I get the impression that libertarianism appeals to white middle class kids who disagree with Dems on taxes and affirmative action and mommy state but disagree with Republicans on issues like abortion and gays, and they want to smoke dope which I notice some Dems are proposing.
On the neo-con war stuff the Bush experience turned me 180 degrees on that. In 2003 I was assuring people I knew that Bush and Cheney knew what they were doing and I was blind.
I was for Schiff as well (and I know Impy was too), he's a good example of the rare 20-30% of Paulbot candidates that are actually pretty decent. Unfortunately while he was ideal on paper (especially for a state like Conn.) he was underwhelming on the campaign trail and went nowhere. Still, there was a huge void left in 2012 without a Schiff-style candidate. We were left with the RINO vs. RINOer choices of Linda McMahon and Chris Shays. Both sucked royally (and despite all the constant hype that McMahon had improved as a candidate and made the race competitive -- she lost to the RAT by the same margin she had lost in 2010 -- 12 points)
Another Senate candidate endorsed by the Paulites that I thought was a pretty decent libertarian conservative was Kurt Bills of Minnesota. I know another freeper was blaming Bills nomination on the RATs winning Minnesota easily and saying we would have been competitive had Bills not been the nominee. I can't imagine why. It's Minnesota we're talking about, any Republican would have had a huge uphill battle defeating a RAT incumbent, especially with the mainstream media on her side. I didn't learn about Bills until long after he got the nomination but he sounded like a pretty impressive guy. He has an M.A. in education, and a background as a H.S. teacher. He defeated an entrenched RAT incumbent to win his twin cities suburban-based state House seat, and prior to that he was elected to the Rosemount City Council from a field of 26 candidates. He was among the handful of state legislators who put their money where their mouth was and declined their pay during the July 2011 Minnesota government shutdown. Despite being a Paulite, he voted with the House Republican Majority to amend the state constitution to ban "gay" marriage. He's solidly pro-life and pro-gun, but focused on fiscal issues and the repeal on Obamacare. Overall I thought he was pretty solid candidate and it's a shame he didn't gain more traction.
>> There may be some overlap but the Paulites are not the tea party. <<
They certainly aren't, but the Paulites will take credit for it nevertheless. (They also campaigned on Ron Paul being "the man who stood by Reagan" and portrayed him as a Reagan Republican, despite the fact Paul had vocally denounced the Reagan era in 1988 and said at the time that he wanted to "totally disassociate myself from him") And they ridicule other candidates for flip-flopping on Romney after the primary. Paulites have no shame.
>> I’m not convinced that Rand is a worthless pig but daddy Paul is, I just heard him dissing drone warfare. Mind you I am no neocon, I left that foolishness in my youth, but Paul Sr. and others of his ilk like Justin Amash are called “Paulistinians” for good reason. Their’s is not a middle road it’s the same road as far left peacenik democrats. As a rule Paultards are...tarded. Is Rand an exception <<
I'm not convinced Rand is a "worthless pig" either, and he has done a number of good things too, but at the same time I'm not convinced Rand is a tea party icon and our conservative savior. He's too close to his daddy and his daddy's movement, and the bottom line is I don't trust him. His "tone" may be different than dear old dad but ideologically they're pretty close on the issues. I find it amusing that Rubio is getting racked over the coals here for selling out on immigration, but Rand Paul did the EXACT same thing (said he was "against amnesty" as a Senate candidate and has since "evolved" on the issue and now says he will work with the RATs to craft a "pathway to citizenship for illegals"), but there's little to no criticism of Paul for selling out on illegals, even on FR. Either freepers don't know or care that he stabbed conservatives in the back.
>> Rand is in the Senate minority lecturing the House Republicans on what to do while voting symbolic no’s for stuff that passes the Senate woof woof. How about he kill some Senate bills by offering alternatives and keeping Reids from reaching the House. <<
I will say this much for him: I just got done watching Rand Paul's response to Obama's SOTU address (watched a rerun of the video on CSPAN's website and they cut off the last 2 mins. of it). A liberal Democrat Obama supporter I know was quite impressed with Paul's speech and said it was the only one worth watching, and I have to agree. Regardless of what he's done or hasn't done in the Senate, he did an excellent job exposing Obama and articulating conservative beliefs. The same was true in 2011, of the three SOTU responses back then (Paul Ryan, Michele Bachmann, and Rand Paul), his was the best. I give the 2013 speech an A as well. The funny thing is Rand Paul said he was make "immigration reform" and reaching out to immigrants a big component of his speech along with budget issues, but in the actual version he delivered, I didn't hear him mention the immigration issue once. He talked in more broad terms about the budget, spending, taxes, education, the bill of rights (Especially the 2nd amendment) in ways that all conservatives could agree. I guess the highlight of Rubio's speech last night was him awkwardly reaching for a sip of water. That can't be good for our side. I wonder if he changed anything when he translated his speech into Spanish. (I'd bet money that the Spanish-version is "watered down" despite essentially being the same material as the English language version)
Rand Paul is very good at saying things conservatives want to hear, I just wouldn't trust him with any power until he know he won't embarrass us like daddy.