I read an article on a blog earlier yesterday about Rand Paul and I think it kind of settled some of the fears that I was having about him earlier. I remember a while ago people made a big deal about something he said and then acted like he was a neocon. Perhaps he isn't as anti-war as we would like him to be but I've found a blog article that had a bit more on his positions... and he's not that hawkish. In fact his views are in quite contrast to what the mainstream of the Republican party is. Maybe we shouldn't smear him as much?
Reported The Politico earlier this month: “a well-connected former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney convened a conference call last week between Grayson and a group of leading national security conservatives to sound the alarm about Paul. ‘On foreign policy, [global war on terror], Gitmo, Afghanistan, Rand Paul is NOT one of us … It is our hope that you can help us get the word out about Rand Paul’s troubling and dangerous views on foreign policy.’ ”
What are Paul’s “troubling” and “dangerous” views on foreign policy? Like Republican Congressman Walter Jones; GOP Senator Tom Coburn; the late editor of National Review, William F. Buckley; and a majority of Americans, Paul regrets the U.S.’s decision to invade Iraq. Like conservative pundits Pat Buchanan and the late Robert Novak, Paul says he would have opposed going into Iraq in 2003. Like John McCain, Paul has concerns about Gitmo, but unlike his father Ron, son Rand does not believe its prisoners should be tried in civilian courts. Like conservative columnist George Will, Paul has serious reservations about President Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Like Dwight Eisenhower, Paul fears government waste, particularly as it relates to what Ike called the “military-industrial complex.” Paul also believes all wars should be declared by Congress, that the most important task of the federal government is national security and that defense should be the largest part of the national budget-albeit a much smaller national budget.
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/blogs/southernavenger/
Yeah. So he opposes civilian trials. But that's his own view and he's different from Ron Paul in that. But his views on war are actually very close to being an anti-war view. Perhaps over time he might take more of a stronger anti-war position and become more like his father? Perhaps Rand Paul isn't all that bad?
thought I remember hearing that he was in favor of building some multi-billion dollar wall on our southern border.
I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not defending him or anything but you're not going to find many pro-Misean views on immigration in the Republican party even among the more libertarian leaning members. Ronald Reagan was in favor of immigration reform and we all know how the right wing and how the left wing chastise him even now after his death for it. So it's probably not a wise political move to take given all the hate about illegal immigrants.
I think Rand Paul is ultimately going to have to voice the views of his constituency. So if they are against illegal immigration, he'll be against illegal immigration. If they support war, he'll support war. Whether or not he agrees with his constituency is unknowable.
bloomj31: I think Rand Paul is ultimately going to have to voice the views of his constituency. So if they are against illegal immigration, he'll be against illegal immigration. If they support war, he'll support war. Whether or not he agrees with his constituency is unknowable.
So, in other words, Rand Paul is just like any other politician. Rand Paul has to follow the wishes of the people who support him. So he'll just say things to get elected. Is that about right?
SilentXtarian: So, in other words, Rand Paul is just like any other politician. Rand Paul has to follow the wishes of the people who support him. So he'll just say things to get elected. Is that about right?
Yes. His job is not to vote on what he thinks is wrong or right but to vote based on how his constituency wants him to vote.
No he should stick to his principals and explain to the voting public his views and why freedom is superior to state oppression. For example: He could say he is completely against national ID and against stopping all Americans and asking for papers. This is a horrible return to the days of Soviet Russia.
I know that the Republican Party is heading towards its doom over the idiotic topic of illegal immigration. So to win the primary he will have to be like his father and favor the Federal Government using force to keep illegal immigrants out while destroying liberty at the same time.
If he doesn't do what they want him to do they'll vote him out. The people get what the people want or they get someone who will give them what they want. His principles will reflect the principles of his constituents.
If you want to change the way the politician votes you have to change the minds of the constituents.
bloomj31: If he doesn't do what they want him to do they'll vote him out. The people get what the people want or they get someone who will give them what they want. His principles will reflect the principles of his constituents. If you want to change the way the politician votes you have to change the minds of the constituents.
You could probably count on one hand the number of politician's that actually vote what their constituents really want. Their personal ideology colors every thing they do in congress and every vote they cast. It is only in extremely rare cases that a politician feels threatened by their constituents to vote a certain way.
Orthogonal: You could probably count on one hand the number of politician's that actually vote what their constituents really want. Their personal ideology colors every thing they do in congress and every vote they cast. It is only in extremely rare cases that a politician feels threatened by their constituents to vote a certain way.
I don't know if that's true or not. I think that politicians have a margin for error but I think that if they step too far out of line with their districts, they start getting serious heat at home. It's just like right now with Scott Brown. He wins the special election in Mass. and immediately, he joins the republican moderates to move the jobs bill past a republican filibuster. Why's he doing that? Because his home district isn't super conservative.
SilentXtarian: Maybe we shouldn't smear him as much?
Maybe we shouldn't smear him as much?
We don't smear him. By saying we do you are smearing us.
Marko: SilentXtarian: Maybe we shouldn't smear him as much? We don't smear him. By saying we do you are smearing us.
Really? I remember not too long ago that a lot of people here were going overboard over something he said about him not supporting the constitutional rights of terrorists. People assumed that he was a neocon. But his views on foreign policy at least from what I gleaned on from this article is that he actually is not a neoconservative at all. There was however a discussion here and in the libertarian community as to whether Rand Paul could be trusted and that he was a neocon. So, I'm not smearing anyone here at all. I admit that I even took part in the smearing. We were wrong to assume that he was a neocon earlier. I was one of those who did. Maybe he change his views to match his constituency, but, based on what we knew earlier about his views, we assumed him to be in line with the mainline conservative wing of the Republican party.
Also, people did the same thing with Peter Schiff a while back. I consider it smearing because we were making speculations that weren't simply true and rather than admit we were wrong or that they were just speculations we just kept on saying what we said before because Rand Paul isn't completely like his father.
Bogart: No he should stick to his principals and explain to the voting public his views and why freedom is superior to state oppression. For example: He could say he is completely against national ID and against stopping all Americans and asking for papers. This is a horrible return to the days of Soviet Russia. I know that the Republican Party is heading towards its doom over the idiotic topic of illegal immigration. So to win the primary he will have to be like his father and favor the Federal Government using force to keep illegal immigrants out while destroying liberty at the same time.
I agree. I don't know what Rand Paul's true views on war are now. It would require me to take more of an extensive study on all of the statements he's made about war in the past. I know there have been times when he's disagreed with his father on various issues and not everyone liked what he says. I think if he starts sounding more like his father that it's a sign that he is being pushed by the Ron Paul fans to be more in line with his Dad. I like Ron Paul and all... but I just want Rand Paul to be himself. He can speak for freedom... stuff like that. But he doesn't have to be a clone or anything like that.
SilentXtarian:So, in other words, Rand Paul is just like any other politician.
As a bit of casual empiricism, I've noticed that those who self select into politics are highly ideologically motivated and self righteous. I would certainly argue that the type of people politics attracts have flaws, for one thing they usually suffer from "the fatal conceit", but I don't think it's correct to say that they're insincere. A key part of Caplans and Brennan & Lomasky's story is that you can't fool all the people all the time, or, a politician that genuinely believed what he was saying would be better suited to win an election than one who was putting on a show.
However, the ones that get elected and remain in politics are those who agree with the electorate.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Bogart: I know that the Republican Party is heading towards its doom over the idiotic topic of illegal immigration. So to win the primary he will have to be like his father and favor the Federal Government using force to keep illegal immigrants out while destroying liberty at the same time.
How is the topic of illegal immigration idiotic?? this point by libs really mistifies me. mass immigration/legalization is unthinkable until the welfare state is ended.
Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.
We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-paul-try-convict-and-lock-up-terrorists-in-guantanamo/
“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”