SA@TAC - Paleos, Libertarians and Rand Paul

[xtremejohnny69]

@sffoodie1987 If you get universal healthcare then you'll need a nice home to be healthy so you don't run the state outta money, and you also need food to stay healthy, so the state has to provide your food, and water is a necesity for good health too. So in the end what's your incentive to work? You'd have to put a gun to someone's head and force them to work. This socialism your preaching, even light european socialism, is slavery.

[RyanR3volution]

@sffoodie1987

Your a statist and you do not understand that a free market provides better than any statist ploy. Freedom is good, totalitarianism bad.

[TheNorthwestReport]

Baby steps...People quickly forget how new this movement is.

Get him in office then hold his feet to the fire by supporting a libertarian competitor to replace hm.

[MrAbolitionist]

you support segregation?

[heyoehkah]

another home run. Rand is much better than most,

[blackblog]

@controversyking Here is what is wrong with that. We tried that and people like you used that privilege to systematically enforce what is called "badges of slavery." "Badges of slavery" means providing any distinction between those of former slave status and others and is A VIOLATION OF THE 13TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S.CONSTITUTION. The fact that your "any reason" analysis does not require badges of slavery is irrelevant, because . . . [see my next post]

[blackblog]

@controversyking . . . when people like you had the ability to discriminate for any reason, including race, they chose to use it for enforcing badges of slavery. When you hide behind your personal freedoms to violate the Constitutional rights of another person, society has two choices. They can continue respecting the rights of a person abusing an innocent party, or society can protect the innocent party in that situation. In short: "You abused your toys, you lost your toys Play nice next time"

[madrugao5am]

Brothers! If you consider the level of intelligence in Dr.Paul am sure he want's Ron to go all the way and you know i don't mean senator.Am sure when he takes positions that are against the movement is for a good cause like (bringing in the SHEEPLE<SUCKERS<AND BUTTER FINGERS).we will soon have our CHECKMATE.Be patient and supportt him all the way.

[littlebier8]

Rand Paul presented himself to us as a libertarian--a committed, principled defender of non-interventionism and liberty. He asked us for support and for money, and then turned on us without hesitation when he saw a career opportunity. Rather than running on principle and hoping for support, he played the cheap politician card and recrafted his image to fit what he believes voters want. It's dishonest on so many levels.

[spacehabitats]

Jack is right on the money again.

[jbuzzw]

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."— L. Neil Smith

[vblord]

BS Jack - nobody from the Tea Party should fall for third rail questions such as the segregation question that Rand stepped on.

.

Segregation is NOT an issue for 2010 - not even as a litmus. Therefore if he were smarter, he would have redirected into pertinent territory.

.

I need a leader, not someone who can be manipulated into falling on the knife.

.

Keep up the great work.

[mbhopp]

It's completely STUPID to think that ANY candidate is going to have the EXACT same views as YOU.

The point is that HONESTY and INTEGRITY is FAR MORE IMPORTANT!!

There are so few honest people and his father is one of the few.

Support RAND PAUL because HE IS HONEST!!

[ed2point0]

@controversyking I see your point, but let's remember that anti-racism is the same as racism because you still put people in groups rather than judging them at face value.

[kmg501]

Rand Paul all the way, no one is perfect and he is a damn site better than much of what we are stuck with now.

[TheWhiteOtaku]

hmm....I still couldnt support Rand Paul, he wants to make the morning after pill illegal, now i myself am pro choice but i can tolerate pro life politicans like Ron, but if they are extremely pro life where they start banning things like the morning after pill, then my nut radar goes off

[delquattro]

...or, do Paleos, and Libertarians really want to make the perfect the enemy of the good?

[PsychoPunk1965]

By the way, I live in North Carolina. There is a new radio station around here called "Rush Radio" on WRDU FM 106.1. I called in on the early morning show a few days ago when they were discussing Rand Paul. They were mixed on him themselves, but not going into detail. They know me as the one left-wing caller, and I asked them how can they reconcile that Rand Paul has a foreign policy "too the left of Obama?" They hung up on me, and said very little and went on to the next topic.

[PsychoPunk1965]

If Rand is truly a libertarian that is opposed to foreign intervention, then as a leftist myself, I can accept that. He wins my respect. If he ends up embracing typical neoconservative garden variety Republican business as usual politics, then it is not only a problem for me, but more importantly a problem for those who are on the anti-war right and those who are consistently libertarian...

[ALittleBitPregnant]

Paul/Paul 2012 !!!

[laos240s]

He may not be perfect, but think "thin edge of the wedge". People need to get comfortable with libertarian ideas being spoken in a non-threatening manner. Once policies and ideas have proven to be solid, we can build on that!

Ron Paul to the uninformed looks crazy....unfortunately. Rand, from what I've seen is a lot easier to embrace by the masses.

[Downfacingdog]

Rand Paul needs some balls!!!

He took a lesbian licking!

[barccy]

@Downfacingdog Maddow can lick my balls.

[YesWeCantaloupe]

I agree with Jack, and I think Peter Schiff has a better grasp of what a candidate is allowed to say. Peter was once asked whether he supported a new 9/11 investigation. He gave an emphatic "No" and said "I'm unfamiliar with any 'unanswered questions.'"

My first instinct was he's either Naïve or a damn fine liar. lol

[Sivels]

always great commentary SA

[freerangebiped]

Well well well, this is certainly a change in tone from S.A.'s last two posts waxing ecstatic about the newly elected messiah of paleo/libertarianism. Maddow's questions to Paul were crucial and right on the money. Either you believe the Civil Rights Act was justified or you don't. It's just that simple. And if paleos and libertarians don't, then they've lost the fight before it even begins.

[delquattro]

@freerangebiped Of course, they don't because they're not Marxists like you.

[freerangebiped]

@delquattro Congratulations, you just lost any credibility paleolibertarians had in the eyes of America. By the way, I voted for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the last election. Who did you vote for? Don't tell me, let me guess---McCain?

[MrRiceowlex]

80 - 90% very well said. If Rand can prevent a dollar crisis WE SHOULD ALL BE SUPREMELY GRATEFUL. There aren't alot of bullets left in the gun folks. Remember why Rand said he was moved to join this race in the first place.. Extraordinary fiscal concerns with a run away group in Washington. Be thankful that sane people are taking the plunge to try and save the ship.

[d0861]

I'm a pretty staunch libertarian, but I totally support Rand. The government is absolutely out of control, with powers that our country's founders would find appalling. Rand might not be able to single-handedly fix the problem, but at the very least, he's getting some of the ideas of libertarianism out to the general public.

[MsWanderer1]

All intelligent people realized that MSNBC's dyke was creating an issue out of a non-issue. I think these media clowns are about to get a big surprised by "We the People"! We are a bit tired of their bull shit of manipulating the news and politics!

[TulliusVII]

LOVE Jack and his analysis. His thinking shows an excellent blend of sound theoretical principle and realistic, political compromise. We need more Rand Pauls IN POWER, not more purists out of power.

[NicoBanTyralash]

"No group of voters ever gets 100% of what it wants from any candidate. The question is if you can get 80-90% should you try to achieve that?"

Isnt that basically the definition of lacking principle? IMO This is why true principled libertarians shouldnt support him (or any other politician for that matter). Not a reason to do so.

[Wormtail81]

2:17 You hit the nail on the head. Thank you.

[MooseOfReason]

Jack, I appreciate it.

[yojimbo81]

The liberal fascists and neo-cons are trying to sink their teeth into Rand Paul. Obviously context and intent are lost on them or they are deliberately misleading their audiences about Rand Paul. I ask, should liberty oriented persons be happy or upset? It is obvious Rand, like his father, is threatening to the establishment and they will go about petty ways of taking him down (i.e. Rand is a legitimate threat to them). But there is a danger this crap could derail Rand as well. Thoughts?

[yakyakyak69]

@yojimbo81 What it boils down to is Statism vs Liberty.

Statists (Socilism & Fascism) see gov't as a baby sitter from cradle to grave and they believe it is their duty to help others by forcing them to accept the same babby sitter aka Big Brother by ANY means necessary via Slow Progress (progressives) or violent revolution (revolutionary). Evil thinks itself good because it's OK to FORCE others if you believe it's for the greater good.

Libertarians just want to be left alone.

[airborne373]

True Story - I was a founder of RP meetup #90 we worked hard and grew the group into a force. The L's accused us of spamming Ron Paul. But when they realized our group was a force the Indiana L's approached us for support. I do not trust them and will not support them.

[Chad9976]

A lot of people think Rand Paul is a neocon in disguise. I don't.

[vette72green]

pay no attention to race baiters.stay focused on the issues

[NHindividualist]

I believe you brilliantly described the "master debaters" who are "more comfortable arguing among themselves".

Rand could have had a better prepared answer for the Civil Rights Act . He didn't. So what, he's not a polished politician.

That is actually in his favor in America today.

[txliberty]

Let's get him elected!

He will do great once he is in office.

Finally someone to help Ron Paul.

[Prometheusforliberty]

I just wish he had done a better job of standing up to Maddow. Maybe he should watch some old Friedman debates or his fathers Meet the press appearance. I do agree with you though.

[19TEC85]

Another great vid by SA.

[sniper6081]

We can't really afford to be picky with our candidates, especially during these times where the establishment is hellbent on destroying us. Rand Paul overall is a great candidate. He cares not about the status-quo, but the people and the constitution. That's more than can be said about anyone else in Washington, except for those select few of course.

[steve0281]

Is Rand perfect? No. Is he a step, or maybe ten in the right direction? Yes.

[smallmaniac]

So, is it okay to choose the "lesser of two evils"?

[Journeywithinn]

@smallmaniac Rand is NOT an evil. He may not hold beliefs you or I do, but he is definitely a good guy. A vote for him would be the best we can do in KY.

[GreatDepressionDeux]

@MrHappy702 - you truly are an idiot...

[cheeseaura]

I'm glad someone finally addressed this. Spot on!

[MrHappy702]

Rand Paul is another puppet. Did you see him back down in front of Maddow? That's right, like I always say, they are all controlled opposition. Why is Palin and Paul with the Tea Party? It's becuase the Tea party had potential, and the powers that be knew it. So they put Palin and Paul in it to control it and bring it under control. Bam..look what you have now? I rest my case. Controlled Opposition. So just keep chasing your pipe dreams.

[Amy31415]

If we can't stick by Rand...then we've lost. I know all the philosophical arguments, I adore Ron Paul for his absolutist views, but I'm with Rand and want to see what his voting record will be....

[curiouschem]

I don't understand all the definitions behind the labels people put on these politicians, but I do understand rights. Rand spoke for this. It appears to me the main media (controlled by?) is trying to discredit Rand.



[ReligionIsTheDevil]

@curiouschem

That's exactly what is happening. The liberals don't want him because he isn't a liberal. The conservatives don't want him because he isn't neo. These two facts, by themselves, should be enough evidence to convince reasonable person that you just can't take what the media says about him at face value.

[LibertyandEconomics]

Dead on man. Politics is a nasty game. Libertraians and paleos are more comfortable out doing one another on the purity scale. I engage in this on occasion myself. But the chance of having someone such as Rand Paul in the Senate is a huge opportunity for those who love liberty. Who do you agree 100% with? No one. But you know who is on your side, and Rand certainly is on ours.

[billyjoeallen]

electoral politics is corrupted and corrupting. One senator and one congressman only serves to keep anti-statists engaged in a system that is rigged against them.

Voting is for suckers.

[fluff125]

@billyjoeallen to not vote is to sell yourself to the opposition for free. At least put up a fight!

[yostevoak1]

I was saying earlier I think rand is about 80% for me. Enough for a vote, even enough to vote over someone I like more if I think Rand can win. However, not enough for me to contribute to. You need to be in 90's before I open my wallet up.

[fairlylargejohn]

I think Jack missed the point.

I'm a Libertarian, Rothbard-style, and I have been critical of Rand. But me and people I know, are being critical of him for his own good. We understand that he's not fully Libertarian. He's Rand Paul.

Jack thinks we're critical because we want to argue. No. We're critical because we think he could have delivered his message better. The Maddow interview shows this.

I'd rather have an ally I disagree with, like Rand, than an enemy who's against me, like Cheney.

[ArcticSlicer]

@fairlylargejohn

Seeing the rise of Rand Paul gives me hope but I think he's still pretty inexperienced when it comes to dealing with the media. In that 20 minute interview with Rachel Maddow he should have been more to the point and simply answered "yes" or "no" when she asked him if he would have voted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Instead of answering the question though he went into a somewhat off topic rant only to clarify his position a couple of days later on Larry King.

[ed2point0]

@fairlylargejoh I agree with you, that is what I have been saying for a week. I have my issues with Rand, but that's okay because dismissing him altogether will seem stupid and ridiculous, not to mention dangerous considering neo-liberal Jack Conway is running against him who is just another Trey Grayson. Rand is not to be blamed for his comments, it is our dumbed down society and our dumbed down media that refuses to listen to the whole context and would rather listen to talking points.

[chinzzzy]

You were calling him a statesman last video, now he is a better than average conservative. What on earth would libertarians or paleos gain from supporting him? It would just lead outsiders to erroneously associate Rand and his "electable" rhetoric with libertarianism.

[abolof]

interesting summation. the fact that there are so few principled pols makes rand less attractive to the base republican who embraces party over policy. indeed, it renders him to the margins with ron. funnier still, both would tell you the individual is demographicless. dang, now i'm making up words... sorry 'bout that

[WildlyOptimistic1]

As horrible as the politicians are right now, today, I'll take "less than perfect" Rand ALL DAY. He really needs to consider the full scope of his comments, though, especially concerning BP.

[sniffsnarff]

I'm very tired of all this compromise...and I'm not giving Rand a pass because of who his father is.

This is the most "political" article that SA has put up in recent memory. I think there is too much "he said..she said" in this article. I hope SA doesn't stay on this road or it will make him useless to principled people in the same way that Hannity and Limbaugh are now little more than talking heads of a different spin.

[sleedolfine15]

@sniffsnarff I think that what SA is saying is that Rand is 80-90% with the movement, but that compromise is a part of the real world political process. Rand's positions on most issues are not mainstream republican,but some of his positions are.The question is this. Are you going to support a candidate who will move our cause foward--allbeit only partially so or are you going to support only the ideologically pure as we once again go down in defeat.

[sniffsnarff]

@sleedolfine15, yeah I hear ya..and I watched the video, but again: I'm sick of the compromise - what's wrong will always be "wrong". I agree that for now, Rand is different than all the others and his contribution to politics is a positive in the right direction, but as others below have written: for how long? I suppose what one person sees as the movement going "mainstream", the other (me) only see's the parts which are watered down in order to do so :-/

..I still want a 2nd passport.

[sleedolfine15]

@sniffsnarff Causes are always watered down because it is'nt in human nature to follow a principle with robotic precision. We will always work for a cause--any cause,in our own individual way. There will always be disagreements amongst the faithful. For instance,Murray Rothbard apparently thought that Frederick Hayek was insufficiently pure in his libertarianism. Even the great ones disagree. As for how long? Forever. The battle for liberty has gone on forever & will go on forever.

[sniffsnarff]

@sleedolfine15, from Mises: "Do not Give in to Evil, but Proceed ever More Boldly Against it." So where is your limit on the thinning of ideas?

[ArcticSlicer]

@sniffsnarff His commentaries have seemed to be going downhill as his career has been moving uphill. I was a pretty big fan of his stuff when he was simply the "Southern Avenger at WTMA" but after being @Takimag and now @TAC he's become more repetitive and less substantive. He's still worth listening to but he's not quite the inspiring commentator he once was.

[shiftstart]

Jack, if Rand shares few political point of view of the establishment not in par with his fathers point of view....what guarantee do we have that in a few years he wont turn into the very mainstream we despise so much?

Hope is all we got

[sleedolfine15]

@shiftstart No guarantees in politics,but what we do know is this. Rand is 80% or more with us whereas his opponent is probably 80% against us. Are we benefitting our cause if we reject the guy who is 80% for us, thereby aiding the 80 percenter against us get elected.

[Nothwithstanding]

Should libertarians compromise some of their most dearly-held positions in order to get a man like Rand into office? Yes.

This is politics, people. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet. Besides, hard libertarianism will have to be toned down if it has any sort of feasible chance of gaining votes. Once there are people of our camp in power, then the charge needs to be on full force.

Love it or hate it, that's the way it is.

[hellsunicorn]

Running for political office is a practical matter, functioning in government is where principles come in to play. Most voters, due to the outlandish sense of entitlement that they have developed, want to be pandered to, and they do not want to hear the truth unless it comforms itself to that. But once the election is over, they stop caring about what goes on apart from an occasional hooray when hearing something they like on the news. I have no problem with Rand's approach here.

[oyate1960]

Hey what's with the implication that arguing amongst ourselves is a bad thing? We 3VOL arguing amongst ourselves. We're good at it.

[tomrdee]

People put up with so much from bad politicians. They defend them no mater what.

When the good ones who should be representing us do one thing we don't agree with we loose all respect and they loose all the support they need to save our country.

[megagagnon1]

I think neocons see Rand as a trojan horse - he has a few neocon stances, but if given a chance to hold power, he'd show his true colors.

[Silvsilvchan]

This is a very good video.

It also explains why you like Ralph Nader, hell, why I like him. Beggars can't be choosers. Though some of the things Rand is saying is troublesome. The Civil Rights act was understandable, and frankly I am fine with that. Some of his more hawkish positions are... well, they are both WELCOME to me and OBJECTIONABLE to me at the same time. I kind of sit inbetween Rand and Ron in that aspect.

[rachelabombdotcom]

Only stupid people will construe this as a racist issue as opposed to a Govt. over reach issue. This was a trap and as transparent as it gets. Down with Neocons!

Neocons and Dems will join forces on Libertarians, what does that tell you?

PS The Tea Party leader is everyone and no one. Stop trying to pin the tail on the leader. :P

[badtown88]

Well I have to say I respect (don't always agree with, but respect) Ron Paul. Rand I have some respect for, but honestly it really bothered me that people like Sarah Palin came out and endorsed him. He seems to be a little more mainstream than his Pops, and I'm not so sure that's a good thing, but he's still a lot better than most of the politicians out there.

[valmorgan]

@badtown88 Give him some time...