Rand Paul

Rand Paul: Thin-Skinned, Flip-Flopping, Question-Dodging Candidate?

|

Rand Paul
Gage Skidmore / Flickr

The Weekly Standard makes the case—implicitly, at least—that Sen. Rand Paul might not be ready for a presidential campaign in which his every word, choice, and past statement will be picked apart.

TWS's John McCormack asked Paul at an event in New Hampshire to square his previous resistance to attacking ISIS—he didn't want to help Iran fight its battles, he said at the time—with his recent support for aspects of President Obama's plan. According to McCormack, Paul responded by ending the Q and A session:

This was the second press conference that Paul had abruptly ended on Friday. …

So when did the senator decide that he supported bombing ISIS? "I don't know if there is an exact time," Paul told me Friday.

I asked Paul twice if he was no longer concerned, as he wrote in June, that bombing ISIS may simply turn the United States into "Iran's air force." He didn't respond to the questions and indicated he wasn't happy with this reporter as well as a local reporter who repeatedly suggested Paul is an isolationist.

"All right, thanks guys. Work on that objectivity," Paul said, as he walked away.

Agree or disagree that these sorts of questions are fair, Paul is certainly going to get more of them as his presumed quest for the Republican presidential nomination continues. Most journalists he deals with certainly won't be working on their objectivity anytime soon.

Additionally, I'm a bit surprised that Paul—who prides himself on ideological consistency—has been caught so off guard by this line of questioning. Of course people want to know the specifics of why and when Paul's principled opposition to ISIS intervention morphed into outright support for airstrikes. And of course hostile reporters want to jump on the Rand-is-a-thin-skinned-flip-flopping-sell-out narrative. It certainly looks like Paul is merely hedging earlier stances (absent any mitigating or clarifying information), and that's why the media is writing so many stories about it.

Perhaps most people—and even some libertarians—will find nothing objectionable about Paul's latest opinions. But from a political-imaging standpoint, he clearly needs to explain his thinking more clearly when contradictions arise, if only to safeguard against the proliferation of stories like McCormack's.

NEXT: Actress Defends Not Producing ID for Cops

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. While I wish Paul would do a better job of explaining his “evolutions” on certain things, compare press coverage of this with Obama doing the exact opposite of a million things he said in the past and blatantly flip flopping on a whole host of things.

    1. Not really a comparison point. Most of the press basically hoots and flings shit whenever any Republican engages in behavior that they’re indifferent to when it happens with the Chosen One.

      There are two things that have been great about the Obama presidency…1) it’s undermined people’s trust in the effectiveness of government to deliver utopian promises (although it’s debatable to what degree) and 2) it’s exposed just how pathetically weak established media is at dissecting not only simple issues, but basic fact-checking.

      1. Both of those points would be great except:

        1. The people won over by this point mostly leaned right anyway and so the net to the voting booth for liberty voters is likely small.

        2. Americans weren’t by-and-large too lazy to allocate the brain power to follow these realizations to their logical conclusions.

    2. The measures that libertarians will lie to themselves about Paul is exactly the way that progressives deceived themselves into pushing Obama into the Presidency.

      1. Actually I think most libertarians are worried that Paul will be a flip flopper. The difference between Paul and other candidates is that most all the other available candidates are much farther away from the libertarian point of view so what to do? Also, the difference between libertarians/Paul and progressives/Obama is that libertarians would stop drinking the Kool-Aid pretty quickly where as progressives are still swimming in the stuff even after Obama clocked out.

      2. “The measures that libertarians will lie to themselves about Paul is exactly the way that progressives deceived themselves into pushing Obama into the Presidency.

        Not at all. Most reasonable people never expected ANY President to be able to turn the system around. The only real question with Obama would be whether he’d be better than Mac/Palin.

        On that one, I think most reasonable people would agree that he came through.

        1. You really think things would have been any different?

        2. Yeah, you did. And, he has made it not only not better, but actively and decidedly worse. Which you could see if you weren’t a cult member.

    3. that’s called “deflection” goober
      when you can’t defend, you attack

  2. Agreed that his responses to difficult questions need work and that inexperience in this regard will likely be a detriment to him. Fortunately, he has two years to polish how he fields these issues. Much better that he struggle now rather than in 2016.

    1. Wait!

      So it’s a matter of how he “fields” and “polishes” and not a matter of what he actually thinks or will actually do??

      Wow….

  3. Of course people want to know the specifics of why and when Paul’s principled opposition to ISIS intervention morphed into outright support for airstrikes.

    So, how does “We don’t want to be Iran’s air force” amount to principled opposition? Where I’m sitting, that sounds a lot more like a geostrategic rationale. Oh, wait, Rand Paul never claimed to be a principled non-interventionist. But, hey, since the guy’s betrayed a position he never took, let’s pile on in favor of the rest of the field that promises to be an order of magnitude more interventionist.

    1. ^ This.

      Also, when a reporter asks Paul what changed between his reluctance to intervene with IS and his support for intervention, all he really needs to say is “American journalists were beheaded”.

      1. Or, ‘when they started beheading children and sticking their heads on sticks in squares’. Either one works for me.

    2. you people struggle so hard to defend
      the indefensible

      1. And you struggle so hard to use grammar and punctuation.

  4. Where are these hard hitting investigations into Obama’s flip-flopping on ISIS? Oh, that’s right, there aren’t any.

    Also, Rand should probably stop listening to whoever is advising him on how to handle these situations. The media is already going to be covering you like Britney Spears’ camel toe, you don’t have to give them more ammunition.

    1. this isn’t about obama, goober
      read the article

      1. Maybe you didn’t read my second paragraph, you know the one pertaining to the article. But sure we don’t need to discuss how Obama did the same. Fucking. Thing.

        goober

        Go fuck yourself Mary.

  5. Rand Paul: Thin-Skinned, Flip-Flopping, Question-Dodging Candidate?

    Add dissembling to the mix and maybe he’s not such a long shot after all.

    1. I read that as “disassemble” and started thinking about Number 5 from Short Circuit.

      1. Wouldn’t you like to be a Pepper too?

  6. Rand Paul is supposed to be the pragmatic smooth operator his father wasn’t. He needs to improve quickly.

    The best politicians use any question as an opportunity to spread their message without appearing petulant or flip-floppity, even if they are.

    And Lord knows, we’ve already had our fill of a thin-skinned President.

    1. I still remember some reporter asking Bill Clinton whether he supported, IIRC, term limits, at a time when the idea was popular. Clinton came right out with “no, and here’s why…” I don’t even remember what came after that, just that he had a self-assured air that radiated Presidential-ness.

    2. Catering to lefty media types won’t ever win him any favors with the left, and the media is mostly hardcore left. The takeaway from this encounter and the whole social-media presidency that is the Obama machine is that Rand needs to make sure these people can’t ask him questions at all and limit the questioners to GOP friendly outlets.

      Gross, but if you want to be a politician, you have to play the political game.

      1. A bridge too far. Reagan talked to the liberal media all the time.

        1. A different time, a different president. Obama didn’t become president by doing interviews with Bill O’Reilly, and the next GOP president won’t do so by being a devil-take-the-hindmost Goldwater type who takes on all comers.

          To the degree that a GOP hopeful has to interact with leftist media (and vice versa with lefties who still feel the need to engage the Breitbart crowd) he needs to do so stoically while maximizing the boredom factor.

    3. you can forget that “improve quickly”
      the pauls already have the reputation
      for being loonytunes

      1. Alinsky-style ridicule. Maybe try a new playbook?

  7. “All right, thanks guys. Work on that objectivity,” Paul said, as he walked away.

    Never go full Newt.

    1. It is basically a challenge to the media to really try to push his buttons. School yard philosophy.

  8. I’ve been saying for a long time that Rand’s undoing, if there is to be one, will be because of his going too far with pandering to SoCons. And that’s what he is doing by all of the sudden wanting to get all war monger like, pandering to the SoCons.

    What Rand should have said to the journalists is ‘Look, I would consider supporting a limited bombing campaign against ISIS, but ONLY with congressional approval, and only a limited campaign’. I mean, if he had to say anything. Sometimes, he just needs to not comment on things at all, but he can’t seem to keep his mouth shut at times when there is no good to come of saying anything.

    He needs serious coaching about keeping the trap shut when it should be kept shut.

    If Rand just totally abandons his libertarian roots, then he is not different from any other GOP establishment candidate, and will lose to whatever nut job the Dems nominate.

    1. He needs to engage with his opponents (including journalists), because they’re certainly going to engage with him!

      1. He needs to engage with his opponents (including journalists), because they’re certainly going to engage with him!

        Then he should be thinking about what he’s going to tell them and all the libertarians who have been supporting him all this time, before he opens his big mouth and starts sounding like a warmonger.

        1. Simple question, Hyperion.

          Rand Paul said he wasn’t a non-interventionist for a while now. What’s different about him now from a month ago? He said he was a realist. A realist, pretty much by definition, would support U.S. military action if it favored U.S. national interests with an acceptable level of risk. Now, you might think he’s made a poor assessment of the risk/reward tradeoff of the situation (I do), but are you going to try to argue there’s no possible way someone could arrive at that conclusion?

          1. I think you missed my point.

            It’s not Rand that I’m calling out so much, I still have faith in him. My point is that when Rand says something that looks like he’s just pandering OR he’s actually flip/flopping, then he needs to be ready to explain his positions and how he’s not actually changing them.

            It doesn’t seem that is happening and in fact it seems like he’s getting more careless about it.

            1. Fair enough.

              Personally, I don’t think the guy is pandering or flip-flopping. I think he’s just wrong on this one (disclaimer – I consider myself a geopolitical realist, rather than a principled non-iterventionist).

              But, I can also see where you’d fault him for not being clear enough on his thinking on the topic.

              1. Well, if he’s saying we should bomb ISIS or arm any of these various factions, then I disagree with him as well.

    2. (and the warmongers are NeoCons and liberal interventionists, not SoCons)

      1. I haven’t met many SoCons who are not warmongers. The fact that NeoCons and proggies are also warmongers doesn’t negate that fact.

        And it’s really the SoCons who Rand has been all out pandering to. He believes that he needs them to win the GOP nomination. And maybe that is true, but what Rand doesn’t seem to get is that he can still get their votes without running his mouth when he doesn’t need to and totally alienating libertarians.

        1. You just admitted to not getting out much. That’s your problem, not SoCons’.

          1. Bullshit. I get out plenty. And I damn sure know plenty of SoCons, all of whom are for bombing those dirty brown barbarians back into the Stone Age, because support the troops and Murika fuck yeah!

              1. Well, you know, I’m cool with this chicky exercising her 2nd amendment rights, until I see her hanging around with Lindsey Graham and POTUS Warpig and wanting to bomb everyone in the world cause Murika!

      2. The AFA disagrees

        1. “In response to President Obama’s speech, I make the case that it would be a mistake for our military to go into Syria and Iraq, simply because there are no good guys to back.”

          http://www.afa.net/the-stand/g…..0YqCeyI.99

    3. “…whatever HUGE ASSED, nut job the Dems nominate.”

      FTFY

    4. the nutjobs will once again be
      in the republican clown car
      actually, this time it will be a bus

      1. Are you ever going to convey a single, coherent argument or are you going to continue to lob ad homs like hellfire missiles into middle-eastern wedding parties?

  9. Weekly Standard is just the MIC newsletter. Glorified bomb salesman.

  10. Paul is every bit as ready as Obama was as a single-term Senator with connections to Bill Ayers and Reverend God-Damn-America.

    1. So the Constitutional Lawyer thing, the Harvard thing, etc……makes no difference?

      Eye Doctors are schooled in the finer points of complex issues?

      As to who they know, heck…Rand’s campaign manager was a white supremacist who had pics of hanged negroes on his facebook timeline with folks laughing about them…on MLK day!

      Then again, it sounds to me that you might approve of such things.

      1. Incorrect. Jack Hunter was not Rand Paul’s campaign manager and is also not a white supremacist. 0 for 2, nice try.

        1. “The Southern Avenger had said some pretty atrocious things. He toasted John Wilkes Booth’s birthday each year and believed that Lincoln “would have had a romantic relationship with Adolf Hitler if the two met.” He worried about “racial double standards for white people” and that “a non-white majority America would simply cease to be America.”

          “That Rand Paul aide was me. I had written and said all of these things”

          Well, it appears the man himself disagrees with you. You know him better than he does – not to say all the written and recorded rants of the fella.

          Sure, we all put on robes and play other people on the radio.

          As I said, Rand and Ron hang and hung with white supremacists. This will come out clearly to the American people as Rand get’s vetted. Don’t blame the messenger…..hey, if Rev. Wright was fair game, are you saying Hunter isn’t????

          1. “The Southern Avenger had said some pretty atrocious things. He toasted John Wilkes Booth’s birthday each year and believed that Lincoln “would have had a romantic relationship with Adolf Hitler if the two met.” He worried about “racial double standards for white people” and that “a non-white majority America would simply cease to be America.”

            None of this has anything to do with white supremacy.

            “That Rand Paul aide was me. I had written and said all of these things”

            Well, it appears the man himself disagrees with you.

            Not really. I said that he wasn’t Paul’s campaign manager. This only proves that he was an aide. Nice try, but the two are different.

            “As I said, Rand and Ron hang and hung with white supremacists.”

            Huh, those white supremacists must have been pretty mad about their desire to adjust the drug laws so that so many minorities wouldn’t be in prison for victimless crimes.

          2. The Hitler/Lincoln thing could be a reference to both of them being closeted gays. Or, it is obviously a joke.

            Being worried about ‘racial double standards for whites’. Well, I’m worried about racial double standards for whites, or for any race, for that matter. Because racial double standards are racist.

            If the majority of Americans were black and brown, and not white middle-class America, would not America be different than it is today? Assuming blacks problems stayed the same, per capita of black person?

            Oh wait…I remember now. Let’s not talk about anything that might offend a prog. If black people are having babies out of wedlock and their boys are committing 60% of crime, but are 6% of the population, let’s ignore that one because…well, it might look racist.

      2. Such a great constitutional scholar he knows how to fuck it on a weekly basis.

        What’s it like having nonmoral compass?

      3. Eye Doctors are schooled in the finer points of complex issues?

        You seem to forget that the founders ranged from farmers, doctors, tradesmen, merchants, etc. to lawyers. One does not need to be a certified “constitutional scholar” or lawyer to understand appropriate governance. Oh, and with regard to the reference to Jack Hunter, I have viewed much of his work and have not once heard/read him act in a racist or “white supremacist” manner. Perhaps you should keep your misplaced and ill-informed talking points to yourself.

        1. I know Ben Frankly and T. Jefferson and Adams and Rand is none of these!

          Actually, many of them (the founders) were Harvard educated. John Adams, for one….and his son.

          Jefferson was a lawyer.
          Madison was Princeton educated.

          Try again!

          1. So you have to be Ivy League educated in order to fit this profile? How about you try again. Oh, and it’s Ben Franklin.

  11. I remember when I used to read the Weekly Standard, been a long time. Does Bill Kristol still run it for the Neo-Cons?

  12. Yet another Reason article bashing Rand Paul for not being correctly libertarian.

    WTF Reason??!

    A libertarian candidate with a chance to make some waves in the Republican primaries emerges and all you’ve got is nonstop buuuuuutttttt he’s not a hippy dippy flower child peacenik.

    When Santorm or some other equally disgusting full on so-con gets the nomination, I’m going to be a bit pissed that Reason couldn’t seize on the best chance for bringing at least SOME libertarian views into the mainstream. Nope, you’ve got to pass ALL the libertarian purity tests to get Reason’s approval!!

    1. Nope, you’ve got to pass ALL the libertarian purity tests to get Reason’s approval!!

      Only if you’re a Republican. Otherwise, they’ll settle with 8% libertarian.

    2. Rand has openly said he’s not a libertarian, and what he’s doing here is not libertarian, but political. He deserves to be criticized over what he’s doing as well as how he’s doing it.

      He’s the best senator the nation has had since Taft, but he’s not above criticism. If Reason were to sell out and become libertarianism and water rather than middle-of-the-road minarchist, it wouldn’t have much reason to exist.

      1. He said that he’s a Libertarian Republican. That’s still a libertarian of sorts.

        He is a good senator, as good as we have, but I’m not sure he’s better than Amash, he just has a lot more recognition at this point.

        1. We’ve had a few good men in the House, but the Senate is such a puerile institution that to have even a Rand there is a coup for libertarian-ish thought.

          Amash is so young that he has a good shot at the Senate at some point in the next 20 years, and Paul’s likely to hang around for a while yet. The thought of having him and Paul serving at the same time warms the cockles of my cold, barren libertarian heart.

          1. I like Amash a lot. Primarily because he strikes me as someone who has no interest in ever being President.

            I could see him staying a career rep…which would be a good thing.

      2. “He’s the best senator the nation has had since Taft,”
        Wow, you are a cultist……he’s done nothing. Absolutely nothing except grandstand, pander and waffle.

        I guess if you like that kind of thing, that means something. Personally, I’d rather him fix his state of KY, which tends to come in very high in just about every negative going….with great power comes great responsibility.

        Talk is cheap and doubletalk is even cheaper.

        1. And what cult is that? The one that tries to leave people alone? Wow.

    3. It’s kind of funny, how predictable these comments (and their exact inverse, blasting reason for shilling for Rand in positive posts) are. Probably 3 out of 4 mentions of the man on this sight are still positive ones, too, including the full-length cover piece they did on him.

      Here’s a thought: maybe reason criticizes Rand when he’s being anti-libertarian, and praise him when he’s being more libertarian. And sometimes they offer criticisms or praise- like this one of Rand’s inability to handle criticism- that isn’t directly on point to how libertarian somebody is. In other words, they treat him just like they would any other politician.

      Also, maybe “reason” employs multiple writers with varied opinions, who don’t all get some memo about who’s on the “say good/bad things about today” list, as much as you might like it to work that way.

      1. Pardon me, sir, but those appear to be reasoned, non-emotional remarks opting for some sort of non-hysterical middle-ground. Are you sure you’re in the right place?

    4. hahahha, there is absolutely nothing
      mainstream about a wacko libertarian

    5. Rand’s best chance is to outflank the dems on the left. He squanders this opportunity with a pro-war stance.

      1. I agree. He might win the young crowd with a decidedly anti war stance. That is what got Obama that crowd, largely.

  13. “All right, thanks guys. Work on that objectivity,” Paul said, as he walked away.

    Am I the only one who has been waiting for serious sarcasm to take a bigger role in these interactions? I’m sick of seeing people play along with professional bullshitters. IMO Rand Paul has done an admirable job calling out interviewers when they’re trying to bait a particular soundbite, and answering them when they’re asking a valid question (because you have to do both).

    When someone asks you “Have you stopped beating your wife?” you shouldn’t bluster through a half-explanation, you should say “Who the hell do you think you’re fooling with that crap, you freaking moron?”

    1. I think calling them out on it would be a better approach than beating a retreat. Rand has the bully pulpit with respect to the media, and he could’ve delivered a lecture to them on media fairness and objectivity. Instead he walked away and issued a parting shot.

      IOW, he should’ve blustered at length and shamed them, Clinton-style.

      1. qwhat would he know about fairness
        and objectivity? he’s a paul

  14. I’m a bit surprised that Paul ? who prides himself on ideological consistency ? has been caught so off guard by this line of questioning.

    That’s because he HASN’T been ideologically consistent. He turned from his non-interventionist stance towards one of intervention because he, like all other politicians, is reading the polls and these show that Americans want more circenses if they can’t get more panem. If asked about isolationism, he can always answer back with “Why the name-calling, Pete?”

  15. I’d prefer a Libertarian-leaning, thin-Skinned, flip-flopping, question-dodging candidate over a Democratic or Republican thin-Skinned, flip-flopping, question-dodging candidate. I’m pragmatic, bitches. Politicians are greasy bastards and I’ll take the least greasy one if I’m forced to live under a Statist boot.

    1. The question then is whether he is actually libertarian-leaning, or were libertarians just the first batch of useful idiots he was willing to lie to for votes?

      1. I suspect that he’s a conservative with some libertarian leanings, but that if anyone is expecting him to be an actual libertarian they’re probably going to be disappointed.

        His dad wasn’t a libertarian either…despite what his campaign spin said. He was a fiscal and social conservative with a few outlier beliefs on issues like drugs and trade.

      2. He’s admittedly a republican.
        He’s obviously a fundamentalist when it comes to religion – look at his stances on “life” and his statement that a litmus test of “faith” should be put to all who govern.

        So – all a pol has to do is talk a few lines from the libertarian playbook and he becomes the anointed one?

        You guys are easy prey…now wonder the Kochs invest in you. You can be bought cheap.

        1. Oh no, not someone who defends life in the womb! We can’t have that! The Kochs are pretty much an overblown leftist boogieman.

        2. Not as cheap as you demfags. Jesus tap dancing Christ, we regularly eat our own for not toeing the lion. When’s the last time the left did that?

          1. “for not toeing the lion”

            toe the line…

            I think we sent Hillary packing in the 2008 primaries…I don’t see us defending the Dem. crooks as much as the right defends theirs…

            Heck, we sent J Carter packing and elected RR. Didn’t you ever hear of Reagan Democrats? You’ll never hear of Obama Republicans.

    2. there is nothing pragmatic about you
      what a joke, maybe you should look
      the word up in the dictionary

      1. Paul is a practical choice in light of his views on issues (federal mandatory minimums, for example) ignored by most establishment pols. He is likely to be far more hands off than the majority (if not all) of candidates he is up against.

        1. “‘He is likely to be far more hands off than the majority (if not all) of candidates he is up against.”

          Hands off – when you are in those positions – means the status quo. You have to be brave (like O was with the ACA) and not care about your politics…to get something done. It’s pretty clear that Rand would have his eye on re-election only…if elected.

          1. The government needs to get much less “done.” That would truly be brave.

  16. “He didn’t respond to the questions and indicated he wasn’t happy with this reporter as well as a local reporter who repeatedly suggested Paul is an isolationist.”

    Just to clarify, a REASON MAGAZINE, home of some of the most dovish libertarians who insist they aren’t isolationists, reporter is suggesting that the military is the ONLY way for Americans to interact with foreigners.

    1. home of some of the most dovish libertarians who insist they aren’t isolationists

      As the Horde says, kek. Welcome to the forum, hope you stick around long enough to learn what libertarianism is.

  17. I don’t care about the flip-flopping (consistency is a limited virtue), but the whining, geeze. I realize that his base voters see incessant crying about how victimized they are as the height of manliness, but I don’t think it sells well in general when you’re trying to lead the free world.

    1. Right. Now, let’s all complain about a real problem: whining about how the democrats are the real losers of the two-party, gerrymandered system. Boo hoo.

      1. No, Brian, you guys should write more articles on how great Photo ID laws are and how it’s just great that some right winger gets to determine which Black person gets to vote.

      2. The deliberate eradication of democratic choice vs. being asked a question about your position by a reporter. And I thought you guys lacked perspective.

      3. the right doesn’t have a candidate
        that can win the presidency, would
        you like some cheese with that whine

  18. Question-dodging for sure.

    All you need to know about Rand Paul, and how different he is from his father, was that little video clip when he was eating lunch, and an immigrant stopped by his table to ask questions. He couldn’t have run away fast enough.

  19. ANy candidate who tells the media to screw themselves is fine in my book!

    1. Palin must be up on your wall then. I prefer those who tell the bankers to fuck off (like FDR).

      1. FDR was an economic ignoramus.

        1. you seriously need to stop skipping school, goober

          1. Somehow, I knew you’d support the man who saw fit to inter American citizens in camps.

  20. So, are the options really limited to “villainous, deceitful, statist scumbag” or “Freedom Jesus?” Is the plan to just wait around until the second coming of Murray Rothbard materializes and immediately runs for the Presidency? Because, while I understand the reluctance to water down your principles, I also appreciate the old allegory about the street vendor with the $1 million dollar pencil. The Progs didn’t take over government in one election, and we won’t get rid of them in one, either.

    1. I love the way you goobers use the
      word “statist” to make yourself
      appear smart, it doesn’t work

  21. “Most journalists he deals with certainly won’t be working on their objectivity anytime soon.”

    You mean tough questions to a presidential candidate is evidence of a liberal conspiracy, Robby? The press should lob more soft balls to Great Libertarian Leader like you guys do? Asking tough questions is the job of the press; your job is to keep the Koch money flowing. I know that’s mutually exclusive, but– Hey-Zeus Christ– try not to be so transparent about it.

  22. I don’t always have the time or inclination to answer lame questions either.

    1. then don’t run for office

  23. Finally, a slightly accurate blog post on Sen. Paul…..

    The minute he has to debate another candidate, these flaws (waffling, having it both ways, ideas that don’t work in the real world) will show up as glaring deficiencies.

    Not to say Pols can’t fool people – after all, GW fooled most of you and a lot of others. But he knew many years before that he would do anything…as he put it himself “I won’t get out-christianed or out-texaned again” – after losing to a rival who prayed more…

    1. What ideas won’t work in the real world? Much of Paul’s ideas are telling progressives that you can’t make a law that says everyone will be wealthy happy and have world class healthcare. You’re right though, a world where progressives understand math may be make-believe.

      1. “What ideas won’t work in the real world? ”

        Like just about every libertarian idea…..won’t work in government!

        May I quote the evil Dick Cheney who said about another subject “That’s fine as a personal virtue, but sucks as a government policy” (my paraphrase – he said that about conservation and energy efficiency, and he was wrong…but you get the idea).

        So-called “Libertarian Principles” are the things I was raised to do naturally and I put them to work each minute and each day.

        But these things have little to do with the complexities of taking care of hundreds of millions.

        I can “pull myself up by my bootstraps”, but I can’t tell the down’s syndrome kid to do the same. I can’t tell the person with a disability who can’t use his legs or feet to pull himself up and walk to work.

        The current crop of libertarians, most of whom are nothing by embarrassed republicans, white supremacists or other disaffected types, know little or nothing about the complexities of government.

        Rand Paul would not be able to keep the residents of a 100 unit condo happy if he sat on the board….let alone do any kind of a job as Prez.

        I say you fella’s are in a fantasy land which sounds good if you keep repeating it to yourself, but is evidently BS to anyone who has any experience at actually doing things.

        One must live in the world as it is – not in some la-la land outlined in Fiction Books.

        1. Wow you are a moron. The problem is that the government doesn’t work, and that’s why libertarianism is correct.

          “So-called “Libertarian Principles” are the things I was raised to do naturally and I put them to work each minute and each day.

          But these things have little to do with the complexities of taking care of hundreds of millions.”

          These millions will be taken care of by voluntarism. Whether it is by the actions of the free market or by voluntary charity.

          “I can “pull myself up by my bootstraps”, but I can’t tell the down’s syndrome kid to do the same.”

          Which is why people in communities should come together to help the less fortunate, not government. Wanting the government to do it is akin to enlisting a federal agent to point a gun at someone else in order to get them to help those you want to help.

          “The current crop of libertarians, most of whom are nothing by embarrassed republicans, white supremacists or other disaffected types, know little or nothing about the complexities of government.”

          Yeah, this is why libertarians have lead the charge to reform drug laws that harm minorities.

          “Rand Paul would not be able to keep the residents of a 100 unit condo happy if he sat on the board….let alone do any kind of a job as Prez.”

          And of course, you have no proof that any of this is true.

          1. Don’t waste your time. Craig is a lying little cunt who’s even more economically illiterate than Tony.

            1. “who’s even more economically illiterate than Tony.”

              Funny – I have applied my principles many time to the real world and the results have been stellar. And you…???

      2. the opposite of progressive is
        regressive which describes you well

        1. Turd.Burglar.

  24. If a candidate says he’s supportive of an airstrike on terrorist organization that executed two citizens of his nation (even releasing the act of cruelty), he’s a “warmonger”? Okay.

    Rand will never become president if he simply repeats the same ready made libertarian argument on every situation by rote. Saying “ISIS is not technically a threat to the United States, so I’ll do nothing about them.” will unravel his candidacy even before it begins.

    If the Mexican drug cartel lynched a black police officer and draped a confederate flag over his corpse, the nation will not expect the POTUS to declare war on Mexico or close off the border. But the POTUS better provide a measured and forceful response on how he will address that kind of atrocity. And doing that isn’t “pandering” to progressives or black voters.

    None of the serious presidential candidates will even whisper about taking the nation to war, unless they wish for career suicide. Rand goes a bit further since he’s a skeptic of drone tactics and such. Meanwhile, he will fund overseas military bases, support Israel’s defense against Hamas, and order harsh measures against barbarians that kill his own people. It’s what America wants.

    1. “If a candidate says he’s supportive of an airstrike on terrorist organization that executed two citizens of his nation (even releasing the act of cruelty), he’s a “warmonger”? Okay.”

      Well, yeah – Americans die regularly at the hands of others all around the world. Are we going to deploy 100’s of millions of dollars worth of military assets and kill…how many? Is that a justified response?

      It would seem to me that a justified response may be to pretend to do nothing, while taking some covert action and perhaps killing a few of their top commanders. That might be a “reasoned” response.

      Heck, if we killed those who committed horrible violence against Americans, we’d have nuked Oakland, Ca. by now…

    2. It’s what America wants.

      America wants many things: an infinite credit account, complete safety, complete freedom, low taxes, a balanced budget, a big military, love and respect, a strong dollar, a weak dollar, an export surplus, cheap imports, low prices, tariffs, etc. Many of these desires are mutually irreconcilable.

      In this case, if we want safety, we better stop using our military to avenge the deaths of people who voluntarily travel into war zones.

      And the job of a libertarian candidate is to tell people the truth, namely that they can’t have everything they want.

  25. Rand Paul is no different than any other career politician. He is addicted to power like all the others, and he will say whatever it takes to maintain his career as a politician.

    Just think of career politicians like you do habitual criminals. Both are addicts. Anyone who places their hopes in any politician is going to be sadly disappointed.

    1. “He is addicted to power like all the others, and he will say whatever it takes to maintain his career as a politician.”

      Actually, Rand is MUCH worse than most. Many actually prefer serving for decades as a Senator or Rep so they gain knowledge and seniority and can pass actual legislation.

      Rand has no time for that. As with all libertarian types, he already knows everything and should be appointed POTUS lickity split…

      1. You seem to be fine with Obama’s lack of experience though.

        1. This isn’t about the Chosen One goober.

          /fucktard

        2. Which of these things is not like the other:

          Harvard Lawyer
          Kentucky Eye Doc

          ???

          1. Mmmm, that’s a tasty appeal to authority.

  26. If Rand Paul wants a Republican nomination, he’ll have to start behaving like a proper Republican. That means abandoning the libertarian stuff, and saying “less government” while meaning “more government.”

  27. Did Mary Stack get the keys to the car again?

  28. y co-worker’s step-mother makes $80 hourly on the computer . She has been fired for nine months but last month her payment was $12551 just working on the computer for a few hours. over here ….

    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

  29. More likely, Paul is growing tired of the constant game of “gotcha” thrust on him by the media. The media is terrified he will run because he is someone who likely would beat Hillary Clinton, who I think personally has not got a chance of winning. The press is again trying to anoint the President as it did with Obama and trying to destroy every GOP contender in the process. The author probably just asked the wrong question at the wrong time. Who knows…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.