Top Obama Aide: Rand Paul Is ‘Most Intriguing’ Republican

[Rigon]

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.

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.

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.

[zolace]

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.

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.

[Rigon]

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.

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.

[zolace]

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.

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.

[Rigon]

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/

[zolace]

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.

[noviapriani]

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.

[zolace]

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.

[noviapriani]

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.

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.

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.

[Rigon]

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.

[zolace]

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.

[noviapriani]

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.

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.

[zolace]

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.

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.

[noviapriani]

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.

[zolace]

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.

[noviapriani]

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.

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.

[zolace]

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.

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.

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.

[zolace]

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.

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.

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. 

[noviapriani]

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.

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.

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.

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).

I can't type that fast.

Neither can I.

[zolace]

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.

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.

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.

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).

I can't type that fast.

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.