Author Topic: I would like to know CPF's thoughts on Rand Paul, and on my take regarding him.  (Read 7068 times)

Offline Stryke

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Hey all,

I don’t post on political forums much at all. But I am very worried about current trends in the Republican Party and I came here to get some feedback from fellow conservatives. My basic question is this: Why do you support Rand Paul? (but please continue reading before answering)

Unlike many my age, I have considered myself conservative for most of the time since 9/11, not only due to foreign policy issues but I wholeheartedly agree with free market economics, morality in society (no drugs, no abortion), and the belief that America is what is right with the world today. I voted for McCain in 2008 both in the primary and the general election, Newt in the 2012 primary (I felt he had the best ideas and the closest platform to Reagan) and then Romney in 2012. Though I was very upset at Romney’s “Kill Newt” strategy, I did enthusiastically support Romney because I felt that experienced, adult leadership was missing from this country. I feel worse about the loss now as I witness the GOP’s continued fracturing.

I live in NH, which is not only a swing state but both increasingly Democratic (mostly due to MA carpetbaggers) and has a strand of libertarianism to it. I am in the midst of the sweeping changes taking place to the Republican brand – opposition by democrats, challenges by libertarians, disillusion and skepticism from working and middle class white voters, and conservatives angry over Sen. Ayotte’s immigration vote. I am surrounded in my community by the problems this party is facing. When the RNC sent a questionnaire to me asking my opinion on the state of the party (I assume they did this because I volunteered for the Romney campaign in NH), I outlined 11 points, very clearly what I felt was wrong and what needed to be changed.

I would like to know why so many conservatives are flocking to Rand Paul. Though I am very impressed with his oratory and intellectual ability and I do feel he would be the best choice to widen the Republican Party’s appeal, I doubt I can support him based on his foreign policy views.

I reject the neoconservative label. I am a student of foreign policy and it is increasingly clear to me today that what America must do going forward is less and less a matter of political ideology and more and more about recognizing simple facts: The rise of China, increasing assertiveness by Russia, and Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon greatly worry me. If nothing gets done, these developments will define our times. It is just undeniable at this point.

Though Rand Paul has tried hard to hide his hand on foreign policy, my research has uncovered the following:

-Rand Paul’s budget states:
a.) He believes we need a “21st century military” and the “Cold War structure” needs to be dismantled (this, as many of you might remember, is verbatim from the Obama 2008 campaign’s stance on defense issues)
b.) He believes that our “global footprint” needs to be reduced, which in his view will lead to less situations where America will intervene simply because it cannot.
c.) He believes that we should cut active duty military strength below the current 1.4 million.
d.) The "size and scope" (undefined) of the military needs to be reduced.

-A lengthy Washington Monthly article states Rand Paul believes the solution to the North Korean crisis is to make a deal whereby America withdraws its bases from South Korean territory in exchange for North Korean nuclear disarmament. Success on such a policy is about as likely as his assertion that Republicans can once again win California’s electoral votes, no?

-Toward the end of his Heritage Foundation speech (last 4-5 minutes), Rand Paul seems to “hint” at times at future U.S. missions that need to be curtailed. Given his public focus on the Middle East and non-focus on Asia, it seems obvious what this means.

-Rand Paul has tacitly, though not directly, suggested that Edward Snowden is a hero. This is despite the fact that terrorists know sources and methods now that would assist them in their attacks. Remember – we keep hearing about how terror plots fail because of “mistakes.” It seems as though this is one less they could make now that they know about PRISM.

-Rand Paul recently stated he thinks we live in a police state.

-The CATO Institute, which advocates for amnesty and advocates for abandonment of U.S. allies and quasi-isolationism, is very enthused about Rand Paul. It is possible these men and women would make up the cabinet in a Paul Administration.

Given all this information, some of you might think that I’ve already made up my mind. I freely admit, I mostly have. I have trouble with the idea of supporting Rand in 2016 – very serious trouble, despite the immigration votes by Rubio & crew.

The reason I am asking this question is that I seem to remember conservatives being united in their opposition to Ron Paul back in 2008, and somewhat (but less so) in 2012. Given the fact that their foreign policy stances are the same (in substance, not rhetoric), why should conservatives who said no to Ron say yes to Rand?

If I’m missing something here, what is it?

Sources:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/july_august_2013/features/the_education_of_rand_paul045638.php#

http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/MASTERBUDGET.pdf
« Last Edit: July 30, 2013, 09:26:07 PM by Stryke »

Offline Yawn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3262
Rand is NOT Ron. That is the root of your problem. I would never vote for Ron. I will for Rand. I describe myself as a libertarian leaning Conservative. I despise what I call anarchist libertarians.

dashvinny

  • Guest
Rand Paul is the  best of a bad lot.

Offline Reality

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Gender: Male
Rand Paul, in spite of how you fell about his foreign policy and use of the military, seems to have the best interest of our country at heart.  We are not going to find the perfect candiate and that's what keeps pulling us a part. 

Paul, like Oblamer and all other aspiring POTUS candidates, have their own vision of how things should be but their utopian world meets reality when the winner gets the "crossover" brief from the incumbent POTUS.  Oblamer came in as some what of a peacenik but look at what has happened since he took office.  Nothing militarily has gotten better.  Matters of fact nothing has gotten better.

Paul's idea of a nuclear disarmed NK swap for our forces in Korea is a good example of what I call a "Budweiser Vision" or said differently "looks good in the shower".  It want happen, he can't make it happen, because there is more to our forces being in SK than just holding the NK's hostage.

The incumbent POTUS starts the crossover briefing by saying "let me tell you how it really is".  When he finishes the electee says, "no sh**"!

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Rand Paul, in spite of how you fell about his foreign policy and use of the military, seems to have the best interest of our country at heart.  We are not going to find the perfect candiate and that's what keeps pulling us a part. 

Paul, like Oblamer and all other aspiring POTUS candidates, have their own vision of how things should be but their utopian world meets reality when the winner gets the "crossover" brief from the incumbent POTUS.  Oblamer came in as some what of a peacenik but look at what has happened since he took office.  Nothing militarily has gotten better.  Matters of fact nothing has gotten better.

Paul's idea of a nuclear disarmed NK swap for our forces in Korea is a good example of what I call a "Budweiser Vision" or said differently "looks good in the shower".  It want happen, he can't make it happen, because there is more to our forces being in SK than just holding the NK's hostage.

The incumbent POTUS starts the crossover briefing by saying "let me tell you how it really is".  When he finishes the electee says, "no sh**"!

There is not one good reason on God's green earth for us to have remained in SK for 60 years. SK has become a wealthy nation, mostly because of our presence, and if they, with their huge army and wealth, can not protect themselves, then let the chips fall where they may. To think a paltry 25000 or so US troops is or will be a deterrent to Little Son Fool Do's Little Son, is a pipe dream.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Offline supsalemgr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12049
  • Gender: Male
I come down pretty much aligned with Reality. Rand, being a libertarian, desires less American military involvement worldwide. I don't agree with him totally, but do feel the USA could lessen its footprint, say in Germany and Japan, as those countries should fund their own defense. My support comes primarily from his domestic fiscal positions which align with the conservative approach. Also, he seems to be one to tell it like it is.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Trip

  • Guest
Rand is on track in some areas, but then will completely go off the rail, as he did with his two filibusters, each time stating afterwards that the "President has the right to choose whoever he wants for the positions", which is contrary to the fact of the Constitution.


As far as the implication that the CATO institute being some bastion of Conservative thought. It's NOT!   

The CATO Institute is largely aligned with Progressive Statist "Libertarian" thought, and it's not at all congruent with the Constitution, or historical fact, and is most definitely not at all "Conservative". 

One example of this is a series of articles (clearly an agenda) published by the CATO  Institute and written by a guy named Alex Nowrasteh, promoting open borders and anchor babies.  There, CATO Institute actually describes Nowrasteh as, " the immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity." 

Global Liberty and Prosperity? That's a globalist statist ideology and no one can support this ideology and honestly call themselves a Conservative.

One such article by Nowrasteh, "In Praise of Birthright Citizenship" promotes the corruption that is anchor babies, as some sort of original birthright citizenship and the intent of the 14th Amendment, when it is actually the corrupt fabrication of the Gray Court in Wong Kim Ark, by judicial fiat, in conflict with the repeated indication of Congress over this country's entire history,  done in disregard of the 14th Amendment's intent, a full THIRTY YEARS after the 14th Amendment, and no sort of birthright at all!   

Those fabricated anchor babies actually represent the abrogation of the federal government's constitutional obligation to responsibly engage the two-way commitment between country and individual that is citizenship.

The only true "birthright" citizenship that has ever existed in this country is birth on American soil by parents (two) who were American citizens -- resulting in a natural born citizen.


« Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 06:11:40 AM by Trip »

Offline daidalos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4215
  • Gender: Male
  • “Democracy is the most vile form of government.”
Hey all,

I don’t post on political forums much at all. But I am very worried about current trends in the Republican Party and I came here to get some feedback from fellow conservatives. My basic question is this: Why do you support Rand Paul? (but please continue reading before answering)

Unlike many my age, I have considered myself conservative for most of the time since 9/11, not only due to foreign policy issues but I wholeheartedly agree with free market economics, morality in society (no drugs, no abortion), and the belief that America is what is right with the world today. I voted for McCain in 2008 both in the primary and the general election, Newt in the 2012 primary (I felt he had the best ideas and the closest platform to Reagan) and then Romney in 2012. Though I was very upset at Romney’s “Kill Newt” strategy, I did enthusiastically support Romney because I felt that experienced, adult leadership was missing from this country. I feel worse about the loss now as I witness the GOP’s continued fracturing.

I live in NH, which is not only a swing state but both increasingly Democratic (mostly due to MA carpetbaggers) and has a strand of libertarianism to it. I am in the midst of the sweeping changes taking place to the Republican brand – opposition by democrats, challenges by libertarians, disillusion and skepticism from working and middle class white voters, and conservatives angry over Sen. Ayotte’s immigration vote. I am surrounded in my community by the problems this party is facing. When the RNC sent a questionnaire to me asking my opinion on the state of the party (I assume they did this because I volunteered for the Romney campaign in NH), I outlined 11 points, very clearly what I felt was wrong and what needed to be changed.

I would like to know why so many conservatives are flocking to Rand Paul. Though I am very impressed with his oratory and intellectual ability and I do feel he would be the best choice to widen the Republican Party’s appeal, I doubt I can support him based on his foreign policy views.

I reject the neoconservative label. I am a student of foreign policy and it is increasingly clear to me today that what America must do going forward is less and less a matter of political ideology and more and more about recognizing simple facts: The rise of China, increasing assertiveness by Russia, and Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon greatly worry me. If nothing gets done, these developments will define our times. It is just undeniable at this point.

Though Rand Paul has tried hard to hide his hand on foreign policy, my research has uncovered the following:

-Rand Paul’s budget states:
a.) He believes we need a “21st century military” and the “Cold War structure” needs to be dismantled (this, as many of you might remember, is verbatim from the Obama 2008 campaign’s stance on defense issues)
b.) He believes that our “global footprint” needs to be reduced, which in his view will lead to less situations where America will intervene simply because it cannot.
c.) He believes that we should cut active duty military strength below the current 1.4 million.
d.) The "size and scope" (undefined) of the military needs to be reduced.

-A lengthy Washington Monthly article states Rand Paul believes the solution to the North Korean crisis is to make a deal whereby America withdraws its bases from South Korean territory in exchange for North Korean nuclear disarmament. Success on such a policy is about as likely as his assertion that Republicans can once again win California’s electoral votes, no?

-Toward the end of his Heritage Foundation speech (last 4-5 minutes), Rand Paul seems to “hint” at times at future U.S. missions that need to be curtailed. Given his public focus on the Middle East and non-focus on Asia, it seems obvious what this means.

-Rand Paul has tacitly, though not directly, suggested that Edward Snowden is a hero. This is despite the fact that terrorists know sources and methods now that would assist them in their attacks. Remember – we keep hearing about how terror plots fail because of “mistakes.” It seems as though this is one less they could make now that they know about PRISM.

-Rand Paul recently stated he thinks we live in a police state.

-The CATO Institute, which advocates for amnesty and advocates for abandonment of U.S. allies and quasi-isolationism, is very enthused about Rand Paul. It is possible these men and women would make up the cabinet in a Paul Administration.

Given all this information, some of you might think that I’ve already made up my mind. I freely admit, I mostly have. I have trouble with the idea of supporting Rand in 2016 – very serious trouble, despite the immigration votes by Rubio & crew.

The reason I am asking this question is that I seem to remember conservatives being united in their opposition to Ron Paul back in 2008, and somewhat (but less so) in 2012. Given the fact that their foreign policy stances are the same (in substance, not rhetoric), why should conservatives who said no to Ron say yes to Rand?

If I’m missing something here, what is it?

Sources:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/july_august_2013/features/the_education_of_rand_paul045638.php#

http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/MASTERBUDGET.pdf

The answer to that in red, is simple really. Because unlike many who claim to be Constitutional supporting conservatives with their mouths and then vote like a democrat.

Mr. Paul actually backs his words up with his actions, he has no qualms voting no on something that is a violation of our Constitution or something that is beyond the power and scope of the Congress to address Constitutionally.

Anymore questions? Direct them to Senator Pauls offices, they'll tell you all you want to know about him. He's not a lib, who hides and is inaccessible by the people.

Unlike my rep, the Speaker of the House.
One of every five Americans you meet has a mental illness of some sort. Many, many, of our veteran's suffer from mental illness like PTSD now also. Help if ya can. :) http://www.projectsemicolon.org/share-your-story.html
And no you won't find my "story" there. They don't allow science fiction. :)

Offline AndyJackson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5620
He's not perfect, has done/said/endorsed some things that are inexplicable & annoying...........yet, he's the best constitutionalist that we have.  We may not like all of his ideas, but if you value the constitution, you'd better be supporting him over whatever else is out there.

It's a small club available to us.......Paul, followed by Cruz, Lee, Gowdy, Issa, and a few others of lesser profile.

At least he stays pretty consistent.  Look at the implosion of guys like Ryan, Rubio, McCain, etc.

Trip

  • Guest
I'm actually wondering whether "Stryke" is a one-hit wonder, or if it is a sincere discussion from someone intending to be an ongoing member here.

I wonder Why he would care what CPF people think when it's his first post here.

Is he trying to support Rand Paul? Or trying to reject him? His argument ostensibly has severe reservations about Rand, but then he postulates a Rand administration populated by CATO institute progressives, which is a truly scary thought indeed.  No one who honestly has  "serious trouble" regarding a candidate would actually ponder their cabinet makeup (and applaud it being made of of CATO Institute people).


I don't understand how that "serious trouble" is somehow mitigated by ("despite") the "immigration votes of Rubio and crew".   That doesn't make any sense to me at all; does it to anyone else?  It almost sounds as if Stryke supports immigration amnesty, which would explain the positive CATO reference.

And this is why I smell Stryke as "rat", a one-hit wonder with a pro-Paul agenda.


As to Rand, I was very impressed by ,  and how he managed to defend his accurate position that the federal government had no business dictating terms of "rights" to private individuals and private organizations, while working to avoid  Maddow's repeated attempts to label him as some sort of backwards racist.

Unfortunately, Rand has since  backtracked and hedged on his original bold position, just as he did on his filibusters.   

I'm still waiting to see if Rand Paul is a filly, a gelding, or  bust, all too much like his father.  The Jury is still out.  He definitely is not yet seasoned enough to be  Presidential material, not at this point, not by a long shot.   Perhaps one day.




« Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 07:58:54 AM by Trip »

Offline AndyJackson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5620
Reads like a long, careful re-entry back into CPF by the blueridge drones who've been booted.  Or just the next one on the duty roster.

They have many personas and styles to set up their trolling.

Offline Stryke

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Rand is NOT Ron. That is the root of your problem. I would never vote for Ron. I will for Rand. I describe myself as a libertarian leaning Conservative. I despise what I call anarchist libertarians.

I came at it from the same viewpoint, actually. It wasn't until I read the WM article and his own FY14 that I felt differently. I'm having a hard time seeing the substantive (not rhetorical) difference between Rand and Ron. I want to relate this to something another poster said:

Quote
As far as the implication that the CATO institute being some bastion of Conservative thought. It's NOT!   

I couldn't agree more with him that Cato isn't conservative, not just because of it's pro-amnesty stance but because it endorses no role for America in the world.. Yet, many libertarians do feel Cato is conservative. So there seems to be a disconnect here between the libertarian right and traditional conservatives of the Reagan era onwards.

I brought it up because cabinet officials tend to be from think-tanks. There isn't one more supportive of Rand that I can think of or have found than Cato.

Offline Stryke

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Wow, misconceptions.

I'm actually wondering whether "Stryke" is a one-hit wonder, or if it is a sincere discussion from someone intending to be an ongoing member here.

I wonder Why he would care what CPF people think when it's his first post here.

Is he trying to support Rand Paul? Or trying to reject him? His argument ostensibly has severe reservations about Rand, but then he postulates a Rand administration populated by CATO institute progressives, which is a truly scary thought indeed.  No one who honestly has  "serious trouble" regarding a candidate would actually ponder their cabinet makeup (and applaud it being made of of CATO Institute people).

I am not a troll. I may or may not stay here to discuss other things, I do admit I came here mainly to get a better understanding of why people support Rand Paul mainly. And I did not once approve/applaud the idea that Cato Institute people would be in his cabinet - I was warning against that possibility.

Quote
I don't understand how that "serious trouble" is somehow mitigated by ("despite") the "immigration votes of Rubio and crew".   That doesn't make any sense to me at all; does it to anyone else?  It almost sounds as if Stryke supports immigration amnesty, which would explain the positive CATO reference.

Once again no positive Cato reference and I am not for any form of amnesty. See what I said about Rubio and Ayotte in the OP. I also think you should at least acknowledge that Rand Paul took a twisted path to opposing the immigration bill. It was not steadfast.

Offline Reality

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Gender: Male
Shooterman, our troops in SK are there for more reasons other than protecting SK from NK.

Why do you think we are keeping a Bomber Force at Quam?

Offline quiller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17781
  • Gender: Male
  • Reinstate dueling for Congress
Let's see..... The UN got us into the Korean Conflict and over time the U.S. forgave war debts accrued by us in behalf of certain Allies who also contributed to that effort. It's fair to say we paid for about half of all expenses, directly or by loan forgivance. We pay for South Korean defense.

And we get missile sites for use against China.

Expensive land, but worth it.

 

Powered by EzPortal