Ron Paul's Son Makes GOP Nervous.

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Looks like the elephants are worried about a rogue.

Senior Republicans in Kentucky and Washington D.C. are deeply concerned about Senate candidate Trey Grayson’s campaign as he struggles to narrow the gap against GOP primary rival Rand Paul.

Two months before the election, the libertarian-leaning Paul, son of the Texas congressman and quixotic presidential contender, has tapped into anti-Washington grass-roots fervor on the right and staked out an advantage over Grayson, Kentucky’s secretary of state and establishment favorite.


There have been few polls in the race, but an automated survey earlier this month showed Paul leading by double digits. Even Grayson backers acknowledge that their candidate is lagging, if not as badly as the public polls indicate.


A win by Paul, a Bowling Green ophthalmologist, would represent the first true electoral success of the tea party movement. Equally important, it would embarrass Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose political organization is running Grayson’s campaign, thrust onto the national stage a Republican with foreign policy views out of the conservative mainstream and, strategists in both parties believe, imperil the GOP’s hold on the seat now held by retiring Sen. Jim Bunning.


Recognizing the threat, a well-connected former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney convened a conference call last week between Grayson and a group of leading national security conservatives to sound the alarm about Paul.


“On foreign policy, [global war on terror], Gitmo, Afghanistan, Rand Paul is NOT one of us,” Cesar Conda wrote in an e-mail to figures such as Liz Cheney, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Dan Senor and Marc Thiessen.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34582.html#ixzz0iVNg9zCI

Neither Rand or his daddy Ron, are my political cup of tea, but anything that gets Mitch McConnell and the Cheney clan collective panties in a wad is a good thing in my book.
 

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
40,775
Reaction score
5,947
Location
Some personalized demiplane
What kind of name is Rand, anyway?

(seriously, though, I agree. Rattling the people in power is always a good thing. Imo.)
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
anything that gets Mitch McConnell and the Cheney clan collective panties in a wad is a good thing in my book.

A-effing-men.

As much as I dislike Harry Reid, and think he's the most incompetent Dem Senate Majority Leader of my (now lengthy) lifetime, I can't help but point at McConnell, whose only claim to stature is that he might be a shade better than Trent Lott was as Repub Senate leader. And McConnell is probably the better of the two Senators from Kentucky (the other being Jim Bunning).

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
A-effing-men.

As much as I dislike Harry Reid, and think he's the most incompetent Dem Senate Majority Leader of my (now lengthy) lifetime, I can't help but point at McConnell, whose only claim to stature is that he might be a shade better than Trent Lott was as Repub Senate leader. And McConnell is probably the better of the two Senators from Kentucky (the other being Jim Bunning).

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

I doubt you're going to have to worry about ol' Harry after the first Tuesday in November. He's likely to join Tom Daschle as the only two Senate Majority Leaders to lose their reelection bids.

Which when you think of the way Trent Lott ran circles about Daschle and how a charmless toad like McConnell makes the charisma deprived Reid look like a talentless amateur, this might not be a bad thing.

Obama will be better off with Dick Durbin as the next Majority Leader if he's lucky. Minority Leader if he's not.

McConnell is better than Jim Bunning because he's not bugfuck nuts. That's all.

And I'd laugh my ass off it Rand Paul beats McConnell's hand-picked rubber stamp in the primary only to lose to a Democrat in the fall.

Or maybe Paul wins. Just to make shit interesting (and drive McConnell into bugfuckery).
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Rand is short for Randall. Contrary to rumors that went around in 2007, Rand is not named after Ayn Rand. Also contrary to rumors, neither of the Pauls eat small children or wear tinfoil hats. :D

Rand's an interesting character, more political and liberal than his dad, but that's only natural, since he's still young. ;)

That said, he's got the Republican party machine in an uproar. Greyson's first fundraiser was a big DC shindig, with McConnell and 20 other Rep bigwigs in attendance. They want their corporate-connected neocon in office at any expense. Rand scares the establishment spitless. The last thing the Republicrats want in DC are principled, small-government types.

They're having to face the fact that a small-government, personal-responsibility message is selling twice as well in that district as the stuff they've been selling for the last decade.

I have relatives in KY, and visited there in the fall. Even at that point, he was getting a lot of attention. Probably no surprise to anyone that I still have a Ron Paul bumpersticker on my pickup truck :)D) and I had one or two joggers a day stop by in her little subdivision, asking if I knew about Rand. He's strongly supported by the original tea partiers, the ones who threw the party for Ron back in 2007.

Palin gritted her teeth and endorsed him because she knows his positions, which she gives lip service to, are the ones at the heart of the tea-party movement that she and the other TeaOCons are trying to hijack.

He's catchin' on, I tell ya. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

I've also gotta side with blacbird here; anybody with a pulse would be an improvement over the two clowns KY has in the Senate today.





ETA: A prediction. If Rand wins the primary, the Republicrats will do all they can to elect his Democrat opponent. The Republican Marketing Machine will suffer "surprising" failure after failure. Rand will run as a near-orphan from his party. If he then manages to win, the world will tilt on its axis... or at least American politics will.
 
Last edited:

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Thanks for the analysis, Don. Rand sounds like the kind of guy who would give the Repubs and the Dems heartburn should he win. Upsetting the applecart sounds kind of fun.

I was wondering what happened to all those folks, including a lot of young ones, who were ga-ga over Ron Paul in '08. They weren't natural Republicans by default, but neither were they going to go Barack Obama's way either. I had the feeling the GOP would take their votes, but really didn't want to hear their voices.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see someone not hand-picked by the party bosses win for a change? :snoopy:
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
nt, your analysis hits it pretty much on the head too. There have been battles all over the country between old-line gopers, theocracy gopers, and neocon gopers. the old-liners who miss Goldwater and the imaginary small-government Reagan welcome the young upstarts, but the theocrats and neocons have teamed up as TeaOCons, claiming to lead a parade they were late in joining.

There really is a populist movement battling the establishment for control of the Republican party, and it's an interesting war to watch. There's even a progressive component, mostly anti-war, anti-corporate types who don't see the Democrats as living up to their promises. If that catches on, Rand and other anti-establishment candidates might post some shocking results in the fall.

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." Man, I'm gettin' teary-eyed. :D
 

Don Allen

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
3,573
Reaction score
845
Location
Gilman, Illinois
I was never a believer in term limits until the last few years where you witness time and time again political fuck faces continually moving into positions of leadership in congress through nothing more than attrition. Harry, Nancy, Mitch, the republican dufus with the hound like jowls. The applecart needs to be turned over and emptied on both sides of the Aisle, I hope Rand makes a showing for himself,,, if for no other reason to scare the hell out of these dimwits.
 
Last edited:

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
I've heard some of that rumbling from a few KY progressives I know too, Don. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a big crossover vote for a real maverick? Boy, would that shake up DC.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Pesonally, I don't know much about Rand Paul, at all.

But Don, Palin endorsed him well over a month ago, And his campaign seemed--and still seems--to be pleased as punch about that ('course, I don't know that a Palin "endorsement" is the proper way to say that, but that's another subject). So, I don't think she's "gritting her teeth," at all. You just don't like being in the same boat...kinda like how you felt about Glenn Beck. ;)

Also, Rand Paul is the son of an entrenched politician. And that seems to be propelling his campaign. I'm not sure how that really makes him some sort of an outsider/maverick.

And finally, the Republicans--dreaming of taking control of the Senate--aren't gonna bail on him, if he wins the primary. You're fooling yourself, there.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Of course his campaign is pleased with the Palin endorsement. It picks up the Fox/theo/neo vote with no real investment. It gained Palin a little street cred with the small-gov types, but damned little among those who know more than her soundbytes.

Rand is the son of a politician entrenched by the people in his district who keep sending him to do battle, as opposed to a politician entrenched by the political machine. To the contrary, he's thoroughly hated by the political machine. Witness the three (3) opponents in his recent primary, all supported by some party hack or another. (BTW, between them they managed less than 20% of the vote.) Hardly what I'd call an insider. Ron Paul is the original outsider/maverick and his son is following in those footsteps.

The Republicans would trade Ron Paul for any party-line democrat in a heartbeat. I don't think their opinion of Rand is likely to be much better. I just don't see them crying many spilled tears if they keep Rand, likely to be a thorn in their side like Ron, out of the Senate. Nobody is foolish enough to think that the son of "Dr. No" would be voting the Republican party line if he got elected.
 
Last edited:

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
So, you're good to go with political dynasties, I take it? ;)

Regardless, Palin endorsed Paul over a month ago. Don't remember hearing anything about that. I think--again--that you just don't want her to be anywhere near you, politically. But the reality is what it is.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Yeah, I'm good with a political dynasty; I'd even be good with a political machine, as long as it was working to dismantle itself. :)

And Palin has zero cred with the movement that's gotten Rand where he is today. Her endorsement was mostly met by derision by the "Paulites." The MSM effort to lump them together is nearsighted to say the least. Tea Party <> TeaOCons/TeaOCrats.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
And Palin has zero cred with the movement that's gotten Rand where he is today. Her endorsement was mostly met by derision by the "Paulites." The MSM effort to lump them together is nearsighted to say the least. Tea Party <> TeaOCons/TeaOCrats.
You say that like you can speak for them. But I didn't get info on Palin's endorsement from the MSM. I got it from Paul's campaign:

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/sarah-palin-endorses/

“Governor Palin is providing tremendous leadership as the Tea Party movement and constitutional conservatives strive to take our country back,” Rand said.

“Sarah Palin is a giant in American politics. I am proud to receive her support.”

So, either Rand Paul is nothing but a political opportunist--which says very little about "Paulites"--or someone's not who you think they are.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Meh. I hang out occasionally on the same forum with a lot of Rand operatives and staff. Like I said, he's more a politician than his dad. I wouldn't say political opportunist is his sole definition, however, and ruling him "nothing but" is a disservice, IMO.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Well, I'll put it another way: if he's willing to sacrifice his political ideals (assuming that those ideals are at odds with Palin's, and I don't think they really are, for the most part, though you obviously do) for her support, he's still not much of a maverick, imo.

You know, Rubio--here in Florida--went after an entrenched Repub leader in Crist. Conventional wisdom gave him no shot. Yet now, he's the front-runner. And Republicans, along with heavy-hitters like Heritage, are willing to back him. And I'm not saying Rubio is Rand Paul, at all. They're very different on many issues. Yet, both are getting support from Tea Party types.

And I think that's okay. Both would be newcomers in DC. Both would be breaking the same ol' same ol' game. So what if they don't agree 100%? I don't expect that, ever. Different opinions, even among conservatives, libertarians, what have you, are just fine, imo.

You're insisting on some kind of ideologically pure standard, but that's not true of all Tea Party types. That don't all think the exact same way. Palin's endorsement of Paul need be based on nothing more than that. He's challenging the status quo, he wants less Federal Government. That's enough, I think. No teeth gritting and the like is needed. It is--imo--exactly as it appears.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
I don't think we're disagreeing on much here, rob. He indeed has issues with Palin, but not enough to reject her endorsement. He gained more than it cost him.

As for her gritting her teeth, I think her real position is more like that of McConnell and Cheney, but the endorsement was good for her "maverick" status with the TeaOCon/TeaOcracy segments of the teaparty crowd. The hardcore Paulites didn't buy a word of it, from what I've seen.

As for the rest, I think new blood would be good, and I think we'll see quite a bit on both sides of the aisle. Rubio's a good example.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
So, you're good to go with political dynasties, I take it? ;)

You're good with the status quo, robeiae?

As long as the two-party system remains only two parties we're doomed to an endless cycle of tired, old hacks like Reid, Pelosi, McConnell and Boehner and their same old tired, old played out politics with corporations, lobbyists and special interests writing the bills and passing the laws they favor. The names of the Democans and Repulicrats change, but the paradigm does not.

Conventional and traditional politicians offer conventional and traditional politics. I'm tired of the "Democrats good, Republicans bad and vice versa" bullshit. Would I vote for Rand Paul? Nope. I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul either.

But while I don't want a Congress full of Rand Pauls, that doesn't mean I don't think there isn't a place for him and his ideas in Washington. Shake things up a bit and do something a little different.
 

Death Wizard

Tumhe na koci puujetha
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
1,011
Location
South Carolina
Website
www.deathwizardchronicles.blogspot.com
This to me is further proof that the so-called Tea Party movement is more damaging to conservatives than it is to liberals. It brings out the worse in the conservative movement and puts it on embarrassing display. But even worse, as Rand Paul is showing, it has the potential to steal votes from the Republican side.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Yes, it is DW, but only because the Left hasn't similarly organized in large number against Democrats who aren't sufficiently progressive enough.

Lliberal challengers have emerged for Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, Sen. Blanche Lincoln in Nebraska, and Sen. Michael Bennett in Colorado. While it doesn't mean they will win the primary or make it to the general election in the fall, it does indicate to me that it's not always going to be a given that just because you have a "D" behind your name that means you're guaranteed the votes of liberals and progressives.

I just wrote a piece stating what the Democrats need right about now are unapologetic liberals along the line of the late Paul Wellstone. I'd take a Democratic caucus with more Wellstone and less Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Bart Stupak, and (ugh!) Joe Lieberman and other DINO types.

Wellstone said, "If we don't fight hard for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we really don't stand for them." Too often times as Don Allen recently griped about Obama's maddening passivity and as we've seen the Democrats squander the momentum from the 2008 election, supporting them can be an exercise in exasperation.

I don't want to totally purge the Democratic ranks of conservatives, but I don't want them continually stirring up stuff in order to peddle their peculiar brand of Republican Lite.
 

Death Wizard

Tumhe na koci puujetha
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
1,011
Location
South Carolina
Website
www.deathwizardchronicles.blogspot.com
Yes, it is DW, but only because the Left hasn't similarly organized in large number against Democrats who aren't sufficiently progressive enough.

Lliberal challengers have emerged for Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, Sen. Blanche Lincoln in Nebraska, and Sen. Michael Bennett in Colorado. While it doesn't mean they will win the primary or make it to the general election in the fall, it does indicate to me that it's not always going to be a given that just because you have a "D" behind your name that means you're guaranteed the votes of liberals and progressives.

I just wrote a piece stating what the Democrats need right about now are unapologetic liberals along the line of the late Paul Wellstone. I'd take a Democratic caucus with more Wellstone and less Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Bart Stupak, and (ugh!) Joe Lieberman and other DINO types.

Wellstone said, "If we don't fight hard for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we really don't stand for them." Too often times as Don Allen recently griped about Obama's maddening passivity and as we've seen the Democrats squander the momentum from the 2008 election, supporting them can be an exercise in exasperation.

I don't want to totally purge the Democratic ranks of conservatives, but I don't want them continually stirring up stuff in order to peddle their peculiar brand of Republican Lite.

"Maddening passivity" is one way of looking at it, but I think that this underestimates the virulence of Obama's opposition. In terms of derailing Obama's ability to perform, this opposition has proven to be far more effective than just about anyone on either side could have predicted, and it has bemused Obama and his supporters to no end. When you combine this with the state of the nation/economy, it makes for a bitter brew on the liberal side.

As far as I'm concerned, Obama's a nice guy. It's just part of his nature. A lot of people see this as passivity. I'm not so certain. It hasn't all played out quite yet. Whether Obama's detractors want to admit it or not, we're starting to see positive signs -- in the economy, the war on terror, etc. These positive signs, which reflect a potential recovery from one of the worst periods in our nation's history, might well be coming too late to affect this November, but we'll see in 2012.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Trust me, Death Wizard, I'm very aware of how committed the opposition to Obama is. I post on P&CE so how could I not?

What you may not be aware of is there is a budding "blacklash" against Barack Obama being led by television commentator, author and self-appointed "leader" Tavis Smiley. Smiley, who was a huge Hilary Clinton supporter, has been relentless in his criticism of the president and recently got into a public and verbal sparring match with Al Sharpton over whether or not Obama needs a "Black agenda."

I won't bore you with all the gory details, but Smiley, who wrote a book about Obama called, Accountable, has a forum being held in Chicago called "We Count! The Black Agenda is the American Agenda." featuring Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and others talking about how Obama ain't shit.

Along with a new paradigm for politics, we really need a new paradigm for "leaders." The first one being is if you call yourself a leader, you're not. The people you purport to lead will make the call as to whom they want to follow.
 
Last edited:

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Smiley, who was a huge Hilary Clinton supporter, has been relentless in his criticism of the president and recently got into a public and verbal sparring match with Al Sharpton over whether or not Obama needs a "Black agenda."
A lot of Hillary supporters are still pissed at him and always will be.
I won't bore you with all the gory details, but Smiley, who wrote a book about Obama called, Accountable, has a forum being held in Chicago called "We Count! The Black Agenda is the American Agenda." featuring Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and others talking about Obama ain't shit.
People on the far left aren't ever going to be happy with him either -- despite the well known fact he's a communist.