Skip to comments.Rand Paul is a RINO
Posted on 02/27/2011 3:51:37 AM PST by RogerFGay
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. To make the point, we might as well start with the extremely popular young senator Rand Paul. But if you're paying attention, you too will notice the business as usual talking point repeated by many others.
On February 24, 2011, Senator Paul was interviewed by David Letterman. Here is the excerpt that this article addresses.
Letterman: In this day and age, what does it mean if you're a member of the Republican Party? What are the precepts? What do we stand for?
Paul: Well, we wanted to mean something. When I ran, I said the Republican Party is an empty vessel unless we imbue it with values. What I mean by that is kind of what the Tea Party says. You gotta believe in something. I think during many of the Bush years we became just like the Democrats. We could spend money just as fast as the Democrats could and we ran up the debt and that was a problem for me. I thought really that government needs to live within its means.
Letterman: Live within its means. So that's the headline for the Republican Party. If you're a Republican, you stand for fiscally responsible government, first and foremost. Is that right?
Paul: I think so, and I think that unifies a lot of people.
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.
My question: Where's the Constitution the one that enforces limited government and individual rights?
Let's review. There are three major kinds of conservatives competing to control US politics; social, political, and fiscal.
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.
American political conservatives are basically the modern version of classic liberals and the last actual defenders of Constitutional rule in the United States. There must be a structured relationship between government and the people that does not allow arbitrary government intrusion.
Fiscal conservatives are politically equivalent to fiscal liberals. There are no set rules that limit government involvement in anything and everything, just political preferences. They are also often just as much in favor of more government and more spending. If a pork-barrel scheme is promoted as an investment of public money that will eventually reduce spending, self-described fiscal conservatives are just as quick to jump on the band wagon as liberals, no matter how weak the argument that more spending equals savings. Over the past three decades, they have frequently voted in favor of arbitrary increases in government power to suit their agenda. They also tend to ally with social conservatives in order to win elections. In one major scam, they pretended arbitrary federal intrusion into marriage and family law would save taxpayer dollars by reducing poverty. Not only did the welfare budget skyrocket as a result, the institution of marriage was destroyed and took out fundamental individual rights with it.
Rand Paul is misleading when he equates fiscal conservative rhetoric with imbuing values in an empty vessel. Fiscal conservatism isn't values, it's a set of relative actions taken in context. We are once again being told to accept a government of people and not of laws. Paul and other new Republicans are not presenting a reformed Republican image. They're reselling the old one, and our experience already tells us that doesn't work and why. Fiscal conservatives do not imbue fundamental rules in the relationship between government and the people in their empty vessel.
Fiscal conservatism is a set of relative actions taken in context. It is not a set of values.
Video link - Rand Paul on Letterman, Feb. 24, 2011
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.
First the writer is Full of Shite. Second, the story is referring to RAND Paul, not his kooky Pop. You are 100% on the nails head about mclain and RON Paul.
You do realize that Rand Paul and Ron Paul are two different people, don’t you?
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.
Nothing worse that politicians telling us that we’re sick and tired of partisan gridlock and calling for a “new” spirit of bipartisanship in order to get things done.
Just want to clarify: What you’ll get from them is a self-described “fiscal conservative” PR job. See article for further description of fiscal conservatives.
Federal, state and local! Cut off their endless demands for our money and limit the time they need to show up for "work."
Tere lies the heart of the problem. Getting more things done but not getting the policy that caused the need to get things done..undone. With good basic policy there is no need for politicians to get things done.
Thou shalt not FREEP before COFFEE
but ...the nut never falls far from the tree.
The work should be repealing repealing repealing. Canceling eliminating and undoing. Untangling. We are like a fishing reel with a giant backlash.
Amen to that brother! Personally I'm looking for politicians that are telling us how to get things undone. The congress has already 'done' enough damage.
I just think you’re totally wrong, that’s all.
The bureaucrats now have enormous power. Congress writes funding authorization bills and leaves everything to them. It’s been so bad for so long, that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats swore publicly that that’s the way it’s supposed to work. Once they’ve authorized the bureaucracy to get involved in something, there’s no limit to their rule. Barack Obama obviously thinks so too - like when he told the EPA to inaccurately characterize CO2 as a pollutant in order to take control of market via energy.
Yes, but then after you think about it some more, you’ll eventually realize that I’m totally right. I’ve been down this road many times before. It’s always the same.
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.
I also think a “men’s news daily” makes about as much sense as a “women’s news daily”.
>> 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...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.