45 votes

Rand Paul...

Is he identical to his father? Of course not. Is he our best chance of putting a liberty minded candidate into the white house? Your damn straight he is. Now I know everyone has differing opinions of the man and that's understandable, but to go out of your way to demonize and shun the man is most definitely not the answer either. Now theres some people who look at Ron's support for Rand as something any father would do for their son, but that's also like saying that if Rands views were identical to say Bush or Barack that Ron wouldn't be a traitor for supporting him simply because it's his son. Now I ask you this... Do you think Ron would jeopardize the entire liberty movement by endorsing and helping his son if he were in fact a neocon just like the rest of the establishment republicans? I for one would like to give Dr. Paul much more credit than that, I mean he's the godfather of liberty for christ sakes. I said this in a comment to another post but I think we should trust in Ron that his son Rand is on our side rather than throw away the only chance we have at the moment of taking over the GOP or all of America for that matter.

Both Ron and his son realize that in order to take libertarianism to the mainstream we must change things from within. He's one of the only people we have that can actually make it. Just because he supports Israel does not mean he's their puppet. Rand is the trojan horse we've needed to take our movement to the next level. We can't all agree with one another on everything, hell even Gary Johnson for example has many views that differ from Ron Paul. I'd still rather have someone like Rand in office who supports Israel but is still fighting things like the NDAA, TSA, Patriot Act and supporting other constitutional principles such as the 2nd amendment over all our other options. If you take a hard look at what Rand is doing the only reason he went to Israel was to gain support from groups that are necessary to win the presidency. He may be saying that he wants to gradually end foreign aid but at least he actually wants to end it unlike all our other options. Even Ron Paul had to tone down his ideas of ending the FED by compromising and saying he only wanted to audit the FED. I know we're all unwavering in our beliefs and that's good thing but at the same time I think we all need to look at the bigger picture here... thats just my opinion.

In Liberty,
LW



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Added to this, Rand didn't

Added to this, Rand didn't lift a finger for his dad at the crucial state conventions before this endorsement (made on the show of a man who had smeared Ron as a racist).

he will surely milk the liberty movement

as much as he can. it's sad to see some who supported his dad so easily hoodwinked.

you won't see him drawing cheering college crowds. those kids get it.

He probably won't homogenize

for fear of reprisal from the "conservative" right, and the feds (or apparently the State of Missouri?!) will come take whatever he gets.

In order for Rand to end the

In order for Rand to end the patriot act, ndaa, stop foriegn aid., balance the budget, protect the 2nd amendment, and do all the things we want, he first has to get elected. No one will get elected president in this country unless they pledge to support and protect Israel. That is just the reality of our world. Hillary is going to be Hard to beat. Ask yourself this. Would you rather have Rand or Hillary as president.

Correction

Rand Paul didn't pledge to protect Israel.

He said an attack on Israel should be construed as an attack on the U.S.

I know that sounds the same but it's not.

Rand Paul ALSO says a president can't take foreign military action without congressional authority. Following the Constitution in other words.

So if Israel WERE attacked where President Obama or Bush might unilaterally take military action Rand Paul would not. So Rand Paul saying that statement should be viewed only as political rhetoric, words which mean little or nothing.

He also said that Israel need

He also said that Israel need not call him if bombs rained in on the Gaza. Meaning Israel can defend themselves. So perhaps what rand was saying when he said that we stand with Israel is that we stand with them should they need to defend themselves.

good point. I think Rand

good point. I think Rand would make a fine president.

One question...

If Rand announces his run for the presidency and his father Ron Paul decides to endorse him and campaign on his behalf, would you still trust Ron or would that make him a traitor too??

Notice how they don't

Notice how they don't actually answer the question. Ever.

They know Ron's going to endorse Rand in 2016....

...but they can't admit it. It would shatter their world-view. It's going to be entertaining here at the DP when that happens.

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

A Ron Paul Endorsement of Rand

would not increase my opinion of Rand, but would lower my opinion of Ron. If Ron had endorsed McCain or Romney, I would not have voted for either of them.

AD in NV

But...but...but...

...it can't be that simple of an assessment, can it?

Don't 'we' have to account for the 'Paul' name, the 'Paul' genes, the 'Paul' legacy and for he adoring mishmash of disgruntled leftists, GOPers and sheeple-esque followers of Dr. Paul who make up this 'liberty-movement'?

Well, don't we?

On a serous note, very well put. Blunt direct and brutally simple, just as all such assessments should be.

It is what it is.

SteveMT's picture

Look at what just hapened this past year.

To paraphrase what you just said with the names reversed:

If Ron announces his run for the presidency and his son Rand Paul decides not to endorse him and not campaign on his behalf, would you still trust Rand or would that make him a traitor?

Sorry, that I'm still in this rut about Ron Paul deserving the support on his own son after nearly 30 years in public office in his last campaign for the presidency. It was the least that Rand could have done, IMO. This is just a phase that I'm going through; it'll take about 20 more years.

Please

If my memory serves me correctly

Rand did support his father until the RP campaign officially announced that there was no way Ron could win . You guys go around acting as if he never did support his father and that is a lie and i don't like liars. Rand supported his father until the numbers CLEARLY said he could not win and the Paul campaign basically ended for the most part...but you know that already and yet you post as if Rand never supported his father. If your going to tell a story then tell the whole story, otherwise its just a make believe fairy tale....

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams

It was a strategy that

It was a strategy that appears to be working. He is infiltrating. It's no different than delegates that claimed to support other candidates to get to Tampa. At least that's what I tell myself so it doesn't upset me.

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. - Matthew 10:16

Listen to Rand!

Rand said: "Well absolutely, we stand with Israel, but what I think we should do is announce to the world, and i think it is well-known, that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States."

If Ron endorses his son for any new political office, or for re-election in his current office, then Ron will lose my respect, and my support, entirely.

moneybag, Rand stated a fact.

moneybag, Rand stated a fact. As long as we are "allies" with Israel, what he said is absolutely true. He never says that is his *personal* view or a view that he thinks should be permanent. We are so far away from being a country with no alliances, surely you can admit that. It would be damaging and unnecessary for Rand to come out and alienate potential supporters by making some wild statement about how we shouldn't be allies with Israel. We shouldn't get so caught up nitpicking statements like this. Give the benefit of the doubt. If there's a rational explanation of Rand's statements, why not assume those instead of the worst? He's said that he wants to cut foreign aid to everyone, including Israel - it just needs to be prioritized. He's also come out just recently re-affirming his non-aggressive foreign policy. You can't make him a neocon over this.

Let's take a closer look

PAUL: "Well absolutely, we stand with Israel, but what I think we should do is announce to the world, and i think it is well-known, that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States."

I'm sorry, anti-fairtax, but he DID say "what I think we should do is announce to the world". He is affirming this cause as his own, it is clear cut.

I think he meant a nuclear

I think he meant a nuclear attack, which would effect the world.

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. - Matthew 10:16

Yep. He was. His staff

Yep. He was. His staff clarified it today.

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. - Matthew 10:16

Yes, *as long as Israel is an

Yes, *as long as Israel is an ally!* I'm sure he'd say the exact same thing if asked about any other ally-nation. His use of "I think" in this case is not indicative of his personal view. He never says, "I think we should announce to the world that Israel will always be an ally of America and that we will ALWAYS defend Israel with aid at all costs, absolutely, no questions asked." That goes against EVERYTHING else Rand has said previously (and currently!) These types of word games are great opportunities to appeal to the Republican base to bring them over to our side and perhaps get a Paul in the White House. As in religion, you don't convert people by alienating them with "shock-value" statements.. it only makes people mad.

The problem with your argument...

Is that the United States has no formal alliance, or pact, with Israel. We are NOT obliged to go to their aid.

anti-fairtax, Rand has said something that does go against everything he has previously said, if you ignore the whole sanctions thing. Rand has betrayed the people of Kentucky, and lost his innocence in the process. He has declared himself a neoconservative, by publicly avowing their prime tenant; Israel first.

Us supposed "puritans" can do nothing but keep telling you Randites the truth until, hopefully, you snap out of it, and realize what has transpired.

Of course there is no legal

Of course there is no legal alliance; unfortunately not everything that is reality has its formal counterpart. Right or wrong the US has *practically speaking* entered into alliances with several nations. That's the tradition that has been handed down, and it'll be awhile before its changed. Alliances are a form of aid, which Rand has said he wants to eliminate- including for Israel! He also says he wants the GOP to be noninterventionist - yes, even with regard to Israel! So unless you can demonstrate how Rand has flipped flopped on this issue or has purposefully deceived us, I think you are overreacting. All he's said is that aid cuts should be prioritized, obviously Israel wouldn't be first on the list. To make him out as a Bachman-Santorum, Zionist, "Israel-firster" is extreme.

How can you so easily throw

How can you so easily throw off the fact that there is no legal alliance? What about NATO, what about ANZUS? Those are REAL alliances. "Alliance" has legal meaning, and it doesn't apply to Israel. There is even an official designation Israel would fit under if it were an ally: "Major non-NATO ally".

Look for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally

Are we not a nation of laws? He wasn't stating fact, he was stating fiction... neoconservative fiction.

moneybag, I'm not throwing

moneybag, I'm not throwing away the fact that there is no "legal" alliance. I acknowledged that there isn't. You are absolutely correct in all that you say regarding NATO, etc. My point is that whether or not it's solidified in legality, it's still a reality. Kinda like how there is no "law" that demands we pay an income tax... but guess what? We still have to pay it or else face fines, imprisonment or death! Perhaps we can categorize them as "oral laws" or "informal laws" or "laws of tradition" - take your pick. (An analogy: take an unmarried couple who have been living together for 3 years and have a child. There's no legal document binding them together, but they still have a responsibility to each other. With or without the legality, we wouldn't say it's OK for the father to just abandon the mother and child - unless you were a Rothbardian anarchist, of course).

The point is that Rand has not said anything very controversial here, and you have not demonstrated how he has flip-flopped on this issue. Even if he had, we aren't looking for political popes. Rand is still someone we can rally behind even if you think he has flaws.

You have just flown off the

You have just flown off the reservation. You should consider leaving the US.

I love Ron..

but I will judge Rand on his own merits...

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

and

Ron will not ? So who should i trust, you or Ron ? :)

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams