51 votes

Rand Paul is 8th most influential Senator

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2012/07/mccain_ru...

Rand is doing exactly what he needs to be doing.

Great job Rand !!!!!

Edit for those that downvote this post because of Rand's endorsement:

I am not going to vote for Mitt in any election, but I fully support Rand's endorsement.

It will make perfectly clear to the status quo when Obama is re-elected that we are not sheep following a shepard.

And I think Rand understands this. He is playing his role and he expects us to play ours.

God Bless.

Comment viewing options

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

Good for Rand!

That's excellent for a first termer.

Susie 4 Liberty's picture

"Playing a Role"

I am sickened by people who do not represent any type of standard to which they hold true.

And by the way, he need not expect that I will play one...

Susie 4 Liberty

I am sorry you feel that way.

I wish you well.

God Bless.

On the subject of imaginary creatures...

May Thor bless you.

'The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that “the best government is that which governs least,” and that which governs least is no government at all.'
-Benjamin Tucker

And you as well.

Thank you.

lindalsalisbury's picture

Rand

I have been silent on the subject of Rand, but this is just too much.

Good job, my sagging skinny behind!!! Going along to get along is how our country sank into the muck we are now in.

Kentucky will pass judgement on our little runt, who proports to be a wise, but gaming statesman.

The RNC will give him no quarter on his leadership abilities either.
He has made a foolish decision and he will pay dearly for it. He has hurt his father and most of all he has hurt himself.

Good for you !!!

It is pure comedy to watch the 'Defenders of Rand' continue to obsess over his every statement and all the articles written about him on a daily basis. They are so desperate to have another Paul family idol to worship!

I've always felt that the two keystones of this movement were principle and conviction. If they will give Rand a 'free pass' on sanctions and endorsing Romney, then they will excuse him for anything else as well. Sad but true!

Rand's defenders have forsaken everything our movement stands for by excusing his actions!

A Romney vote is a Tyranny vote.... nothing more to say

Peace!

I think you are a bit confused.

"If they will give Rand a 'free pass' on sanctions and endorsing Romney, then they will excuse him for anything else as well."

First of all, Rand did not vote for sactions on Iran. He voted to no longer deal with Iran's central bank. He clearly explains the differnce in his explaination for how he voted on this issue.

Secondly, nobody is givig him a "free pass" on his endorsement. Like I said, I am not going to vote for Romney. Additionally, I think it is a bit of revisionism if you voted for Ron and not Rand based on this one endorsement given the fact that Ron has a standing policy to endorse all neo-con Texas incumbents.

Not buying it......

First, your claim that Rand did not vote yes on Iran sanctions is not only weak spin, but a big fat lie!!! Rand voted yes twice for sanctions, and that is historical fact.

Second, comparing a presidential endorsement with local and state offices is just lame!

Is that the best you can do?

Would you like for me to copy and paste ....

Rand's actual words explaining his votes?

Would that change your mind? Could that change your mind?

Here ... let me do so ... but before I do ... do you think that Dr. Ron Paul would ever break a promise that he made to his constituents?

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding sanctions on Iran. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.
In November 2011, the Senate began debate on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 (S. 1867). NDAA provides the authorization for spending by the Department of Defense (DoD) for procurement, base management and military operations.
While debating S. 1867, Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) introduced an amendment to place sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran (S.Amdt.1414). S.Amdt.1414 passed unanimously by the Senate and included in S. 1867. Following the passage of S. 1867, the language contained in S.Amdt.1414 was included in the conference committee version of NDAA (H.R. 1540). Despite my opposition, H.R. 1540 passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate by votes of 283-136 and 86-13 respectively. H.R. 1540 has been signed into law by President Obama.
The Iranian regime is engaged in the pursuit of nuclear weapons and supports terrorism across the globe. I supported S.Amdt.1414 because the sanctions are targeted to the regime's financing of those activities through the central bank and unlike other sanctions, not against the Iranian people.
Rest assured as debate continues in the Senate regarding Iran, I will keep your thoughts in mind. Feel free to contact me again regarding any federal issue in the future.

The key sentence explaining why he supported is ...

"I supported S.Amdt.1414 because the sanctions are targeted to the regime's financing of those activities through the central bank and unlike other sanctions, not against the Iranian people."

Thanks for proving my point

Indeed, Rand voted yes on sanctions and his explanation for why he did so doesn't make it right.

Just because Rand says it won't affect the people of Iran does not make it true! Of course it will.

The local community banks in Iran are tied to the Central Bank of Iran just like they are in the U.S. So the people will definitely suffer.

Why don't you understand that? Maybe you don't want to.

Do you agree with Ron Paul's stance on sanctions or not?

Ron Paul does not support business with any central bank.

So do you disagree with Ron Paul on this?

Perfectly fine if you do.

I just don't want people to demagogue the issue of Rand Paul.

Our local banks are completely tied to the FED and Ron Paul wants to end the FED.

I am trying to figure out what you are against.

Are you against Rand Paul, Ron Paul, or just politics in general?

There is no correct answer.

I am just wondering.

an endorsement

is not going along to get along. It means nothing, except for the sheep. Are we, the revolution not playing politics? BS, we are playing hardcore politics, stealth delegates, taking over entire committee's. Rand has just secured respect amongst the sheep, the same sheep that we need to win elections. Once they see the light, as did most of us who were neocons did, there is no going back. Rand knows far more than you or I about changing a political party.

lindalsalisbury's picture

Nothing To You Maybe, But

all politics is local. Did you not see McCain nearly lose his senate seat in Arizona for going along to get himself along.

Rand will have problems in Kentucky and surely Texas for going along to get along.

I'll bet you are not old enough to remember Senator Fred R. Harris, Lyndon Johnson's errand boy, who was promoted as the guy to carry the democratic banner forward. You probably don't remember because after going along to get along, he couldn't even carry his home state of Oklahoma in his next race.

You think Rand is being smart! He has secured no respect from those people - they are using him - dangling carrots, because they want our vote - the only light they will see is that they have used him up and they will discard him. He will not deliver the Ron Paul supporters to Romney, because he can't. He is useless to them and made himself useless to us as a leader.

We must have a win in Tampa. Dr. Paul is our only hope. Probably, 2016 will be too late. Maybe Judge Nap could help us now that Rand has so stupidly neutered himself.

Without Ron, the only way we are going to change the Republican party is to let them give lip service to some of Ron Paul's ideas as their own, and then they will go ahead and do what they were going to do anyway.

Calling people sheep doesn't make it so! These people are wolves.

A Step Forward In Playing This Backwards

...and recognizing that emotions...retribution for media-fueled *he done us wrong* articles...plus a push from some who know very well how to play into those emotions have gotten so many off-track.

The focus should be the message at the convention...then trying to influence (at the local level) and the elected level. We have no other choice.

Thank you Granger (local level) and Rhino (elected level.) Some very orchestrated influences are at work, but they are not stronger than *an idea* whose time has come.

I remember a few lines: Doug Wead: (paraphrased with a calming but very serious giggle): 'there may be some things that have happened in this election cycle that may not be known for decades.' Some of those *things* may well have happened at the Campaign Level and we may have not even a clue about them. It might be counter-productive to know.

Another: Carol Paul: (paraphrased with some frustration): 'Rand did nothing wrong. Some see it as working within the system..Some are like Ron..'

What Rand did places him within. No, his Dad never went that route. Still it has absolutely nothing to do with Tampa and beyond.
If only we could play this backwards to the place when the emotions took over...regroup behind Ron Paul ...and then move forward. Posts like this help. Thanks to both of you.

fonta

Rand Paul gives me serious

Rand Paul gives me serious doubts about the collective intelligence and sanity of Kentucky.

I am trying to figure out why this keeps getting -1.

Can someone explain that to me?

It was at +4 and now 0.

Is there something negative about this post?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

I gave it a thumbs down for

I gave it a thumbs down for the quote "doing exactly what he should be doing". If he's so influential, he SHOULD have endorsed his father. I don't hate Rand, and I might even vote for him someday, but he has almost single-handedly created a division in the liberty movement, and he should be held accountable for his actions. If we give him a free pass, he'll just get worse. Clowns like Romney succeed because people have always given him a free pass. If we do it with the personalities we like, how are we any different from the average clueless voters who shut their eyes to the negative aspects of the candidates they support? We'll be joining the status quo if we become a cult of personality. If it's about the man, and not the principles, this movement is already dead.

Rand did endorse his father

Rand did endorse his father for the primary. He endorsed Romney after it was obvious he was going to win the nomination

I don't think it was very

I don't think it was very obvious at the time. We were racking up delegates right and left, and it was obvious that the establishment was in mortal terror. Then Rand endorsed Romney, and everything went to hell. I know the Jesse Benton statement came before that and took some wind out of our sails, but Rand's endorsement nailed the coffin shut. At least that's how I saw it.

Rand endorsed Romney after

Rand endorsed Romney after all the elections except Utah (which was obviously going to be a Romney landslide with the huge Mormon population) had taken place. Romney had easily acquired a majority of delegates. Even with the stealth delegate strategy, it's virtually impossible to win a primary nomination getting 10% of the vote. And how did Rand's endorsement affect delegates or votes? The campaign had already acknowledged that they would not have enough delegates to win

We've learned to ignore the

We've learned to ignore the campaign here. You're making the same assumptions that most of the mainstream media makes. All of the delegates are potentially unbound. The popular vote only matters in the few states where the winning candidate chooses the delegates by hand. All of the other states have conventions where delegates are chosen, and even in states where they vote not to unbind delegates, the convention can still vote to not use the popular vote as a guide, and there are probably other rules that can be altered with majority or 2/3 vote. Anything can happen if you can get a majority of delegates inside the building. We had several big state conventions coming up, after some surprisingly strong showings the week before. Then Rand's endorsement, and we went down with a whimper. The campaign had been saying all along that there was no way to really know how many delegates anybody had, then suddenly we get this announcement that we don't have a chance. I think a lot of people thought that was fishy, especially considering the successes of the previous week. It seemed more like a tactic because we were being accused of disrupting conventions. If Rand had just waited until after the next weekend of conventions, he would have gotten much less heat. It was all about timing. Most of the supporters felt we were on a roll. People will now blame Rand (along with Jesse Benton), for the failure to make strong showings in those conventions, though as I understand it there's no way to know who won Texas or a few other states.

No offense, but the only

No offense, but the only people who thought Ron still had a chance were people who couldn't bear to accept the reality of the situation. The popular vote isn't the end all be all, but as I said, it's pretty hard to get an overwhelming majority of delegates necessary to change the rules and nullify the popular vote, especially when the entire establishment is lined up against you. It's not like no one decided to become delegates to the RNC before Ron Paul started running for president. Even with a motivated base, it's next to impossible to get enough delegates to make up for only getting 10% of the vote. Ron had a few victories, but let's not pretend that Romney wasn't getting even more delegates in other states at the same time. Rand's endorsement had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the nomination.

And in the long run, Ron getting the nomination through back door means, while only getting 10% of the vote would have hurt the movement. Rightly or wrongly, the Republican base would have been furious with what they would have seen as trickery and thwarting the democratic will. With a pissed off base, you can't expect to knock off an incumbent president. And in the future the mainstream GOP would have been even more disdainful of libertarian candidates (and I'm not just talking about Rand Paul). Ron really needed to win Iowa to get momentum and start off election season with a bang. Unfortunately, the media went into overdrive with the newsletters, and the anti-Romney vote rallied around Santorum at the last minute, denying us what would have been a huge upset win.

No offense to you, neither...

it sounds as if you need to be on the "winning team" or you don't want to play anymore?

The race isn't over! Is no one going to wait to see what the coach has to say about the end result?

Huh? I'm not voting for

Huh? I'm not voting for Romney and I voted for Ron Paul in California on June 5th, despite knowing he wasn't going to win. I know it's practically heresy around these parts to make an honest realistic assessment about the election, and I'm not surprised by the thumbs down, but he is not going to win. A campaign statement directly stated that he does not have enough delegates, and people still can't face the facts. I wish more than anything that Ron Paul won. He didn't. I'm not going to vote for Romney or Obama, but I'm also not going to bury my head and the sand and refuse to acknowledge the truth, however ugly it may be

Hey, I wanted to touch base.

Regarding this comment ... That is perfectly fine. I don't think I could agree to downvote something based on a single stupid comment by the author of the OP, but I get it. No problem.

The real reason why I was replying to your comment is because I missed your last comment on the thread that was deleted.

Do you still have it and can you post it as a reply to this?

Thanks in advance.

I don't have it. I said

I don't have it. I said something about travelling the world and living in America for 30+ years, and in that time I never encountered any problems because of my Jewish heritage. Most people actually seem impressed when I mention it. It's my opinion that the world media overemphasizes antisemitism. It's actually difficult to find except on TV, newspaper opinions, and in comic books. An Israeli made a documentary looking for anti-semitism around the world, and guess what? He had a hard time finding it too. It's just not there. Yes the Jews and the blacks hate each other in some parts of New York, but that isn't the same thing as persecution. People like you, who bring it up all the time and want to argue about it, are the worst enemies of the Jewish people. You don't end racism by saying rude things to people that you think are racist against a group you don't even belong to. You're just spreading hate. Racism won't end until we stop talking about people as collective groups, which is what you do. We're not persecuted, that was my grandparents. They came to America, and never had any problems. My family blames media and politicians for keeping antisemitism alive. They always try to portray Jews as a kindly vulnerable minority, but that's simply not true. Most of the Jews I know are quite wealthy, well-respected members of their communities, not vulnerable at all... and not always kindly. The advantages Jews are given by this "OH! the poor Jews" propaganda, also makes people hate Jews. As a collective, we would be much better off in America without the ADL and AIPAC preaching hate and making non-Jews resent us. If a busybody like yourself has to sound off against racism, please find another group to defend, because honestly we don't need your help. A few trolls on Dailypaul don't like Jews, you conclude that this site is antisemitic. That's an overreaction on your part. I've been reading this site for 5 years, and I understand the conspiracy they're talking about. Some don't get it at first and they just think it's "the Jews", but once they figure out the complexity of the situation, I don't expect too many of them to broadly blame all Jewish people. Ignorance isn't the same as hate, and when someone says they hate Zionists, there are many Jews who agree with them. This might come as a surprise to you, but we don't all think alike.

I'm So Glad You Said That!

Characteristic of some of the people who have had the most influence on my life who just happened to be Jewish. A few years ago a friend cleared a lot of things I was confused about. I thought a kibbutz was some kind of commune. She said, "Oh, Nena (real name), that's where we send out bad little teenagers so they will come back and appreciate what they have here." I've known...and know... some wonderful Jewish people.

And, of course they are not all Zionists. There was much discussion back in 1948 about whether or not creating what we created was a good idea. From Jewish people and non-Jewish people alike.

I also laugh at the anti-Catholic church folks as I know a lot of good Catholics and just about every other flavor of humanity. I don't classify. There is just as much riff at the top of the Southern Baptist folks as there is the Catholic Church...the Mormon church and just bout everything else. Power and money does seem to corrupt, but there is nothing wrong with wealth from ones' honest and intelligent efforts. The media does its number. Division just keeps the cream from rising to the top in geopolitical circles.

Again, thank y0ou for your thoughtful...and very true post. Wish more people would get it. Actually they will and many do. There are some bad apples in every barrel and they all have much in common with each other that has nothing to do with their heritage or religion.

fonta

I don't go around sticking up for Jews.

I don't think you realize what I was doing.

I wanted the thread deleted from the dailypaul because the sole purpose of the thread was to inspire hate.

I don't ever want the message to be able to be boiled down to hate.

These guys are all regulars and I know you have been around a while, but I don't think you have figured out their intent.

You'll figure it out eventually.

God Bless.

Had Not Read The Whole Thread

...or followed these people but I will now and understand their intent. I made the mistake of reading one comment and responding.
;) I should know better.

Sorry if I disrupted the thread as they did. Like many here, I was also upset by the timing of Rand's endorsement; however, I feel somewhat differently now. We do not know everything that happens behind the scenes. I am glad he is where he is and gaining respect.

I think he has done many good things and I suspect he will do many more. Of course, we are all watching him very closely. I can't forget Carol saying, "he did nothing wrong." I think we do not know everything.

(Just read that Ms. Janet has given people making many trips here from Israel a *pass* with TSA and that did hack me off. A lot.)

fonta