Posted on 07/29/2013 11:47:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
He’s light on specifics here about the pros and cons of the NSA program as he sees them, but any time three serious contenders for 2016 are in a scrum over national security and civil liberties, it’s blogworthy. More than that, it’s blogworthy because the Paul/Cruz Senate partnership is to some extent a proxy for the tea-party/libertarian partnership generally. It won’t go on forever, but it’s fascinating while it lasts. I won’t bore you with rehashing why I think Cruz is more a tea partier than a true blue libertarian; read these two posts if you care, or read Nick Gillespie for the libertarian take on why Cruz doesn’t really belong in the movement. Wherever you think Cruz lies on the ideological spectrum, though, he’s a shrewd judge of where his base stands on the issues. And in this case, he’s right in thinking that they Stand With Rand too.
In fact, before you watch the clip below, go back and watch this very short clip of Cruz on “Fox & Friends” in mid-June, after Edward Snowden’s PRISM revelations. He was asked what he thinks of NSA surveillance — and his response was basically noncommittal. He said the program is “cause for concern” but cautioned that we shouldn’t rush to judgment; his main worry about the program seemed to be that Obama might abuse it to target his political enemies. By contrast, Rand Paul had already announced a week before that he hoped to sue the NSA program into oblivion. Why is Cruz firmly with Rand now when he wasn’t before? Could be that the accumulation of leaks about what the feds are doing has finally driven him firmly into the libertarian camp, but the most damaging stuff that Snowden had — the details of government spying on Americans — had already leaked by the time of his F&F appearance. Paul, as I said, had already seen more than enough to demand a class action lawsuit against the feds by that point.
What you’re seeing here, I think, is Cruz executing the opposite of Paul’s 2016 strategy. Paul’s really a doctrinaire libertarian who’s inched towards mainstream righties on some issues (most notably immigration) because he knows he needs a broader coalition to be viable for the nomination. Cruz is really a tea partier who’s inched towards doctrinaire libertarianism on some issues (most notably drones and the NSA) because he recognizes TPers have become more libertarian and because he’s hoping to pick up Paul’s supporters in the primaries if/when he emerges as the right-wing choice against the establishment. It’s a smart strategy. Expect Rubio and Scott Walker to become more libertarian-friendly over the next year or two also. Click the image to watch.
Cruz would make a great president as well as a great looking president.
Nice pic.
“where does the Constitution come in?”
Libertarians DO NOT correctly interpret original intent of the Founders on many moral/social issues. They mostly get the 2nd Amendment right...but little else.
No, I do NOT trust anyone with “primarily” Libertarian views to hold office much more than I do a liberal democrat. The Paul’s (father and son) are LIBERTARIANS not Republicans.
“Giving power to government and trusting that it will only be used for good purposes by wise and freedom-loving men is a dangerous delusion.’
ANY government is giving up some freedoms to protect other things. All government is a risk. However, anarchy IS NOT an option.
So, I am willing to take a calculated risk in giving certain powers to those in charge....but safeguards need to be in place.
We the People already gave up certain Freedoms/Liberty when the Constitution was created. I don’t recall giving further consent, per C. Amendment, to strip away our 4th A. Rights. I sure as sh!t didn’t give the authority to any 3rd party.
Yet, with the NSA, TSA, etc., no recent terrorism threat/act was prevented *BY* gov’t. Even in your ‘best case scenario’, you’re calculated risk has been for naught.
For someone who believes us (L) cannot interpret the Constitution per the Founders (which one(s), I can not be certain you are referring), I think this one here can read and understand the 4th quite well, thank you very much. To brutalize Washington, I’m not adding any more wood to the fire ‘master’; in fact, the flames are too big already.
One of the strengths of the liberals is ... they are united, no matter what. Conservatives/Republicans, are divided. Each believes in what they have decided will benefit them personally. The people are left with no desirable candidate and direction available.
Sarah is the only one that makes sense and I trust. Only she may not run. MBF says the powers that be in the Republic party told her they would not support her ... which is why she announced the decision not to run. Maybe so, maybe No. We do see she is attacked, blocked, ridiculed, constantly on going.
As for me and my house we will seek God and pray for the will of God. Woe unto those that do evil, intend evil, and spread evil. God gives the people what we declare we want.
(IE when God’s people wanted a King like the other peoples had. God warned them of the tyranny of a KING.)
We never seem to learn. God have mercy on America.
MBF —my best friend
“Sarah is the only one that makes sense and I trust.”
I pretty much agree that Palin is the best possible...because I believe she is a balanced conservative...of course I could be wrong. She is certainly a better pick than Ryan ANY day.
I have reached the point where I do not really trust any politicians anymore. So, I would describe Sarah as being the one I least distrust. :-)
“I don’t recall giving further consent, per C. Amendment, to strip away our 4th A. Rights.’
The Fourth Amendment pretty much disappeared when “no-knock” warrants were allowed by the SCOTUS.
Whatever...even IF Paul understands the 4th and 2nd Amendments...he doesn’t get much else right. He is too hit and miss - as are all libertarians. Libertarians (libertines), to include Paul, do NOT correctly understand most of the original intent of the COTUS...except for the really obvious.
I’ll give you that on the no-knock...The whole failed, and ILLEGAL, War on Drugs has really taken our Rights for a loop.
Maybe you can learn me something then on where us (L) ‘get it wrong’? WHO’s ‘intent’, and where/what, are we ‘off’, IYHO?
The size and scope of the FedGov as of about 1925 would work for me, and from what I know of history that era does not seem particularly apocalyptic.
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.