Originally Posted by
CitizenBBN
mtcatfan -
I'm curious what Paul and Rubio have done to be given the "loonies" label.
FWIW I agree there are some definite loonies in the broad "tea party" umbrella, but as Keith said the "Tea Party" is really a populist political movement and as such beyond a general level of fiscal conservatism their philosophies are all over the map. Some are socially conservative, but most are pretty Libertarian, including Rand Paul.
It's true that as a bit of an isolationist and Libertarian he has some less mainstream views on those issues, but not sure that's nearly enough to raise him to "looney". Rubio I really don't get at all, he's not even out of step on those issues.
I consider myself a libertarian and while no candidate is ideal, I could live with Paul b/c of his basic philosophy and desire to dismantle the post Great Society victim society as much as possible, knowing we'd also scale back on the use of force abroad and that would be a mixed bag for us.
Is it Libertarianism itself that is looney or just something Paul et al specifically embraces within it that is the issue? I agree completely there are elements within the Tea Party and Libertarians who are everywhere from on the fringe to card carrying nut jobs, but I don't see that in some of the major national guys you listed.