Well, this is disappointing. One reason I like Trump is because of his willingness to swim upstream at times. But this is pure politics as usual. Vote seniority to bring home the bacon. I’m not concerned about the Speaker part. An easy mistake. I’m concerned about the politics as usual part.
Rand assures us, in Time no less, that he’s not one of those awful isolationists.
Yes Rand, we get it. You are not your daddy, which is why I’m still looking for a candidate to support in 2016.
Ron Paul was a great Congressman, but I’m beginning to doubt his parenting skills. He obviously didn’t spank Rand enough.
Rep. Duncan, along with Rep. Walter Jones, are just about the only two* national level elected Republicans who are willing to proclaim the non-interventionist message. Neither have perfect voting records from my standpoint, but Duncan has paleo ties and is, as best as I recall, also solid against trade deals. Could Duncan perhaps revive the old paleo Buchananite coalition?
*Justin Amash is perhaps another one, but I don’t really hear him speak much on foreign policy unless I’m missing something. He’s good on the security state though.
The text of the speech is available here.
This time at the GOP Convention in Texas. Rand Paul came in third.
Sen. Ted Cruz dominated the presidential straw poll at the Texas GOP convention on Saturday, pulling in 43.4 percent of the votes at the contest in his home state, far ahead of other possible 2016 contenders on the ballot.
In the survey, which is an informal read of the most committed conservatives in the party, the retired neurosurgeon-turned-conservative firebrand Ben Carson came in a distant second.
Carson, who was not in attendance, raked in 12.2 percent of the vote, barely beating out Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who pulled in 12.1 percent. Texas Gov. Rick Perry came in third with 11.7 percent, while well behind him was former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush with just 3.3 percent
It isn’t news that Ted Cruz won, but it is news, IMO, that Ben Carson came in second. I don’t know that much about Carson. He may be a good guy. And as I have said before, I’m not going to criticize him just because he is a non-traditional candidate, because I don’t think there are any traditional candidates out there so far who would advance our thing. But I have no real reason to think he is some sort of paleo. But this is further evidence that conservatives are desperate for a black candidate so they can say, “See look. We’re not racists.” Do these conservative not realize that this reinforces the liberal PC narrative?
Rand Paul seems to be on a mission to prove he can pander with the best of them. Now he says voter ID laws offend people so the GOP should back off. I suspect there are two things at work here. Rand is trying to get out in front on race in particular to cover his backside over his past questioning of the wisdom and constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act. (The fact that the CRA is unconstitutional and the fact that the opinion that prohibiting private discrimination is unwise is entirely defensible from a libertarian and conservative standpoint matter not at all.) Plus, I think he wants to establish that his “mavrick” credentials don’t all come just from being further to the right and/or more libertarian. But Paul, to those who pay attention, is starting to look like a grandstander in addition to just being wrong. Given the modern situation where people are deracinated and aren’t always known by their neighbors, of course you should have to have ID to vote. Why is this even being debated? What conservatives and libertarians should be debating is how we should restrict the franchise, not make it more easy to exercise.
Dear Fellow Constitionists,
Over the past few months the Constitution Party, with your help, has made inroads on several fronts – a new website, a new newsletter format, social media and internet advertising, ballot access battles in several states, and many more behind-the-scenes efforts by tireless patriot volunteers across the nation. We are making tremendous strides towards helping states build and improve their websites, improving our media relations, growing our social media outreach, too many ways to be listed in this brief email.
We are actively engaged in building a strong political opposition to the current two-party duopoly that is rapidly descending into a chaotic tyranny, as is evident from President Obama’s recent State of the Union address to Congress, the nation, and the world.
President Obama laid down the gauntlet at his first cabinet meeting of the year when he said, “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”
Click here to hear Darrell Castle (2008 Vice-presidential candidate) and Cynthia Davis (four-term Missouri State Legislator) present the Constitution Party Response to the State of the Union.
Our goal is simple: we want to re-establish the American Constitutional Republic, according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers.
Forget everything you have known about or experienced under the tutelage of the current two major parties. The Constitution Party is not your granddaddy’s political party. It is not your father’s political party. It probably isn’t the political party you first supported. The Constitution Party is committed to putting Principles before Party. Which principles? The principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the 1787 Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Find out about our basic Seven Principles on the national website.
The Constitution Party does not play Super Bowl politics. The Constitution and the impact it has on the American people, indeed the world, is not a simple football game between two opposing teams, whose strategy is to win the victory at all costs. Scoring a constitutionally-correct touchdown means standing up against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and saying “No, that is not within the authority granted to my office by the federal Constitution (or state Constitution, etc.). I will not do it.”
The Constitution Party is committed to putting forth constitutionally-committed candidates. Congressmen, the President, the Courts, elected and appointed officials at all levels of government have lost the vision of what constitutes a representative republic based on the Constitution. It is time for the Constitution, and the American people who believe it its principles, to have duly elected officials willing to make the tough decisions necessary to save the American economy and American Liberty.
We need you to make real change happen in America.
We need your time, your volunteerism. We are a grassroots, from the heart, organization. 99.9% of us take no pay for the work we do to build the Constitution Party. We do not rely on lobbyists or Daddy Warbucks. We are fighting against a corrupt system, which has no desire to support a political party that will not give those in charge the power, glory, and gain they seek. We need volunteers at all levels. Visit the State Parties page of our website to contact your state leaders or area chairman. Roll up your sleeves, it’s a hard job, but somebody has to do it and that somebody is you.
We need your financial support. It doesn’t matter how small or how often, just donate. Only you can provide the resources necessary to fight for ballot access in several states. Only you can give us the resources to expand our advertising outreach. Only you can choose to invest in a political party with the will to make the hard decisions necessary to restore Liberty. Only you can make a donation today!
We need your Vote. We need your commitment to vote for, or become, a constitutionally-committed candidate. No one else is going to do it for you. Stop wasting your vote on candidates who continue to support party over principle. If you don’t vote or run, then who? Contact your State Party or area chairman to find out more.
Explore our website and our commitment to the Constitution, then decide for yourselves if you are willing to take the next step and become an active participant the great struggle for Liberty, both for ourselves and our future generations.
National Communications Director
Editor’s Note: All the links in this letter are not intact due to formatting issues, but the link to the actual response is working.
Originally posted, in slightly different form, at Independent Political Report.
The New York Times recently ran a front page hit piece against Rand Paul and the usual cast of boogeymen the centrists and liberals trot out every time they have one of their periodic spasms about alleged extremism. They attack a lot of different people and groups, but Rand Paul is the obvious target. He must have them running scared. It would probably blow their poor little pristine mainstream minds to know that some of us don’t think Rand Paul is extreme enough.
Lew Rockwell responds here
Tom Woods responds here (on FaceBook so I’m not sure everyone will be able to see it)
Ralph Raico here
Chris Rossini here
Update: Walter Block replies here
Tom Woods replies here on YouTube
My new column “Is Rand Paul the Best Non-interventionists Can Hope For?” is up at Intellectual Conservative. I plan to submit full length columns there more often. Here is an excerpt:
Bolton and King are clearly attempting to counter Rand Paul and his perceived libertarian tendencies, but this says at least as much about the paranoia and absolutism of the uber-hawks as it does about Rand Paul. Among non-interventionists, Rand Paul is widely viewed as a disappointment. The reasons for this warrant a separate article, but suffice it to say that while Rand Paul is better on foreign policy than your average Republican, he is not his father by a long shot.
Principled non-interventionists are often lectured by more pragmatic types that Rand Paul is the best we’ve got so we should make the best of it, but if the uber-hawks want a clear messenger like King or Bolton for their hawkishness despite the presence of more credible candidates who are mostly with them, why shouldn’t non-interventionists yearn for a clear messenger for their cause? While I think the super hawks are dangerously wrong, I admire that they are pro-actively seeking a spokesman to their liking for their message.
I would prefer that you comment at IC if you would like to comment, so it looks like my articles are attracking interest. Registration is required. Thanks.
Mitt Romney, back in the day, supported bailing out all those who found themselves a loser when the mortgage backed securities were revealed as worthless and the collateral calls were made. One of those companies, GE, owner of MSNBC, made out okay–good to employ Alan Greenspan’s wife after all.
MSNBC, is a worthless cable channel, literally, as nobody watches it. Street theater with the up-and-coming is all they have left, and hence the comments about the Romney Christmas card, where Mitt clearly uses children as a political prop–unless this card was not meant for public consumption–with the newest Romney, an adopted ‘African-American’ child, seated on his lap. If it looks like a “see, I am not a racist” sort of pandering, it is a fair and reasonable observation (of course the MSNBC host is walking back, short lived street theater.)
And at the same time, if the angle the MSNBC team was working is that adoption should be done within the most similar circumstances, that is a fair point as well, and the conservative point up until the 1970s, where black social workers were adamant that whites should not adopt black babies. It should be further noted Mitt Romney supports homosexuals adopting children (reducing supply) and signed the surrogate contract for his son Tagg (that included an abortion clause, and not just for life of the mother.)
The predictable response from Conservative Inc., was to play the victim–look at those liberal racists! as they start showcasing their bona fides as the true promoters of ‘diversity’ (which is code word–wait, you have heard this one before.)
The whole thing is embarrassing and pathetic, in light of Mr. Robertson over at Duck Dynasty running rings around the media. Classic pathetic Romney and all that–he must seriously be thinking of running again.
Here is a Townhall 2016 straw poll. Vote if you like. It’s quick. You do have to enter your e-mail which will get you on some e-mail list, but I already get Townhall e-mails so no biggy. You can also always unsubscribe. I post this mainly to illustrate how abysmal the potential 2016 lineup is. I voted other/none of the above because write-in were not allowed.
Here is the list of candidates:
Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida
Benjamin Carson, Doctor of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University
Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey
Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas
Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana
John Kasich, Governor of Ohio
Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska
Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky
Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana
Rick Perry, Governor of Texas
Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida
Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania
Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin
Other/None of the Above
What a sorry lot. Rand Paul is the closest to acceptable. As I said before, we need to start talking up potential acceptable GOP primary candidates and potential Constitution Party and Libertarian Party candidates.
Here is the comment I left.
There is no one in this list that represents non-interventionist conservatives. Rand Paul comes the closest, but he has already drifted too far away from the principled non-intervention of his father. I will not vote for a GOP interventionist. If they don’t do better than this it will be third party for me in 2016.
John McCain might run in 2016, at the prime age of 80. McCain must think he can do a better job, than has Obama, at selling war, amnesty, free trade, domestic spying, and deficit spending. Wrong on every significant issue, McCain is a conservative nightmare.
It’s unlikely McCain could win the GOP primary, but I have to ask: Is there any Democratic candidate worse than John McCain? Could anyone actually vote for this guy, even if against the legendary Cthulu?
A reminder: Under Obama, conservatives have fought against amnesty and war, even if still asleep about trade.
According to the Washington Post, there have been a total of 7 amnesties comprising 5 million undocumented colonists in the last 20 years. However the primary, what was supposed to be the final, amnesty took place in 1986 under Reagan, a Republican and purported conservative.
The ideal might be a Republican Congress with a Democratic Presidency. Conservatives trust a Republican-brand President; but under a Democrat…, we fight! Not only is McCain a nightmare candidate, he’s brand Republican.
He’s cut his hair. Is that a signal?
He says he’s considering it.
I would consider voting for him as a way to spite the system. Plus, his rallies and fund raising events would be so much fun.
I thought he was flubbing it all along. He was too tenative and wishy-washy, and he let Ted Cruz get way out ahead of him. He voted no on the final bill, but at that point his no vote was an easy call.
Steve Deace agrees. His thoughts are very similar to my thoughts. The Rand Paul part is one of ten “Lessons Learned.” The whole article is worth a read.
Rand Paul is still not sure who he is
He almost always votes the right way, but Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is certainly not his father—for better or for worse. He gets much closer to gray areas than his father ever did, flirting with disaster before eventually choosing the right side. He did on both the big fights this year—first with scamnesty and now with the defund Obamacare effort. He appears to be trying so hard to make himself a national figure in time for a 2016 presidential run that the identity that launched him in 2010 is being lost in the process. Is he the heir to his father’s revolution or has he become Ditch McConnell’s sidekick? You can’t be both. It appears he has yet to decide, but he better decide quickly. The passive-aggressive act is wearing thin with many liberty people I know, let alone dampening his efforts to successfully reach out to social conservatives.
Even Paul’s post no vote statement was weak and uninspiring.
Sen. Rand Paul today voted no on H.R. 2775, as amended, that will suspend the debt ceiling until February 7, 2014 and fund the government thru January 15, 2014.
“Tonight, a deal was struck to re-open the government and avoid the debt ceiling deadline. That is a good thing,” Sen. Paul said. “However, our country faces a problem bigger than any deadline: a $17 trillion debt. I am disappointed that Democrats would not compromise to avoid the looming debt debacle.”
I’m not a fan of Ted Cruz’s foreign policy, but Rand got played by Cruz here.
Rand is being too cautious for his own good. Someone needs to remind him that he’s an Eye Surgeon. He’ll still be able to make a living if he loses his current job.
The following was sent to me by Randy Stufflebeam of IL, the Vice-Chairman of the CP:
As of last night, I have created a new page to “Draft” Darrell. Please go there and [LIKE] the page, if you haven’t already and make sure to spread the word. We need to send a strong message to Darrell that he needs to run and he needs to announce VERY early, so that he can begin raising money and campaigning so that he actually has a chance to win the election.
If you haven’t already, I would STRONGLY suggest clicking on the following link and UNLIKE the page.
It is the page that was the original “Draft Darrell Castle for President in 2016,” and they are now using the page for nefarious reasons and with your name still there, it appears that you support it.
The original page was created by a very young man who is now disgruntled with the Constitution Party and says that he is now a proud Republican…
The end of the post contained a specific name. I didn’t post that part because I don’t want to get into naming names here on this site. I just wanted to pass on the information about Castle, because, given the current crop of potential GOP candidates, it seems likely I’ll be voting CP again.
OK, so the 2016 polls are starting to appear in my inbox and as pop-up ads, etc. The current list of potential candidates is abysmal and depressing. It includes RINOs like Chris Christie and so called conservatives like Rick Santorum and Jim DeMint who are just mainstream movement cons of one degree or another and are therefore wrong about all the things mainstream cons are wrong about (foreign policy, surveillance/police state, trade deals, etc.) Rand Paul is the best of the lot, but is off my list because of his PC pandering and waffling on immigration and foreign policy.
The problem is, as far as I know, there aren’t any rumored paleoish candidates to talk up. Worse, there aren’t really even that many paleoish figures who aren’t rumored that can be credibly talked up. I’m sure our constant critic Sav and others would say this points to a failure of paleoism and perhaps they would be right, but that doesn’t solve our immediate problem of who to tout as a potential candidate.
Here are a few thoughts. Let’s discuss it.
Potentially Serious Candidates:
Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions comes to mind. I haven’t heard him talked up as a candidate, but if he did run he would be serious because he is a Senator. He has been by far and away the best person in the Senate on the immigration issue. The problem is that Sessions is generally wrong on foreign policy and police state issues. But because Sessions has been so out front on immigration, a vote for him could be seen as an endorsement of immigration restrictionism. As an actual vote, it might be hard to justify, but as an exercise in immigration issue message sending a case could be made for writing him in. (For the record, I consider immigration the most important issues because all the other issues [abortion, taxes, spending, etc.] hinge upon its outcome. Unless current demographic trends are halted, the GOP and by implication any further right alternative party will become irrelevant at the national level.)
Tennessee Rep. John Duncan and North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones come to mind. Neither have the voting record of Ron Paul, but both are know as Republican (relatively) non-interventionists so a vote for either would likely be interpreted as an endorsement of non-interventionism. As far as I know, neither has been seriously discussed as a possible candidate.
Actually Rumored Message Candidates:
Judge Andrew Napolitano has been widely discussed as a possible candidate. He is a natural heir to the Ron Paul Revolution, especially for those unwilling to support Rand Paul. As a widely known Fox News commentator, he is a semi-plausible candidate. A vote for him would be the most direct way of endorsing the continuation of the Ron Paul Revolution. The major problem with Napolitano is that he is absolutely horrible on immigration. He has completely swallowed the libertarian Kool-Aid on the issue.
Ted Nugent has thrown his own name out there. Besides guns and not liking Obama, I’m not sure I know exactly where he stands on other issues, and I’m sure I’m not alone with that. But where The Nuge stands on every issues is hardly relevant. A vote for Nugent is simply a way to stick a great big thumb in the eye of the Powers that Be. As I said before, Nugent is a visceral Red and a vote for him would be an endorsement of visceral Redness.
Pure Message Candidates:
If you want to send a single issue immigration message then you could write in Tom Tancredo. He’s not good on war and peace issues, but since he is so identified with the immigration issues, the message of a vote for Tancredo would not be missed. An alternative might be to vote for Pennsylvania Rep. Lou Barletta, who is also closely associated with the immigration issue but likely not as well known as Tancredo.
Tom Woods has been suggested as a possible candidate and has even addressed the issue. I think Woods would be an excellent candidate. He is articulate and funny. He would put nullification and secession on the table, and since he is a Traditional Catholic he could appeal to cultural conservatives and couldn’t be accused of being an amoral libertine. Also, like Judge Nap, a vote for Woods would be an endorsement of the continuation of the Ron Paul Revolution.
If you wanted to send a pure ideological message of the whole no-compromise package – non-intervention, immigration, Constitutionalism, abortion, anti-Lincoln, etc. – you could write in Chuck Baldwin. Since he has actually run before, the idea isn’t quite as out there as it might otherwise be. Or, on that note, you could write in Michael Peroutka. Peroutka has been the center of some controversy recently since he is now on the Board of the League of the South, so a vote for him would be an even bigger rejection of the status quo.
Those are some of my preliminary thoughts. Discuss.
(FTR, I limited my choices to people that actually could conceivably run for President. So no Patrick Henry for example. If we have a problem of no rumored candidates we can get behind, we might as well start rumors about people who could really run.)
The U.S. Republican party resolved on Friday to boycott any 2016 presidential debates sponsored by CNN and NBC if the networks go ahead with plans to make special programs on Hillary Clinton, who is widely expected to seek the Democratic nomination.
Delegates to a meeting of the Republican National Committee voted for a resolution that included the boycott and said the programs would be “little more than extended commercials promoting former Secretary Clinton.”
I certainly have my issues with the RNC, but here they are actually acting like they have a spine. Let’s hope CNN and NBC cave or that the RNC doesn’t.
John Bolton flirted with running in 2012 if no one was sufficiently hawkish for him, but he relented and eventually endorsed Romney. Now he is considering running in 2016. I tend to agree with Larison that this is probably good news for non-interventionists. Bolton is a near caricature of the hysterical hawk, and will hopefully help make hyper-hawkishness look silly. He may also take a few votes from the other hawks who are less single issue (Santorum, Rubio). There is a risk that he will drive the other hawks in the race in his direction rhetorically, but it’s also possible that he might poison that space and make the others less likely to want to join him.
Those are my practical considerations. More viscerally I hope he runs because I think it is useful when people run from outside the normal path. If everyone who runs has to be a Governor or a Senator then that narrows the field to a group that is already too politically compromised to be of much use. People who are concerned with opposing the Establishment should encourage these sort of Quixotic campaigns by non-traditional candidates. A hyper-interventionist like Bolton might open up space for a non-traditional non-interventionist. As of now, I don’t see any non-interventionists considering a run. (I don’t consider Rand Paul ideal on foreign policy.) If we are going to be represented it will likely be by a non-traditional candidate so it doesn’t do non-interventionists any good to mock Bolton on the grounds that he is non-traditional.
This info is from the Constitution Party’s Spring National Committee Meeting:
Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party’s 2008 vice-presidential candidate, announced he is interested in seeking the CP’s presidential nomination in 2016, but that nothing is yet set in stone. (Here is a draft page on Facebook for that effort: https://www.facebook.com/DarrellCastle2016).
Sorry this is a little delinquent, but I’ve been busy and haven’t been able to get this post up. Most of you probably already know that Rand Paul stirred up a bit of a hornests’ nest when he spoke to a Hispanic organization on Tuesday where he endorsed a path to legal residence. The speech was typical pro-immigration cliches and platitudes. Intially it was reported that he had endorsed a path to citizenship, but Rand protested and said he hadn’t. What he had actually endorsed was a path to legal residence which is only marginally better. So this generation of illegals won’t get to vote for bigger government, but their birthright citizen children will. Great, we get to put off our electoral irrelevance for a few more years.
I really do not believe that Rand Paul is the master political operator many seem to think he is. The filibuster was a masterstroke of political theater, but I’m not convinced he didn’t just bumble into it. There is no way he could have anticipated what happened. I think he was primarily trying to throw a bone to his libertarian base that he had pissed off with his hamhanded handling of the Hagel nomination.
On immigration, Rand doesn’t seem to know what he has gotten himself into. The best thing he could have done politically would have been to either keep his mouth shut on the issue and let his past campaign statements stand or repeat simple secure the borders boilerplate. He should have let Rubio and the rest of his potential rivals step out in front on amnesty, then in the end (2016) he could have said he was the only one still holding the line. It seems to me that he didn’t want Rubio and company to get too far out in front of him, but at the same time wanted to split the difference. Hence, a path to legal residence vs. a path to citizenship. (A path to legal residence was actually the position that Jeb Bush endorsed in his book then fell all over himself to reject once it was published.)
There are a bunch of articles I could link to since his flip-flop has been so much discussed. VDARE in particular is ripping into him. Here are a few of the better ones.
Michael Thompson at WND documents that this is, in fact, a flip-flop for Rand.
John Derbyshire takes Rand to task, and praises Ann Coulter.
Washington Watcher isn’t pleased either.