom you are speaking... Levin. Then, realize how asinine your statement is.

Lighten up, LE. It will do you good.

 

[T.hill]

Rothbard and Friedman aren't similar at all. Personally I think Rothbard goes a little too far while Friedman doesn't go nearly far enough on monetary policy, but they aren't "The same" at all.

For one thing, they didn't agree on the Fed, or the State, for that matter.

Rand Paul is a libertarian leaning conservative, at least in public. Ron Paul is a consistent minarchist. They aren't the same at all. They have completely different foreign policy viewpoints. Same general ballpark in a "Not Lindsey Graham neo-conservatives" sense, but nowhere near the same thing.

I don't see how anyone could argue that its the same thing, it isn't.

Rand Paul also has not actually stated, at least not anytime recently (I'm not going to assume he still stands by statements he made back before or right after I was born) that he actually wants to get rid of entitlements. I have no doubt he'd like to in the back of his head, but he's not pursuing it. Ron did.

Hardly any difference between them on foreign policy.He isn't openly pursuing the eradication of entitlements, but hes strongly supported opting-out of social programs numerous times.

 

[FrankRep]

Lighten up, LE. It will do you good.

It's frustrating to see Rand Paul advancing politically and then watching the libertarians go into self-destruct mode and shoot everyone in the foot.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Rothbard became a libertarian because of literature Friedman published.

You should let the media and all the people who are attacking Rand know that they have it all wrong. You have a special insight that Ron and Rand have completely different views.

I guess I should define "Completely different" I guess. If by that you mean polar opposites, than no, I don't believe that.

But Rand obviously has a moderate, "realist" foreign policy view. Ron Paul has a completely no compromise, no intervention view.
The media wants people to think that Rand is exactly like Ron. Do you have any idea why?

 

[cajuncocoa]

It's frustrating to see Rand Paul advancing politically and then watching the libertarians go into self-destruct mode and shoot everyone in the foot.

No one is shooting anyone in the foot and nothing is being destroyed here. Good grief!

 

[fr33]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?339354-Take-The-No-Levin-Challenge

^^^

 

[compromise]

I guess I should define "Completely different" I guess. If by that you mean polar opposites, than no, I don't believe that.

But Rand obviously has a moderate, "realist" foreign policy view. Ron Paul has a completely no compromise, no intervention view.
The media wants people to think that Rand is exactly like Ron. Do you have any idea why?

The most non-interventionist guy in the US Senate is a moderate on foreign policy?

Rand is a strict constitutionalist.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The most non-interventionist guy in the US Senate is a moderate on foreign policy?

In the grand scheme of things, yes. Actually, considering his votes on Iran, I might even call him moderately hawkish.

With the overton window shift that's happened over the past hundred years, that is otherwise known as "Isolationist."

Don't worry, I'm still voting for him. I'm too scared of anyone else. But to pretend like his foreign policy is the same as Ron Paul's is either intellectually dishonest, or assuming that he's lying way more often than I think is safe to assume.

Rand is a strict constitutionalist.

That doesn't guarantee a good foreign policy record, though it may make that more likely.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

I still don't believe the 1% quote. I believe Ron when he says Rand is "Somewhat similar to him" but I think 1% was being way too generous. Yeah, I said it, I think Ron Paul was wrong, like he is 1-2% of the time.

That said, I'm gonna support Rand. I'm too scared of everyone else, and I'm rolling the dice that Rand is close enough to Ron that he'll actually stick to his guns and get something done once he gets into office, even if he's not perfect.

But 99% of Ron Paul? I don't buy that, sorry. Sanctions alone is probably more than 1%, TBH.

Amash voted for sanctions and he is the heir apparent. Ron voted for the AUMF. None of the up and comers in the liberty movement agree with Ron's premise that sanctions are essentially an act of war.

The 1% quote isn't meant to express their actual difference in mathematical terms, which isn't even possible. The purpose of the 1% statement is to communicate to his supporters that Rand is a lot more libertarian in philosophy than he lets on via his public persona. It's a hint-hint-wink-wink indication that Rand really has the best interest of the liberty movement at heart. I have had the opportunity to speak with a bunch of members of the Paul family (including Ron and Robert) in private and they express the same sentiment. Thus, I have faith in Rand, but like you said, what choice do we really have?

 

[compromise]

In the grand scheme of things, yes. Actually, considering his votes on Iran, I might even call him moderately hawkish.

With the overton window shift that's happened over the past hundred years, that is otherwise known as "Isolationist."

Don't worry, I'm still voting for him. I'm too scared of anyone else. But to pretend like his foreign policy is the same as Ron Paul's is either intellectually dishonest, or assuming that he's lying way more often than I think is safe to assume.


That doesn't guarantee a good foreign policy record, though it may make that more likely.

By those standards, Robert Taft (early proponent of military aid to Israel) would also be moderately hawkish, as would Pat Buchanan (supported the Cold War and the use of torture against POWs).

 

[Christian Liberty]

Amash voted for sanctions and he is the heir apparent.

Amash is better than Rand but not as solid as Ron. Take that as you will.

Ron voted for the AUMF

To go after terrorists who set up 9/11. I have a problem with how it was used but I don't have a problem with what Ron supported with regards to it.

None of the up and comers in the liberty movement agree with Ron's premise that sanctions are essentially an act of war.

Neither do I, but I still think its a horrible idea.

The 1% quote isn't meant to express their actual difference in mathematical terms, which isn't even possible. The purpose of the 1% statement is to communicate to his supporters that Rand is a lot more libertarian in philosophy than he lets on via his public persona. It's a hint-hint-wink-wink indication that Rand really has the best interest of the liberty movement at heart. I have had the opportunity to speak with a bunch of members of the Paul family (including Ron and Robert) in private and they express the same sentiment. Thus, I have faith in Rand, but like you said, what choice do we really have?

Well, I've never spoken to Ron Paul or anyone else in his family personally so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there, I suppose. At least, I hope you are correct.

By those standards, Robert Taft (early proponent of military aid to Israel) would also be moderately hawkish, as would Pat Buchanan (supported the Cold War and the use of torture against POWs).

Military aid, and saying that you will support an ally that starts an aggressive war militarily, is not the same thing.

I'm curious how strong Pat Buchanan's noninterventionist credentials are, actually. He's almost certainly the most hawkish author on LewRockwell.com

 

[cajuncocoa]

The 1% quote isn't meant to express their actual difference in mathematical terms, which isn't even possible. The purpose of the 1% statement is to communicate to his supporters that Rand is a lot more libertarian in philosophy than he lets on via his public persona. It's a hint-hint-wink-wink indication that Rand really has the best interest of the liberty movement at heart. I have had the opportunity to speak with a bunch of members of the Paul family (including Ron and Robert) in private and they express the same sentiment. Thus, I have faith in Rand, but like you said, what choice do we really have?

No kidding.

I know what Rand is doing, I just wish he didn't feel that it's necessary to hide whatever libertarian tendancies he has. I wish he would educate them so it wouldn't be necessary to play those games. Politics suck.


I'll bet that 1% quote gets dropped in sig lines once those who like Rand but not Ron start joining up on this board.

 

[Christian Liberty]

No kidding.

I know what Rand is doing, I just wish he didn't feel that it's necessary to hide whatever libertarian tendancies he has. I wish he would educate them so it wouldn't be necessary to play those games. Politics suck.


I'll bet that 1% quote gets dropped in sig lines once those who like Rand but not Ron start joining up on this board.

Nope, we'll tell them to stop making wedges

Do we really want people who don't like Ron here anyway? I'd flame them to get them out TBH. Yes, I get that Rand Paul wants them to vote for him, but I don't want them here. And besides, this is RON Paul forums so to give them a hostile "Welcome" would actually help Rand anyway.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Nope, we'll tell them to stop making wedges

Do we really want people who don't like Ron here anyway? I'd flame them to get them out TBH. Yes, I get that Rand Paul wants them to vote for him, but I don't want them here. And besides, this is RON Paul forums so to give them a hostile "Welcome" would actually help Rand anyway.

Well, I wouldn't want them here either...for the reasons you stated. But that's not up to me, and I have a feeling we may be outnumbered.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well, I wouldn't want them here either...for the reasons you stated. But that's not up to me, and I have a feeling we may be outnumbered.

I'd attack them for being haters of liberty...

 

[whoisjohngalt]

In the grand scheme of things, yes. Actually, considering his votes on Iran, I might even call him moderately hawkish.

So you consider Amash hawkish too? Ron Paul too I assume since he voted for the AUMF? So everyone is a hawk?

Nevermind, I just saw your response. But I think you understand my point. I think Rand is held to an unfair standard. Not to say that he hasn't said some questionable things. He shouldn't be given a pass, but we must hold him to the same standard as all of the other liberty politicians.

His last name shouldn't have such an undue influence on our opinions of the man, positive or negative.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Lol, this was not about Rand and Ron. Levin's strategy is to become like Ron Paul in the eyes of the GOP. Levin has been saying for a while that he is the one who has made the Constitution popular again. He wants to define "libertarian" so broadly that he can also be the most prominent "libertarian" pundit. Look at how Paul Ryan and Sean Hannity were portrayed as "libertarian" because they read Ayn Rand. Look at Michelle Bachmann "reading Hayek at the beach". Levin wants to define himself as libertarian, but stops just short of applying the label directly to himself.

The popularity of Ron Paul's message was not lost. That popular message was ripe for copying and co-opting. Some neo-conservatives have evolved into teo-conservatives. They are taking on almost all of Ron Paul's talking points, with the exception of "isolationism", as they would call it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

So you consider Amash hawkish too? Ron Paul too I assume since he voted for the AUMF? So everyone is a hawk?

Nevermind, I just saw your response. But I think you understand my point. I think Rand is held to an unfair standard. Not to say that he hasn't said some questionable things. He shouldn't be given a pass, but we must hold him to the same standard as all of the other liberty politicians.

His last name shouldn't have such an undue influence on our opinions of the man, positive or negative.

I've never heard Justin Amash say anything, or cast any votes, that suggested that America should help Israel attack any other country.

Rand Paul's last name is irrelevant to me. It is making other people give him a pass in areas they shouldn't.

I view anyone who supports preemptive war of any kind as being a hawk to a lesser or greater degree.