Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, again, what I'm after is creating the sort of candidates that libertarians and conservative constitutionalists can happily support within a reformed Republican Party.

However, though perhaps none of them are perfectly acceptable to you, I like Congressman West, Governor Walker, Senators Cruz, Paul, Lee and Rubin.

Now, none of these men but West and Cruz are perfectly satisfactory to me, but anyone of the above are infinitely better than anyone the unrelentingly statist Democratic Party would offer, vastly better than anyone the establishment of the Republican Party would offer, and these men would have a real chance of winning the presidency in spite of what the lunatic leftists on this board naively believe given the current climate of things, certainly a better chance than any Libertarian Party candidate.

Look, the closest thing we've gotten to our kind of man in any sense at all in many decades is Reagan, and Goldwater got the ball rolling. All I'm saying is that we are stronger when we are united around the liberty platform, not divided. For the sake of the Republic, some comprises in principle will have to be made if we are to incrementally right it. It can't be done all at once.

I think Walker would be the very best candidate overall in terms of principle and the ability to win. He ain't perfect, but he'd right a lot of wrongs. It's a start. The only practical path back to liberty, sans another revolution, would necessarily be traversed one step at a time.

The best on that list are Paul and Lee, and neither of them are acceptable to me at this point. Also, Reagan was nowhere near my kind of politician.

Though I should say, I suppose, that I am in no way speaking for all libertarians. I recognize that I may be a bit more stringent than others.

Well, so am I, actually, a raving lunatic, don't ya know? Just ask Comrade Clayton "The Government Can Do No Wrong" Jones. But I'll take what I can practically get in the meantime.

Don't like Cruz or West? I think they're fabulous.

Not in the least.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The best on that list are Paul and Lee, and neither of them are acceptable to me at this point. Also, Reagan was nowhere near my kind of politician.

Though I should say, I suppose, that I am in no way speaking for all libertarians. I recognize that I may be a bit more stringent than others.

Well, so am I, actually, a raving lunatic, don't ya know? Just ask Comrade Clayton "The Government Can Do No Wrong" Jones. But I'll take what I can practically get in the meantime.

Don't like Cruz or West? I think they're fabulous.

Not in the least.

May I know why? Not looking for an argument, just curious. One seldom encounters a well-examined life with a firm, philosophically grounded worldview. I look at West and Cruz and see men dedicated to liberty. (Ditto, Paul and Lee, by the way.) What am I missing?

 

[velvtacheeze]

It's nice to see conservative activists finally give up on the neocon, bullying, overly aggressive foreign policy that has done so much damage.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Wake me up when he wins something outside the comfortable and narrow confines of Conservative-Land...

You mean the GOP Bubble? The right wing echo chamber? The Tea Party ****-Fest? Gotcha.

 

[DriftingSand]

Wake me up when he wins something outside the comfortable and narrow confines of Conservative-Land...

At least you admit to being asleep.

 

[DriftingSand]

CPAC has tended to draw a younger more libertarian-leaning crowd for the past several years, and that certainly explains why Rand won so comfortably. Whether that translates into votes from older, more traditional Republicans on a national scale remains to be seen. It seems safe to say he'll be far more successful than his father regardless.

Well, I can honestly say that this 53 year old will support him all the way. If he doesn't win in the primaries then I'll have to support whomever is second best.

 

[DriftingSand]

If the Republicans ever want to win a presidential election again they better get used to Libertarians like Rand Paul as opposed to the McCains and Huckabees of the party.

Amen to that. I'm sick of the "Grand Old Party" of "Good Old Boys" and their same-o, same-o lodge brother thinking. We need a fresh approach untried for many decades -- that is - the fresh and new and vibrant thinking of the Founding Fathers. They stood against the tyranny of King George and his power-mad cronies. We need somebody willing to stand against the tyranny that is our current, De Facto government sitting in high places in Washington D.C.

 

[DriftingSand]

You fringers can tout the nuts like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz all you want, and do all the pretending you want,

but in the end the GOP will nominate another mainstream establishment Republican, who, win or lose,

will do twice as well as any Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or, who was the guy in third? oh right, lol, Ben Carson, would.

Live with it.

Are you saying that there is no hope for the USA? You may be right but we gotta keep trying. Rand Paul for President!!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Rand Paul wins much-watched CPAC presidential poll

2000+ respondents

Yeah. Only because Hitler was on the ballot.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the Republicans ever want to win a presidential election again they better get used to Libertarians like Rand Paul as opposed to the McCains and Huckabees of the party.

Amen to that. I'm sick of the "Grand Old Party" of "Good Old Boys" and their same-o, same-o lodge brother thinking. We need a fresh approach untried for many decades -- that is - the fresh and new and vibrant thinking of the Founding Fathers. They stood against the tyranny of King George and his power-mad cronies. We need somebody willing to stand against the tyranny that is our current, De Facto government sitting in high places in Washington D.C.

And this is one of many reasons why you and other members of the TPM aren’t taken seriously – ignorant, ridiculous hyperbole and demagoguery such as this.

There is no ‘tyranny’ in Washington; Americans enjoy more freedom today than at any time in the Nation’s history – and the people’s liberty has never been more safe and secure than it is today.

There is no ‘de facto’ government – the current government is both Constitutional and legitimate, reflecting the will of the people, acting at the behest of the people, and where the people are solely responsible for its actions.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, so am I, actually, a raving lunatic, don't ya know? Just ask Comrade Clayton "The Government Can Do No Wrong" Jones. But I'll take what I can practically get in the meantime.

Don't like Cruz or West? I think they're fabulous.

Not in the least.

May I know why? Not looking for an argument, just curious. One seldom encounters a well-examined life with a firm, philosophically grounded worldview. I look at West and Cruz and see men dedicated to liberty. (Ditto, Paul and Lee, by the way.) What am I missing?

Well Cruz recently came out against Rand's foreign policy on the basis that it's too non-interventionist, and yet Rand's foreign policy can't be described as non-interventionist in the least especially if he's comparing himself to H.W. If Rand is too dovish for Cruz then there's no chance I can support Cruz. Ditto for West. That's the problem libertarians have with many conservatives they would otherwise find much to agree on: When it comes to foreign policy these conservatives believe in big government

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

CPAC has tended to draw a younger more libertarian-leaning crowd for the past several years, and that certainly explains why Rand won so comfortably. Whether that translates into votes from older, more traditional Republicans on a national scale remains to be seen. It seems safe to say he'll be far more successful than his father regardless.

Anyone willing to put their political future ahead of their principles can go far. That's exactly why his father didn't go farther than Congressman.

 

[DriftingSand]

=C_Clayton_Jones;8747971]

And this is one of many reasons why you and other members of the TPM aren’t taken seriously – ignorant, ridiculous hyperbole and demagoguery such as this.

Did Bush expand the power, size, and scope of the federal government or did he not? The people most adversely affected by the "Patriot" Act and the Department of Homeland Insecurity are the people of the USA. We gave up some of our liberty in the name of "security." Read my signature line. I like Franklin's version of government better than Bush's. Sue me.

There is no ‘tyranny’ in Washington; Americans enjoy more freedom today than at any time in the Nation’s history – and the people’s liberty has never been more safe and secure than it is today.

We enjoy more freedom? Are you actually living on American soil? Been to the DMV lately? There are more laws and regulations on "the books" today than at any other time in U.S. history. Each year, good, honest, law-abiding, taxpayers are having a more difficult time buying firearms. More and more regulations and roadblocks surface each year. The current trend is NOT in our favor.

There is no ‘de facto’ government – the current government is both Constitutional and legitimate, reflecting the will of the people, acting at the behest of the people, and where the people are solely responsible for its actions.

Here's the 2012 vote map by county:

The current prez was voted in by millions of big city entitlement folks along with both left coasts. Neither party represents me and most patriotic Americans. Both Bush and Obama have done little to nothing to stop the flow of illegals from the south. Both were big spenders who bailed out their buds on Wall Street. Both have perpetuated endless, no-win wars. Both have expanded the size and scope and power of the federal government and the intrusive spy agencies regulated by it.

Thomas Jefferson quotes:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

"When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny."

Thomas Jefferson Quotes | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is why I prefer to still give him the benefit of the doubt. He's simply much better at being "political" than his father was, which isn't ALWAYS a bad thing...if used correctly. His vagueness is what could ultimately help bring more mainstream support while not necessarily having to deal with the consequence of losing the base.

He definitely seems to be very careful with his words, because he could have just as easily said "contain" and that would have had a much more interventionist ring to it.

I still reserve judgement at this point.

Did you see where he said his foreign policy is essentially Bush I's foreign policy? I stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt when he voted for sanctions against Iran.

Yeah I definitely don't like that at all. I'm not even sure why he would say that because so far his rhetoric and actions are nothing like Bush I's.

I don't agree with the sanctions either. I wish he didn't have that on his record because it's a huge blemish. But that was years ago and is still his only blemish. If he's backing off on his statements about Gitmo, that's good.

I'm simply going to judge these people on their actions. I really don't care what they SAY. It's well known that politicians say things they don't actually believe in, or mean, all the time for a political purpose. It's what he does with that vote that matters to me.

From Rand's Time op-ed:

- He supports sanctions and visa bans against Russia
- He supports the private property violating Keystone Pipeline
- Supports re-instituting missile shields in Poland and Czech Republic
- Somehow wants to force the Europeans to pay for the missile shield he wants

Senator Rand Paul: U.S. Must Respond to Russian Aggression in Ukraine - TIME

Never mind the fact that he completely ignores the fact that the U.S. and E.U. helped overthrow a democratically elected government in the Ukraine to install this new puppet government he claims to stand behind, while criticizing Russia for violating the "integrity" of Ukraine.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Not in the least.

May I know why? Not looking for an argument, just curious. One seldom encounters a well-examined life with a firm, philosophically grounded worldview. I look at West and Cruz and see men dedicated to liberty. (Ditto, Paul and Lee, by the way.) What am I missing?

Well Cruz recently came out against Rand's foreign policy on the basis that it's too non-interventionist, and yet Rand's foreign policy can't be described as non-interventionist in the least especially if he's comparing himself to H.W. If Rand is too dovish for Cruz then there's no chance I can support Cruz. Ditto for West. That's the problem libertarians have with many conservatives they would otherwise find much to agree on: When it comes to foreign policy these conservatives believe in big government

Good enough. I don't like military action beyond our immediate interests, so I'm a bit put off by most conservatives on that score too. McCain is among the very worst of them, but, then, he's not a conservative either. Still, I would characterize Paul's posture as the stuff of international free association. I don't understand why you see him as an interventionist.

In fact, if I could meld Paul and Cruz/West, that would be the perfect candidate for me.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

May I know why? Not looking for an argument, just curious. One seldom encounters a well-examined life with a firm, philosophically grounded worldview. I look at West and Cruz and see men dedicated to liberty. (Ditto, Paul and Lee, by the way.) What am I missing?

Well Cruz recently came out against Rand's foreign policy on the basis that it's too non-interventionist, and yet Rand's foreign policy can't be described as non-interventionist in the least especially if he's comparing himself to H.W. If Rand is too dovish for Cruz then there's no chance I can support Cruz. Ditto for West. That's the problem libertarians have with many conservatives they would otherwise find much to agree on: When it comes to foreign policy these conservatives believe in big government

Good enough. I don't like military action beyond our immediate interests, so I'm a bit put off by most conservatives on that score too. McCain is among the very worst of them, but, then, he's not a conservative either. Still, I would characterize Paul's posture as the stuff of international free association. I don't understand why you see him as an interventionist.

In fact, if I could meld Paul and Cruz/West, that would be the perfect candidate for me.

Thanks for the reply.

Sanctions are an interventionist policy that only ever harms innocent civilians, and not the governments they target.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well Cruz recently came out against Rand's foreign policy on the basis that it's too non-interventionist, and yet Rand's foreign policy can't be described as non-interventionist in the least especially if he's comparing himself to H.W. If Rand is too dovish for Cruz then there's no chance I can support Cruz. Ditto for West. That's the problem libertarians have with many conservatives they would otherwise find much to agree on: When it comes to foreign policy these conservatives believe in big government

Good enough. I don't like military action beyond our immediate interests, so I'm a bit put off by most conservatives on that score too. McCain is among the very worst of them, but, then, he's not a conservative either. Still, I would characterize Paul's posture as the stuff of international free association. I don't understand why you see him as an interventionist.

In fact, if I could meld Paul and Cruz/West, that would be the perfect candidate for me.

Thanks for the reply.

Sanctions are an interventionist policy that only ever harms innocent civilians, and not the governments they target.

They tend to hurt both, but certainly, they hurt the former more than the latter. The idea is to bring pressure on the people of the nation that the people of the nation bring pressure on their rogue government. Throughout history a people's government is what the people have allowed or encouraged it to be. They're not blameless.

On the other hand, what's the point? Sanctions rarely, if ever, achieve the desired results against totalitarian or authoritarian states. They have a much better chance to work against governments like Russia's, though, and the people of Russia.

But the best way to handle these kinds of problems is to understand the history and the imperatives of geopolitics and conduct foreign policy accordingly in the first place.

Obama is a disaster--either out of ignorance or by design.

 

[Paulie]

Not in the least.

May I know why? Not looking for an argument, just curious. One seldom encounters a well-examined life with a firm, philosophically grounded worldview. I look at West and Cruz and see men dedicated to liberty. (Ditto, Paul and Lee, by the way.) What am I missing?

Well Cruz recently came out against Rand's foreign policy on the basis that it's too non-interventionist, and yet Rand's foreign policy can't be described as non-interventionist in the least especially if he's comparing himself to H.W. If Rand is too dovish for Cruz then there's no chance I can support Cruz. Ditto for West. That's the problem libertarians have with many conservatives they would otherwise find much to agree on: When it comes to foreign policy these conservatives believe in big government

The biggest problem I have with Cruz is that I just don't trust him. I see all the mainstream right wing media swooning over him and what that tells me is that he is most likely more of a friend to the establishment than the people.

At least with Rand there's still a lot of reservation throughout the mainstream media. They don't shove him down our throats the way they do Cruz, Rubio, etc.

There's a reason for that.

 

[Paulie]

Good enough. I don't like military action beyond our immediate interests, so I'm a bit put off by most conservatives on that score too. McCain is among the very worst of them, but, then, he's not a conservative either. Still, I would characterize Paul's posture as the stuff of international free association. I don't understand why you see him as an interventionist.

In fact, if I could meld Paul and Cruz/West, that would be the perfect candidate for me.

Thanks for the reply.

Sanctions are an interventionist policy that only ever harms innocent civilians, and not the governments they target.

They tend to hurt both, but certainly, they hurt the former more than the latter. The idea is to bring pressure on the people of the nation that the people of the nation bring pressure on their rogue government. Throughout history a people's government is what the people have allowed or encouraged it to be. They're not blameless.

On the other hand, what's the point? Sanctions rarely, if ever, achieve the desired results against totalitarian or authoritarian states. They have a much better chance to work against governments like Russia's, though, and the people of Russia.

But the best way to handle these kinds of problems is to understand the history and the imperatives of geopolitics and conduct foreign policy accordingly in the first place.

Obama is a disaster--either out of ignorance or by design.

I'm at a bit of a loss in understanding how pounding foreign civilians with sanctions that impoverish them, or worse, is supposed to empower them to pressure their governments.

The real truth is that we don't give a **** how it affects the civilians. They're just casualties and nothing more.

 

[Mojo2]

Rand Paul wins much-watched CPAC presidential poll

2000+ respondents

All remarks are Ted Cruz's.

"I'm a big fan of Rand Paul. He and I are good friends. But I don't agree with him on foreign policy," Cruz said. "I think U.S. leadership is critical in the world. And I agree with him that we should be very reluctant to deploy military force abroad. But I think there is a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did… The United States has a responsibility to defend our values." [...]

"A critical reason for Putin's aggression has been President Obama's weakness," Cruz told Karl on "This Week." "That Putin fears no retribution… [Obama's] policy has been to alienate and abandon our friends and to coddle and appease our enemies."

"You'd better believe Putin sees in Benghazi four Americans are murdered, the first ambassador killed in service since 1979, and nothing happens," Cruz added, echoing comments by other Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "You'd better believe that Putin sees that in Syria, Obama draws a red line and ignores the red line. You'd better believe that Putin sees all over the world."

[...]

Reagan clearly believed in a strong national defense and in "Peace through Strength." He stood up to the Soviet Union, and he led a world that pushed back against Communism.

But Reagan also believed in diplomacy and demonstrated a reasoned approach to our nuclear negotiations with the Soviets. Reagan’s shrewd diplomacy would eventually lessen the nuclear arsenals of both countries.

Many forget today that Reagan’s decision to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev was harshly criticized by the Republican hawks of his time, some of whom would even call Reagan anappeaser. In the Middle East, Reagan strategically pulled back our forces after the tragedy in Lebanon in 1983 that killed 241 Marines, realizing the cost of American lives was too great for the mission.

Without a clearly defined mission, exit strategy or acceptable rationale for risking soldiers lives, Reagan possessed the leadership to reassess and readjust.

Today, we forget that some of the Republican hawks of his time criticized Reagan harshly for this too, again, calling him an appeaser. [...]

I also greatly admire that Reagan was not rash or reckless with regard to war. Reagan advised potential foreign adversaries not to mistake our reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.

What America needs today is a Commander-in-Chief who will defend the country and project strength, but who is also not eager for war.

Regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for example, there is little difference among most Republicans on what to do. All of us believe we should stand up to Putin's aggression. Virtually no one believes we should intervene militarily.

So we are then faced with a finite menu of diplomatic measures to isolate Russia, on most of which we all agree, such as sanctions and increased economic pressure.

Yet, some politicians have used this time to beat their chest. What we don't need right now is politicians who have never seen war talking tough for the sake of their political careers.

Ted Cruz vs. Rand Paul on Foreign Policy: Quién Es Más Reagan? - Hit & Run : Reason.com