Rand Paul: I'm Not a libertarian...

[Spikender]

Next month, from the Washington Post

Followed quickly by the usual suspects here claiming Rand Paul is a neocon.

Nice strawman.

But his leg is looking kind of limp. Need some help stuffing it back up?

 

[TheGrinch]

Nope, I'm not judging him by his supporters, just saying they're somewhat annoying when they pretend not to get it, and having to keep hammering my point with them makes it seem like I support Rand less than I really do (good grief, it's not like he's Lindsey Graham!) I like his voting record, and I may just vote for him in 2016 (not definite) but I will say these gaffes will probably result in my donations going to help grow the LP rather than to Rand.

You know that works both ways. I've even had to justify actions of Rand's that I don't necessarily even agree with in an attempt to make you all calm down and realize that maybe the sky isn't falling over the drama-gotcha of the week that you choose to hang on.

It is most definitely the offensive that puts some of us on the defensive, not the other way around. If it weren't for knee-jerk reactions that don't even attempt to put it into proper context, we'd have no need to defend anything.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Rand will do "Better" because he will get more votes, if that's what you consider "Better."

I personally prefer Ron's strategy on moral grounds, and I'm not convinced that all of this is purely strategy on Rand's part. I believe he may well differ from his dad on a few points. Grinch is correct, he's the best senator we have, and we should still support him. We can still call him out when he's wrong. Otherwise we really are just Randroids pretending like Rand is perfect. He's not.

I'm still gonna vote for him, and I'm still gonna encourage others to do so. But I'm not going to pretend I like every single word that comes out of his mouth.

For the record, I realize that technically you can construct that statement to mean that he's not a libertarian, and that he doesn't advocate everyone to run around and smoke pot, but not necessarily that libertarians advocate that. However, he did clearly imply that libertarians do support running around naked and smoking pot.

 

[cajuncocoa]

You know that works both ways. I've even had to justify actions of Rand's that I don't necessarily even agree with in an attempt to make you all calm down and realize that maybe the sky isn't falling over the drama-gotcha of the week that you choose to hang on.

It is most definitely the offensive that puts some of us on the defensive, not the other way around. If it weren't for knee-jerk reactions that don't even attempt to put it into proper context, we'd have no need to defend anything.

If he didn't mispeak so often, there wouldn't be a need for any of this.

 

[jct74]

However, he did clearly imply that libertarians do support running around naked and smoking pot.

Washington Post used two sets of quotation marks to quote him, it could have been two sentences that were minutes apart. You need the full continuous quote to be able to determine that.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Nope, I'm not judging him by his supporters, just saying they're somewhat annoying when they pretend not to get it, and having to keep hammering my point with them makes it seem like I support Rand less than I really do (good grief, it's not like he's Lindsey Graham!) I like his voting record, and I may just vote for him in 2016 (not definite) but I will say these gaffes will probably result in my donations going to help grow the LP rather than to Rand.

OK, I get you. Right now, I'm 100% behind Rand (Note that that's not the same thing as saying I agree with him 100% of the time) but I'm definitely willing to change his mind. It would have to be something he actually does though, not just a stupid gaffe. If Rand got on the news tomorrow and said he wanted to bomb Iran, yeah, I'd change my plans and not support him anymore. If Rand said he is in favor of the Federal Reserve System, or gun control, I'd wouldn't support him either. Those three things (Well, not Iran specifically, but anti-war politics) are my litmus tests, and I won't make an exception for Ron Paul's son in that regard either. Ted Cruz already failed on at least two of those three points, so I'm not supporting Cruz. But I'm not going to stop supporting Rand because of a gafffe. Heck, Tod Akin was probably horrible, but I have to laugh at Missouri for punishing him so much over a gaffe. I hope the liberty movement is smarter than that with its people.

Just because I'm still going to vote for Rand in spite of his silly comments doesn't mean I won't call him out though. I get why he does it, he's trying to please the libertarians and the neocons. Honestly, I don't believe he can do that all the way until 2016. Eventually he'll be forced to pick a side. The neocons will demand a bombing of Iran, and Rand Paul will have to decide whether he's going to sell out to them or not. I'm not certain, but if I had to bet, I'd say we'll know for sure where his loyalties lie by '16.

Until we know for sure, I'll trust Ron Paul and give his son the benefit of the doubt... at least for now.

 

[asurfaholic]

It's threads like these that travel on at breakneck speeds that make me want to give up on these parts. As somebody who has been arrested for being naked in my house, and smoke pot occasionally, I do not have the first problem with what Rand said.

RPF = one hissyfit after another.

 

[klamath]

If he doesn't do better than Ron did, I will.

Yes this. RP has a pathetic poor base to start with that many on here have conjured in their minds to be a MASSIVE electoral mandate. If Rand comes in with 9% then he lost part of his dads base and gained nothing else, then yes he blew it. However Rand has already beat he dads base by a long shot. He won a whole state with 56% where his dad only got 5 or 10 stinking percent. Ron couldn't even carry his own district as a presidential candidate. Now that is pathetic.

 

[fr33]

If he loses, then why do you care who he alienates? He's only alienating them from himself.

Plus that's a ridiculous standard, that if his efforts don't succeed, then we should apologize for trying. Would it be fair for me to flip that on Ron and say he was wrong for "saying things that alienate GOP voters who are manipulated by the media, while depending more on his base"? Of course not.

I want him to win. That's why I care. If his strategy doesn't work then it will have been not only a waste of time but also it will have watered down the message and caused many people who's apathy was cured to be reinfected with it.

 

[klamath]

It's threads like these that travel on at breakneck speeds that make me want to give up on these parts. As somebody who has been arrested for being naked in my house, and smoke pot occasionally, I do not have the first problem with what Rand said.

RPF = one hissyfit after another.

Now that is flat out honesty and I commend you.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

RPF = one hissyfit after another.

"Rand Paul said he's not a Libertarian," for the thirtieth time.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Washington Post used two sets of quotation marks to quote him, it could have been two sentences that were minutes apart. You need the full continuous quote to be able to determine that.

Fair enough. I'd apologize if that was the case. I assumed he was saying both of those things together as one point.

 

[jct74]

1. I'm not freaking out; I'm involved in a discussion with apologists as to why this alleged quote by Rand is insulting, if indeed he did say it.

there we're some people freaking out and getting very emotional earlier in the thread when i skimmed through it, not necessarily you.

2. I cannot verify that it was said exactly that way other than to say that it's been quoted that way all over the Internet by now, and there's been no retraction or correction.

I think that is being too eager to try and find fault with Rand when basing it on something we don't even know exactly what was said. Also Rand is not going to issue a clarification every time some libertarians on the internet get upset with him.

 

[TheGrinch]

If he didn't mispeak so often, there wouldn't be a need for any of this.

The vast majority of these "misspeaks" are people taking his words out of context and having a knee-jerk reaction without even trying to put it into context. It's the same crap that the media does. I thought we were better than that than to knee-jerk and assume the worst of our own without good evidence and proper context.

I mean, just a few weeks ago Rand spends 5 of 6 minutes of an interview talking about how important it was that the Boston suspects would be given due process and a fair trial, but then makes one poor example and it's ZOMG, Rand wants to drone bomb simple burglars!", even after he just freaking emphasized due process in all cases besides an imminent threat to lives. But of course probably nearly all criticizing him didn't even bother to watch the full interview for context.

So don't give me this crap like he's constantly mis-speaking. People are mis-listening and jumping to unfounded conclusions.

 

[Brett85]

As radically pro-life as I am (And you know I'm pro-life based on my comments to you in the past) I don't see how, beyond perhaps the occasional pardon of an anti-abortion vigilante, Federal regulation of abortion is constitutional at all.

I think it falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. That's an issue I disagreed with Ron on. But, I fully agree with him on the drug war.

 

[jct74]

Fair enough. I'd apologize if that was the case. I assumed he was saying both of those things together as one point.

the media has misquoted him several times before, particularly when he was running for senate, it was really ridiculous. there was one story that came out where AP said he was against medical marijuana, they didn't provide a quote but just said he came out against medical marijuana in an interview and it really upset a lot of libertarians, but it turned out to be false. Also there was the whole debacle about the fake quote in the transcript issued by MSNBC after the Maddow interview that then got picked up by AP and New York Times and syndicated into hundreds of articles... so it is good to be mindful/wary of these kinds of things that have happened before.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think it falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. That's an issue I disagreed with Ron on. But, I fully agree with him on the drug war.

You know, I'm not really comfortable using the 14th for anything, since I'm not convinced that a ratification the Confederate States were forced to sign really counts as a real ratification... I believe the 14th was improperly ratified. However, let's ignored that for a second and look at the relevant section:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't like the 14ths definition of personhood (One more reason to scrap it) but it does seem to define a person as "Born or naturalized in the United States." The unborn don't seem to be in view at all. I know you can loosely construct it that way, but that's the very thing we accuse liberals of doing it all the time. I'd honestly rather not play that game.

The Constitution defines personhood as being for a person "Born or naturalized in the United States." I disagree with that, but that's how the constitution defines it. Granted, it doesn't limit personhood to that, so I see no reason why a state couldn't expand it to include the unborn, but I don't think it legally does as the 14th is written.

Are you a strict constructionist? How do you derive that conclusion with a strict construction of the text?

Now, I agree with you that my ideal is that anyone calling itself part of the United States should have to protect the unborn. But that would require an amendment, IMO. I'm not ready to go for that right now unless its carefully worded... because the current penalty for defying the Feds is war and destruction, not expulsion.

 

[TheGrinch]

Ya know, I was just thinking, even if you assume the worst of Rand's quotes (and of course I don't), why should it be his place to assume or defend the stereotypes and baggage that libertarians have, and some of our own have created. It's not as if he's the first person to speak of this stereotype of libertarians, but that's on us to repair that perception, not the man who doesn't claim to be a libertarian to assume the burden of another group.

That's not fair to him to have to deal with others baggage, when he has to worry about unfair perceptions about himself.

And as I said earlier, who cares if evangelicals who already have a bad perception about libertarians continue to do so. I agree with lots of folks on many issues, even many who I may dislike such as racists. Should I go on to defend racists, or should I disassociate myself from the damage they do and just stick to why I believe in these issues and you should too? Why should Rand have to?

 

[Christian Liberty]

He shouldn't have to outright repair the stereotype, but he shouldn't be egging it on either.

 

[TheGrinch]

He shouldn't have to outright repair the stereotype, but he shouldn't be egging it on either.

There are more in the libertarian movement who've aided in that perception FAR more than this relatively innocent disassociation that will be forgotten about in a week among the very few who are even aware or care about it.

What will last however is evangelical leaders feeling far more comfortable in his intentions being in line with theirs, and not seeking to undermine them.

If this really insults you, then grow some thicker skin and realize why he feels the need to disassociate himself from others baggage (and again, this is assuming the worst of the out-of-context and perhaps completely separate statements)