GOP - Rand Paul's Presidential Highlight Reel w/ his Libertarian Twist

[Chef Ramsay]

Rand Paul invites Hilary Clinton to work on criminal justice reform #EricGarner

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said he’d be happy to work with the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, on criminal justice reform.

“I have six different bills to reform the criminal justice system and we would welcome Hillary Clinton if she would like to come and help us promote this agenda,” he said in a Thursday interview on CNN. “I’ve been working with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), [Senate majority leader] Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other Democrats, and if she wants to join and help to support these bills I’m supporting on criminal justice, we would welcome her.”

Paul generally has few good things to say about Clinton. He refers to U.S. military action in Libya as "Hillary's war" and has questioned whether her husband, former President Bill Clinton, is a sexual predator.

More...http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/226080-paul-invites-clinton-to-work-on-criminal-justice-reform

[Chef Ramsay]

Politico: Kentucky black leaders v. Rand Paul
Did outreach begin only after his presidential prospects bloomed?

Over the past year-and-a-half, Sen. Rand Paul has spoken at historically black colleges, gathered with African American leaders in Ferguson, Missouri after the shooting of Michael Brown, and criticized a justice system he says unfairly targets minorities. His message is unmistakable: I’m a different kind of Republican who’s not afraid to engage with communities that typically vote for Democrats.

Yet in 2010, when he was a long-shot tea party candidate for Senate, and during his first two years in the job, Paul was rarely seen or heard from in Kentucky’s African American community, according to interviews with more than a dozen black leaders in the Bluegrass State, including seven of the eight African American state legislators. Indeed, his much-publicized courtship has occurred almost entirely as the Republican began plotting a potential run for president.

More...http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/rand-pauls-selective-engagement-113339.html#ixzz3Kw0Id4OG

And by leaders, they're black democratic legislators whom are wedded to one side of the isle. And, how dare a white republican come and campaign in their community even though he's authored handfuls of legislation in the US frickin Senate that is meaningful in a large way to said community. Frankly, as a challenger in an open US Senate Primary back in 2010, the first place you go for votes when the Tea Party is trending as a major vehicle for you to win your primary is not the black community. Libertarians should be know for wanting liberty for everyone yet oftentimes the baiters on the left want to paint them into the racist corner for their fundamental beliefs in property rights. Anyways, expect more of this stretching as we go forward.

[Chef Ramsay]

Walter Block praises Rand Paul's declaration of war bill

Rand Paul is in the process of drafting a bill calling for a declaration of war on the part of the U.S. against ISIS. In my view, this is a magnificent development, and Senator Paul is to be highly congratulated for this brilliant initiative of his. Surprisingly, numerous libertarians have criticized him, variously, for selling out, not being enough of his father’s son, throwing libertarianism under the bus, being unprincipled, etc. Stuff and nonesense say I.

Why is it so important that the U.S. explicitly declare war? The reason is simple. If the congress must pass such a declaration before hostilities are commenced, then literally hundreds of people must approve. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to … declare War”. If not, and the present policy of “police actions” is continued, then one and only one person need support this, the president of the U.S. (In saying this I abstract from the possibility of his impeachment, or the disobedience of the military, as in a coup de etat.) Very likely, no, surely, we will have fewer military interventions abroad the more people who must sign onto such a policy. The last time the U.S. declared war was in 1941. Since then, there have been literally dozens if not scores of unwarranted imperialist ventures. Almost of a certainty there would have been far fewer of these unjustified actions if each of them had to pass muster by Congress as the Constitution explicitly required.

Note how embarrassing this initiative of the junior senator from Kentucky will be to the war-mongering neo-cons. On the one hand, they lust for battle (when other people and their sons take part). On the other, it will ill-behoove them to so blatantly reject the Constitution. They will be hoist by their own petard thanks to Dr. Paul.

...

More...http://libertycrier.com/rand-paul-declaration-war/

Block is a Mises guy so it's nice to see at least one ancap see the big picture here instead of the usual simpleton he sold out routine by the peabrains.

[Bit_Happy]

Walter Block praises Rand Paul's declaration of war bill

Rand Paul is in the process of drafting a bill calling for a declaration of war on the part of the U.S. against ISIS. In my view, this is a magnificent development, and Senator Paul is to be highly congratulated for this brilliant initiative of his. Surprisingly, numerous libertarians have criticized him, variously, for selling out, not being enough of his father’s son, throwing libertarianism under the bus, being unprincipled, etc. Stuff and nonesense say I.

Why is it so important that the U.S. explicitly declare war? The reason is simple. If the congress must pass such a declaration before hostilities are commenced, then literally hundreds of people must approve. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to … declare War”. If not, and the present policy of “police actions” is continued, then one and only one person need support this, the president of the U.S. (In saying this I abstract from the possibility of his impeachment, or the disobedience of the military, as in a coup de etat.) Very likely, no, surely, we will have fewer military interventions abroad the more people who must sign onto such a policy. The last time the U.S. declared war was in 1941. Since then, there have been literally dozens if not scores of unwarranted imperialist ventures. Almost of a certainty there would have been far fewer of these unjustified actions if each of them had to pass muster by Congress as the Constitution explicitly required.

Note how embarrassing this initiative of the junior senator from Kentucky will be to the war-mongering neo-cons. On the one hand, they lust for battle (when other people and their sons take part). On the other, it will ill-behoove them to so blatantly reject the Constitution. They will be hoist by their own petard thanks to Dr. Paul.

...

More...http://libertycrier.com/rand-paul-declaration-war/

Block is a Mises guy so it's nice to see at least one ancap see the big picture here instead of the usual simpleton he sold out routine by the peabrains.

The "Big picture" includes ~4,000 years of almost continuous war in the Middle East.
Rand might be politically brilliant, but is playing politics with war ever a good idea?

[Chef Ramsay]

Walter Block praises Rand Paul's declaration of war bill

Rand Paul is in the process of drafting a bill calling for a declaration of war on the part of the U.S. against ISIS. In my view, this is a magnificent development, and Senator Paul is to be highly congratulated for this brilliant initiative of his. Surprisingly, numerous libertarians have criticized him, variously, for selling out, not being enough of his father’s son, throwing libertarianism under the bus, being unprincipled, etc. Stuff and nonesense say I.

Why is it so important that the U.S. explicitly declare war? The reason is simple. If the congress must pass such a declaration before hostilities are commenced, then literally hundreds of people must approve. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to … declare War”. If not, and the present policy of “police actions” is continued, then one and only one person need support this, the president of the U.S. (In saying this I abstract from the possibility of his impeachment, or the disobedience of the military, as in a coup de etat.) Very likely, no, surely, we will have fewer military interventions abroad the more people who must sign onto such a policy. The last time the U.S. declared war was in 1941. Since then, there have been literally dozens if not scores of unwarranted imperialist ventures. Almost of a certainty there would have been far fewer of these unjustified actions if each of them had to pass muster by Congress as the Constitution explicitly required.

Note how embarrassing this initiative of the junior senator from Kentucky will be to the war-mongering neo-cons. On the one hand, they lust for battle (when other people and their sons take part). On the other, it will ill-behoove them to so blatantly reject the Constitution. They will be hoist by their own petard thanks to Dr. Paul.

...

More...http://libertycrier.com/rand-paul-declaration-war/

Block is a Mises guy so it's nice to see at least one ancap see the big picture here instead of the usual simpleton he sold out routine by the peabrains.

The "Big picture" includes ~4,000 years of almost continuous war in the Middle East.
Rand might be politically brilliant, but is playing politics with war ever a good idea?

These were my thoughts when I originally posted this "declaration" on the prior page:

Before the inevitable freakout ensues, I'd like to point out what this declaration puts on the table:
1. forces the hill critters to stake out their territory and vote on actually declaring a contained war w/ an expiration date.
2. guts the behind the scenes regime change against Syria/Assad that the intelligence communities are and have been orchestrating.
3. guts/sunsets the 2001 Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) that has been used to allow the Prez to do whatever the hell he wants w/o consulting Congress and getting a formal declaration of war which has been the problem ever since.
4. considering our own intelligence community has been stoking the flames of ISIS from the get-go, it would force these so-called war hawks and surveillance staters to declare war on the CIA too and/or start a debate that they don't want.
5. w/ point #2, narrows the scope to ISIS and nobody else.

There are other points that don't exactly meet the eye but this would be a start to permanently trending declaration of wars by Congress again which are a pain in the ass which is why the MIC loves the AUMF and giving the Prez the autonomy to handle business w/o having to buy off a majority of Congress in the likely event that the public would be stirred up prior to any future war vote. I think it's a great way to control the narrative and take it away from the neocons especially by coming up w/ the terms on his own and driving a stake in the isolationist bs that they hope to use on him coming up here.

[Chef Ramsay]

Rand Paul vaults back to top of Chris Cillizza's presidential power rankings

3. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush: Bush offered some very interesting comments this week, saying Republicans need candidates who are willing to "lose the primary to win the general, without violating your principles.” That's a nice sentiment, and few embody that approach better than Bush. But there's a reason politicians pander: because they don't like to alienate people whose votes (and money) they need. If Bush does indeed run in the primary as an unapologetic supporter of comprehensive immigration reform and Common Core, we'll see whether GOP voters reward his electability argument. Count us skeptical. (Previous ranking: 1)

2. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: Few people emerged from November's election happier than Christie. As the chairman of the Republican Governors Association, it was looking like a tough year -- even up to Election Day. But the RGA beat expectations, even picking up three governor's seats in the process and taking 32 31 of the nation's 50 states. The biggest wins were in blue states like Illinois, Maine, Maryland and Massachusetts. And, on Friday, Christie got even more good news when a Democratic-led investigation into Bridgegate showed no evidence he knew about the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge. (Previous ranking: 5)

1. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul: People used to roll their eyes when we said Paul had a real chance to be the Republican nominee in 2016. No one rolls their eyes anymore. Paul has a unique activist and fundraising base thanks to his dad's two runs for president, and has shown considerable savvy in his outreach efforts to the establishment end of the party over the past few years. Paul still says odd things -- his blaming of high cigarette taxes for Eric Garner's death being the latest -- that are going to get him in trouble in the heat of a presidential race. But, Paul is the candidate furthest along in the planning process for president and the one with the most current strength in early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. (Previous ranking: 3)

More...http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/05/the-why-not-me-race-for-the-republican-presidential-nomination-in-2016/

I'm pretty sure there will be a wide open field of sorts come the next nomination period and the establishment media will do their best to play the flavor of the month routine to see which no name they can prop up to see if they'll get any traction. Christie and Bush are will be vying for the establishment support and Rand will be trying to get as much support from every sector that he can. Then, they're be those that are going explicitly for the social conservative vote, be it abortion or the gay rights issues, so there'll be a concerted effort to keep Rand from getting so-con support by attempting to elevate these alternatives to keep the tea party and other conservative elements fractured and allow the likes of Bush or Christie to make it over the top a la Romney last time. However, Rand isn't his dad in terms of tactics and gamesmanship.

[Chef Ramsay]

Rand Paul: Ophthalmologist turned US Constitution guardian

Washington (AFP) - Instead of an American flag, Rand Paul wears a red penny in his lapel, symbolizing the core of the politician's philosophy: no more runaway debt, and relentless submission to the US Constitution.

"We say they've taken all our money," Paul said in 2010 shortly after his stunning Senate election. "We don't have one red cent more to send them in Washington."

The 51-year-old doctor was sent to Washington by voters furious with a system that kept swelling the national debt, and anxious over what Paul sees as government zeal for war and encroachment on American civil liberties.

With political ambitions apparently extending beyond Congress, Paul might seek to test whether he can translate his appeal to the national stage.

The senator is viewed as an early standout for the 2016 Republican presidential primaries that kick off barely one year from now.

Ahead of a probable presidential campaign launch next spring, Paul announced Tuesday he will run for Senate re-election -- allowing him to crank up his campaign team for whatever lies ahead.

Five years ago barely a handful of Tea Party ultra-conservatives had heard of the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green, Kentucky who spoke truth to power and often challenged Republican Party orthodoxy.

Much more...http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-ophthalmologist-turned-us-constitution-guardian-022937277.html

This is a great intro piece on Yahoo that can allow the average non-political interested person to take a sneak peek at what kind a guy Rand is.

[Chef Ramsay]

Here's a recent one-on-one tv interview w/ Rand and the largest news station in Kentucky about his transformation from being a smaller town ophthalmologist to a US Senator who has presidential aspirations. Pretty good interview w/ him even from someone who's an old hat when it comes to Rand content. http://www.whas11.com/videos/entertainment/television/powers-that-be/2014/12/08/20087255/

[Chef Ramsay]

Rand: Omnibus (spending bill) 'Abomination,' Will Show If GOP Wins 'Made a Difference'

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) argued that the "abomination" omnibus bill was "a chance to see if electing Republicans made a difference" on Tuesday's "Laura Ingraham Show."

"I'll vote no to any kind of 2,000 page bill that I'm given at the last minute that we don't have time to read, it's an abomination, nobody should support a Congress that stuffs all the spending into one bill, nobody reads it, there are no reforms, no amendments, and it really is probably why Congress has about a 10% approval rate because this is not doing our job" he declared.

Paul added that when the GOP takes the majority it should pass separate appropriations bills, and "this will be a chance to see if electing Republicans made a difference in January and for the next nine or ten months. If Republicans actually do their job and pass every appropriation bill then I think the American people will stand up, applaud and elect more Republicans."
...

More and tube of comments on the Laura Ingraham show...http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/12/09/Rand-Omnibus-Abomination-Will-Show-If-GOP-Wins-Made-a-Difference

My guess is the establishment republicans won't do a thing and they make up almost the entire brigade up there in the newly elected Senate. I'd love to be wrong but hopefully this will give Rand extra traction as the kind of republican that is needed to be the top of the ticket in 2016 for any chance at meaningful change. The good thing is, there's lots of people watching how these republicans perform and taking names.

[Chef Ramsay]

Rand Paul And Apple Have The Same Strategy

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Apple both seem to understand the marketplace.

Apple is betting bipartisan concern about intrusive government snooping will help sell phones, and Paul is creating a pretty impressive presidential campaign based on the same play.

Apple and Google have rolled out new default encryption technologies on their latest phones that even the companies would not be able to unlock. This means the companies would not be able to comply with court orders to turn copies of their customer's communications over to law enforcement. In what seems to be a coordinated counter, FBI Director James Comey and NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton fired back about the challenge this would pose to the legitimate needs of law enforcement.

...
Specifically, Paul is courting the same demographic Apple and Google aimed at with their new encrypted phones. He's looking to build a White House bid with his own new age coalition of privacy-concerned, party-non-aligned, previously non-voting, SOPA-hating, pot-tolerant youth.

More...http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-and-apple-have-the-same-strategy-2014-12#ixzz3Lau73H4P

[Chef Ramsay]

The Courtship: How Rand Paul Became a 'Chamber Republican'

Rand Paul had screwed up, and he knew it.

It was June and the Kentucky senator was in Texas speaking to a group of tea-party activists when he got loose with his words. "Chamber of Commerce is fine, I was a member of the Chamber of Commerce," Paul told the state's Republican Liberty Caucus. "But a Chamber of Commerce Republican is not going to win a national election."

It was a bold statement for a Republican plotting his own path to presidency. Too bold, he and his advisers realized almost immediately. While Paul has nurtured an iconoclastic libertarian image—stomping across Washington in cowboy boots and jeans, casting himself as a rare Republican willing to go to Berkeley, say, or reach out to black voters—he has also methodically courted the power class here in Washington.

Slapping at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was not part of that game plan. Instead, it represented a political low in his relationship with the nation's most powerful business lobby. But by the fall, Paul wasn't swiping at the business lobby anymore; he was starring in their television ads in four Senate races, including spots to air in crucial early presidential battlegrounds of Iowa and New Hampshire. How Paul recovered from that verbal stumble and resuscitated his relationship with the chamber says a lot about the balancing—some say contortionist—act he is attempting as he readies a White House run.

More...http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-courtship-how-rand-paul-became-a-chamber-republican-20141214

[jaysabi]

The Courtship: How Rand Paul Became a 'Chamber Republican'

Rand Paul had screwed up, and he knew it.

It was June and the Kentucky senator was in Texas speaking to a group of tea-party activists when he got loose with his words. "Chamber of Commerce is fine, I was a member of the Chamber of Commerce," Paul told the state's Republican Liberty Caucus. "But a Chamber of Commerce Republican is not going to win a national election."

It was a bold statement for a Republican plotting his own path to presidency. Too bold, he and his advisers realized almost immediately. While Paul has nurtured an iconoclastic libertarian image—stomping across Washington in cowboy boots and jeans, casting himself as a rare Republican willing to go to Berkeley, say, or reach out to black voters—he has also methodically courted the power class here in Washington.

Slapping at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was not part of that game plan. Instead, it represented a political low in his relationship with the nation's most powerful business lobby. But by the fall, Paul wasn't swiping at the business lobby anymore; he was starring in their television ads in four Senate races, including spots to air in crucial early presidential battlegrounds of Iowa and New Hampshire. How Paul recovered from that verbal stumble and resuscitated his relationship with the chamber says a lot about the balancing—some say contortionist—act he is attempting as he readies a White House run.

More...http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-courtship-how-rand-paul-became-a-chamber-republican-20141214

To me, this is a sad reminder that Rand Paul's image as a libertarian is just an image. He's the same as every other politician in DC. One who makes the connections with and concessions to special interests in order to be electable, and often to the detriment to the people he's supposed to serve: the public.

[iCEBREAKER]

The Courtship: How Rand Paul Became a 'Chamber Republican'

Rand Paul had screwed up, and he knew it.

It was June and the Kentucky senator was in Texas speaking to a group of tea-party activists when he got loose with his words. "Chamber of Commerce is fine, I was a member of the Chamber of Commerce," Paul told the state's Republican Liberty Caucus. "But a Chamber of Commerce Republican is not going to win a national election."

It was a bold statement for a Republican plotting his own path to presidency. Too bold, he and his advisers realized almost immediately. While Paul has nurtured an iconoclastic libertarian image—stomping across Washington in cowboy boots and jeans, casting himself as a rare Republican willing to go to Berkeley, say, or reach out to black voters—he has also methodically courted the power class here in Washington.

Slapping at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was not part of that game plan. Instead, it represented a political low in his relationship with the nation's most powerful business lobby. But by the fall, Paul wasn't swiping at the business lobby anymore; he was starring in their television ads in four Senate races, including spots to air in crucial early presidential battlegrounds of Iowa and New Hampshire. How Paul recovered from that verbal stumble and resuscitated his relationship with the chamber says a lot about the balancing—some say contortionist—act he is attempting as he readies a White House run.

More...http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-courtship-how-rand-paul-became-a-chamber-republican-20141214

To me, this is a sad reminder that Rand Paul's image as a libertarian is just an image. He's the same as every other politician in DC. One who makes the connections with and concessions to special interests in order to be electable, and often to the detriment to the people he's supposed to serve: the public.

Rand was raised discussing issues and philosophy with his father, plus campaigning for national offices.

That's not "the same as every other politician in DC."  He grew up learning exactly what must be done in order to take the baton from his dad and carry it towards finish line.

More of the same isn't going to cut it.  He's a son of RP, not a clone.  If you can't accept that, you are Ready For Hillary.   

[Chef Ramsay]

Human Action Super PAC Launches Rand16.org Beta
Check it out - http://www.rand16.org/ According to one of the people behind if:

Its all been built out using NationBuilder so people can do phone banking, post blogs, create walk lists, manage events, recruit members, fundraise, send e-mails... All through the site.

I've inquired as to why they haven't attempted to accept BTC yet, so we'll see if they get their shit together.

[Bit_Happy]

The Courtship: How Rand Paul Became a 'Chamber Republican'

Rand Paul had screwed up, and he knew it.

It was June and the Kentucky senator was in Texas speaking to a group of tea-party activists when he got loose with his words. "Chamber of Commerce is fine, I was a member of the Chamber of Commerce," Paul told the state's Republican Liberty Caucus. "But a Chamber of Commerce Republican is not going to win a national election."

It was a bold statement for a Republican plotting his own path to presidency. Too bold, he and his advisers realized almost immediately. While Paul has nurtured an iconoclastic libertarian image—stomping across Washington in cowboy boots and jeans, casting himself as a rare Republican willing to go to Berkeley, say, or reach out to black voters—he has also methodically courted the power class here in Washington.

Slapping at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was not part of that game plan. Instead, it represented a political low in his relationship with the nation's most powerful business lobby. But by the fall, Paul wasn't swiping at the business lobby anymore; he was starring in their television ads in four Senate races, including spots to air in crucial early presidential battlegrounds of Iowa and New Hampshire. How Paul recovered from that verbal stumble and resuscitated his relationship with the chamber says a lot about the balancing—some say contortionist—act he is attempting as he readies a White House run.

More...http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-courtship-how-rand-paul-became-a-chamber-republican-20141214

To me, this is a sad reminder that Rand Paul's image as a libertarian is just an image. He's the same as every other politician in DC. One who makes the connections with and concessions to special interests in order to be electable, and often to the detriment to the people he's supposed to serve: the public.

Rand was raised discussing issues and philosophy with his father, plus campaigning for national offices.

That's not "the same as every other politician in DC."  He grew up learning exactly what must be done in order to take the baton from his dad and carry it towards finish line.

More of the same isn't going to cut it.  He's a son of RP, not a clone.  If you can't accept that, you are Ready For Hillary.   

Ready For Hillary?
Ready for Hillary to be too old and sick to run! Despite her past "sins", Ms. Clinton will probably win due to the huge numbers of women who want Any Woman to win. Does Rand have a realistic chance even if he is able to win the nomination?

[Chef Ramsay]

Reason Jan. 2015 Issue Interview: Rand Paul on Foreign Policy Realism

Sen. Rand Paul on ISIS, the Middle East, and when America should go to war

Matt Welch from the January 2015 issue

On October 23, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave a major foreign policy address at the Center for the National Interest in which he declared himself a "conservative realist," aligning himself with the tradition of Ronald Reagan and Caspar Weinberger. (See "The Case for Conservative Realism.") As he did in a similar February 2013 speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation, the libertarian-leaning 2016 GOP presidential contender attempted to sell his foreign policy vision to fellow Republicans as a middle path between the near-absolute anti-intervention of his (unmentioned) father and the hyper-interventionism of the Washington Republican establishment.

Reaction to the speech varied widely. Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, who has long advocated a less interventionist foreign policy, told reporters "I think I just heard Ronald Reagan speaking." The lefty analysis site Vox enthused that "Rand Paul just gave one of the most important foreign policy speeches in decades" because he "declared war on his own party." The Hill described the address as "anti-isolationist," while neoconservative Washington Post writer Jennifer Rubin scoffed that Paul was "still pretending he's not an isolationist." And so on.

More...http://reason.com/archives/2014/12/08/the-conservative-realist

Reason is a major libertarian-ish foundation/magazine here in the US and they've been steadily growing in popularity since I first knew of them many years ago. Their people are always featured on a regular basis on the Jerry Doyle show who's in the top ten biggest radio shows in America.

[BitMos]

Ready For Hillary?
Ready for Hillary to be too old and sick to run! Despite her past "sins", Ms. Clinton will probably win due to the huge numbers of women who want Any Woman to win. Does Rand have a realistic chance even if he is able to win the nomination?

Is Hillary responsible for non assistance to American Forces in distress in Benghazi? if yes she is automatically disqualified, for her own safety, she must admits it. What happened? Who said: "let's wait"?

[jaysabi]

The Courtship: How Rand Paul Became a 'Chamber Republican'

Rand Paul had screwed up, and he knew it.

It was June and the Kentucky senator was in Texas speaking to a group of tea-party activists when he got loose with his words. "Chamber of Commerce is fine, I was a member of the Chamber of Commerce," Paul told the state's Republican Liberty Caucus. "But a Chamber of Commerce Republican is not going to win a national election."

It was a bold statement for a Republican plotting his own path to presidency. Too bold, he and his advisers realized almost immediately. While Paul has nurtured an iconoclastic libertarian image—stomping across Washington in cowboy boots and jeans, casting himself as a rare Republican willing to go to Berkeley, say, or reach out to black voters—he has also methodically courted the power class here in Washington.

Slapping at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was not part of that game plan. Instead, it represented a political low in his relationship with the nation's most powerful business lobby. But by the fall, Paul wasn't swiping at the business lobby anymore; he was starring in their television ads in four Senate races, including spots to air in crucial early presidential battlegrounds of Iowa and New Hampshire. How Paul recovered from that verbal stumble and resuscitated his relationship with the chamber says a lot about the balancing—some say contortionist—act he is attempting as he readies a White House run.

More...http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-courtship-how-rand-paul-became-a-chamber-republican-20141214

To me, this is a sad reminder that Rand Paul's image as a libertarian is just an image. He's the same as every other politician in DC. One who makes the connections with and concessions to special interests in order to be electable, and often to the detriment to the people he's supposed to serve: the public.

Rand was raised discussing issues and philosophy with his father, plus campaigning for national offices.

That's not "the same as every other politician in DC."  He grew up learning exactly what must be done in order to take the baton from his dad and carry it towards finish line.

More of the same isn't going to cut it.  He's a son of RP, not a clone.  If you can't accept that, you are Ready For Hillary.   

Hillary? Ugh, gag me with a spoon. If you want libertarian values, you have to vote for a libertarian. Anyone the Republicans endorse is automatically disqualified for having the same old ties that will require him to make the same old concessions and be indebted to the same old special interests. Obama was an electable change from the same-old when he was a candidate too (the first time), and look how different he turned out to be. Rand is a better option that someone like Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush, but he's still not the best option if you're a libertarian. Gary Johnson will get my vote again.

[iCEBREAKER]

Hillary? Ugh, gag me with a spoon. If you want libertarian values, you have to vote for a libertarian. Anyone the Republicans endorse is automatically disqualified for having the same old ties that will require him to make the same old concessions and be indebted to the same old special interests. Obama was an electable change from the same-old when he was a candidate too (the first time), and look how different he turned out to be. Rand is a better option that someone like Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush, but he's still not the best option if you're a libertarian. Gary Johnson will get my vote again.

Libertarian values are at the core of Constitutional conservative realism.  Applying those values to the real world is a tricky matter, and no two intelligent Libertarians precisely agree on exactly which implementations are proper.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/12/08/the-conservative-realist

^^^I think Rand gets it just about right, and as a side benefit invites disgruntled PaleoRealist Condi to join his team.

/three Libertarians - four opinions   

[Bit_Happy]

Hillary? Ugh, gag me with a spoon. If you want libertarian values, you have to vote for a libertarian. Anyone the Republicans endorse is automatically disqualified for having the same old ties that will require him to make the same old concessions and be indebted to the same old special interests. Obama was an electable change from the same-old when he was a candidate too (the first time), and look how different he turned out to be. Rand is a better option that someone like Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush, but he's still not the best option if you're a libertarian. Gary Johnson will get my vote again.

Libertarian values are at the core of Constitutional conservative realism.  Applying those values to the real world is a tricky matter, and no two intelligent Libertarians precisely agree on exactly which implementations are proper.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/12/08/the-conservative-realist

^^^I think Rand gets it just about right, and as a side benefit invites disgruntled PaleoRealist Condi to join his team.

/three Libertarians - four opinions   

I don't see "Condi" in that article, who are you talking about? I cannot imagine you are referring to 'Condi' Rice the famous war criminal.