Liberty MavenRand Paul talks Family, Founders, and Politics with Liberty Maven
August 19th, 2009 8:15 am | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Activism, Big Government, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Election, Gun Control, Health Care, History, Internet Regulation, Rand Paul Interview | 11 Responses
Rand Paul was kind enough to participate in an email interview with us earlier this week. Tomorrow he celebrates his father’s birthday with a money bomb of his own. Organized by grass roots supporters and dubbed the “Run Rand Run” money bomb, it aims to raise $1 million for his Senate campaign.
Pledge to donate now! Then be sure to DONATE on August 20th.
Yesterday a new scientific poll was released showing that Rand Paul trails the establishment GOP candidate by only 11 percentage points. Rand showed up with 26% to Trey Grayson’s 37%. This is a very strong showing for an anti-establishment candidate challenging a career politician. There are still 9 months to go before the May 2010 GOP primary in Kentucky. This poll proves the viability of Paul. Grayson now has to prepare himself for a dogfight. A lot can happen in 9 months.
Here is our short interview with Rand Paul from earlier this week.
LM: Starting off with a bit of a personal question, what was it like growing up in the Ron Paul household? Was he as strict with his children as he is with following the Constitution?
Rand Paul: All the kids were into sports. My older brother was a nationally ranked swimmer and my younger brother played baseball in college. I swam for a non-scholarship program at Baylor. My earliest memories are of discussing politics with my father’s friends. I always gravitated to the adult conversation.
LM: Who is your favorite Founding Father and why?
Rand Paul: Jefferson. Of all the founders, he seemed to be able to articulate the message of liberty and limited government best. Like many of us he was imperfect and I wish he had been more committed to liberty for all without regard to race. Jefferson also, was personally not so fiscally sound with his own finances. While I am repelled by Adams support for the Alien and Sedition Acts, I do admire his New England work ethic and personal frugality.
LM: Who is your favorite American President and why?
Rand Paul: same (as above)
LM: You’ve mentioned that you support term limits in recent interviews. Does this mean you support a Constitutional amendment to institute term limits or are you of the opinion that term limits should be a personal decision for each office holder? If you get elected, how many terms will you serve?
Rand Paul: I support both a Constitutional amendment and/or legislation if it could be done Constitutionally. Voluntary term limits have not worked because the good Congressmen kept the pledge and went home and the creeps broke their pledges and stayed. Also, only a very small percentage, maybe ten to fifteen, ever were elected with a voluntary pledge.
LM: Health care reform is the latest fight on Capitol Hill. Recently, the Obama administration has modified its position a bit on the “public option” by suggesting they’d be open to non-profit health insurance cooperatives. Is this compromise something you could vote for as a Senator?
Rand Paul: No
LM: Why or why not?
Rand Paul: I am opposed to the government deciding what kind of insurance policies are legal. I have a Health Savings Account, presumably this policy will not be approved by the government coop.
LM: What can you say to your potential constituents to ease their minds about the potential for Washington corrupting you as it has done to so many in the past?
Rand Paul: I am not a career politician. I will vote against pork barrel spending and happily return to my job as a physician if the electorate tires of that stance.
LM: On your web site’s issues page, you have some very strong words favoring gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. Would you vote for any kind of restriction on guns such as trigger locks, waiting periods, background checks, or closing the “gun loophole”?
Rand Paul: No
LM: Are you a gun owner?
Rand Paul: Yes.
LM: Your father has signed on to a bill (HR.2267) sponsored by Barney Frank. This bill, in essence, makes online poker legal, but regulates/licenses it at the federal level. Do you support such bills? What is your view on this bill and Internet regulation in general?
Rand Paul: I am opposed to Federal regulation or taxation of the Internet.
————–
If you are a liberty-loving American supporting Rand Paul truly is a no-brainer. With the publication of this interview we at Liberty Maven officially endorse his candidacy in the 2010 Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky.
With a little luck and a lot of money (please donate to his campaign!) we hope to be endorsing him in the general election this time next year.
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:08 am (#)
I don't like federal regulation or taxation of the Internet either, but the House voted on that in 2006 with UIGEA (it was HR 4411, and it was freestanding). We lost 317-93. We have to win our liberties back the same way we lost them — one right at a time. That's why Ron Paul is cosponsoring this legislation. Unfortunately, I think Rand would rather lose 99-1 and pat himself on the back for "championing" liberty, all while losing more rights in the process.
Ron Paul is very pragmatic in supporting these bills. I hope Rand will come on board.
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:51 am (#)
Pragmatic means voting AGAINST liberty to gain liberty?
If you play with fire, you will get burned.
August 22nd, 2009 at 3:04 am (#)
No. "Pragmatic" means being in the battle fighting for the most freedom to be obtained. Standing on principle for something unobtainable is easy. Just give a speech, decisively lose the vote, and then have a beer with sympathizers, all patting one another's backs for standing on principle. Anyone can do that. Too bad it does nothing for liberty.
Getting in the fight and actually fighting for all the maximum possible freedom possible is hard. One must actually move legislation and get supporters together. That's why Ron Paul supports this legislation. Distasteful as it is, some taxes and regulation (comparable to what B&M cardrooms across America pay today — and I've seen no Libertarians trying to shut them down) is more free than prohibition.
August 22nd, 2009 at 3:05 am (#)
Picture of Dr. Paul and me: http://poker.blogtownhall.com/2009/03/15/the_poke...
August 22nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm (#)
It's really quite simple. Supporting (and campaigning for) regulation of any kind is to be against liberty. There is no liberty in regulation. You are willing to sign away my right to play unregulated in order to avoid outright prohibition. I am not.
August 22nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm (#)
I'm going to stand with Ron Paul on this one.
August 22nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm (#)
That much is clear. It's a shame so many who describe themselves as libertarians are willing to hand away our freedoms in order to "play the game". I think that's a big part of why we are where we are today.
August 22nd, 2009 at 5:37 pm (#)
Do you think we should protest liquor stores and casinos, demanding that they be shut down unless they are made exempt from taxation and regulation?
September 1st, 2009 at 8:56 pm (#)
My letter to Dr. Rand Paul:
Dear Dr. Paul,
As a Kentuckian, a liberty lover, and a proud supporter of Rep. Ron Paul, I am writing regarding your August 19th interview with Liberty Maven (http://libertymaven.com/2009/08/19/rand-paul-talk... Specifically, I am writing to ask you to reconsider your statement of opposition to legislation that licenses and regulates online poker pending in the Congress. After all, regulation is preferable – and more libertarian – than potential prohibition, which is why Rep. Ron Paul is cosponsoring it.
While I would personally love for the federal government and the Commonwealth to leave us alone and let us play, the fact is that Congress has consistently opposed this. The House has continually voted against unregulated, untaxed online poker and gaming by wide margins. This most recently happened in 2006, when we lost the HR 4411 vote 317-93. The Department of Justice has even started targeting our funds. At the state level, the Commonwealth is attempting to seize the domain names of 140 online poker and gaming sites.
It seems there is a less than 1% chance for federal and state recognition of unregulated, untaxed online poker, but perhaps a 50% chance of getting licensed and regulated online poker done. I realize some would expect Kentucky's poker players simply to give up on online poker, but I do not believe that would do anything to further the cause of liberty. In fact, a successful prohibition would be seen as a victory of statism over liberty, and would do nothing to preserve Internet freedom.
What's important to me is your support for my rights. Please respond to this letter and let me know if you will support my freedoms. I will be watching your actions on this issue closely. I hope that I, along with my over one million fellow Poker Players Alliance — including over 13,000 in Kentucky — can count on your support.
Thank you for your consideration.
In liberty,
Rich Muny
PPA KY State Director & Board Member
http://poker.townhall.com
September 13th, 2009 at 7:10 pm (#)
Congress has been gunning for us for over a decade. It's easy to just say, "why don't you just tell Congress you want them to leave you alone?", but you ought to check out the history of Congressional votes on just that. I put it together, at http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/152/fight-poker... .
I was disheartened that Dr. Paul didn't preface his remarks with something like "I support the right to play poker on the Internet." He also didn't speak out against Gov. Beshear's efforts to seize 141 offshore poker and gaming Internet domains. I've sent him two letters on this issue (as the PPA KY State Director), and both have been disregarded.
March 8th, 2010 at 8:32 am (#)
[...] many Liberty Maven readers are aware we endorsed Rand Paul last summer following our interview with him. At the time he was behind in the polls by 11% points in the Kentucky GOP primary. On Sunday the [...]