He is good enough at this kind of thing to have wowwed some youngsters at some colleges some months ago. I used to have to teach a course in which “conservatism” (as practiced in the U.S.), “liberalism” and “libertarianism” were compared and contrasted. As you well know, libertarianism can shape-shift to sounding good to people on a number of fronts, especially when spoken by a dissembler as talented as Paul.
And how good a dissembler IS Paul?
Fairly good, I would imagine. I was once at a jazz concert at my alma mater last spring and was impressed by the virtuosity of many of the musicians. A professor of jazz once told me that natural talent figures into jazz improvisation (cue Cannonball Adderly, George Benson, John Coltrane) and that so much of it is also practice and reptition.
I believe dissembling is Rand Paul’s genius and a result of practice and repetition.
However, in the nightmarish scenario in which Paul’s libertarianism would snare enough misguided Millennials to put him over the top in the 2016 Presidential Elections, I believe that Paul (who has little of the OTHER things reuired for the Presidency) would lead this nation into disaster(S) of unimaginable proportions.
He is a capable enough dissembler to hide his deeply held libertarian beliefs, and one that recently emerged was that vaccinations would lead to martial law, and he had to take a strange and twisted path to get to that conclusion.
I really dont see the double talk other commenters have said is here in Mr. Paul’s statement. Looks solid to me. I have no problem with questioning Obama’s decisions, but that has nothing to do with his love of this country.
If you take Randy at his word, you have not been paying attention. There is no indication there is a sincere bone in his body … he is all about opportunism and the next sound bite.
Any bets that the fact he said something different than the other GOPidiots will land him a few more interviews.
Rand Paul’s actual political instincts are keen, and despite the poo-pooers he could get the nomination. Then he would be really dangerous. You know, the ‘Face in the Crowd’ cracker barrel type with bad policy instincts.
“He wants to have it several ways at once.”
Kinda like trying to run for a senate seat at the same time as he is running for a Presidential title? In other words, he is afraid of becoming unemployed.
Nothing to say about a military policy in Syria. Nothing to say about joblessness. Nothing to say about income inequality. Nothing to say about taking the lead in the emerging clean energy markets. Nothing to say about Congress shutting down the Department of Homeland Security in a time of war. Nothing at all about which middle-class taxes Republicans are rushing to stop.
Nothing, except the capacity to blame others.
Rand Paul, 2016. Making his values America’s values.
That’s not the point at all. Giuliani’s remarks put the GOP hopefuls on the hot seat. They didn’t say it, that’s correct, but they are being quizzed on their take and this is what Giuliani caused.
Its a black and white thing, in more ways then one and by not condemning Giuliani personally and his message outright, they fail a very simple test and marginalize themselves.
Do they love America? All of it, apparently not.
Considering Rand’s father gave another pro-secession speech at a Mises Institute gathering of his fellow neo-Confederates a few days ago, it’s fair to conclude that Ron Paul doesn’t particularly love the USA. Moreover, since Rand Paul was a strong supporter of his father’s presidential campaign less than 3 years ago, and since he advocated and vigorously defended his father’s crack-pot ideology for more than 30 years before that, it’s a legitimate question whether Rand loves this country, too. I’m being absolutely serious. Rand’s willingness to play chicken with the debt ceiling vote for his own political gain, thereby risking the credit rating and therefore the economy of the US (and possibly further enriching his father whose gold investments could explode in value if the dollar crashes), is further reasonable cause for questioning his allegiances and love for this country.
He was referring to his policies. Read the whole statement. He is saying he disagrees with his policies, but does not question Obama’s thinking he is doing what is good for America. He was clear on that.
“But I don’t question whether or not he was well-intentioned.”
I thought the policies of the Bush Admin were a disaster, and they almost destroyed our country. But they did not sit in a room and say “hey, I hate this country, let’s destroy it”. They really thought the Iraq War would be easy, and we would sweep the Middle East. And they thought that would be good for America. They were just incompetent buffoons.
Yes, and Walker really made a dickhead move by agreeing with Rudy, that will come back to haunt him. Rudy’s not running for anything, he’s more of a businessman and saying ignorant stuff sells. But Walker wants to run for President. Very dumb move. Oh, if he was running for a House seat in Goobertown, smart thing to say. But not for a Presidential candidate.
Agreed, he was very clear in saying he thinks Obama is doing what Obama thinks is good for America. And Obama would say the same about him. Neither of them hates America. Rudy is an asshole, and any Republican candidate who does not condemn his statement will pay for that in the debates.
Not a fair statement. So if he agreed with it, you’d be all over him, as you should. But since he disagrees, you are still all over him.
I’m no fan of a lot of his policies or his dad’s, though I agree with some. But I will say that for “politicians”, they are pretty consistent and I truly believe they are speaking what they believe more than other politicians. Mitt Romney didn’t even have two points of view on an issue. He usually has 5 or 6.
