[Video] Rand Paul on Face the Nation w/ Bob Schieffer 4/12/15

[Okaloosa]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApkXDZqkOA

Shared by Rand's new youtube channel so please go and subscribe to his channel.

 

[francisco]

Great interview.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

good inter!

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Good interview. Rand repeated that he's in favor of negotiations with Iran and wants peace, not war. He hit Hillary Clinton hard on taking donations from Saudi Arabia, Brunei and other "stone age societies" where women are lashed and jailed for being raped and stoned to death for adultery. He got a genuine laugh from Bob Schieffer when he said that the people who succeed in politics are usually the people who are best at not answering a question. He said he thinks the GOP is behind him in his efforts to reach out to new voters, and that even his rivals for the nomination have come up to him to say they respect what he's doing. He reaffirmed that he eventually wants to see an end to ALL foreign aid, including to Israel, but that nations that hate us should be ended first -- and it's hard enough to get people in DC to support even that. And he said his biggest challenge is getting across what he actually believes, not what his enemies try to say he believes.

All in all, a good, friendly interview.

Good summary. Rand is perfectly positioned on Iran, in contrast to the war party. By making clear he is 'less' interventionist than the full-tilt hawks, but not like his father, he immediately parks himself as middle of the road, yet is the defacto 'peace candidate" compared to everybody else.

This becomes a bigger factor later in the year as the Iran agreement is finalized, and the choice becomes more starkly peace or war. Will the war party risk starting yet another conflict, this time in the face of a public that supported an agreement 2-1, and by so doing put Rand in the best position to win, as the peace candidate? Given the record of 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 (Ron Paul's candidacies), the pattern of the establishment avoiding starting a war so as not to create a path for a Paul victory, should hold once more. Thus at the very least, the Paul candidacies have helped keep us out of war with Iran for almost a decade.

 

[Crashland]

Good summary. Rand is perfectly positioned on Iran, in contrast to the war party. By making clear he is 'less' interventionist than the full-tilt hawks, but not like his father, he immediately parks himself as middle of the road, yet is the defacto 'peace candidate" compared to everybody else.

This becomes a bigger factor later in the year as the Iran agreement is finalized, and the choice becomes more starkly peace or war. Will the war party risk starting yet another conflict, this time in the face of a public that supported an agreement 2-1, and by so doing put Rand in the best position to win, as the peace candidate? Given the record of 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 (Ron Paul's candidacies), the pattern of the establishment avoiding starting a war so as not to create a path for a Paul victory, should hold once more. Thus at the very least, the Paul candidacies have helped keep us out of war with Iran for almost a decade.

I agree. Rand can definitely be less interventionist, but he just needs to not make the really grating statements that Ron did. Ron would say that people in the middle east want to kill us because we're bombing them and how would we like it if some other country did that to us? (Like when he got booed for invoking the golden rule in the debate.) On the other hand, Rand says they want to kill us because they hate America (without elaborating further on why they hate America), and that they have become stronger every time we have intervened to topple a secular dictator or to supply arms. In terms of policy, Rand is not all that far from Ron, but it is a cardinal sin in the republican primary to make it seem like we are even partially at fault for our enemy's motivations.

 

[anaconda]

Rand would sound a tad more sophisticated if he would refer to foreign leaders by more than just their "last" name. I cringe when he refers to Saddam Hussein as "Hussein." He refers to President Bashar al-Assad only as "Assad." He refers to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu only as "Netanyahu." Etc.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Good interview. Rand repeated that he's in favor of negotiations with Iran and wants peace, not war. He hit Hillary Clinton hard on taking donations from Saudi Arabia, Brunei and other "stone age societies" where women are lashed and jailed for being raped and stoned to death for adultery. He got a genuine laugh from Bob Schieffer when he said that the people who succeed in politics are usually the people who are best at not answering a question. He said he thinks the GOP is behind him in his efforts to reach out to new voters, and that even his rivals for the nomination have come up to him to say they respect what he's doing. He reaffirmed that he eventually wants to see an end to ALL foreign aid, including to Israel, but that nations that hate us should be ended first -- and it's hard enough to get people in DC to support even that. And he said his biggest challenge is getting across what he actually believes, not what his enemies try to say he believes.

All in all, a good, friendly interview.

Yes, I especially liked his response to the question about Israel.

He's got that down pat, to the point that he seems totally relaxed (contra defensive) when talking about it.

Rand would sound a tad more sophisticated if he would refer to foreign leaders by more than just their "last" name. I cringe when he refers to Saddam Hussein as "Hussein." He refers to President Bashar al-Assad only as "Assad." He refers to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu only as "Netanyahu." Etc.

The only problem is with Sadam, since he's always been known by his first name, for some reason.

But the convention is to call important figures (political or otherwise) by their last name. Assad, Netanyahu, etc are perfectly fine.