Posted on 03/29/2014 12:43:14 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Two newcomers, Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas, are the hottest figures in the dominant conservative wing of the Republican Party. In markedly different ways, they both claim to be the heirs to the party’s contemporary patron saint, Ronald Reagan.
In a short time, these first-term lawmakers have electrified elements of the party’s base and rattled the Senate establishment. The top two Republican leaders in the chamber, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and John Cornyn of Texas, have had to defer to the political popularity of their junior colleagues.
Both are outside the party mainstream, rock stars in selective conservative circles, with an eye on the 2016 presidential nomination and on each other.
They are also profoundly different in style and substance. They reflect a party and movement that are struggling to reshape themselves despite internal contradictions.
In the next presidential race, conservatives are determined to tap one of their own. Perhaps someone else will emerge, but, for now, Mr. Paul, 51, and Mr. Cruz, 43, are the top choices of many conservatives...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Please! Reagan would never have contempt for “social” issues like Paul has.
I see this is another Al “Mike” Hunt piece.
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
Ronald Reagan, Reason Magazine, 1975
So far I really like what I’m hearing from Ted Cruz and I’m taking a good look and waiting to see about Rand Paul.
If Cruz keeps it up he should have a good chance at the presidency.
On the other hand i think Paul has the right idea about the u.s not having the right to be the worlds police force although we do need to keep our country protected.
I do not think we even need talk about anarchy because in many minds freedom is anarchy.
That's right, while campaigning for president in 1975, and being interviewed by a libertarian magazine for a libertarian audience, Reagan did what he was masterful at, found a sly way to find common ground with his audience at the opening, then he spent most of the rest of the interview explaining why he was not a libertarian and was a total conservative, social issues which included gambling and prostitution, and a strong and aggressive defense posture.
There isn't much we don't know about the long and political life of Ronald Reagan, that is why we see that one little quote over and over from that single minor magazine interview, and no papers and books, or speeches on his being anything but a true conservative, not 1/3rd of a conservative, and 2/3rds liberal, Reagan wasn't a libertarian.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3132459/posts
In all honesty, I am fed up with the divide-and-conquer tactics in regards to Paul and Cruz, with Politico being the worst offender.
Michael Reagan has one of those stories for everyone, he is not a quality political thinker, and isn’t suited for what he does for a living, because of his name.
In all honesty, we conservatives are fed up with Paul’s coming out to move the party and the nation left, by calling for the GOP to go libertarian/liberal on social issues, and drop them from the platform.
Paul is a Senator, voting on federal legislation, and running for president, and has revealed that he will not fight for a full conservative agenda.
Who is "we", kemosabe?
I put Rand Paul in almost the same category as a Reagan Republican as McCain who constantly claimed that Mantle.
His penchant for talking around the immigration/citizenship issue is just a disguise for the time when he would, if elected, give them citizenship in some fashion. And, it would open the floodgates and let slip the dogs of entitlement forever.
maybe Cruz, time will tell
Rand ain’t got it
Although I disagree with ansell2 about Michael’s suitability for what he does for a living, I think it odd that you question his projection of ‘we conservatives’.
Without question Free Republic is a strongly conservative forum inhabited by some very fine conservative minds and passionate conservative hearts.
Anyone that enjoys getting the truth, of learning how to get at the truth through all the con games of the media find that the Free Republic comments, debates and added reporting are advanced education that is leading edge in politics without the pedantry of syndicated media production.
So, if one scans and reads Free Republic, it’s almost a certainty that one sees that the conservatives of this forum are not enamored with Rand Paul.
Over the past year my own views of Rand Paul became mixed and only recently became set against his candidacy. His endorsement of McConnell was the final straw because it was entirely unnecessary in principle except the principle of campaign money which is all McConnell has to offer as a conduit for K Street corruption. Paul is therefore a sellout who is careful to hold his finger to which way the wind blows.
If all 3, Palin, Paul and Cruz run, a Cristie or Bush wins yet again. Palin must remain a cheerleader/kingmaker and Paul must defer to the #2 spot.
I truly hope that Cruz and Paul can meet on some common ground and run together. If that be the case, they WILL win the country back. The only thing they would need to worry about is insuring the House and Senate come along with them at the same time. There is a great “reserve” waiting in the wings to become other great leaders in a number of places (Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Interior, etc...)
Using the term “we” when talking about one’s personal opinion is a misuse of the english language.
Because the NY Times culture always has an agenda formed by their insulated yet delusional consensus.
So I read the entire piece looking for their angle of attack and found it in this comment.
Look for Mr. Cruz to moderate his views as rank-and-file conservatives, exhausted by more than a decade of war, move closer to Mr. Paul’s neo-isolationist views.
Liberals are surveying the republican field of candidates. Christie is toast even though liberals would like to see him in play because they believe Her Thighness could surely beat the stuffings out of His Fatness. Who then will they promote as the next republican loser?
Well there's Bush of the Jeb variety, but even they can see that Barbara had it correct, that the country has had its fill of Bush stew.
Who then? Who can they amplify on a weekly basis to shape the minds of the plebiscite?
Voila; up with Paul, down with Cruz. Paul the more 'collegial'; Cruz, the narrow sensation of right-wingers, hard right wingers that is.
But curiously they reveal their deliberations on how to attack Cruz. They concede he is 'off the wall smart' which is not only true but is evidenced by his academic credentials and awards. So they know they can't win with a 'Cruz is dumb' message. So they have to go with the 'Cruz is dangerous' message. This is exactly what they did with Ronald Reagan in 1980 when they ranted that it was a clear near certainty that RR would start WWIII with the Soviets.
Wrong. His opinion on Paul is the opinion of the vast majority of conservatives on this forum.
And who are you to judge what is a misuse of the ‘english’ language? That’s English with a capital ‘E’ to you Bucko.
One of the Paultard isolationist idiots claims the mantle of the man who knocked down the iron curtain? Hardly.
Yeah, I’m just not feeling Paul. He’s been taking far too many positions that will make him a bit dangerous as president. VP? Maybe. But Cruz has my support.
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.