Politico: Rand Paul draws blog love, hate
Submitted by RegularJohn on Fri, 01/25/2013 - 13:13"Who’s more polarizing than Hillary Clinton? Try Sen. Rand Paul.
Bloggers on the left and right zeroed in on the Kentucky Republican after his engagement with Clinton at Wednesday’s Benghazi hearing. The right crowned Paul as their anti-Hillary crusader, bravely going against a mainstream media ready to anoint the outgoing-secretary of state as 2016’s president in waiting. Across the aisle, the left viewed him as an arrogant, whiny politician, pushing radical conservative conspiracy theories."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/rand-paul-draws-blog-l...
So what do you guys think of Rand's recent media attention? Good tactic? I'm not sure myself. In the past few weeks he has had moments where I applauded, and moments where I just slapped my forehead. Most recently, I am disheartened by his declaration that "an attack on Israel is an attack on the U.S". Rand Paul certainly isn't his father, but I do have some hope. I will be watching him closely over the next couple of years.
- Login to post comments
"Polarizing" is a Leftist attack word.
It's the word the lamestream, Democrat-controlled media used first against Sarah Palin because they deemed her to be such a threat (and let's face it, she was the only reason McInsane got any votes at all.)
Labeling Rand Paul as "Polarizing" means that THEY'RE AFRAID OF HIM.
We're WINNING! Woot!
"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." - Ronald Reagan
Public Relations Consulting
I'm kinda sad to see it
I don't want a the next Republican nominee to be seen as polarizing. Then we won't get anywhere: R's will vote against D, and D will vote against R.
The worst part about this, though, is that when Rand criticizes Republicans (which he already has and probably will continue to do so), it would be about issues that Ds could care less about (no new taxes? As if we care. Drone strikes killing children? Hey, Bush was a criminal! Don't you point a finger at our Obama!), so he wouldn't be winning support from the Ds, either.
I do hope I'm wrong. It'd be nice to know if Ds stood for anything anymore (I'll need some Ds to verify if they do), enough to dare question the actions and decisions of their own leaders. I know that when Bush was in power, Rs didn't question anything, no matter how uncomfortable the Patriot Act made them.
Basically, I guess the only thing that will help is if the people themselves stop putting themselves into "teams" and mindlessly bashing the other team while blindly supporting their own.
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine