John McCain is a RINO
Ron Paul is a KOOK!!
Our problem is simple. Too much government. Day in and day out they make more and more so called well intentioned rules, laws and regulations designed to fix problems caused by the old rules and regulations and laws. In the end all they do is expand the size and scope of failed policy. The chant of “We need to get something done” is heard over and over. What needs to happen is to get something undone and dismantle the apparatus that is causing all the problems.
If anything, Rand Paul got in brief trouble in his campaign by speaking too plainly about Constitutional principles. He obviously comes to his conservatism via a Constitutionalist-libertarian prism, and he’s been about as strong in acting on his principles as any of our Senators or Congresscritters in this still-young term.
The writer is totally off base here.
Rand Paul is a libertarian, just like his father. There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between them when it comes to actual public policy.
Of course, like his dad, he dresses it up in some conservative rhetoric. Gotta get elected, after all.
Which, I suppose, vindicates the headline, at least.
>> Let’s review. There are three major kinds of conservatives competing to control US politics; social, political, and fiscal.
I believe there are two: one fiscal, the other your three differentiations combined.
>> Rand Paul is misleading when he equates fiscal conservative....
I think I missed your thought train...
Now St. Rand is called RINO. Such irony.
Is there any Senator who hasn’t been labeled as such at some point by someone? Even “RINO Demint” has google hits.
Case in point why the DIABLO tag is necessary.
You are basing your whole premise on a few spoken words on David Letterman? I think you must have some personal issue with Rand Paul.
Rovian Politics Alert!!!
I can't help but notice that the new wave of Tea Party Republicans, said to be on probation until they've proven themselves, have quickly circled their wagons to defend the established RINO culture.
And you cite:
Letterman: “And what about the Tea Party. Does that overlap with the Republican precept?”
Paul: “Yeah, and the difference is though the Tea Party … [will] tell you if you don't vote correctly or if you vote with the Republicans when they're voting to bankrupt the country, we'll bring you home too. They're not very shy about it.”
That doesn't sound like circling the wagon around RINOs. Sounds more to me like Rand Paul is putting them on notice that they face getting primaried if they don't adhere to Tea Party fiscal conservatism.
Your column is a joke, and a bad one at that.
The interviewer was David Letterman. The audience was people who like watching David Letterman.
Rand Paul was distilling part of the message suitable for the audience at hand. You don’t give infants filet mignon, you give them easily digested pureed applesauce.
If you saw the interview, David Letterman demonstrated either that he is a simpleton, or he thinks he audience is composed mainly of simpletons.
Defending children in the womb on the principle of their being endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, specifically to life, is as dangerous saying that there is a moral equivalence between homosex and heterosex? You need to look at the red words at the top of the page on FR to see that you've lost your way this AM.
"Social conservatives have proven just as politically dangerous as social liberals. Both favor arbitrary increases in government power and the use of force to intrude upon individual freedom."
Where is this true? This is a tired libertarian talking point w/o any touch point to actual conservative positions.
What drives libertarians to drive a wedge through a conservative coalition that is gaining momentum? If it is the agnostism/atheism of Randian Objectivism, which I suspect, then it needs to be held up and exposed for what it is.
Our republic is built upon a profound appreciation for Divine Providence, without that we have no rights that cannot be taken away. All of the revolutions since our own that have ignored God have ended in dismal tyrany .
Those who are too PC to read history accurately will be of no help to us.
The writer is misleading his readers and he knows it. Posting it here to see if he can pimp hits to his article. The writer is no friend to conservatives. My guess is at best he’s a Bush, McCain, Rove republican.
A lie from Hell.
Social conservatives have proven just as politically dangerous as social liberals. Both favor arbitrary increases in government power and the use of force to intrude upon individual freedom. Both have contributed equally to the collapse of Constitutional rule.
For this fool: "individual freedom" and "Constitutional rule" = child sacrifice.
Jeremiah 2:34
Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these.
Jeremiah 2:8
The priests said not, Where is the LORD? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.
Everyone’s a RINO except for me and thee - and I’m not too sure about thee.
Hmmm...Rand is channeling Tug McGraw? ;-)
ping
When I’m asked, “What defines a Conservative”, my first item is, “One who believes in personal responsibility”.
I was waiting for him to say something about that.
He's covering his rear end and trying to avoid getting into needless trouble, saving his energies for issues that really come up before Congress and that he can actually do something about.
That makes sense. Attacking him for not specifically saying on one occasion everything you want him to say is silly. Rand Paul is more of a "political conservative" in your sense or constitutional conservative than 98% of Congress and more of one than most people would vote for. His giving a canned maximalist answer that would bring canned negative responses wouldn't advance your agenda at all.
His dad is already known as the guy who wants to roll back government to where it was in 1960 or 1930 or 1900 or 1860 and most people safely ignore or dismiss whatever he says because it's become so expected from him and has so little to do with current issues and controversies.