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

[LibertyEagle]

Rand's answers about drugs are brilliant. They try to pin him with "supporting legalizing drugs" but he disarms them immediately: "I am not for legalization, but I am for local adjudication." Effectively it is the same policy as federal legalization, but allows him to preach moving policies to states and localities (and removing federal sentences) without alienating people by "wanting to legalize heroin!"

Exactly!! Rand is brilliant.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I would like to see those in prison for victimless crimes like MJ be released. Not prosecuting in the future won't do anything for those people.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I would like to see those in prison for victimless crimes like MJ be released. Not prosecuting in the future won't do anything for those people.

Me too and I don't doubt that Rand thinks so too.

 

[Christian Liberty]

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.

How many people actually support ENDING the war on drugs? Honestly, I think almost all of those people supported Ron Paul anyway. Granted, there are plenty of "Legalize marijuana" people, but not many who agree with us as libertarians on issues like crack, heroin, exc.

All that said, has Rand at least said its a state issue at any point? Does he support the FEDERAL war on drugs?

 

[Brett85]

Me too and I don't doubt that Rand thinks so too.

Apparently we're supposed to be mind readers. I don't have that power.

 

[Brett85]

How many people actually support ENDING the war on drugs? Honestly, I think almost all of those people supported Ron Paul anyway. Granted, there are plenty of "Legalize marijuana" people, but not many who agree with us as libertarians on issues like crack, heroin, exc.

The last poll I saw showed that 60% of Republicans don't believe that federal marijuana laws should be enforced in states that have legalized marijuana.

 

[Brett85]

All that said, has Rand at least said its a state issue at any point? Does he support the FEDERAL war on drugs?

I've never heard him say that it should be a state issue, just that the federal penalties should be reduced.

 

[mz10]

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."

Fair enough. You have to understand though that his tone is going to be different talking to Howard University than it is talking to Iowa evangelicals. He's not gonna come out swinging in favor of repealing all federal drug laws.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Me too and I don't doubt that Rand thinks so too.

I hope so.

Apparently we're supposed to be mind readers. I don't have that power.

Neither do I.

The last poll I saw showed that 60% of Republicans don't believe that federal marijuana laws should be enforced in states that have legalized marijuana.

That's not the same thing as ending the war on drugs. How many of them support legalizing heroin? Yeah, I didn't think so. Its probably 5% of the population, and all of us are Ron Paul supporters anyway pretty much.

I've never heard him say that it should be a state issue, just that the federal penalties should be reduced.

Why? Why? WHY? Is Rand that stupid?

Granted, I get that he is obviously not in favor of the Federal law but there's literally no reason not to say it right now. Its actually starting to annoy me.

Granted, obviously pot is only one issue, and obviously not the biggest one, but the constitution is PAINFULLY clear on this point. I seriously hope Rand at least realizes this if he does indeed become POTUS.

 

[Brett85]

Fair enough. You have to understand though that his tone is going to be different talking to Howard University than it is talking to Iowa evangelicals. He's not gonna come out swinging in favor of repealing all federal drug laws.

Why not? He doesn't have to frame it in terms of drug legalization; he simply has to make the point that the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to be involved in this issue. He could still say that he supports state level drug laws. Why don't you think that conservatives would accept the states' right and Constitutional argument on this issue? You don't recall them using these arguments in regards to Obamacare and other things?

 

[Warlord]

A mass pardon for the Federal drug population is politically dangerous.

I dont think he could away with that.

 

[jtstellar]

how much influence do evangelicals really have, i wonder.. do these pastors just tell all of their churchgoers to vote for someone but not the other?

would it be self contradicting if he supports abolishing federal sentencing then later promotes for states to craft their own drug laws? it seems like if you abolish federal sentencing then it's pretty much de facto gravitation of power toward state judges, and that means states have to figure out a way to handle those new powers, meaning they need to write their own drug laws, so in the practical end, it is similar to what ron paul would like to achieve.

i can't imagine rand not knowing at least partial legalization in some of the states is important to solve the crime cartel problem, so i must assume this is his eventual end. it's important to have the actual audio in cases like this. you can tell washington post purposely leaving out crucial parts in intent to instill doubts, like how they mention rand's controversy on drones, leaving all of his explanation in there except the 'i have always been for deadly force when there is imminent threat', intentionally making his explanation more vague. it is self evidence that this is a source that has to be taken with a grain of salt at least when it attempts to describe the tone--how rand said it, what was he hinting at when he said it. rand is likely just comforting evangelicals here that he's not for legalizing drugs per-se, and he isn't, because states can still outlaw them if they so decide. if he said 'i have no intent to legalize drugs anywhere' that would be different. rand likes to play with words to positive ends almost every time on controversial issues and i have so far little reason to believe otherwise in this case

 

[Christian Liberty]

how much influence do evangelicals really have, i wonder.. do these pastors just tell all of their churchgoers to vote for someone but not the other?

I haven't seen anyone do this, but it might happen.

Why not? He doesn't have to frame it in terms of drug legalization; he simply has to make the point that the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to be involved in this issue. He could still say that he supports state level drug laws. Why don't you think that conservatives would accept the states' right and Constitutional argument on this issue? You don't recall them using these arguments in regards to Obamacare and other things?

Exactly. The radical theocrats would have never voted for him anyway, the real conservatives should be fine with him saying this.

 

[Brett85]

how much influence do evangelicals really have, i wonder.. do these pastors just tell all of their churchgoers to vote for someone but not the other?

I don't know. I still consider myself to be an evangelical social conservative. I mean I'm in favor of the death penalty for abortion doctors. But, I'm more libertarian on this particular issue. I really think that most conservatives care a lot more about ending abortion than they care about drug legalization or federal drug laws. I don't know of very many social conservatives who would ever base their vote for political office on drug policy. The ones that base their vote on that issue are so authoritarian in their views that they would never consider voting for Rand in the first place.

 

[Brett85]

That's not the same thing as ending the war on drugs. How many of them support legalizing heroin? Yeah, I didn't think so. Its probably 5% of the population, and all of us are Ron Paul supporters anyway pretty much.

Heroine legalization shouldn't be decided at the federal level. It should be a state issue. That's my point and what we need to point out to people, and what Rand simply refuses to advocate, for whatever reason.

 

[mz10]

Why not? He doesn't have to frame it in terms of drug legalization; he simply has to make the point that the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to be involved in this issue. He could still say that he supports state level drug laws. Why don't you think that conservatives would accept the states' right and Constitutional argument on this issue? You don't recall them using these arguments in regards to Obamacare and other things?

I think you underestimate the difficulty of getting Rand elected in 2016. There are certain things he can't say. At a certain level, we have to make an initial judgment of whether we trust the candidate's integrity or not, and then allow them to do what it takes to get elected, even if it means sometimes saying things we don't like. Trust but verify - that's the slogan we have to live by as a movement.

 

[Brett85]

I think you underestimate the difficulty of getting Rand elected in 2016. There are certain things he can't say. At a certain level, we have to make an initial judgment of whether we trust the candidate's integrity or not, and then allow them to do what it takes to get elected, even if it means sometimes saying things we don't like. Trust but verify - that's the slogan we have to live by as a movement.

Ron was within a few points of winning the Iowa caucus despite his Heroin legalization comment. I thought that comment and some of his other comments would make him plummet in the polls, but it didn't. Despite what others may say, Ron's positions on the issues weren't the entire reason that he didn't win Iowa or win the GOP nomination. The main reasons were simply because he was 76 years old, was a house member rather than a Senator or Governor, was a really bad debater, was shrill when he spoke and came across badly, and almost seemed to intentionally inflame conservatives with the way he framed his foreign policy positions, etc. Very little of his problem was the actual substance of his positions.

 

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Screw the Evangelicals. Rand has to shore up skeptical libertarians who supported his father first.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Screw the Evangelicals. Rand has to shore up skeptical libertarians who supported his father first.

There are many evangelicals who are die hard Ron Paulians. Some are die hard constitutionalists who would be fine with ending federal drug agencies. Rand does not need to moderate the message of freedom. Evangelicals will vote for the R candidate anyway.

 

[mz10]

Screw the Evangelicals. Rand has to shore up skeptical libertarians who supported his father first.

Actually most of us are on board. The remaining few who aren't are not worth it. If a 13-hour filibuster on whether the government can kill you without a trial which subsequently caused a seismic shift in public opinion on the issue, standing by himself on the floor of the Senate to hold up the PATRIOT Act, voting by himself against an aggressive Iran resolution, publicly bashing Mitt Romney for his foreign policy stances, if all that isn't enough for these "skeptical libertarians" then I don't feel bad leaving them behind. There are very, very few of them.