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

[wizardwatson]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/rand-paul-marijuana_n_2165735.html

I'm pretty sure he hasn't changed his position from that November ABC interview. His position has been to relax or eliminate penalties, and let states handle drug policy. There's nothing wrong with that. In order to have a War On Drugs someone needs to give orders to federal agents to conduct those raids. You really think Rand is going to do that? Legalizing drugs is a hard argument to make with many people. Making them think about reforming the penalties makes more progress.

Why are we relying on a tv interview? Can't Rand simply put on paper what he thinks about the law and what he would do to change it?

 

[supermario21]

He'd probably have to do it when he runs for president, but until then, all we're going to hear are sound bytes. He's somewhere between legalization and drug warrior, and is much closer to the former than the latter. This isn't a big issue to me anyways as long as the Feds aren't launching raids everywhere so I see no reason to get worked up over it, even though I wish he'd come out for full drug legalization myself.

 

[asurfaholic]

Evangelicals are only social authoritarians because nobody has made a significant outreach effort to show them that you can be pro-liberty and pro-Evangelical.

I agree, and many of my friends in the church also agree based on conversations i have had.

Oh, and I think Rand is playing this beautifully. Hitting hard on topics that are very very important, such as the current administrations handling of Benghazi, the absurdity of the foreign aid, our debt situation, ect. And avoiding drawing criticism on minor controversial things such as the drug war and the like.

Yea, I am for ending the federal drug war, but I'd much rather see rand win the election than watch him burn out screaming total support of every libertarian position.

Let the man do his thing, I have full confidence he isn't a little nazi, there is no reason why articles like this should get anyone worked up.

 

[Warlord]

Why are we relying on a tv interview? Can't Rand simply put on paper what he thinks about the law and what he would do to change it?

He'll be running on the GOP platform which is unlikely to include drug legalization but also unlikely to say "to tell the AG to prosecute a vigorous war on drugs"

 

[jtstellar]

ron wasn't for legalization either. no.

he was for 'let states decide'. neither is rand for federal restriction. rand just, again, words it differently. if he says 'i'm against legalization anywhere inside the country' then that's a different thing. he is talking about partial legalization as well. difference is ron emphasizes the -partial- legalization aspect some states will choose, rand chooses to talk about the -partial- remaining restriction aspect of a few states that decide otherwise.

he is talking to *evangelical pastors*. he constantly morphs his message to fit the audience without altering its core. with that, he will always have problem with those that can't grasp nuance. i think he should just keep some of these conversations private and keep these liberal reporters out who would love to selectively write down long conversation exchanges in text without tone without context just to see him fail. not every voter has the intelligence to read between the lines and at this point i think just keeping some of these conversations private, as ron paul did with most of his private meetings, is potentially an option moving forward. ron again doesn't support legalization per-se either, he just emphasized that some places will be legal because he was in preaching mode. rand is giving a hypothetical here that if a hyper Libertarian position is to federally force drug legalization everywhere in the nation, overwriting state laws even if locals decide on restriction for some reason, then he is against it. rand might also claim he is against kentucky legalizing drugs but allowing other states to legalize it, just to hedge his more liberal position on this issue, after all you only need partial legalization to dent the cartels. this empty controversy business really is nothing new.. those who fail people read skills and subtlety detection will find themselves on the wrong side again and again. if you can get rand paul to say 'i'm against legalization anywhere, any state, any places across the country' then i stand corrected

 

[Brett85]

If Rand simply said "let the states decide," I would have no problem with his position. The problem is that he's not advocating that in recent interviews. He's just advocating reducing federal penalties, which is just an extremely minor move in the right direction. Like I've said a million times, you can convince conservatives to support repealing federal drug laws by invoking the 10th amendment, not advocating "legalization." It's not a controversial position in the least. Rand isn't gaining any supporters by taking this muddled, wishy washy stance on the federal war on drugs. He's simply alienating libertarians and Constitutional Conservatives. I support Rand but just strongly disagree with his strategy and the public positions that he's advocating.

 

[Keith and stuff]

The economy is going to be the deciding issue.

It wasn't the deciding issue in 2010 or 2012. Why will it be in 2014?

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I agree, and many of my friends in the church also agree based on conversations i have had.

Oh, and I think Rand is playing this beautifully. Hitting hard on topics that are very very important, such as the current administrations handling of Benghazi, the absurdity of the foreign aid, our debt situation, ect. And avoiding drawing criticism on minor controversial things such as the drug war and the like.

Yea, I am for ending the federal drug war, but I'd much rather see rand win the election than watch him burn out screaming total support of every libertarian position.

Let the man do his thing, I have full confidence he isn't a little nazi, there is no reason why articles like this should get anyone worked up.

Exactly

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I agree, and many of my friends in the church also agree based on conversations i have had.

Oh, and I think Rand is playing this beautifully. Hitting hard on topics that are very very important, such as the current administrations handling of Benghazi, the absurdity of the foreign aid, our debt situation, ect. And avoiding drawing criticism on minor controversial things such as the drug war and the like.

Yea, I am for ending the federal drug war, but I'd much rather see rand win the election than watch him burn out screaming total support of every libertarian position.

Let the man do his thing, I have full confidence he isn't a little nazi, there is no reason why articles like this should get anyone worked up.

How is that important? It's a distraction. What is important is our foreign policy of murder and imposition has - yet again - led to unintended consequences.

 

[wizardwatson]

If Rand simply said "let the states decide," I would have no problem with his position. The problem is that he's not advocating that in recent interviews. He's just advocating reducing federal penalties, which is just an extremely minor move in the right direction. Like I've said a million times, you can convince conservatives to support repealing federal drug laws by invoking the 10th amendment, not advocating "legalization." It's not a controversial position in the least. Rand isn't gaining any supporters by taking this muddled, wishy washy stance on the federal war on drugs. He's simply alienating libertarians and Constitutional Conservatives. I support Rand but just strongly disagree with his strategy and the public positions that he's advocating.

This is the core of my complaint with a lot of folks.

If you disagree with his strategy and his public opinions then why do you say you support him? Is it because everyone around here supports him and you don't want to be attacked? Is it because he's our only hope for getting anything done? What else is there besides his strategy and public opinions? It's already established that his strategy involves not indicating his "private" positions so are we all just going on faith?

Rand obviously is the strongest voice right now for what the movement is centered around but obviously there is some uncomfortableness concerning his tactics but it seems we are content as a movement to delegate all action towards liberty to him. It was the same with Ron. Not so much originally, there was something else originally, but definitely in 2012 the whole thing was about having Ron in office to change things.

We need to escape this mentality.

 

[AlexAmore]

It wasn't the deciding issue in 2010 or 2012. Why will it be in 2014?

According to every poll I heard about, voters said economy was their big issue. Unless you're talking about black man vs rich white robotic business man being a deciding issue then I'll concede that point. If you're talking about rigged voting and corruption in the RNC, I'll also concede that point.

All things being equal I think economy is the #1 issue with the American people. This bodes well for us. Rand can court the all important minority vote with their immigration values without sacrificing the mainstream old white conservative vote.

 

[Keith and stuff]

According to every poll I heard about, voters said economy was their big issue. Unless you're talking about black man vs rich white robotic business man being a deciding issue then I'll concede that point. If you're talking about rigged voting and corruption in the RNC, I'll also concede that point.

All things being equal I think economy is the #1 issue with the American people. This bodes well for us. Rand can court the all important minority vote with their immigration values without sacrificing the mainstream old white conservative vote.

In 2010, the debt, deficit and taxes were the deciding issues.
In 2012, drugs were the deciding issue in CO and WA. In NH and several other swing states, abortion was the deciding issue.

 

[supermario21]

Personally I think Rand is going to push a "compassionate conservative" message to these evangelical groups. Talk about drug issues with compassion rather than how you're going to push the drug war and throw people in jail and he will win these people over. Pat Robertson has done this and you don't see evangelicals seeking to hang him for "treason."

 

[asurfaholic]

How is that important? It's a distraction. What is important is our foreign policy of murder and imposition has - yet again - led to unintended consequences.

It's important because it is a perfect example of how screwed up things really are when the status quo has its mittens on everything..

Maybe I could have worded it a little better, but I agree with your post, and that's pretty much the point of my post.

Benghazi is a huge vulnerability to the neocons, Getting people to understand what happened may open some eyes.

 

[trey4sports]

I just hope that Rand moves the conversation in the right direction.

Judging on the direction we're moving we could have 5 to 10 more states legalize marijauan in the next decade. Hopefully that will be a big enough snowball that public opinion will turn on the drug war.

 

[Brett85]

This is the core of my complaint with a lot of folks.

If you disagree with his strategy and his public opinions then why do you say you support him?

No, it's because he's still the best option we have. I definitely don't want to allow Rubio to get the nomination in 2016.

 

[Brett85]

Personally I think Rand is going to push a "compassionate conservative" message to these evangelical groups. Talk about drug issues with compassion rather than how you're going to push the drug war and throw people in jail and he will win these people over. Pat Robertson has done this and you don't see evangelicals seeking to hang him for "treason."

Pat Robertson has advocated outright legalization of marijuana, which makes him more libertarian than Rand, at least on this issue.

 

[Sola_Fide]

How is that important? It's a distraction. What is important is our foreign policy of murder and imposition has - yet again - led to unintended consequences.

Exactly. Where is Rand on this? If Rand's argument is that Republicans can do a better job at handling the empire than Democrats, I am out. Count me out of everything.

 

[wizardwatson]

Pat Robertson has advocated outright legalization of marijuana, which makes him more libertarian than Rand, at least on this issue.

Well, I agree he's the best candidate we have. I just disagree with the unspoken attitude that he's the only strategy.

 

[tsai3904]

How am I misrepresenting his position on these issues? I'm simply going by his own words.

1) Rand: "I'm opposed to legalizing drugs, even marijuana." (This article and Hannity's radio show.)

Those weren't his quotes. That's his position as reported by the author of the article.

What's reported in articles without exact quotes are often misreported. I found this from his 2010 Senate race as reported by AP:

Now, in a telling political move, the son of Ron Paul has reversed his stance on the issue, telling the Associated Press last week that “he is opposed to the legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes.”

Another journalist sought a clarification from Rand and wrote this:

Many readers have been questioning the accuracy of an Associated Press article I blogged about recently claiming Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul, who has defended the rights of states to pass medical marijuana laws, “is opposed to the legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes.”

As a former reporter, I always strive for accuracy, so I just got off the phone with a representative of the Paul campaign in order to clarify the candidate’s position — which isn’t as simple as the AP made it out to be.

“Doctor Paul’s stance has not changed, and that is a case of sloppy reporting,” said Nena Bartlett, Paul’s assistant campaign manager. “His position is that it’s a states’ rights issue.”

I agree that Rand's position is not crystal clear but you can be opposed to legalizing marijuana and still believe its a states issue, which the reporter might not understand the nuance of that position.

Rand also said in this November 2012 interview that although he doesn't promote it, states should be allowed to legalize marijuana (around 2:10):

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-p...6-pot-immigration-defense-cuts-115939587.html

I would give more credence to hearing Rand speak about this issue than from a reporter trying to decipher Rand's stance.