Friday, June 15, 2012




What Was Rand Paul Thinking?


What does this item from Politico say to you about about Rand Paul –– and more importantly about the American political process? 
Most of us with conservative sympathies believe Politico to be biased in favor of liberals. Does anything about this particular item bear this out? If so, what might it be?
Do you think Rand Paul has betrayed his father’s libertarian-strict-constructionist ideals, or is he merely being pragmatic?
Washington, DC seems to be a place where “you have to go along to get along.” Do you see any way a newly-elected congressman (or woman) could remain true to himself and his constituents, and survive? Or is the political process, itself, inherently corrupt, and in need of some sort of “revolutionary” overhaul?

ALso, what has been your impression of Rand Paul since he arrived on the stage of our National Political Theater? 

[WARNING: Diatribes vilifying and excoriating Ron Paul and his son are apt to be removed. Sober, rational criticism is welcome, of course, but please try not to equate prejudice with passion, even though the two so often go hand in hand.] 
~ FreeThinke
POLITICO 
June 15, 2012, 5:15 AM
What Was Rand Paul Thinking?
by Charles Mahtesian
[W]hat was a libertarian like Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul thinking when he endorsed Mitt Romney?
It’s a question that many of his supporters –– and his father’s supporters –– have been asking ...
While Rand Paul cited their shared experiences as sons of presidential candidates and their alignment on issues such as auditing the Fed and Internet freedom, a top Paul staffer shed more light Wednesday on the political calculus.
From a practical matter you have to endorse the candidate before the convention. Romney is going to get the nomination no doubt about that at all, and so it behooves everyone to have Senator Paul endorse him before the convention,” James Milliman, Paul’s state director, told a Louisville Young Republicans meeting in the above video from Kentucky’s Insight Channel 2.This could enable Senator Paul to have a prime speaking role at the convention and his dad to have a prime speaking role at the convention, so I think all those things factored in.”
The number of “prime speaking roles” the endorsement “could enable” is what’s most interesting: Not just one for Ron Paul, but possibly one for his son as well.
If that’s the case, that’s some great national exposure for a senator in his second year in office –– especially for one who is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s junior.
It’s not a bad head start for 2016 either.

7 comments:

  1. Ron Paul is a member of the Republican Party. Right now, the GOP is trying to unify behind the obvious candidate (Romney) so as to defeat Obama.

    Defeating Obama has to be priority number one at this point.

    Can you imagine what another 4 years under the Obama regime will do to America? I really don't want to think about that!

    If Rand Paul believes the same as I about Obama, then Rand Paul's priority has to get behind the better choice for AMERICA. I just might be that NOT getting behind Romney is the greater betrayal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I tend to agree, AOW. Ideological purity might be wonderful, but in the world of Realpolitik it's just not possible. Only a fanatic would think otherwise, and look what has happened historically whenever fanatics have gained power -- monumental disaster.

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  3. Politics is about pragmatism and gaining power in order to implement your ideas. Being a bomb-throwing troofer loony generally does not advance your goals.

    I like Rand Paul and he is doing a good job threading the needle.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Imo, the jury is out on Rand Paul. I have to think of this youtube of Mr Paul, seemingly grilling the Dept of Energy, but in the end, she basically laughed at him, and at the end he diffused the whole thing by saying "this was just something he's wanted to do for 20 years."

    Given the 5 minutes, he could have made much better points, and 'in the end part 2', where did any of this lead? Nowhere.

    Is that inexperience or classic lip service trying to garner points?

    So, the Jury is out.

    Great blog btw.

    ReplyDelete
  5. PS - Thanks for not using word verification. Blogger is really good at filtering spam from the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, Kid. I just found your post. It is Sunday, 6:30 PM EDT. The blog is brand new. I'm glad you like it.

    I've enjoyed reading many of your comments at other places. I hope you'll be a frequent visitor here.

    Regards,

    FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  7. You're bookmarked.
    And thank you.

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.