14 votes

Rand Paul Disappoints

"But just because Rand is good on some issues of the warfare-police state should not give him a free pass from scrutiny. Case in point: Rand Paul voted for the Kirk-Menendez amendment [Iran sanctions] on December 1, 2011. Equally disappointing is that his vote flew straight under the radar. Whether unnoticed or ignored, antiwar vigilantes failed on this one."


(After his speech at the Alfred Town Hall,1/28/2011, in Saco, Maine I said to Ron Paul that some people were very disturbed about Rand's Iran sanctions vote. He replied that he "was also disturbed" by it.)

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Compared to His Father, Rand Disappoints,

but compared to EVERYONE ELSE in Washington, he is great!

A Fire in the Belly?

Here's the problem, as I see it: in the sanctions vote, Rand went along to get along. Ron has never done that.

IMHO Ron is wrong here and there (abortion, border control) - but he's thought all his positions through and believes them sincerely and casts votes accordingly. That's why he's so refreshing - even the MSM recognizes him as that great rarity in politics, someone authentic.

Rand isn't there yet, and has made a poor start. He isn't in the Senate to make himself a name, or to prepare to become President, he's there to promote liberty, without compromise, because of a fire in the belly. If he hasn't got one of those, he should return to fixing eyes.

Everyone is entitled to make a mistake or two. Will he give a public, early, profound apology for that vote? - that's the test.

Rand ain't no Paul

Sanctions are not merely an act of war (as if that weren't serious enough), they amount to outright MURDER.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq directly resulted in the deaths of -- at least -- 500,000 Iraqi children, though the number is likely much higher. I wonder how Rand would feel after watching his children die in agony from starvation or diarrhea, all at the whim of a foreign bureaucrat. Is that truly the price Rand is willing to pay to keep Sean Hannity flirting with him on the radio?

We call Stalin and Mao monsters for starving millions of people to death in their own countries; is Rand acting any less monstrously by voting to starve millions of people to death in a foreign country? I was mostly ambivalent toward Rand before hearing this, but will NEVER vote for that unprincipled neocon now.

Rand Paul as Private Parts:

It's really funny:




You can't get clean in a dirty bathtub.

You're never going to get 100% agreement with anyone

My guess is this is one of those rare areas Ron and Rand have a disagreement over the dinner table. Point is, even I am about 95% with Ron and 95% with Rand. Which is great, alot better than being 20% with the others I've had to vote for over the past 15 years

Rand has to play the game. If

Rand has to play the game. If he voted had "no" for the sanctions on Iran then he would've gotten a lot of scrutiny from the establishment republicans. They would've tried to demonize him like they do with Dr. Paul. Rand is on our side, he just needs to gain the trust of the neocons so that in a few more years he will have much more influence in the senate. Also, this means that the media won't be saying he is crazy or unelectable if he runs for president in 2016.

I did always wonder what

I did always wonder what would happen if someone appeared like the status quo and then got into the presidency and suddenly did a full 180.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.


He is a man of no principles and cannot be trusted.

On the contrary, he is a man

On the contrary, he is a man of principles. He isn't voting this way because he tries to impress the establishment or anything. Rand knows that to gain influence in Washington D.C. and throughout the country he needs to portray himself a certain way while still being for the liberty movement behind the scenes.

Oh please..

Of course he is..he voting that way so he can still be considered friends with hannity and levin..even after they attack his father the way they did. When he had the chance he should have stood up to them and put them in their place for slandering his father.

I'm with you, zforce

All the way! "Playing their game, to beat them at their game" is an illusion. It never works. You BECOME THEM! It's as old as the Pyramids! Rand is WAY too buddy-buddy with Hannity. I even heard Rand KNOCK HIS DAD on Hannity's radio show a little over a week ago when Ron declined Hannity's GOP Candidate circle-jerk. "My Dad is making a big mistake, I think. He should use every possible opportunity to get his message (his message?) across to mainstream GOP audiences." - that was paraphrased. I've always been very suspect of Rand Paul. I am not saying that he is as corrupt as these GOP dinosaurs. I AM saying he's on that road!


And I remember seeing that on Hannity also. Instead of bashing them as he should've he began bashing his dad. WTF...But you're 100% right..you can't win at their game, once you start playing it, you will come to the illusion that it is impossible to destroy thus making it that much easier just to stay with it and enjoy the fruits of such evil.

By the way I disliked the title of the Article

If you truly love freedom you won't vote a negative add against the movement up!


If you love freedom, you'll do what you want.

I think this is a hit piece on Rand

Rand is our next guy in line to be president... I don't think we should see him as an outsider... I think this could be a ploy of the establishment to get us to have little or no faith in the freedom loving movement and that we should wait and see what Rand say's about this issue before we make a judgment... let's lay our opinions aside til the time comes to find out why... I'm sure he has a good reason.

Yup there are a number of

Yup there are a number of trolls here, watch out... I don't know why people would sign up just to post only negative comments about both Ron and Rand if they really are/were supporters of one or the other.

I take a "We shall see" attitude.

I believe he's a chess player. A "Michael Corleone", if you will. I've been around long enough to listen to a lot of complaining about Rand. And quite a few changes of heart. My attitude is - wait and see.

sharkhearted's picture

I throughly disagree

He, like his father, but for different reasons, is FAR from perfect. (But who is?)

However...I don't see the disappointment...at all.

Ron Paul still does it for me, though. But I am intrigued by the rather uncanny political skills of his son.

Now, for me, its all about Ron Paul...and will be into the forseable future.

But his son is making his own mark, no doubt.

Norfolk, VA

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Really, why was this brought up now?

Are you trying to help or hurt the campaign? I mean c'mon already.

Iran Sanctions

C'MON RAND. We aren't the policemen of the world. When did the world hold an election to make us their governing body?

The man loves his father and

The man loves his father and his father's ideas. Rand isn't a purist like Ron, but if Rand did become President I have no doubt in my mind that his goals would be to lower taxes, end the Fed, shrink the Federal government, enhance personal liberty, transparency, and bring our troops home. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Remember Bush 41 and Bush 43?


Senator Peter Schiff 2016


"Read my lips: no new taxes."

..he raised taxes.

"I don't want to nation-build."

...he built two.

Apple's damn close to the tree.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

the point is most of our focus is on the campaign right now

or at least it should be, some of these things should be given proper scrutiny, but not until rand's issue can have our full attention.. because if you want to question his character, it deserves a full discussion where both side has the full attention to make their case. right now isn't the time and therefore people who choose this timing seems either intellectually incompetent or intentionally/unintentionally being subversive.

I was not all that impressed

by some of his comments when speaking against the NDAA (at least he
did vote against it). He was talking mainly about the effectiveness of
existing law in prosecuting terrorists, especially the use of conspiracy
statutes - but there is tremendous abuse of conspiracy laws against
dissenters of all kinds - mainly, the government doesn't like someone and
can't prove they have engaged in any illegal *actions* so they resort to
conspiracy charges.

He was talking about what a high conviction rate the Feds have also, but
that by itself can just mean the outcome is predetermined by the system.
Russia, China, Thailand etc. all have high conviction rates - but do they have justice?

As far as that goes, I'm not impressed with how Rand appears to suck up
to the coal companies - although maybe that's a minority view here.


Some folks here sound like big tent Libertarians....

If Dr. Paul does not take the White house in 2012 he will be campaigning for Rand in 2016, can anyone deny that Rand would be far and away better than any die hard neo con? He is focused on liberty and economics and I was one of the first ones to bash him for his support of Mountain top removal in rural Kentucky, yet he won, and won big. Bottom line is he may have to sacrifice some principles to get in the White House to effect change, and if he goes of the rails and jumps on the neo con bandwagon it couldn't be any worse than it is today.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Rand supports Romney - nothing is worse

He constantly identifies himself as only Tea party and that it should not break away from establishment, while supporting Romney and not more Tea partiesh/conservative candidates.


I think you guys are assuming a lot...

...about Rand from very little information. I don't like the vote either, but that one vote doesn't define the guy. That one vote doesn't mean he is just some neocon war monger. I'm not giving the guy a free pass just because of his last name, but I've seen far more from Rand that I like, and that one crappy vote doesn't completely destroy him for me. I'd bet a large percent of Ron's supporters wouldn't have even thought about the negative effects of sanctions unless Ron talked about it so much, and if not for Ron, they wouldn't even think about it.
There are a few things even Ron comprimises on that I'm not all that stoked about, but nothing that destroys him in my eyes. We are all different people and Rand is obviously not Ron, but he is young, and I'd just say that one vote his first year in the Senate doesn't automatically mean he has abandoned his father's principles.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

For those who haven't read

For those who haven't read Rand's book yet, it is interesting to see where he is coming from. It does reveal a lot about how he thinks.

Compromise one vote

And you compromise 100% of the principle.

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.