21 votes

Rand Paul "Room in the Party for those who believe in bigger government"

On Sunday, Fox News host John Roberts asked Rand Paul if he wanted to try to defuse the situation.

“What I would say is the party’s big enough for both of us,” the Kentucky Republican replied. “This all started with him saying, we don’t have room for libertarian Republicans. The thing is, that’s how we grow our party.”

“But, again, do you agree with your father when he says Gov. Christie offers nothing?” Roberts pressed.

“What I would say is there’s room for people who believe in bigger government in our party,” Rand Paul insisted. “Some of the things he seems to have promoted makes us believe that, well, he thinks there’s a lot more spending that can go on. I think that national defense is a priority for our country. The only way we have enough money for national defense is actually to be very, very frugal with other spending. And that is a valid disagreement we have.”

Read more at:-

A better segment from the same interview this morning:-

On “Fox News Sunday” this weekend, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul said President Barack Obama’s proposed measures for handling the NSA data collection scandal were insufficient and called for the agency’s powers to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/18/rand-paul-calls-on-supreme...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

This is where you need to grow up

Just because he says that there is room for them DOES NOT mean he believes in bigger government.

You need to be smarter than that.

Its a tension that you need to get used to. You invite those people in so that you can convince them over time why bigger government is not the answer. How will they ever know or change if they don't get to rub elbows with people that can help them change wrong views of government.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

ConstitutionHugger's picture

He's talking to people who suffer from the John Wayne mentality

in this country. He's speaking to the hypnotized masses. Give him a break, of course he's going to sound crazy to us. Just get f-ing elected, Rand!

Denise B's picture

I have no problem

at all with what Rand said, in fact I think it was brilliantly worded! In one short statement he successfully branded Christie as a "big government" guy while ingratiating himself with people who might be inclined to support someone like Christie and then craftily clarified his big government statement as including a strong national defense (which happens to be one of the few areas that the feds do have Constitutional authority) and then went on to state that there were many areas that needed to be cut (which I believe he is referring to all of the unconstitutional stuff) in order to ensure a strong national defense. I think Rand is playing a chess game and doing so quite well! Keep it up Rand, you have my support!


After Christie says there's no room for small government people, Rand turned it around on him saying that there IS room for even a big government guy like Christie. Ha, that's awesome.

Rand continues to impress me. I'm thrilled with the handful of Senators and Congressmen who are pushing back against these big government creeps. Every day you can find at least one of them out front and interacting with the public.


It makes big government Christie look like the outsider - that limited government is the norm - that Ron or Rand Paul is norm... that's how I see it.

True Colors, Shining Through

“What I would say is there’s room for people who believe in bigger government in our party,” Rand Paul insisted.

Let me repeat this (for those who cannot grasp this statement):

“What I would say is there’s room for people who believe in bigger government in our party,” Rand Paul insisted.



*Chuckle* Forgive me good sir

but you have completely and utterly missed the point of his comment.

What he's doing is called "Damning with faint praise".

In saying there's room for a "big government" person like Christie in the party, he knows damn well that every Fox viewer who accepts that labeling will want nothing to do with Christie.

Phht. Please

The post right above yours sums it up pretty well. Read that if you didn't catch on to what Rand just did.

This headline on the OP is another blatant drama headlines to get attention.

Have issues with context much?

I think it's

you that don't understand.

Rand Paul can't govern by himself. No true libertarian can. Taking a strictly constitutional position means you allow more responsibility for local state governments, and less federal intervention. So it doesn't matter if Rand Paul makes such statements. He's a great political thinker that understands how to build a winning platform. At the same time he's not the type to abuse power once he has it.

Whatever gaps a president doesn't fill we the people need to insist on from our government. That's how it's supposed to work.

You Are CORRECT...,In A Sense.

I do not allow other people to govern me, least of all, those whose moral compass is proven to be in error.
These people in OUR 'government' are taking on the roles of 'PUBLIC SERVANTS'.
I DO NOT reach out to those who wish totalitarian rule over ME to write LAWS and invoke SECRET COURT DECISIONS and ARREST ME (and US) in the dead of night WITHOUT GUARANTEED DUE PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Is there some issue about that which I DO NOT UNDERSTAND?


I agree with your point

But I think Rand is playing politics to a Foxnews crowd.

I personally don't think this party is "big enough for the both of us".

But I definitely understand that right now, for the time being, it is going to have to be.

Christie is an idiot. Not only for his policies, but the fact he thinks the party can survive without keeping, and bringing in more people.

Rand Paul understands that, and the fact that it is simply going to take more time to educate people about the principles of liberty and the constitution. Rand is having great success in that area, and everything is telling him he should continue to play the establishment, as he has been.

Christie is a statist infiltrator, hoping to marginalize conservatives by marginalizing the GOP. The GOP used to be the party of Pat Buchanon and Ronald Reagan. Now it is the party of Lindsey Graham and John McCain. The commie infiltrators have been very successful (see Yuri Bezmenov, if you don't think communism has anything to do with it).

It is going to take a steady waking up of conservatives, to take back the GOP. And right now, I think Rand is trying t quell the in fighting, and be the "mature one". He only helps himself win over 'moderates', appearing on fox, and being nice to them.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

ConstitutionHugger's picture

Can I just add

that when Rand says there's room in the party for (fill in the blank), he's really saying; "I'll take your vote, your vote, and your vote too. Thank you."

I actually like this

I actually like this statement from Rand.

Once you are elected, you have a duty and obligation to work with your other Congressmen. Those Congressmen from across the aile, your party or not, were elected just as you were. Other viewpoints and ideals exist, and that is reflected in the makeup of Congress.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a


You have a duty AND obligation to UPHOLD, PROTECT, and DEFEND the CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES, NOT 'go along to get along'.
YOU like it, so YOU need to move to a different nation. YOU will like France in the winter, or Greece in the spring.
YOU do not represent the sentiments of THIS nation, who are FED UP with 'concessions' with 'THOSE ACROSS THE AISLE'.

The next flight leaves out of JFK at 11:30. BE ON IT!



We would all appreciate it if your duties and obligations grew to less use of the caps lock key.

Eric Hoffer

Since the dawn of this

Since the dawn of this country, there have been disagreements in regards to the Constitution.

If Rand Paul is so arrogant to think that his view of the Constitution is perfect, then there is no helping him. Ultimately, that constituents of other elected officials keep on voting those people to their seats is an affirmation of said officials' views on the Constitution. Hell, even amongst the "conservartive" Republican party, people like Ron, Rand, Woods, and Napolitano have significant disagreements in regards to Constitutional policy.

Look at Obamacare. It has passed Congress, the Judicial Branch, and the Executive Branch. It was essentially voted on by the people again in 2012 and they put Obama back in charge. Yet, Rand Paul and the House constantly tries to prevent its enactment. At what point are you simply being obstructionist to the will of the American people?

I don't like it, you don't like it. But ultimately, it has passed every test conceivable to be made law. The proper thing to do would be to let it pass, and when it fails, hold it up as an example so we never do something like that again.

Regarding concessions:

Yes, because approximately 2% of this nation holds views similar to Rand Paul. So of course he's going to be conceding things. If he holds the nation hostage so that whatever small minority of people get what they want, then he's going against the intended purpose of government.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I was skeptical at first, but

I was skeptical at first, but all your capital letters convinced me. That is more capital letters than anyone else used.


I didn't see this before I commented.


Eric Hoffer

There's plenty of room for wolves

in sheep's clothing too, isnt there, Rand Who?

also seems to be plenty of

also seems to be plenty of room for statists who believe state rights trump individual rights.

Individual rights OVER state rights.

Ron Paul 2016


Frequently show up here, I see.
Simple answer for you:
Establish a NEW state where the LAWS written will satisfy YOU.
In the meantime, I will stick with my chosen State of residence, and WE will petition the FEDERAL government for redress of grievences, INDIVIDUALLY. Hey, we can also do this on a Statewide level, too!

BETTER IDEA for you, anarchist:
Try writing a BETTER Constitution, and get people to go along with it.


Kind of stupid

to tell anarchists to start their own state and write a constitution, don't you think? That would kind of make them minarchists.

The Constitution failed miserably, btw.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


Like murder perhaps?

Like murder perhaps?

The right of the state must trump the right of the individual where appropriate. The key word is appropriate which implies strict limitations.


The state has no rights.

And who decides when the state's delegated powers may trump individual liberties? The state, as is always the case? Oh, wait, a constitution? Power corrupts, and the corrupt won't look at a piece of paper and say "Darn! Can't do it!"

They'll look right through it instead.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.



Apparently, you trashed your copy of the U.S. Constitution before actually reading it.

Your twisted view of reality will never rule in my county! You anarchists need your own little island somewhere near the Bering Strait. Whew!

I Love The Way He Turns The Argument on It's Head

He used their wording to show how the big-govt Republicans represent a tiny minority of the party. Then, because Rand is so beneficent, he is willing to allow those (fringe) elements a place in the party. Brilliant. "I suppose we, in the conservative-majority (tea-party/liberty crowd), can afford to share a little power with those whacko-liberals, so long as it is they who compromise on principles, and not us."

If he said there was no room...

If Rand had said there was no room in the party for Republicans like Christie, he would probably have been accused of making a fat joke.


There's room on the bus for the NJ Ralph Kramden wannabe

but he's not gonna be driving.

A Definite 'Plus One'!

Deflecting the story (and related comments) is a wonderful way to change the argument, and turn it into a meaningless charade. Your masters teach you well!
NEXT UP: Fukushima spews radiation into the Pacific, and YOU talk about how the FDA states that it is 'SAFE'! Post some pics of tuna, and the Canadian version of the FDA stating that there is NO, REAL, NEED, FOR MONITORING (making a joke about how we all grew up with 'Charlie Tuna', and how FAT he is!).
GEEZE! Most people here have NO IDEA about Jackie Gleason, or the 'Honeymooners', or his character, NYC bus driver 'Ralph Kramden', married to his wife 'Alice' (played by Jane Meadows)! If they do, it's NOT from actually WATCHING the show!


I could explain the concepts of allusion and metaphor

but it would bore the many, and educate the few (or the one).