Video update - Rand Paul on Fox News with Frank Luntz focus group 1/8/12

Rand can articulate the message better. The future is bright. Kudos to Ron for raising him right.
 
No Free Beer said:
Could it be that Rand just disagrees with you?

OH, NO! We can't have that here! Disagreements can never be allowed.

I, for one, do not agree with Rand on the sanctions. But disagreements are going to happen.
Click to expand...

I frequently talk with several friends of mine who also consider themselves to be libertarians, and we often debate the issues. I'd say that a little less than half of them are of the "beltway" or "liberaltarian" type, meaning as most of us here know to be the Reason magazine type (without getting into stereotypes). We disagree on many issues including abortion, the gold standard, and the concept of states' rights. In my opinion, this is a pretty good example of the "paleolibertarian" vs. "liberaltarian" split often talked about. And in the future assuming that Rand Paul runs, and probably Gary Johnson runs also, I would vote for Rand over Gary, without a doubt.
While I disagree with Rand on the Iran sanctions, I find that to be less of an issue with me than abortion. I am "pro-life" and think that in terms of libertarianism this is the correct position, I completely disagree with people who consider this to be an issue of a "parasite" in the woman's body - I think its absolutely absurd. In addition to this, I see no path for the "liberaltarians" to achieve any kind of success in electoral politics, on the national level. The reason why I feel this is an important issue is because I believe that this country has become so messed up that many people, especially average voters, pay little serious attention to the local and in-state-level races, and focus almost entirely on state-wide and national races. If the goal is to advance the libertarian message, and the majority of the average people focus on state-wide and national politics, then you need a candidate capable of having electoral success on these levels.
So, while I respect their opinions and respectfully disagree, personally I find it absolutely absurd that some people here seem to be implying they would not vote for Rand Paul in a potential future presidential race. While I disagree with him on some issues, or methods/process, I think he may actually have the best chance of really changing people's opinions, at least among conservatives and republicans in general on the most important issues. I believe the republican party is the vehicle to use to advance this message, and am skeptical of the democrat and liberal outreach strategy, as they seem to be hardcore socialists above all else. In addition to this, he actually has an extremely good chance of winning the nomination in the future, and if he does he can essentially kick the neocons out of positions of power and clean out the whole party on the national level. This is an opportunity that cannot be allowed to be botched or messed up. You have all seen how good of a communicator he is, and I think its absurd to let this opportunity be wasted over a few disagreements, but I wouldn't put it past the "liberaltarians" to try to screw this up. At some point you have to realize that in terms of electoral politics, if you can get 75% of what you want, and the 25% you don't get is minor stuff in the grand scheme of things, you got to think in terms of reality. Personally, I'm just as concerned (if not more) about the millions of deaths via abortions in this country than I am about some people who might be negatively effected by sanctions in Iran. I think both are horrible, but if I was forced to make a choice that's my answer. Just my opinion.
 
Like a few said, Rand plays the "game" more than Ron and that's exactly what makes me so sick of politicians. Ron Paul doesn't even exactly share my ideology (John Locke, Adam Smith flavor of liberalism) but the fact that he is similar enough and votes on beliefs, not what will help him get reelected, even if he's the only one is what we desperately need more of. Doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Rand, but I'm not sure I'd ever be as passionate about him.
 
Cyberbrain said:
Like a few said, Rand plays the "game" more than Ron and that's exactly what makes me so sick of politicians. Ron Paul doesn't even exactly share my ideology (John Locke, Adam Smith flavor of liberalism) but the fact that he is similar enough and votes on beliefs, not what will help him get reelected, even if he's the only one is what we desperately need more of. Doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Rand, but I'm not sure I'd ever be as passionate about him.
Click to expand...
I don't know. I think that I'd get pretty excited if a Paul came close to winning the WH.
 
It was good guys. Rand is a natural...and he has got the cred to back it up (and the people realize it).
 
Liberty Shark said:
So, while I respect their opinions and respectfully disagree, personally I find it absolutely absurd that some people here seem to be implying they would not vote for Rand Paul in a potential future presidential race.
Click to expand...
I didn't say I wouldn't vote for him. I'm always willing to vote for a candidate that is less bad than the other. I said I'm not going to give him any of my hard-earned money.
 
Rand doesn't play the game. Rand is an ornery, playful guy who has confidence in his views and the conviction to stand by them. Look at the smirk on his face when he's "politicking" -- he knows it's horsecrap, and he knows that his audience knows its horsecrap. That is EXACTLY how a politician should be. It's making a mockery of the superficial tripe that others spew... and it's what Ron has done his entire life.

The two are much more similar than the Rand detractors would like to admit. IMO, the only difference is that Ron wanted to move the needle on foreign policy so he's taken a much more vocal and belligerent stance against neo-conservatism.
 
Liberty Shark said:
I frequently talk with several friends of mine who also consider themselves to be libertarians, and we often debate the issues. I'd say that a little less than half of them are of the "beltway" or "liberaltarian" type, meaning as most of us here know to be the Reason magazine type (without getting into stereotypes). We disagree on many issues including abortion, the gold standard, and the concept of states' rights. In my opinion, this is a pretty good example of the "paleolibertarian" vs. "liberaltarian" split often talked about. And in the future assuming that Rand Paul runs, and probably Gary Johnson runs also, I would vote for Rand over Gary, without a doubt.
While I disagree with Rand on the Iran sanctions, I find that to be less of an issue with me than abortion. I am "pro-life" and think that in terms of libertarianism this is the correct position, I completely disagree with people who consider this to be an issue of a "parasite" in the woman's body - I think its absolutely absurd. In addition to this, I see no path for the "liberaltarians" to achieve any kind of success in electoral politics, on the national level. The reason why I feel this is an important issue is because I believe that this country has become so messed up that many people, especially average voters, pay little serious attention to the local and in-state-level races, and focus almost entirely on state-wide and national races. If the goal is to advance the libertarian message, and the majority of the average people focus on state-wide and national politics, then you need a candidate capable of having electoral success on these levels.
So, while I respect their opinions and respectfully disagree, personally I find it absolutely absurd that some people here seem to be implying they would not vote for Rand Paul in a potential future presidential race. While I disagree with him on some issues, or methods/process, I think he may actually have the best chance of really changing people's opinions, at least among conservatives and republicans in general on the most important issues. I believe the republican party is the vehicle to use to advance this message, and am skeptical of the democrat and liberal outreach strategy, as they seem to be hardcore socialists above all else. In addition to this, he actually has an extremely good chance of winning the nomination in the future, and if he does he can essentially kick the neocons out of positions of power and clean out the whole party on the national level. This is an opportunity that cannot be allowed to be botched or messed up. You have all seen how good of a communicator he is, and I think its absurd to let this opportunity be wasted over a few disagreements, but I wouldn't put it past the "liberaltarians" to try to screw this up. At some point you have to realize that in terms of electoral politics, if you can get 75% of what you want, and the 25% you don't get is minor stuff in the grand scheme of things, you got to think in terms of reality. Personally, I'm just as concerned (if not more) about the millions of deaths via abortions in this country than I am about some people who might be negatively effected by sanctions in Iran. I think both are horrible, but if I was forced to make a choice that's my answer. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

My favorite line from you was the following:

Personally, I'm just as concerned (if not more) about the millions of deaths via abortions in this country than I am about some people who might be negatively effected by sanctions in Iran. I think both are horrible, but if I was forced to make a choice that's my answer.
Click to expand...

You are exactly right. Think about it like this, if Rand were the only one to vote "no", then it would have been 99-1. Morally, it would have been the right thing to do. Ron would have done it and that is why we love Ron. But you must understand, in order to have a real chance, you must play a long for a little bit. So, in the grand scheme of things, his one "yes" on this vote wouldn't have mattered. Now, someone on the forums made a good point by saying "he should have just not voted on it."

But the point is to not gain attention. Again, what good is it for Rand to look more and more like Ron on foreign policy (just perception) and run for the White House in 2016? Look what is happening to Ron right now. The only thing, THEY ONLY THING holding people up is their ignorance on foreign policy. So, why would Rand want to suffer the same consequences and not be given the chance to really change things? Rand can get to the White House and actually bring our troops home and force the hand of the GOP, rather than allowing it to be the other way around.

This is what I meant by stubbornness, it seems a lot of people on here get too caught up on certain things, things that are just plainly unrealistic. For all of you that always point to our Founding Fathers as examples, they weren't perfect either. They made concessions to get things moving. They realized that patience is a virtue. So a lot of people on these forums, in my opinion, need to get a hold of themselves. Nothing is going to be perfect. No one is ever going to be like Ron. Ron is the idea. Rand is the product. And if you don't think Ron knows that, than it is on you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Occam's Banana
The Rise of the Woke Cultural Revolution
Replies
1
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
AuH20
New Trump Centric Focus Group by Frank Luntz has A Vastly Different Outcome Than First
Replies
1
Views
184
acptulsa
acptulsa
eleganz
Frank Luntz' on Koch Poll: "It wasn't a poll, it was a random question, pay no attention"
Replies
13
Views
1K
devil21
D
R
Rand Paul/Fox News Debate with my Uncle
Replies
14
Views
1K
RecoveringNeoCon
R
jct74
[Video] Fox News special on NSA that Rand Paul was interviewed for
Replies
16
Views
3K
nayjevin
nayjevin
Back
Top