123 votes

Rand Paul is One Sly, Cheeky, Son-of-a-Gun

Today was revealing for the Senator from Kentucky. After the scandal in New Jersey and the Robert Gates revelations, Rand Paul looks to be skating through these political waters like Chazz Michael Michaels.

President Obama basically steals Rand's Economic Freedom Zones idea and calls them "Promise Zones." But you know what Rand does? He embraces the idea of lower taxes and shows up at the President's speech, showing his ability to work beyond partisan lines. He even finds a way to drag McConnell along, symbolizing how Rand is dragging the Old Guard over to the libertarian way of thinking.

But the cheekiest and most revealing of his status toward presidential primary aspirations came when reporters ambushed him on his walk through the National Mall--highlighting his relevance in all things with aspirations. When asked about Christie's plight Rand coyly responded, "You know I am always angry when I get stuck in traffic. Now, I know who to blame." This is the perfect response to someone he has had feuds with in the past not to kick them too hard when they are down, but just wink and wave from his perch.

Rand is treading these waters carefully, and yet with a greater yield in his canoe than anyone in recent memory. He is making all the right calls and the dominoes are falling in place for him as these corrupt power players all around him are falling one by one. Let the Democrats and Republicans fight each other in the midterm while Rand in this electoral theater will display his relevance in orchestrating the dual nature of libertarian ideology by working with both sides of the aisle. I don't think there is a better man to put our trust in than him. I don't think I could stand to follow the political aspirations of any other man, not even Ron because he is so pure--we know what he is.

Rand on the other hand is one interesting, sly, cheeky, winking-at-us, son-of-a-gun.

Comment viewing options

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

If Rand sticks to the economy, he has a great shot

Talking about:

-Balanced budget (families have to balance their budget, so should the government)
-Fully auditing the government, cutting and eliminating waste
-Approving Keystone pipeline (jobs, energy security)
-Increasing refining capacity (jobs, energy security)
-Tax marijuana sales
-Lower income tax for middle class families specifically
-Hammer out agreement with Russia and Canada over arctic land and maritime disputes (to avoid UN interference and spur growth in the region)

As long as he doesn't pull a Romney and start talking about Benghazi or other crap he'll be ok.

Rand has already said what needed to be said.

I agree, but...

...stupid crap like Benghazi sells. The average voter can sink his teeth into scandals and the like because they require no knowledge to understand. Every idiot and his brother can join Rand (or whoever) in railing against Hillary, only a handful will grasp his economic policies. So, don't be too disappointed when Rand brings up Benghazi-like trivial issues (he will continue to do so from time to time). He's trying to win, and stupid people vote too.

I'm just going to say that again: stupid people vote too.

(perhaps the key political insight)

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

Though I like much of what Rand is doing, he panders too much

for campaign contributions from Silicon Valley. In March 2013 Sen. Paul announced his support for greatly increasing high tech immigration just before going to Silicon Valley to raise campaign funds. Since 1999 when the NASDAQ bubble burst, the high tech sector in the U.S. has had a severe shortage of jobs NOT a shortage of highly qualified people. In the 5 years from 2000 to 2005, there were more than 400,000 high tech visas issued while only 70,000 net new engineering and architecture jobs were created in the U.S. Per the Bureau of Labor Studies data, in 2010 there were 100,100 unemployed engineers actively looking for engineering jobs and another 244,000 engineer not in the engineering work force which has a total of ~ 1.5 million people in the U.S. Also, a detailed study of the high tech sector by the Economic Policy Institute found that only 54% of 2009 engineering graduates had a job in their field of study 1 year after graduating. As an unemployed engineer, I still consistently receive feedback from companies that they have hundreds of qualified applicants for every posted engineering position. I've been a Ron Paul supporter since 2007, but Rand's support of greatly increasing high tech immigration is a deal breaker for me. Note: Ron Paul consistently voted against increasing the number of high tech visas citing the widespread abuse of these visas by corporations.


How the hell

do you think people get elected?

Geez some of you people have your heads in the sand. If you can't somewhat play the game then take your ball and go home and watch your country go down in flames.

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

Supporting less legal restrictions

on immigration is not "pandering," it is libertarian and pro free market. I'm all with Rand on this one, and I am NOT a Rand worshiper by any means.

It is panderiing

when you take a position to bring more engineers into the country when there is a glut of highly qualified American engineers that can't find a job. The job market for engineers has been terrible since the crash of the NASDAQ in 1999 despite the tripe that is reported in the headlines. Rand is playing right into the hands of the coporatists instead of representing the best interests of the country. Ron Paul consistently voted against increasing high tech visas when he was in Congress because of the rampant abuse of these visas by corporations.


No one, not even an American citizen,

has a "right to a job," or, for that matter, a "right" to anything that must be provided by another. I am one of those engineers who is severely underemployed at the moment, living at about 1.5 times the official poverty level. But just as I don't use politics to promote my narrow self interest, I believe in being principled on the issue of the free market. Only a principled position can remove the REAL impediments to economic growth, and those aren't the immigrants you are scapegoating, they are big government laws, regulations, taxes, and inflation, i.e. the opposite of a free market. Every honest person's interest, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality or religious affiliation, is benefited by consistently promoting liberty. If we are to oppose socialism, we must oppose it on every issue, including the big government, socialistic, fascistic, anti free market policy of legal limits on peaceful immigration.

The problem is we don't have a free market,

and it is asinine to implement free market policies that hurt those on the bottom before addressing the HUGE issues of corporate welfare, corporatized trade treaties, unnecessary regulations especially those that create artificial monopolies for the biggest campaign donors, etc. Also, there is currently not a free market to defend concerning the high tech job market. Those who come here on high tech visas are given an advantage over an American in that they are allowed to be hired for 29 months at sub-prevailing wages while they are doing on the job training. Foreigners who come to the U.S. to study at the graduate level (master's and PhD)are also given an unfair advantage in that the contracts of granted by the various federal agencies that fund much of the research in our universities incentivize our tax-payer funded universities to preferentially recruit foreign students by the way tuition is reimbursed. And it is no chump change we are talking about... the University of California system made an estimated additional $50 million in 2010 by having foreign graduate students doing government funded research over what they would have made if only in-state students were doing the research. The deck is stacked heavily against highly qualified Americans because the big money shovelers funding political campaigns have gotten what they have lobbied for.

I'm all for a free market, but there needs to be a level playing field for American engineers BEFORE we allow the job market to be flooded with foreign engineers, not after as has been the case for at least 15 years. We most likely would both have engineering jobs (as would the other 300,000+ Americans with engineering degrees that are currently out of the engineering work force) if there were a level playing field. I know I would... I am very capable, have many years of experience, have a good work record and a U.S. Patent, and had graduated with my bachelor's AND master's degrees 4 1/2 years after graduating from high school.


"The problem is we don't have a free market"

Then I would welcome your help in creating one, ACROSS THE BOARD, NO EXCEPTIONS.

Great... we should start by fixing the problems at the top first

As Ron Paul said many times, he doesn't support the unconstitutional welfare state but would not make cuts there first and hurt the people that have been most adversely affected by our current government policies, but would rein in our interventionist foreign policy and use the savings to work our way towards a free market and a government that followed the constitution. Ron Paul has also stated he wouldn't end the Federal Reserve immediately but would introduce competing currencies and allow the Fed to wither away, which they most likely would do after a complete and thorough audit was made public.

I support free markets but we need to be smart about working our way towards that goal. That's the point I was trying to make... bringing an excessive amount of high tech workers into the country hurts American engineers like you and me and rewards the many corporations that hire as many foreign engineers as the government allows instead of hiring from the huge pool of highly qualified American engineers. We need to rein in the corporatism in trade treaties and in regulations that have given large corporations a huge advantage over smaller competitors, and change tax laws that encourage corporations to outsource, and address the other items I had previously mentioned BEFORE allowing an even greater amount of excessive foreign engineers to come to the U.S. to work.


You gotta break some eggs

Silicon Valley brings in the young, techy vote and my god is that and important bloc, plus at least half lean libertarian. nice pander if you ask me. Will his policies as president hurt, maybe? but that is something that can be sorted out after 2017 once he has been elected.

Obama pandered to the green energy companies....look how that turned out.

Silicon Valley is a better pander subject

Rand won't get much of the engineer, scientist, or IT vote

by increasing high tech immigration... anyone who has been looking for work in any technical field knows how few jobs are available in the U.S.


Debbie's picture

Rand is very, very smart. Follows his dad but in his own way;

is his own man. It's perfect.


Ron Paul and Justin Amash are much better than Rand in their

understanding of economics and how to formulate policies that will get us back to a free market without creating even higher unemployment than we currently have. Bringing a flood of new immigrants into the country before addressing taxes, regulations, and corporatized trade treaties will result in more Americans on public assistance... that will only increase the size of government, not reduce it.


egapele's picture

I may lose the love and kinship of my family over this

upcoming primary if it comes to Rand vs. Christie vs. Bush (let's not forget that threat).

The establishment's reaction on how Christie over ate
his political power after his election win makes me very, very apprehensive.

This will be a pretty tough fight and it will be a moral battle between friends and loved ones.

Yeah he is a pretty smooth

Yeah he is a pretty smooth operator. I just worry it is too late for any Republican.

egapele's picture

Against who?




Rand matches up great against Hillary

Can imagine MSM playing that showdown clip on the Benghazi hearings where Rand tears a strip out of her, over and over.

Rand would run a strong

Rand would run a strong campaign against Hillary or any other democrat, the point is that sooner or later the Dems have a locked in ideological and demographic majority. If not this round, next.

Definitely Rand needs hispanics

He can not win without them. No way, no how.

Was thinking if he increased LEGAL immigration from Mexico, applied a security surcharge to all immigration applicants from any country, and used the resulting revenue to massively increase border security, we may have a winner.

Perhaps 10 years of service on border security would be a good 'path to citizenship' program for illegal immigrants. With the proper oversight it could work very well.

Look at how few Hispanic votes

George Bush, Sr. got after Reagan signed the amnesty bill in 1986. Why do you think Hispanics will vote for Rand in exchange for his support for a path to citizenship?


To the downvoter

Do you have any other ways that Rand could win over Hispanics? Just trying to brainstorm for ideas.

Rand is

definitely one cool customer and proving to be a master politician.

Well, it's yet to be seen if Rand will come back to a fully...

...principled position (like his dad), but for now, perhaps honey attracts more of the rats than vinegar.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

You peed in your cake mix

You peed in your cake mix with the not even Ron comment. Old daddy Ron is probably the best I ever seen at deflecting wrath with a considerate and well articulated answer. And it looks like Rand has that talent too.

"...peed in your cakemix..."

"...peed in your cakemix..." Muhahaha, can I use that? too funny!

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

That's how I read it.

It was very well said, not bad, thanks for the cake! ;D

He never suggested putting

I hit the wrong reply link, meant for http://www.dailypaul.com/309690#comment-3308080

He never suggested putting Snowden in prison, listen to the interview. Rand drew a comparison and said that if the law were to be applied fairly such that Clapper gets what he wants -- Snowden in prison or worse -- then Clapper must face the music since is widely believed to have committed a felony by lying to Congress.