Mr. Paul seemed amused by the incongruity of his appearance here and grinned as he discussed his reasons for accepting the school’s invitation.... “I see it as a way to attract new people to the party”.... The point of his visit, he said, was “hopefully showing that the message of a Republican with a libertarian twist may well be acceptable to people, even in Berkeley.”
१९ मार्च, २०१४
Rand Paul at Berkeley on "The N.S.A. vs. Your Privacy."
"He seemed at ease, reclining in a chair on stage as he answered questions... Wearing baggy bluejeans, an oxford shirt with a red tie and cowboy boots...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३९ टिप्पण्या:
I spoke with a friend in Oakland about this and he said the campus shouldn't be mistaken with the town. He had just been on the phone with another friend who was railing about it.
Whether Paul gets any traction on this I don't know but I giving credit for trying and for trying to go outside the RNC bubble.
Baggie blue jeans? Mom jeans!
I spoke with a friend in Oakland about this and he said the campus shouldn't be mistaken with the town. He had just been on the phone with another friend who was railing about it.
Hilarious! That is some source you have there. The campus is smack in the middle of town and anyone can walk from the town onto campus and they do, especially for political visitors. I guarantee if Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin was there it would have been totally different.
The New York Times is SO fucking provincial. They report on Republicans as if they were from some other planet; and not as if they are normal human beings who compose about half the country.
Fisking this article would be fun and insightful if I didn't have better things to do with my life today.
Hmmm, wasn't one of the resident leftists - somefeller or garage - gloating a few days ago about how he thought Paul would be received at Berkeley? He expected Paul would be shouted down and screamed at - and was actually proud of the left's usual method of silencing anybody with non-PC opinions. Instead Paul got a standing ovation. Talking about freedom. Dear me, you can't count on even Berkeley kids to enforce the Party Line these days.
Scott said...
The New York Times is SO fucking provincial. They report on Republicans as if they were from some other planet; and not as if they are normal human beings who compose about half the country.
Some people refer to this as the Republicans in the Mist style of reporting. It's the same stupid mindset that causes liberals to write books like What's the Matter with Kansas?. They simply can't comprehend anyone who disagrees with their worldview.
Well, we need some millions to find out every detail of everything Obama's father said and did.
We need to bury the details that don't make Obama's dad look bad.
And respond whenever Rand is attacked through Ron "Of course, you realize the current president's father said/did/killed and that wasn't a problem for Obama so I fail to see how connecting relatives to the candidate here would reveal anything worthy. I see you attacking the idea of a person being able to define themselves as their own person, which is dehumanizing and incredibly tribal.
How sickening you freak."
Berkeley students break the mindless "No enemies on the left" rule.
Heh. good.
@Larry J
"Some people refer to this as the Republicans in the Mist style of reporting."
That's funny! I have to steal that from you. :)
exiledonmainst said...
Hmmm, wasn't one of the resident leftists - somefeller or garage - gloating a few days ago about how he thought Paul would be received at Berkeley? He expected Paul would be shouted down and screamed at - and was actually proud of the left's usual method of silencing anybody with non-PC opinions. Instead Paul got a standing ovation.ff
Yes, this is how the party of self-proclaimed open-mindedness, inclusion, diversity and intelligence treats anyone who disagrees with groupthink. They're rather similar to a bunch of chimps throwing feces when the get upset.
Maybe he has something there. One of Obama's main constituencies has been the youth vote. He got it for a couple of reasons, one of which was that he was younger and hipper than his opponents. How could he not be, when McCain is a grouchy old former Navy Captain, and Romney was a straight laced Mormon with a lot of straight laced Mormon kids?
Article yesterday or so pointing out that this is the demographic essential for the Dems success that is the least loyal. Votes of Blacks, Hispanics, Feminazis, unionized govt workers, environmental wackos, and takers in general, are bought and paid for, esp in recent years by them. But the Millenials have little loyalty to any one and any thing, yet are the demographic screwed worst by Obama and the Dems. They should be ripe for being wooed, but an appeal by old white conservative males isn't going to work. One from an independent libertarian, of sorts, might.
Remember, he only needs to be cooler than whomever the Dems run, and right now, most likely is an old white woman who hasn't driven in over 20 years, and got where she is politically by sticking with her famously philandering husband. She may not have been Arkansas trailer trash, but that is what she married and stuck with. How cool is that? Her primary opponent so far seems to be an old white man who has always had a weak grip on reality, but has gotten worse as senility has set in. Imagine them voting for their crazy great uncle.
This is the thing that is so intriguing about Rand Paul here - part of his message is likely quite intriguing and attractive to many young voters. A generation screwed to the wall by Dems and their big govt, top down, solutions, may be vulnerable to the libertarian message.
"A generation screwed to the wall by Dems and their big govt, top down, solutions, may be vulnerable to the libertarian message."
Stockholm syndrome no doubt.
sane_voter,
"Hilarious! That is some source you have there. The campus is smack in the middle of town and anyone can walk from the town onto campus and they do, especially for political visitors. I guarantee if Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin was there it would have been totally different."
Actually, my source is great, and what he says is sound:
The campus is made up of people from across the country.
He's lived there his whole life, and is widely respected - things change. Not everyone wants to go on campus to protest anymore when they know that's the case.
Call it maturity.
But no, the NSA story is hot - I think pointless - but hot. And Paul's "no social issues" positioning is deceptive.
Good for him - he slid on his belly and didn't get caught.
He will:
The Right has a habit,...
Hmmm, wasn't one of the resident leftists - somefeller or garage - gloating a few days ago about how he thought Paul would be received at Berkeley?
You're too lazy to click the tag and look? Nice.
I am somewhat somewhat heartened by this. Dems have owned the youth vote for almost as long as I can remember, back to JFK and Camelot. Part of it is the allure of Utopia. As this fades, and reality intervenes, many tend to move to the right (unless they manage to stay in academia).
But one of the fundamental problems that the Dems have is that they are more hierarchical than the Reps, more top down, in keeping with their beliefs in central planning, etc. And one of the results of that is a much weaker bench at the national level. They just don't have that many dynamic politicians in their 40s and early 50s on the national scene with national appeal. They have Botox Pelosi in the House and Dirty Harry Reid in the Senate, backed up by slimy Chuckie Schumer. They don't have Rand Paul, Cruz, Rubio, and Lee setting policy in the Senate, or Palin, Jindel, Christie, etc in the governors' mansions. Which may be one reason their only successful Presidential candidates over the last 40 years have been politicians little known by the rest of the country before running for President. They just don't have much of a national bench, as it is filled by geriatric lifers who often have to be hauled out in a hearse.
Excellent points, Bruce.
Bruce Hayden,
"Their only successful Presidential candidates over the last 40 years have been politicians little known by the rest of the country before running for President."
Which I would characterize as the Anybody But A Republican vote - Buckley's "phone book" come to life - something many of you, defiantly, overlook. Which is why Republicans get overlooked:
What's Wrong With The Right & What It Could Be Doing
It was Crack who claimed Paul would receive a hostile reception. Which might be why he's trying to cover his ass now.
I agree with Bruce Hayden. I'm skeptical of Paul as a presidential candidate, on the grounds that I'd like someone with executive experience, but the way he's been campaigning (yes, I'm going to call it that already) is very interesting. I like it.
@ Bruce.
This is spot on...
Article yesterday or so pointing out that this is the demographic essential for the Dems success that is the least loyal. Votes of Blacks, Hispanics, Feminazis, unionized govt workers, environmental wackos, and takers in general, are bought and paid for, esp in recent years by them. But the Millenials have little loyalty to any one and any thing, yet are the demographic screwed worst by Obama and the Dems. They should be ripe for being wooed, but an appeal by old white conservative males isn't going to work. One from an independent libertarian, of sorts, might.
People dismiss Rand at their own risk. He would be an outstanding President.
Lefties going after Paul should note that this was their position when it was Bush, and Obama has gone far further than Bush did.
That being said, Paul is actually wrong on this. There needs to be an NSA program that monitors the type of stuff that the NSA program monitors.
Gathering of data is different tahan searching through the data, its just allowing you to do a more thorough search. And if you aren't monitoring people's phone calls but just the records of who called whom its perfectly valid.
And so, Paul's suggestion that its the death of privacy as we know it is a bit of hyperbole. He cant actually find the abuse, he just argues that there is the potential for abuse. And there is. But if you use technology there is always the potential to abuse the technology. And the govt is not going to be less tech savvy than Google or some startup Internet company.
I like Paul and would financially support him. Cruz is my first choice, but I will take either.
By the time President Obama enters the middle of his 7th year, enough of his accomplishments *cough* will have been exposed that our beloved Millennials will have their eyes wide open (and mouths agape).
If Rand wants my vote he needs to not take the lefty position on surveillance. He can say that he will mend the program but not end it. If there is a potential for abuse he will add more safeguards to deal with said abuse. Coming from him it would make a lot of the libertarians trust that govts isn't abusing their trust.
If, though, he says he's going to do away with it completely he better have something else to put in place that can do a similar job of monitoring activity we want to monitor. Otherwise, it will be on him, if something bad were to happen.
The Cracker Emcee said...
It was Crack who claimed Paul would receive a hostile reception. Which might be why he's trying to cover his ass now.
Rand Paul also said “Remember Domino’s [the pizza chain] finally admitted they had bad crust? I think the Republican Party finally admitted it. OK, bad crust, we need a different kind of party.”
I'd say I've seen more ass-covering here, on THAT issue, than I'll EVER have to make up for,...
I think a pro-privacy Republican opposed to military adventurism could attract a lot of votes away from the Democrats. The question is whether such a person could ever be nominated by Republicans in the first place.
If Rand wants my vote he needs to not take the lefty position on surveillance. He can say that he will mend the program but not end it. If there is a potential for abuse he will add more safeguards to deal with said abuse. Coming from him it would make a lot of the libertarians trust that govts isn't abusing their trust.
At this point, they have proven that we cannot trust them. Period.
You cannot make safeguards for a group that has a track record of ignoring them and lying about it.
Big Brother is measures worse than terrorists.
If, though, he says he's going to do away with it completely he better have something else to put in place that can do a similar job of monitoring activity we want to monitor. Otherwise, it will be on him, if something bad were to happen.
The problem you have is that people who have conspiracy theories have, sadly, had them proven true.
There is a fundamental lack of trust and that is solely the fault of the NSA.
Back on Republicans and the youth vote, both Pauls seem to bypass both the inherent media-fueled distrust of Republicans by younger voters (in part by being so out in front on a number of issues that most draw youth attention) and bypasses the inherent Republican urge to play it safe to the point of boredom when speaking to any potentially hostile crowd.
I don't completely agree with the positions of either Paul, but I believe both represent a necessary trend if we are to break away from the current systemic flaws in American governance.
jr565 said...
Lefties going after Paul should note that this was their position when it was Bush, and Obama has gone far further than Bush did.
That being said, Paul is actually wrong on this. There needs to be an NSA program that monitors the type of stuff that the NSA program monitors.
Gathering of data is different tahan searching through the data, its just allowing you to do a more thorough search. And if you aren't monitoring people's phone calls but just the records of who called whom its perfectly valid.
Even an analysis of metadata can reviel a great deal of information about someone. Are we to believe that the career government employees who work at the NSA are any less partisan hacks than the career government employees who work at the IRS, EPA, DoJ, etc.? I see no evidence to support such a belief and especially under Obama with a corrupt attorney general, much evidence to suggest that power will be abused for political purposes.
He can say that he will mend the program but not end it. If there is a potential for abuse he will add more safeguards to deal with said abuse. Coming from him it would make a lot of the libertarians trust that govts isn't abusing their trust.
Libertarians don't follow the left-wing/right-wing "find a Great Man and follow him anywhere" model of politics. If Rand Paul assured the public that the program was safe, the reaction from libertarians would be "Paul has sold out to the GOP establishment", not "oh, ok then, nothing to worry about here".
Anyone who thinks the government can be trusted to not abuse its power is guilty of magical thinking. The only "safeguard" that works is transparency. You cannot limit the power of government by getting government to promise not to misbehave.
Anyone who thinks the government can be trusted to not abuse its power is guilty of magical thinking. The only "safeguard" that works is transparency. You cannot limit the power of government by getting government to promise not to misbehave.
BINGO! That is exactly why smaller is better. Smaller in size, smaller in scope and smaller in effect. The framers knew this and tried to rain it in but people still managed to screw it up and like a rolling stone, every day it is harder and harder to get things back to the way they were intended to be.
Revenant, granting a kernel of truth to your fear, you do understand that we need that kind of information to do national security business, don't you? Or at least you understand the arguments pro, so I don't have to repeat them? The time of "Gentlemen do not read other people's mail" is gone.
Anyone who thinks the government can be trusted to not abuse its power is guilty of magical thinking. The only "safeguard" that works is transparency. You cannot limit the power of government by getting government to promise not to misbehave.
The ONLY surprising part is how easily and happily the government will do the bidding of the highest bidder.
Paul better stick with the NSA issue, because it's all he's got:
Rand Paul Will Not Run 4 President & Crack's Colorblind
The whole Paul Ryan is a racist, is itself just the code words and bell whistles of the lefts attacks on conservatives.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/paul-ryan-not-a-racist-104833.html?hp=l1#.Uyucm9y28fl
Rather than address issues, it's play the race card. Why is it that if they are supposed whistles and codes the dems are always the ones hearing them?
Revenant, granting a kernel of truth to your fear, you do understand that we need that kind of information to do national security business, don't you?
I understand that defenders of the NSA repeatedly make that claim and ask us to take it on faith.
Do I believe it? Nope, not in the slightest.
The time of "Gentlemen do not read other people's mail" is gone.
Feel free to give the government permission to read your mail. They do not have permission to read mine.
The question is whether it's worth the time to try to educate/convince you or whether your ignorance is invincible and the thing to do is just ignore you. Can't reason someone out of something he wasn't reasoned into.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा