The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on March 20, 2014, 04:16:08 pm
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/20/video-rand-paul-goes-behind-enemy-lines-at-berkeley/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/20/video-rand-paul-goes-behind-enemy-lines-at-berkeley/)
Video: Rand Paul goes “behind enemy lines” at Berkeley?
POSTED AT 10:01 AM ON MARCH 20, 2014 BY ED MORRISSEY
In one sense, perhaps, but in another sense, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) may find himself right at home in the nexus between libertarianism and college-campus activism. Not too many Republicans get standing ovations from audiences at UC Berkeley, after all, which is one of the most activist-progressive campuses in California or the nation. However, Paul’s focus on individual liberty and constraining federal intrusion into private lives offered a rare bridge between a major national GOP figure and Berkeley students, and Paul made the most of it:
Delivering a rare speech for a Republican at this bastion of liberalism, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul on Wednesday was given multiple standing ovations by the left-wing audience after railing against government surveillance and warning the students: “Your right to privacy is under assault.”
“I am here to tell you that if you own a cell phone, you’re under surveillance,” he told the crowd. …
“No one should be allowed to invade your privacy,” Paul said. “That’s why I’m announcing today that when I return to Washington, I will push for a select committee styled after the Church Committee that investigated the abuses of power of the intelligence committee in the 70s. It should be bipartisan. It should be independent, and wide reaching. It should have full power to investigate and reform those who spy on us in the name of protecting us.”
Added Paul: “It should watch the watchers.”
National Journal’s Shane Goldmacher calls this a behind-enemy-lines operation to allow Republicans to compete for votes in what had been one of the strongest Democratic Party demographics:
“For the Republican Party to win again we need to go places we haven’t been going, and we need to attract people we haven’t been attracting. Part of that is the message, but part of that is also showing up,” Paul told National Journal. “I think we need to show up in challenging circumstances, so you don’t think of Berkeley as being a bastion of Republican politics and so I think it’s a good place to go.”
Paul, a fierce critic of the National Security Agency’s tactics, believes the issue of surveillance can—and has already started to—peel young voters away from President Obama and the Democratic Party.
“The youth vote went 3-to-1 for President Obama but recent polls, in the last six months, have shown his support dropping because, mostly because of the NSA scandal, I think,” Paul said.
Paul said he also wants to make a push into big cities where Republicans have been swamped in recent elections. “We have a trip planned to Chicago and Milwaukee to talk about school choice and to talk about education in the large cities and how we can do a better job than what we’re doing,” he said.
If Paul does follow through on that strategy, then he can expect to take some heavy flak from Democrats, certainly heavier than he will attract with his Berkeley speech. House Budget chair Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) tried talking about poverty recently, agreeing with President Barack Obama on the need to change the culture in urban areas where poverty runs rampant. For that bipartisan agreement, Ryan got pilloried as a racist, Rich Lowry writes:
in his instantly notorious interview with radio talk show host Bill Bennett, Ryan discussed fatherlessness and the importance of role models to passing along an example of hard work. “We have got this tailspin of culture in our inner cities, in particular,” he said, “of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work.”
For this offense, Ryan was awarded an honorary white hood by the liberal commentariat. But the broad sentiments are indistinguishable from those of Obama in the statements quoted above—all emphasizing a breakdown of work and the consequences of fatherlessness and social isolation—except Obama’s comments were more explicitly racial.
When Barack Obama says such things, which are undeniably correct, he is a brave truth-teller; when Paul Ryan says them, he is making an odious play for racist votes.
We may get a chance to discuss this with Rep. Ryan today on the Ed Morrissey Show. Meanwhile, here is Rand Paul’s full speech to the Berkeley Forum. He includes “full-throated defenses” of traditional Republican fiscal positions, according to Politico, but mainly focused on privacy and libertarian-friendly themes to offer a new and, er, tastier image of the GOP. “Remember Domino’s [the pizza chain] finally admitted they had bad crust?” Paul said in response to a question after his speech. “I think the Republican Party finally admitted it. OK, bad crust, we need a different kind of party.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vFhXpfEfQg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vFhXpfEfQg)
-
cool!
-
Shockingly Berkeley has a Young Republicans organization or club. I heard them interviewed I think on Hananity or Medved’s show. And we know that his father Ron Paul gathered fans among the Left leaning groups that appose government, like many in the Occupy movement, Truthers, and the Lyndon Larouchers, as well on the Right the hard-core Libertarians - so Rand could be riding in a bit on his fathers coat tails, and a lot from those groups are interested in hearing what he says. But if can convince even a few of the young voters that the Democrats do not have the answer they are looking for, then good luck to him.
-
Rand Paul is a very astute politician. I would have no problem voting for him for president in 2016.
-
Rand Paul is a very astute politician. I would have no problem voting for him for president in 2016.
Rand Paul's political outlook is exactly what small government, low tax, balance-the-budget conservatives say they crave. Yet, you watch. They'll slam him for his libertarian social and foreign policy stances. As conservatives and Republicans we wouldn't recognize a good constitutionalist politician if he were wearing a waistcoat, breeches, long stockings and a tri-corner hat!
-
Rand Paul's political outlook is exactly what small government, low tax, balance-the-budget conservatives say they crave. Yet, you watch. They'll slam him for his libertarian social and foreign policy stances. As conservatives and Republicans we wouldn't recognize a good constitutionalist politician if he were wearing a waistcoat, breeches, long stockings and a tri-corner hat!
Hate to say it, but you're probably right. I can hear the naysayers on TOS now....
-
Rand Paul's political outlook is exactly what small government, low tax, balance-the-budget conservatives say they crave. Yet, you watch. They'll slam him for his libertarian social and foreign policy stances. As conservatives and Republicans we wouldn't recognize a good constitutionalist politician if he were wearing a waistcoat, breeches, long stockings and a tri-corner hat!
If a good constitutionalist politician is Ron Paul thats when I abandon any libertarian ideals.
Ron Paul is for complete isolationism and he thinks 911 was an inside job. He was a nutcase at the debates and appealed more to the left-minded folks. How far from the tree does the nut fall?
I will very wisely wait until Rand is vetted more. If for no other reason to make sure he is not backed by a liberal superpac or has the same foreign policy as a liberal. What are his views on shutting down GTMO? War? Water-boarding/ interrogation of enemy combatants? He has said he is pro-life and libertarians are not upset by this. But I wonder if he is just appeasing conservatives, libertarians, or both? Libertarian is the new cool but is it nothing but liberalism wrapped into an appealing package?
I will wait for the debates but I hope Rand is not his fathers carbon copy fooling us.
p.s. and no, I am not a neo-con but todays geo-politics shows us lliberalism/libertarianism foreign policy does not work. I am also not a socon according to todays standards.
-
Ever since he began running for office, Rand Paul has been publicly contrasted with his former congressman father. Below are 8 ways Rand Paul is different from Ron Paul:
8-ways-rand-paul-is-different-from-ron-paul (http://ivn.us/2013/09/30/8-ways-rand-paul-is-different-from-ron-paul/)
-
If a good constitutionalist politician is Ron Paul thats when I abandon any libertarian ideals.
Ron Paul is for complete isolationism and he thinks 911 was an inside job. He was a nutcase at the debates and appealed more to the left-minded folks. How far from the tree does the nut fall?
I will very wisely wait until Rand is vetted more. If for no other reason to make sure he is not backed by a liberal superpac or has the same foreign policy as a liberal. What are his views on shutting down GTMO? War? Water-boarding/ interrogation of enemy combatants? He has said he is pro-life and libertarians are not upset by this. But I wonder if he is just appeasing conservatives, libertarians, or both? Libertarian is the new cool but is it nothing but liberalism wrapped into an appealing package?
I will wait for the debates but I hope Rand is not his fathers carbon copy fooling us.
p.s. and no, I am not a neo-con but todays geo-politics shows us lliberalism/libertarianism foreign policy does not work. I am also not a socon according to todays standards.
Rand Paul:
"I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution. For this reason, I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception."
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3
Both Rand Paul and his father are staunchly pro-life. They are libertarians with a small "l", not a capital "L". I don't know the Libertarian party stance on abortion. I consider myself a libertarian because I believe in the rights of the individual - including the unborn individual. Many libertarians I know feel the same way.
-
Ever since he began running for office, Rand Paul has been publicly contrasted with his former congressman father. Below are 8 ways Rand Paul is different from Ron Paul:
8-ways-rand-paul-is-different-from-ron-paul (http://ivn.us/2013/09/30/8-ways-rand-paul-is-different-from-ron-paul/)
Thanks for that. I hope to God and literally pray he means it.
8. Income Tax
Since at least his 2008 run for president, Ron Paul famously said that the national income tax should be “repealed and replaced with nothing.” Rand Paul as recently as this summer advocated for the “Fair Tax” with a rate of 17 percent for individuals and supports eliminating “most” of the Internal Revenue Service.
-
Not to be Debbie downer but why is Rand backing McConnell? If it is purely political to bridge a divide I GET IT. But if it is because McConnell has his or his fathers old trouble-making campaign manager. This is what we are fighting against, BS politics cronyism backdoor deals. Are the many rumors true or false that Ron Paul was Soros funded? Now you see my concerns even further... Is Rand what we think he is or a Ross Perot at the front of the line?
-
Not trying to spam or hijack this thread, but I see people raise questions all the time about Rand Paul's stance on foreign affairs. This is his statement from the same website I previously linked to:
Foreign Policy and National Defense
"One of the most significant issues we deal with in the United States Senate is foreign policy. And in my opinion, one of the most important votes a Senator could take is on the declaration of war to send our men and women of the Armed Forces into battle. If the military action is justified and there is no other recourse, I will cast my vote with a heavy heart.
I believe that the primary Constitutional function of the federal government is national defense, bar none. I believe that when we must go to war, we must have a Congressional declaration of war as the Constitution mandates, and we fight to win. And we must fight only under U.S. command and not the UN.
I believe that defending this country is the primary and most important Constitutional function of our federal government.
The President of the United States often faces unforeseeable dilemmas that demand tough decisions based on reliable intelligence. The recent events in Syria presented President Obama with such a scenario. But how our Commander in Chief chose to handle this new dilemma raises serious questions about his understanding of constitutional checks and balances.
The Founding Fathers understood the seriousness of war and thus included in our Constitution a provision stating that only Congress can declare war. The decision to wage war should not be taken cavalierly. As Madison wrote:
The Constitution supposes what the history of all Governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.
While the President is the commander of our armed forces, he is not a king. He may involve those forces in military conflict only when authorized by Congress or in response to an imminent threat.
We are borrowing money from countries like China to pay for our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and it would be interesting to know how many Americans believe we should continue borrowing money and saddling future generations with debt to pay for our current actions in Syria, or anywhere else a new military adventure is taken up.
We are already in two wars that we are not paying for. We are waging war across the Middle East on a credit card, one whose limit is rapidly approaching. And to involve our troops in further conflicts that hold no vital U.S. interests is wrong."
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=14
This website has many other statements by Rand Paul about where he stands on the issues. If anyone has questions about him, this is a good place to start :patriot:
-
Thanks for that, alice. It's nice in our busy lives to have a place for quick reference.
-
Not to be Debbie downer but why is Rand backing McConnell? If it is purely political to bridge a divide I GET IT. But if it is because McConnell has his or his fathers old trouble-making campaign manager. This is what we are fighting against, BS politics cronyism backdoor deals. Are the many rumors true or false that Ron Paul was Soros funded? Now you see my concerns even further... Is Rand what we think he is or a Ross Perot at the front of the line?
I'm not happy about the endorsement either. As you say - a political decision to bridge a divide - I think that is the way Rand Paul thinks. I guess that's why Rick Perry endorsed McConnell too. I would rather see both men call a spade a spade. I think Rand Paul is thinking of the support he is going to need from many different factions if he runs for president. I don't know about Soros and Ron Paul. I DO know that Rand Paul is his own man, and speaks his own mind.
-
Thanks Alice. :beer:
-
I'm not happy about the endorsement either. As you say - a political decision to bridge a divide - I think that is the way Rand Paul thinks. I guess that's why Rick Perry endorsed McConnell too. I would rather see both men call a spade a spade. I think Rand Paul is thinking of the support he is going to need from many different factions if he runs for president. I don't know about Soros and Ron Paul. I DO know that Rand Paul is his own man, and speaks his own mind.
Thanks again ^-^ :beer:
I recall hearing Rand Paul speak when he was first coming on to the scene. He is brilliant.
-
Thanks Alice. :beer:
Thank you Gazoo, you do good work here with your postings & I appreciate it.
:beer:
-
I second that. :patriot:
-
I have to say I sang, GO ASK ALICE to myself in this thread. And we are living in koo-koo LSD land so it is appropriate. :silly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug2EcWkb26I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug2EcWkb26I)
-
I have to say I sang, GO ASK ALICE to myself in this thread. And we are living in koo-koo LSD land so it is appropriate. :silly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug2EcWkb26I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug2EcWkb26I)
LOL! I happen to love that song by the way. Like I've said, I AM an old hippie and I love all the old counter-culture music from the sixties and seventies.
What puzzles me is the old hippies that were against the establishment THEN - are lapping it up now! :thud:
-
LOL! I happen to love that song by the way. Like I've said, I AM an old hippie and I love all the old counter-culture music from the sixties and seventies.
What puzzles me is the old hippies that were against the establishment THEN - are lapping it up now! :thud:
I KNOW I asked you when you were 10 feet T A L L Because you stand-out as the reasonable voice of hope.
Okay back into my hole, dum dums lol
Gazoo meets Alice
And yeah, the Hillary Clinton, bra burners did so many tokes and bong hits they went full blown commie.
-
Here is a wealth of information about US deployment of our military over history. Heritage is the source.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/10/global-us-troop-deployment-1950-2003
BTW Rand Paul is NOT his father.
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,133010.msg544383.html#msg544383
-
LOL! I happen to love that song by the way. Like I've said, I AM an old hippie and I love all the old counter-culture music from the sixties and seventies.
What puzzles me is the old hippies that were against the establishment THEN - are lapping it up now! :thud:
It is very curious, isn't it?
Remember "Never trust anyone over 30?" My guess is now that they're over 30 they are the government so they've taken up a new motto: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"
-
I just now realized I hijacked the thread with Rand questions and I am not a stealth airplane. :badaboom badabing cornyjoke:
Anyway. Sorry.
Meanwhile, here is Rand Paul’s full speech to the Berkeley Forum. He includes “full-throated defenses” of traditional Republican fiscal positions, according to Politico, but mainly focused on privacy and libertarian-friendly themes to offer a new and, er, tastier image of the GOP. “Remember Domino’s [the pizza chain] finally admitted they had bad crust?” Paul said in response to a question after his speech. “I think the Republican Party finally admitted it. OK, bad crust, we need a different kind of party.
The establishment has crusty crust! :laugh:
-
Rand Paul:
"I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution. For this reason, I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception."
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3
Both Rand Paul and his father are staunchly pro-life. They are libertarians with a small "l", not a capital "L". I don't know the Libertarian party stance on abortion. I consider myself a libertarian because I believe in the rights of the individual - including the unborn individual. Many libertarians I know feel the same way.
I am with you on that Alice, and all the libertarians I know also feel the same way.
-
The appeal of Rand Paul is a "third way" which attracts agreement from right, left and center.
His soft but sure delivery is clever. He discusses without stern lecturing.
BTW Rand was wearing blue jeans and cowboy boots while giving that talk. Waist up white button down shirt with red tie. Ralph Lauren Polo brand shirt with pony logo.
-
Rand Paul's political outlook is exactly what small government, low tax, balance-the-budget conservatives say they crave. Yet, you watch. They'll slam him for his libertarian social and foreign policy stances. As conservatives and Republicans we wouldn't recognize a good constitutionalist politician if he were wearing a waistcoat, breeches, long stockings and a tri-corner hat!
I hate to have to agree with you, but I have to agree
-
Rand Paul:
"I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution. For this reason, I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception."
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3
Both Rand Paul and his father are staunchly pro-life. They are libertarians with a small "l", not a capital "L". I don't know the Libertarian party stance on abortion. I consider myself a libertarian because I believe in the rights of the individual - including the unborn individual. Many libertarians I know feel the same way.
that's a good way to shoot himself in the foot. it's also a good way to blow valuable political capital on something that will never, ever, ever, ever happen; pass that silly law and it'll be struck down by a court before the ink is even dry on the president's signature, assuming any president would be dumb enough to sign it.
-
The appeal of Rand Paul is a "third way" which attracts agreement from right, left and center.
His soft but sure delivery is clever. He discusses without stern lecturing.
BTW Rand was wearing blue jeans and cowboy boots while giving that talk. Waist up white button down shirt with red tie. Ralph Lauren Polo brand shirt with pony logo.
How do you think the GOP establishment will handle his desire to seek the nomination? That is, if he enters the fray for 2016, do you think they will try to take him out?
(I agree with your assessment of him, BTW.)
-
How do you think the GOP establishment will handle his desire to seek the nomination? That is, if he enters the fray for 2016, do you think they will try to take him out?
(I agree with your assessment of him, BTW.)
I don't think the establishment will like it. I'm not sure how easy he would be to "take out". I think he's already thought that through and well prepared for it. He seems to be laying the groundwork for a run, and I think he is amassing favors from the establishment. Endorsing Mitch McConnell, for one thing.
-
I don't think the establishment will like it. I'm not sure how easy he would be to "take out". I think he's already thought that through and well prepared for it. He seems to be laying the groundwork for a run, and I think he is amassing favors from the establishment. Endorsing Mitch McConnell, for one thing.
which is just another good reason to favor him.
-
I don't think the establishment will like it. I'm not sure how easy he would be to "take out". I think he's already thought that through and well prepared for it. He seems to be laying the groundwork for a run, and I think he is amassing favors from the establishment. Endorsing Mitch McConnell, for one thing.
I agree that he certainly has been doing that, it will be interesting to watch it all unfold.
-
I don't think the establishment will like it. I'm not sure how easy he would be to "take out". I think he's already thought that through and well prepared for it. He seems to be laying the groundwork for a run, and I think he is amassing favors from the establishment. Endorsing Mitch McConnell, for one thing.
What's his foreign policy. If he doesn't have some clear water between himself and his old man, he doesn't stand a chance. He seems likable enough, which would go a long way to mending some of the bridges the Worm has burned world wide, but is he also tough enough to make the call if needed?
He will certainly be more popular with college kids. Youngish, doesn't talk down to them and, to be honest, most college age kids are more libertarian than liberal.
-
What's his foreign policy. If he doesn't have some clear water between himself and his old man, he doesn't stand a chance. He seems likable enough, which would go a long way to mending some of the bridges the Worm has burned world wide, but is he also tough enough to make the call if needed?
He will certainly be more popular with college kids. Youngish, doesn't talk down to them and, to be honest, most college age kids are more libertarian than liberal.
Gave that some thought. You're absolutely right. It's their professors that are liberal. They simply parrot their professors just to get through the course and many experiment with liberal ideology just as they do with sex, alcohol and drugs. Then they grow up, get a job and vote their wallet.
-
Professors (in the fuzzier subjects, at least) are nearly always liberal. They have tenure, no particular requirement to perform, and removing them takes a kilo of C4 or a co-operative undergrad. :whistle:
That pisses me off. It's not as if the world is getting less crowded. Sociology, Psychology, History - all are rather more important to the future than the next gen iPhone. Yet we leave them to be taught (badly) by people who haven't had an original thought since they dropped that tab in 1968.
-
How do you think the GOP establishment will handle his desire to seek the nomination? That is, if he enters the fray for 2016, do you think they will try to take him out?
(I agree with your assessment of him, BTW.)
Unlike many posters, I don't believe in a singular GOPe. There are individuals and institutions which are part of the GOP side of the political spectrum.
They will act individually. If Rand has momentum many will NOT attempt to "take him out."
He has polled among the best so far. No reason to think he'd falter.
I don't agree with him on some issues, but I like his mind. I expect a Potus to lead me, even when I disagree initially.
Walker, Perry and Rand Paul would probably be my top three right now.
-
Walker, Perry and Rand Paul would probably be my top three right now.
Same feeling here! :beer:
-
Unlike many posters, I don't believe in a singular GOPe. There are individuals and institutions which are part of the GOP side of the political spectrum.
They will act individually. If Rand has momentum many will NOT attempt to "take him out."
He has polled among the best so far. No reason to think he'd falter.
I don't agree with him on some issues, but I like his mind. I expect a Potus to lead me, even when I disagree initially.
Walker, Perry and Rand Paul would probably be my top three right now.
I think that you are correct in that it won't be a monolithic effort. If he does decide to enter, it will certainly be very interesting to watch how the various institutions and individuals will react.
-
Unlike many posters, I don't believe in a singular GOPe. There are individuals and institutions which are part of the GOP side of the political spectrum.
They will act individually. If Rand has momentum many will NOT attempt to "take him out."
He has polled among the best so far. No reason to think he'd falter.
I don't agree with him on some issues, but I like his mind. I expect a Potus to lead me, even when I disagree initially.
Walker, Perry and Rand Paul would probably be my top three right now.
:beer: