28 votes

My Disconnect with Rand Paul

One does suppose that in the end, most things in life are one's personal interpretation; however, there seems to be a widening disconnect between my understanding of what is and what is not constitutional when juxtaposed against the Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul's "Liberty-Lite" view.

The most recent case in point, Senator Paul's statement following his interview regarding the use of domestic drones:

Sen. Paul (R-KY) said:
"Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind."

source:U.S. Senator Rand Paul's Website

Really, Senator Paul, "constitutional protections" were appropriately preserved during the search for the Boston Marathon Bomber?

  • No vehicle Traffic allowed in or out
  • Persons sequestered in homes
  • Door to Door warrantless searches
  • Columns of Heavily Armed soldier-like police
  • tank-like vehicles rolling down the streets of America

To me all the above add up to what is in effect, Martial Law. Sure officials can call it a "Public Safety Lock Down,” but as they say a rose by any other name...

It remains my hope that perhaps with age, Senator Paul will see the obvious hypocrisy in his political philosophy and move towards the clear unyielding dedication as displayed by Dr. Ron Paul, although it does grow more and more difficult as we witness his "go-along-to-get-along" attitude.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

This statement is ambiguous.

I am one of Rand's biggest critics here on DailyPaul, but I'm not jumping to any conclusions.

The way the statement is worded could mean either:

A. Boston demonstrated that we need to be more protective of our consitutional rights when fighting "terrorism".


B. Boston demonstrated that the police work was consistent with protecting constitutional rights.

I think it is more likely that he means A.

But, I will say one thing for sure.

Anyone here who thinks he means B and approves of it because they think Rand is "playing the game", is hopelessly lost.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

He's playing politics. Its

He's playing politics. Its political suicide to criticize the boston police after that event.

Rand is on our side. Relax

Ron Paul said that they agree on 99% of the issues and that there is an effort to make a divide between them too which is untrue.

Speaking as someone who

Speaking as someone who critisized them, I can attest to that...

Let Rand play his game

He's clearly winning people over and making many think for themselves for once. I've never seen so many on the left agree with a GOP senator like when he staged his drone filibuster.

Rand makes sense to people on a lot of issues. Would he have the same success rate if he appeared strictly as a libertarian? absolutely not.

The recent remarks by Reid that the GOP Senate is being overrun by the tea party, referring to Cruz & Paul, tells me these two are doing something right.

The first thing that comes to

The first thing that comes to mind when I see posts like this is; I Love Senator Rand Paul.


This post is a perfect example of the rash, devoid of logic or reasoning type thinking that drives the anti-Rand movement. You wrote this entire post around something he said that YOU completely misinterpreted! It WAS demonstrated in Boston that it is important for us to maintain Constitutional protection. It was a BRILLIANT demonstration in fact. It showed us exactly why that is the case.

Downvote me all you want.

Downvote me all you want. You're being intellectually dishonest. It is obvious what Rand meant. You are bitching about semantics because you've run out of reasons to dislike Rand and you don't want to change your minds after all the kicking and screaming you've done about him.

Reasons???? You still need REASONS??

Forgot last spring already??? Oh right, that backstabbing treason was "strategy".


I addressed this yesterday on my radio show, and I got tons of hate mail. No politician is perfect, we have to call them out, or who will?

Hopefully someone who

Hopefully someone who understands the English language enough to realize that Rand clearly and obviously meant the exact opposite of what the OP thinks he meant.

What I like about Rand is he

What I like about Rand is he talks to the Liberty folks. Every time there is controversy, he addresses us and explains his position. He's kept an open dialogue with us every step of the way. He answers All of our squawking and squabbling. I've not seen this from any other politician. They answer to nobody.

Big of him

to do that before he plays ball with the Neocons when it counts. Not impressed. He gave lots of pretty speeches before he endorsed Rombama, too. Talk=cheap.

My 2 cents.

Hi. My thoughts. We will not get a "Ron Paul" in the Whitehouse in 2016. Not going to happen. But Rand would be a giant step in the right direction. He also has a chance. If we don't band together in 2016, our votes will be divided and we will have Hillary for 8 years. Can you imagine Hillary for 8 whole years? Rand is by far the best "lesser" we've seen in...probably since Reagan (if not better). He brings good issues to the table. Perhaps if elected, the issues he brings to the table could open more eyes. Then perhaps by 2024 America will be ready for a real change. And if elected, we can keep focusing on putting good people in the senate. Trust me...he is a step in the right direction.

I stand with Rand 2016!

You stand with idiots then it would seem

Nobody cares who you "Stand with". If you truly and honestly wake up and look into the mirror and believe that your visit to the ballot in 2016 will do SHIT to stop foreign wars of aggression, loss of civil liberties, and a magical revival of state's rights then you're full of it.

Judging from your threats of "Hillary for 8 whole years", "best "lesser" we've seen" and "Trust me", I can only assume you are a statist shill.

You should be ashamed of yourself, I really do mean that.

“Facts don’t cease to exist because they are ignored.” – Aldous Huxley

You obviously are too

lucid and logical for this gang of delusional semi-Neocons who now have taken over the DP. I can't believe it. The last election was STOLEN, Ron probably threatened, ballots ignored and discarded, voting machines (!just the idea of computerized voting machines is mind bogglingly ridiculous, why not just hand over blank ballots?), delegates beaten and kidnapped. And STILL people (probably plants) are plotting how they are "taking over" the GOP with (LOL!!) with turncoat Neocon RAND and are "going to win in 2016". WTH??? What planet are these people on? The GOP is DONE. They will never win another election, they have demonstrated they will only run RINOS selected and approved by the leftist, zionist media and openly exists only to provide the illusion of opposition for the collectivist ruling class that afflicts us.

Then go vote for Nancy Pelosi

Then go vote for Nancy Pelosi and Diane Frankenstein bitch.

Better yet...why not divide

Better yet...why not divide our votes into different 3rd parties and indirectly elect Hillary for 8 years. Yay Hillary! Cause that's what's going to happen. Can't wait. This shits gonna be awesome. (Roll eyes).

Fallacious argument


I share your concerns about constitutional protections, but you seem to be twisting Rand Paul's words. Where does he say that "'constitutional protections' were appropriately preserved?"

You're reading "This was demonstrated" as an endorsement of the bullet points you provide. But it is not. Use the same grammatical structure in another way.

Example: Let's say your favorite baseball team loses a game. They start off behind 8-0 because the starting pitcher has a terrible outing. They rally, but still lose by a final score of 8-7. After the game, the coach is interviewed by the media. He says "Winning baseball games requires us to have solid starting pitching. This was demonstrated tonight." Is that an endorsement of the pitching? No. It's an observation.

I can see how one might read more into Rand Paul's statement than meets the eye. But one can also do an alternate reading. I'm sure Rand Paul is aware of the civil liberties fiasco that took place. "This was demonstrated" could be seen as a subtle jab.

Yes, Rand Paul is playing the "go-along-to-get-along" game. Yes, it is frustrating at times. Yes, there are times you want him to say/do more. And even a pragmatic, strategically oriented person like me has a soft spot for the candor of his father. But we should take the long view here. If you really think Rand Paul is selling out, don't support him. I'll understand. But let's not read too much into ambiguous statements.

YES, Kozmodave, MANY GOOD POINTS in Your Comments Below!

I Did VOTE for RON PAUL in the LAST ELECTION! I VOTED for RON for the Same Reasons mentioned in Your Comments Below! He "IS EXCEPTIONAL" & has been Very Consistent in following Libertarian Principles. There is NO WAY I could VOTE for the Republican Candidate, who was just the SAME OLD VERSION of what we had in the PAST, that was NOT Good FOR OUR COUNTRY. From the COMMENTS of those around me, that were REPUBLICAN, I came to Understand that THEY were VOTING for the "Best of the EVILS Presented on the BALLOT"! They thought if they VOTED FOR ROMNEY, OBAMA would NOT Win!

SO if RAND PAUL, who is Acting Like a Neocon, is the Candidate, he will be in the "Same Position" ROMNEY was in, and we will still NOT have a WINNER! He would Still be ONLY the "Best of the EVILS" Presented on the Ballot. Since the People will be "Awakened to the Nation's Troubles", We do not NEED ANYONE that will "COMPROMISE THEIR PRINCIPLES" on the BALLOT NEXT TIME".

Hopefully, that will be SEEN by the Time we get to the NEXT ELECTION! I do think RON PAUL will Assist or be PART OF the Next ELECTION, in some way. That will be a CONSISTANT Move on his Part. for the Libertarian Cause.

I don't fault anyone for supporting Rand...

in an upcoming election. He is, undoubtedly, the lesser of evils at this point. HOWEVER... Did anyone here seriously support Dr. Paul just because you thought he would get the nomination? Really? Or did you support him because he was exceptional, untarnished, practically (from a libertarian perspective) without fault, and probably the greatest/most consistent patriot our nation has ever seen, including Thomas Jefferson?

Downvote me. I don't give two hoots. I'm not saying I won't vote for Rand if it's between him and, say, Hillary in 2016. But I'm not blindly supporting him just because he's got a few good points. I posted once that Rand supported sanctions against Iran (if I remember correctly). Someone replied that it doesn't matter, since most other countries don't follow U.S. sanctions anyway. But this misses the point entirely. Sanctions are an act of war, an act of aggression, which goes directly against the single founding principle of libertarianism. This is just one example. And I'll say it again: NO ONE in history has EVER spouted party lines to get their foot in the door and then, when they gain power, turned that power back over to the people. EVER.

Rand is beyond the lesser of 2 evils

He's been the leading voice of liberty on damn near every piece of anti-liberty legislation emanating from capitol hill. People who are inclined to naturally find fault in people will harken back to his vote on Iran sanctions and then they totally disregard his explanation for it: he wanted the preemptive strike language stricken from the sanction and thus supported a significantly watered down version to keep the former from happening. That was a strategy that weakened a pro-war article and it worked and he should be saluted for minimizing the danger of a new war. Too many people on DP have bought stock in Rand being the apple that fell too far from the tree that they refuse to acknowledge the great things he's doing all across the political spectrum. And, I'm not necessarily aiming this at you.

It's a lot easier

being a "leading voice" talking cheap than standing by principles and sticking by the REAL liberty candidate AND your own father. I would not trust RAND Paul any further than I could throw him. He screwed over his own father, think he gives a crap about you?

You can't die on every hill.

You can't die on every hill. Rand has added much to the conversation and boosted his standing. Why not save the constant attacks for real enemies of freedom instead of incessantly whining about whether Rand is pure enough?


No but apparently you can die by drone if you rob a liquor store, without trial.

Police already can use force against armed individuals

Rand's filibuster was about targeted killing/imminent threat/terrorism by the Federal government.

You know this already, and are just misrepresenting his remarks.

If a cop kills an armed suspect with a gun, or a drone that suspect ain't gettin a trial either way.

So are you saying anytime a "suspect" is "armed" they can be


That is the whole point. The point is not how. The point is when.

Rand said: "If someone is coming out of a liquor store with a gun and $50 dollars I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

Then he goes on Hannity last night and defends his words saying they were in the context of his filibuster a month earlier. That does not work. Words go in the context of their current setting. Am I allowed to say whatever I want, and then say, well, that is in context of my earlier words…a week ago, and month ago, a year ago?

If Rand would show a little humility and say, you know, I misspoke. I did not set my context well for my words. What I was meaning was “When someone is shooting their way out of a liquor store..." I didn’t mean to say “When someone is coming out of a liquor store with a gun and $50…”

Rand needs to be careful with his words. He needs to say what he means and mean what he says. He was speaking before a FOX audience and said the wrong thing.

I think I would like Rand to be my President. I know I would like to know that.


I also would like to point

I also would like to point out...and this is my opinion but I would imagine the drones that Rand speaks of are the little zippy ones that are currently being used by many local police departments and DNR. I'm pretty sure it's not the big ones with missiles that we fly over in the ME and use to drop hellfire missiles on the brown skins.


Rand is talking about drones that can KILL people...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Thank you for bringing that up!

I am so fixated on drones used abroad with hellfire missiles that I need to set my own context of what a drone can include. Thank you for the heads up on the nano drones.

The police are allowed to shoot armed criminals

That has always been the case. If they start shooting them with a drone instead of a gun, I could care less. As long as there is no 'collateral damage'.

You are right about Rand, he'd better be DAMN careful how he puts things, because you better believe the left and right wing media are gunning for him.