Ever since he began running for office, Rand Paul has been publicly contrasted with his former congressman father. Below are 8 ways Rand Paul is different from Ron Paul:
1. Rand Paul is More Compromising and Pragmatic
Ron Paul often won acclaim for never voting for a tax increase or for any bill not specifically authorized by the Constitution. Rand Paul has indicated an interest in compromising on matters from immigration reform to health care. He has also made efforts to compromise within his own party by working with AIPAC and allowing some foreign aid to countries considered pro-American.
For our country’s sake, certainly for our soldiers’ sake, America’s mission should always be to keep the peace not police the world #VFW
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) July 22, 2013
2. Statewide Elections – Rand Paul Has More Appeal Across an Entire State
In his first race, Rand Paul won the primary and general elections by 23 and 12 points, respectively, and has already won more statewide elections than his father. The only time Ron Paul ever won a popular vote was the US Virgin Islands caucus in 2012.
3. Party Politics
Rand Paul endorsed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012 in a sign of party loyalty and pragmatism. Ron Paul has not publicly endorsed a major party candidate candidate since Ronald Reagan. In 2008, the elder Paul, a GOP officeholder, endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin for president.
The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example. – Ron Paul
During his campaign for Senate, Rand Paul said it was “reckless” to take “nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances” regarding Iran.
"I think it equally unwise to say we will never contain a nuclear Iran."Rand Paul
Ron Paul has said there was no evidence Iran was building a weapon with its nuclear program. The elder Paul also rhetorically asked, “Why wouldn’t Iran want a nuclear weapon” when so many of its neighbors have them. It was an indication that, although Ron Paul opposes nuclear weapons, he does not consider a nuclear Iran a threat to the US.
6. Rand Paul is More Likely to Talk About Religion
While Ron Paul has always identified himself as a Christian, he has doesn’t talk about his faith very often. He has also said activities like the Prayer Breakfast seem more about publicity than faith.
Rand Paul has spoken to numerous faith-based groups, often as a way of spreading his views about Just War. The younger Paul also expressed his antipathy to a strike on Syria by making a deliberate point about how it would affect Middle-Eastern Christians.
7. War on Drugs
During his 2010 campaign, Rand Paul favored states rights regarding drug prohibition while also telling an evangelical Christian group in Iowa earlier this year that he “does not support the legalization of drugs like marijuana.”
8. Income Tax
Since at least his 2008 run for president, Ron Paul famously said that the national income tax should be “repealed and replaced with nothing.” Rand Paul as recently as this summer advocated for the “Fair Tax” with a rate of 17 percent for individuals and supports eliminating “most” of the Internal Revenue Service.
Join the discussion Please be relevant and respectful.
Ron Paul is the most consistent candidate and does not bow down to failed and unconstitutional polices. Rand Paul would be my second pick if Ron Paul doesn't run in 2016. But I would love to have Ron Paul over everyone else. He is strong and firm in his policies and beliefs and he says it like it is. Ron Paul is by far the most consistent and honest person (it is an insult to call Ron Paul a politician) that really is for us we the people. RON PAUL 2016
Carl, when you say "[Ron Paul] does not consider a nuclear Iran as a threat to the US" that is just not true. He definitely considers it a threat, were it to happen, but all he meant by saying "why wouldn't they want one" is it's only logical that they would want one and who are we to say they can't but we don't care so much about the other countries having them. he spoke about how they don't even have enough gasoline for themselves and they are not capable of making nuclear weapons. It's not our right to tell them what they can or cannot do (the Geneva Convention is what is supposed to dictate that), Iran wasn't capable of producing WMDs, but if they were to have them they'd obviously be a bit of a threat.
I am an avid supporter of Ron Paul and his son just isn't hitting the mark. I am a Ron Paul Libertarian.
Like any father and son they are going to have their differing opinions and view points, to try to make them carbon copies of each other would only be wishful thinking, on the part of the individual, one way or the other. When ever Ron Paul is asked about his sons views on something, he reaffirms this notion by saying he will not speak for his son, that his son can only speak for himself on his views. Its refreshing actually to see a father or son not trying to impose their ideals upon one another and respectfully allowing them to speak for themselves. As for me personally, they both hold ideals closer to my own than most any others in government or in the government spotlight, but that's neither here or there concerning the topic, I just say this in the interest of disclosure from where I speak.
Jim, that is such an old and no longer relevant concept. It might well have been the greatest thing at one time, but that's like say you beat your wife less than everyone else. Still nothing to be proud of. Not to mention that most of the industrial revolution and the spreading democracy have proved to be stupid and reckless and destructive. So taking into consideration the concept of Exceptional, the stat of everything sucks. And to many white men remain delusional refusing to accept equality and reality.
One wants to lock up the brakes and throw out the anchor on the wrong direction of our Country, while the other wants to slowly steer out of a bad direction.
Wrong on Rand, he supports less Draconian sentencing, and full Rights restoration after prison release.
You all may want to consider the word Exceptionalism and consider how it contributed to the positive advancement of mankind and what Country and Gov. was the greatest contributor ?
We need a restart! They all need to go! They are bloated and fat! Send them all packing and start over! This time fill the government with real people, LIKE YOU! I mean it!
I know Rand took a lot of flack from Paul supporters when he endorsed Romney, might be the biggest difference for many voters
I do respect and support Rand Paul. He thinks for himself and uses logic and common sense, which is hard to find in Washington.
Rand Paul appeals to a broader base by not being as adamant about libertarian ideals, which can be a good and bad thing I suppose.
In theory I agree with you, because I think you do have to do things slowly; however, I'm not sure Rand would be stopping the car, too quickly or not. His differences from the elder regarding military forces are my largest concern. Also, I don't think the younger Paul has quite the same grasp of economics and human nature. Still, far better than most others, for sure. I'd have no problem voting for him.
I disagree. We just need to change the way our politics work and be realistic. We have to stop promoting shallow thinking and start progressing by not being such capitalist oppressors. Lobbyists, corporations and crooked politicians rule this land. Time to change the direction and start trusting in new ideals, not fallacies. Do you want anarchy that progresses into a government? Ask the middle east how that's going. Read into the libertarian platform and come back to this statement.
fdr= pearl harbor
cuz fdr wanted us 2 get involved in ww2
thats actually the xact opposite of isolationism
pearl harbor was a direct result of fdr's oil embargo on japan n his lend lease act
so in reality, if that jacknob had been xrcising isolationism, pearl harbor nevva wouldve happend
@Derek Knudsen so instead of bringing back the armed forces back and have their paychecks spent on US soil, or you would rather them bankrupt the united states with the ever increasing "wars" under the current command.
Why are they bad? What evil are they promoting by trying to be less oppressive and more about peoples freedoms? Why is the dismantling of the capitalist agenda such a bad thing?