Sen. Rand Paul aggressively courting evangelicals to win over GOP establishment

[Warlord]

Where has Rand said he "supports the war on drugs"

Is it just me or does Traditional conservative seem to like putting words in people's mouths?

And if you support full blown legalization of drugs why are you not Traditional Libertarian?

 

[rockandrollsouls]

If you use that same logic you may as well say Rand supports globalism and foreign intervention...

Rand is just for getting it done gradually. He saw his father's "all at once" approach burn a number of bridges. He's slowly winning them over.

I agree with Rand on abortion but don't agree with his support for the war on drugs. I hope that taking such authoritarian positions in the GOP primary doesn't hurt his chances to win a general election.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

If you use that same logic you may as well say Rand supports globalism and foreign intervention...

Rand is just for getting it done gradually. He saw his father's "all at once" approach burn a number of bridges. He's slowly winning them over.

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say he's winning them over or even slowly winning them over yet. I think the war on ideals has to be the first bridge to cross, and to do that, I think he's tailoring his message in hopes to appeal to them, but I don't think it's at the point of winning yet. Not when Paul is still seen by some on both sides as politically inexperienced and wrong on things like foreign policy.

 

[Brett85]

Where has Rand said he "supports the war on drugs"

He said that in this article.

And if you support full blown legalization of drugs why are you not Traditional Libertarian?

The war on drugs violates every single conservative principle I can think of. It violates limited government, individual liberty, free markets, fiscal responsibility, etc. It's probably the most liberal policy that our government has. I don't see how anyone can call themself a conservative if they support drug prohibition. It would be a huge contradiction since they would support a policy that violates all the principles they claim to believe in.

 

[Warlord]

Where did he say he "supports the war on drugs"?

That's what you claim he's saying but you cannot attribute that quote to him can you?

 

[Brett85]

If you use that same logic you may as well say Rand supports globalism and foreign intervention...

Rand is just for getting it done gradually. He saw his father's "all at once" approach burn a number of bridges. He's slowly winning them over.

I wouldn't even say that Rand should go as far as Ron did and say that "Heroine should be legalized." All he needs to say is eight words: "I would leave it up to the states." He doesn't need to say that he "opposes drug legalization." He just needs to say that the states have jurisdiction over the issue, and the federal war on drugs is absolutely unconstitutional and needs to end. Conservatives can understand the principle of states' rights and that the decision of whether drugs should be legal or not should be left up to the states. Rand never makes this argument.

 

[torchbearer]

proof will be in the pudding.
i want this guy to have a chance to pull the reagan reversal.

 

[Brett85]

Where did he say he "supports the war on drugs"?

That's what you claim he's saying but you cannot attribute that quote to him can you?

If someone says that they don't believe that drugs should be legal, how can you say that they don't support the war on drugs?

 

[Brett85]

By the way, I support Rand. I'm just saying I don't agree with his position on this issue.

 

[Warlord]

If someone says that they don't believe that drugs should be legal, how can you say that they don't support the war on drugs?

Prosecuting a "war on drugs" is done via the DoJ at the president and AG's discretion.

Taking a position on a Federal statute that may empower the president or his successor to prosecute such a "war" is not the same as actually using those powers to bring prosecutions or allocate Federal resources during his term in office.

For example: There are still obscenity laws on the books but Obama recently closed the Obscenity division within the DoJ and is not bringing such prosecutions. He has folded what's left into the child crime division or something. He never campaigned on that or promised to do that. He just did it using his own discretion. He has made no effort to repeal the obscenity laws through Congress.

Rand could do the same with the drug section if he so wanted to.

 

[Brett85]

Taking a position on a Federal statute that may empower the president or his successor to prosecute such a "war" is not the same as actually using those powers to bring prosecutions or allocate Federal resources during his term in office.

For example: There are still obscenity laws on the books but Obama recently closed the Obscenity division within the DoJ and is not bringing such prosecutions. He has folded what's left into the child crime division or something. He never campaigned on that or promised to do that. He just did it using his own discretion. He has made no effort to repeal the obscenity laws through Congress.

Rand could do the same with the drug section if he so wanted to.

Wouldn't these Christian conservative leaders in Iowa that Rand is trying to win over feel misled if Rand didn't prosecute the war on drugs at the federal level after he told them he was opposed to drug legalization? I think if Rand is kind of in "stealth" mode in order to sneak into the Presidency and then become a hardcore libertarian once President, there are going to be a lot of people who will feel that they were misled or lied to.

 

[supermario21]

I think the sort of gradualism works with drugs. Look at how Rand is winning over people on hemp. Reduced penalties is a good first step to eventual decriminalization. In the meantime, let states legalize drugs if they want. Being opposed to legalization doesn't mean you're going to support using federal agents to go after every suspected marijuana or drug growing operation.

 

[Warlord]

What can they do? he's president. They can't do anything.

Rand can do what he likes when he takes office. I'm sure there's things he'll do that he wont even say or like Obama with the obscenity division and the lack of obscenity prosecutions will not even publicly talk about. He'd just do them and it'd be buried in some press release.

 

[Warlord]

Also I'm sure he can tell DEA agents to freeze operations and his budget probably cuts that agency to virtually nothing.

He can also tell them to stop these sting operations.

There's lots of executive actions he can take if president and he doesn't even have to announce it or publicly talk about it just like Obama never mentions he's not prosecuting a war on porn anymore with the obscenity prosecutions

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

I think if Rand is kind of in "stealth" mode in order to sneak into the Presidency and then become a hardcore libertarian once President, there are going to be a lot of people who will feel that they were misled or lied to.

Wouldn't be the first time there was a difference between a presidential candidate and being the President. Heck, people already point out the differences between candidate Obama and President Obama.

 

[mz10]

I think the war on ideals has to be the first bridge to cross

Our country is about to go under - lets keep that from happening first, then we can worry about the war of ideals (which is a much longer-term project)

 

[mz10]

Wouldn't these Christian conservative leaders in Iowa that Rand is trying to win over feel misled if Rand didn't prosecute the war on drugs at the federal level after he told them he was opposed to drug legalization? I think if Rand is kind of in "stealth" mode in order to sneak into the Presidency and then become a hardcore libertarian once President, there are going to be a lot of people who will feel that they were misled or lied to.

Rand won't legalize drugs if he's elected, at least not right off that bat. He just won't aggressively enforce existing drug laws, which is like de facto federal legalization.

Once upon a time, you were a big Rand defender, so I'm a little surprised that you don't understand how his role is different than his father's role. He is looking for tangible political gains here in the direction of liberty. Clearly he has decided that heroin legalization is not a top priority, and you know what? He's right.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

Our country is about to go under - lets keep that from happening first, then we can worry about the war of ideals (which is a much longer-term project)

Well, sure, though getting like-minded folks into office- President especially- will only go so far if you can't convince the electorate to agree or see things your way. Otherwise, all someone like Rubio has to do is smile and the GOP will fawn over him and vote for him in droves. Besides, the country's been going under for quite some time. We're all just trying to stay afloat and bring it back up.

 

[anaconda]

I thought the GOP establishment didn't like evangelicals and wanted to go moderate on social issues.

I think both old and new testaments can embrace many new moderations in social policy. Plus the federal register could be eliminated without eliminating "God's law."

 

[Brett85]

Once upon a time, you were a big Rand defender, so I'm a little surprised that you don't understand how his role is different than his father's role. He is looking for tangible political gains here in the direction of liberty. Clearly he has decided that heroin legalization is not a top priority, and you know what? He's right.

Why would you say that I'm not a Rand defender now? I don't agree with this whole idea that if you support Rand you can never criticize him for anything. I've always been a supporter of Rand but have always criticized him when I've felt he's wrong. Like I said, I don't expect him to come out and say that Heroine should be legalized. that would be unnecessary. But, he should come out and unequivically say that the federal war on drugs should be ended. I really don't see a huge amount of support for the federal war on drugs among conservative Republicans. I think the vast majority of them could be convinced that the federal war on drugs should be ended since it violates the 10th amendment. Keep in mind that Paul Broun who's running in Georgia has said unequivically that drug enforcement should be a state and local issue, but yet he's supposedly "less libertarian" than Rand is and is a "staunch social conservative."