Given the Son of Ron has endorsed Mitch McConnell over Matt Bevin in the KY Republican Primary....and claims "Lib'ruls want McConnell the sell-out RINO to be re-elected".... what will they say about Rand supporting Mitch?!?!?
So how do the Paul Cultists explain the Boy Prince supporting the "RINO" Mitch over a "true blue Tea Party conservative" like Matt Bevin???
I don't think Rand is a liberal, I think he's too far into the establishment. That said, he's about the only guy who has a chance in hell of winning who has some decent positions. I like his stances on the GWOT and war on drugs. The Tea Party is a joke. I don't mean to put down grassroots activists, but their leaders are far too anti-freedom - they have some truly appalling social policies. You can't succeed in the system if you're not a centrist, that's just a reality. Recently we had a Libertarian Party member win a Federal senate seat. It can happen, under very favorable conditions - but we're better off focusing on actually doing something ourselves.
He's son of Ron Paul and has fostered some liberal views, well one can't argue him being one of the established, but still I mean he's considered to be vastly liberal.
To each their own, I'm not inspired by Rand's policy set. Maybe it's the radical in me, but he's too much on the social conservative side. He describes himself as a social conservative, he's an immigration hawk, he supports the prohibition of abortion. I wish him all the luck in the world in gaining the Republican Party's nomination in 2016, but that's something he won't achieve without significantly watering down his libertarian leanings. I'm not opposed to change from within the system, but there are better alternatives. As far as politics goes, personally I vote for an outwardly Libertarian party, and try to influence the less statist of the two parties to adopt a libertarian-style candidate. Malcolm Turnbull is a good example of this sort of potential candidate.
There's nothing liberal about a neo-con, and I never once considered him a Libertarian. Infact, he's a vastly inferior statesman(he wouldn't even consider himself a statesman in all likelihood) compared to his father. The tragic thing about the Libertarian base, is that its philosophies are generally agreeable, yet uncompromising. That is to say, a Libertarian wouldn't concur with a Liberal's delusion of "Social Equality"(by means of redistribution), since that's the Liberal's biggest thing, the Liberal won't ally with the Libertarian. And since the Neo-Con 's are military hawkish and with absolutely no intelligence of their own, they'll reject Libertarians on a matter of course anyway. It's not that they're "RINOS". The real RINOS are the Libertarian Tea Partiers, they're naive and stupid to think that they can possibly do things via the Establishment. They're a Third Party and the sooner they realize that, the better. Because right now, the Dems/Neo-Cons can co-opt them, and even the Neo-Con is realizing that by buddying up with Liberals.
Well, since the liberals went to bed with the left and green eco-psychos, there is no way of a satisfying alliance between liberals and libertarians as to that matter. If someone sells liberalism for power and money, he committed treason against classical liberalism, so shall he be doomed to dissapear in the gaping abyss of that shallow betrayal until liberal awakening bemuses him.
The assumption being that Rand Paul must be "true blue [interesting color choice]" Tea Party conservative? The problem with the Tea Party is that it became too popular. Really. It got a lot of traction very quickly, picking up over 30% of the nation. It got that traction because it was entirely fiscally-based, and it turned out that fiscal conservatism was so popular that it (the Tea Party) had about as much 'membership' as either party. Definitely worth noting. But, then other conservative elements like social conservatives wanted in and diluted the message, and it's popularity has fallen down to the low 20s (though liberals will tout that as a victory and proof that the GOP is 'almost extinct' [see Gorn Captain], liberal membership is consistently below 20%).
I believe politically this is a smart move on Paul's part. He's looking down the road and positioning himself for a run at the WH. To do this he will need more than just the Tea Party backing. Great politicians learn how to navigate the tumultuous waters in Washington.
I agree. I really don't understand "libertarians" (idiots) who attack Paul. Obviously he's not going to be a carbon copy of his dad or full out libertarian, as he rightly so wants to get votes. The idea of a third party (opposed to the Republicans and Democrats) is 100% idiotic and stupid. It will never work. Look at the Libertarian party, for example. The Libertarians have been running candidates since 1971. And have not elected a SINGLE OFFICE HOLDER to a state legislator. Thats the exact definition of a failure. Third parties (with the exception of Ross Perot, who ran as an Independent) are a joke. There is no point in voting for a third party, as ONE of the candidates (Democrat OR Republican) will become the next leader of the position in power. No point in voting third or opposing it. Register with one of the two major parties (I am a registered Republican, for example) and try to push your agenda their. Running as a third party is pathetic and stupid, seeing as how you have NO chance of victory or bringing anything to the table. Everyone should associate or join one of the two main parties, whichever one suits them best.
I would assume it's not an easy task opposing the sitting Senator from your own state, and from your own party. Never-the-less, I think Rand Paul should have remained silent on the matter, or just say something like, "it's up to the people of Kentucky to decide". On foreign policy, Paul is just trying to place himself somewhere in the middle, about where he needs to be IMO.
Rand is a stereotypical anti-libertarian republican asshat and so are everyone endorsing him. There is nothing even remotely 'liberal' or 'libertarian' about him. Paul's social conservative, militarist, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigrant and even anti-weed sentiments are so far right in social and fiscal issues that he's expected to be considered an anti-liberal and anti-libertarian by anyone having more than two brain cells in their possession.
