jerseyhoya wrote:How Rand Paul Became the Tea Party's Obama

The Son Also Rises

Two very good (though long) profiles on Rand Paul. His acceptance speech amused the hell out of me, so I went to read more. It seems he is about 10x the politician his father is, and has adroitly moved to address a number of the weaknesses Ron Paul has with some of his more unpopular views. I think I might like him.

Weird crop of GOPers we can elect this go around. Some legit, true believers who are harping fiscon bonafides but are very conservative socially and whatnot (Toomey, Paul (with some quirks), Rubio, and Coburn's up too). Then Kirk and Castle on the very moderate GOP edge of the spectrum, and with Blumenthal's implosion, either McMahon or Simmons will be a moderate with a chance of winning as well. Tom Campbell, the frontrunner for the GOP nod in CA who is polling even with Boxer, is pro choice/pro gay marriage.

Big tent, mother $#@!.

This sums up my thoughts, from the second article:

Yet many such libertarians remain reluctant to criticize the younger Paul publicly. “All of the signs I’ve seen so far are bad,” the activist says. “And politicians usually get worse rather than better once they’re in office. But we’re still trying to be hopeful.” Another professional libertarian declares that the candidate will “either be exactly the kind of thing we need, someone who is reliable on the most important things but willing to be tactical when he needs to be, or he’ll turn out to be so pragmatic that he’s indistinguishable from other Republicans.”

I think Rand will be a positive influence on bringing libertarian views into the Republican party. I dont understand how a libertarian can be anything but ecstatic about Rand possibly winning a Senate seat. What kind of expectations can they have for this to be a disappointment?!? Fanatics are weird.

Someone should have told him a good time to be tactical was with regard to the Civil Rights Act

Q: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

A: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that in ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that.

Q: But?

A: Ha ha ha. You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners. I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think that there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about, to my mind.

That's from a Louisville Courier Journal interview before the primary. Apparently he was worse on the Rachael Maddow Show and NPR today. I mean, I get what he's trying to say, but this isn't the sort of thing you want to be making an issue of on the day after your primary win. Please let the NRSC send you a staff person who isn't a libertarian loony who can tell you things like, "Don't go on the Rachael Maddow Show to talk about the Civil Rights Act of 1964." I'm glad there aren't too many black people in Kentucky.

In the future when you're asked about a law that passed a lot time ago and everyone supports but you opposed its passing because it was constitutionally questionable, please just say, "Look, this is a campaign about the future of America, and the debt we're piling up for our children and grandchildren. Sitting around discussing silly hypotheticals from half a century ago isn't going to help us solve our problems." or something like that. Please.

This guy is a whack.

He's an idealist and an ideologue, not a politician.

There's a weird libertarian/neo-confederate set--the von Mises foundation (which has very little to do with von Mises--Lew Rockwell is involved) was a center of that stuff, and has links to Ron Paul. For awhile, some of those people were involved with Liberty Fund (and it showed up in some of the publications they did) but have largely been purged.

On NPR his answer mostly focused on how he would like to think he would have had the moral courage to march with Dr. King during the civil rights movement. The interviewer was apparently stunned that he would say that, but give a meandering answer on whether he would have supported the act itself.

I think the whole march with MLK stuff is utter and absolute BS. It's the new "some of my best friends are black" bit, and the kind of thing those right wing on the other board used to spout.

drsmooth wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:The GOP needs to hope Simmons wins the primary. He can beat Blumenthal now. We dont need our own Al Franken like person.

Rock, you're a nutmegger? I was sure you were out in bum $#@! indiana somewhere.

Simmons would probably do a pretty good job. He'll almost certainly outcampaign Blumenthal. Blumenthal wouldn't be bad either; he probably wouldn't do much, but that would be ok. But Blumenthal is not really Al Franken, and that's not to knock Franken (though I'm not sure exactly what Franken has done thus far, for good or ill, other than poke a procedural finger in slack-ass Lieberman's eye, which provoked a belly laugh from this onlooker).

Like someone said earlier, no one that wrote a 10,000 check to the democrats in the last couple years should be given serious consideration by a GOP primary voter.

"purity of essence", that's the ticket

i meant we dont need mcmahon, someone who has no business being in the senate, like franken

Rococo4 wrote:i meant we dont need mcmahon, someone who has no business being in the senate, like franken

thanks, that clarifies it. So you ARE in Ohio, but feel the US Senate doesn't need either McMahon or Franken. I sure don't think CT really will be effectively represented by McMahon.

Help me with something. From your posts I've assumed you skew conservative. Isn't it a conservative tenet that states' prerogatives should be honored? If so, how can you presume to say that any particular person "has no business" being in the Senate? Isn't that entirely up to any given state's voters, however crazy they happen to be? Isn't it hypocrisy to suggest otherwise publicly, since it would theoretically be none of your fucking business, as long as the candidate meets the constitutional thresholds for eligibility (at least 30 years old, a citizen of the United States for at least nine years, and be a (legal) inhabitant of the state they represent; I had to look it up)?

You're not obliged to reply of course but that just kind of confused me.

On what basis does Franken have no business in the Senate? That is, who does have business in the Senate?

pacino wrote:Tom Corbett is sending out subpoenas to find out who hates him on Twitter

Protected
Political
Speech

So this Dick Blumenthal fellow really handled this poorly.

News today from a New London paper:

[T]he comments claiming Vietnam service, though seemingly isolated, are what they are and not easily explained away.

And why did Mr. Blumenthal not act quickly to correct inaccurate reports in state newspapers that described him as a Vietnam veteran? The candidate explains he can't track all news reports about him. Yet this newspaper knows from experience that Mr. Blumenthal is quick to correct unflattering statements published about him or to refute opinions with which he disagrees. One reporter got a call from the attorney general for inserting a middle initial in his name. He has none.

And the Stamford Advocate found another quote from him from Nov. 2008 saying he was in Vietnam

"I wore the uniform in Vietnam and many came back & to all kinds of disrespect. Whatever we think of war, we owe the men and women of the armed forces our unconditional support."

Drip, drip, drip

That's horrible. I would love to know what his justification is for using his ability to issue subpoenas on behalf of the Commonwealth to go after people clearly expressing protected speech. Vox, sorry if this leads to you receiving a subpoena.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhIO7DG0

Entertaining political commercial from a guy running for Alabama's Agriculture Commissioner

But really, aren't these suits about testing the judicial system on these things? I know there is that guy threatening to kill Palin via Twitter as well. It seems to me that there are always people who 'need' to get a court ruling on things that the rest of us look at and say "that's dumb".

jerseyhoya wrote:Someone should have told him a good time to be tactical was with regard to the Civil Rights Act

Q: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

A: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that in ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that.

Q: But?

A: Ha ha ha. You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners. I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think that there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about, to my mind.

That's from a Louisville Courier Journal interview before the primary. Apparently he was worse on the Rachael Maddow Show and NPR today. I mean, I get what he's trying to say, but this isn't the sort of thing you want to be making an issue of on the day after your primary win. Please let the NRSC send you a staff person who isn't a libertarian loony who can tell you things like, "Don't go on the Rachael Maddow Show to talk about the Civil Rights Act of 1964." I'm glad there aren't too many black people in Kentucky.

In the future when you're asked about a law that passed a lot time ago and everyone supports but you opposed its passing because it was constitutionally questionable, please just say, "Look, this is a campaign about the future of America, and the debt we're piling up for our children and grandchildren. Sitting around discussing silly hypotheticals from half a century ago isn't going to help us solve our problems." or something like that. Please.

Yeah, I don't think he helped himself on TRMS last night. And the thing I love about Rachel is that absolutely gives the guests she disagrees with a chance to explain themselves. Dr. Paul spoke at length several times (especially for TV) and all he seemed to do was dig a deeper hole.

I, too, understand his overall point with regard to private ownership but he continually tried to equate gun totin' and segregation and that just isn't even close, again IMHO. Paul kept wrapping himself in his support of nine of the 10 Titles of the Act (specifically, opposed to Title II I believe) as if that made up for the fact that he wouldn't mind if Applebee's corporate policy was not to serve blacks or Jews.

I'm with you, Hoya. The thing past four decades ago; just keep your mouth shut and move on. Really, what could he have possibly gained by discussing it?

VoxOrion wrote:But really, aren't these suits about testing the judicial system on these things? I know there is that guy threatening to kill Palin via Twitter as well. It seems to me that there are always people who 'need' to get a court ruling on things that the rest of us look at and say "that's dumb".

Except that the jurisprudence is pretty clear here. Threatening to kill someone is not protected speech because it incites violence. Publicly saying someone is bad at their job or questioning their ethics may be actionable. However, there are two problems. First, Corbett is a public figure and therefore a different standard applies (legally that is). Second, even if this was actionable as defamation or slander per se, that is a civil cause of action and Corbett should not be using the Commonwealth's police power to remedy that.

jeff2sf wrote:So I voted for Specter last night but am content with how things played out.

I think Democrats owed it to him as one of the few guys who would actually stand up to Bush and not vote party lines. Also, as a Pennsylvanian, you kinda had to love the pork that guy could bring home.

But the dude's 80, Sestak's not Toomey, and I know a guy who helped Sestak a lot in previous campaigns and thinks he's a solid dude, so go Joe.

I voted for Specter too, as a "thank you" to him for voting his conscience on the stimulus package and against party lines when he was a Republican for so many years. And I feel exactly the same about the result as you do.

Paul: I Support the Civil Rights Act

As far as damage control goes, this is pretty good. Still a dumb hornet's nest to kick, and it will continue to hurt down the line.

Leno on Blumenthal

Well, the truth is he got five deferments, like Dick Cheney. Then he used connections to get into a special reserve unit, like George Bush. And he would have been fine, if he hadn’t lied like John Edwards.