Video: Rand Paul sees a Libertarian future for the GOP

posted at 7:46 pm on September 9, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Senator Rand Paul was singing a bit of a different tune on the weekend shows than he was at the convention. On ABC’s This Week he told George Stephanopoulos that it might be time to look at candidates outside the social conservative base if there is ever hope to pull in some seats currently seen as “safe” for liberal Democrats. Let’s go straight to the video.

Rand Paul: “You know, what I’ve been talking to leaders in the national Republican Party about is, there’s certain parts of the country we’ve given up on. The whole west coast and New England. What I keep telling them is, maybe we need some libertarian type Republicans who might be popular in those areas. Maybe a less aggressive, more socially tolerant but still fiscally conservative policy that may be more libertarian. Might do better in California, might do better in Oregon and Washington and New England, and I think if we had that it would be a great strategy. Our problem in the presidential election is we’ve given up 150 electoral votes before we even get started.”

As I noted above, this is a bit different than his presentation at the convention, as Politico noted.

Rand Paul did not hoist the flag high for the libertarian cause Wednesday.

The Kentucky senator instead used his prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention to play footsie with the GOP establishment and offer support for “our nominee:” Mitt Romney.

Paul then focused on areas of agreement between conservatives and supporters of his father Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign: antipathy toward Obama, opposition to the federal health care law, support for the Keystone XL pipeline and alarm about the national debt.

“There’s only one option left,” he said. “We have to have a new president.”

Is Rand Paul signaling support for some sort of “third way” a la Bill Clinton? Perhaps there is some shifting going on under the covers, particularly after Mitt Romney appeared to walk back some of his talk about a full repeal of Obamacare on the same weekend.

“I’m not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place,” he said on NBC’s “Meet The Press. “One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like.”

The remarks could have huge implications as they signal a marked shift from Romney’s strong, unequivocal support for full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which he has consistently held since the Republican primaries.

Perhaps there’s a hint of change on the wind? Here’s the video of Paul’s speech from the convention for comparison, lest we forget.

Is this something new? Or just… “nuance?”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Again, for the bazillionth time, yes he will. He says it in EVERY campaign speech.
Just keep flukin that chicken. It’ll make you feel better.

bluealice on September 9, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Fluk you; read the quotes, dumbass:

He says ‘repeal and replace’ – you’re not so dense as to stop reading after the first f-ing word in that phrase, are you? Or are you?

Midas on September 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

I believe Romney has stated he intends to issue waivers to all states
to get out of Obamacare ….

conservative tarheel on September 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

He’ll have to do that in the beginning, and then try repeal if he has a congress to go along. Right?

bluealice on September 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

sure just pay me back the 35 years I have paid into it (with interest)
and let me invest my money to take care of myself …

conservative tarheel on September 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Retard, can I call you retard? Have you ever read the law? Ever had someone explain it to you? Are you a willfully ignorant loser or are you naturally just this way?

You paid NOTHING INTO social security. You paid a tax, plain and simple. The government can spend the tax collections it gets where ever it chooses, money is fungible you know. Sure, they used words like fund to make sure the dupes kept imagining they had something of value locked away somewhere. it was how they got you invested into the scam so you would not rebel and vote them out of power. Hook line and sinker you did! Gullible!

The law says you are owed nothing, the supreme court has said you are owed nothing, and yet you persist in arguing that you are owed something. Got news for you, YOUR MONEY IS GONE. Likely given to some cougar prostitute granny who has her grandkids hooked on heroin to get them to do evil things for her Johns so she does not have to. Any money given to you, will be taken from someone else at the point of the gun. What a selfish greedy human being you are. People like you disgust me!

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 8:58 PM

bluealice on September 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

I believe so ….

conservative tarheel on September 9, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Romney is NOT going to repeal Obamacare, got it?

Midas on September 9, 2012 at 8:45 PM

He says ‘repeal and replace’ – you’re not so dense as to stop reading after the first f-ing word in that phrase, are you? Or are you?

Midas on September 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

You’re an idiot.

steebo77 on September 9, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Midas on September 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Hoo boy, hate much? Who are you?

bluealice on September 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM

We have a movement that is concerned with fiscal responsibility, it is the Tea Party. Remove legalizing pot and Ron Paul’s cult is mightly slim. Deal with that before you start attacking honest bloggers like me you America-hating moron!!!

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Keep luuuving that chicken, boy. You have nothing to say and no facts to back up your nothing burger of an argument. Also, Ron Paul was critical in the starting of the TEA party, back in ’08 when it’s original target was Bush and his TARP bailout. You must have a bad memory in addition to a preternatural aversion to honesty. You bring shame to your beliefs and any cause you claim to be a part of. You have beclowned yourself and should feel ashamed, not that I would expect you to be capable of such.

abobo on September 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Again with the BS about Romney’s healthcare statement.

From NRO

I reached out to the Romney campaign for clarification about Mitt Romney’s remarks this morning about liking some parts of Obamacare. An aide pointed out that Romney first said on Meet the Press that “I say we are going to replace Obamacare. And I am replacing it with my own plan.”

In reference to how Romney would deal with those with preexisting conditions and young adults who want to remain on their parents’ plans, a Romney aide responded that there had been no change in Romney’s position and that “in a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features.”

bluealice on September 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM

You’re telling me this isn’t referring to ObamaCare?:

“I’m not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place,” he said on NBC’s “Meet The Press

What kind of nonsense is this? That isn’t how you’d structure the comment unless you want some people to believe that you’re keeping part of ObamaCare intact. The “not getting rid of” can only refer to ObamaCare. No one can accidently be that bad at communicating.

If he has a plan, he better put out the details or we can only assume he’s keeping ObamaCare.

Buddahpundit on September 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM

I believe Romney has stated he intends to issue waivers to all states
to get out of Obamacare ….

conservative tarheel on September 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Awesome. He also says he wants to repeal; closely followed by saying he wants to ‘repeal and replace’, followed by saying that he likes part of it and want to keep parts and tweak others for his own plan…

Wow, sounds exciting, doesn’t it? Repealing Obamaca.. I mean, Tweaking Obamaca… wait, Replacing Obamaca… oh hell, when do we start calling it Romneycare at the national level, I wonder.

Midas on September 9, 2012 at 9:01 PM

I believe Romney has stated he intends to issue waivers to all states
to get out of Obamacare ….

conservative tarheel on September 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Waivers mean nothing if the state, California, New York, Washington, Illinois and so forth just keep on keeping on.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 9:01 PM

You do realize that deficit spending only took off once the last linkage between the dollar and gold was severed in 1971, right? Or were you just speaking from ignorance? You do realize that fiat currency is tachnically illegal, right? And would you deny that the Federal Reserve is THE facilitator of our debased fiat printing? Logically it would therefore follow that the Fed is THE facilitaor of the debt. Check and mate, my friend.

abobo on September 9, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Yes that’s true.

But you’re being unrealistic if you think you can change that anytime soon. Seriously.

Besides which those who are appalled at the size of our debt shouldn’t worry as much as they do–in fact they’re just using it as a cudgel. I worry about it and want something done about it, but we don’t need drastic changes. First we need growth, second we need to reduce the rate of spending increases (Obama locked in his super-sized increase which has to be reduced). That ALONE will bend the curve down and reduce the deficit and debt even though we won’t be able to ‘balance the budge’ for years. It will also placate the bond market for a while anyway. The Progressives, on the other hand, don’t think the deficit/debt issue is a problem at all. That’s a huge difference between voting Obama and voting Romney.

Besides JOBS and GROWING THE ECONOMY are more important to voters than the size of our debt. It’s emphasis, folks.

Obamacare must go. Period. If Romney wants to keep some of the aspects of it, he can write his own friggin’ bill.

Now to the social cons. The Democrats are very good at demonizing you and adding to the voting-R-yuck factor. I can respect the central role of family and STILL support gay marriage (I am not anti gay marriage, I am anti hate-filled pro-gay marriage activists). The number of gays in this country is quite small and their ability to marry will not hurt the family compared to what the liberals have already done.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Wow, sounds exciting, doesn’t it? Repealing Obamaca.. I mean, Tweaking Obamaca… wait, Replacing Obamaca… oh hell, when do we start calling it Romneycare at the national level, I wonder.

Midas on September 9, 2012 at 9:01 PM

The moment it shows its failures. Then it becomes a liability to the Republican party and a benefit for the Democrats. Like Social Security, Republicans will be singing its virtues and the need to keep it around for generations to come.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM

My guy didn’t win, but I am now a full fledged, card carrying Mittbot. And proud of it.
A fine and honorable man. We could do a lot worse.

bluealice on September 9, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Well said, I could have posted the same thought.

Think about it. The right has a ticket made up of two fine and honorable men who have wonderful families and are clearly upstanding individuals. Yet we have fifth columnists still undermining the effort because R/R isn’t socially conservative enough for them or whatever.

All I can say to this nonsense is if these individuals think that the alternative is going to be more socially conservative they will be sadly disappointed. And do any of these people really want to see Van Jones or Valarie Jarrett on the Supreme Court?

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM

If he has a plan, he better put out the details or we can only assume he’s keeping ObamaCare.

Buddahpundit on September 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM

So tired. He has said he will repeal it or at least give waivers to states to get out of it.

You can call the man a liar. I don’t think he is. He is an honorable man. He may not be your man, but that doesn’t make him less honorable.

bluealice on September 9, 2012 at 9:03 PM

You’re an idiot.

steebo77 on September 9, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Yeah, we’ll see. Let’s revisit this the day Obamacare is *repealed* and not replaced, m’kay? Until then, I’m just going with with Mitt continues to *say* he’s going to do. On the other hand, you’re ignoring what he’s saying he’s going to do.

One of those behaviors is idiotic – and it ain’t mine, nimrod.

Midas on September 9, 2012 at 9:04 PM

HHS PROGRAM TO SHIFT POOR SENIORS OUT OF MEDICARE AND INTO VOUCHER PROGRAMS

“In his convention speech in Charlotte, President Obama vowed to block the Republican Medicare reform plan because “no American should ever have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies.”

But back in Washington, his Health and Human Services Department is launching a pilot program that would shift up to 2 million of the poorest and most-vulnerable seniors out of the federal Medicare program and into private health insurance plans overseen by the states.

The administration has accepted applications from 18 states to participate in the program, which would give states money to purchase managed-care plans for people who are either disabled or poor enough to qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. HHS approved the first state plan, one for Massachusetts, last month.

http://times247.com/articles/hhs-shifting-2m-poor-seniors-into-voucher-programs

Resist We Much on September 9, 2012 at 9:04 PM

abobo on September 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Well that pretty much ensures you’ve earned your check from the Obama campaign.

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 9:04 PM

You know what my plan is for making social security solvent…

Take the current earnings of your children and grandchildren, multiply by 0.1, add in 10% of the national average income. The social security tax would be 14%. Do the math.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM

And that’s conservative how? The best plan for social security is to end it and the only feasible political way to do that is by phasing it out. But it will probably go bankrupt before that happens anyway.

bgibbs1000 on September 9, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM

THAT !!!

conservative tarheel on September 9, 2012 at 9:06 PM

1.) Huckabee
2.) Santorum
3.) Palin
4.) Jindal
5.) Gingrich
6.) Perry
7.) Bachmann

Stoic Patriot on September 9, 2012 at 8:06 PM

I like you. I might move Jindal up a little bit, and replace Bachmann with Rubio, but other than that, this list is great.

Right now, I am more interested in getting rid of welfare for the seniors.
astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 8:25 PM

sure just pay me back the 35 years I have paid into it (with interest)
and let me invest my money to take care of myself …

conservative tarheel on September 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM

My pipe dream regarding social security would be to be able to “opt out” of the program–whatever you’ve already paid into it is lost, and you’ll never receive benefits from it, but in exchange you get to stop paying into it for the rest of your career. People like you could stay in so you don’t permanently lose the huge sums of money they’ve taken from you, while my generation could get out while the getting’s good, before our prime earning years. Of course, since social security is a pyramid scheme, this will never happen–as long as it’s rigged so that you pay in more than you’ll ever get back, allowing people to opt out would destroy the entire program (as opposed to a model where you get back, on average, just as much as you put in, so it wouldn’t matter how few or how many people opted out).

Mr. Prodigy on September 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Yep, Romney wants to add another unfunded entitlement via Obamacare to our 15 trillion dollar debt. That’s why he brought Ryan on board. He’s sneaky that way.
Idiots.

lowandslow on September 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I agree that a return to the gold standard isn’t feasible in the dshort run, I never claimed to be a utopian. But small steps in the right direction is better than going in the wrong direction at a slower pace than our enemies. I never said I wouldn’t vote for Romney, just that I refuse to engage in the willful suspension of disbelief necessary to imagine he’d be anything close to a conservative president, let alone a libertarian one.

An economic reckoning is coming and won’t be denied by the power of sunny optimism. This election is about choosing how we want to deleverage – like Japan (under Romney) or like Zimbabwe (under Obama).

abobo on September 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

He is an honorable man. He may not be your man, but that doesn’t make him less honorable.

bluealice on September 9, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Doesn’t honor at some point involve telling the truth and standing for what you believe in? I ask because Romney has been on both sides of most issues and has leaped from one political position to another when it was expedient to do so. Thats not the description of an honorable man.

sharrukin on September 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Pass the buck! Push the consequences of our failures into the future. never pay the consequences for our poor choices. Always do later what needs to be done today, it will be someone else later you know.

That is always the answer!

Republicans, preconservative since 2012. Preserving the failed welfare state for generations to come.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Midas and steebo, no need to fight. Romney is doing everything he can to lose this thing, so what he would or would not do vis-a-vis Obamacare is moot. Obama will not repeal it, and that’s what we’re most likely going to get.

besser tot als rot on September 9, 2012 at 9:09 PM

And don’t forget this…..

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/11150-wayne-root-leaves-libertarian-party-backs-romney

Wayne Allyn Root, 2008 Libertarian Party’s Vice Presidential nominee and political commentator, resigned this morning from the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) to, according to his resignation letter, “elect good people and change the direction of this country outside of a third party.”

In the letter to the LNC, which is available at Independent Political Report, Root explains that his decision much is not unlike those of previous Libertarian Party presidential candidates, including Ron Paul and David Koch; both of whom left the LP to become prominent Republicans.

When I asked if he was now backing Mitt Romney, Root responded, “I am,” adding, “I don’t deny that Romney and Ryan aren’t libertarians, but Romney is a pro-business capitalist and Obama is a Marxist-socialist.”

“The economy has been trashed. This is about my kids’ future, it’s about my businesses,” said Root. “There is no hope for America if Obama is re-elected.”

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM

THIS +5000.

Myron Falwell on September 9, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Love it. Supposedly people are willing to destroy the country fiscally to ensure that in the last decade of it’s existence homos can marry.

yhxqqsn on September 9, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Mr. Prodigy on September 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

I agree … I would have loved to been able to opt out ….
but at 57 … I can not get off the ride now …
SS maybe broke before I even get there ….
BTW I do have other investments ….
because I think SS will be gone either b4 I get there or shortly
thereafter …

conservative tarheel on September 9, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Pass the buck! Push the consequences of our failures into the future. never pay the consequences for our poor choices. Always do later what needs to be done today, it will be someone else later you know.

That is always the answer!

Republicans, preconservative since 2012. Preserving the failed welfare state for generations to come.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

So your answer is to vote for the party and President that wants to INCREASE it even more?

Whatever his faults Romney is a free-market capitalist. That’s the choice we have. Period.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Now to the social cons. The Democrats are very good at demonizing you and adding to the voting-R-yuck factor. I can respect the central role of family and STILL support gay marriage (I am not anti gay marriage, I am anti hate-filled pro-gay marriage activists). The number of gays in this country is quite small and their ability to marry will not hurt the family compared to what the liberals have already done.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Homosexuals can marry any time they want to, and just like anyone else they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Now you may think you are all about liberty with your little pro homosexual marriage leanings but you are not. You are about creating a special right for a segment of the population. Last I checked the constitution there’s nothing in there that would allow for such a situation. You can frame it anyway you want but it is what it is a special right created for only one segment of the population.

bgibbs1000 on September 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM

So your answer is to vote for the party and President that wants to INCREASE it even more?

Whatever his faults Romney is a free-market capitalist. That’s the choice we have. Period.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:13 PM

yeah he wants to go off the cliff faster …. tally ho !

conservative tarheel on September 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Your lies consist of the fact that you claim that there would be a Libertarian Party if the potheads were factored out of the mix.

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 8:55 PM

So sorry to burst your bubble you knuckledragging wingnut, but there IS a libertarian party beyond the pathetic stereotype that your Limbaugh-sized mind can comprehend.

Know why? Because I was there before the libertarians let in every dope-addled doofus in an attempt to get votes. That’s mostly why I LEFT the Libertarian Party, because I am as anti-drug as they come!

MelonCollie on September 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM

An economic reckoning is coming and won’t be denied by the power of sunny optimism. This election is about choosing how we want to deleverage – like Japan (under Romney) or like Zimbabwe (under Obama).

abobo on September 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Ummmmm, the deleveraging is mostly over. It’s time for growth.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:17 PM

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 8:58 PM

True. I think that can be said of all income taxes. I’m not sure where that money goes. My take on it is that it goes to the major banks (Federal Reserve banks, but I believe they’re little more than a laundering system for international banking concerns most of us don’t even know the names of) who in turn profits off of the debt/credit they authorize the U.S. Treasury.

I’m well aware that conventional wisdom says that all of the above is not true and the the Federal Reserve Board is not a private, for profit entity. Sure, whatever.

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 9, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Um, hello – McFly? He’s been saying this since day one.

Midas on September 9, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Holy WTF this pisses me off.

Midas on September 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Fluk you; read the quotes, dumbass:

Midas on September 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

One of those behaviors is idiotic – and it ain’t mine, nimrod.

Midas on September 9, 2012 at 9:04 PM

With language like that, you’re bound to go far.

Myron Falwell on September 9, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Rand Paul is just pissing in a whirlwind.

The RINO Rockefeller/Bush leadership of the gop is not going anywhere. When John Boehner snuffed out the Tea Party in early 2011 and then he and McConnell just decided to sit on their hands and keep the troops quiet what did that accomplish? What that did signal was the party is under control and that’s just the way it is.

You Tea Party folks better get used to it, the gop leadership despises you and all you stand for. Mitt Romneys’ walkback on Obamacare today is just the beginning. This party isn’t going anything but Bush RINOism. Gird your loins and get ready it’s McCain 2008 all over again.

Viva 2016!!!

PappyD61 on September 9, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Obama-Biden 2012
The Expressway To The Third World
Last Chance To Get Off, November 6

VorDaj on September 9, 2012 at 9:09 PM

true statement

conservative tarheel on September 9, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Homosexuals can marry any time they want to, and just like anyone else they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Now you may think you are all about liberty with your little pro homosexual marriage leanings but you are not. You are about creating a special right for a segment of the population. Last I checked the constitution there’s nothing in there that would allow for such a situation. You can frame it anyway you want but it is what it is a special right created for only one segment of the population.

bgibbs1000 on September 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Marriage is a privilege granted by the State. It’s not a right.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Rand Paul is just pissing in a whirlwind.

PappyD61 on September 9, 2012 at 9:19 PM

As opposed to people like you, who are able to tame the wind and waves by saying “peace – be still.” Oh wait…

MelonCollie on September 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Marriage is a privilege granted by the State. It’s not a right.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:20 PM

That’s ten tons of horsecr@p. The tax benefits of marriage are bestowed by the State. But the institution of marriage was ordained by God Himself.

MelonCollie on September 9, 2012 at 9:22 PM

When did HotAir become overrun by statists like Nomad?

Let’s face it – you’re not at all concerned with fiscal responsibility and all about making sure that the government carefully controls things that you or your sky wizard god think are icky.

You’re a theocrat without the balls to admit it, and we’d be better off if you went to the party that favors big government.

MiniShrike on September 9, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Wait, MItt Romneycare said that he likes parts of Romneycare?

I’m shocked. its like his whole campaign is built upon a big lie

james23 on September 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Whatever his faults Romney is a free-market capitalist. That’s the choice we have. Period.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:13 PM

I wish that was the case. Sure, Romney used the free market to make himself wealthy, an admirable accomplishment, but his governance has shown more of a top-down, statism. Makes sense for a CEO to be a man with a plan and want to implement it, but that doesn’t result in more individual freedom and responsibility.

besser tot als rot on September 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM

You can call the man a liar. I don’t think he is. He is an honorable man. He may not be your man, but that doesn’t make him less honorable.

bluealice on September 9, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Hey, I can read their words. They are putting out mixed messages. Republicans don’t get to do this and get away with it. Who are the gatekeepers?

Buddahpundit on September 9, 2012 at 9:24 PM

MelonCollie on September 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Your unwarranted insults aside- I have very long legs and good posture, my knuckles do not drag. Thank you for proving my point. Libertarians are essentially pro-legalization of drugs. All of the principles behind the movement have been hijacked by potheads like abobo.

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 9:27 PM

And that’s conservative how? The best plan for social security is to end it and the only feasible political way to do that is by phasing it out. But it will probably go bankrupt before that happens anyway.

bgibbs1000 on September 9, 2012 at 9:04 PM

it is conservative because the real cost of the program will be born by those receiving it. The children are who supports the seniors. If you chose not to have any children, you would have effectively nothing but a tiny tiny bit barely able to buy a loaf of bread a couple times a week.

The better parent you are, the more kids you have, the more they earn, the more kids they have and the more their kids earns the better your safety net. That is the conservative principle.

Social security would no longer be paid by other people’s children, but your own.

Of course, people would realize why filter it through the government and why not just have their own children be their safety net.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Homosexuals can marry any time they want to, and just like anyone else they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Now you may think you are all about liberty with your little pro homosexual marriage leanings but you are not. You are about creating a special right for a segment of the population. Last I checked the constitution there’s nothing in there that would allow for such a situation. You can frame it anyway you want but it is what it is a special right created for only one segment of the population.
bgibbs1000 on September 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Marriage is a privilege granted by the State. It’s not a right.
MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Actually, it is legal for gays to marry. Nobody is stopping them. The federal and some state governments do not recognize the union, however. For some people, other peoples and the governments affirmation of heir life choices is just so important. It’s pathetic really.

besser tot als rot on September 9, 2012 at 9:28 PM

I wish that was the case. Sure, Romney used the free market to make himself wealthy, an admirable accomplishment, but his governance has shown more of a top-down, statism. Makes sense for a CEO to be a man with a plan and want to implement it, but that doesn’t result in more individual freedom and responsibility.

besser tot als rot on September 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM

He’s not a statist. Levin (who is supporting Mitt) described him as a ‘corporatist‘ once, and the title does fit.

The term statist should apply to hardcore socialists with no respect for capitalism or freedom. Not for Mitt.

Myron Falwell on September 9, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Yep, Romney wants to add another unfunded entitlement via Obamacare to our 15 trillion dollar debt. That’s why he brought Ryan on board. He’s sneaky that way.
Idiots.

lowandslow on September 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Bingo!

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Marriage is a privilege granted by the State. It’s not a right.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:20 PM

And where in my response did I say marriage as it exist now is a right? I did not now did I. What I said is homosexual marriage would create a special right for one segment of the population. And that’s exactly what it would do. You are making my argument for me.

bgibbs1000 on September 9, 2012 at 9:30 PM

A libertarian would be justified in voting for Johnson this election with the deliberate hope of Romney losing and thus forcing the Republicans to make a more serious effort in satisfying libertarian agendas next time.

Even though Obammy is crap, most libertarians see Romney as similarly if not equally crap. Libertarians will probably coalesce to about 25-33% of the electorate eventually, whoever wants to win might want to start taking them seriously. And libertarians like results, not empty pandering. That’s what sets them aside for a typical R or D voter.

Daikokuco on September 9, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Marriage is a privilege granted by the State. It’s not a right.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:20 PM

That’s ten tons of horsecr@p. The tax benefits of marriage are bestowed by the State. But the institution of marriage was ordained by God Himself.

MelonCollie on September 9, 2012 at 9:22 PM

The union was ordained by God. Marriage can take place outside the church.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Yep, Romney wants to add another unfunded entitlement via Obamacare to our 15 trillion dollar debt. That’s why he brought Ryan on board. He’s sneaky that way.
Idiots.

lowandslow on September 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

isn’t Ryan the architect of the plan that ensures the entitlement welfare state can continue for generations while in perpetual deficit spending?

Thought so.

Idiots!

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 9:36 PM

My personal strategy to turn Democratic stronghold Republican is simple. I am gay vegetarian. I took up the obscure circus art of slacklining. I go slackining with young Obama supporters in the park and talk about how awesome Romney is. If there were only another 10,000 people like me, Romney would cruise to victory.

thuja on September 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM

A libertarian would be justified in voting for Johnson this election with the deliberate hope of Romney losing and thus forcing the Republicans to make a more serious effort in satisfying libertarian agendas next time.

Daikokuco on September 9, 2012 at 9:32 PM

What makes you think that any of the libertarian values will be attainable after another four years of Obama’s socialism? If the rat-eared bastard wins, it will be decades (if ever) before libertarians are any more relevant than was Lyndon Larouche.

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Libertarians are essentially pro-legalization of drugs. All of the principles behind the movement have been hijacked by potheads like abobo.
Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 9:27 PM</

I do not agree with you on this, that one person's anecdote "proves" a broad baseless generalization, that the problem with Romney is that he's not socially coservative, or pretty much anything else that you’ve said. As far as pot is concerned, it doesn’t concern me much at all except that Prohibiton of alcohol was clearly a disaster, and the Prohibition of pot appears to have produced similarly disastrous results.

besser tot als rot on September 9, 2012 at 9:39 PM

A libertarian would be justified in voting for Johnson this election with the deliberate hope of Romney losing and thus forcing the Republicans to make a more serious effort in satisfying libertarian agendas next time.

If it’s going to be so hard to get rid of Obamacare even though it hasn’t been fully implemented yet, four years more of Obama will make it even worse.

Even though Obammy is crap, most libertarians see Romney as similarly if not equally crap.

LOL You’ll certainly win people to your side with that attitude.

Libertarians will probably coalesce to about 25-33% of the electorate eventually, whoever wants to win might want to start taking them seriously. And libertarians like results, not empty pandering. That’s what sets them aside for a typical R or D voter.

Daikokuco on September 9, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Good luck. Grow up first and try to understand what rhetoric is and how it affects people you’re trying to win over.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM

What makes you think that any of the libertarian values will be attainable after another four years of Obama’s socialism? If the rat-eared bastard wins, it will be decades (if ever) before libertarians are any more relevant than was Lyndon Larouche.

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 9:38 PM

So they are unattainable. But how is that any different from Romney? He is an economic populist protectionist proud subsidizer market manipulating crony capitalist. He is an anti-gun, global warming monger. He wants to increase military spending, continue the drug war, and refuses to cut medicare. He isn’t even coming around with some kind of national Right to Work law. Why the hell should libertarians vote for that?

Daikokuco on September 9, 2012 at 9:42 PM

The term statist should apply to hardcore socialists with no respect for capitalism or freedom. Not for Mitt.
Myron Falwell on September 9, 2012 at 9:29 PM

I don’t agree. A statist is someone who believes in and uses the state to produce and manage “solutions.” that’s what Romney did in MA. And it seems to be his unscripted tendency in his bid for President.

besser tot als rot on September 9, 2012 at 9:43 PM

I don’t agree. A statist is someone who believes in and uses the state to produce and manage “solutions.” that’s what Romney did in MA. And it seems to be his unscripted tendency in his bid for President.

besser tot als rot on September 9, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Seconded, well said.

Daikokuco on September 9, 2012 at 9:45 PM

And where in my response did I say marriage as it exist now is a right? I did not now did I. What I said is homosexual marriage would create a special right for one segment of the population. And that’s exactly what it would do. You are making my argument for me.

bgibbs1000 on September 9, 2012 at 9:30 PM

No, it would merely extend the privilege to couples of the same sex.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:45 PM

I go slackining with young Obama supporters in the park and talk about how awesome Romney is. If there were only another 10,000 people like me, Romney would cruise to victory.

thuja on September 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM

A patriot.

Carry on.. and be careful out there

bluealice on September 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM

No, it would merely extend the privilege to couples of the same sex.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:45 PM

And that is a state issue, not a Federal one.

bgibbs1000 on September 9, 2012 at 9:47 PM

If there were only another 10,000 people like me, Romney would cruise to victory.

thuja on September 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM

I don’t think there are that many votes among those who slackline but I get your point. Romney supporters should go out and “evangelize” among their liberal contacts. In short, Romney supporters should not be afraid to express that support.

My neice was baptized this morning. The reception afterward was at my sister-in-laws parent’s home. The neighborhood here in Virginia was filled with Romney yard signs and not one for the rat-eared bastard. That says something. People want to express their support of Romney while Dems cower behind pathetic “2012″ signage that doesn’t include Obama.

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Romney would do well to internalize this:

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’
Ronald Reagan

besser tot als rot on September 9, 2012 at 9:48 PM

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 9:27 PM

and suppose your kids think your a dick and won’t pay to support you …

conservative tarheel on September 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

So they are unattainable. But how is that any different from Romney? He is an economic populist protectionist proud subsidizer market manipulating crony capitalist. He is an anti-gun, global warming monger. He wants to increase military spending, continue the drug war, and refuses to cut medicare. He isn’t even coming around with some kind of national Right to Work law. Why the hell should libertarians vote for that?

Daikokuco on September 9, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Get your facts straight before you spout off like the idiot you are…

No evidence he’s anti-gun. If he were a global warming monger he wouldn’t be advocating increases in CO2 producing energy sources. He wants to be smart about military spending. I have no idea about his position on the drug war but Ryan is against federal interference in states’ right to legalize medical marijuana. Actually Romney IS a federalist too.

Refuses to cut medicare? He’s doing means testing on Medicare and increasing the age for retirement.

As for a right-to-work law I think that’s up to the states as well.

So libertarians are anti-federalist? I didn’t know that.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

He wants to increase military spending, continue the drug war, and refuses to cut medicare. He isn’t even coming around with some kind of national Right to Work law. Why the hell should libertarians vote for that?

Daikokuco on September 9, 2012 at 9:42 PM

You will have to prove these claims before I respond.

Light up another reefer and think about that before responding you worthless pothead.

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

and suppose your kids think your a dick and won’t pay to support you …

conservative tarheel on September 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

I want to get rid of SS, but if there is going to be one…

If they did not think I deserved it… then they would vote away the Social Security supporting politicians, mission accomplished.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Light up another reefer and think about that before responding you worthless pothead.

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

The Obamafication is strong in this one.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 9:55 PM

As for a right-to-work law I think that’s up to the states as well.

So libertarians are anti-federalist? I didn’t know that.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Some are simply anti-statist and do not value a statist local government any more than they do a national one. In that case they will back whichever side advances more liberty. Or neither side, if neither is doing anything to advance liberty. A solid case could be made that the Obama-Romney matchup is such a choice.

Daikokuco on September 9, 2012 at 9:55 PM

He wants to increase military spending, continue the drug war, and refuses to cut medicare…

You will have to prove these claims before I respond.

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

You do know that two out of those three are solidly right-wing positions? Or are you saying you don’t think he’d do any of those?

MelonCollie on September 9, 2012 at 9:56 PM

The god squad will guarantee a loss for the GOP.

Thanks statists.

MiniShrike on September 9, 2012 at 9:57 PM

The Obamafication is strong in this one.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Nevermind the fact that he’s projecting to the point you could plug a DVD player into the back of his noggin, point his eyeballs at a pull-down screen and watch your favorite movie in HD.

MelonCollie on September 9, 2012 at 9:58 PM

I don’t agree. A statist is someone who believes in and uses the state to produce and manage “solutions.” that’s what Romney did in MA. And it seems to be his unscripted tendency in his bid for President.

besser tot als rot on September 9, 2012 at 9:43 PM

You’re ignoring federalism. States are free to do pretty much whatever they want (within certain limits vis-a-vis bill of rights), the federal government not so much. Though Obama is succeeding in doing it anyway.

So free markets and federalism vs federal central control.

Hmmmmmmm which one, which one.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:58 PM

A solid case could be made that the Obama-Romney matchup is such a choice.

Daikokuco on September 9, 2012 at 9:55 PM

I’m no libertarian and I say it is such a case. It is a lose lose proposition. We either suffer with obama for 4 years and the consequences of that along with the discredit to progressive policy that comes with it. or we live with a slightly better Romney who goes on to discredit conservatism and the consequences (i think are greater) that comes with that.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 9:58 PM

You’re ignoring federalism

You’re ignoring the Constitution.

States are not in fact free to do “pretty much whatever they want.”

MiniShrike on September 9, 2012 at 10:01 PM

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 9:58 PM

…..

Here’s a thought. You have about 5-6 ideas that you have shared in you long tenure here at HA. You simply just restate them as if they are new. Why don’t you just copy and paste your thoughts from your noted pad as it would take you less time. Maybe then you could spend the rest of your time reading and that might actually provide you with an original opinion.

CW on September 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Damn son, you’re still at it? This is what Allahpundit would ironically refer to as “winning friends and influencing people.” Idiots like you deserve Romney and every liberal thing he’s going to do in your name. And I definitely will not hesitate to laugh at you when you try in vain to convince people four years from now that he’s was an aberration unrepresentative of your party that you had nothing to do with.

abobo on September 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Some are simply anti-statist and do not value a statist local government any more than they do a national one. In that case they will back whichever side advances more liberty. Or neither side, if neither is doing anything to advance liberty. A solid case could be made that the Obama-Romney matchup is such a choice.

Daikokuco on September 9, 2012 at 9:55 PM

A case could be made, but not a solid one. AFAIC it’s federalism vs central-control. And thus Romney is more pro-liberty than Obama.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Romney receiving the nomination is why I switched parties to Libertarian.

Indian Outlaw on September 9, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Romney receiving the nomination is why I will never join a party, ever. My only loyalty is to freedom, liberty and the American way, which is what both parties, including governor Romney, have worked together destroying all these years at the behest of their cronies.

America is no longer a free nation, it is an oligarchy.

Country before party, always.

FloatingRock on September 9, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Here’s a thought. You have about 5-6 ideas that you have shared in you long tenure here at HA. You simply just restate them as if they are new. Why don’t you just copy and paste your thoughts from your noted pad as it would take you less time. Maybe then you could spend the rest of your time reading and that might actually provide you with an original opinion.

CW on September 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

That is what obamifed people such as yourself do. Because your thoughts and ideas are immutable, unless your godlike leader tells you to change them. I learn and add information, and as such, the final result of those ideas will be different. The core reasoning will not change, but the conclusion might.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 10:09 PM

No, it would merely extend the privilege to couples of the same sex.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:45 PM

And that is a state issue, not a Federal one.

bgibbs1000 on September 9, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I agree.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 10:10 PM

and snubbing conservatives in favor of his libertine libertarian buddies really irks me…

You had it right the first time. And yes, I know you know that.

For those who asked the question about being socially conservative, it is a valid question, but it means very much more, while also less, than simply being pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. It means honoring the founding principles of this nation. Now, the libertarian will say fine, that means maximum freedom and minimum government, approaching no government. But is that what they crafted in 1789? It was not. Liberty is a bit more complex than keeping government out of everything, because that is akin to anarchy.

Look at what many at the DNC wished to deny. God’s existence referenced as a source of this nation’s greatness. We must start there, and there is where the hardcore libertarians usually bolt, because very many of them are athiests. Not all, but many.

If our freedoms, our rights, and our principles for living do not descend from the Almighty, then they are man-made and subject to revision at any time, for any reason, and will always be built upon shifting sands. Believing that our rights are created by the Constitution is a massive error. That remarkable document says no such thing; rather it recognizes and guarantees those rights, which are already in our possession as living beings. Again, without a source from which those rights are derived, there are no absolutes. And without any absolutes, everything goes. That’s where we’ve been headed for the last 90 years; sometimes slower, sometimes quicker, but inexorably toward such an end, and if a large enough group doesn’t take a firm stand, the “end” is at hand, for this nation to ever think of itself as great.

Obama is not the enemy. He is a symptom. The enemy is moral decay. Refuse to believe it if you wish, but take a long, careful look around you first. When even those on the “Right” label social conservatives as nutballs, the end is very near indeed.

Freelancer on September 9, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Libertarians crack me up.

First, they’ll pound their chests proclaiming loudly that there is no difference between the GOP and democrat party.

Then, in their next breath, they demand that the GOP adopt the entire democrat party social platform, or they’ll withhold their votes – votes that never got the libertarian party over 0.5% of the popular vote in their entire 40 year history.

Funny how that works.

Rebar on September 9, 2012 at 10:11 PM

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 10:09 PM

I think you would be better off, more suited to, and more talented at writing science fiction than commenting at hotair. And I don’t mean that as an insult.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Rebar on September 9, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Funny what passes for a fact in your world.

abobo on September 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Obama is not the enemy. He is a symptom. The enemy is moral decay. Refuse to believe it if you wish, but take a long, careful look around you first. When even those on the “Right” label social conservatives as nutballs, the end is very near indeed.

Freelancer on September 9, 2012 at 10:10 PM

So too is Romney as the standard bearer of the Republican, the once conservative now preservative, party.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 10:14 PM

I think you would be better off, more suited to, and more talented at writing science fiction than commenting at hotair. And I don’t mean that as an insult.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

My grammar sucks. I would never make a good author. it just never was something I was concerned with.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Funny what passes for a fact in your world.

abobo on September 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Here are some facts: the GOP is never going to get on board the gay marriage train, it’s never going to back drug legalization, and it’s never going to approve of abortion on demand.

In your world you think the tiny but very vocal libertarians are going to push these issues past the majority of republicans who are social conservatives, but in this one – the one I live in – not so much.

Rebar on September 9, 2012 at 10:19 PM

I don’t think there are that many votes among those who slackline but I get your point. Romney supporters should go out and “evangelize” among their liberal contacts. In short, Romney supporters should not be afraid to express that support.

My neice was baptized this morning. The reception afterward was at my sister-in-laws parent’s home. The neighborhood here in Virginia was filled with Romney yard signs and not one for the rat-eared bastard. That says something. People want to express their support of Romney while Dems cower behind pathetic “2012″ signage that doesn’t include Obama.

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2012 at 9:48 PM

I’m happy for your niece. I think my point was two fold. The first is that we should not be afraid to speak out. The second is that we need to socialize with the left on terms they understand and that does require some openness. This can be hard. I went to a synagogue yesterday–for religion not politics. But we ended up talking about politics, but the leftism was too pervasive for any serious argument against the social justice faith.

thuja on September 9, 2012 at 10:21 PM

If it’s going to be so hard to get rid of Obamacare even though it hasn’t been fully implemented yet, four years more of Obama will make it even worse. MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM

When the USA’s full faith and credit is worthless and no one will buy your bonds it’s all over but the shouting. Obamacare too.

Watch Greece. I doubt very much that the world will spend 1/10 the time worrying US that we do fretting over Greece.

old school on September 9, 2012 at 10:28 PM

In your world you think the tiny but very vocal libertarians are going to push these issues past the majority of republicans who are social conservatives, but in this one – the one I live in – not so much.

Rebar on September 9, 2012 at 10:19 PM

I’m under no such illusion, and the only people pushing things past social conservatives are the GOP establishment who view you guys the way a snake oil salesman does his rube customers. I’m not the one who pulled that sh!t against the state delegates, or back tracking on a specific convention promise to repeal obamacare, or promoting global warming. That’s your man, Romney, pushing those things past the true conservatives, or do such facts not exist in “your” world.

abobo on September 9, 2012 at 10:28 PM

That’s your man, Romney, pushing those things past the true conservatives, or do such facts not exist in “your” world.

abobo on September 9, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Romney was not the choice of the conservatives, in fact none of the candidates qualified as conservatives.

What I find ironic, is that you’re much more likely to get your liberal social agenda past the guy whom you hold in such contempt – Romney – than any of the folks we conservatives were looking for – Palin or DeMint.

Rebar on September 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Obama is not the enemy. He is a symptom. The enemy is moral decay. Refuse to believe it if you wish, but take a long, careful look around you first. When even those on the “Right” label social conservatives as nutballs, the end is very near indeed.

Freelancer on September 9, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Well, I don’t think social cons are nutballs. I may disagree here and there but I respect the views irrespective. And I agree with much more than I disagree.

Which is why the most frightening thing to me was Justice Roberts naive decision that the voters are wise enough to understand the choice before them.

MaggiePoo on September 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM

I can not tell you. As a leftist? It gives me enormous pleasure that so many Republicans haven’t figure out how easy it would be for them to win national elections if they allowed for a strong libertarian wing to exist in particular states. Yes social conservative ideals wouldn’t get those folks votes, but you’d have your way on every other issue.

libfreeordie on September 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3