Rand Paul

Rand Paul: "I don't want my guns registered in Washington or my marriage"


The Daily Beast

Via Hot Air comes this CNN report by Pete Hamby, who's following Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on his college tour. During a talk at the College of Charleston, Paul demonstrates why he is the future of the Republican Party.

Hamby asks the Kentucky pol about gay marriage:

"I don't want my guns registered in Washington or my marriage," he told me. "Founding Fathers all got married by going down to the local courthouse. It is a local issue and always has been."

But can Republicans win a national election if they aren't in tune with rapidly changing opinions on the matter? He took a soft tone.

"Society's changing," he said. "I mean, people change their minds all the time on this issue, and even within the Republican Party, there are people whose child turns out to be gay and they're like, oh well maybe I want to rethink this issue. So it's been rethought. The President's rethought the issue. So I mean, a lot of people have rethought the issue."

"The bottom line is, I'm old fashioned, I'm a traditionalist," he said. "I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage. But, I don't really think the government needs to be too involved with this, and I think that the Republican Party can have people on both sides of the issue."

What about birth control, especially Plan B, the contraceptive "morning-after pill" that's often confused with RU-486, a drug that causes an abortion in a pregnant woman?

"I am not opposed to birth control," he said. After a pause, he elaborated. "That's basically what Plan B is. Plan B is taking two birth control pills in the morning and two in the evening, and I am not opposed to that."

And legalization of pot and harder drugs?

Another student here pressed him on "the drug war," asking if Paul would support legalizing marijuana, cocaine and heroin. He said he wasn't supportive of drug use, explaining that pot "is not that great," but said drug laws should be left up to states. Colorado and Washington are experimenting with legalized marijuana, he said, and we should be watching carefully….

"My position has not been for legalization [of coke, heroin, and harder drugs], my position has been for less criminalization and more fair adjudication for people that are caught in this, and that kids who make youthful mistakes should get a second chance," he said.

Read the whole thing and watch video with Paul here.

From a Reason-style libertarian view, it's easy enough to fault Rand Paul for the timidity of his positions. Come on, already! The government shouldn't discriminate based on sexual orientation! It's my body and I should be free to put whatever I want in it! You know the catechism. And there's this, which is pretty unforgivable:

Soon after [his talk], he packed a nearby restaurant with fawning college kids at an open bar sponsored by his political action committee. Paul and his wife, Kelley, danced and sang along to Chumbawumba, the 90s-era pop band with an anarchist streak.

But from a mainstream political view of either the Democrats or the Republicans (but especially the latter), Paul's comments are pretty groundbreaking stuff. It shows that Paul is standing by his statement to Reason TV (see below) that if the GOP is going to survive, much less flourish in, the Libertarian Moment, its members have "to become more live and let live."

That's absolutely accurate. Large and growing majorities of Americans embrace marriage equality and pot legalization. Abortion, which Rand Paul opposes, is also supported by a large and stable majority of Americans and the weird, anti-sex and contraception vibe given off by many Republicans is no way to win the future (or even hold on to the past). Paul's foreign-policy views—he calls himself a realist and, despite some iffy positions, is clearly less interventionist than your garden-variety Republican bomb-dropper—are giving the GOP establishment the vapors, but the fact is that he's in synch with most Americans on this too. Despite the momentary surge toward action in the wake of ISIS's brutal beheadings, Americans have never taken warmly to being globocop for any length of time.

Whether or not Paul gets very far in the presidential sweepstakes is less important than the fact he is bringing a clear libertarian-inflected sensibility to one of the nation's major parties (on economic issues, he's been outfront on the need to cut spending in a way that few of his party mates will spell out with any clarity). Even if the GOP manages to bag the Senate in the midterm elections, it's clear that a party that pulls just 23 percent of millennials has nowhere to go but down over the long haul.

Over at Hot Air, the wonderfully lapidary Allahpundit considers the gay marriage issue and writes acidly, "How do you suppose Ted Cruz would respond to this question?" Allahpundit further notes that while unapologetic social cons such as Texas Sen. Cruz and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal got rave reactions at the recent Values Voter Summit, Paul "was received politely but tepidly."


From where I'm watching, that's good news for Paul and possibly for a rejuvenated GOP. Cruz can give a hell of a speech but it's characters such as Rand Paul who are reaching out to new constituencies, including younger Americans sick of war and the loss of privacy and rigged old-age entitlements that screw millennials to preserve the status quo for baby boomers.

Social cons make up a smaller and smaller share of America and they're going to have to figure out how to live in a world that is teeming with gays, pot, and multi-ethnic folks (the percentage of the foreign-born is already near levels not seen since the 1920s; that ain't changing anytime soon even if the borders are sealed and deportations proceed apace).

If the Republican Party has a future, it's going to look and sound a lot more like Rand Paul than Ted Cruz or Bobby Jindal. We're in a Libertarian Moment—one that embraces increased choice and individual preferences in everything—precisely because the old right-left, conservative-liberal, Republican-Democrat dyad has failed us spectacularly in the 21st century. Authority, knowledge, power—it's all decentralizing and the old politics of command and control have less and less relevance with every passing day.

NEXT: Man Posing as Congressman Went Backstage at Obama Event

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. What’s once in a minute, twice in a moment, but not in a billion years?

    The libertarian moment.


  2. “Abortion, which Rand Paul opposes, is also supported by a large and stable majority of Americans”

    If you mean they’re split down the middle on whether to call themselves prochoice or prolife, and overwhelmingly endorse the idea that abortion should be “legal only under certain circumstances” or not at all.


    And also from Gallup:

    “Americans Misjudge U.S. Abortion Views

    Perception that pro-choice position dominates contrasts with even split in actual views”


    1. But yeah, Paul doesn’t think Plan B is an abortifacient. It’s only a matter of time before he drops his prolife bills and opens up a fetus-meat restaurant.

      1. But those commercial vertical rotissories are so expensive.

        1. You mean women?

    2. By the way, what could account for the public’s overestimate of prochoice influence?

      Could it be…the media?

      1. Your weird redefinition of what “pro-choice” means?

        1. I will have to ask you to clarify what you’re saying, because it’s tough for me to figure it out.

        2. Exactly. This is just more of Eddie’s dishonesty. He knows what Nick means, that a minority of Americans support the pro-life view and think abortion should be available under at least some circumstances.


          1. The dishonesty is yours, friend, because you’re suggesting most Americans agree with the current abortion regime.


            1. A regime you acknowledge that if amended as a majority would support you would still oppose, so as you just doubled up on your dishonesty.

              See, when you’re fighting the righteous battle against microscopic human holocaust no other principles need be adhered to.

              1. I tell you what, why don’t you take your dishonesty and your projection and put it where the sun never shines?

                Can ya do that for me, buddy?

                1. Oh my Eddie, what would your Bishop say?

                  1. “Oh my Eddie”

                    I’m flattered but I do not swing that way.

                    1. “Oh my Eddie”

                      I’m flattered but I do not swing that way.

                      Even with this Bo (circa 1980)?

                    2. He had to check with his Bishop before answering.

                2. You didn’t simply move the goalposts, you had a couple guys from New Jersey pick up the goalposts and bury them, then you said, “what goalposts?”

                  1. Christ, will you two stop it and just make out already!?

                  2. You talking about moving the goalposts is the pot for sure. You knew full well what Nick was referring to: that the percent of Americans who want abortion to be illegal, the position you yourself take, is a small minority. So you move the goalposts to about what slogan people prefer, and then when I called your weaselly self on it you moved it yet again to how many Americans support the current regime of abortion.

                    1. You know, Bo, I’m presuming you passed the LSAT, and that test measures your grasp of certain elementary logical principles, yet you consistently fail to show any grasp of these principles.

                      I’m not sure whether you cheated on the LSAT, whether you had some kind of stroke which deprived you of your logical faculties, or whether you are so blinded by bigotry that you simply forget basic logic and reading comprehension, but the bottom line is that this is a summary of your intellectual capacities:


                    2. You have no argument: like the weasel you are you knowingly shifted the goalposts twice as I’ve described, you got called on it, and now you fall back to your puerile foolishness in the hopes no one will notice your simplistic dishonesty.

                    3. I would suggest you consider a career at Carmike Cinemas, since you are so good at projection.

                      Would you like some cake?


                    4. Bottom line: I’ve described your goalpost shifting.

                      As usual you have rebuttal but your own projection and puerility.

                      Don’t they teach any argumentation skills at Catholic school, or do they skip that to allow extra time for more molestation?

                    5. No rebuttal

                    6. I’m embarrassed for you, the art of the comeback seems lost in the younger generation.

                      What you just said? I don’t call it a comeback.


                    7. Are unable to form an argument by genetics or were you locked in a Church basement most of your childhood?

                    8. You are indeed a brave man, good Sir Knight, but sometimes ya just gotta admit when you’re licked.


                    9. Licked? You’ve taken no shots, made no arguments, whatsoever to defend your weaselly goal shifting or to criticize my argument. If this is a fight your like a guy in a straight jacket with Tourrettes syndrome, screaming out logical catch phrased with no application.

                    10. Your wit is worthy of Oscar Wilde:


                    11. Again, no argument.

                    12. No, no NO! That’s not how you do a comeback.

                      You say something like “you, sir, will either die on the gallows or of some loathsome disease.”

                      Then I reply, “that depends, sir, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress.”

                      Then you say, “blow me, my good sir!”

                      See how it’s done?

                    13. Again, no argument.

                      You really can’t do it, can you?

                    14. Frankly, I’ve been having so much fun, I’ve kind of forgotten what we were originally arguing about.

                      Oh, yes, we were discussing what I was doing in your general direction.


          2. A nearly equivalent minority of Americans support abortion under any circumstances, which is closer to the current legal regime. A majority of Americans would support a more restrictive abortion law than what the courts currently enforce. The popularity of “pro-choice” is lot more complicated than Gillespie suggests, and is more open to compromise than Gillespie’s position on the subject. That’ why his framing is dishonest.

    3. Yeah, it would be more accurate to say that abortion-qua-abortion is supported by a “large and stable majority” of the courts.

      1. The NARAL peeps etc consider you ‘antichoice’ if you don’t support 3rd trimester abortions on demand

        By their definition of pro choice, a pretty small %age of Americans are prolife

        1. I would think their definition would make a vast majority of Americans prolife.

          1. Word.

            My bad. Fwiw, I have had some very ‘interesting’ experiences in my life, from naked surfing, to being held at gunpoint in Central Maerica, but the NARAL meeting I attended was about the most bizarre

        2. And the pro-life activists think a true pro life stance requires opposition to 1st term abortions, abortions for rape or incest, etc.

          1. Wow, you’ve certainly supported Nick Gillespie’s argument!

        3. I support a nine trimester cooling off period before you have an abortion.

  3. You know who else got down, but got up again, and no one could keep down?

    1. *knocked down

    2. I would say that it depends on what they drink.

    3. weebles

    4. Some one hit wonder band I never want to hear again?

    5. Dick Nixon.

      Or was it Nixon!s dick?

    6. I always thought they were saying “Ain’t got no towel” instead of “I get knocked down”

  4. OT: Nothing to do with Rand, just greatness.

    1. Jesus Herbert Christ.

      I’m 26 and the idea of my parents paying for anything is laughable to me. That’s not to say they wouldn’t help me out if they thought I needed it, but it’s a large point of personal pride for me that I don’t need it. Grow the fuck up, bish.

      1. I think that’s a parody site.

        1. I realized that after I looked at the headlines on a few other articles. -_-”

          It was just so believable! I have a cousin who is about six months older than I am, and this is exactly like something she would do. … Except her parents are never going to cut her off. Ever.

        2. I spotted it immediately. There wasn’t enough indignation for it to have been a real story.

        1. It’s only a joke when it isn’t YOUR cousin, HM!

      2. My parents and I are constantly getting into the exact opposite fight. We’ll, say, go out to dinner and they want to pick up the tab because they’re well off and like being nice for my brother and I, but I want to pay for my dinner myself because I like being able to pay my own way, and this devolves into a huge argument because we’re all REALLY STUBBORN.

        1. we’re all REALLY STUBBORN.

          The hell you say.

    2. I’ll buy her plane ticket if she want’s to come stay with me that weekend.

  5. It amuses me that Dr Paul is far more statist than I am, in general, and on drugs specifically

    I’m not a litmus tester, but his drugs position is not very libertarian

    I respect his old-fashionedness so to speak, but it’s a wee bit statist for my taste

    1. Dunphy wants to live in the kind of society where a cop can enter your property without cause or permission and shoot you in your home for answering the door, not the kind of society where some poor dumb kid goes to prison for years for possessing some drugs.

    2. Yes and no.. At face value, I agree with your analysis. In the context of running for the presidency, you’re not allowed to be less statist than that opinion… At least if you want to be elected.

      1. That’s a good point. He is an elected politician so you have to filter what he says through that lens.

        Maybe upon election he would reveal his True Libertarian Freak Flag out.

        It’s a bit of a DU’esque double standard here but that’s understandable cause he’s ‘our man.’

        in regards to DU, they have a policy that no anti gay marriage posters are allowed AND no support of non dem politicians against Dems, so Obama is supported but technically could not even post there

        Dr Paul’s fuddy dud dryness does bother me a bit, though, but it helps to put it in the context you describe

        1. Hey! Not Dunphy is right!

          1. That’s a fair cop

            Par for the course

            1. You still claim that you are the guy who used to post as Dunphy?


              1. Brah, you can believe whatever you want but yes I am the same person

                Ever since I started posting people will doubt almost everything

                When I first started I was constantly getting the posts about people not even believing I was a cop in the first place

                sometimes those were the same people that turned around and then criticize me for all the alleged evil eases of being a cop which I find quite amusing

                it’s pretty clear that when it comes to police related issues the bigots will only accept data that corresponds with their prejudices

                That’s not surprising since it’s how many ideologues operate

                That is why I so desperately miss Balko because he is evidence not emotion-based, process not results based and tends to come to conclusions that make a logical sense

                Again just go back to the whole BART shooting scandal and notice that he was the only one besides me who came to correct conclusion regarding the manslaughter conviction

                there was simply no evidence for murder and tigons of evidence that pointed towards the version of manslaughter he was convicted of but only Belco could get the distinction

              2. Note that some of the capitalization for effect (e.g., True Libertarian Freak Flag) would not happen with his claimed voice recognition. It’s a spoof. The “naked surfing” thing above should be another clue.

                1. yeah, I agree. I was on the fence for a while, but the real Dunphy was better at capitalization, grammar, and punctuation. His arguments, although noxious and generally wrong, tended to be more coherent and self-logical. I actually agreed with him once or twice, but don’t tell anyone!
                  This guy is a pretty good spoofer, but “forces” it too much; includes unbelievable anecdotes every thread, whereas the original Dunphy only did it occasionally, doesn’t use “cop-talk” or “officialeze” enough or properly, and in general just doesn’t quite get the right tone.
                  It is a well crafted attempt, but just not quite convincing…

    3. It amuses me that Dr Paul is far more statist than I am

      You should learn to differentiate between what people believe on a personal level (as in, what they may advocate for in a private, non-coercive way) and what their philosophy on government is (as in, what powers they think the gov’t legitimately has or should have).

      1. I am differentiating just fine. He is clear that he does not support legalization.

        He is for ‘less criminalization’ and ‘more fair’

        So it is ok in his eyes that drug users get jail time
        Because the definition of criminal implies penal jeopardy attaches

        There are a metric assload of Democrats and Republicans that have the position he has

        Going full legalization would be extremely hard-core because even some very libertarian folks have problems with drug dealers for example, but he could fall well short of that and still be WAY less statist than he is

        1. How can one believe that people have a right to use drugs, but not to sell them?

          1. I am speaking descriptively but not normatively and lots of people think usage of drugs should not result in prison it does not therefore follow that same person automatically thinks that a drug user has a legal or constitutional right to do so

            Obviously if one thinks it is a right than one would think that it should not be penalized by government but you are assuming that all people think it should not be penalized by government think of it is a right and that is clearly not the case

            Speaking as a matter of general policy it is accepted by most as is clear in the Penal Code of most every nation on earth that I’m aware of that people consider dealing more serious than using

            So if Ron Paul is being politically Coy, he well knows that it’s a lot easier to sell leniency for drug users versus drug dealers

        2. I think he’s not going full legalization because he’s politically savvy. Holding it against him that he’s far better on drugs than may national level pol but not as good as the LP is silly.

            1. He won’t even go as far as to say that a guy in possession of a single joint shouldn’t face criminal charges

              Of course it’s not at all surprising that an ideologue would bend over backwards to make exceptions to the heroes he worships

              I wouldn’t expect fair-minded criticism of Dr. Paul from an ideologue anymore than I would expect a Democratic Party feminist to call Clinton on his sexual harassment etc. which of course they didn’t

              What you are doing is what I have done over and over when people claim you can’t be a cop and be a libertarian and I have explained to him pragmatically why it’s possible

              Welcome to the exact same type of pragmatism that I employ and welcome to your double standard

              Ironically as a cop working within the system I can do far more to promote libertarian ideals and to protect civil rights etc. then you can do wanking about it from your mom’s basement


    4. You are an enforcer of the state.* You are a statist, full stop, by definition, particularly when you enforce those laws you claim to disagree with.

      Fuck off, slaver.

      *assuming you aren’t a poseur, anyway.

      1. This silly canard has been completely obliterated with logic but assuming what you said was true

        Then POTUS is statist. To a much greater degree in every way possible

        He can for example offer clemency to any non-violent drug offender he pleases or pretty much all of them

        He is in charge of every federal law-enforcement agency and thus responsible for all of their policies regarding SWAT raid’s what laws the preferentially in force etc. etc.

        And I am completely confident that were Dr. Paul to become president you would immediately declare him a statist as well and would completely disavow him if he chose not to immediately start releasing nonviolent federal drug prisoners etc.


        I am sure you would apply those same harsh

      2. I know a lot of people in the Defense Industry (military and otherwise) who are libertarians or libertarian leaning. Not everyone comes to their political realization before committing to a career field, and find it difficult, once established, to completely switch gears and get off the government’s tit.

        Regardless of your feelings towards Dunphy, it’s pretty disengenuous to write off everyone associated with the government as being a “slaver.”

        1. Bullshit. Anyone who contributes to the unconstitutional use of government force in order to restrict the freedoms of others, and who, by his very day to day work, supports the curtailing of freedom, is a slaver.
          “But I was just following orders” has been discredited as a defense for 70 years now.
          Like pregnancy, there is no “little bit a statist”. You are either for freedom or against it.

  6. I still think that’s the best PhotoShop job I’ve seen at Reason. I like the way Katniss Tris is looking at him like “Hey, you’re even older than the other much older guy I have a crush on!”

  7. world that is teeming with gays, pot, and multi-ethnic folks

    I refuse to believe that this is anything but a veiled reference to John’s “Mexicans, pot, and ass-sex” line — and personally, I applaud Nick for his daring.

    1. The suggestion is that “multi-ethnic” and “foreign-born” people are SoLibs, and are into pot and ass-sex.

      You know, people like Michelle Malkin:


      Or these guys:


      1. Regardless of whether or not they tend to be SoLibs, almost every racial/ethnic group besides whites tends not to vote for Republicans.

        1. Also, I agree with IT that I’m pretty sure that was a subtle reference to the “Mexicans, pot, and ass-sex” line that John keeps repeating.

        2. B-but, Michelle Malkin!?!

    2. Until the racist slur “Wet back” is also seen a homophobic slur, we will never be free.

  8. weird, anti-sex vibe

    The millenials seems perfectly fine with the Democrats weird anti-sex vibe.

    Also if Millenials are so concerned about entitlements then why do they Support Democrats?

    Large and growing majorities of Americans embrace

    The Welfare state and Hillary Clinton and oppose Rand Paul?

    1. The millenials seems perfectly fine with the Democrats weird anti-sex vibe.

      Quoting and responding to an old thread because it’s so, so true. In fact, I’m fairly sure Nick created that bit about the “Republican anti-sex vibe” out of whole cloth. I’ve never gotten that from them at all. Against premarital sex, yeah, albeit with a wink and a nod, and definitely against homosexual sex, but not anti-sex.

      It’s Progressivism that gives us this weird obsession with de-sexualizing women in the name of “gender equality”, and the many and varied forms of sexual assault or discrimination which can occur through seemingly innocuous behavior once thought not just harmless but gentlemanly, e.g. opening a door for a lady, referring to a woman as a “lady”, buying a woman a drink, engaging in sexual activity without first signing a waiver and affirming consent every five minutes. A man can’t say to a female coworker something like, “You look nice today,” without worrying that it will possibly be construed as harassment, because acknowledging the physical characteristics of a person of the opposite sex, even in the most neutral, banal terms, is tantamount to rape. If that’s not an obsession with sex, I don’t know what is, and that comes from the Democrats way, way, way more than it comes from the Republicans.

  9. We’re in a Libertarian Moment

    Clap your hands if you believe!

    precisely because the old right-left, conservative-liberal, Republican-Democrat dyad has failed us spectacularly in the 21st century.

    Because people are not content with the status quo doesn’t mean they have no political differences or have embraced libertarianism.

    1. The days may be failing us but in nearly every election it gets way more votes than the next dozen candidates outside the dyad

    2. Agreed. But this may be better, “Because people are dissatisfied with the status quo doesn’t mean they are lacking political differences or have embraced libertarianism”. A triple negative. Are you Japanese? They do that and it makes my head explode.

      1. Chotto.

  10. Oh shit! What is it, gay marriage day? I’m staying out of this one.

  11. The thing is that Paul’s approach is a softer one than most SoCons who want things like federal marriage definition. Under the federalist approach he suggests state after state is now recognizing gay marriage.

    1. What has his position been on openly gay service in the military?

      1. It’s been wrong. He’s not perfect, just by far the better choice with the least objectionable bad positions

        1. 🙁

          I love to point out to liberals that it took a lawsuit by Republicans to get us open gays in the military

          1. Lawsuit by Republicans? Wasn’t it part of the budget deal?

            1. It was a lawsuit by the log cabin Republicans and it finally got to a court that forced the government to deal with it

              It makes liberals heads explode when you point out that God for bid a Republican group got it changed

              1. Republican Eisenhower desegregated the military.

                1. Republican Abe Lincoln freed the slaves. The Republican party, was, in fact, started as a Anti-Slavery party.

    2. Under the federalist approach he suggests state after state is now recognizing gay marriage.

      Not exactly. More states have had their existing marriage statutes overturned by federal courts than have resolved the issue locally. And it’s going to be a moot point in the next couple of years when SCOTUS decides the issue. Whether Rand Paul likes it or not, the federal government is not only going to continue to be deeply involved in the marriage racket, it is going to define the terms.

  12. OT: I loathe almost everything on TV except MMA, Family Guy, South Park and Cosmos

    However… The Strain is great so far

    1. New Cosmos was crap. NdT is a disgrace.

      1. Ok, it took me a second to figure that out

        I actually like the new cosmos despite the fact that I think that he is a total putz

        SAGAN . NdT

        He is totally annoying in the lectures and debates and stuff which is why I don’t like him

  13. I like Rand much better than any other active pol I am aware of, but, damn it, he just can’t come to terms with the idea of self ownership which is about as fundamental as you can get if you claim to believe in liberty.

    1. Is there ANY more private decision than deciding what one puts inside one’s own body?

      It does not affect anybody else

      And as we have seen empirically enforcing laws against it seems to inevitably involve shredding the Constitution

      1. Is there ANY more private decision than deciding what one puts inside one’s own body?

        Deciding whether to pop a floater or a sinker while playing Angry Birds on the toilet?

        You asked…

    2. It’s going to take a good generation or so to get back to an understanding that Liberty is the prime goal of the American experiment. The millenials look promising, but not a certain thing yet. Their parents looked pretty good too, for a while, but look at them now.

      Paul/Amash 2016!

      1. Their parents looked pretty good too, for a while, but look at them now.

        Fans of Castro, Che and Mao turned out to be not be libertarian, Who woulda thunk?

        1. Also less puritanical than their parent, anti-war and pot smokers. Nobody’s perfect.

  14. So who is more delusional, Gillespie or Ernst Thalmann with his “First Brown then Red” spiel?

    1. Cynicism is how some people protect themselves, that’s understandable. But consider this: have we had a national level politician as openly libertarian in the realistic mix for President in decades? Paul’s prominence is big for libertarianism. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

      1. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

        This has nothing to do with that. Even if Rand Paul was only able to pass some mild libertarianish reforms that would be a big victory and prove my cynicism was wrong. However even getting to that point will be extremely difficult and having future Presidents build on what Rand did will be extremely hard to do.

        1. Not if Paul’s potential reforms work, which I believe they will.

          1. Getting Congress, the bureaucracy and the media to go along will not be easy.

            1. True, but he could do real good on his own, imagine if he were to grant clemency to nonviolent federal convictions on marijuana charges, for example.

            2. They won’t go along willingly.

              Most will have to be dragged kicking and screaming.

              They really won’t have much choice since the financial status of the US resembles that of France in April 1789.

              Which way they get dragged, and who drags them, is yet to be determined.

              1. They really won’t have much choice since the financial status of the US resembles that of France in April 1789.

                Which way they get dragged, and who drags them, is yet to be determined.

                So how long before Welch and Gillespie are led to the Guillotine?

      2. have we had a national level politician as openly libertarian in the realistic mix for President in decades?

        His dad.

        It’s interesting that the Paul’s seem to pass the Bo Cara Esq One True Libertarianism(TM) Purity Test. They must have gotten a waiver on the fag-hating and anti-abortion stuff.

  15. Also when will Nick regal us with Anchorman 2 being the Most Important Film of the Year?

  16. The government shouldn’t discriminate based on sexual orientation!

    With an exclamation point. Really?, with my question mark. Politics has no value at all if doesn’t discriminate.

    Why are you even interested in politics? Nick.

  17. Getting elected has a lot to do with giving your enemies the least amount if rope to hang you with.

  18. fuck everything my baseball team lost.

    1. What are you talking about? It’s still the 4th inning!

      1. You’re not fecund enough to see the 6th.

      2. Fuck the dodgers and cardinals.

    2. I’m sorry, did you say “baseball”? Is that still something people care about?

  19. While the typical primary candidate runs for the outer fringes of his party, Rand is already moving towards the moderate middle. With what we know of his core, this should not concern us; rather he is politically savey enough to know that a far right libertarian will not win a general election, but a moderate libertarian has a pretty good shot.

    “I don’t want my guns registered in Washington or my marriage” and ‘I personally oppose abortion, but know that it’s not of my business what a woman has to do’ (my words, NOT his) is a pretty respectable, electable position. I hope he makes it, he probably wouldn’t be any worse than the last three bozos (Clinton, Bush the younger and Obumah!(R) and he might reign in the NSA, the TSA and the IRS.

    Paul/Amash 2016!

      1. Note the date on that quote. Like it or not, Paul is drifting away from an absolute pro-life position.

      2. How is that inconsistent with a libertarian position? If you believe that a fetus at some stage becomes a person, then protecting that person’s right to life, upon which all other rights depend, is 100% a libertarian position to take.

  20. He’s got my vote.

  21. Remind me again what forcing bakers and photographers to serve gay weddings under penalty of law has to do with a “live and let live” philosophy?

    1. There is no one here who advocates those positions. You have found the wrong place to make your complaint. Most people here would say “let the gays marry, let bakers choose not not to bake them a cake, and why the hell is government even involved in marriage: it should be a religious ceromony, not a civil one.” The government should enforce civil contracts between consenting adults, and the churches should conduct marriage ceremonies. What is so hard to understand?

      1. Well, except maybe the writers–whose positions seem all too supportive of the coercive form of homosexual acceptance even while they make noises to try to suggest that they’re not.

        Quite honestly, I suspect that their talk about how it’s wrong to force people to bake cakes or take pictures or rent out their property is reflective of the great umbrage to such an idea shown in the comments. Had the trend gone differently, I would not be surprised to find them trumpeting these coercions as victories for ‘libertarianism’.

  22. By the way I am thinking of producing a issue related song since I’ve been so inspired by Remy, who I think is awesome .

    I will put it up on Sound Cloud when done.

    Any suggestions as to the issue?



    1. Suicide by cop.

      1. That is a bitchen suggestion

        It suggests a song that has a poignant bridge with an angry chorus and a mentally ill verse


  23. Good news–we have now fulfilled the comedy/thuggery quotient for the GOP primaries.


    “If I get through my general election, if nobody steps up in the presidential mix, if nobody’s out there talking ? me and McCain have been talking ? I may just jump in to get to make these arguments,” Graham told the Weekly Standard.

    1. How self-absorbed. It should be “McCain and I.”

  24. A new type of voter could emerge from this. A Grahamlican. Let’s see

    in the closet…
    likes war…
    born south of the Mason Dixon line…
    supposedly Christian but in violation of Romans…
    foot fetish…
    yellow teeth…

    Most likely these are the same types of fake libertarians that flock to Rand Paul.

    1. “Everything’s Illegal in Massachusetts”

  25. Ok from reading the comments it is clear that I need to vote for Hillary or warren because rand Paul isn’t perfect.

    Got it

  26. Maybe we should make sure Paul shouldn’t run so our option is McCain or Romney or maybe a hannity type should run for republicans. What if some of you are too busy eating the bark to see the forest?

  27. “I don’t want my marriage registered in Washington, D.C.”

    Yeah, I’ll just ban it here in Paducah.

    Is this the article where right-wingers think it’s an advancement of liberty that bigots will use state laws instead of federal ones to sanction personal behavior? Call me unimpressed.

    1. I feel the same! we can team up and use our knowlege to win elections and put nonfake libertarians and people who are honest and not in the clutches of the 1% Koch brothers and instead are for the people! People power! Down with Koch, up with Hope and Change! Preach on, brother!

      1. Ass weasel responds to ass weasel. They are like a couple

      2. Almost got me! While I thought it a bit off from craiginmass, you got it almost perfect.


  28. nice

  29. That dude is corrupt as the day is long.


  30. stop with the libertarian nonsense, the republican party
    will have to move back to the middle or die, libertarianism
    is a fantasy conjured up by those who want to be “different”
    from the other guys, leaving them with a bunch of ideas
    that have no basis in reality

  31. This article lists “immigration” as one of its keywords, but there’s no mention of immigration in the whole article, which is odd, because immigration is one key issue that might keep me from voting for Rand Paul for President.

    Paul is part of the open borders crows of libertarians, which aligns him nicely with the Republican mainstream that is wholly owned by the Chamber of Commerce and corporate donors who just want cheap labor.

    The immigration treason of our elected officials is a digrace. They’re lined up almost universally on the side of open borders and amnesty, but too afraid of the overwhelming public opposition to act.

    We need to elect candidates who will slow or stop immigration. You can’t have a libertarian open borders immigration policy side by side with a collectivist welfare state. If you really want to live under a libertarian system, you need to establish it within your contry before you can embrace it worldwide.

  32. Marriage is now a null hypothesis. It no longer holds meaning or power, and arbitrarily grants, through government fiat, particular rules, favors or privileges to arbitrary people who form a “small corporation of two.”

    Marriage once satisfied the need for stability in the natural world, throw a man and a woman in a room and three will likely walk out. It is our survival, and “marriage” made that process more protected in society and favored children to adults. That’s gone. One day we will figure this out.

    Perhaps better to remove the word from the legal lexicon and remove those privileges from the books. Take from the single and childless people who do not contribute to the next generation (which they will need in their old age) and give to the child bearing and raising.

  33. Obviously – he would be better as a candidate than any of the potential authoritarian, statist bozos of either party.

    But as president? I suspect he would be a gargantuan disappointment in most respects.

    I would suspect that the perceived need to outflank the stereotype of “wimpy libertarian” from the right would lead Paul to take up extremely belligerent positions in the foreign policy sphere. Much in the way that most Democrats have done this all the way back to Truman.

    Also, the surveillance/national security state is going precisely nowhere. Simply because the next time a terrorist attack happens here party X (out of power at the time) will launch a full-on blitzkrieg trying to affix blame for it on party Y (in poser when it happens.)

    Paul might be able to get away with a Federalist stance on drug issues. Probably would be much better than Obama on that (if for no other reason than not being a Democrat with police/prison guards’ unions as a core constituency.)

    The whole system is ridiculous and fucked. All individuals can do is figure out the best legal ways to circumvent its pernicious effects. But engagement with the political process? Count me out.

  34. Why are you shilling so hard for this scumbag? #Irrational

  35. This annoys me: “the weird, anti-sex and contraception vibe given off by many Republicans”

    It’s not about being anti-sex or anti-contraception. It’s about taxpayers subsidizing it. Contraception control is not food, water, or shelter.

    But media has allowed the Left to hijack the entire subject and make it ALLL about “hating women” and a ridiculous “War on Women”. As usual allowing emotion to trump fact.

    Have all the sex you want and use all the contraception control you want. Just do not force taxpayers to fund it. Simple as that.

  36. Why in the world should people have to obtain a license from the state (or federal) government to “get married” (whatever that connotes in your own mind)? Why is it the business of government to regulate interpersonal relationships by privileged class? (with all kinds of enshrined legal advantages)

    The solution to the marriage conundrum is to stop regulation of it and replace it with simple contracts. Legal Marriage has been made dangerous (especially for men) by rule of expensive lawyers.

    If you want to get “married” find a preacher. If you want to contract in some way with another human being, find a lawyer, tell her what you want and draft a contract to control.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.