Reason TV Replay: CPAC—Rand Paul, Libertarians Rising


Last year, Rand Paul rocked the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in the wake of his famous #standwithrand filibuster, walking away the winner of the event's annual straw poll. Early indications are he'll do the same this year, and that it won't even be close.

So is libertarianism still on the rise? Stay tuned to Reason TV for coverage of this year's CPAC, but for now, check out coverage of last year's event.

This video originally aired March 15, 2013. Original writeup is below:

 "The new GOP will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and personal sphere," Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told a packed crowd at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

Reason's Matt Welch and Kennedy attended the first day of CPAC to take the temperature of the political organizers, media observers, and grassroot activists who are central to the Republican Party's identity and political fortunes. What did they find? A movement that seems to gravitating to a baldly libertarian stance when it comes to everything from economics to social issues to foreign policy.

About 3 minutes. Produced by Jim Epstein and Meredith Bragg. Hosted by Matt Welch and Kennedy.

Please subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel and like and share this video! Scroll below for downloadable versions of all our videos.

NEXT: Damon Root on the Rise and Fall of the New York City Tattoo Ban

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I bet all of the libertarians that stomped their feet and stayed home are withing they were there now.

    1. Haha Rand quoted Pink Floyd in his speech yesterday

      1. You mean he plagiarized them?

      2. No No. It was a dog whistle to let his rabid anti semite followers know he still has it in for Israel.

        1. Did he let an inflatable pig go when he went on stage?

          1. Who can say for sure

          2. +1 Simpsons Spinal Tap concert.

            1. Wasn’t it Peter Frampton?

              1. Dang it! I believe you’re right. The Spinal Tap one was the laser in the eye.

                1. I was referring to the alleged anti-semitism.

                  1. You know a lot more stuff than I do.

                2. Just about the only thing I’m good for is Simpsons references. Now, you’ll excuse me, as I have to get back to ogling the girls in the Sears catalog.

                  1. There was a time when I couldn’t go five minutes without making a simpsons reference. That seems like a lifetime ago.

  2. “The new GOP will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and personal sphere…”

    The GOP, in general, doesn’t have even the vaguest inkling of what economic and personal liberty are. Liberty to republican politicians is nothing more than a word on a list of things they’re supposed to say to sound appealing to certain independent voters. They see no conflict in shouting the word liberty even as they advocate mass surveillance, multiple wars, crony capitalism (usually referred to as corruption when it happens in other countries), the drug war, trade tariffs, federal control over health care, massive corporate and individual welfare programs, etc. The list is endless. There is nothing libertarian about the GOP. That’s why they are called republicans and not libertarians.

    The only good thing to come out of this myth that the republican party has a libertarian streak are programs like Freedom Watch, Stossel, and The Independents.

    1. Unfortunately, I agree with pretty much everything you said. Unfortunately, that gets accusations of insisting on the perfect instead of the possible.

      1. There’s nothing wrong with stating that most of the GOP is not libertarian. I’d agree with you totally.

        Where I blow the whistle is when libertarians refuse to ally with the viable political party that’s not nearly as hostile to liberty as the other one.

        1. Holy fuck, it’s 2012 Tulpa, back for the Romney Victory Tour Redux.

          1. Are we sure it is really Tulparoooo!

            Socks within socks within socks, Feyd.

            1. The real Tulpa, if one exists, is LAOL-PA. This is either an impersonator or his Virginian sock. He probably has one for every state reserved in case he needs it. He’s like the Batman of sock-puppetry.

            2. Right, everybody who disagrees with libertarian dogma is a sockpuppet. It’s just sad that the 99.5% of the population that does not espouse libertarian orthodoxy can only produce one commenter.

              1. That’s just the sort of thing the real Tulpa would say!

                1. Check to see if he has a goatee. That’s usually a sign of impostership.

        2. I agree that we should ally with other parties (republican or democrat) when their position on an issue is in alignment with the libertarian position. For the most part, that is the only avenue we have to accomplish anything. What I dislike is when libertarians construe those temporary single issue alliances as indicators that either of the the two main parties is becoming more libertarian in general. They aren’t. Republicans and democrats are dedicated to one thing: seizing more power for government and for themselves because they are, after all, the good guys (at least in their own minds) and know what’s best for everyone. Historically speaking, both parties have been enthusiastic partners when it comes to advancing authoritarianism and curtailing individual liberty and that trend has accelerated since 9/11.

          1. Agreed that the GOP and Dems are certainly both trying to seize more power FOR THEMSELVES…. but not necessarily the govt. Evidence for this distinction is that the minority party in the fedgov always seems to have an interest in states’ rights.

            A consequence of this is that if libertarians play so hard to get that neither major party can get their votes without alienating larger numbers of voters, then libertarians are going to be totally ignored by both parties. We don’t have the numbers to insist on total alignment of a major party’s position with libertarian doctrine.

            1. Hey look, it’s Tulpy-Poo slithering back after getting caught being a slimebag. How unbelievably Tulpathetic. Hey, do your best Rollo impression for us, Tulpuppet!

              1. It’s not slithering back, it’s called having a life. Not that you’d know about that.

        3. Maybe one day you’ll find it charming to explain specifically how you reach this conclusion.

        4. The GOP’s seeming lack of hostility to freedom is mostly a consequence of weakness and incompetence. We do not need them as allies only as servants. We must not ally with the GOP we should take it over.

  3. Thanks for the article. Libertarian fans are evenly distributed among all parties/independents in the USA. Rand Paul has stated, however, that he isn’t a libertarian.

    For more on the 8 million participant world Libertarian movement, see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization.

    1. There are 8 million Somalians? Or are you counting in the Haitians as well?

        1. percent?

    2. Hey man, don’t knock them.

      They have their own *spaceman*

      “Ecuador Cmdr. Astronaut Ron Nader, LIO Welcome Host pioneered a civil space agency, now leads projects for free technical education for underserved youth, and says: Share empowering LIO non-partisan fellowship tools of progress and dialogue–and your wins on our sites.”

      Also – Geraldine Ferraro. Now that she’s dead, she supports them too.

    3. Rand Paul has stated, however, that he isn’t a libertarian.


    4. “Libertarian fans are evenly distributed among all parties”

      [Citation needed]

  4. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush, the guy who the JournoList tells us is a shoo-in to be the republican nominee, isn’t even bothering to show up at CPAC this year. Which tells us what the republican establishment thinks of conservatives and libertarians.

    1. Or it tells you what JournoList knows about Republicans.

      1. Or or, it tels you that the JournoListers are trying to develop the narrative that more easily paves the way for Hillary to win the White House in 2016.

        1. You are destroying my faith in the objectivity and non-partisan independence of journalist members. How awful and cynical of you. Next you are going to suggest that the bolded headlines on HUFFPO *arent* the most important news items of the day.

        2. Actually, the current headline is,

          GHOST PLANE

          Which is I think a reference to the Malaysia/China plane crash. Which sucks.

          Fuck you, Huffpo for actually having news on your site when I make fun of you.

            1. They would presumably have needed forged PRC visas, too. This isn’t something your garden variety Uighur warriors could pull off.

              1. Was 9/11 something your garden variety AQ “warriors” could pull of?

                Malaysia is a poor country with a large islamist population. I find it very plausible that the security could have easily been bypassed altogether or easily navigated by an islamoterrorist through sympathy or bribery.

                1. AQ had a lot of operational experience in AFG and elsewhere, and a shitload of money, so yeah.

                  I do concede that it’s possible bribery could have played a role, but they’d have to get past multiple checks of the passport and visa by airline agents. We’ll see (assuming this really was an act of terror).

          1. The plane fell off radar.

            unless the the hijackers are able to stealth a stealth a jumbo jet in midair it is not a ghost plane.

            it is a plane at the bottom of the ocean.

            1. They could have blown it up. That would have disappeared it from the radar as well, wouldn’t it?

              1. That would have resulted in several radar signatures, and a slower descent.

                1. Which is a possibility. None of that info has been released.

                2. Ah. Did they make a statement as to the rate of descent? I thought they were still trying to locate it. If they had a radar signature and/or altitude data (which I wouldn’t think they would have without radar) you’d think they would have gone straight to the crash site in short order.

                  1. Vietnam military radar recorded the whole thing. US probably has the data too, but our closest ship was 24 hours away.

                    The media is going by the ADS-B data, which is broadcasted by the airplane. That data stream abruptly stopped at 35,000 feet.

                    1. Gotcha. Well what does that typically mean? Could they have taken the radar signature off-air, or does that tech only exist in the movies? I mean, if they didn’t disappear (raptured?) but their signature did, then something, anything could have happened.

                      What are they saying about the debris field? Do they have a ping from the black box or is the water too deep there?

                    2. The only thing I know is that Vietnam military radar tracked it crashing into the water after it disappeared off of primary (transponder dependent) radar.

                      None of that info has been released, though. Militaries are usually pretty stingy when it comes to that sort of thing.

                    3. I’d imagine it means the transponder lost power, which could happen in a lot of different ways. Blowing up, for instance.

    2. That’s ridiculous. Everyone knows it’s Santorum’s turn.

      1. What a frothy mess that campaign would be.

      2. That is such a myth. I missed where Pat Buchanan was the GOP nominee in 2000.

  5. Or or, it tels you that the JournoListers are trying to develop the narrative that more easily paves the way for Hillary to win the White House in 2016.

    Hillary. Now More than ever.

    1. Hillary 2016. Because what difference, at this point, does it make?

      1. Hillary 2016: Fuck you, pay me.

        1. Hillary 2016: Cankles That Will Make You Believe Again

          1. I saw a “I’m ready for Hillary” bumper sticker today.

            I see a derp storm gathering on the horizon.

        2. Hillary 2016: because Patriarchy! Rape Culture! Koch Brothers! Fox News!


  6. I think this thread needs more banal tendentious pontification.

    1. And we’re just the guys to do it.


      1. “Olive Oyle is my girl, you little runt.”


  7. Because what difference, at this point, does it make?

    I, uh….

    *gunshot, thud*

    1. If you’re gonna do a Vince Foster impersonation, at least cite the man.

  8. Today’s “Google Doodle” allegedly celebrates International Womynz Day.


    1. They must all be at a “Fuck Putin” demonstration.

    1. I hope she runs because I think Rand Paul would eat her lunch. But at the same time, she has an entire media at her disposal, and that would be tough for someone to overcome even on substance. That scares me.

      1. I hope you’re right about the outcome of a possible matchup of Rand vs. Hillary, but the apple has shown that he doesn’t fall far from the tree when it comes to political aptitude. Whoever advised him that attacking a female politician for having an adulterous husband was a good idea has hopefully been fired, put out on the street and starved.

        1. Or maybe he’s playing 3D Chess and is so many moves ahead that he knows the SoCon base of your GOP will want it brought up and he thought it wiser to touch on it two and a half years out instead of August 2016.

          1. I’m sure the MSM and Hillary’s campaign wouldn’t dream of bringing it up at an inopportune time.

            Way to emulate the Obamabots with the chess excuse though.

            1. Or you could just find a new board to pollute. Fuck off, troll.

              1. Nope, I’m standing my ground in a place I have as much right to be as you do.

                1. “I have as much right to be as you do.”

                  Fuck you you lying sack, you deliberately came here and misrepresented yourself, while cluttering the discussions with your stupidity.

                  That you are so pathetically fucking shameless and socially stunted that you show up here just demonstrates that you NEED this place, and couldn’t quit if you tried.

                  In fact, didn’t you try? And fail? Yeah, you did.

                  So fuck off. Last I looked, BP didn’t get caught lying about who he was to make himself look better, like you did Rollo.

                  1. Considering every one of your posts is about me, and you spring into action immediately after someone mentions me… that means either you are a constant lurker who has no opinions on any issues other than me, my character, and my social development; or you yourself are sockpuppeting, and even worse, attacking someone from behind a sock.

                    1. “Considering every one of your posts is about me,”

                      As I said, you’re a liar. That is a lie.

                      It’s one of the reasons you’re disliked.


                      Feel free to peruse that thread for definitive evidence that you are a liar. You’ll notice you don’t post anywhere in it. I do. So, as I said, peruse it you emotionally crippled dunce.

                      Then die in a grease fire.

                    3. “You’ll notice you don’t post anywhere in it. ”

                      I considered that claim, and realized I may have misspoken there, I’m not privvy to the names of all of your sockpuppets, so it’s entirely possible I was talking to you. I just wasn’t talking to Tulpa.

                      That’s more your fault for having so many sockpuppets, than mine for not knowing their identites.

      2. When it comes to smack downs, the person I want to see shredding Hillary on the debate stage is Andrew Napolitano.


        1. And then I want to see him invite a smiling John Boehner from the crowd and onto the stage…and eviscerate him.

        2. On a good day sure.

          On a bad day he will just rant about the tyranny of Ab Lincoln.

          1. Ab Lincoln?

            He had a washboard stomach.

      3. she has an entire media at her disposal

        anti-semitic plagiarizing far right wing aqua Buddha worshiper Rand Paul today made a speech about some stuff which we will ignore while he wore horrible cloths.

    2. Hillary/Gabby 2016 – because what difference, at this point, does having a brain make.

      1. My name…is Ga…bby…Giffords andI…approve…this…mes…sage.

        1. Boom! Head shot!

    1. “Kerry urges US envoys to make climate change a priority”

      I say, Mustapha, can you not turn the AC up a bit more – frightfully warm this time of day! Oh, and we will take gin and tonics on the veranda later.


    2. The good news is that I am pretty sure Kerry will fail….just like he has at everything else he has done as secretary of state.

  9. It’d be awesome if Clinton and Paul debated, she collaped on stage and he saved her life live on TV thus leading to his landslide victory. Especially if it follows months of her vicious attacks on Paul as a racist/sexist.

    1. Maybe if she’s too near-sighted to read her speech, and he corrects her vision?

      1. (you see, he’s an eye doctor. So when he was courting his wife, she kept saying, “hello, my breasts are down here!”)

        1. He’s actually a surgeon, so he’s much more specialized than that. But I fully expect the progtards to keep referring to him as a “glorified optometrist”.

          They still bring up that stupid board certification thing even though it isn’t remotely true.

          1. He does corneal transplants, too. Back when I worked at a transplant bank, his practice received one of the corneas that came through our office.

      2. My joke may not have been funny, but I do not appreciate your attempts to make it less so.

        1. It is a service many of us offer….free of charge!

          1. I’ve noticed. I plan to reciprocate as needed.

        2. I was not trying to dim your lamp, but to light my own from it.

          1. My bulb is too dim for sharing.

  10. Anyone ever shot a Glock 42? I might take one for a test drive soon…

    1. Really? I’ve always considered Glocks to be like the deep-dish of handguns.

      1. I should pistol…er, pizzawhip you with a slab of Lou Malnatti’s stuffed pizza.

        1. I don’t even know what the hell “deep-dish of handguns” even means. That was simply gratuitous.

          1. We all know what you meant. You really really like Glocks.

            1. OK, that’s too much.

              1. I own a Glock 17 for historical reasons(even though it is a Gen-3)and to be familiar and proficient with the type of pistol I might someday have use after relieving it from a professional.

        2. I go both ways on the thin-crust/deep-dish issues. And yet I do not understand Lou Malnatti’s. I don’t know if it’s the sauce or the crust or both, but it’s awful.

          Unfortunately, I live one minute away from one.

          If I want thin crust, I shlep up Lincoln to Pat’s. If I want deep dish, I shelp a little farther to Gino’s.

          1. Gino’s is just fine by me. I am pizzaomnivorous.

      2. They fit my hand really well. I’m an XD guy myself, but the Glock 42 looks ridiculously awesome.

    2. Is that the new .38?

      1. .380 ACP, yes.

        I can’t decide if I just want it, or if I really need it. Looks like a great cargo pocket gun.

        1. Don’t waste cargo pockets on a gun. That’s where you keep a venomous snake. Not the main snake, obviously, which goes in a shoulder holster, but the backup. Coral is good for a backup; it doesn’t pack the wallop of a rattler, but it’s not as bulky.

          1. What’s your opinion on carrying a concealed constrictor?

            1. How did you know that’s what I call it?

          2. To be technically correct (the best and only kind of correct) a coral snake packs a significantly higher wallop than a rattler, but has real difficulty biting large things. They have small fangs that are found in the back of the jaws.

            It is a good back-up snake, though because after the rattler incapacitates, the much more fatal coral snake can be used for the coup de grace.

        2. Plaxico Manhattan

  11. What?

    I am not sure why Paul thought that Waters or Pink Floyd, a band of the 1970s, would have resonance for the youthful CPAC crowd. But while Pink Floyd is long gone, Roger Waters is still around. He is known, these days, primarily as an anti-Semite. More here. To me, it seems extremely odd that Rand Paul would single out a Roger Waters lyric from the 1970s in a speech that otherwise quoted classic American heroes. Was Paul’s admiring reference to Waters intended as a proverbial dog whistle to let listeners know that he hasn’t diverged too far from his father’s foreign policy views?

    1. Jesus, and this is coming from the Right!

      1. You should see the shit Ann Coulter is saying.

        1. The entire American political landscape would be better off if Ann Coulter got dick cancer and died.

          1. Can one get cancer of the Adam’s apple?

            1. Does she have hands as big as Andre the Giant?

      2. I saw on Drudge Coulter saying that Rubio was racist against blacks because of his immigration bill.

        I am pretty sure the right has entered full on war against itself.

        But i guess it could be a brush fire…who knows.


        1. A faction of the right is going totally insane over immigration. They can’t be reasoned with. They can only be left behind until their tantrum exhausts them.

          1. It is not just immigration there are a host of issues.

            Seems like it is culminating to a point.

            Socons, libertarians, neocons, milk toast rinos are all at each others throats.

            1. Socons, libertarians, neocons, milk toast rinos are all at each others throats.

              About fucking time we stood up to the GOP establishment since the only way we’re gonna get a seat at the big table is to take Team Red over.

              1. Corning: I think immigration is by far the most heated flashpoint right now.

                And it just goes to show that The GOP Establishment is not our only problem. The ‘average joe six pack’ assholes are insane over immigration. I actually wouldn’t mind working with the GOP establishment to break the nativist yahoos first, and then backstabbing the GOP establishment and taking over. Rand Paul seems to be sort of copying the first part of my plan with his limited overtures to the GOP establishemnt

                1. I’m sure those newly minted voters created by amnesty will flock to the libertarian banner….as opposed to turning AZ deep blue and TX into a swing state.

                  1. Because all Hispanics are kneejerk progressives, right Tulpa?

                    Fucking racist.

                    1. As Tulpa demonstrates, the nativists LOVE the ‘all brown people are our enemies’ narrative. Doesn’t matter how little evidence there is for it or that it’s been more or less debunked, they love it. Creating a rationalization for hating foreigners has certain implications I’ll leave up to you…

                      …it’s racism.

                    2. …it’s racism.

                      There has to be libertarians among the multitudes of potential amnesty getters.

                      Tulpa wants us to stop the supposed majority of deep blue amnesty getters at the expense of solidarity with our Hispanic libertarian brothers and sisters.

                      It not only exposes his racism but his compete whacked out perspective in regards to INDIVIDUAL liberty.

                      We need to be united in keeping the hordes out even at the expense of our political siblings and our political beliefs of the individual above the mob.

                    3. Maybe if we stopped allowing the Mexican government to use northward emigration as an outlet for Mexicans displeased with their country’s economic problems, they could actually change their own country for the better.

                      I’m happy to have immigration from Mexico. Just not at a rate that we can’t assimilate.

                    4. we stopped allowing the Mexican government to use northward emigration as an outlet for Mexicans displeased with their country’s economic problemsthey could actually change their own country for the better.

                      RIGHT. Immigration isn’t about individual rights, it’s about vague unprovable foreign-government plots. Deflection too obvious 2/10.

                      Oooh another little problem: Mexico has created 2 million jobs since 2010 and has embarked on an unprecedented reform drive. Apparently freedom of movement does NOT run against economic freedom.

                      Just not at a rate that we can’t assimilate.

                      They are assimilating just fine.

                      Excellent use of the racist trope to shut down discussion, btw. I don’t think a leftist could have done it any better.

                      Truth hurts.

                    5. All? No. Just like not all MA/CA/MD residents are kneejerk leftists, yet NH/CO/VA have been turned into blue states by immigration from those places.

                      Excellent use of the racist trope to shut down discussion, btw. I don’t think a leftist could have done it any better.

    2. Dude, I heard that if you play Rand Paul’s speech backward, it says “O Great Aqua Buddha, smite the Jews!”

    3. “But why? Wait a minute- chaos theory!”

      “Chaos theory?”

      “Chaos theory- it was first thought up in the 60s- 60- that’s the number of episodes they made of Punky Brewster before it was cancelled- cancelled…”


      “Don’t you see? The show is over. The aliens are canceling earth.”

    4. This actually gives me hope. This is what Rand’s enemies on the right are down to. They have nothing. Ukraine has better chances against Russia.

  12. Rand Paul wins again. So does legal weed!

  13. Isn’t that nice. Trollo is back.

    1. I don’t know if you are talking about Tony or Tulpa.

      1. It would be the LAOL parenthetical one.

    2. OR IS HE???

    3. What a day.


      Where’s Mary?

      1. They’re all Epi anyway.

        1. Except Rollo. That one was real.

        2. You’ve been here all day dude…

          1. I sure have. It’s my weekend, dude.

            1. Lighten up franics.

          2. Wait, you’re the one that went apeshit about me referring (correctly) to dairymen as ranchers, because your grandfather owned a “dairy farm”.

            FWIW, I think dairyman may be more of a western term, but I’ve never heard to a dairyman refer to his property as a farm. They almost exclusively call it their “dairy” or if they have a lot of pasture they call it their “ranch”…especially if they keep steers as well for stud or slaughter.

            1. “Wait, you’re the one that went apeshit about me referring (correctly) to dairymen as ranchers, because your grandfather owned a “dairy farm”.”


              I’m the one who corrected you, in regards to my grandfather, and what he waould say to your claims.

              I think you maybe need to reread the post, because you may need your “going apeshit” detector adjusted.

              “FWIW, I think dairyman may be more of a western term”

              My gramps was in NJ, so it’s entirely possible.

              1. ” but I’ve never heard to a dairyman refer to his property as a farm. ”


                That’s the link to dairy farmers of america.

                I think, maybe, hoinestly, you’re just not as in as you thought. I’ve heard the term since I was a child, and it’s normally used to differentiate between beef cattle and dairys. A beef cattleman would call himself a rancher. Never a farmer, and vice versa.

                That it’s different where you are, meh, that’s not on me. Maybe you could send the DFA an email and ask about it.

                1. I’ll have the WUD send it on my behalf.

                  Seriously, I only deal with about 50 dairymen on a regular basis and I’ve never heard one of them refer to himself as a farmer. And I’ve never heard one of them refer to his property as a farm.

                  I suppose we will just have to admit that the terms are interchangeable and leave it at that.

                  I will personally apologize to any dairymen, ranchers or farmers I may have offended or their progeny. My ranchocentric labeling is not only wrong, it is borderline hate-speech.

            2. I live in the west.

              Ranchers are ranchers dairy farmers are dairy farmers.

              So you are wrong and the west is right.

              1. “Ranchers are ranchers dairy farmers are dairy farmers.”

                Take it up with the DFA.

                “So you are wrong and the west is right.”

                That’s…about as solid as your big bang arguments, which is why you’re cheap shotting me.

                1. Um, I think he was correcting me. But thanks for the robust defense.

                    1. I’m a dairyman, ladies and gentlemen. I have numerous concerns spread across this state. I have many cows flowing at many thousand barrels per day. I like to think of myself as a dairyman. As a dairyman, I hope that you’ll forgive just good old fashioned plain-speaking.

            3. Keeping steers for stud is a bad business model.

        3. They’re all Epi anyway.


    1. He even crushed Cruz.

    2. FTA: One day after riveting a packed convention ballroom, tea party darling Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) topped the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll, his second consecutive victory in the conservative confab’s contest.

      Is it me, or are the media associating people with the Tea Party a lot more now that the SoCons have completely subverted it and ignored it’s original purpose?

      1. I don’t believe the SoCons subverted it, I believe it was the media.

    3. That CPAC straw poll has been an excellent predictor of future electoral success, if I recall correctly, and I don’t.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.