Rand Paul? No Way!

by lewwaters

As if we didn’t expect it, Rand Paul, son of batshit crazy Ron Paul made his run for president official this morning. I will not support or vote for him as by his own words, he is pretty much a “chip off the old block.” From a 2009 interview with Alex Jones;

He may try to act like he isn’t on board with the lunacy of his Dad, but as he said, “We might present the message sometimes differently.”

I also do not like that seeing the effort to end primaries in Kentucky in favor of a caucus. In years past, we saw how Paulbots, unable to achieve any wins for Ron Paul, stacked caucuses with Paulbots to elevate Ron far beyond what he was in a futile effort to force him into the nomination.

In three tries for the presidency, Ron Paul never won a single state primary and I see nothing by Rand to believe he is anything different.

Such subterfuge is far from endearing to me.

9 Comments to “Rand Paul? No Way!”

  1. “son of batshit crazy, Ron Paul” I could not have said it better. I would rather vote for Hillary than this nut.

    Like

  2. The essentials of the foreign policy that both Paul the father and Paul the son have championed is not realistic in the world as it exists. When the U.S. was a new, independent nation, it was not in a position to have much impact on the world as a whole due to industrial and military weakness. Indeed, as a “beginning” nation, the first priority was to establish a growing economy and get on our feet. By the end of the 19th century, the U.S. had become a robust nation, and it started to establish a serious position in the world order. (I’m not saying that I agree 100% with the foreign policies pursued in those days was always the best, but the U.S. was able to enter the world stage as a “world power.” This was proven with the Spanish American war, even though Spain, at that time, was a declining power after being a major player during the preceding several centuries.) The point is, the U.S. must protect it’s citizens and economic interests with a robust policy that does not allow us to be pushed around. This policy was established when Thomas Jefferson sent the Navy and Marines to north Africa to fight the Barbary Pirates rather than pay tribute to those “rogue states” (as much of Europe was doing).

    As Libertarians, there is much to be appreciated (by conservatives) with both father and son Paul. Clearly, the both Pauls believe in a limited government that exists to protect the individual rights of the people. (Not group rights or what’s “best for the community” but _individual_ rights.) Reading the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, it’s plainly visible that protecting individual rights was why government was established.

    While from the beginning, administrations and congresses past did not always see eye-to-eye — and there were times when presidents may have pushed the boundaries of what may have been intended by the founders. Likewise, Congresses past have frequently also pushed the boundaries of what they did beyond their Constitutional boundaries. However, for the most part, overreach by either the executive or the congressional branches was often thwarted by either the public (throw the bums out of office) or by the courts (in ruling laws unconstitutional).

    This system began to fall apart with the rise of the “progressive” movement toward the end of the 19th century. The congress clearly stepped out of line by delegating its legislative authority to an “independent” administrative division, with the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the 1880s. This progressive regulatory agency was given a pass by progressives who’d been appointed to the Supreme Court.

    The progressive idea was that we should have a government that is administered “scientifically” by “experts” in powerful regulatory positions. (This was, of course, before much national government regulation had been shown to be dreadfully bad.) Of course, the progressive ideal was completely counter to the Constitution. But rather than hold a new constitutional congress and draft a new set of rules for an “administrative state” the progressive choice was to simply ignore the constitution as it was written. (One Supreme Court justice in the early era of the progressive movement described the constitution as “hollow” and that it meant only what the Supreme Court said it meant.)

    Both of the Pauls support a return to the pre-progressive view of the Constitution. And for that, we should be thankful, since most politicians (of both parties) make the mistake that “government can do good.” Perhaps I’ve gotten old and cynical (except I’ve always been cynical about politics) when I observe that government rarely can do good and most of the time we’re just better off if it didn’t try to do anything.

    The one thing that Government _should_ do is protect individual rights — and the other enumerated jobs of the central government. And isn’t that what both Ron and Rand Paul have been asking for? (Other than their Pollyanna style foreign policy positions.)

    Like

  3. Paulbot Libertarians, in their quest to highjack the Reagan legacy that Ron Paul condemned in his 1987 resignation from GOP, have been noted to fall back on Reagan’s words from a 1975 Reason Magazine interview;

    “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

    They conveniently ignore other words said following that one sentence;

    “Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”

    Like

  4. Interesting comments from all. I do not believe that the two can be in the same camp. There are too many issues in which they just disagree. Take Social Security or Vets benefits or foreign affairs just to name a few. Then there is the war on drugs and the open willingness to support freedom of choice on abortion. Course from my email inbox I am led to believe that Rand Paul at least believes in the sanctity of life at conception. Somewhere in between all these various political factions is the good government base that we all crave.

    Like

  5. Still too close for me to entertain supporting.

    Rand seems all over the place from articles I’ve read over the years and impresses me as someone that will say what he feels an audience wants to hear to get elected.

    Like

  6. I agree with that entirely.

    Like

  7. Ron Paul is “pro life” and I believe that Rand Paul has said as much also. (But I’m not 100% certain.)

    I agree that there are some libertarians that are anarchists (they might use the term Anachro-capitalists).
    See the Wikipedia article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism that explains a bit of the Anarcho-capitalism thinking. Essentially, they think the “free market” can deal with all issues.

    I am not a libertarian, however. I am an objectivist (hence the Friend of John Galt designation). The Objectivists differ from Libertarians in many ways, especially with respect to foreign policy and the role of government. Objectivists do believe that government has limited roles — and they celebrate the Founding Fathers creation of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. As for foreign policy, Objectivists believe that our government must protect our individual rights and thus must defend the country from enemies both foreign and domestic.

    Objectivists generally vote with conservatives, due to the importance of the economic issues. Objectivists tend to have different social priorities than many conservatives, however.

    I make these clarifications so that you understand that my general ‘open mindedness’ about Rand Paul is not because I fully accept all of his positions. But as Haley Barbour, a one-time political aid (1993) to Ronald Reagan said: “My old boss Ronald Reagan used to say, ‘Somebody who agrees with me 80 percent of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20 percent traitor.’” (There is no verification that Reagan actually said these words, but there is a record of Barbour saying what he said.) Variations of this concept have been mentioned by any number of Conservatives. Since my personal philosophy (Objectivism) is outside the mainstream (I know that I am in a relatively small minority) I am never likely to find a politician that I agree with 100%. Thus, the politicians I tend to support are those who I can agree with on those issues that are most important to me — 70, 80, 90% is actually rather good.

    Looking from the “other direction” I suspect that Conservatives ought to keep in mind that they, too, are a minority in this country. Conservatives will not win elections without support from many people that have fundamental disagreement with some of the conservative views. If Rand Paul (or Ron Paul) can pull in people that might get exposed to Conservative thought via a Libertarian, then it is better for the Conservatives to be somewhat gracious to those who express partial interest. In time, some might be convinced of the correctness of many conservative policies, but it is self-defeating to discard such interest out of hand.

    Like

  8. Another reason I won’t support Rand Paul is his early alliance with Al Franken and later endorsement of Mitch McConnell.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/strange-bedfellows-al-franken-takes-rand-paul-under-his-tutegage/

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/27/rand-paul-helps-squash-tea-party-challenge-to-mcconnell/

    And now, we are to believe he will “defeat the Washington Machine” with McConnell’s help?

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/06/rand-paul-vows-to-defeat-the-washington-machine-with-mitch-mcconnells-help/

    Can you get anymore of a Washington establishment insider than Mitch McConnell?

    Like

  9. Rand Paul is not my first choice as the Republican nominee… but he’s not my last choice either (Jeb Bush has that wrapped up). Frankly, I’m very disheartened with the Establishment Republicans (McConnell and Boehner). Their “business as usual” approach has been very bad for the country.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: