0 votes

Rand wants Palin to campaign for him?

Please, someone tell me the story I read on WSJ was nonsense.

Why in the world does Rand and Palin to help him?

Rand Paul sure isn't Ron Paul. His dad needs to take him aside and give him a talking to.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yeah. We've been talking

We've been talking about it over here.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/114600 and

A Way for Trey Grayson searchers to find Rand Paul
Trey Grayson For US Senate 2010 in Kentucky. See also http://www.jointreygrayson.com/ Spread these links around

SD Ron Paul liberty Operation up an running.

Donate here https://rally.org/southdakotaforliberty/donate
Volunteer for Phone from Home here http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/node/4

6 in 10 voters said Palin was not experienced enough

to be president. Palin is through.

We will never, ever win

We will never, ever win unless we build alliances. Paul doesn't have to agree with everything she says, but why can't she ask for votes? It will be a throw the bums out election, and Paul needs all the help he can get.

Throwing the bums out! Just like in 1980 and 1994!!

I don't know about you guys, but I'm still dumb enough to believe we'll "clean house" and make a difference. Of course, I also believe that George W Bush was the best president in history and that the CIA stopped messing with people. A republican majority ought to shut us up.

I'll heard you cat. meow.

I'll heard you cat. meow. Maybe I should just quit and go clean my guns.

We will never, ever win

by building alliances with people like Sarah Palin. If Rand wants to pander to the Establishment, why doesn't he just TAKE the money from Senators who voted for the bailout, which he promised not to take? What, is he scared of "building alliances"?

Tell him to take their dirty money after all, and use your "you need all the help you can get" argument.

Did you remember the money

Did you remember the money ROn paul took from the KKK guy? yep. He took it to spend spreading his message. If the Palin heads, and there are millions of them, want to send Rand money to spread our message, then I guess you would object to that. boy do you look foolish. grow up.

Accepting a donation is not the same as

reaching out to them.

Rand is acting like he wants

Rand is acting like he wants to be elected, and I can't fault him for that. He seems to be a willing candidate.

RAND is the one who's being picky about his donations

from bailout-happy senators. I was just quoting him.

Good point about using Palin as a cash magnet, why don't you see if we can use a whole array of celebrities for the same purpose, without paying any attention to their policies or integrity or anything? "Seedy" is the name of the game in Washington, so c'mon, everyone, let's play!

Honest people usually don't

Honest people usually don't get involved with politics because it is seedy and dirty. Nice guys do not win. The difference now is that we are so mad we have to play to win. That doesn't mean it will change what we stand for. If it appears that Rand will win, these people will latch on anyway.

Nice guys do not win? How did Ron Paul win?

I don't think we win ANYTHING if we "play to win." We LOSE our principles, and that is everything.

He's an anomaly, and he

He's an anomaly, and he didn't win president. Maybe Rand can change minds since these politicians don't stand for anything anyway. Dude, it's just my opinion, and I am sticking to it.

Good for him!

He is showing a lot more sense than the knee jerk DP condemnation of anyone who gains any kind of fame or public acceptance. As I have said before Palin could be an asset if she were helped along instead of vilified by the freedom movement.

What are you worried about? Do you think Palin is going to seduce Rand into becoming a neocon?
Stop worrying and let Rand run his campaign his way.

An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.

Natural Law and Natural Rights


The Virtual Conspiracy

Palin isn't "vilified"

She is just herself, and people can see that she's nuts, bloodthirsty, and reckless. It's not OUR fault she is that way, and it's not a "knee jerk" assessment. Have YOU been paying attention to all of Sarah's lies and scandals? Or are YOU the knee-jerk commentator?

What am I worried about? Nothing, If Rand wants to schmooze with mentally unstable neocons, he'll lose a big chunk of his grassroots cash flow...and if that's a price he wants to pay, it's his choice.

It's so easy to sit back and

It's so easy to sit back and snipe when you have nothing to gain or lose. Rand is playing strategy in order to win an election. Winning elections is completely different than having principles. If you are so appalled by this idea then you should re-think your support of Dr. Paul, after all in order to help get elected he enlisted the aid of the Neocon's God himself, Ronald Reagan.

Simply put b/c of her popularity and good instincts on a number of issues, Palin is someone worth reaching out to in order to see if a partnership is viable or not.

One will never know until one tries. Paul moving towards Palin may not be as much of the 'sell-out' as Palin moving towards Paul and repudiating the Neocon right. We will find out. Palin's support would bring a bunch of new faces to the RP movement and give us a better opportunity to change their minds about the important issues.


Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. -- H.L. Mencken

Blog: The Present in Plain Text
Listen to The Myo-Tonics on YouTube

I think she's a liability, personally.

Perhaps not immediately, but definitely in the long run. I wouldn't want my name associated with hers, for whatever temporal gain.
And can someone please explain Rand's position on Afghanistan to me? It sounds like he said he would SUPPORT a declaration of war?

If there is a "war" and we send troops, then it needs to be

a war officially declared by the Congress as per the United States Constitution. We haven't had a declared war since WWII, and we haven't won a war since WWII. If it isn't declared by Congress then the troops stay home. Making Congress do their job by having to vote for a war vs. just passing the buck to the executive branch is a good thing.

Think of how many folks wouldn't vote for it because their constituents would be able to hold them directly accountable for their vote. So instead they forfeit their Constitutional duties and turn it over to the executive branch, basically washing their hands of it, and being free to change their minds based on political winds.

Hence, we have wars being fought that go on forever, against people we have no grounds to be fighting.

That is what the elite want, perpetual war to be used to accomplish their goals, however with a declared war with specific goals, it won't last forever and continue to make them rich, and accomplish their other wants.

And, I forgot to add, there is a much greater chance we will never go to war if Congress is forced to declare it.

"What was taken from the boomers, it ain't there, what was taken from the X'ers it ain't there, what is being taken from their great, great, great squared grandchildren it ain't there. Some generation just has to have the guts to quit passing it on." Me

*May the only ones to touch your junk, be the ones you want to touch your junk.*

That much I understand.

But why not say,
"Under the constitution all wars must be declared by Congress, and this war is no exception. Congress must vote either to declare this war or not. I do not support this war, but I do support a vote on it in Congress."

I have LOTS to gain or lose

Liberty, at the top of the list.
Palin is a total neocon tool. She is from Idaho, and I was treated first hand to the near slobbering as the neocons came and asked if I liked Palin after her big coming out party... They thought they had "hooked" me with her, and apparently it did work on some folks.

DOG AND PONY SHOW folks. Go ahead, vote Democrat or Republican (or anything else) - you are just throwing our vote away...

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.


Just want to say "thank you" for being consistent and always standing your ground and not being wishy-washy. You've done this on numerous occasions and I appreciate it.

I approve this move but, for all who despise Palin,

Go to http://www.dailypaul.com/node/114109 and help crush her in the poll vs. Ron Paul:

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Sarah Palin could bring a lot of good attention to the Pauls

Like her or not, Palin is a rock star. Everyone in this country knows her, where as a lot of people have never heard of Ron or Rand Paul. That's just the way things are. Palin has stated that she thinks Ron Paul is "cool" and she likes his independence. She's an "outsider" like Paul and I think she could learn a lot from more exposure to the Pauls.

You might be pleasantly surprised to see what can come of this!


Sarah is a warhawk, so she is no outsider. She is a small government, big military kind of gal. Yes, that is an oxymoron. Big military = big government! Don't believe her for one minute.

You could say all the same things about Hillary Clinton

And assure us that Rand Paul's soliciting of Hillary to help him is a good thing.

Anyone else here familiar with all the weird circumstances surrounding the birth of Trig Palin? Anyone else keeping track of what a pathological liar Sarah Palin is?


Here you go, for starters:

"No 44 year old woman, pregnant for the fifth time with a special-needs child would make the decisions she made, and no doctor would support them.

She traveled out of state during the 35th week of her pregnancy. After experiencing premature rupture of membranes and some contractions, she waited nearly ten hours to give a speech then traveled nearly twelve hours more, taking two separate flights both of which had flight times of around four hours, with a layover of approximately two hours in between. Expected duration of labor for someone with Gov. Palin's history (four previous vaginal births) would be 6 hours +/- 3.6 hours. It was not only "possible" that she would give birth long before she arrived back in Alaska, it was probable. And, while it's just barely believable that she would remain at a conference and wait to give a speech she was "determined to give" (since a modern hospital was only minutes away), there's no way one can apply this same reasoning to her subsequently getting on an airplane for two separate four-hour flights.

Yet, after somehow beating the statistics on the flights, once arriving in Anchorage, she did not drive to the only hospital in the state (Providence) with a neonatal intensive care unit (six miles from the airport) where her doctor had privileges. Instead, she drove an hour to a small regional health facility (only 39 beds in the whole hospital).

By the time she arrived there, she met five high-risk obstetric criteria:
*she was 44 (anything above 40(some sources say 37 or 39)) is considered high-risk due to maternal age;
* she was carrying a known high-risk infant;
*she was considered "grand multiparous" (five or more viable pregnancies);
* she was in labor at 35-36 weeks (anything before 37 weeks is considered pre term);
* her amniotic sac had been ruptured nearly 24 hours.

Yet, the hospital that she is reported to have given birth at does no high risk obstetrics at all; even twins are not allowed to be born there. She had as her physician a family practice doctor who is reported on the hospital's web site as having done only three births in the previous two years!

None of these choices makes sense. Taken all together, it's ridiculous. And, to repeat, we're also supposed to believe that somewhere there is a doctor who went along with all this.

With this as the "starting point," then you have to start looking at all the other coincidences......"

Who is Rand Paul's campaign manager?

Anyone remember Lew Moore and Debbie Hopper? What is this about the Pauls and their people? Why is it that the C4L sucks?

Uniting with the teabag protesters would be a good thing

In speech both of our movements are nearly identical, we have candidates and they don't, and we have substance that they could learn from.

Why on earth would Rand

be in favor of a war in Afghanistan?If this is true,he won't see
another dime from me!Say it ain't so Rand.

Ron paul was on the same page

he's said before he thought it was right to go in.

But he isn't now.

Lao Tzua