PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul, Tea Party Favorite, Moving Toward the Middle?




FrankRep
10-08-2010, 01:32 PM
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/AP-3-2010/rrpaul-ap.001.jpg
Rand Paul



Rand Paul has been accused of edging away from the Tea Party movement, as he and other candidates try to win swing voters, and watchers are speculating whether he really holds a allegiance to the Tea Party or whether he has just been pandering to them all along. by Joe Wolverton, II


Tea Party Favorite Moving Toward the Middle? (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4819-tea-party-favorite-moving-toward-the-middle)


Joe Wolverton, II | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
08 October 2010


It is that time in the wild kingdom of politics where all the elephants and donkeys make their biennial migration toward the great electoral watering hole known as the Swing Voter. This lake lies right in the middle of Campaign Land and gets awfully crowded as scores of thirsty office seekers stampede to stake claim to their little patch of ground close enough to irrigate the quest for electoral victory.

While such treks are traditional and are only marginally noteworthy, even in the era of round the clock news broadcasts, there is a new beast nudging his way into the herd that has attracted the attention of the other animals, as well as those on safari, tracking the movements of all the contenders.

The Tea Party Movement has drawn adherents from both major political parties, most of whom attribute their conversion to the wholesale Constitutional apostasy of red and blue candidates who succumbed to the seductions of power and followed the siren call onto the shearing shoals of usurped power.

In the face of such disloyalty and betrayal, it is easy to explain the impressive growth of the Tea Party. They believe themselves to have discovered another source of water and they welcomed all those political animals tired of pandering and following the herd, to come and drink freely from their spring. The only cost, moreover, of access to the cool water of Constitutionalism was a inviolable pledge to moor oneself freely and permanently to the firm and fixed principles of small government and recognition of the boundaries of constitutionally enumerated powers.

As one after the other election was won by so-called “Tea Party candidates,” the reporters, pundits, and pollsters demonstrated the whys and wherefores of this meteoric and historic political realignment. As for the candidates themselves, they eschewed the predictable talking points and made names for themselves by shooting straight and talking straighter. Every syllable was as manna to the millions of weary voters brought low after years of wandering the desert in search of representatives genuinely and steadfastly committed to leading them to the promised land of a restored republic.

A few potential prophets of liberty have distinguished themselves from the pack of pretenders. None appears more likely to shoulder the mantle than Rand Paul, son of Congressman Ron Paul, the godfather of the Tea Party Movement. Rand is charging convincingly toward the Senate from Kentucky and there’s seems to be very little the opposition can do to avoid being crushed under the “randslide” that swept the scion into the lead.

Apart from Paul, there is the ubiquitous Christine O’Donnell. The former abstinence counselor splashed suddenly onto the surface of the national consciousness after an impressive upset victory over former governor Mike Castle in Delaware’s Republican senatorial primary. Unfortunately for Ms. O’Donnell, however, she has spent most of the time since the primary assuring her conservative base, a la Monty Python, that she’s not a witch.

As reported previously in this magazine, key races in several states have seen the ascension of otherwise unknown candidates propelled to prominence by the high-octane fuel of Tea Party activism. The flame burns brightly, but is it burning off too quickly? As the hour of reckoning approaches, it seems that some of the devout might be repenting a little of their public piety and joining, albeit reluctantly, the biennial pilgrimage toward the holy stone of moderation. An act most disheartening in the case of Rand Paul.

“For Tea Party Candidate, Time to Temper the Message” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/politics/04paul.html?_r=1&sq=rand%20paul&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print) reads the title of an article on the front page (above the fold) of the New York Times. The piece recounts the alleged distancing of Tea Party darling Rand Paul from the one that brung him to the party.

The article states that, “no matter how devoted Mr. Paul is to Tea Party principles, he may be forced to yield periodically to some realities of the old-school politics that he denounces.” And again: “Mr. [Mitch] McConnell set up a fund-raiser in Washington for Mr. Paul with several Republican senators who, like Mr. McConnell, had supported the $700 billion bank bailout in 2008; during the primary, Mr. Paul said he would not accept donations from anyone who had done so.”

More evidence provided by the New York Times of Paul’s alienation from his Tea Party supporters: “During a nationally televised debate on Fox News Sunday, Mr. Paul said that if he were elected to the Senate, he would support Senator Mitch McConnell, also from Kentucky, to keep his job as Republican leader.” This is interpreted as a slap in the face of Senator Jim DeMint, a popular grandee of the Tea Party who early and often has announced his support for Paul and other Tea Party-backed candidates nationwide.

The bottom line of the report:



Now, his references to the Tea Party are fewer and farther between. On a trip last week through eastern Kentucky, the trademark yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flags of the movement were gone. Mr. Paul did not sound his earlier battle cry that he would shut down Congress for a week if it failed to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget. In fact, he did not mention the Tea Party at all.


Whether Rand Paul’s infrequent mention of the Tea Party during recent rallies truly is a sign of his subtle shuffling toward the thundering herd predictably plodding their way toward the familiar watering hole of old school realpolitik or simply the skillful sharpening of his horns in preparation for the head-to-head combat awaiting him in the Senate, only time will tell.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4819-tea-party-favorite-moving-toward-the-middle

LibertyEagle
10-08-2010, 01:41 PM
He damn well better not be. I will be royally pissed.

But, I imagine he is making sure he gets elected.

Time will tell.

Stary Hickory
10-08-2010, 01:44 PM
He damn well better not be. I will be royally pissed.

Rand will be POTUS and it could be at a time when monetary system changes are necessary. Rand will hold the line, he is a smarter politician than his dad but he won't betray the truth.

LibertyEagle
10-08-2010, 01:45 PM
Rand will be POTUS and it could be at a time when monetary system changes are necessary. Rand will hold the line, he is a smarter politician than his dad but he won't betray the truth.

I hope so.

God, I detest politics.

RedStripe
10-08-2010, 01:47 PM
Why is there a question mark at the end of the thread title?

:p

FrankRep
10-08-2010, 01:50 PM
Why is there a question mark at the end of the thread title?

Because "only time will tell"

Stary Hickory
10-08-2010, 01:52 PM
I hope so.

God, I detest politics.

I do too, but I tend to think of it as a battlefield. We have to put the soldiers in the field...find the very best we can and put them to work.

Of course I think of secession as the atomic bomb, a weapon able to dramatically end battles and even the war itself.

Then their are states rights, I think of those as super special forces ops that can paralyze the enemies ability to attack and puts them on the defensive.

So all in all we need a combined arms apporach to securing liberty. You can't ignore politics outright and hope to be free. You hit them from all sides.

FrankRep
10-08-2010, 01:57 PM
People in Kentucky, make sure to contact Rand Paul and remind him that we support him, but we won't tolerate him deviating from the Constitution and the principles of liberty.

MikeStanart
10-08-2010, 02:17 PM
Rand is playing politics.

jmhudak17
10-08-2010, 02:22 PM
It's kind of annoying that he's pandering for votes, but I feel like he's principled enough that we know what kind of congressman he's going to me.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-08-2010, 02:37 PM
He damn well better not be. I will be royally pissed.

But, I imagine he is making sure he gets elected.

Time will tell.

You sound like the average leftist Obama supporter in 2008. Take a step back for a moment, and reflect.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-08-2010, 02:41 PM
It's kind of annoying that he's pandering for votes, but I feel like he's principled enough that we know what kind of congressman he's going to me.

This is logically retarded. If he is pandering for votes now, why wouldn't he pander while he is elected? After all, a Senator is a mere succession of elections, and if he wants to stay a Senator, he will after-all have to "pander". This is the kind of logical leaps those doped up on "hope" take. It makes no sense. Will Rand be better than Lieberman? Hell fucking yes. Will Rand be good? Nope.

I also don't buy the adage that you can't win if you don't pander. Sure, you may not win now, but you will eventually win. Pandering and changing message, and principles, is not winning even if you win the election. This logical discontent is disconcerting to say the least, and is why I am hostile to politicking.

MRoCkEd
10-08-2010, 02:43 PM
This is logically retarded. If he is pandering for votes now, why wouldn't he pander while he is elected? After all, a Senator is a mere succession of elections, and if he wants to stay a Senator, he will after-all have to "pander". This is the kind of logical leaps those doped up on "hope" take. It makes no sense. Will Rand be better than Lieberman? Hell fucking yes. Will Rand be good? Nope.

I also don't buy the adage that you can't win if you don't pander. Sure, you may not win now, but you will eventually win. Pandering and changing message, and principles, is not winning even if you win the election. This logical discontent is disconcerting to say the least, and is why I am hostile to politicking.
Even Ron Paul pandered to get into congress. Backed away from his statements on drugs among other things. He still campaigns in his district as the "taxpayer's best friend" not as someone who wants to end the wars.

AGRP
10-08-2010, 03:51 PM
Ron Paul better be alive by the time Rand becomes president so he can take him to the wood shed if he gets out of line.

ChaosControl
10-08-2010, 03:58 PM
Ugh...

JohnEngland
10-08-2010, 04:04 PM
Ugh...

"Ugh" or "Just win the election Rand! I don't care how!"

I choose the latter :p

Rand is obviously great and he knows that you have to appeal to a wide audience in order to win that 51%.

Just look at Obama. Campaigned in the middle, turned out neo-socialist radical.

LibertyEagle
10-08-2010, 04:17 PM
I do too, but I tend to think of it as a battlefield. We have to put the soldiers in the field...find the very best we can and put them to work.

Of course I think of secession as the atomic bomb, a weapon able to dramatically end battles and even the war itself.

Then their are states rights, I think of those as super special forces ops that can paralyze the enemies ability to attack and puts them on the defensive.

So all in all we need a combined arms apporach to securing liberty. You can't ignore politics outright and hope to be free. You hit them from all sides.

I didn't say I wasn't going to engage. Just that I hated it. :)

LibertyEagle
10-08-2010, 04:22 PM
You sound like the average leftist Obama supporter in 2008. Take a step back for a moment, and reflect.

Ron Paul frames his talking points when he campaigns locally for his seat in Congress too. It's politics. Disgusting, yes. Which is why I hate politics. But, unfortunately, if you don't play them a little, you don't get elected. Hopefully, someday that will be different.

And with regard to your ignorant beyond all belief insults toward me, keep it up and you're going to get some major blowback.

Ekrub
10-08-2010, 04:34 PM
This is logically retarded. If he is pandering for votes now, why wouldn't he pander while he is elected? After all, a Senator is a mere succession of elections, and if he wants to stay a Senator, he will after-all have to "pander". This is the kind of logical leaps those doped up on "hope" take. It makes no sense. Will Rand be better than Lieberman? Hell fucking yes. Will Rand be good? Nope.

I also don't buy the adage that you can't win if you don't pander. Sure, you may not win now, but you will eventually win. Pandering and changing message, and principles, is not winning even if you win the election. This logical discontent is disconcerting to say the least, and is why I am hostile to politicking.

Once Rand gets elected he will get by in future elections on name recognition and being against cap and trade. Getting into office the first time is the hardest.

RM918
10-08-2010, 04:38 PM
This is logically retarded. If he is pandering for votes now, why wouldn't he pander while he is elected? After all, a Senator is a mere succession of elections, and if he wants to stay a Senator, he will after-all have to "pander". This is the kind of logical leaps those doped up on "hope" take. It makes no sense. Will Rand be better than Lieberman? Hell fucking yes. Will Rand be good? Nope.

I also don't buy the adage that you can't win if you don't pander. Sure, you may not win now, but you will eventually win. Pandering and changing message, and principles, is not winning even if you win the election. This logical discontent is disconcerting to say the least, and is why I am hostile to politicking.

Because he'll have 6 years as a buffer. If he turns out terrible, I'll be right there shooting him down with you. But there's no way to know that until you give him a chance.

ChaosControl
10-08-2010, 04:42 PM
"Ugh" or "Just win the election Rand! I don't care how!"

I choose the latter :p

Rand is obviously great and he knows that you have to appeal to a wide audience in order to win that 51%.

Just look at Obama. Campaigned in the middle, turned out neo-socialist radical.

"Ugh".

It may be just "playing politics" and not impact his voting, but I still dislike it.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-08-2010, 05:34 PM
Ron Paul frames his talking points when he campaigns locally for his seat in Congress too. It's politics. Disgusting, yes. Which is why I hate politics. But, unfortunately, if you don't play them a little, you don't get elected. Hopefully, someday that will be different.

And with regard to your ignorant beyond all belief insults toward me, keep it up and you're going to get some major blowback.

I had to chuckle a bit considering the source. *wink

In any event, I was merely relating what one group of people thought would transpire and now another does. It mirrors pretty well. While I would like Rand to stick to his old self, it has become obvious he is backtracking on just about all of it, and becoming a run of the mill conservative you can find anywhere -- that shit ain't going to fix a damn thing. I hope he proves me wrong.