14 votes

Question: Why does no one mention Rand Paul being the son of Ron Paul?

I've heard a lot of effusive praise and adoration for Rand Paul since his filibuster by right wing radio pundits. But its strange how they avoid the biggest elephant in the room--Rand Paul being the son of Ron Paul, and the influence of his fathers philosophy on Rand.

Yeah, I know Rand walks a different path than Dr. Paul, but still, Rand does definitely retain most of his Dad's ideals. And whether the pundits like to admit it or not, they have been sounding like faux neo-libertarians (As I predicted years ago they would), with much of their current narrative rhyming like Dr. Ron Paul--Except on the position of foreign policy and Israel, of course.

So it seems to me that Rand and the pundits are afraid to mention Rand's biological and political heritage from Dr. Paul, lest they inadvertently admit that Ron Paul was right when they were labeling him a kook and a metaphorically crazy uncle years previously.

Dr. Paul made many of the same arguments in Congress long before Rand did his 13-hour filibuster. Yet the pundits either ignored or criticized him. This leads me to believe that the right wing pundits are only hitching to Rand's rising star because he is the enemy to their enemy, Obama, and not for any conversion to ideals that Rand inherited from his father.

Had Rand made a similar filibuster with a Republican President in offcie, (Which I suspect he would not) I doubt he would be getting so much love right now from the faux-Conservatives.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Because he is a

disgrace to his fathers name and legacy, a snake who has proven he is not to be trusted.

They do when they say, "Crazy like his father".

Lots of the liberal pundits say that.

I love Ron, always will. But

I love Ron, always will. But they can make believe Rand is adopted for all I care right now. Rand is getting things he needs to move forward to bigger things. Ron couldn't have those things because he never played politics well. With Ron it was always 'I'll be in my office if you come up with anything Constitutional..' On one hand, I admire that. On the other, it painted him into a political corner.

You guys know how petty it can be in those rooms? People will withdraw support from your bills if they don't like the way you chew bubble gum. So how many bills did Ron manage to pass in his Congressional career? Do you think it was the content of the Bills, or the fact that he refused to support the majority of others bills that got him into that situation? He shut them out, so they shut him out.

Ron always spoke his mind and his beliefs or echoed the beliefs of leaders past he agreed with. We as a body of Ron lovers just so happen to embrace those ideas without persuasion. We read it, we love it, we back it politically. However, in 2013 people are different. Hell they've been different for a long time. We strict Constitutionalists are actually a minority without the realistic numbers to win a Presidential election. Vote it down, but it's true.

I'm not backing down on my beliefs or saying we're in the wrong. I'm simply stating that we 'free thinkers' are not always the most 'open thinkers'. We cannot win a general election alone and we cannot 'convert' everyone to our thinking lines. We have to find a way to respect others and find common ground so we can exist within the Constitution without violating it, or another person. You don't need to be a neo conservative or progressive to understand or accept that. In fact it's very Libertarian to understand that even the people we despise have an equal voice under the law of this land. Conversely it is very Liberal to think they'd don't.

Now Rand's strategy on the other hand seems to be speaking half his mind and half of ours. This is the best way to gain as much support within a population that's nearly split 50/50 on ideas and issues. We don't have to like it but it's better to walk away with a landslide of 'We align more to his ideas than the other candidates ideas' than 8-12% of 'We love you Ron!!' votes (And we DO love you Ron ;)).

Rand doesn't slam the office door in anyone's face and he uses just enough PC to have some of his colleagues mad at him, but they get over it eventually and that's important. If a bill comes through with overwhelming support (pass regardless) but he/we don't like it he may just throw his vote in the hat so he isn't remembered as 'the one guy that said no' when his time comes to push something forward.

Insatead of saying 'I don't like him because he voted for blah blah blah'go at take a look at his role in the votes. If it was close, was he a swing vote? And if it was a swing vote was it a YAY for something that attacks the roots of our rights? Or was it something small that would gain him respect when it's time to talk about something large? This is politics 101 and you have to play that game up there.

In a room full of people whose majority support you need you have to make some compromises. If you make the considerations carefully you don't compromise too much of yourself and gain some favor when it's your turn. It's sad that there are people this petty in office, but some of them are like little girls in that room. You have to dance around their feelings, walk on a few eggshells, and grow the relationships slowly. You pick and choose your battles wisely and that is KEY. Strict Constitutionalists such as ourselves might cringe at some of the things Rand votes yes to. But there is a bigger picture we have to open our own minds to. You don't have to love it, you just have to understand it.

Is it ideal? I'm not sure that can even be debated in a forum. But it could land a MUCH more liberty minded individual in the white house than we have now. Somebody we can possibly vote for an not go home shaking our heads or feeling like we voted the lesser of 2 evils or face 'wasted vote syndrome' and so forth.

Ron learned as he went and didn't get a lot of second chances. Rand Watched from afar and learned from observation how the game is played. He seen what did and did not work for his father. He knows what you should and should not try up on that hill and he's attempting to apply it. So far, it's working.

I'm sorry you see it that way.

Ron Pauls refusal to pass bad bills is exactly why Rand could win a statewide election.
Being associated with Ron Paul's NO! record is a GOOD thing.

Being in the senate gives Rand a bit more influence than Ron, especially when it comes to confirmations and filibusters.

Where would we be right now if Ron voted for the Patriot act or the war in Iraq?

Ron's bills didn't get passed because the neocons running the House didn't put most of them up for a vote. Even so, the makeup of the house since 2010 has been more favorable for Paul than in the past. Unfortunately, he isn't there.

'Ron Pauls refusal to pass

'Ron Pauls refusal to pass bad bills is exactly why Rand could win a statewide election. Being associated with Ron Paul's NO! record is a GOOD thing.'

It's a good thing in our eyes. It's not a good thing in *everybody's* eyes. That was the point. A statewide election is not a countrywide election. He has to appeal to everybody as much as possible. Not just Kentucky, and not just us. I'm not trying to argue with anybody and I certainly wouldn't vote your post down for saying these things. But we're not alone in this country and certain states don't always swing our way. So it's not so much how I see things, as it is I'm trying to see things how others see things as well. I see your point, and I didn't start my reply with 'I'm sorry' like you did. I think that the difference between agreeing and accepting is valid here.

'Where would we be right now if Ron voted for the Patriot act or the war in Iraq?'

The same place? The majority wanted revenge. We can't stand in the way of that sort of overwhelming public sentiment. They vote and pay taxes too. Bush rallied the general sentiment of people stuck in shock and awe mode. Buildings came down, people cried, and he gave great speeches. Irrespective of what I think, I have to step outside my own head once in a while to view things from somebody elses shoes. How are we ever going to understand each other if we don't?

'Ron's bills didn't get passed because the neocons running the House didn't put most of them up for a vote. Even so, the makeup of the house since 2010 has been more favorable for Paul than in the past. Unfortunately, he isn't there.'

Because they didn't like him. I tried to drive that home in the first post. When has our house ever saved face? The majority of them to this day would drive this country into ruin before they would admit they were wrong or stand up with someone who doesn't stand with them. It's a giant grade school cafeteria up there on the hill and Ron didn't sit at the cool kids table. I've learned to accept what is and now I gotta learn to work with what I have available to me.

It's time to keep our friends close and our enemies closer. Convincing people to be a friend is futile and turning your back on the enemy gets you nowhere. I would rather try to convince somebody that my line of thinking can coexist with their line of thinking as opposed to trying to convert them to my line of thinking. That is, in essence, what will ultimately unite people across partisan isles.

Conversion attempts leave a lot of people with the sentiment that you do not accept them as a whole and is almost always met with resistance and regret. We are quick to point that out in our 'democracy via gunpoint' arguments with respect to war in the middle east as Paulites. Why can't we apply that logic in our own home?

Coexistence attempts say 'I respect you, even if I don't agree with you. Can we find common ground?' and leaves people much more willing to work with you than against you. People from all parties, ultimately, if they dig deep enough to put aside themselves; Will landslide unite with an individual that attempts this.

I wish you the best and appreciate your thoughts. But please don't apologize for the way I see this. I wouldn't apologize for the way you see things and am perfectly willing to accept them even if they are not in perfect alignment with my own. there are over 300 million people we share this country with and we just can't all be the same. God speed.

Imagine if Ron Paul had been a senator.

This kind of filibuster would have been the norm.

I think your judgement is accurate

Rand Paul is the enemy of their enemy and a rising star, so they can't support Rand for things his father taught but was called crazy for.

However, I think that Ron Paul doesn't want to take credit for the things his son does. He already said that Rand is his own person, and he wouldn't have it any other way. It would be good for the entire family for Rand to not be stuck in his father's shadow, always being compared to his father (regardless of whether that comparison is good or bad). Rand is an adult, and he's making his own decisions, and that is how it's supposed to be.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

I haven't listened that closely

to the Limbaugh intro, but I still occasionally hear an intro that mentions him as the son of Ron Paul. I only want to hear that occasionally, but of course not never. Rand Paul has his own credentials to build on now.

Defend Liberty!

Also, how come Dr. Paul (Ron)

Also, how come Dr. Paul (Ron) is the only one of the two who is referred to as Dr. Paul?

There can be only one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AoOa-Fz2kw

All others are counterfeit

I always refer to Rand as Dr.

I always refer to Rand as Dr. Paul these days!

I bet you do! Helps

to try to steal the Legacy of the real thing.

i've noticed that too

as though the blackout memo still stands. the power of that name still frightens the powers that be. & the neocons in canada are bad mouthing ron, but it's obvious the picture is changing and people are beginning to wake up., even if it is one by one...

There's neocons in canada?

There's neocons in canada? They believe in American greatness too?

tories if you prefer

http://www.humanistperspectives.org/issue177/drury.html

actually the paper cited is a canadian version of the new york times, so actually liberal, but you know these days it's hard to tell them apart.

It's because the media is

It's because the media is military, and Rand has the support of the zionist controlled media where hero Ron Paul did not.

Has Ron Paul ever been on Rush Limbaugh????

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

They do

Listen to Rush Limbaugh talking about the Neocons reaction to Rand. He talks about Rands father crazy Ron and the fear that Rand may also be an ISOLATIONIST. Rush needs a primer on isolationist versus non-interventionalist.

My litmus test

to be able to tell if any of these guys like Beck, Hannity, Rush etc. are serious is whether they mention Ron and give him some credit and so far I really haven't heard much so that makes them neolibs (aka neocons pretending to be libertarian) to me.

Something else about Rand

Something else about Rand that's never really mentioned is that he's a physician in his own right. http://randpaulmd.com/

Heh, I Know Your Question Is Rhetorical

The MSM will never mention Ron in a positive light.

Media betrays him as old and crazy...

I think Rand Paul doesn't mention Ron Paul at all because the stigma everyone has on Ron Paul right now. Media betrays him as old and crazy...

Of course they do! And they give Rand

LOTS of atttention. Wonder why that is? Try "controlled opp".
Duh.

Maybe because they represent

Maybe because they represent two different messages and philosophy .

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm

I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm liking the attention, but we must never forget who are friends are/were when we were getting laughed at by the media and public.

Ron Paul knew this message would become popular as he said it many times before.. Knowledge is power.

You mean the one

who shall not be named?

Interesting, isn't it?

I was talking some politics with my hairdresser recently and mentioned I supported RP and she said, "Yeah, he's the one we should have elected!" His name escaped her - the media did such a good job, didn't they?

I was rather speechless and (I'll admit) a bit miffed. She's a sweet lady but why in the world is she admitting this now?!? I live in South Carolina - the Gingrich primary, Golden-Rule booing, Lindsey Graham loving state.

Hello people - wake up!

UGH!

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul