WSJ: Rand Paul has outperformed his opponent!!!!!
Submitted by rhino on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 19:41
Rand Paul spent much of 2007 campaigning for his father, Ron Paul, the iconoclastic Republican thorn-in-the-side.
Associated Press
Republican Rand Paul speaks on Aug. 1 at the 129th annual Fancy Farm Picnic in Fancy Farm, Ky. But now the younger Paul, an ophthalmologist, is making his own bid for office, and he is doing so in the family tradition: Making Republicans uncomfortable.
Paul is running in the GOP primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, his home state since 1993. He is leading in the most recent poll and raising buckets of money. He is outperforming Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who has the support of Kentucky’s most powerful pol, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Like his father who became an Internet phenomenon during his presidential run, Rand Paul also seems to be somewhat of an Internet sensation. But whether he can actually win is an open question...
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/12/qa-with-rand-paul-s...
How about a War of Love and
How about a War of Love and Peace...if all this money needs to be spent then I say they should forget the guns and bombs and how about we help out all those in need in our country and in other countries in need with shelter and food no chains attached and show that we are a loving country and all we want is to spread our Liberty and Freedom and Live Peacefully with our God given rights...I mean seriously...Can't We All Just Along...?
For once and for all! (And I mean all the different countries not you guys here =) )
He meant
a war MUST be declared by Congress to be a war, but Congress should refrain declaring war in international entanglements.
Very eye-opening...
and not in a good way at all.
Overtures to the neocon/whore Palin?
Supporting a war in Afghanistan?
Hmmm. This is quite disturbing.
Pro-war and pro-neocon is not good at all.
Ya, it's been apparent for a few months
that Rand is not as pro-liberty as his father. I hope he wins, but I won't be that disappointed if he doesn't.
---
"I believe that all government is evil in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty." - H.L. Mencken
Dude, chill out. Even Ron
Dude, chill out. Even Ron Paul voted for authorization to go into Afghanistan.
Palin is a conservative who really doesn't represent the establishment either. We don't agree with her on everything, but she's certinly better then the NEo-Cons who currently control Washington.
See my post here.
http://randforsenate.blogspot.com/2009/11/rand-paul-overture...
Tracy
~
A Way for Trey Grayson searchers to find Rand Paul
http://www.treygraysonforsenate.com
Trey Grayson For US Senate 2010 in Kentucky. See also http://www.jointreygrayson.com/ Spread these links around
~
A Way for Trey Grayson searchers to find Rand Paul
http://www.treygraysonforsenate.com
Trey Grayson For US Senate 2010 in Kentucky. See also http://www.jointreygrayson.com/ Spread these links around
Spin it nice all you want
I had no idea that Rand was pro-war and apparently doesn't mind hooking up with McCain's partner. Bad taste in mouth... Hoping he'll see these comments and reconsider.
What?
Declare war on Afghanistan? You mean the government we put into place? Or the people who never harmed us?
What is he talking about?
This is very worrisome.
Mitt Romney "a mixture of beliefs" polite for FLIP-FLOPPER
Debra Medina for Texas Governor 2010!
Rand Paul for US Senate in Kentucky!
Ron Paul 2012, Join or Die!
DONT TREAD ON ME
AN APPEAL TO HEAVEN - WASHINGTON'S CRUISERS
Debra Medina for Texas Governor 2010!
Rand Paul for US Senate in Kentucky!
Ron Paul 2012, Join or Die!
DONT TREAD ON ME
AN APPEAL TO HEAVEN - WASHINGTON'S CRUISERS
Declaring war on Afghanistan?
Somebody needs to shape ole Rand up, while there is time. What has Afghanistan ever done to the U.S.? We need to quit this global bullsh%t altogether. I guess since we're walking in every Afghani house and business with loaded guns, they're supposed to like it? Try that in your own neighborhood and see how you like it. Stop the madness! Remember the famous remarks by Cassious Clay when they tried to draft him for Viet Nam: "They're not shooting at me, they're not my enemy, you're MY enemy, you're trying take my freedom away". Does anybody see the logic in this? Seen any Afghan warriors in your town lately? If so, call 1-800-GET-REAL to report.
alan laney
Agreed. If he is in favor of war with Afghanistan...
... he needs to get a clue fast.
I do not get the impression that Rand says things just to get votes, either. If he did, that would make him just like any other politician.
Also, I can't imagine why he would be making "overtures" to Palin.
Palin's support...
and endorsement would help him get votes. He probably thinks that he would pull further out in front in the polls if Sarah Palin campaigned with him.However, since she is somewhat tied to the Establishment, and Rand is running an insurgent campaign, she may very well remain neutral in this primary. Some people here will undoubtedly think that this will be the best thing that could happen. I just want what Rand thinks is best for him.
Did someone mention a word that stank & began with P ?
...puh palin? puh leeze! Let's try not to bed down with the whores, ok?
Geez, blakmira...
We get it.. you think Palin is a whore...
Here's the thing: young people love Ron Paul no matter what, so Rand'll probably win their vote regardless of whether or not he has Palin stumping for him.
Others are a little harder to please... And those that think of Rand Paul with 'a bad taste in their mouths,' might have a change of heart if they see Palin endorsing him.
I want Rand to win, Rand wants to win, this country NEEDS Rand to win!
Rand said he is not afraid not to be elected.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/114329
If he is making proposals and offers to a laughingstock who campaigned for warmonger McCain just so he can get votes, that does not seem consistent with his statement.
I'd like to see some clarification from him regarding what he meant about Afghanistan and Palin, because the way it looks here, I'm gonna have to agree with reed below. That stuff doesn't work for me.
this comment is way off.
this comment is way off. haha, i didn't think this guy has a clue what he's talking about.
* David wrote:
"The Rand Paul/ Ron Paul Schizophtenic Senate Campaign has opened the doors of Eastern State Hospital and the patients are rnning amok! If permitted to continue, then Rand/Ron is headed for self destruction according to several political analysts. Rand/Ron has placed his faith in a hodge-podge of social malcontents, counter-culturalists, isolationists, Pro Choice, anti-military, pro-illegal immigration, open grug use, end the fed, reconstructionist, and “Reagan concervatism is dead” ideologues in KY. Whie Rand/Ron had a successful “Monet Bomb” take, 90% of his funding, some $1.2 million in Big Money comes from out of state. We’ve had enough of this “coalition of forces” in the harsh reality of Obama."
I don't think he lines up 100 percent of what we want, but
He is defitnitely not the lesser of 2 evils; and to turn the tide does not happen overnight. That being said, he lines up so much closer to my beliefs especially on the economy, he could only be a breath of fresh air in DC. In any situation, you will never agree with someone 100 percent on his or her views. In any relationship. I am not talking about settling here, but who agrees with Ron Paul in everything?
________________________________
the lesser of two evils is still evil
"Overtures"
to Palin is disturbing.
Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica
Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica
Gosh, I didn't like that interview at all.
Sorry to say it, but if he supports a formal declaration of war in Afghanistan, and it sounds as though he does, I'll not be able to donate to his campaign further.
I know he's way better than Grayson, but my support will be for those who consistently work for freedom and its correlate. IMO you cannot have one without the other.
Nor did I like his openness to Palin; he's sounding too mainstream Republican in this interview. Maybe he has to, to try to win. Just doesn't work for me.
At least it will be constitutional ....
And look at it this way.
Do you really think a Declaration of War would gain approval in congress?
Declare or get out.
Declare or get out.
Declare or get out.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
didn't
ron try the same tactic prior to iraq?
"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul
The Palin thing doesn't bother me.
In fact, I remember back in the heady days of the moneybombs, several people on here wanted Palin as RP's running mate.
The war is another story. I found that disturbing as well.
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
Thought it was strange...
... as well. BUT, I agree with the other posters, that he's playing it safe at the moment. He's going to have to get some votes of the war hawk republicans (who like war in Afghanistan for some insane reason) and the Palin-lovin' crowd. Disconcerting that he's treating it this way, but I still think he's the far better choice.
Chris
cascadiagames.com
He might support a formal
He might support a formal declaration of war, but does he support war against Afghanistan?
Maybe what he's saying is simply that if we are going to be in a war then it should be a Constitutional war, with Congress declaring a war. Any wars without a declaration by Congress are illegal/unconstitutional.
That's your choice.
However, I trust that he will do the right thing.
Rand's being very smart with his campaign... Remember how Russert was trying to demonize Dr. Paul about his earmarks???
I think Rand is picking his words very carefully... he's in a very good position right now-- he doesn't want to screw that up. And for the record, I'm pretty sure Dr. (Ron) Paul also supported a formal declaration of war against Afghanistan... Does that mean you will drop your support for Dr. Paul as well???
Ron Paul has always said he'd only
support a war that was formally declared by Congress. He did not say he'd support every declared war.
Consistently he says "stay out of foreign entanglements" that are elective, not imposed on us by an attack by a country, but rather some ragtag bunch of terrorists. He also scorns the idea of minor third-world countries being a threat to us and requiring war.
Ron Paul is thoroughly committed to negotiation and peace, not to violent aggression.
What?
"He did not say he'd support every declared war."
Where did you get that?
I'm just saying, Dr. Paul believes in non-interventionism, but he also believes that if you're attacked, you have the constitutional authority to defend yourself.
Wars without declaration of wars do not end. There is no goal in the war on Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden is no longer there. What Rand is driving at is, if you can't declare a war because you don't know what your mission is, then you have no choice but to get OUT. Just like the audit of the FED. Once you expose the facts, then we can restore liberty.
I consider myself to be VERY anti-war. I have no problem with what Rand is saying.
I very much hope your interpretation of
Rand's statement is correct.
My point about not necessarily supporting a declared war is that a war that's invalid could be declared. Declaration of war per se wouldn't validate it, especially since Congress is amoral at best.
True...
but it's still Congress' job. Not the President's.
We should always uphold the Constitution. If the Constitution says that in order to attack another nation, we need to make a formal declaration of war, then so be it.
The reason why Neo-cons, war-mongers, and the MIC don't like declaring war, is because A) it's too 'time-consuming', B) it defines specific reasons for going to war, and C) they have to establish a goal and determine what 'victory' would be.
I know Rand is on my side. I trust him. It's your choice whether you want to or not.
I am not defending the war in Afghanistan. I think it is an atrocity. However, if Congress does move to make a declaration of war, it is the peace advocate's duty to inform his representatives and tell them to vote against that declaration.
Agreed
It does seem that a few here will jump on anything to attack Rand Paul though. Not to mention, this a a third partiy's "take" on what he was saying.
I gotta admit, reed, those two things jumped out at me, also.
They both leave me thinking, "HUH??"
Washington Wire: What should
Washington Wire: What should happen in Afghanistan?
Paul: "I support a declaration of war in Afghanistan. We have to now determine what our mission is. It’s become somewhat murky."
I hope that's code for "We should just leave."
Free yourself.
----------------------
Free yourself.
He kind of threw Ron under the bus there on earmarks...
I'm not sure what that was that all about. I thought Ron's reasoning behind the earmarks was pretty sound.
Here was my understanding of it:
-Constituents ask for earmarks
- Being their representative Ron adds them
-On principal he then votes against them
-If the bill passes it passes, it's not his fault if other congressman want his constituency to have earmarks.
-His integrity is maintained and his constituents get some of their tax money back in the form of projects and programs
-Regardless of whether the money is earmarked or not it has already been appropriated to be spent. Earmarks neither increase nor decrease that. Isn't it better to bring some of that money back home than to allow the federal government to use that money how they see fit?
It's a nuanced position for sure, but I found it completely logical and acceptable. The real problem was the appropriation of the money in the first place not the earmarks. Am I wrong in this understanding?
If this understanding is accurate I don't see what Rand's problem with earmarks is. It's hard to believe, but, is Rand just not aware of his father's reasoning on earmarks? Does he just not agree? Maybe its for political expediency he says he's against them. Ron caught a lot of flack from republicans who refused to understand his opinion. Maybe he will appeal to more people this way if he keeps it simple.
The war stance kind of rubbed me the wrong way too. Maybe this was for expediency's sake as well. Why alienate people at this point when they still need to educated on freedom and what war is really all about. The new people and republicans coming in, will eventually begin to realize what a sham the wars are and will demand an end to them. I guess we'll see.
Actually Dr. Paul believes in earmarks ...
He believes that congress alone has the authority to spend money the way it sees fit.
He just simply believes that 99.9% of all earmarks are unconstitutional federal spending.
That is why he will sponsor an earmark, because if the bill passes and there is not earmark, then the spending will be left up to the descretion of the executive branch, which is an authority that can only be given away by congress.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
I don't think so
I don't think he threw his dad under the bus. It's just that there's not much time to explain RP's position, which you have articulated quite well.
Either position is fine with me.
Ron Paul also says instead of spending billions of dollars on war, let's cut back there, and use that money domestically....all the while proclaiming it's all unconstitutional and evil.
But he's not going to end the welfare state over night. It has to be done incrementally. Thus he's saying earmarks are indeed evil, but rather than the money go to another state, it might as well come to my state.
Rand just objects on principle. But again, so does Ron. Their difference is only procedural, if you want to call it that.
I did speak with Rand personally about this at a meet-and-greet about 10 days ago. He gave this as an illustration of how he's different.
One thing that surprised me MUCH was he was for a declaration of war on the Afghans. That totally surprises me. Is this REALLY his position? Obviously, it's not a deal breaker, BUT, what is his rationale in wanting to fight a 3rd world country, like any other countries we've been fighting since post WWII?
I think he may be playing "politician" here, which I don't like, but he may be wanting to get the votes of the non-thinking RINO's (Rep In Name Only), who support folks like Romney and mindless wars that the Bushes and Clintons have put us through. The "war on terror" is a gov't fabrication. It's military Keynesism BS. Inflate the money supply and enrich the super rich bankers, and impoverish the middle class. Two birds with one stone. Wiping out the middle class empowers the Elite, and all the while they get more wealthy, because of their intoxication with wealth and power, NOT knowing that in the end, they will lose their wealth and power.
The first shall be last, and the last shall be first.
great post but...
i gotta nitpick. it's "principle", not principal. the principal runs your high school. principles are not to be compromised.
Thanks
Good call. My apologies on the spelling.
So what are your thoughts on this?
ha, romney
i dont have the link handy but there is old video footage of when he was running in massachussets. at the end of the debate, it is clear that he is liberal on just about every issue.
Rand Paul will save conservatism and will be president in 2012
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
bump
bump
RAND PAUL CARDS!
www.CardsForLiberty.com
bump
.