-12 votes

Is Rand Paul taking us for granted in shifting closer to the Neo-Con Right?

I know that this movement is desperate for political victory, but are we so desperate that Rand knows he can shift to the neo-con right, without losing us? I am here to say that I will not support Rand Paul if he continues with this neo-con light agenda. Please, if you support Rand, and "stand with Rand," tell us how you reconcile what Rand has recently proposed with what Ron Paul has taught us about the MIC. I think there is still time to send Rand a message. We are not to be taken for granted.

In the excerpt below, from an opinion piece on Rand at http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/sen_rand_pauls_a..., we see that Rand is proposing increasing "Defense" spending by $126 billion! Outrageous. I am sure that will go down well with those on the Left who might be open to a more libertarian path, as long as the Pentagon gets big cuts, just like the social programs get. Remember how Ron Paul always said he would FIRST cut the Pentagon! And only then would we have a gradual closing or diminution of the social programs?

"Paul would also cut the global footprint of our military and ask our allies to provide more for their own defense, a laudable sentiment. But don’t think he is only capable of cutting. Even though he would reduce our global defense footprint, he’d increase defense spending by $126 billion. Yes, food inspections and disease research will be cut by 20%, but the Defense Department will be force fed money that even they will have trouble finding ways to spend. In Paul’s world, providing for the common defense means gold plated bullets, but pandemic prevention on the cheap."

Rand IS taking us for granted. And how can anyone justify surrounding himself with neocons in his "foreign policy team"? http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/03/the-neocons-aro...

Please do try to defend this crap. I am very curious.

Comment viewing options

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

No he's shifting the Neocons,

No he's shifting the Neocons, which are on both sides of the aisle, towards us - the people. It doesn't happen in 1 day.

Epic Fail

Rand just voted for no sanctions and no Ukrain stimulus. Sounds Doctor No-ish to me.

he was against the aid

but he was for the sanctions. thankfully he was so against the aid he voted nay. let's keep it honest gang.

Paul said in a statement that he supported the provisions providing technical and security assistance to Ukraine and sanctions against Russia. "However, I cannot support the bill because it will have the perverse impact of using American tax dollars to reward Russia," he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/27/wh...

talk is cheap

check the voting record.

for all the Rand enthusiasts

What would be the deal breaker for you? What would Rand have to do to lose your support? How many different actions or statements would it take? Could it be one particular thing, or would it have to be a certain number of transgressions (say three)? Or will you support Rand no matter what he does?

I would just like each person to settle this in their own head so that they have a moral yardstick. I don't want people to be slowly nudged into neocon territory, little by little, without realization. I am not saying that Rand is doing this, consciously or subconsciously, but the people around him will definitely exert a pressure in that direction. So just figure it out for yourself, what you are will to tolerate, and what you are not will to tolerate.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

For me it was Ron Paul or no one at all now it's

Rand Paul or no one at all.

he lost me at the RNC

when he denied knowing of any bad treatment his dad and his delegates, supporters had gotten. he said this with a straight face when the mistreatment was common knowledge. he followed that up with a mealy mouthed endorsement of the establishment (pro war, pro police state) candidate. and to this day he says he admires and respects romney, even though romney has admitted cheating and stealing from his dad.

however i applaud most of his senate work, and would like to see more and more libertarian or libertarian friendly thinkers come aboard.

VP

It will come down to his VP choice for me. Then maybe we can gauge where his head is a little better. He his playing the game well. Remember you have to lead sheep if you want them to go anywhere.

But about myself I will not boast, except as it concerns my weaknesses (2 Cor 12:5). Let the unbelievers seek praise from each other; I wish that which is from God alone.

Great article

Now prepare to be deluged by blindly loyal Randists, my friend.

Quote:" from an opinion piece on Rand..."

...Yes.....an "OPINION piece(?).

Obviously YOU have taken the aforementioned "Opinion piece" for granted.

"For Granted"

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

He is absolutely not taking us for granted.

He is keeping us on his side by continuing his virtually perfect voting record and being the voice of liberty in the senate. It stinks that our political system is set up in such a way that the presidency cannot be won without seeming "main stream". But saying insignificant things like endorsing Romney doesn't mean a pile of monkey muffins at the end of the day.

Death to all pandas

Yes, and rightly so.

He ought to take us for granted, and focus on gathering the votes of the masses.

If we're not "granted" (i.e. 100% in his camp already), we are god damn fools.

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

some of us are enthusiastic Fools

yes indeed

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Presidential Election 2014

Oh wait, I got the year wrong. I almost forgot the election isn't for another 2 and a half years. Personally, I will spend that time watching Rand's voting record (because, face it, words don't mean a thing. He is a politician and will say to each crowd what they want to hear.) and keeping my eyes open for other independent/3rd-party candidates looking to run. I'll decide when I'm in the voting booth.

Robert Wenzel is a lot like Jennifer Rubin

in that he never stops yapping about how awful Rand Paul is (on a daily basis), and in the way that he trolls Paul supporters to get hits on his blog.

As wise as serpents as harmless as a dove.

Rand Paul seems to be playing a very dangerous game, and doing quite well so far.

This is my take on the game plan.

Ron Paul may have given his son some sage advice, appeare to be compromising on issues when it is least damaging to 1.) America and 2.) your reputation, this will draw the sleeping GOP and NeoCons onto your side in an election.
Then, once having been elected, you can administer this nation in the true conservative values I instilled in you from your birth. Once you're in, they can't prevent it, but getting in requires it appeare you are more " friendly " than I was.

My comment is of course pure sophistry, conjecture and guesswork; I am not privy to any insider knowledge at all.

So perhaps this is my " hope ", and frankly that is about all we have left.

Stēkō

Drew, by the very grace of GOD through the blood of Christ Jesus.
"there shall come after us men whom shall garner great wealth using our system, and having done so shall seek to slam the door of prosperity behind them." George Washington

Just one thing... imo, your title would apply to Ron Paul.

With Rand Paul, its more like "Float like a butterfly; sting like a bee". That's how I see it, anyway.

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

Ok, I will check to see if

Ok, I will check to see if that figure is an amount above what is currently being spent on the entire Pentagon budget. If it is, then how can anyone justify that? If on the other hand, a much greater reduction in spending would come from pulling them troops home, then you guys will be right.

But how do you explain his neo-con advisers? Did you just ignore the second link I provided, showing his coterie of neo-con foreign policy advisers? I hope I am wrong.

His proposed budget cuts

His proposed budget cuts military spending by 48 billion. http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/26/news/economy/tea_party_budget/

Did you even try looking it up or did you base everything off an article titled "Sen. Rand Paul's agenda would intrude on personal lives, make products and workplaces more dangerous"

And you think our budget can

And you think our budget can be balanced with such a small reduction in the Pentagon's budget?

It balances in five years.

It balances in five years. Have you heard of Google? Or just trollin'? http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=8

That assumes the Democrats

That assumes the Democrats will allow Rand to make all the other cuts.

C_T_CZ's picture

I'm voting for Rand...

I spent years voting Libertarian Party. Years of voting on principle vs pragmatism.

I'm voting for Rand because:
1) I want Ron Paul to know the satisfaction of a presidential win;
2) I want Ron Paul's beliefs, instilled into his son, realized;
3) I want a White House where Ron Paul feels welcome anytime;
4) I want the Liberty Movement to advance to mainstream and change the course of America;

For every 'neocon' thing Rand does, he does 100 times that for Liberty. And it's really disingenuous to even say 'neocon' because he is only talking about defense. That is, if what you wrote is actually true. I am certain he would go to congress for a declaration of war, for example, instead of acting by executive authority.

I'm down voting your post because it really seems you are itching for an argument instead of embracing the tremendous opportunity before us with Rand.

Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof

failed in finding an argument

If he was looking for an argument he failed. All but one comment I've read has been pro rand.

Death to all pandas

find it hard to fathom

That Rand proposed a budget to INCREASE defense spending by $126 billion. The author of the article claims this, but provides no source to substantiate it. Sounds like B.S. Everywhere else on the internet are headlines stating that Rand Paul wants to CUT defense spending, not increase it.

It's amazing that people can just print blatant lies like that, and get away with it.

It is only a lie if he knows

It is only a lie if he knows the truth to be different, and is using intentional deception, otherwise it is ignorance.

I think he believes what he is saying to be true, and I don't know if he is right or wrong. OP, please link to some proof.

Maybe it has something to do with Rand's saying something about not wanting to get rid of tomahawk missiles? Maybe he is equating that to raising the overall defense budget, while not taking into account Rand may want to cut other areas, bring down the overall budget?

Either way, lets see some proof!

cannot be the tomahawk

Because in the quotes about not cutting the tomahawk, Rand is always specifying things that are clearly wasteful that should be cut instead of the tomahawk. I thought maybe they were spinning the reshuffling in Rand's budget proposal - for example, he proposes cutting homeland security, and he will state things like, (I don't have the exact quotes in front of me) - take the $xx million funding for coastguard defense from homeland security, and place that under the Department of Defense. However, even adding all those into the Department of Defense, it did not add up to the "increase" specified in the linked article.

That's why I suspect it is more a lie than ignorance.

Rand has never been my favorite, but the issue that is being distorted is something that actually would affect whether I would vote for him. Despite the points that I disagree with him, he still qualifies for my vote (Barely. the thing that comes closest to disqualifying him, is that he does not demand an end to Guantanamo, but he has a couple years to change his tune on that.)

It has been a day, and he hasn't provided proof.

So I down voted this post.

Rand has not been my favorite either, and I am not sure I believe in voting anymore anyways.

For me getting Rand is like craving a pepsi and only being able to get a shasta, yes I will drink it, but I won't be completely satisfied about the experience.