Bitcoin Forum

"He's the only Republican I think who has articulated a message that is potentially appealing to younger Americans"

A senior aide to President Barack Obama suggested Friday that Sen. Rand Paul would be the greatest threat to Democrats’ hopes to retain the White House in 2016.

Speaking to reporters, counselor to the president Dan Pfeiffer said the Kentucky Republican is “one of the most intriguing candidates” in the field because of his appeal to younger voters of both parties.

“He’s the only Republican I think who has articulated a message that is potentially appealing to younger Americans,” Pfeiffer said at a breakfast organized by the Christian Science Monitor. “Every other Republican running is basically just Romney-lite when it comes to younger Americans.” Rand has made reaching out to non-traditional voters a signature component of his political agenda, most recently delivering a speech Friday to the National Urban League.

As for the senator’s presidential hopes, Pfeiffer questioned whether Paul has the organization to be a real threat and acknowledged that he would have to first make it through a tough primary where some of his positions are problematic to voters. But, he added, “there’s a germ of something there.”

Among Paul’s potential rivals, Pfeiffer suggested that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz would be one of the weakest candidates Republicans could field. “I think that Sen. Cruz would be a really interesting candidate for Democrats,” he said. “He is deeply out of step with the country on a wide array of issues.”

Asked whether he would prefer to run a candidate against Cruz or Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Pfeiffer laughed, “That’s like, would you rather have ice cream or cake.”

One of the longest-serving Obama aides, Pfeiffer brushed away the suggestion that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the odds-on favorite to be the Democratic presidential nominee, has tried to distance herself from Obama in recent weeks as she travels the country on her book tour.

“I don’t think that we should presume that Secretary Clinton or anyone else must agree 100% with the president on every single decision that was ever made, either before or since,” Pfeiffer said. “But she has been incredibly loyal to this president.”

“On the long list of concerns that I have in my life, political and otherwise, this is pretty low on the list,” he added. “I don’t think that she’s trying to distance herself.”

http://time.com/3033968/rand-paul-in...-dan-pfeiffer/

This was an interesting read. Now we will see the operatives from both parties start pounding on Rand 24/7. He is a threat to the establishment. 

Well let's be fair though: against the background of the current GOP, having any message other than 'fuck Obama' will make a person pop.

If you vote Libertarian then you're throwing away your vote. In other words, if you vote Libertarian then you don't care about the election results.

Voting isn't about choosing the perfect candidate. Its about doing everything you can to help your country. In this country the GOP is the only decent option.

You are absolutely right. I don't specifically vote GOP or Democrat, but the GOP candidates are almost always the closest to my ideology. If they would just get away from the social control stuff I would feel better about pressing the button for them each cycle.

Don't either of you realise how insulting that is to people who would want genuine change in a government? Personally I think voting for a bunch of closet racists, blatant homophobes and warmongering morons is just as damaging to the country, but sure, be short sighted.

Republican Californian lecturing people about throwing away vote for President. That's rich. Asked whether he would prefer to run a candidate   against Cruz or Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Pfeiffer laughed, “That’s like, would you rather have ice cream or cake.”

How many republicans do you actually know personally? There are good and bad people in all walks of life politically or otherwise. If you form your opinions of other people based on what you hear in your political echo chamber you might be missing some important information.

pretty sad but true. CA, IL, NY, MASS, etc. When you have the brainwashed or those dependent on government handouts in big cities like LA, Chicago, NYC, etc I feel sorry for the people in the rest of the state. Their votes mean nothing.

Not really, do you support gay marriage then? :D

We get that in PA as well. Most of the state is actually very conservative/libertarian. Our votes get drowned out by the eastern big cities. They make doubly sure by having 100%+ voter turnout in some of these areas each cycle.  

He certainly has a way with words. He's also a bit of a douche though and seems willing to compromise good policy formulation for the sake of political posturing. But I guess that is everyone on the hill.

I do support gay marriage. I also support the decriminalization of drugs and prostitution. The political parties are sort of a group think nightmare. I don't belong to any one party and I think the way they demonize the people they disagree with is a manipulative stunt to get people like you and I to argue about minutia instead of seeing the real problems they create.    

That's exactly why I think those kind of main parties need to be destroyed, I don't consider the Republicans any better than the Democrats, they're both just as bad, people vote for the ones they hate the less, just like here in the UK we have the Labour and Conservative party which are basically the same thing as what you guys have in America.

Agreed. They like to keep us arguing about what kind of cereal to buy so we don't notice that the milk is spoiled.

I'm not so sure I would agree with this, but I can't see how he could possibly win a republican primary, so I doubt it matters.

I wish we had a Democracy like India :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_India

So you vote for the one you think will win instead of the one you want to win? That's a waste of a vote and it perpetuates the problem, it also undermines the purpose of hosting an election at all... Officials could just be appointed based on "popular opinion."

An honest vote is never wasted. To give up without effort is weak minded and feeble. If you want to vote Republican, then vote Republican... Don't tell Libertarians not to vote Libertarian.

Please vote honestly.

I focus mostly on foreign affairs, so his politicking in that area has been my main exposure to him and there he has waged a rather (in my opinion) dishonest campaign which seems largely aimed at winning him political points by bashing Hillary Clinton as soundly as he can, facts be damned. I'm not really a fan of using serious issues for such means. Then again, I would never survive on the hill.

I used to be of that mindset until Ron Paul ran for President in '08 and created the Campaign for Liberty with the expressed plan of restoring the GOP to its roots of the non-intervention era of Mr. Republican Sen. Taft. And also, there was sound monetary and fiscal policies in the GOP back then where it was the Democrats stemming from the Wilson era that were the big government growers leading to Roosevelt's New Deal.

Many formerly libertarians that thought they were all alone became energized and began working w/i the GOP by getting elected as precinct delegates then going to county, district and state conventions to pick national delegates, nat'l cmte-persons, and state and local party leaderships. Since then, there's been a fair amount of libertarian republicans elected to local, state and federal offices more so than ever before in modern times. I spend 10 years of my youth meandering in the Libertarian Party and was so excited to get a few %s more in the next election for whatever office. But now, I'm seeing much more success spending my money and time to push for getting libertarian republicans elected. Things won't change overnight but like a marathon, you take it steady and never quit especially if you're achieving results and making the power money fight you and still winning. Just got reelected to my delegate position in last week's primary and will be active in picking nat'l delegates to go to the RNC for the Presidential nomination in 2016.

That said, if people were following my Rand Paul thread you'd note that this topic had already been covered and posted like a month or so ago. :P But, the more the merrier. :)

while i am ideologically closer to you than someone who is more of a republican, a response like that would only be incendiary. i think the GOP is quite a kooky one, and my dislike for them and their base is much, much stronger than my affection towards democrats.

but back to the topic: i was really looking forward to betting and winning on hilary 2016.. but with rand in the equation, i'm not so sure she is a clear favorite.

I agree. I don't think he would appeal enough to most of the conservative base to be able to win the primaries.

i am sorry, i didn't know that i posted the same topic as you.

All politicians bash their competition solely to score political points. The biggest offender in recent years is Obama. While I'm sure you wouldn't like most of his foreign policies, I suspect I would. So I consider his a fairly honest campaign. More so than most, anyway.

Like I said, I wouldn't survive, but the fact that he needs to rely so heavily on them in the area of foreign affairs indicates weakness in that area for him. He doesn't produce a lot of substance on his own, and even in his criticisms a lot of his comments are blatantly dishonest. I can't respect that.

From my perspective he's far less of a war hawk than she is. 99% of her stuff is fluff, and I can't respect that. On the other hand, I think she should have gotten the presidency in 2008, so perhaps she can step up her game. Of course, I suppose he can just as easily. As far as why it's in his interest to bash her warmongering...well she has name recognition. So it's the correct move, much like it was for Obama.

Whether or not either of them is a warhawk isn't what bothers me. I'm not talking about either of their respective stances, I am talking about the honesty of them and the tactics of their dialogue. In that, he comes across like a bit of a douche and utilizes blatantly inaccurate statements for the sake of attack politics.

Rand Paul is not libertarian enough for me, but given the choice between him and any of the other candidates from the Democrat or Republican party, I would vote for Paul. I want Sarah Palin and Lt. Col. Allen West to run for President and Vice President in 2016.

I'd rather have fluff (which is part of bureaucrats speaking with one voice on issues) than blatant dishonesty for the sake of personal political gain, and a willingness to engage in poor policy formulation for the sake of political gain. Fluff is annoying, but it isn't as dangerous.

Honestly, I suspect that is merely partisan bias on your part. I can come up with a lot longer list of Hillary dishonesty than most people could come up with about Paul. I can't imagine bothering simply because I recognize the politics of it, so to speak. Everything Hillary does and says is geared towards a political message, not honesty. But that's what politicians do.

I wouldn't say that the comparison here with Rand Paul and President Obama is very apt. I'll see if I can find some specific examples so that I can illustrate what I am talking about better.

I find Hillary worse than Paul in both cases, but then again, she isn't as bad as others...for example Warren. Cool. But Obama simply recognized she had the name recognition, so took advantage of her known history.



Well, that would be because you aren't very bright.

They say he's the only candidate who has articulated a message that is potentially appealing to young Americans. Well, yeah. Articulate enough wildly - conflicting messages and you'll eventually get pretty much everyone covered.

I think we should stop providing aid to Israel.
I never said we should stop providing aid to Israel.

Bam. Everyone = happy.

You guys think 99% of her stuff is 'fluff'? To be frank, 99% of what she was talking about was her constantly referencing and trying to sell her fucking book whenever she can, even Jon Stewart was just like "Yeah, nobody gives a fuck about that" lol :D She'll run for presidency trying to sell Hilary branded T-Shirts and mugs next instead of actually talking about herself but something tells me that might actually be her plan so nobody pays attention to what she's actually doing.

Well, I think you're forgetting, for example, that a good chunk of Ron Paul's 2008 supporters went on to vote for Obama. So yes, libertarianism among young people is largely about non-interventionism and no-brainer social issues. That's what young people care about.


But even with that aside, I still don't think this is a fair characterization of libertarianism in America. Most libertarians do in fact support government solutions. Just not to the extent that they become leftarded.

It pisses me off that people think that young Americans are libertarians waiting to be discovered, as if being in favor of pot legalization equates directly with being anti-regulation. Young people are statistically fairly convinced that climate change is a problem worth fixing and they tend to approve of government solutions to poverty and income inequality.

Like paying lip service to a couple no-brainer social issues and non-interventionism will get an entire generation on board.

No, the white male "don't touch my stuff" toddler mentality voting bloc already has a party.

Well, see, I would look at the Paul-votes-going-to-Obama phenomenon and ask, why didn't those people actually go on to support Bob Barr? Well, my suspicion is that while the libertarian package includes attractive features for young people, ultimately they'll mostly end up voting center left when they can (nationally speaking) - the complete platform just makes more sense. Like, alright, Ron's foreign policy probably seemed worth voting for. But ending the Fed or the Department of Education, maybe not.

But I also think that there are two other really major elements to the Ron Paul phenomenon.

I think if you look at the platforms of actual libertarian candidates instead of seemingly going by your experience with libertarian and Randian idealists, you'll be hard pressed to find a candidate in favor of getting rid of all taxes, privatizing all roads, getting rid of the standing army, scrapping welfare programs (incl. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.), completely and 100% deregulating food and drugs (incl. antibiotics), removing all environmental regulations, etc.


To use a couple of otters as an example, there are a lot more Publiuses than there are rothbards out there.

If you look a bit deeper into these studies you find that the support for these social programs and environmental stuff drops dramatically when you ask about taxation to pay for it. The young generation is very much in favor of lower taxes, even at the expense of social and environmental programs.

First, I would argue that his following was in love with his personality as much as his politics. But you can be an honest, humble, hard-working little grandpa and probably attract voters no matter what your positions are.

Second, I would submit that "Ron Paul Republicanism" was a thought experiment for a lot of young people - and some older I'm sure - which ultimately just failed, like Ron's bid (well, bids) for the presidency. Which is to say, he didn't lose in the primary and fail to win by write-in because the establishment wouldn't let him play, he lost and failed because at the end of the day his ideas are just less attractive than those of just about any moderate left-leaning candidate, for a solid chunk of young voters.

And so that leaves libertarianism right where it belongs: on the fringe, to be embraced for whatever reason by the occasional intellectual, and to otherwise scoop up the trash (disenfranchised voters) the GOP leaves behind.

Actually, from the little I've noticed, the comments were:

"I think we should stop aid everywhere because we can't afford it"

"Does that include Israel?"

"Sure"


Next interview:

"So do you want to target Israel for cutting aid?"


"No, I want to cut aid everywhere."

"AHA...you flip flopped"


Such is the nature of reporting in the US.

I promise, he isn't nearly as consistent as your hypothetical quotes would suggest. He kind of can't be, since his no-aid-to-anyone position isn't what a a big piece of his base at the national level wants to hear.

He's not his dad.

And as we have seen and I'm sure will continue to see, he'll try to make a path for himself between his aid - ending proposals and his more recent support for supporting Israel, but to do it he will have to lean pretty hard on what amounts to a cowardly, unconvincing semantics bid.

Well to be honest, in the time since you were blatantly and painfully a Paul/Rand supporter, and superciliously dismissive of any differing opinion, you have become similarly dismissive of your prior opinion. This kind of means your promises are only valid until your next epiphany. I will say you are good at being dismissive, but your opinions remain solely your opinions.

And politicians on the right who want to get rid of entitlements are easy fodder for skewering by the media.

Views change and people kind of understand that, but his problem is and will be, his goals have changed and so has his target audience, and I don't think that Rand has been all that graceful in making his overtures look like anything more than posturing.

I'm not having luck pasting links on my phone for some reason, but this is an easy Google. He's being skewered for this from all sides.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ng-aid-israel/

This sort of thing is always amusing. Paul seemed clear to me that he wants to cut all foreign aid. He said that is what he wanted. Part of that is cutting aid to Israel, which is part of everyone. Then he was asked if he wanted to cut aid specifically to Israel. So the answer is not specific to Israel, but to everyone in general. This appears to be that politifact doesn't understand the nuance.

I'm sure they get the distinction, however nuance isn't what the voting mob wants...or better yet, it isn't what people at politifact think the voting mob wants, so instead they go after the stark contrast.

When trying to cater for junkies, you don't put out a balanced three course meal. You pile frosting on a platter.

And I'm ok with that. I mean, I recognize that it causes, and to some extent forces politicians to be hazy on what they're actually saying, but as you say, that is what the unwashed masses want to hear. Nuance is a french word, so it must suck.

But rigon knows better, so I'm trying to politely mention that his comment is disingenuous.

No, he changed his budget to allow for $5 billion in aid for Israel, and claimed that taking aid away from Israel was never on the books. He is now pro-US aid to Israel. Anti-US aid to everyone else. Which, in and of itself shows a very poor grasp of international affairs and politics, especially during a time in which he is trying to insist that he isn't isolationist.

You can't do what he did, in proposing to cut all aid, then say you never proposed cutting aid. You also can't say that you want to end all aid, then vote "aye" to funding the Iron Dome. Yeah nuance is great, but he really can't claim to have always held the position he holds.

He wants to cut all aid. He doesn't want to target any one group, or any set of groups. This is pretty straight forward. Sadly, world affairs may cause some temporary changes in timetable, but you seem to want to make that the rule, rather than the exception.

But I understand you hate your former views. I just find it pointless to be all extremist like that. All perspectives have some merit. Which is different than all perspectives have merit in all positions.

1.) The partisan bias idea is fairly laughable (for the most part). Despite the rep I have around here (due in large part to my focus on foreign affairs), I vote pretty consistently libertarian, especially in the primaries (though I voted for Obama in the last general election). Prior to that, I was a registered republican. I just tend to not be conservative in the area that I talk about here the most.

The positions you espouse here are pretty typically democrat. Nothing wrong with that, but that is the case. That kind of is the meaning of the word partisan, although I don't find you are horribly so.

2.) I am not comparing Hillary to Paul as you seem to think I am. Saying "but Hillary is worse!" isn't really relevant to my point. In fact, it is a deflection of said point. I brought up Hillary because it was a lot of comments he made about her and international affairs (since I worked at the State Department at the time under her) that I found to be intentionally dishonest. That's her only connection to this. Examples would be him trying to label Libya as "Hillary's war" blaming her for "anarchy" blaming her for Syria even though she disagreed with President Obama on that issue, going after her and her husband for the Monica Lewinsky affair. Just general douchebaggery. Side note: even though I disagreed with his father Ron Paul, I never stated anything but admiration for the man himself. Me disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that I don't like them. You of all people should know that.

Well, you did bring up Hillary, so it seems you wanted that comparison. People call Libya Hillary's war, because Obama feels the worst mistake of his presidency was the way Libya was dealt with, which was essentially Hillary's plan on how to deal with it. You can call it unfair, but there is a rational basis to it.

I know you just haven't gotten to my post yet since you're going in order, but Paul is no longer in favor of cutting all foreign aid. He is in favor of cutting all foreign aid except for US aid to Israel.

His foreign policy is similar to several humanitarian leaders we discussed before....handouts to other countries tend to be counterproductive, as it causes corruption and dependency. I thought you agreed with me on that one, but I could be wrong...it was quite a while ago.




All politicians throw a little red meat to the people he is trying to get votes from. Look at Hillary on gay marriage. Same sort of thing.

Having said all that, he has zero chance of getting the nomination, so it's all just pointless discussion. I can't type that fast.  ;D

That's fine, but it also absolutely means that he "flip flopped". Not that I've ever really cared about that as much as some people seem to, I'm fine with people changing their opinions. But it was absolutely a big change, especially since he used to argue that we shouldn't be sending aid specifically to Israel because it is a developed country and he even said it would be in Israel's best interest for us not to while citing the Dutch Disease phenomenon. Which indicates that he firmly believes that US aid to Israel might actually be hurting Israel, but he is ok with that because it is politically popular to support Israel (which is fine, but once again certainly a change).
Neither can I.

No, it was a tiny change based on current media inaccuracy in reporting(speaking of Israel/Palestine here). He will go back to no aid before too long. It's sort of like my general opinion on not getting involved in foreign affairs or foreign wars. It's generally true, but sometimes circumstances force exceptions.

I agree, but that is mostly because I only talk about foreign affairs here, where I tend to be much more liberal, I tend to be more libertarian in my economic and social stances, with a couple of economic exceptions. I've also been painted a democrat often because I wasn't in love with Ron Paul's platform and argued against it. Which, at the time, automatically made me a socialist.

I don't recall the conversation. But saying he wants to pull all aid, is like saying he doesn't care about the Suez Canal, or about maintaining US Spheres of influence in Latin and South America, or about being able to rely on Azerbaijan to put pressure on Iran, etc. Aid, even small amounts, are vital international relations tools that we rely on to protect our interests overseas. He would paint aid as us giving out freebies, but really we do it because it is mutually beneficial for us and acts as important sources of political capital for us to utilize. Him saying he is against aid, is almost tantamount to him saying he isn't interested in the US playing a role in foreign affairs or in guarding our overseas interests. Aid is one of the primary ways in which we do that.

Aid can have a Dutch Disease effect and from a humanitarian level and economic level I'm not very in love with the way that aid is dispersed, either through government or (especially) through the private market. I think it is one of the least accountable markets in existence. But that doesn't change the fact that aid is an important political tool.

He has supported $5 billion in aid to Israel for years now (since 2011), and with recent votes to increase it, it doesn't seem like he is going to go back to his "no aid for anyone" stance anytime soon.

If he wants to stop aid to Israel, he won't say so in public and he won't vote that way until his second term as president. If he gets that far. Until then, he can believe whatever he wants, but he won't be voicing or voting his conscience. At least not so long as he has national political aspirations, or the tides turn dramatically on popular support for israel. The religious component makes that very unlikely I think.

Because it's political suicide. If you think that shouldn't be a factor in his comments, then you are being pretty naive. And I know you're not. I assume you would be equally against any Democrat politician who wants to send aid to Israel?

In fairness, I can only go by the positions you take. If all the positions you mention are democrat, then your posture here is somewhat partisan in fact. Again, I don't really have a problem with that. Some of my positions here are fairly republican, although socially I'm pretty far left of the democrats. Also, militarily, I'm probably more anti war than the Dem party.

That's probably fairly close to his position, from what I can tell. I would agree that it's important, but I'm less likely to agree that it is benevolent or worthwhile. Ted Cruz is an evangelical retard. He isn't intriguing at all.

I was very opposed to President Obama's statements when he was campaigning on a platform of a united Jerusalem for Israel as a capital. But I'm not calling out Paul for this, I didn't mention Israel as one of the topics that I had a problem with in terms of intellectual honesty. Like you said, it is a pretty common stance to take and politically prudent.

Unless I missed a post, I think that means you are mostly against him because he excessively bashes Hillary? Well, that's how politicians work...things like Obama calling republicans terrorists and nonsense like that. Since it worked for him to gullible sections of the public, I would assume there will be much more of it.

I imagine he understands the most he can do is slightly move the discussion towards smaller government and less military adventurism, but that's just being realistic. He can do absolutely nothing without power. So people can only do what they can do.

Areas where i tend to lean conservative:

I am strongly against domestic protectionism (something that President Obama in part campaigned on).

Very pro-free trade.

In favor of privatized social security.

Pro-second amendment / against gun bans.

Pro-sweat shops / Bangladesh garment factories.

I don't buy into the neocolonial argument presented with regards to US operations overseas.

Pro-TANF reforms

anti-affirmative action

I actually like Wal-Mart

Anti-fair trade

Pro genetically modified food

Some areas where I tend to differ more from conservatives / social conservatives:

International affairs (because modern conservatives simply have consistently poor or non-existent foreign affairs platforms, they tend to rather rely on economic and social issues to win power, not good foreign policy).

Universal Healthcare

Most social issues (which I tend to be more libertarian on, including issues like abortion so non-social conservative / religious conservative).

The current desire to decrease food stamp benefits and welfare even further (despite the fact that we are operating under Republican proposed reforms).

The Fairtax

Immigration

I am anti many domestic agricultural subsidies

Where I am neutral:

Environmental policies

War on Drugs policies

We probably agree on most of these in some ways, although in strategies we probably would disagree on some. I don't see this as a conservative/liberal issue.

And I did chuckle over Wal Mart.

But you never really discuss those issues, so I can't really use them in a generalization of your positions.

Yep. There are political realities that candidates must deal with. That is the nature of the beast in politics. If he makes it into office we will see where he really stands on the issue. 

I found his targeting of her douchey yes, especially him targeting her family on a personal level.

Like I said, I really only follow him through my interests in foreign affairs and pretty much his entire foreign policy platform thus far has been one of bashing Hillary Clinton and dishonestly representing foreign affairs as they currently stand and have transpired over the last six years, coupled with a deeply flawed understanding of our foreign aid structures.

Well, here is the problem. Politics has gotten much personally destructive than I ever recall in the last 6 years. I don't recall a time frame in my lifetime where people intentionally got into the politics of personal destruction as I've seen in these years. The best example is Sarah Palin. I personally find her distasteful as a politician, but the horrible comments made about her family worked well for the democrats, so you can be certain the republicans will emulate them. This is why it's a bad road to have started down. Another example is Reid changes the rules of the Senate because he disagreed with the republicans doing what the democrats used to do, but justifying it by saying the republicans did it more often.

It tends to be within international affairs. Neo-colonialism outcry is all the rage, and in many cases I find it to be something resulting from a headless heart style syndrome, rather than based on realities of economic interactions.

While we might agree that it isn't a very honorable path, it's the path that's being forced on all politicians at this point. At least forced if politicians want any chance of success.

As far as him having a flawed understanding, I doubt that very much. But he's saying what is politically expedient, just like every other politician, because that is the sole path to success in a country that has been steadily getting mre partisan over the last maybe 20 years. Every single day.

Indeed, I mention them here and there, and they were more widely discussed several years ago during the Ron Paul craze, but like I said, I mostly only talk about foreign affairs on here now. On international forums I'm often considered to be a staunch conservative. (which makes sense given the different bases that countries operate with)

That's fine, I just can't respect them for it, and it's still a douchebag move.
I don't really doubt it. Working with congress has rather jaded me when it comes to some of their capabilities. I've come to realize that a lot of them honestly have no idea what they're talking about in the area of foreign affairs. McCain didn't even used to understand the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, and that was while he was running for president (just as an example).

Working with congress would likely get me to rip the heads off of babies. When I was still in the moving business, the corruption I had to deal with in all governments was horrible. The only saving grace was that there are a couple of countries more crooked than the US.

Like Mexico, Italy, and Kuwait.

One of the main things that Ron Paul got lit up on is this supposed anti-semetic label that was bestowed upon him by right wing media for one. Rand is trying to avoid that term by being extra sensitive in how his positioning is being construed. The true neocons that masquerade as Israeli savers know deep down that Rand is opposed to their game of constant war as the solution to every problem. And, Rand is doing his best to trend his non-intervention message w/o allowing their buddies in the media to demagogue his position and fool the conservative base. I wish other ancaps would show more respect despite most of us having a no-nonsense way of doing things. At this point, the only way we're going to see a more free country at some time is for a libertarian republican like Rand to do what he does to have a chance at making it happen. Then, we can have the libertarian/ancap dinner club sessions of debating the more frivolous matters of downsizing the state to nothing. It's a long way off and an economic crash won't make it happen as a regional currency or global fiat one will come along. Tho, it would drive more people into BTC making all of us happy.