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

[Brett85]

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

It's seems like there's basically two groups of people here and on the Daily Paul.

1) People who constantly criticize Rand and never give him credit for anything good he does.
2) People who constantly defend Rand and will never criticize him for anything, and will personally attack those who criticize Rand for something he says.

I'm in neither group. I defend Rand when he's right and criticize him when he's wrong. For example, I defended Rand when he endorsed Romney. I knew it was just a meaningless endorsement and something he had to do. It had nothing to do with his positions on the issues. But, I've been critical of his stance on the drug war since he ran for the Senate in 2010. If you go back and read the threads from 2010 you can see that. I've been a Rand supporter since day 1 but have criticized the public position he's taken on this issue.

 

[Brett85]

He does not support the war on drugs. He's against changing the federal statutes.

Big wow.

He does support the 10th amendment.

So his position is a plus. If the Feds legalized drugs they would tax them to hell and back along with the states.

I think I've heard that argument before. Welcome back "Itshappening."

 

[erowe1]

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

They don't. That's why Rand needs them.

 

[erowe1]

At a lunch Friday with about a dozen evangelical pastors in a Cedar Rapids hotel, Paul assured the group that he disagreed with libertarians who support legalizing drugs. When one pastor inquired about ideological ties between Paul and his father, the senator asked that he be judged as his own man.

He's making a mistake on that. The religious right doesn't care about the war on drugs.

 

[Brett85]

Rand should try to win over the evengelicals by taking a strong pro life stance on abortion, which should also be the libertarian position. Taking an authoritarian position on the war on drugs will only alienate libertarians and real small government conservatives like myself, and it won't help him win over any of the authoritarian conservatives.

 

[erowe1]

Why would it? Obama doesn't even support legalization of marijuana.

But Obama's in the party where believing in the nanny state is something to brag about.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Rand should try to win over the evengelicals by taking a strong pro life stance on abortion, which should also be the libertarian position. Taking an authoritarian position on the war on drugs will only alienate libertarians and real small government conservatives like myself, and it won't help him win over any of the authoritarian conservatives.

What? Didn't you read what anyone had to say? He isn't taking an authoritative stance on the war on drugs. He is leading these people towards getting the federal government out of it altogether and returning the decision to the states.

 

[LibertyEagle]

He's making a mistake on that. The religious right doesn't care about the war on drugs.

Actually, many of them that I have met, most certainly do. But, I think they would be fine about it being done by the states, but they have to be led to that and that is what Rand is doing.

One step at a time, folks.

 

[Brett85]

He is leading these people towards getting the federal government out of it altogether and returning the decision to the states.

He said nothing of the sort in this interview, which is what we're discussing. He told these "evangelicals" that he opposes drug legalization but simply wants to reduce federal penalties for drug use.

 

[Brett85]

But, I think they would be fine about it being done by the states, but they have to be led to that and that is what Rand is doing.

Rand isn't advocating that, never has. The only federal drug law he wants to repeal and allow the states to legalize is hemp, which isn't even a drug.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Rand isn't advocating that, never has. The only federal drug law he wants to repeal and allow the states to legalize is hemp, which isn't even a drug.

You really don't listen to him much, do you? He has been talking about stuff like this since when he was running for office. I heard him talk about some of the very same policies that his father did that didn't sell well to conservatives, but when Rand described them, the people were applauding wildly. It's all in how you present the ideas. Rand is doing it well, but you seem to require the in your face approach for you to get it. It's getting kind of frustrating, to be honest.

 

[Brett85]

You really don't listen to him much, do you? He has been talking about stuff like this since when he was running for office. I heard him talk about some of the very same policies that his father did that didn't sell well to conservatives, but when Rand described them, the people were applauding wildly. It's all in how you present the ideas. Rand is doing it well, but you seem to require the in your face approach for you to get it. It's getting kind of frustrating, to be honest.

How is it "in your face" to simply say that it should be up to the states to determine whether drugs should be legal or illegal? I've never once heard him say that. If he's actually said that then actually provide a link to that comment.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Rand isn't advocating that, never has. The only federal drug law he wants to repeal and allow the states to legalize is hemp, which isn't even a drug.

He doesn't have to give a comprehensive policy statement to these people, just spoon feed them enough to curb their worries. Since politics is like poker, you don't always show your hand nor take your shades off. Rand gets the libertarian benefit of the doubt until he proves that he's really not one by his actions, not words. So, logically there's a next step that any libertarian should see as he's hustling libertarianism one step at a time to social conservatives here. If some of the Ron faithful don't accept that kind of politicking, then to each his own. It's called using politics to further principle since the media demagoguery and political deviants seek to send you to the wolves in this soundbite way of living. Freaking out that Rand hasn't jumped down the rabbit hole and shouted "Legalize" from the rooftops isn't going to make a difference. Ron will come out and endorse, campaign and raise money for him and he will do that by fleecing (rallying) those that consider him the political deity because of his bold language and corral those people back in so there's really no point in nickel and diming Rand on these different media pieces where you find umbrage with his lingo. Not to mention, when the media really does come out swinging at him for whatever reason, the Ron faithful will circle the wagons even more because of an indirect assault on them.

 

[Brett85]

Freaking out that Rand hasn't jumped down the rabbit hole and shouted "Legalize" from the rooftops isn't going to make a difference.

Like I said, for me it's about states' rights and restoring the Constitution, not "legalization." I do take a more libertarian position on the issue at the state level as well, but I don't care as much about what happens at the state level. I care first and foremost about restoring the 10th amendment.

 

[anaconda]

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

I have never seen any meaningful numbers on this. If I were Rand, I'd love to capture the base, moderates, and independents if it meant all of the libertarians staying home on election day. But that doesn't mean Rand isn't trying to persuade the masses that libertarian policies are the best way to go. He can't be a libertarian purist with his message and win elections. Period. So there will certainly be Ron Paul supporters that will stay home or vote 3rd party in 2016. But I think Rand has the potential to change the course and direction of this big ship that is steaming in the wrong direction.

 

[Brett85]

Saying that there should be federal prohibition of drugs goes far beyond simply straying from "purist libertarianism." You can't even call yourself a Constitutional Conservative" if you think the federal government should be involved in drug enforcement.

And for those of you saying that Rand doesn't actually support federal drug prohibition, prove it. Post a link where he says that drug legalization should be decided by the states.

 

[lakerssuck92]

How is it "in your face" to simply say that it should be up to the states to determine whether drugs should be legal or illegal? I've never once heard him say that. If he's actually said that then actually provide a link to that comment.

He seems to be criticizing Obama for cracking down on states that have legalized Medical Marijuana. This was pretty recent...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Ni1qYN9nQ

 

[Brett85]

He seems to be criticizing Obama for cracking down on states that have legalized Medical Marijuana. This was pretty recent...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Ni1qYN9nQ

Yeah, I did see that. That seems to maybe be an example of "saying different things to different audiences." Some people will try to justify that by saying it's part of politics and is necessary, but I just don't like it. Too each his own I guess.

 

[James Madison]

He's making a mistake on that. The religious right doesn't care about the war on drugs.

Oh, yes they do.

The religious right is mostly Social Gospelers (re: Marxists) that believe all of society's ills can be cured through the magical use of Government*.

*Usage of Government may lead to an unsafe rise in poverty, genocide, and loss of liberties. Please contact your fellow citizens before using Government so we can deport your ass to the Sun.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I have never seen any meaningful numbers on this. If I were Rand, I'd love to capture the base, moderates, and independents if it meant all of the libertarians staying home on election day. But that doesn't mean Rand isn't trying to persuade the masses that libertarian policies are the best way to go. He can't be a libertarian purist with his message and win elections. Period. So there will certainly be Ron Paul supporters that will stay home or vote 3rd party in 2016. But I think Rand has the potential to change the course and direction of this big ship that is steaming in the wrong direction.

If so, I hope he knows what the hell he's doing. Because he could loose me (and many others) in a heartbeat with the drug prohibition and foreign policy. I love all freedom, but these two issues are harming so many right now.

And, not that I or a few here or there are that important in the "big" scheme of things politically. But, what if there becomes a violent reaction at some point in this struggle, who will be the target of the hatred that spawns? I hope it is not those that were left behind for political reasons for "the win", those that I consider the innocent politically as well as philosophically, those that made it their life to "do no harm" but have good relations with all that would.