PDA

View Full Version : Breaking: Rand Paul Officially Endorses McConnell, Will NOT Support a Primary Challenger




supermario21
03-27-2013, 08:21 PM
Not that this is surprising to any of us....

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/27/rand-paul-helps-squash-tea-party-challenge-to-mcconnell/

MRK
03-27-2013, 08:36 PM
That was the right move for Rand to make. Now its up to the grassroots to make its right move and and put in a real statesman.

RonPaulFanInGA
03-27-2013, 08:54 PM
"I rarely endorse in primaries, but these are critical times. I know Trey Grayson and trust him. We need Trey's conservative leadership to help turn back the Obama agenda."

-McConnell

acptulsa
03-27-2013, 08:57 PM
"I rarely endorse in primaries, but these are critical times. I know Trey Grayson and trust him. We need Trey's conservative leadership to help turn back the Obama agenda."

-McConnell

'Turn the other cheek.'--Jesus

Our best bet is to show the majority of Republicans what it is to be Christian. For many reasons. God knows most of them need the lessons...

supermario21
03-27-2013, 09:01 PM
"I rarely endorse in primaries, but these are critical times. I know Trey Grayson and trust him. We need Trey's conservative leadership to help turn back the Obama agenda."

-McConnell


I think this quote represents a testament to our movement more than anything else. Mitch knows he needs Rand now.

TaftFan
03-27-2013, 09:04 PM
Hemp for endorsement is a fair deal.

acptulsa
03-27-2013, 09:04 PM
I think this quote represents a testament to our movement more than anything else. Mitch knows he needs Rand now.

And truth be known, McConnell has been doing a better job since we and Rand demonstrated to him that it's in his best interests to do so by bitchslapping him. It's no ringing endorsement of the man that this is what it takes to shove him into a principled position. But it still makes him better than McCain. We and Rand bitchslapped McCain hard enough to make him see that it's in his best interest to move to a principled position, and the old bastard still won't do it.

Brett85
03-27-2013, 09:08 PM
Why is it that so many people want a tea party candidate to challenge McConnell? McConnell voted in favor of Rand's budget and is pushing the bill to legalize hemp, so I'm not exactly sure why we would want to get rid of McConnell. (I'm not talking about the comments in this thread, but just the general sentiment that I've seen)

Cowlesy
03-27-2013, 09:09 PM
Good. Everyone take a day or two and get your TWO MINUTES HATE finished up about this no-brainer move by Team Rand.

qh4dotcom
03-27-2013, 09:11 PM
Let's see

Ron Paul endorsed SOPA author Rep. Lamar Smith who also voted for wars, bailouts, Patriot Act, etc.

Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney

Rand Paul now endorses McConnell.

Anyone here still thinks endorsements from the Pauls are to be considered without skepticism? Anyone here still willing to send their hard earned money to a questionable candidate just because a Paul endorses him/her?

brandon
03-27-2013, 09:12 PM
Those Benton quotes fill me with rage. What a d-bag

speciallyblend
03-27-2013, 09:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl1O_Y8TD1U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl1O_Y8TD1U

RonPaulFanInGA
03-27-2013, 09:15 PM
“Among people here in Kentucky, it’s not a major concern. Rand has built up a lot of goodwill with voters in Kentucky who are not McConnell fans at all, so they see this as a McConnell effort to try to ingratiate himself with Rand supporters. It will hurt McConnell, if anything,” Adams said.

But Benton, McConnell’s campaign manager, isn’t so sure.

“David Adams? The guy we fired? He’s just so incompetent,” Benton said. “He’s trying to stir some rumor mill” about a serious tea party challenger, Benton insisted.

“Rand can’t stand David [Adams],” Benton said.

Benton is a total moron. Really hope Rand Paul doesn't think 'third time's the charm' with this guy in 2016.

supermario21
03-27-2013, 09:16 PM
Isn't Benton right though? That "Tea Party Candidate" was talking to Progress Kentucky. It's not like Gurley L. Martin is going to be on the ballot. :D

Cowlesy
03-27-2013, 09:17 PM
Benton is a total moron.

Yeah I don't know why he'd say that to the press. That seems quite personal to give to a news agency to use in a story.

RonPaulFanInGA
03-27-2013, 09:19 PM
Yeah I don't know why he'd say that to the press. That seems quite personal to give to a news agency to use in a story.

It's really hard to understand why he'd air this out in public, and also why he'd speak for Rand Paul in this way. If Paul doesn't like Adams, let him be the one to say it, if he wants (most have more tact than that.) Benton isn't even working for Paul right now.

Maximus
03-27-2013, 09:23 PM
McConnell has been voting with us lately. Of the establishment GOP senators, he is most in our corner. Why spend millions uprooting him when we can get rid of Lindsay Graham? Eyes on the prize.

Sola_Fide
03-27-2013, 09:35 PM
Ugh. What a mess this is...

fr33
03-27-2013, 09:38 PM
PLEASE RAND DON'T HIRE BENTON WHEN YOU RUN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

(it's worth yelling about)

Brian4Liberty
03-27-2013, 09:39 PM
Rand has endorsed McConnell. He has the right to endorse anyone he wants. And as the fellow incumbent Senator from the State, it's probably expected.

It doesn't mean that anyone else is obliged to support McConnell.

Matt Collins
03-27-2013, 09:39 PM
Before anyone gets upset with Rand, realize that Ron has done this sort of thing many many many times in his career:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmJqSLNy8ms

qh4dotcom
03-27-2013, 09:45 PM
Before anyone gets upset with Rand, realize that Ron has done this sort of thing many many many times in his career:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmJqSLNy8ms

Many, many times?

Besides the Lamar Smith and Don Young endorsements....what other questionable endorsements has Ron Paul made?

fr33
03-27-2013, 09:46 PM
Many, many times?

Besides the Lamar Smith and Don Young endorsements....what other questionable endorsements has Ron Paul made?

Bachmann is one that comes to mind. I bet there are more.

RonPaulFanInGA
03-27-2013, 09:46 PM
Many, many times?

Besides the Lamar Smith and Don Young endorsements....what other questionable endorsements has Ron Paul made?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/components/slideshows/_production/ss-110620-ron-paul/ss-110620-ron-paul-thirdparty.grid-6x3.jpg

Brett85
03-27-2013, 09:49 PM
Rand has endorsed McConnell. He has the right to endorse anyone he wants. And as the fellow incumbent Senator from the State, it's probably expected.

It doesn't mean that anyone else is obliged to support McConnell.

What issues has he not voted with us on recently?

TaftFan
03-27-2013, 09:50 PM
Bachmann is one that comes to mind. I bet there are more.

That was a genuine endorsement. She was or appeared very good at the time.

afwjam
03-27-2013, 09:53 PM
Smart move by Rand.

RAND, NO BENTON IN 2016.

Antwan15
03-27-2013, 09:59 PM
Rand has endorsed McConnell. He has the right to endorse anyone he wants. And as the fellow incumbent Senator from the State, it's probably expected.

It doesn't mean that anyone else is obliged to support McConnell.

This is the first legit arguement i have heard throughout this whole McConnell ordeal. It would be expected, by tradition if nothing else. It would be bad politicaly in the long run for our movement. That being said, Rand is making me nervous.

Christian Liberty
03-27-2013, 09:59 PM
Who is Mcconnell and what are his views?

tsai3904
03-27-2013, 10:00 PM
What issues has he not voted with us on recently?

Recent votes are not good votes to judge him by. Orrin Hatch is a good example. When Hatch was running for re-election, he voted like a real fiscal conservative. Hatch was only one of seven Senators to vote for Rand's five year balanced budget in 2011. Now that he won re-election, he's back to his old self and voted against Rand's recent budget.

Brett85
03-27-2013, 10:01 PM
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/components/slideshows/_production/ss-110620-ron-paul/ss-110620-ron-paul-thirdparty.grid-6x3.jpg

Yeah, Chuck Baldwin was awesome, but the fact that he endorsed the other two as well was pretty ridiculous.

Brett85
03-27-2013, 10:02 PM
Recent votes are not good votes to judge him by. Orrin Hatch is a good example. When Hatch was running for re-election, he voted like a real fiscal conservative. Hatch was only one of seven Senators to vote for Rand's five year balanced budget in 2011. Now that he won re-election, he's back to his old self and voted against Rand's recent budget.

I guess, but it at least seems clear that Rand has to fully support McConnell in order to get his support for the Industrial Hemp bill.

Christian Liberty
03-27-2013, 10:03 PM
Honestly, that was almost how I personally felt in 2012. I really did go throguh a phase where I really didn't care about anything other than foreign policy. Granted, I don't think that was Ron but I definitely think Ron wanted to shout "Anything but the establishment!" Remember that some of Ron Paul's supporters are actually left wingers who are just smart enough to realize that Ron Paul is serious about anti-war and Obama is not. Ultimately, Ron endorsed Baldwin. If I had to pick between the 2008 candidates, Baldwin was definitely the best one.

TaftFan
03-27-2013, 10:04 PM
Yeah, Chuck Baldwin was awesome, but the fact that he endorsed the other two as well was pretty ridiculous.

He didn't endorse the other two. That is a misconception. He invited them to talk, and ultimately chose Baldwin.

Christian Liberty
03-27-2013, 10:07 PM
I don't know if I'd quite say Baldwin is "Awesome" either. At absolute best he's on par with Rand, maybe even a little less strong than Rand. He was a solid constitutionalist, and I can't ask for too much more than that, but he wasn't nearly as ideologically consistent and libertarian as Ron Paul. I agree with Laurence Vance who called him "The lesser of two goods" when compared to Ron Paul.

RonPaulFanInGA
03-27-2013, 10:08 PM
Who is Mcconnell and what are his views?

McConnell stands for hemp legalization (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16967535-gop-senate-leader-mitch-mcconnell-supports-bill-to-legalize-hemp-production), supports tax and spending cuts, has an A rating from (http://gunowners.org/113srat.htm) the Gun Owners of America and says (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/19/government.spending/index.html) Ron Paul is the "most famous Tea Party type in Congress."

In short, a true warrior of liberty.

Christian Liberty
03-27-2013, 10:09 PM
So far so good. Is his foreign policy at least passable?

Brett85
03-27-2013, 10:10 PM
I don't know if I'd quite say Baldwin is "Awesome" either. At absolute best he's on par with Rand, maybe even a little less strong than Rand. He was a solid constitutionalist, and I can't ask for too much more than that, but he wasn't nearly as ideologically consistent and libertarian as Ron Paul. I agree with Laurence Vance who called him "The lesser of two goods" when compared to Ron Paul.

Well, for those of us who are kind of libertarian-leaning paleo conservatives, Baldwin was a great candidate, because that's basically what he is. But I can see why some of the really hardcore libertarians wouldn't like him.

Sola_Fide
03-27-2013, 10:11 PM
McConnell stands for hemp legalization (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16967535-gop-senate-leader-mitch-mcconnell-supports-bill-to-legalize-hemp-production), supports tax and spending cuts, has an A rating from (http://gunowners.org/113srat.htm) the Gun Owners of America and says (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/19/government.spending/index.html) Ron Paul is the "most famous Tea Party type in Congress."

In short, a true warrior of liberty.

Stop it :)

Christian Liberty
03-27-2013, 10:15 PM
Well, for those of us who are kind of libertarian-leaning paleo conservatives, Baldwin was a great candidate, because that's basically what he is. But I can see why some of the really hardcore libertarians wouldn't like him.

I don't dislike him, I just think "Awesome" is a little strong. But you're right, I am something of a hardcore libertarian, albeit strongly anti-abortion.

Baldwin supported the 10th amendment, at least, so its not all bad when it comes to this, but I don't really like how he thinks the government, any level of government, actually has any moral right to regulate what substances people can put into their bodies. Baldwin is really good on a lot of issues, guns, foreign policy, anti-UN, anti-income tax... there's a lot of stuff Baldwin gets right. I'd be proud to vote for him. I'm not ready to say "Awesome" though. "Awesome" would be more like what I would say about a Ron Paul or Michael Badnarik, someone who gets nearly everything right...

IIRC Baldwin also didn't necessarily support withdrawing US troops from everywhere, although he did want to greatly reduce the amount of places we are in. Which once again, I can say "Better than most" but not "Awesome."

I'm not sure exactly what paleoconservatism is. I get the basic idea but I don't know all of their beliefs. I'd probably fit as more of a paleolibertarian, or sorts. I'm definitely socially conservative, just not POLITICALLY conservative, if that makes sense. In other words, I believe in trying to create a socially conservative society peacefully, not through violent force of the state. Baldwin sometimes support state force in a few areas other than police, courts, and defense.

Brett85
03-27-2013, 10:21 PM
I don't dislike him, I just think "Awesome" is a little strong. But you're right, I am something of a hardcore libertarian, albeit strongly anti-abortion.

Baldwin supported the 10th amendment, at least, so its not all bad when it comes to this, but I don't really like how he thinks the government, any level of government, actually has any moral right to regulate what substances people can put into their bodies. Baldwin is really good on a lot of issues, guns, foreign policy, anti-UN, anti-income tax... there's a lot of stuff Baldwin gets right. I'd be proud to vote for him. I'm not ready to say "Awesome" though. "Awesome" would be more like what I would say about a Ron Paul or Michael Badnarik, someone who gets nearly everything right...

IIRC Baldwin also didn't necessarily support withdrawing US troops from everywhere, although he did want to greatly reduce the amount of places we are in. Which once again, I can say "Better than most" but not "Awesome."

I'm not sure exactly what paleoconservatism is. I get the basic idea but I don't know all of their beliefs. I'd probably fit as more of a paleolibertarian, or sorts. I'm definitely socially conservative, just not POLITICALLY conservative, if that makes sense. In other words, I believe in trying to create a socially conservative society peacefully, not through violent force of the state. Baldwin sometimes support state force in a few areas other than police, courts, and defense.

Well, Baldwin has been speaking out against the war on drugs recently, so maybe he's changed his position on that. I agree with libertarians in terms of not actually throwing people in jail for victimless crimes like drug use and prostitution. I would rather try to convince people not to engage in those activities than to just throw those people in prison. So in that sense I'm more libertarian than conservative. But on the other hand, I don't want the government to actually promote anything I find to be immoral, which is why I'm opposed to same sex marriage and opposed to state lotteries, state owned casinos, etc. The government shouldn't throw people in prison for doing things that are immoral, but the government shouldn't promote immorality either.

Keith and stuff
03-27-2013, 10:22 PM
Before anyone gets upset with Rand, realize that Ron has done this sort of thing many many many times in his career:
I remember when Ron Paul endorsed dozens of questionable people. I still like Ron Paul :)

Brian4Liberty
03-27-2013, 10:22 PM
What issues has he not voted with us on recently?

Senators are particularly notorious for being "good" on re-election years.


Recent votes are not good votes to judge him by. Orrin Hatch is a good example. When Hatch was running for re-election, he voted like a real fiscal conservative. Hatch was only one of seven Senators to vote for Rand's five year balanced budget in 2011. Now that he won re-election, he's back to his old self and voted against Rand's recent budget.

Yep. Many Senators do that.

Sola_Fide
03-27-2013, 10:22 PM
Given Benton's style of taking away any aspects of liberty in a campaign, what could happen to a Rand campaign? He could turn Rand into McCain 2016.

RonPaulFanInGA
03-27-2013, 10:25 PM
Given Benton's style of taking away any aspects of liberty in a campaign, what could happen to a Rand campaign? He could turn Rand into McCain 2016.

How has Benton taken away aspects of liberty with McConnell?

Christian Liberty
03-27-2013, 10:28 PM
Well, Baldwin has been speaking out against the war on drugs recently, so maybe he's changed his position on that.

Maybe he has. I know that when he was running in 2008 he believed it was a state issue, but believed that the state's should ban it. Now, he is correct that constitutionally, the Federal government cannot force any state to legalize anything, but I wish that like Ron Paul he would have supported it. Maybe he's on the right side of that issue now.


I agree with libertarians in terms of not actually throwing people in jail for victimless crimes like drug use and prostitution. I would rather try to convince people not to engage in those activities than to just throw those people in prison. So in that sense I'm more libertarian than conservative. But on the other hand, I don't want the government to actually promote anything I find to be immoral, which is why I'm opposed to same sex marriage and opposed to state lotteries, state owned casinos, etc. The government shouldn't throw people in prison for doing things that are immoral, but the government shouldn't promote immorality either.

I'm against SSM for this same reason. Laurence Vance makes a pretty compelling argument as to why SSM has really little to do with libertarianism at all. I believe government should get out of marriage altogether. If they won't do that, I believe civil unions for gay couples is acceptable, but the government shouldn't redefine marriage. So I'd agree with you on that issue. As for state lotteries and casinos, I actually don't see why lotteries or casinos are inherently immoral (Unlike homosexual contact, I don't see gambling as being per say declared immoral by the Bible although like drinking it can clearly be overdone to a point where it is immoral) but I still don't think the state should necessarily own any of them. Although come to think of it if they ran lotteries as a way to raise income instead of taxing people that would probably be better...

Sola_Fide
03-27-2013, 10:29 PM
How has Benton taken away aspects of liberty with McConnell?

There wasn't any to take away.

fr33
03-27-2013, 10:31 PM
How has Benton taken away aspects of liberty with McConnell?
Benton's always been out of touch when it comes to the liberty movement. He may mean well. He may not. But McConnell has been forced to adopt liberty positions. I think Benton is good fit for him. I hope he stays with McConnell.

AJ Antimony
03-27-2013, 11:42 PM
Who is Mcconnell and what are his views?

Here you go (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mitch+mcconnell)

AJ Antimony
03-27-2013, 11:46 PM
“David Adams? The guy we fired? He’s just so incompetent,” Benton said.

Ok, now I have tried my best to remain neutral regarding Jesse. I don't think he's the best at what he does, but I also don't think he deserves all the crap he gets. But this is crossing the line.

anaconda
03-28-2013, 12:09 AM
Anyone here still willing to send their hard earned money to a questionable candidate just because a Paul endorses him/her?

I have not given money to any candidate based upon Rand's endorsement. But if Rand keeps doing his thing, I will be giving him money (if I have any to give at that point).

anaconda
03-28-2013, 12:15 AM
It's really hard to understand why he'd air this out in public, and also why he'd speak for Rand Paul in this way. If Paul doesn't like Adams, let him be the one to say it, if he wants (most have more tact than that.) Benton isn't even working for Paul right now.

If were Rand, I would be fuming mad with Benton. The last thing Rand needs is for his associates to be blabbing publicly about their inside knowledge of his political relationships. Rand works too hard on his talking points to have some buffoon mucking things up for him. I have not been one of the Benton haters, but this is really egregious. I would think statements like these would immediately disqualify Jesse from any future campaign work. I wouldn't blame McConnell if he fired Jesse for this.

economics102
03-28-2013, 12:16 AM
That was the right move for Rand to make. Now its up to the grassroots to make its right move and and put in a real statesman.

Unless you think McConnell is going to abandon his alliance with Rand after he wins re-election (which, that's a reasonable fear), I sadly must confess I think we'd be strategically foolish to be rooting for McConnell's defeat.

jkob
03-28-2013, 12:25 AM
Hopefully McConnell returns the favor in 2016

RickyJ
03-28-2013, 12:26 AM
Not that this is surprising to any of us....

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/27/rand-paul-helps-squash-tea-party-challenge-to-mcconnell/

It is surprising to me. I can see him supporting him over the democrat, but not over a liberty minded republican challenger.

RickyJ
03-28-2013, 12:27 AM
Hopefully McConnell returns the favor in 2016

Don't bet on it!

talkingpointes
03-28-2013, 12:31 AM
Don't bet on it!

Then whats the point. The guy has like a 10% approval rating ... Unless I'm off.

anaconda
03-28-2013, 12:39 AM
Hopefully McConnell returns the favor in 2016

What would Mitch's incentive be to help Rand after 2014?

RickyJ
03-28-2013, 12:46 AM
Then whats the point. The guy has like a 10% approval rating ... Unless I'm off.

If that is the case then he should be easy to beat. Oh, and let's not forget he has the incompetent Benton working for him, that alone takes away at least 10% from his vote total.

Bastiat's The Law
03-28-2013, 01:18 AM
Who is Mcconnell and what are his views?
Don't play dumb.

Bastiat's The Law
03-28-2013, 01:19 AM
He didn't endorse the other two. That is a misconception. He invited them to talk, and ultimately chose Baldwin.
If you want to be cute about it sure, but to the general public those were endorsements.

Bastiat's The Law
03-28-2013, 01:21 AM
I don't know if I'd quite say Baldwin is "Awesome" either. At absolute best he's on par with Rand, maybe even a little less strong than Rand. He was a solid constitutionalist, and I can't ask for too much more than that, but he wasn't nearly as ideologically consistent and libertarian as Ron Paul. I agree with Laurence Vance who called him "The lesser of two goods" when compared to Ron Paul.
Preachers rarely get elected to anything in the 21st century.

RickyJ
03-28-2013, 01:21 AM
What would Mitch's incentive be to help Rand after 2014?

Like he even could help him, if his approval rating is really just 10% then I can see the Democrat beating him. He can easily be beat in a primary.

Bastiat's The Law
03-28-2013, 01:27 AM
If that is the case then he should be easy to beat. Oh, and let's not forget he has the incompetent Benton working for him, that alone takes away at least 10% from his vote total.
That isn't accurate and he wouldn't be "easy" to beat by any calculation.

economics102
03-28-2013, 01:32 AM
The only way Rand is going to lose his Senate seat in 2016 is if he runs for President.

anaconda
03-28-2013, 01:54 AM
If you want to be cute about it sure, but to the general public those were endorsements.

If memory serves, Ron encouraged everyone to vote for a third party candidate, as each would be a monumental improvement over the Republican or the Democrat. He added that each of Nader, Baldwin, Barr, and McKinney, despite their expansive range across the political spectrum, had all committed to 4 unifying platform issues: audit the fed, end the wars, civil liberties, and the national debt. He wanted the voters to know that, despite their political orientation, there were far better choices, and that the "two party" system is rigged. Ron even said in this interview that he would not vote for Nader, but that he planned "to get as many votes for him as possible." I assume Ron would have said the same regarding Barr and McKinney.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcVkbPfXs1k

devil21
03-28-2013, 02:15 AM
Shit.

This is where pragmatism and purism hit each other head on.

itshappening
03-28-2013, 03:31 AM
Those comments from Benton about Adams are outrageous. When Rand was unknown in Kentucky he turned to someone like Adams who knew the Kentucky GOP and he helped introduce him to Kentucky voters and helped engineer a 22 point primary win. He didn't turn to Benton did he?

Adams was prepared to stand with Rand against the McConnell machine and that was very important.

compromise
03-28-2013, 03:32 AM
And truth be known, McConnell has been doing a better job since we and Rand demonstrated to him that it's in his best interests to do so by bitchslapping him. It's no ringing endorsement of the man that this is what it takes to shove him into a principled position. But it still makes him better than McCain. We and Rand bitchslapped McCain hard enough to make him see that it's in his best interest to move to a principled position, and the old bastard still won't do it.

The thing is, McCain is a principled neoconservative. That's why he won't change his positions. And that's why if he runs for re-election in 2016, someone like Gosar or Schweikett should step up and primary him out.

McConnell is not principled. He goes where the wind is blowing. And fortunately, it's blowing our way.

compromise
03-28-2013, 03:41 AM
So far so good. Is his foreign policy at least passable?
He voted for Rand's budget which would cut military spending, and also voted in favor of Rand and Cruz's recent attempts to cut foreign aid to Egypt.

WM_in_MO
03-28-2013, 06:32 AM
Remember what Ron said about building alliances? Let's keep trying that, because its pretty damn clear that principled libertarians are still a minority.

jclay2
03-28-2013, 06:48 AM
Why is it that something like this from Rand comes out litterally every other week? I am seriously starting to doubt Rand would make waves even if he were president. You will know them by their actions.

SilentBull
03-28-2013, 07:27 AM
Good for Rand. His strategy is working. McConnell has been feeling forced to support Rand because he knows the people are behind him. We need McConnell so that more and more regular republicans will follow. "If McConnell agrees with Rand, he must not be out of the 'mainstream'".

This is how we win. The last thing we want is to go back to being "outsiders" by attacking people like McConnell. We need some regular republicans on our side, otherwise it will be libertarians vs republicans. If that's the case, we lose. But if it's McCain, Lindsey, Coulter vs Rand, McConnell, Demint, etc., then it's no longer libertarians vs republicans, but Rhinos vs real conservatives + libertarians. And that's how we need to market this change in the republican party.

Bastiat's The Law
03-28-2013, 07:28 AM
Why is it that something like this from Rand comes out litterally every other week? I am seriously starting to doubt Rand would make waves even if he were president. You will know them by their actions.
Rand is just one man fighting the federal behemoth, can't expect him to fight every battle. I think McConnell losing would actually weaken Rand in many ways. Remember, McConnell as minority leader got Rand appointed to several committees to build up his resume and experience in several subject matters a would-be Presidential candidate would be pressed on. It's up to us to pick up the slack and clean up our own state and local governments while Rand works the federal angle.

If we gave Greg Brannon half as much attention as we do McConnell he'd be the man to beat in the GOP primary for North Carolina. Let's push something that could snowball instead of pushing on string.

Bastiat's The Law
03-28-2013, 07:30 AM
Good for Rand. His strategy is working. McConnell has been feeling forced to support Rand because he knows the people are behind him. We need McConnell so that more and more regular republicans will follow. "If McConnell agrees with Rand, he must not be out of the 'mainstream'".

This is how we win. The last thing we want is to go back to being "outsiders" by attacking people like McConnell. We need some regular republicans on our side, otherwise it will be libertarians vs republicans. If that's the case, we lose. But if it's McCain, Lindsey, Coulter vs Rand, McConnell, Demint, etc., then it's no longer libertarians vs republicans, but Rhinos vs real conservatives + libertarians. And that's how we need to market this change in the republican party.

Well said.

Spoa
03-28-2013, 07:33 AM
Unless someone serious challenges McConnell, we should really focus on getting rid of Graham. He's more of a disaster than McConnell.

At least McConnell has supported all of Rand's budget proposals.

whoisjohngalt
03-28-2013, 07:38 AM
I see so many posts that are either short sighted or fail to recognize the inner workings of the political system. A few points of clarification:

1. McConnell is hitching his wagon to Rand's, this is not a mutual alliance in the traditional sense; McConnel has to have Rand for reelection in 2014, 2020, and as long as that old bag stays in the upper chamber (he is only 71).

2. McConnell offers no electoral help to Rand. What he offers is the ability to offer amendments, committee placement, let Rand do as he pleases in the Senate (filibuster anyone?), and even greater potential (see next item).

3. Midterms are still going to be solid Republican, but if the GOP doesn't take the Senate in 2014, a Rand Paul presidency will assure they take the Senate in 2016. What does that mean? It means McConnell would be the Senate Majority Leader! In other words, Rand will control the Senate. The importance of this can't be understated. If we got rid of McConnell, the new minority leader might not be someone willing to work with Rand or be so malleable on the issues. It could be McCain.

Try to see the big picture. We really don't want McConnell to lose, as much as I hate the windbag. Never has, "Better the devil you know then the devil you don't" rang more true. Rand knows what he is doing. We need to worry about the House. Our only goal in the Senate should be getting rid of the Three Amigos (McCain, Ayotte, and Graham) and getting other seats that don't have Republican incumbents filled with the most liberty oriented peoples possible.

erowe1
03-28-2013, 07:38 AM
Let's see

Ron Paul endorsed SOPA author Rep. Lamar Smith who also voted for wars, bailouts, Patriot Act, etc.

Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney

Rand Paul now endorses McConnell.

Anyone here still thinks endorsements from the Pauls are to be considered without skepticism? Anyone here still willing to send their hard earned money to a questionable candidate just because a Paul endorses him/her?

Why do you say "still"? Did people here ever do that? I don't remember anyone plugging donations for Romney and Smith.

MRK
03-28-2013, 08:32 AM
Recent votes are not good votes to judge him by. Orrin Hatch is a good example. When Hatch was running for re-election, he voted like a real fiscal conservative. Hatch was only one of seven Senators to vote for Rand's five year balanced budget in 2011. Now that he won re-election, he's back to his old self and voted against Rand's recent budget.

Yep. I can't remember the RPer's name, but when I was at CPAC an RPer I met in Iowa stood up to ask Hatch why he supported the TARP bailouts and Hatch looked like he just saw a ghost as everyone in the audience booed him.

That and other events must have made him realize he needed to shore up his base before he got kicked out. Now that he settled down his base he's back to his shady ways and I'm sure the cycle will repeat itself by next election.

McLolnel doesn't deserve grassroots support just because he smiled for the cameras as he made some honest votes for once in his career.

If Rand endorses he gets to say "Hey I endorsed the guy I wasn't the reason he didn't get elected." That doesn't mean the grassroots shouldn't try to take the guy down. It's just that if McLolnel does get taken down, Rand won't be able to get flamed for it by establishment infobabes and media pundits that try to paint him as a divisive figure.

itshappening
03-28-2013, 08:41 AM
I see so many posts that are either short sighted or fail to recognize the inner workings of the political system. A few points of clarification:

1. McConnell is hitching his wagon to Rand's, this is not a mutual alliance in the traditional sense; McConnel has to have Rand for reelection in 2014, 2020, and as long as that old bag stays in the upper chamber (he is only 71).

2. McConnell offers no electoral help to Rand. What he offers is the ability to offer amendments, committee placement, let Rand do as he pleases in the Senate (filibuster anyone?), and even greater potential (see next item).

3. Midterms are still going to be solid Republican, but if the GOP doesn't take the Senate in 2014, a Rand Paul presidency will assure they take the Senate in 2016. What does that mean? It means McConnell would be the Senate Majority Leader! In other words, Rand will control the Senate. The importance of this can't be understated. If we got rid of McConnell, the new minority leader might not be someone willing to work with Rand or be so malleable on the issues. It could be McCain.

Try to see the big picture. We really don't want McConnell to lose, as much as I hate the windbag. Never has, "Better the devil you know then the devil you don't" rang more true. Rand knows what he is doing. We need to worry about the House. Our only goal in the Senate should be getting rid of the Three Amigos (McCain, Ayotte, and Graham) and getting other seats that don't have Republican incumbents filled with the most liberty oriented peoples possible.

1) McConnell is unlikely to run again in 2020, he'll be nearly 80 years old.

2) true

3) Republican insiders tend to be delusional when it comes to electoral politics. He could just as easily think he'll be Majority leader by supporting Rubio. However, I do think Rand on the ballot will make a difference for some 2010 incomers like Toomey, Johnson etc. in retaining their seat rather than having a rabid neocon like Rubio on the ticket.

KingNothing
03-28-2013, 08:43 AM
Why is it that so many people want a tea party candidate to challenge McConnell? McConnell voted in favor of Rand's budget and is pushing the bill to legalize hemp, so I'm not exactly sure why we would want to get rid of McConnell. (I'm not talking about the comments in this thread, but just the general sentiment that I've seen)

McConnell is a neocon when it benefits him to be a neocon. He is a budget hawk when it benefits him to be a budget hawk. He is a civil libertarian when it benefits him to be a civil libertarian. He's a politician. This is what they do. It's why Ron Paul was such a genius to focus on changing hearts and minds, educating voters, and inspiring them to be active.

When our ideals are winning, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having Mitch around. His behavior is predictable, and we can count on him to push our agenda so long as we do our work and make sure our agenda is popular.

whoisjohngalt
03-28-2013, 08:47 AM
1) McConnell is unlikely to run again in 2020, he'll be nearly 80 years old.

2) true

3) Republican insiders tend to be delusional when it comes to electoral politics. He could just as easily think he'll be Majority leader by supporting Rubio. However, I do think Rand on the ballot will make a difference for some 2010 incomers like Toomey, Johnson etc. in retaining their seat rather than having a rabid neocon like Rubio on the ticket.

I would put his chances of running for reelection in 2020 at even money. Probably a lot higher if he is the Majority Leader. And it's not so much about who he thinks will make him Majority Leader (he just needs a GOP win for that to happen) but about the opportunities presented by having the Majority Leader in your pocket when you are president. Who would be preferable as an ally to Rand to be Majority Leader if McConnell is defeated? The list of likely candidates all seem worse imo.

itshappening
03-28-2013, 08:50 AM
I would put his chances of running for reelection in 2020 at even money. Probably a lot higher if he is the Majority Leader. And it's not so much about who he thinks will make him Majority Leader (he just needs a GOP win for that to happen) but about the opportunities presented by having the Majority Leader in your pocket when you are president. Who would be preferable as an ally to Rand to be Majority Leader if McConnell is defeated? The list of likely candidates all seem worse imo.

Whoever is next in line, they're always loyal to the president

whoisjohngalt
03-28-2013, 08:56 AM
Whoever is next in line, they're always loyal to the president

This is not entirely accurate. You have to look no further than Obama and Reid's relationship. But if one of McCain's acolytes were to take the position you can imagine major battles between a President Rand and the SML. It's complicated with all sorts of shades of gray, but assuming the SML will work with Rand and bring the legislation he wants when he wants it is a pretty big assumption, I think.

If it does to turn out to be a devout neocon, I think you will see serious obstructionism.

ctiger2
03-28-2013, 09:05 AM
I will financially support a challenger to Mitch. Mitch needs to go BIGTIME.

jtstellar
03-28-2013, 09:13 AM
soooo if mitch goes, who else gets to be minority leader and does that help rand/our cause in the senate? will rand have procedural smooth sails as good as before? and has anyone vetted this actual 'challenger'? quite frankly this isn't ron paul's <3% name recognition in 08 days, not everybody claiming to be a libertarian is indeed running with total selflessness. it's already pretty late in the game. when will some people in this movement ever lose their adolescence?

i love when some days some random guy out of nowhere pops up and say "I AM A LIBERTARIAN! SUPPORT ME!" and every ron paul supporter who's still 12 years old inside goes "FUCK YA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and then a month later, bitching and moaning threads ensue. such is the drama on daily paul on a daily basis.

whoisjohngalt
03-28-2013, 09:29 AM
soooo if mitch goes, who else gets to be minority leader and does that help rand/our cause in the senate? will rand have procedural smooth sails as good as before? and has anyone vetted this actual 'challenger'? quite frankly this isn't ron paul's <3% name recognition in 08 days, not everybody claiming to be a libertarian is indeed running with total selflessness. it's already pretty late in the game. when will some people in this movement ever lose their adolescence? i love when some days some random guy out of nowhere pops up and say "I AM A LIBERTARIAN! SUPPORT ME!" and every ron paul supporter who's still 12 years old inside goes "FUCK YA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and then a month later, bitching and moaning threads ensue. such is the drama on daily paul on a daily basis.

The odds on favorites would be in this order Cornyn- TX, Thune- SD, Barasso- WY, Blunt- MO. Which is why I'm arguing we would shouldn't be wasting resources fighting McConnell. Imo, McConnell would be far more desirable to have as SML for a Rand presidency and he is already in Rand's pocket. Only Thune can compare in complete lack of integrity or principle.

The Gold Standard
03-28-2013, 09:55 AM
After Mitch wins re-election in 2016 and starts trashing Rand and pounding the war drums, how many here will even be bothered by that?

Christian Liberty
03-28-2013, 10:04 AM
Ron Paul endorsed SOPA author Rep. Lamar Smith who also voted for wars, bailouts, Patriot Act, etc.

OK this surprises me... why did he do that again?

supermario21
03-28-2013, 10:08 AM
OK this surprises me... why did he do that again?

Pretty sure part of his deal with leadership in the TX GOP was to endorse every incumbent candidate.

lib3rtarian
03-28-2013, 10:13 AM
I will financially support a challenger to Mitch. Mitch needs to go BIGTIME.


After Mitch wins re-election in 2016 and starts trashing Rand and pounding the war drums, how many here will even be bothered by that?

Look, I think we can all agree that Mitch is an opportunist. But as long as he does us some good by helping Rand, there is no reason to antagonize him. How would it help if we push a Tea Party candidate and that guy turns out to be a complete corporatist (like that hasn't happened before!). Or worse, the Dems win the seat and we get a loony lefty in office. All these are worse possibilities than Mitch remaining in that seat. Rand does need some mainstream/establishment support and Mitch gives him that. Will Mitch completely screw us over after he wins in 2016? It's possible. But we can't piss away visible opportunities by dreaming up improbable scenarios.

Remember 70% friend is NOT our 30% enemy. We should stick with Mitch like Rand did.

lib3rtarian
03-28-2013, 10:23 AM
Unless someone serious challenges McConnell, we should really focus on getting rid of Graham. He's more of a disaster than McConnell.

At least McConnell has supported all of Rand's budget proposals.

Agreed. We have so many completely hostile RINOs to primary (Graham, McCain...) I don't understand the hatred towards McConnell, who at least seems to be trending our way recently, even if it's for selfish purposes.

whoisjohngalt
03-28-2013, 10:40 AM
After Mitch wins re-election in 2016 and starts trashing Rand and pounding the war drums, how many here will even be bothered by that?

This assumes he has absolutely no intention of running in 2020. He would need to make that decision immediately and it's pretty unlikely that he would give up Majority Leader status because of age, which is the only thing that would prevent him from running (he would be 78 in 2020).

Beyond that, it would destroy is credibility in Kentucky politics, in general, closing a lot of doors to him. Even if he doesn't run, its highly unlikely and makes no sense.

What about the alternatives. You think Cornyn will be better? That's laughable.

FSP-Rebel
03-28-2013, 10:43 AM
Hemp for endorsement is a fair deal.
And the seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is more than fair imo. If the hemp deal goes through, in part, thanks to Mitch (whether he's truly down for it or not) then the benefits to KY can be showcased leading up to Rand's Prez run and be a key feather in his cap nationwide. This will create jobs and he'll have cred in how to do it over and above his economic revitalization plan to balance the budget and keep more money in localities. That's an epic strategy and some here are missing the trick.

supermario21
03-28-2013, 10:50 AM
Look, if you have the Senate Majority Leader's endorsement going into 16, then that's a very good thing. Heck Cruz might put enough pressure on Cornyn for him to endorse Rand as well.

itshappening
03-28-2013, 10:50 AM
This assumes he has absolutely no intention of running in 2020. He would need to make that decision immediately and it's pretty unlikely that he would give up Majority Leader status because of age, which is the only thing that would prevent him from running (he would be 78 in 2020).

Beyond that, it would destroy is credibility in Kentucky politics, in general, closing a lot of doors to him. Even if he doesn't run, its highly unlikely and makes no sense.

What about the alternatives. You think Cornyn will be better? That's laughable.

If the Democrats manage to recruit a decent candidate by 2020 then he might be under pressure to retire for a more younger face or the GOP risk losing the seat especially in a state like Kentucky with a strong Democrat bench the case for retiring McConnell will be even more profound in another 6 years.

Polling will tell him the best time to go. Remember in 2010 Bunning was seen as 'too old' and the seat was at risk which is why McConnell was bluntly telling him to retire.

Matt Collins
03-28-2013, 10:52 AM
OK this surprises me... why did he do that again?







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmJqSLNy8ms

whoisjohngalt
03-28-2013, 10:53 AM
If the Democrats manage to recruit a decent candidate by 2020 then he might be under pressure to retire for a more younger face or the GOP risk losing the seat especially in a state like Kentucky with a strong Democrat bench the case for retiring McConnell will be even more profound in another 6 years.

All the more reason for him to keep his behavior in check. He needs cover against that pressure to retire. He can already sense that pressure and that is why he dove in head first in his embrace of the fresh face that is Rand Paul.

itshappening
03-28-2013, 10:57 AM
All the more reason for him to keep his behavior in check. He needs cover against that pressure to retire. He can already sense that pressure and that is why he dove in head first in his embrace of the fresh face that is Rand Paul.

it won't matter who he embraces I'm pretty sure this will be his last term otherwise the GOP could lose the seat to a fresh faced Democrat who is currently kicking around in one of the many state offices. Bunning was seen as too old just a few years ago. It's all on the perception of the voters in Kentucky and whether that argument can be made. I think it'll be a slam dunk when he's 'near 80'

dannno
03-28-2013, 11:06 AM
Let's see

Ron Paul endorsed SOPA author Rep. Lamar Smith who also voted for wars, bailouts, Patriot Act, etc.

Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney

Rand Paul now endorses McConnell.

Anyone here still thinks endorsements from the Pauls are to be considered without skepticism? Anyone here still willing to send their hard earned money to a questionable candidate just because a Paul endorses him/her?

Just accept that they are going to make the endorsements and use your own brain when it comes to who to send your money to. I think they both know people in the liberty movement are smart enough to think for themselves.

whoisjohngalt
03-28-2013, 11:25 AM
it won't matter who he embraces I'm pretty sure this will be his last term otherwise the GOP could lose the seat to a fresh faced Democrat who is currently kicking around in one of the many state offices. Bunning was seen as too old just a few years ago. It's all on the perception of the voters in Kentucky and whether that argument can be made. I think it'll be a slam dunk when he's 'near 80'

You are missing my point. I'm not talking about the reality. I'm talking about the perception in Mitch's mind. So long as he thinks he might be running in 2020, he will behave. Though, if Rand has been a popular president for four years, his reelection won't be an issue if he wants it.

AJ Antimony
03-28-2013, 11:54 AM
I see so many posts that are either short sighted or fail to recognize the inner workings of the political system. A few points of clarification:

1. McConnell is hitching his wagon to Rand's, this is not a mutual alliance in the traditional sense; McConnel has to have Rand for reelection in 2014, 2020, and as long as that old bag stays in the upper chamber (he is only 71).

2. McConnell offers no electoral help to Rand. What he offers is the ability to offer amendments, committee placement, let Rand do as he pleases in the Senate (filibuster anyone?), and even greater potential (see next item).

3. Midterms are still going to be solid Republican, but if the GOP doesn't take the Senate in 2014, a Rand Paul presidency will assure they take the Senate in 2016. What does that mean? It means McConnell would be the Senate Majority Leader! In other words, Rand will control the Senate. The importance of this can't be understated. If we got rid of McConnell, the new minority leader might not be someone willing to work with Rand or be so malleable on the issues. It could be McCain.

Try to see the big picture. We really don't want McConnell to lose, as much as I hate the windbag. Never has, "Better the devil you know then the devil you don't" rang more true. Rand knows what he is doing. We need to worry about the House. Our only goal in the Senate should be getting rid of the Three Amigos (McCain, Ayotte, and Graham) and getting other seats that don't have Republican incumbents filled with the most liberty oriented peoples possible.

4. When McConnell retires, he might return the favor by helping clear the GOP field for Thomas Massie...

unknown
03-28-2013, 12:07 PM
By now, people should have some trust in Rand.

Ever since he endorsed Romney, it was my opinion that Rand was playing nice with the GOP establishment to "guarantee" his long term agenda.

I still think thats part of the game plan.

talkingpointes
03-28-2013, 12:23 PM
RNC is dumping MCconnel and they are hitching the wagon to Rand as well. LOL

P3ter_Griffin
03-28-2013, 12:39 PM
Agreed. We have so many completely hostile RINOs to primary (Graham, McCain...) I don't understand the hatred towards McConnell, who at least seems to be trending our way recently, even if it's for selfish purposes.

That is exactly the point. How does he act after the election if he wins in 2014? Will he revert to his old ways and be an enemy of liberty? Or has he been "converted" to a liberty supporter for the rest of his political career? Who knows? Its all about how trusting you are of politicians IMO. And I don't trust politicians one bit.

Rand made the right move to further his political agenda. I think we need to do the same and support a liberty candidate to primary McConnell.

whoisjohngalt
03-28-2013, 12:46 PM
That is exactly the point. How does he act after the election if he wins in 2014? Will he revert to his old ways and be an enemy of liberty? Or has he been "converted" to a liberty supporter for the rest of his political career? Who knows? Its all about how trusting you are of politicians IMO. And I don't trust politicians one bit.

Rand made the right move to further his political agenda. I think we need to do the same and support a liberty candidate to primary McConnell.

Aka you would rather have Cornyn as the Senate Majority Leader if Rand Paul were President than McConnell. Can you please explain your rationale for that? You don't think that McConnell would prove a better ally in that regard than Cornyn? I just don't get it.

jtstellar
03-28-2013, 02:24 PM
That is exactly the point. How does he act after the election if he wins in 2014? Will he revert to his old ways and be an enemy of liberty? Or has he been "converted" to a liberty supporter for the rest of his political career? Who knows? Its all about how trusting you are of politicians IMO. And I don't trust politicians one bit.

Rand made the right move to further his political agenda. I think we need to do the same and support a liberty candidate to primary McConnell.

this is why you go back to see what he was doing still years away from his election year, and i've thought about it as well. but look what he did in 2010, still 4 years away from his re-election. he didn't wait until 1 or 2 years before his election to endorse everything rand paul does.

sure you can say he's that shrewd, but gop's popularity didn't tank until they ran against the tea party in 2010, so mitch was in the middle of it and he wouldn't have known until months later when polls started showing. that plus he didn't wait to endorse rand 300 days before his election, along those lines. of course you can always theorize and say 'well everything is planned and he's just that shrewd' well fine, but then your guesses will just be as good as any passerby --completely random.

anaconda
03-28-2013, 03:18 PM
McCain is a principled neoconservative. That's why he won't change his positions.

Perhaps McCain won't change his positions because he is a one trick pony, rather than because he's principled. He appears to be under some form of major influence from military contractors. As for McCain's "principles,"....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAzDEbVFcg8

anaconda
03-28-2013, 03:24 PM
Why is it that something like this from Rand comes out litterally every other week? I am seriously starting to doubt Rand would make waves even if he were president. You will know them by their actions.

Rand appears to be making waves every other week. That's a lot of waves for one Senator.

itshappening
03-28-2013, 03:26 PM
Aka you would rather have Cornyn as the Senate Majority Leader if Rand Paul were President than McConnell. Can you please explain your rationale for that? You don't think that McConnell would prove a better ally in that regard than Cornyn? I just don't get it.

it really doesn't matter who they are. The GOP will always find someone who's been there for 20+ years to be their leader.

Whether it's McConnell, Cornyn or Blunt does it matter? the leader has to be practical and accommodate any 'new wave' so that's what McConnell has been doing.

anaconda
03-28-2013, 03:46 PM
it really doesn't matter who they are. The GOP will always find someone who's been there for 20+ years to be their leader.

Whether it's McConnell, Cornyn or Blunt does it matter? the leader has to be practical and accommodate any 'new wave' so that's what McConnell has been doing.

But don't you suppose that Mitch has more of an "inside track" with Rand than some of the other senior Senators? If Rand is endorsing Mitch for 2014, it seems in Mitch's best interests for his own reelection to fuel the fire of Rand's stature, influence, and popularity. Which, in the process, presumably only improves Rand's stature as a Presidential primary candidate. It would seem that Mitch would have much to gain by Rand winning the Presidency, and one must wonder to what extent Mitch's game plan allows for that possible outcome? And, to what extent does this put Mitch at odds with party elites and special interests that abhor the notion of a Rand Presidency? If Rand is not the President, will Mitch have to (metaphorically, of course) do like the guy in the Godfather who climbed into a warm bath and slit his wrists open? If I were Lockheed Martin or Raytheon I think I would provide a billion dollar PAC for Mitch and tell him to sever his relationship with, and support for, Rand Paul.

itshappening
03-28-2013, 03:51 PM
It really doesn't matter... all Mitch has done is put him on the foreign relations panel. who knows if Cornyn or Blunt would do that or not? Who cares.

jtstellar
03-28-2013, 04:57 PM
It really doesn't matter... all Mitch has done is put him on the foreign relations panel. who knows if Cornyn or Blunt would do that or not? Who cares.

ya we're gonna bet 6 years worth of effort on someone else's "it really doesn't matter" guess

can we just learn? just let rand do his thing, he knows wtf he is doing. thank you.

Bastiat's The Law
03-28-2013, 07:20 PM
OK this surprises me... why did he do that again?
Pragmatism.

Bastiat's The Law
03-28-2013, 07:26 PM
Agreed. We have so many completely hostile RINOs to primary (Graham, McCain...) I don't understand the hatred towards McConnell, who at least seems to be trending our way recently, even if it's for selfish purposes.
If we took out Graham we would be the new power-brokers of the GOP, and everyone would bend the knee to the liberty movement or be destroyed.

RonPaulFanInGA
03-28-2013, 07:30 PM
OK this surprises me... why did he do that again?

Ron Paul had an agreement with the TX GOP to fully support all their nominees and incumbent candidates.

Rand Paul verbally pledged during his Senate campaign to support the Republican nominee for President. When he held to that, as Ron Paul did with Lamar Smith, he got slammed here and on Daily Paul to the point it was almost criminal.

jclay2
03-28-2013, 07:54 PM
Ron Paul had an agreement with the TX GOP to fully support all their nominees and incumbent candidates.

Rand Paul verbally pledged during his Senate campaign to support the Republican nominee for President. When he held to that, as Ron Paul did with Lamar Smith, he got slammed here and on Daily Paul to the point it was almost criminal.

This is true, but it just seems that these "political" actions are never ending. It really makes a lot of us wonder. . . .Just saying from a concerned skeptic.

Bastiat's The Law
03-28-2013, 08:22 PM
This is true, but it just seems that these "political" actions are never ending. It really makes a lot of us wonder. . . .Just saying from a concerned skeptic.
That is how this game is played. It has been this way ever since the first man learned how to wield a rock. You may curse it, scorn it, ignore it; but the game rolls on.

http://cdn1.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Tyrion-Lannister-in-Game-of-Thrones-Season-2.jpg

MaxPower
03-28-2013, 09:49 PM
By dint of being a savvy politician from the same state and party as the now-wildly-popular Rand Paul (the Republican party of Kentucky actually passed a resolution specifically to heap gushing praise on Rand for his filibuster a couple weeks ago), McConnell is currently almost as good as an actual liberty senator; politically-speaking, it's "Stand with Rand" or die for him. So long as his fortunes remain thus linked to his relationship with Rand, McConnell will effectively be in our man's pocket. Rand gains leverage from having the Senate minority leader doing his bidding, and gains an air of respectability with rank-and-file Republicans on the basis of his working relationship with McConnell. If he withheld support from McConnell or endorsed a challenger to McConnell's seat, he would lose McConnell's legislative subservience and alienate the Republican party with which he has been so careful to avoid picking a fight, treading the line just short of marking himself as an unacceptable outsider.

cheapseats
03-28-2013, 10:12 PM
What happened to "endorsements are meaningless"?

Bearing STEALTH and READING BETWEEN LINES in mind, doesn't Rand Paul's & Thomas Massie's endorsements of ASSHAT McConnell mean THEY are in good stead with The Party, freeing honest-to-God Liberty folk to mount a credible threat ANYWAY? Y'know, to keep McConnell's feet to the fire? With Rand & Massie flying Republican Loyalist colors throughout the battle?

"The devil is in the details", in this case the candidate.

The candidate would have to be not only credible, but KNOWN/POPULAR for something. "He's better than he used to be" (for MANY years) is a pretty low bar.

VOILA, Rand is the "senior senator from Kentucky" WITHOUT having pissed off the Grandiose Old Party.

TheTyke
03-29-2013, 02:42 AM
Haven't really had time to read all or weigh in but....

McConnell only has incentive to cater to Rand and us as long as he is running for election. Indeed, until this year he barely even bothered to try and buy us off. I can't believe anyone at all would fall for it or be bought so cheaply. I die a little inside every time I see a liberty person say it's in our interests to see him re-elected. Afterwards, he will be uninterested in us for another 6 years, and go back to pushing the establishment agenda, which includes marginalizing our causes, candidates, and even a President Paul's agenda.

Depending how things work out, I might accept that maybe we don't have the resources, don't see the right candidate to beat him, and strategically it's not the best fight... but please, don't EVER suggest the bailout, fed-secrecy establishment champion who's been using his influence to thwart us should remain in office or is a friend! It's painful for me to read that.