Mitch McConnell + the Pauls = A political marriage made in heaven?

[cajuncocoa]

It’s a story as old as time: two opposing families are brought together when members of each are married.

The Capulets and the Montagues, Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, the Hatfields and the McCoys (oh, wait…).


Today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has arranged one hell of a political marriage. And in the process, he has cemented his own status as one of the preeminent political survivors of our time.

http://images.politico.com/global/news/101025_paul_mcconnell_ap_605.jpg
McConnell announced Thursday that his 2014 Senate campaign will be run by Jesse Benton (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/13/mitch-mcconnell-hires-ron-paul-aide/), who just happens to be a former top aide to Ron Paul — the libertarian congressman that has tangled with the Republican Party establishment for years — and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who trounced a McConnell-endorsed candidate in a primary just two short years ago.

It’s a bold, outside-the-box move and, at least at first glance, a win-win situation for McConnell.

Benton is very well regarded in Washington as a grassroots strategist with an ear to the ground of the tea party movement. McConnell, meanwhile, is the leader of the Republican establishment who wants to avoid the kind of tea party uprising that brought down his protege, former secretary of state Trey Grayson, in the 2010 Senate primary. (Rand Paul trounced Grayson in that race.)

“It’s classic McConnell,” said Billy Piper, a former McConnell chief of staff who was involved in bringing Benton on board. “He’s always prepared. He’s not just thinking about the next move – not just what’s around the next corner.

“It certainly is helpful with a segment of the electorate, we hope, but this is something that’s much bigger than that.”

While the hire is certainly noteworthy, it’s not altogether shocking. McConnell and Rand Paul have made nice since the 2010 primary, and the Senate minority leader made a point to praise his Kentucky colleague in a video played at the Republican National Convention two weeks ago. Rand Paul has made clear he will support McConnell in 2014, which goes a long way toward discouraging any potential GOP usurpers.

McConnell has also gone outside his inner circle before. He often hires a new media team for his reelection campaigns, and his 2008 campaign manager, Justin Brasell, was also an outsider coming off a big-time Kentucky campaign (Brasell steered Rep. Geoff Davis to victory in a marquee race in 2006).
“That’s exactly what he’s doing this time — hire the best guy for the job,” Grayson told The Fix. “In Kentucky, a divided Republican Party usually results in a losing candidate.”

Benton isn’t the first operative to bridge the gap between Paul World and the establishment. Before him, there was Trygve Olson, an establishment-connected former National Republican Senatorial Committee aide who joined up with Rand Paul after the primary in 2010 and then worked for Ron Paul’s presidential campaign this year.

Olson said Benton’s hire is big.

“This is like LeBron to the Heat,” Olson said. “The best player is now on the best team, and there is no limit to how good the McConnell campaign can be.”

As with the NBA star, though, the question is whether the new teammates can work together to achieve success. Benton, after all, has spent a good portion of his political career antagonizing the likes of McConnell and the establishment, and he’s not just a Paul aide; he’s a member of the Paul family (literally: he’s married to Ron Paul’s granddaughter).

In addition, the grassroots may not be thrilled about one of their own going mainstream.

At this point, though, there doesn’t seem to be anything amounting to a backlash over this marriage, whether it be Rand Paul getting close to McConnell or Olson being hired by the Pauls.

As long as Benton is on the same page as McConnell, Republicans say, it’s an ideal situation.

“There’s not an expectation that anybody is gong to agree 100 percent of the time,” Piper said. “But in Jesse’s case, just as when he worked with Congressman Paul, the boss’s politics come first.”

McConnell survived in 2008 with 53 percent of the vote and, despite Kentucky’s conservative lean, has faced his share of close races. He will surely be targeted in 2014, especially after Republicans went hard after his counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), in 2010.

Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear is popular, will be toward the end of his second term in 2014, and Democrats will likely lean on him hard to challenge McConnell (he lost to McConnell in 1996).

But McConnell’s biggest hurdle may be a potential primary.

The tea party wasn’t as much of a force this year as it was in the 2010 primary season, but the grassroots is still more than capable of taking down a Republican who doesn’t cover his bases (see: Lugar, Richard and Bennett, Robert).

Benton’s hire should go a long way toward McConnell covering his bases.

And for a guy whose political career has been marked by survival, this is just the latest episode.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/13/mitch-mcconnell-the-pauls-a-political-marriage-made-in-heaven/

[Anti Federalist]

And for a guy whose political career has been marked by survival, this is just the latest episode.

And that's what it's all about.

Spin, hustle and dodge to keep a multi million dollar arrangement, at our expense, going for a lifetime.

[Carlybee]

He's comparing Benton to LeBron James?



Alrighty then

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Boy, all warm and fuzzy. Who else should we jump into bed with..Maybe John Boener, or Lindsay Graham? Yeah. Mmmmhmmm delicious.

[Anti Federalist]

Boy, all warm and fuzzy. Who else should we jump into bed with..Maybe John Boener, or Lindsay Graham? Yeah. Mmmmhmmm delicious.

When you dance with the Devil, you don't change him, the Devil changes you.

[cajuncocoa]

He's comparing Benton to LeBron James?



Alrighty thenI know....right? LMAO!!

[aGameOfThrones]

That's why I'm against same sex marriage.

[jkob]

“This is like LeBron to the Heat,” Olson said. “The best player is now on the best team, and there is no limit to how good the McConnell campaign can be.”

lol

[LibertyEagle]

Boy, all warm and fuzzy. Who else should we jump into bed with..Maybe John Boener, or Lindsay Graham? Yeah. Mmmmhmmm delicious.

What Benton chose to do is what Benton chose to do. There is no "we" in his actions. Who said "we" jumped in bed with McConnell? No one, that I saw and that is a good thing, because I certainly have not.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What Benton chose to do is what Benton chose to do. There is no "we" in his actions. Who said "we" jumped in bed with McConnell? No one, that I saw and that is a good thing, because I certainly have not.

I guess you missed the other thread, where Benedict in Kentucky proposed just that - to expand our base. Lol.

[cajuncocoa]

I guess I'll be criticized for saying this again (but for the sake of liberty, I don't care about that)....this article describes, for me, why I believe it's a bad idea for serious liberty activists to try to re-invent the GOP.

AF said it pretty well a few posts up, and I hope everyone fully understands the meaning behind it. They know what we're up to and they're suckering some of you in. Pretty soon, they'll have you supporting another war, or the renewal of the PATRIOT Act, and you'll tell us that it doesn't mean anything but you have to do it....for the sake of liberty.

Dear God, people, please wake up!!

[LibertyEagle]

Do you really think it helps anything to call another forum member "Benedict"?

[LibertyEagle]

I guess I'll be criticized for saying this again (but for the sake of liberty, I don't care about that)....this article describes, for me, why I believe it's a bad idea for serious liberty activists to try to re-invent the GOP.

AF said it pretty well a few posts up, and I hope everyone fully understands the meaning behind it. They know what we're up to and they're suckering some of you in. Pretty soon, they'll have you supporting another war, or the renewal of the PATRIOT Act, and you'll tell us that it doesn't mean anything but you have to do it....for the sake of liberty.

Dear God, people, please wake up!!

And here we go, AGAIN!! :rolleyes:

You aren't saying this for the sake of liberty, you are saying it for the sake of yourself. You imply that anyone that is using the Republican Party to get liberty candidates elected are some kind of idiots. I will in turn tell you that it has been pretty damned effective. Justin Amash, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Chris Hightower, and more to come.

So how about you go do what you want to do, that you believe is more constructive than that, and leave us the hell alone.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Do you really think it helps anything to call another forum member "Benedict"?

I call a spade a spade. Go work for Lindsay Graham and I'll call you one too.

[cajuncocoa]

And here we go, AGAIN!!You're damned right we do...did you READ the article?

[jmdrake]

He's comparing Benton to LeBron James?



Alrighty then

Well Cleveland probably feels the same way towards LeBron James as many Ron Paul supporters now feel towards Benton.

[cajuncocoa]

McConnell knew exactly what he was doing alright, and Rand is hogtied now.

McConnell tried to have Rand defeated in the 2010 primary and failed. And he knew Rand's supporters would be coming to do the same to him.

So McConnell hires Benton which puts the Paul family squarely in his corner.

His seat is secure; he will not have a primary challenge from those nasty liberty activists.

Point. Set. Match.

[cajuncocoa]

Well Cleveland probably feels the same way towards LeBron James as many Ron Paul supporters now feel towards Benton.OK...now I get it. Good point.

[cajuncocoa]

You aren't saying this for the sake of liberty, you are saying it for the sake of yourself. You imply that anyone that is using the Republican Party to get liberty candidates elected are some kind of idiots. I will in turn tell you that it has been pretty damned effective. Justin Amash, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Chris Hightower, and more to come.

So how about you go do what you want to do, that you believe is more constructive than that, and leave us the hell alone.No, I will not leave you alone.

I want quality candidates. I don't care what party they belong to, but I don't want them to leave their principles at the door for the sake of "party unity".

It's ridiculous for you to say I'm doing it for my own sake...what in the world do I get out of this personally?


Our country is at stake, LE and all of this cozying up to the GOP is NOT HELPING when people who start out as liberty candidates have to do things to appease the GOP establishment!! It sickens me that you and a few others here don't see that.

[low preference guy]

Do you really think it helps anything to call another forum member "Benedict"?

should he call a male member he disagrees with, "missy", like you do? or should he follow your example and tell him "kiss my ass"?

[donnay]

No, I will not leave you alone.

I want quality candidates. I don't care what party they belong to, but I don't want them to leave their principles at the door for the sake of "party unity".

It's ridiculous for you to say I'm doing it for my own sake...what in the world do I get out of this personally?


Our country is at stake, LE and all of this cozying up to the GOP is NOT HELPING when people who start out as liberty candidates have to do things to appease the GOP establishment!! It sickens me that you and a few others here don't see that.


I wonder if this strategy of theirs is going to be like the 'stealth delegates' so-called strategy just to keep people strung along until the elections.

It's really sad people cannot see the handwriting on the wall.

[The Free Hornet]

Do you really think it helps anything to call another forum member "Benedict"?

Looks like you are correct LE:


...
Bender22
BenDover [*chuckle*]
Bendru
Benefactor
... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/memberlist.php?page=17&pp=30&order=asc&sort=username&ltr=B)

[The Free Hornet]

should he call a male member he disagrees with, "missy", like you do? or should he follow your example and tell him "kiss my ass"?

That would be great if BenDover comes back.

[Brett85]

Pretty soon, they'll have you supporting another war, or the renewal of the PATRIOT Act, and you'll tell us that it doesn't mean anything but you have to do it....for the sake of liberty.

I think you can work with someone and even endorse someone without agreeing with them on every issue and without changing any of your views.

[cajuncocoa]

I think you can work with someone and even endorse someone without agreeing with them on every issue and without changing any of your views.Putting party ahead of your values, yes you can.

[KingRobbStark]

In hell maybe.

[Brett85]

Putting party ahead of your values, yes you can.

So apparently you think that it's all or nothing and you have to agree with a politician on every single issue in order to vote for them. Most people don't think that way.

[anaconda]

I am a huge Rand Paul supporter. But with all of this stuff going on, I do wonder if all of the folks jockeying for position realize that the libertarian right wing grassroots propped up Ron Paul and everyone associated with him? If their grassroots support evaporates underneath them or defects elsewhere, then what power do they have? I mean, seriously, are more than literally one or two people here going to send Mitch McConnell so much as a dime for his campaign? And, does Rand have any concerns about where his 2016 campaign money might be coming from? Or, have Rand, Ron, Jesse, et al simply now gained and risen to a status that exists without our particular grassroots and can flourish on its own? Maybe they think they can tap heavily into the more populous and co-opted mainstream "grassroots" Tea Party. I dunno. Just thinking out loud here. Is anyone seeing a strategy underlying all of this?

[cajuncocoa]

So apparently you think that it's all or nothing and you have to agree with a politician on every single issue in order to vote for them. Most people don't think that way.If you endorse someone who has done a lot of things that go against your principles (voting for wars, voting for erosion of civil liberties, voting for bailouts, etc.) it only encourages more of the same.

I would give no quarter on those issues. It's all about Liberty issues for me. You either support them, or I wouldn't endorse you.

[donnay]

If you endorse someone who has done a lot of things that go against your principles (voting for wars, voting for erosion of civil liberties, voting for bailouts, etc.) it only encourages more of the same.

I would give no quarter on those issues. It's all about Liberty issues for me. You either support them, or I wouldn't endorse you.


Consequently why Ron Paul would not endorse Romney.

[cajuncocoa]

I am a huge Rand Paul supporter. But with all of this stuff going on, I do wonder if all of the folks jockeying for position realize that the libertarian right wing grassroots propped up Ron Paul and everyone associated with him? If their grassroots support evaporates underneath them or defects elsewhere, then what power do they have? I mean, seriously, are more than literally one or two people here going to send Mitch McConnell so much as a dime for his campaign? And, does Rand have any concerns about where his 2016 campaign money might be coming from? Or, have Rand, Ron, Jesse, et al simply now gained and risen to a status that exists without our particular grassroots and can flourish on its own? Maybe they think they can tap heavily into the more populous and co-opted mainstream "grassroots" Tea Party. I dunno. Just thinking out loud here. Is anyone seeing a strategy underlying all of this?Good questions. It's a risky strategy...if Rand (leaving Ron out of the equation for 2016) expands his base beyond the Ron Paul grassroots, he can get more money from Tea Party and traditional GOP types. Establishment GOP types may endorse him in return for his endorsement of them, and perhaps their base can financially support him. Whether a large majority of Ron's grassroots stays in his corner remains to be seen, but if he gains more from the TP and traditional GOP types, it may offset what he loses with liberty grassroots.

In my opinion, would be better to EDUCATE the traditional and TP types to the cause of liberty rather than pander to them. But maybe that's just me.

[LibertyEagle]

If you endorse someone who has done a lot of things that go against your principles (voting for wars, voting for erosion of civil liberties, voting for bailouts, etc.) it only encourages more of the same.

I would give no quarter on those issues. It's all about Liberty issues for me. You either support them, or I wouldn't endorse you.

That's sweet and all, but just like Ron Paul has told us, unfortunately the 2 major parties only give you so much latitude. He too, has endorsed people who were less than great and he never endorsed against a sitting Republican. It's just the way it is right now.

Also, unfortunately right now, if you want to get someone elected, you have a much, much better shot at doing it in one of the 2 major parties.

[cajuncocoa]

That's sweet and all, but just like Ron Paul has told us, unfortunately the 2 major parties only give you so much latitude. He too, has endorsed people who were less than great and he never endorsed against a sitting Republican. It's just the way it is right now.

Also, unfortunately right now, if you want to get someone elected, you have a much, much better shot at doing it in one of the 2 major parties.Oh yes he did.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/24/dismissing-bob-barr-ron-paul-endorses-constitution-party-candidate/

[LibertyEagle]

Good questions. It's a risky strategy...if Rand (leaving Ron out of the equation for 2016) expands his base beyond the Ron Paul grassroots, he can get more money from Tea Party and traditional GOP types. Establishment GOP types may endorse him in return for his endorsement of them, and perhaps their base can financially support him. Whether a large majority of Ron's grassroots stays in his corner remains to be seen, but if he gains more from the TP and traditional GOP types, it may offset what he loses with liberty grassroots.

In my opinion, would be better to EDUCATE the traditional and TP types to the cause of liberty rather than pander to them. But maybe that's just me.

You can educate from think tanks and you can also educate while in office, or even running for office, as Ron Paul has shown us. It's going to take all of these together, plus a lot more, for us to prevail.

If we want to recapture our liberty, we have to convince one hell of a lot more people. The low-hanging fruit are the tea party folks. These, and the paleocons are who Rand is after, it looks like to me. And he is educating them along the way, if you haven't noticed.

Instead of criticizing someone else's chosen path for furthering liberty, why don't you focus on your own?

[LibertyEagle]

Oh yes he did.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/24/dismissing-bob-barr-ron-paul-endorses-constitution-party-candidate/

Who was the sitting Republican that he endorsed against? That was the 2008 presidential race and there was no sitting Republican holding that office.

[cajuncocoa]

Who was the sitting Republican that he endorsed against? That was the 2008 presidential race and there was no sitting Republican holding that office. OK...let's continue that game....who is the sitting Republican who needs to be endorsed in the 2012 presidential race?

[LibertyEagle]

should he call a male member he disagrees with, "missy", like you do? or should he follow your example and tell him "kiss my ass"?

No, I think his behavior should resemble a pompous jerk, like yours does most of the time. :)

[Brett85]

If you endorse someone who has done a lot of things that go against your principles (voting for wars, voting for erosion of civil liberties, voting for bailouts, etc.) it only encourages more of the same.

I would give no quarter on those issues. It's all about Liberty issues for me. You either support them, or I wouldn't endorse you.

I probably won't vote for Romney, but it's a really tough choice for me. I certainly don't criticize those who are going to vote for Romney. I would vote for Mitch McConnell in a general election if I lived in Kentucky, because a Senate race isn't as important as the Presidency. A Senator doesn't have the power to take our country to war.

[cajuncocoa]

You can educate from think tanks and you can also educate while in office, or even running for office, as Ron Paul has shown us. It's going to take all of these together, plus a lot more, for us to prevail.

If we want to recapture our liberty, we have to convince one hell of a lot more people. The low-hanging fruit are the tea party folks. These, and the paleocons are who Rand is after, it looks like to me. And he is educating them along the way, if you haven't noticed.

Instead of criticizing someone else's chosen path for furthering liberty, why don't you focus on your own?You can educate in those ways, but not while pandering to the people responsible for making things the way they are! Otherwise, it's a double-standard.

[acptulsa]

Who was the sitting Republican that he endorsed against? That was the 2008 presidential race and there was no sitting Republican holding that office.

:D The GOP has disowned and disavowed Dubya already?

Actually, I believe you meant the sitting Republican in that office was Constitutionally prevented from standing for reelection.

[cajuncocoa]

I probably won't vote for Romney, but it's a really tough choice for me. I certainly don't criticize those who are going to vote for Romney. I would vote for Mitch McConnell in a general election if I lived in Kentucky, because a Senate race isn't as important as the Presidency. A Senator doesn't have the power to take our country to war.Well, that pretty much says it all as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for playing.

[wgadget]

I hate politics.

And I would NEVER vote for someone who sounds like Mr. Magoo.

[cajuncocoa]

I hate politics.

And I would NEVER vote for someone who sounds like Mr. Magoo.I'm not crazy about politics either. It's filthy. I don't know how some of these people sleep at night.

[Brett85]

Well, that pretty much says it all as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for playing.

What does it say other than the fact that I prefer a conservative Republican over a liberal Democrat in most general elections? I still support liberty candidates in GOP primaries over more establishment Republicans. I donated money to both Rand and Ron, and I believe in trying to change the Republican Party and turning it into a party that believes in Constitutional government and a non interventionist foreign policy.

[orenbus]

I am a huge Rand Paul supporter. But with all of this stuff going on, I do wonder if all of the folks jockeying for position realize that the libertarian right wing grassroots propped up Ron Paul and everyone associated with him? If their grassroots support evaporates underneath them or defects elsewhere, then what power do they have? I mean, seriously, are more than literally one or two people here going to send Mitch McConnell so much as a dime for his campaign? And, does Rand have any concerns about where his 2016 campaign money might be coming from? Or, have Rand, Ron, Jesse, et al simply now gained and risen to a status that exists without our particular grassroots and can flourish on its own? Maybe they think they can tap heavily into the more populous and co-opted mainstream "grassroots" Tea Party. I dunno. Just thinking out loud here. Is anyone seeing a strategy underlying all of this?

These are all very good questions.

[anaconda]

Good questions. It's a risky strategy...if Rand (leaving Ron out of the equation for 2016) expands his base beyond the Ron Paul grassroots, he can get more money from Tea Party and traditional GOP types. Establishment GOP types may endorse him in return for his endorsement of them, and perhaps their base can financially support him. Whether a large majority of Ron's grassroots stays in his corner remains to be seen, but if he gains more from the TP and traditional GOP types, it may offset what he loses with liberty grassroots.

In my opinion, would be better to EDUCATE the traditional and TP types to the cause of liberty rather than pander to them. But maybe that's just me.

Great comments. I have often said that it is neither practical nor necessary to educate the voters to the extent that people on the forum are educated. There are millions and millions of votes from stupid people that Rand Paul would absolutely NEED in 2016. Rand is tailor made for this. He has shown time after time that he can really dumb down the message for the lower information voter and to essentially churn out bumper sticker ideas. But I wouldn't necessarily call this pandering. Most people don't care to put a huge amount of time and effort into deciding how to vote, so I think of it as a bit more of a service to the lower information voters that want a little simpler and shorter list of criteria.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Great comments. I have often said that it is neither practical nor necessary to educate the voters to the extent that people on the forum are educated. There are millions and millions of votes from stupid people that Rand Paul would absolutely NEED in 2016. Rand is tailor made for this. He has shown time after time that he can really dumb down the message for the lower information voter and to essentially churn out bumper sticker ideas. But I wouldn't necessarily call this pandering. Most people don't care to put a huge amount of time and effort into deciding how to vote, so I think of it as a bit more of a service to the lower information voters that want a little simpler and shorter list of criteria.

It is if you want any of your ideals to get passed. How many folks do you know vote for X candidate, and then when X candidate goes to do Y policy those X voters freak the fuck out (E.g. Medicare). You have to educate the populace if you want any lasting reform, otherwise all you are doing is getting elected for X amount of years to uphold the status quo. You think if you don't have the support amongst a significant part of the population that you're going to force down their throats stuff they don't want (namely their own liberties?)? They'll just vote you out after your term and vote in someone who will restore the tyranny you tried to get rid of.

I call your state of mind - myopic, and a horribly horribly bad plan.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I'm not crazy about politics either. It's filthy. I don't know how some of these people sleep at night.
Yet, you post daily on a political forum. :rolleyes:

[cajuncocoa]

Yet, you post daily on a political forum. :rolleyes:And it really, really bothers you, doesn't it? Makes it much harder for you to push that GOP agenda...keep neg repping me, you'll get one back every time you do. I'm not going anywhere.

[anaconda]

It is if you want any of your ideals to get passed. How many folks do you know vote for X candidate, and then when X candidate goes to do Y policy those X voters freak the fuck out (E.g. Medicare). You have to educate the populace if you want any lasting reform, otherwise all you are doing is getting elected for X amount of years to uphold the status quo. You think if you don't have the support amongst a significant part of the population that you're going to force down their throats stuff they don't want (namely their own liberties?)? They'll just vote you out after your term and vote in someone who will restore the tyranny you tried to get rid of.

I call your state of mind - myopic, and a horribly horribly bad plan.

It's the opposite of myopic. To realize that both Democrats and Republicans must have tens of millions of votes from low information voters is thinking broadly, not myopically. Many of these folks will not invest the time and effort to get deeply educated. I see no reason to hand them over to the establishment candidate simply because they don't have the inclination to read The Road To Serfdom or the original works of David Ricardo. Plus I didn't say they would be completely uneducated, they may simply only be receptive to a limited amount of education, so we should be willing to give them something solid but simple and patriotic-sounding. Many may get bitten by the bug and wish to learn more. And, you are forgetting how much influence a President can be who is not owned by the special interests, through the power of veto, as Commander In Chief, from the signing statement and executive order, and through his/her selection of cabinet members and his/her instructions to them.

[Jamesiv1]

I don't think anyone should ever address a male member as "missy"

at least not in public.

[brandon]

So is there anyone credible who can challenge McConnell now? I can't see Massie getting involved anymore. Too much political capital is at stake.

[cajuncocoa]

So is there anyone credible who can challenge McConnell now? I can't see Massie getting involved anymore. Too much political capital is at stake.Would doing that even be supported here? Since Rand is going to endorse McConnell, I mean?

[anaconda]

So is there anyone credible who can challenge McConnell now? I can't see Massie getting involved anymore. Too much political capital is at stake.

What if Ron and Carol moved to Kentucky in the next year? Ron Paul for U.S. Senate from Kentucky? I think Mitch McConnell would get a painful lesson about grassroots politics.

Maybe Ron retired from the House to run for Senate somewhere...

[cajuncocoa]

What if Ron and Carol moved to Kentucky in the next year? Ron Paul for U.S. Senate from Kentucky? I think Mitch McConnell would get a painful lesson about grassroots politics.

Maybe Ron retired from the House to run for Senate somewhere...I know what I'll be praying for tonight!! ;)

[Carlybee]

I don't think anyone should address a male member as "missy"

at least not in public.

Privately is okay? lol

[Carlybee]

What if Ron and Carol moved to Kentucky in the next year? Ron Paul for U.S. Senate from Kentucky? I think Mitch McConnell would get a painful lesson about grassroots politics.

Maybe Ron retired from the House to run for Senate somewhere...


Now THAT would rock!

[TheGrinch]

It is if you want any of your ideals to get passed. How many folks do you know vote for X candidate, and then when X candidate goes to do Y policy those X voters freak the fuck out (E.g. Medicare). You have to educate the populace if you want any lasting reform, otherwise all you are doing is getting elected for X amount of years to uphold the status quo. You think if you don't have the support amongst a significant part of the population that you're going to force down their throats stuff they don't want (namely their own liberties?)? They'll just vote you out after your term and vote in someone who will restore the tyranny you tried to get rid of.

I call your state of mind - myopic, and a horribly horribly bad plan.
Sheeple are sheeple for a reason. Particularly when they see a problem, they can be influenced by anyone, and we have truth, liberty and freedom on our side. You don't have to be smart, when we have a remarkably simple message. Leave us the f alone.

[cajuncocoa]

Leave us the f alone.Do you consider yourself a liberty activist? If so, why do you keep trying to drive people away and control what they can and can't say here? That's not very liberty-minded of you.

[Michigan11]

So if the establishment plays games we can't?

What's wrong with Rand using the US Senate Majority leader?

All McConnell supporters in this thread?

LMAO - we're taking these traitors by their hair and they know it, the power is with our movement now, take the torch and light it for all to see - ring the bell!

[juleswin]

Well, that pretty much says it all as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for playing.

His username is traditional conservative which to me translates that he is gonna be ok with traditional republicans like Mitch McConnell. I try to think what kind of a country would we have if congress was filled with X politician before lending my support of vote and a congress filled with MM will be a horrible one. He wouldn't criticize anyone who is going to vote for Romney. That is the man who supports universal healthcare, gun control, abortion, endless wars, patriot act, increased spending but all that is no problem because he has a R after his name.

Just sad

[TheGrinch]

Do you consider yourself a liberty activist? If so, why do you keep trying to drive people away and control what they can and can't say here? That's not very liberty-minded of you.
I'm not even going to acknowledge this divisive disruptive drivel you continue to spew.

It's abundantly clear to everyone who's driving people away by calling people sell outs and apologists

[cajuncocoa]

I'm not even going to acknowledge this divisive disruptive drivel you continue to spew.

It's abundantly clear to everyone who's driving people away by calling people sell outs and apologistsyou should put me on ignore if I'm bothering you...I'm not going to go away.

[anaconda]

Sheeple are sheeple for a reason. Particularly when they see a problem, they can be influenced by anyone, and we have truth, liberty and freedom on our side. You don't have to be smart, when we have a remarkably simple message. Leave us the f alone.

I believe TheGrinchWhoStoleDC is trying to say that the message is essentially (to big government) "Leave us the f alone." Which seems pretty right on to me and could play well with a low information voter.

[Brett85]

His username is traditional conservative which to me translates that he is gonna be ok with traditional republicans like Mitch McConnell. I try to think what kind of a country would we have if congress was filled with X politician before lending my support of vote and a congress filled with MM will be a horrible one. He wouldn't criticize anyone who is going to vote for Romney. That is the man who supports universal healthcare, gun control, abortion, endless wars, patriot act, increased spending but all that is no problem because he has a R after his name.

Just sad

I just said that I would prefer someone like Mitch McConnell over a liberal Democrat who runs against him. What's so controversial about that? The Democrat in the race will likely be running on a pro Obamacare, pro cap and trade, pro tax increase, pro union, pro EPA, pro abortion platform, while McConnell would take the exact opposite views. I would however be all in favor of someone like Thomas Massie running against McConnell in a GOP primary. I would support Massie.

And I wouldn't criticize people who are going to vote for Romney because I don't believe in using these Stalin like tactics that you guys like to use. People can vote for whoever they want to vote for.

[LibertyEagle]

OK...let's continue that game....who is the sitting Republican who needs to be endorsed in the 2012 presidential race?

No, you are changing the game. Your charge was the following:


If you endorse someone who has done a lot of things that go against your principles (voting for wars, voting for erosion of civil liberties, voting for bailouts, etc.) it only encourages more of the same.

I would give no quarter on those issues. It's all about Liberty issues for me. You either support them, or I wouldn't endorse you.

I pointed out the oddness in your statement, since Ron has endorsed people that are not aligned with his principles and you seem to think that is ok, while hanging Rand out to dry for doing the same thing.

[LibertyEagle]

:D The GOP has disowned and disavowed Dubya already?

Actually, I believe you meant the sitting Republican in that office was Constitutionally prevented from standing for reelection.

Exactly.

[LibertyEagle]

You can educate in those ways, but not while pandering to the people responsible for making things the way they are! Otherwise, it's a double-standard.

Cajun, if you think you can do it better than Rand, why don't you see if you can get elected and go to it. As opposed to sitting on your ass taking potshots at a man who is unquestionably the best Senator we have had in decades.

[specsaregood]

Cajun, if you think you can do it better than Rand, why don't you see if you can get elected and go to it. As opposed to sitting on your ass taking potshots at a man who is unquestionably the best Senator we have had in decades.

This is what Ron had to say about Rand in the foreward of his new book:


Rand has become one of the leading voices in the ongoing fight against our rogue regulatory state. No other U.S. Senator in recent memory has done more to fight against the big government politicians in both parties that consider the Bill of Rights little more than a list of suggestions. Thanks to Rand's leadership on these issues, some on capitol hill, especially in the Republican party, have began changing their minds in a more liberty-oriented direction.


Sounds like he approves of what Rand is doing.

[cajuncocoa]

No, you are changing the game. Your charge was the following:



I pointed out the oddness in your statement, since Ron has endorsed people that are not aligned with his principles and you seem to think that is ok, while hanging Rand out to dry for doing the same thing.
Ron may have endorsed congressional colleagues, but he didn't make an endorsement for a neocon for president. Big difference in my opinion.

*checking to see if we're in Rand's subforum before continuing....OK, we're not*

My major issue with Rand's endorsement is the timing and venue. If he welcomed Mitt Romney to Kentucky tomorrow and announced his endorsement at a rally somewhere in Louisville, that would be a lot less difficult to take than doing it before Ron was officially out, and on Sean Hannity's show. :mad:

[cajuncocoa]

Cajun, if you think you can do it better than Rand, why don't you see if you can get elected and go to it. As opposed to sitting on your ass taking potshots at a man who is unquestionably the best Senator we have had in decades.Real classy....do you eat with that mouth? :rolleyes:

LE, I believe I've acknowledged than Rand is the best Senator we have...I just wish he would follow more closely in his father's footsteps.

[specsaregood]

LE, I believe I've acknowledged than Rand is the best Senator we have...I just wish he would follow more closely in his father's footsteps.

I don't want my son to follow my footsteps, I want him to start off where I left off and go even further ahead.

On that topic, Rand just singled handedly screwed all the Senators out of a trip home over the weekend to campaign just couple months before the election. He's already taking the lead from his father and treading his own path. Ron's gonna love watching it too, I have no doubt.

[Brett85]

Real classy....do you eat with that mouth? :rolleyes:

LE, I believe I've acknowledged than Rand is the best Senator we have...I just wish he would follow more closely in his father's footsteps.

I don't really see how it's possible for Rand to follow any more closely in Ron's footsteps. His voting record is virtually identical to Ron's.

[low preference guy]

I don't really see how it's possible for Rand to follow any more closely in Ron's footsteps.

one way to follow Ron more closely would be not voting for sanctions against Iran.

[Brett85]

one way to follow Ron more closely would be not voting for sanctions against Iran.

Yes, that's one difference. But Rand has still spoken out against a pre-emptive military strike against Iran.

[specsaregood]

one way to follow Ron more closely would be not voting for sanctions against Iran.

I still say Rand was doing them a favor.

[Occam's Banana]

His voting record is virtually identical to Ron's.

Irrelevant! Don't you see? How he votes & what he does in the senate doesn't matter that much - not compared to what's *really* important.

And what's *really* important is making grand rhetorical gestures in an effort to pander to hard-core libertarian activists.

That whole "getting things done and making inroads with the general voting public" schtick is *so* overrated.

[Occam's Banana]

Yes, that's one difference. But Rand has still spoken out against a pre-emptive military strike against Iran.

In my book, the Iran sanctions issue is the only black mark on Rand's record so far. Everything else he's done is cherry.

And from what I understand, he also pro-actively took steps to ensure that the sanctions were not nearly as severe as they otherwise would have been.

He didn't have to do that - so even that black mark becomes more of a medium-grey.

[LibertyEagle]

LE, I believe I've acknowledged than Rand is the best Senator we have...I just wish he would follow more closely in his father's footsteps.

He has and what's more, he is going to have some success at actually furthering our ideas legislatively.

[LibertyEagle]

My major issue with Rand's endorsement is the timing and venue. If he welcomed Mitt Romney to Kentucky tomorrow and announced his endorsement at a rally somewhere in Louisville, that would be a lot less difficult to take than doing it before Ron was officially out, and on Sean Hannity's show. :mad:

Cajun, I think we all agree that it would have been better if Rand would have waited until after the convention. But, once again, he announced it on Hannity's show because that was the audience he was trying to tell. I do not understand why you can't get this. One of his missions is to open the eyes of the paleocons who are not already on board and other Republicans who have been lulled to sleep by the neocon swan song. Many of them listen to Sean Hannity, so that is why he goes on that show.

[Bman]

In addition, the grassroots may not be thrilled about one of their own going mainstream.

Couldn't be more thrilled.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmoIuAcbIb4

[WesSeid]

one way to follow Ron more closely would be not voting for sanctions against Iran.

I thought one theory on that is he was voting for the audit of central bank transactions in the bill. (or something like that.)

[fr33]

It's really simple. Pay attention to Rand's voting record and if it suits you support him.

If you choose to focus on endorsements, then Ron Paul himself was not your guy in the first place.

Some of us don't fall for the rhetoric and instead focus on the record.

Others like the topic starter dwell upon the rhetoric and ignore the record.

[LBennett76]

Most people don't think that way.

And that's the problem!!! Most people are idiots!

The things you mentioned are all-or-nothing dealbreakers. I will never vote for anyone who stands for those things. Ever.

[wrestlingwes_8]

It's really simple. Pay attention to Rand's voting record and if it suits you support him.

If you choose to focus on endorsements, then Ron Paul himself was not your guy in the first place.

Some of us don't fall for the rhetoric and instead focus on the record.

Others like the topic starter dwell upon the rhetoric and ignore the record.

Sanctions on Iran...something Ron would call..AN ACT OF WAR!

[LibertyEagle]

Sanctions on Iran...something Ron would call..AN ACT OF WAR!

It was sanctions of their central bank, to be specific. He is against a preemptive strike on Iran.

[fr33]

Sanctions on Iran...something Ron would call..AN ACT OF WAR!I agree that is a negative to me. But the rest of his voting record is enough for me not to give up on him.

[CaptainAmerica]

He’s always prepared. He’s not just thinking about the next move – not just what’s around the next corner.-mcconell

wait...is Jesse Benton the next Justin Bieber?

Disney>hanna montana

mcconnell>jesse benton

[wrestlingwes_8]

It was sanctions of their central bank, to be specific. He is against a preemptive strike on Iran.

I should have known better not to view a post from someone on my ignore list. You receive the 'Moron of the Day' award with that little comment. Seriously, your post has so much fail I don't even know where to begin...

I DON'T CARE HOW YOUR LITTLE BRAIN WANTS TO CONSTRUE IT, SANCTIONS ARE AN ACT OF WAR!!

Here, time for a short educational lesson...maybe the good doctor can talk some sense into you


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIO-4v8qpYc

[wrestlingwes_8]

I agree that is a negative to me. But the rest of his voting record is enough for me not to give up on him.

I haven't completely given up on him but he has a lot to make up for. His rhetoric contains a little less liberty every time he opens his mouth lately. There's a lot of time between now and 2016 but he's going to have to champion some amazingly awesome, pro-liberty legislation multiple times or fight incredibly hard against governmental tyranny for me to even consider voting for him..

[LibertyEagle]

I haven't completely given up on him but he has a lot to make up for. His rhetoric contains a little less liberty every time he opens his mouth lately. There's a lot of time between now and 2016 but he's going to have to champion some amazingly awesome, pro-liberty legislation multiple times or fight incredibly hard against governmental tyranny for me to even consider voting for him..

Well, he's been speaking out a lot against war lately. Do you consider that anti-liberty? And before that it was anti-TSA, anti-NDAA, ....

I recommend you watch more closely.

[LibertyEagle]

I should have known better not to view a post from someone on my ignore list. You receive the 'Moron of the Day' award with that little comment. Seriously, your post has so much fail I don't even know where to begin...

I DON'T CARE HOW YOUR LITTLE BRAIN WANTS TO CONSTRUE IT, SANCTIONS ARE AN ACT OF WAR!!

Here, time for a short educational lesson...maybe the good doctor can talk some sense into you



I said nothing about whether they were an act of war. I said what the sanctions were on, because I do think it is germane. If that is too complex for you, then nevermind.

[wrestlingwes_8]

Well, he's been speaking out a lot against war lately. Do you consider that anti-liberty? And before that it was anti-TSA, anti-NDAA, ....

I recommend you watch more closely.

I don't care how much talking he does, voting for sanctions is AN ACT OF WAR; but you obviously can't understand that...

And as far as the TSA and NDAA go....I would hope a sitting U.S. Senator would be against killing Americans without due process and having government officials grope little children and old ladies...so yeah, he got those two things right but being against murder and molestation should be a given...it would be like going to an insane asylum and looking at all the handicapped people and calling the one that knows how to tie his shoe laces Albert Einstein

[LibertyEagle]

I don't care how much talking he does, voting for sanctions is AN ACT OF WAR; but you obviously can't understand that...
Reading comprehension is not your forte. I never said I liked that he voted for the sanction against Iran's central bank. I prefer if he hadn't done it.


And as far as the TSA and NDAA go....I would hope a sitting U.S. Senator would be against killing Americans without due process and having government officials grope little children and old ladies...so yeah, he got those two things right but being against murder and molestation should be a given...it would be like going to an insane asylum and looking at all the handicapped people and calling the one that knows how to tie his shoe laces Albert Einstein

Interesting, but you do realize that most did not and he was the only Senator that I recall that did one damn thing about it. Rand got an amendment passed that at least stopped them from carting off someone who had been found innocent. You may think this doesn't matter, but I think it does.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Would doing that even be supported here? Since Rand is going to endorse McConnell, I mean?
Do you go to the roughest bars on Saturday night just to pick fights? Taking on McConnel after all the inroads and political clout we've built over the last few years in Kentucky would be an act of supreme idiocy.

This is what happens when people pick fights.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nspOI6hcOjg

[Brett85]

The only thing Rand says that I don't like is when he talks about "saving" Medicare and Social Security. I understand the politics behind saying something like that, but I just don't think I could ever use that kind of rhetoric when talking about two unconstitutional programs.

[libertygrl]

No, I will not leave you alone.

I want quality candidates. I don't care what party they belong to, but I don't want them to leave their principles at the door for the sake of "party unity".

It's ridiculous for you to say I'm doing it for my own sake...what in the world do I get out of this personally?


Our country is at stake, LE and all of this cozying up to the GOP is NOT HELPING when people who start out as liberty candidates have to do things to appease the GOP establishment!! It sickens me that you and a few others here don't see that.

I hear what you're saying. Everyone needs to chill with the insults because we all are supposedly on the same team (LIBERTY) and just have various opinions on how to gain the best political influence.

I'm really torn about this because if you go by the establishment's playbook, the way they succeed is by infiltrating and manipulating liberty groups (such as the Tea Parties), so that they totally re-direct the narrative (like they did with foreign policy and civil liberties) Personally, I would want to follow what has been a proven success such as beating them at their own game.

However, I do see your point that when "our" people get in, do they actually remain true to their principles like Dr. Paul? Or do they cave in and become part of the machine? Then again, if they are newly elected, how do we know for sure if it's true appeasment? Are they maybe just playing the game in order to get some traction within the party, so that they can eventually gain more power and influence within the GOP that way? You have to remember, some one like Dr. Paul comes once in a lifetime. His strategy was to keep speaking truth to power. But that took 30 years. Maybe this younger generation has to be a little more craftier in order to do it. I guess one will never truly know what is in their hearts. But I think that's a chance you take. The two party system is unfortunately the only game in town right now.

[angelatc]

Do you go to the roughest bars on Saturday night just to pick fights? Taking on McConnel after all the inroads and political clout we've built over the last few years in Kentucky would be an act of supreme idiocy.

\

A lot can change in two years. If McConnell votes for something major that the TEA Party sees as offensive, all bets are off.

[Matt Collins]

Has it ever crossed anyone's mind that perhaps Jesse is setting up a 2016 Presidential run for Rand and is using Mitch to do it? Having the Senate Majority Leader backing your candidate is very powerful... just a thought..

[cajuncocoa]

Has it ever crossed anyone's mind that perhaps Jesse is setting up a 2016 Presidential run for Rand and is using Mitch to do it? Having the Senate Majority Leader backing your candidate is very powerful... just a thought..Are you suggesting that Rand would hire Jesse Benton as his campaign manager in a run for POTUS?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Are you suggesting that Rand would hire Jesse Benton as his campaign manager in a run for POTUS?

More than suggesting, he's saying that's the reason Benton is taking the position with McConnell, to get on the inside for Rand's run.

[cajuncocoa]

More than suggesting, he's saying that's the reason Benton is taking the position with McConnell, to get on the inside for Rand's run.Well, that's just fantastic!! :rolleyes:

http://robinbrown.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/double-facepalm1.jpg

[LBennett76]

Has it ever crossed anyone's mind that perhaps Jesse is setting up a 2016 Presidential run for Rand and is using Mitch to do it? Having the Senate Majority Leader backing your candidate is very powerful... just a thought..
I think if McConnell backed a candidate I would immediately be uninterested in that candidate. I usually don't like the opinions of slime. It would be an immediate turn off and I wouldn't vote for who he's endorsing. So do we lie in bed with the devil to garner a few votes and lose the liberty movement's votes in the process? Seems backasswards to me...

[Matt Collins]

I think if McConnell backed a candidate I would immediately be uninterested in that candidate. I usually don't like the opinions of slime. It would be an immediate turn off and I wouldn't vote for who he's endorsing. So do we lie in bed with the devil to garner a few votes and lose the liberty movement's votes in the process? Seems backasswards to me...Let's try to be smarter than the "sheeple", eh?

Now I'm going to take your statement and equate it to how the "sheeple" and MSM / establishment would say it -

"There are openly avowed racists that support Ron Paul, therefore I won't support Ron Paul"


Now, see how nonsensical that is? :rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not crazy about politics either. It's filthy. I don't know how some of these people sleep at night.

I agree, it is a fetid cesspool.

[Anti Federalist]

Yet, you post daily on a political forum. :rolleyes:

A galaxy of difference between "politics" and things that are "political".

One is a game played mostly by hustlers, swindlers and crooks, all vying for a place at the trough, or looking to further their psychopathic grasp of power and control.

The other is delving into the real life ramifications of what the process does to our everyday lives and how to monkey wrench, thwart and destroy it as much as is humanly possible.

[sailingaway]

Let's try to be smarter than the "sheeple", eh?

Now I'm going to take your statement and equate it to how the "sheeple" and MSM / establishment would say it -

"There are openly avowed racists that support Ron Paul, therefore I won't support Ron Paul"


Now, see how nonsensical that is? :rolleyes:

Please don't call people 'sheeple'. Also, here the association is voluntary and sought on both sides. I'm waiting to see what develops, but the choices being made are choices that will impact not just gains but losses in support. I have to assume Rand has calculated that in.

[LibertyEagle]

But it's alright for others to call those of us continuing to work within the GOP, "GOP apologists", etc?

[Aratus]

i feel i don't have to apologize for the historic GOP or even many of the politicians in it,
and as for voting Republican, many of the older and long dead relatives i have would
vote republican quite often. ron paul wanted us to do more than just vote once or twice.

[Matt Collins]

Please don't call people 'sheeple'. I didn't, which is why I put it in quotes. I don't use that phrase, but many other people do. The point I was making was that we should think through things and not have knee-jerk emotional reactions to things like most people tend to do. Let's be better than that, eh?

[TheGrinch]

I didn't, which is why I put it in quotes. I don't use that phrase, but many other people do. The point I was making was that we should think through things and not have knee-jerk emotional reactions to things like most people tend to do. Let's be better than that, eh?
It is a tad offensive if you even imply the term "sheeple" directed at someone in particular, but I see your point, and for discussion purposes I don't see as a derogatory term as much as a commentary about how people who don't examine the issues and voting records vote for corrupt candidates in masses.

So I do agree, let's be better than those who simply buy into any little bit of rhetoric they hear. We wouldn't be here if we did that.

[Matt Collins]

So I do agree, let's be better than those who simply buy into any little bit of rhetoric they hear. We wouldn't be here if we did that.Bingo!

[anaconda]

one way to follow Ron more closely would be not voting for sanctions against Iran.

Rand voted against the NDAA. Rand was apparently no more in favor of actually passing sanctions than Ron is earmarks.