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...
A clear example of our problem is the Health insurance bill. Years of government policy failure led to big problems. The solution. 2,000 pages new rules and regulations. In the 2,000 pages there is nothing but new layers of complexity. The next bill to correct the problems caused by this bill will require 4,000 pages of regulations and 4 times as many new government employees to write the regulations and try to enforce them. All this in an attempt to insure the uninsurable.
That giant sucking sound we'd hear is the millions of leeches being pulled off government's tit.
Sure. The CO2 problem. They are fixing a problem that never existed. They created the problem out of “thin air”. I think the only hope is for 34 states to call a con-con and eliminate the agencies that are causing so much trouble. Washington DC is like Humpty Dumpty.
>>Federal, state and local! Cut off their endless demands for our money and limit the time they need to show up for “work.”
Right and the worst part is that government policy creates the Leeches. But they are even worse than a Leech. They never get full and fall off the host. Once attached they stay attached and breed more Leeches.
He’s on the Letterman show, and you’re unhappy because he didn’t start lecturing on the Constitution? Aren’t you splitting hairs here? I think you’re making something out of nothing.
We can’t be blowing a gasket every time our Senator / Congressman utters a sentence without the word “Constitution” in it.
And why not???!?!?!?!?!?!
Senator Paul - "Can you hold on a Constitution minute? I need to go to the Constitution bathroom."
You have to listen / read a bunch ... you’ll notice repeated “talking points.” Talking points are just something one guy said in some particular context. It’s “party line” stuff. When you’ve identified “talking points,” you know what team a politician (or talking head) is on when they use them. Defining new Tea Party Republicans as fiscal conservatives is a talking point that ties them to the old Republican TEA (taxed enough already) Party - the ones that happily helped get us all this screwed up to begin with; with decades of smiling bipartisanship to “get things done.”
And tell us how this is such a bad thing, given the horrific state of federal finances nowadays?
One can be both a fiscal conservative and a social conservative. In that regard, I find common ground with Rand Paul on fiscal issues. I won't bad-mouth him the way you have here - your way is how alliances are trashed instead of nutured - and it takes alliances to overcome the progressive agenda, one group alone cannot muster the numbers to do such.
And as another poster noted, what are you expecting? Him to launch into a detailed discussion of Constitutional policy on LETTERMAN? Jeez, maybe, just maybe, do you think a simplified statement of his positions is a better approach in that venue?
Switch to decaf, dude.
The thought train in that sentence originates with Rand Paul’s words in the interview.
One of many
See also, post #26
Apparently, you’re quite happy with the road to ruin we’ve been on for at least the past three decades. The alliance between fiscal and social conservatives contributed greatly to the collapse of Constitutional rule and completely out of control government. It’s not an alliance that I have any interest in nurturing. If they’re not willing to play by the fundamental rules, then they’re just as bad as the other bad guys.
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.
They’re different like George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush...right?
Not a dime’s worth of difference.
That is complete bullcrap.
Maybe you could give us your definition of Constitutional rule so we know what the heck you are yammering about here.
What is the most fundamental rule of the Constitution?
Limiting the size and scope of the federal government.
By definition, that is what fiscal conservatives seek to do - if you limit spending, you by defintion seek to limit what the fedgov is doing.
So please, tell us how fiscal conservatism is not playing by the fundemental rules.
This should be entertaining.
I’ve written dozens of articles on the topic over the years. Have another cup of coffee and try re-reading the article. It’s pretty straight-forward. If you’ve no idea that the US is running outside Constitutional boundaries at this point, I doubt I could educate you myself with a few forum posts. If you’re interested in politics, you need to focus some study on the subject.
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.
No, no, no. That twisting of logic doesn’t fly. There is a particular structure and defined set of rules to Constitutional limitations to government. Promising to make up a form of limited government as you go along by pretending to not increase spending quite as fast as the other guys would is not even close to the same thing.
Rovian Politics Alert!!!
**Theyre different like George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush...right?**
Only real difference is that W did show some spine during 9/11. Otherwise both were pretty wishy washy and allowed the rinos and the Liberals to walk over them.
Bushes were wishy washy... I’m expecting Rand to show himself the KOOK ..just like his Old Man!!
I am well aware that the fedgov is operating outside Constitutional boundaries. I a simply challenging your claim that fiscal conservatives bear responsibility for that.
And I am under no obligation to follow your past writing. You are levelling a specific charge on this thread - that fiscal conservatives do not operate within fundamental rules. So give elaborations, examples. Here.
Oh, and I have read and posted extensively about the Constitution myself here on FR. I even took a position in front of a federal judge during voir dire about a bad SCOTUS ruling that was reversed a few years later. So lose the condescention as well. You are raising a point on a conservative forum - so debate it if you can. Here. That is what a forum is for. If you just want to blog and not have to defend your positions, don't bother posting here, or post your stuff into bloggers.
That is not fiscal conservatism, dude. Actual fiscal conservatism seeks to cut back the growth of government - as Rand Paul has shown he is willing to call for (see recent articles about how he wants to cut Social Security for an example).
You are deliberately warping the concept of fiscal conservatism to try and make your point. Which makes your claim dishonest.
And yet you argue that fiscal conservatism is the equivalent of Constitutional rule. Isn’t that claim just a bit too daft to warrant a response?
Not saying you are right or wrong, just what the article implies.
I think you can understand that just because he did not say the word Constitution in an otherwise reasonable reply is not a sound basis for the argument and why that would seem a little bit of a stretch. Perhaps including some of this other information would broaden the basis of your point.
It is part of Constitutional rule. Not all of it. But if you defund the beast, that is a big step towards de-fanging the beast.
Isnt that claim just a bit too daft to warrant a response?
Are you pulling a few muscles to try and make your points here?
Methinks you cannot back up your claim rationally, hence your flippant attitude here.
Guess what - once again, don't post your stuff here on FR if you cannot defend it with factual and reasoned posts.