Gyroscopic Investing

His "doveishness" means that he could not muster my support or most level-headed thinking conservatives. Guys like him or the "peace at any cost" leftists are just plain dangerous.

Isolationism doesn't work.

I could live with Rand Paul, but he wouldn't be my first choice. 

While I am not sure I agree with Reub, I do believe the powers that be in the Repub party would rather have Hillary than Rand.

Personally amnesty for illegals is the most important issue and I'm not sure I trust Rand on this issue.  I do like Rand on many other things (my live and let live tendencies) though.

Reub wrote: Isolationism doesn't work.

How do we know? The last time this country had a non-interventionist foreign policy was March 3, 1897. On the other hand we do have 120 years of interventionist foreign policy to judge, and I would say it has been an unmitigated disaster.

The reason that he could not stand up in the Republican primaries is because his policies of isolationism would be exposed for the idealistic sham that they are.

Desert wrote: Hey, I just noticed that was post number 1776 for you Reub!

Sorry, I'll try to post less.

TennPaGa wrote: Indeed.  Paul certainly comes across to me as a non-interventionist, which is far far different than isolationist.  However, it certainly behooves the GOP establishment to attach the isolationist label to him.

It will be interesting to me how he navigates the GOP establishment minefield on this.  His approach seems to be to talk more to the people than to the establishment.  I like it.

Unfortunately, if the success of his campaign depends on explaining the difference between being a non-interventionist as opposed to an isolationist, he may not stand much of a chance.

Was listening to one of the online news videos which talked about him and one of their criticisms was that he called  for gradual elimination of all foreign aid (with obligatory mention of harm to overseas children)

Video is here: 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... isery.html

Desert wrote:

Benko wrote: While I am not sure I agree with Reub, I do believe the powers that be in the Repub party would rather have Hillary than Rand.

Personally amnesty for illegals is the most important issue and I'm not sure I trust Rand on this issue.  I do like Rand on many other things (my live and let live tendencies) though.

Seriously?  I guess you might be right about that, but I sure hope that isn't the case.

It's pretty obvious that the PTB in the R party preferred Obama to Ron Paul, or they wouldn't have cheated Ron's delegates out of the chance to vote for their candidate in 2012.

TennPaGa wrote: And then there's this:

DNC Response to Rand Paul’s Troubling WSJ Op-Ed

“It’s disappointing that Rand Paul, as a Senator and a potential presidential candidate, blames America for all the problems in the world, while offering reckless ideas that would only alienate us from the global community.

The DNC's response to this sounds eerily like the Republican response to non-interventionists from the last few years (and I expect a similar response from establishment Republicans).

Not only that, but it's pathetically short and obviously slapped together with little effort or care. It's quite clear that the Democrats don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to foreign policy. Libertarians and Republicans at least have foreign policy visions; all Democrats can do is criticize other people's ideas and let themselves be railroaded into embarrassing blunders by chasing public opinion or neglecting existing obligations.

Paul's point about "regional counterweights" is a serious and important one. I don't understand why so many Republican and Democratic politicians fail to grasp it.

I don't know if it's the last batch of Republican primary loonies, more exposure to Michelle Bachmann, or what, but I'm starting to really respect Rand Paul.  Perhaps he's just getting better.

I really hated the guy back when he equated Medicare to putting a gun to doctor's heads to perform procedures (umm... more like pointing a gun to young workers' heads to PAY doctors tidy sums to perform surgeries and procedures, and only if they so-wish), and even more-so when he split with his dad and made condescending remarks about the possible Muslim community center near ground zero.  I thought he was a smug, ugly shadow of his father.  The kind of libertarian that I really didn't like... a fake one.

Now he's a pretty unique flow of fresh ideas, much the way his dad was.  I disagree with his views on property, economics and government, but I think a lot more of him now that I've seen him in action, and his willingness to take bold stands that aren't along his party line, necessarily.

Well, whoever that person was a few years ago that asked the question, "Where's the beef?" obviously didn't go to Arby's.  BTW, do you all remember what A-R-B-Y-S stands for:  America's Roast Beef Yes Sir!