Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell's Relationship

[DevilsAdvocate]

Rand has invested a lot in this relationship with the Majority Leader. Endorsing him and his friends, buddying up on legislation. I suppose some behind the scenes political dealings as well.

But now, with the Patriot Act extension, they are at odds. The Majority Leader's job is to unify the party and rally them in support of the agenda. And now Rand is deviating away. Intentionally and maliciously throwing a wrench in the gears of Mitch McConnell's senate.

So now the question becomes, has that bridge been burned? If it has, does this mean that Rand will face a strong political headwind in the future?

[DevilsAdvocate]

Oh man, I messed up!!! Mod's please delete the duplicate thread!!!

[Kotin]

Oh man, I messed up!!! Mod's please delete the duplicate thread!!!


Done :)

[Sola_Fide]

I've been following this closely and I am very confused at this point.

[nikcers]

I think the relationship between them is apparent. Mitch needs republicans in Kentucky to vote for him to get re-elected. Rand Paul is the most popular Republican in Kentucky. When and if that ever changes then we might see a change in politics. This is a lot theatre in the sense that a politician has to represent their constituencies even when its against their own will.

I would imagine that behind closed doors Rand is their ace in the hole against Hillary, that's just what i got from it when they campaigned for their individual parties every person Rand campaigned for won against Hillary's counterpart and the Republicans ended up with the majority.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Whatever else happened, Mitch just helped give Rand a huge platform this week and next. Think about it.

[euphemia]

If there is a bridge burning, McConnell struck the match.

[dannno]

Nah he didn't seem that pissed.

[cindy25]

with most issues, and even things in every day life, 1/6 are strongly in favor, 1/6 are strongly against, and the other 2/3 don't care. with the patriot act there are the true believers (McCain, Graham) those who really want repeal (Rand, Wyden) and those who don't care (Reid, McConnell)

[presence]

they're also at odds over TPA

[CaptUSA]

Whatever else happened, Mitch just helped give Rand a huge platform this week and next. Think about it.

Ding, Ding, Ding! We have a winner.

[Jan2017]

Rand has invested a lot in this relationship with the Majority Leader. Endorsing him and his friends, buddying up on legislation. I suppose some behind the scenes political dealings as well.

But now, with the Patriot Act extension, they are at odds. The Majority Leader's job is to unify the party and rally them in support of the agenda. And now Rand is deviating away. Intentionally and maliciously throwing a wrench in the gears of Mitch McConnell's senate.

So now the question becomes, has that bridge been burned? If it has, does this mean that Rand will face a strong political headwind in the future?

There is I suspect in the Senate always some "same-state allegiance" - even when and if the Senators are from opposite parties
or when one converts out of party - Lieberman (I-CT) comes to mind.

fwiw, there are two Senators currently that are Independent, and they were elected as Independents -
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

Interesting about Lieberman - he lost the Democratic primary in 2006, so ran as an Independent and won his seat.

I think Rand has not been entirely afraid of calling out McConnell or the GOP powers that be,
if I even remember the Kentucky GOP primary against Trey Grayson for the 2010 election.

imho, I think Rand could run and win in Kentucky as an Independent now, and I think it is fine that the debate between
two same-state Senators - old school and the new GOP - over constitutional questions that is happening
across the river from Ohio - fyi, both the first GOP debate and the National GOP nominating Convention will be at Quicken (Cavs) Arena in Cleveland.
We should own that city rather than the brats at Faux News.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvAYGz6Iwmc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvAYGz6Iwmc
.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Whatever else happened, Mitch just helped give Rand a huge platform this week and next. Think about it.

So you're saying Mitch deliberately played an adversarial role in order to give Rand time to shine and make him look like a hero? If that was the case, then why did so many Democrats go along with it? I'm pretty sure they don't want to help build Rand's resume

[eleganz]

I think OP is making this a bigger deal than it really is. Sometimes Rand will be your friend and sometimes he will be your foe. I don't think anyone in DC actually expects a Paul to be their ally in every fight. Its just business and out of everyone in the political world, Mitch should know this.

Besides, Mitch is on his way out, he has maximum another term in the Senate and he even knows to keep one foot in the door just in case. They're both playing each other in the same exact game and they're fine with it.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Presumably Wyden and that other Democrat are actually against the PATRIOT Act. I don't think McConnell honestly gives a shit either way.

Keep in mind Rand did Mitch a favor by ending his Wednesday-night talkathon when he did. If he had gone just 15 minutes longer, all of last night's drama would have had to play out 24 hours later than it did.

[CPUd]

Yeah, there is no way Mitch didn't already have a good idea what Rand was going to do this week. It is possible for Senators to be friends IRL and adversarial on the floor. Not so sure about Lindsey Graham though. When you hear people at work say, "don't be that guy", he seems like he is "that guy".

[nikcers]

Yeah, there is no way Mitch didn't already have a good idea what Rand was going to do this week. It is possible for Senators to be friends IRL and adversarial on the floor. Not so sure about Lindsey Graham though. When you hear people at work say, "don't be that guy", he seems like he is "that guy".

LOL I always thought he looked like a pedobear, you know when you tell your kids "stay away from that guy don't talk to him"

[Suzanimal]

From Lew Rockwell's Political Theatre...

“Mussolini Mitch” - perfect


Fun in the Senate
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
May 23, 2015

“Mussolini Mitch” McConnell passed–with all Senate Republicans as accomplices–the fascist TPP, enhancing the power of the corporate state and empire for the benefit of the big crony corps. But he was not able to pass the Patriot Act extension. Most GOPers want the worse Freedom Act, which legalizes various NSA crimes not mentioned in the Patriot Act. We only know about these crimes because of Ed Snowden, of course. But Rand raised procedural objections, as did Dem senators Wyden and Heinrich, and Mitch left town, apparently upset. Insiders predict a deal before those Patriot Act sections expire, so long as votes on curbing amendments are allowed. We’ll see. No one in the entire Congress, now that Ron Paul is gone, wants to abolish what I always think of as the National Socialist Apparatus.

BTW, the corporatists in the GOP House were pro-TPP. too.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/fun-in-the-senate/

[DevilsAdvocate]

From Lew Rockwell's Political Theatre...

“Mussolini Mitch” - perfect



https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/fun-in-the-senate/

This is...wow pretty extreme! Has Lew always been like this?

[Krugminator2]

This is...wow pretty extreme! Has Lew always been like this?

Yes. He has always been an unhinged crackpot.

[Occam's Banana]

Yes. He has always been an unhinged crackpot.

Has he, now? Well, then, good for him! If that's the case, then we need more "unhinged crackpots" - a LOT more.

Especially if "well-hinged" and "uncracked" means being contemptuously dismissive of anything Lew said in that bit.

The political establishment is chock-full to overflowing with "well-hinged" and "uncracked" people ...

[Danke]

Yes. He has always been an unhinged crackpot.

Krug, you are usually a voice of reason here, WTF?

[Danke]

Yes. He has always been an unhinged crackpot.

Krug, you are usually a voice of reason here, WTF?

[Suzanimal]

This is...wow pretty extreme! Has Lew always been like this?

Which part did you find extreme? I didn't find it extreme, at all. As a matter of fact, I thought he showed considerable restraint.

[Suzanimal]

Yes. He has always been an unhinged crackpot.

Wow...

[hells_unicorn]

Yes. He has always been an unhinged crackpot.

I'm glad someone else is taking note of Lew's problems with practical politics. I wouldn't go quite so far as to call him unhinged, but he has a very bad habit of speaking before thinking and ends up throwing some embarrassingly stupid bombs right at people on his own team. I stopped visiting his website regularly a few years ago and have mostly taken to Taki's Magazine as an alternative source. I still read Woods' and DiLorenzo's books and have a great deal of respect for several of the people who write at Rockwell's site, but they are not fit for prime time politics.

[twomp]

Yes. He has always been an unhinged crackpot.

It's low information voters like yourself that got our country in this mess.

[nikcers]

It's low information voters like yourself that got our country in this mess.

I think most people think he is extreme because it was the shit that he wrote in Ron Pauls news letters that pretty much burned any possibility of him becoming president.

[Krugminator2]

It's low information voters like yourself that got our country in this mess.

Lew Rockwell has done a ton of good with Mises Institute. It is fine if people are entertained by him. Virtually every entry in the political section is riddled with fact free nonsense. https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/ The facts are not my opinion. He can still do some good and have the journalistic standards of the National Enquirer.

[LawnWake]

Let's be honest, there's no substance to the Lew Rockwell piece at all. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with his views, but about him presenting his views in an intellectually responsible fashion. Throwing the words "National Socialist" and "Mussolini" around without any real in depth critique or analysis is about as unhelpful something can get. What he posted there amounts to saying something like "stuff is bad".

You can berrate leftists for spewing substanceless crap and then get excited when "one of our guys" does the same.

[nikcers]

"stuff is bad"

http://i.imgur.com/91sn32Q.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

Let's be honest, there's no substance to the Lew Rockwell piece at all. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with his views, but about him presenting his views in an intellectually responsible fashion. Throwing the words "National Socialist" and "Mussolini" around without any real in depth critique or analysis is about as unhelpful something can get. What he posted there amounts to saying something like "stuff is bad".

You can berrate leftists for spewing substanceless crap and then get excited when "one of our guys" does the same.

And exactly the same thing can be said of 99.99% of everything posted at RPFs - it isn't meant to be profound or substantive; it's just people of like mind commiserating with one another (or of not-so-like-mind arguing with one another). And there's nothing wrong with that.

Likewise, Lew's "Political Theatre" isn't intended to offer "in-depth critiques or analyses" of anything. It's just a blog (by a man who "hates the State (https://mises.org/library/do-you-hate-state)") for the purpose of throwing brickbats and taking potshots at politics in general and the political establishment in particular. He doesn't sugar-coat what he says and he is under no obligation to kowtow to the sensibilities & sensitivities of the broader movement. And there's nothing wrong with that, either ...

[nikcers]

And exactly the same thing can be said of 99.99% of everything posted at RPFs - it isn't meant to be profound or substantive; it's just people of like mind commiserating with one another (or of not-so-like-mind arguing with one another). And there's nothing wrong with that.

Likewise, Lew's "Political Theatre" isn't intended to offer "in-depth critiques or analyses" of anything. It's just a blog (by a man who "hates the State (https://mises.org/library/do-you-hate-state)") for the purpose of throwing brickbats and taking potshots at politics in general and the political establishment in particular. He doesn't sugar-coat what he says and he is under no obligation to kowtow to the sensibilities & sensitivities of the broader movement. And there's nothing wrong with that, either ...

Whatever you think his intentions are he makes a living as a contrarian. Meaning if our leave me alone coalition is to grow to be the one we want it to be, its best to contrast our campaign rather then compare. Even if every now and then he says something that is the truth, that's just the politics of matter.

[Inkblots]

Our friends in the MSM are speculating on this, as well:

Rand Paul’s budding relationship with Mitch McConnell starts to fray
[...]
Paul’s maneuvering afterward most certainly went against McConnell’s wishes. With Paul leading the objections to a short-term extension of the existing legal authority for the NSA program, it highlighted McConnell’s tactical missteps in delaying consideration of the surveillance program and undermined any attempt he might have made to blame its potential expiration on Democrats...

There are other signs that relations between McConnell and Paul have become strained. According to Democratic aides, Reid approached McConnell late Friday night to ask about the possibility of moving up consideration of surveillance legislation by an hour — something that would require Paul’s consent.

But McConnell refused to ask Paul to accelerate the vote, the aides said, so Reid asked a Democratic ally of Paul’s on surveillance reform, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, to approach him and ask for the accommodation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rand-pauls-once-budding-relationship-with-mitch-mcconnell-starts-to-fray/2015/05/24/6a617550-016d-11e5-8b6c-0dcce21e223d_story.html

[Suzanimal]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

I never thought I would see the day Lew Rockwell is called an "unhinged crackpot" on RPF's. Disgusting...

[LawnWake]

And exactly the same thing can be said of 99.99% of everything posted at RPFs - it isn't meant to be profound or substantive; it's just people of like mind commiserating with one another (or of not-so-like-mind arguing with one another). And there's nothing wrong with that.

Likewise, Lew's "Political Theatre" isn't intended to offer "in-depth critiques or analyses" of anything. It's just a blog (by a man who "hates the State (https://mises.org/library/do-you-hate-state)") for the purpose of throwing brickbats and taking potshots at politics in general and the political establishment in particular. He doesn't sugar-coat what he says and he is under no obligation to kowtow to the sensibilities & sensitivities of the broader movement. And there's nothing wrong with that, either ...

Except as a reprsentative of the movement it's making us look like anti-intellectual jackasses who resort to petty namecalling.


I never thought I would see the day Lew Rockwell is called an "unhinged crackpot" on RPF's. Disgusting...

In other words, some people are and inherently should be above any sort of criticism because of their status.

[Suzanimal]

Except as a reprsentative of the movement it's making us look like anti-intellectual jackasses who resort to petty namecalling.

"unhinged crackpot":rolleyes:


In other words, some people are and inherently should be above any sort of criticism because of their status.


Except as a reprsentative of the movement it's making us look like anti-intellectual jackasses who resort to petty namecalling.

Especially when it's someone who's a friend to liberty. Do you sincerely believe Mitch McConnell is a friend?

Insulting the Founder/Chairman of The Mises Institute and Ron Paul's friend =/= insulting Mitch McConnell (Who, as far as I'm concerned, can rot in hell.)

[Occam's Banana]

Except as a reprsentative of the movement it's making us look like anti-intellectual jackasses who resort to petty namecalling.

And I repeat: exactly the same thing could be said of much of what gets posted at RPFs - and there is nothing wrong with that.

Rockwell uses Political Theatre to expose, mock, deride and "name-call" those he feels deserve to be exposed, mocked, derided and "called names" - that is the whole point and purpose of PT. And there is nothing wrong with that, either.

Those who derive context-dropping judgements about the "intellectuality" (or lack thereof) of others on the basis of nothing more than hyperbolically acerbic entries in blogs that are explicitly intended as venues for wry spleen-ventings do not have any business making pronouncements about others' "intellectuality" at all. They are just looking for excuses to (hypocritically) dismiss - as being "anti-intellectual jackasses," for example - anyone with whom they disagree. Such people will always find an excuse to do so (no matter what Lew Rockwell says or how he says it).

IOW: I see no reason to cater to the sensibilties of people who are so entirely lacking in wit that they are unable to cope with hyperbole. Such people are not going to think well of you in any case ...

[65fastback2+2]

Whatever else happened, Mitch just helped give Rand a huge platform this week and next. Think about it.

yups...more to politics than meets the eye

[adelina]

I really doubt their relationship has changed. But the perception that it's worsened certainly helps Rand.

[LawnWake]

"unhinged crackpot":rolleyes:

Especially when it's someone who's a friend to liberty. Do you sincerely believe Mitch McConnell is a friend?

Insulting the Founder/Chairman of The Mises Institute and Ron Paul's friend =/= insulting Mitch McConnell (Who, as far as I'm concerned, can rot in hell.)

It appears to me you're incapable of forming opinions based on anything else but "this guy is on my side and this guy isn't".


And I repeat: exactly the same thing could be said of much of what gets posted at RPFs - and there is nothing wrong with that.

I explained what about this is wrong.

Rockwell uses Political Theatre to expose, mock, deride and "name-call" those he feels deserve to be exposed, mocked, derided and "called names" - that is the whole point and purpose of PT. And there is nothing wrong with that, either.[/QUOTE]

You know when some person is being an a-hole and their friends say "he's just like that?". Well, yeah, that's the problem.

Explaining that this might just be his tactic doesn't negate that he's using a very poor and useless tactic.


Those who derive context-dropping judgements about the "intellectuality" (or lack thereof) of others on the basis of nothing more than hyperbolically acerbic entries in blogs that are explicitly intended as venues for wry spleen-ventings do not have any business making pronouncements about others' "intellectuality" at all.

They kind of do. I for one don't debate people who don't support their views and I have trouble taking people seriously who don't.

[specsaregood]

I never thought I would see the day Lew Rockwell is called an "unhinged crackpot" on RPF's. Disgusting...

Meh, I've never cared for Rockwell, but to each their own. also, he's been criticized on rpfs plenty in the past, especially over the newsletter stuff.

[specsaregood]

McConnell’s tactical missteps in delaying consideration of the surveillance program and undermined any attempt he might have made to blame its potential expiration on Democrats
Why we would he want to "blame" the democrats when it is clear that the man he endorsed for pres. Wants the credit/blame himself. Some say missteps, others might say wily like a fox. I think this all went according to plan and was choreographed throughout.

Personally, I think the NSA wants it to expire.

[jj-]

Why we would he want to "blame" the democrats when it is clear that the man he endorsed for pres. Wants the credit/blame himself. Some say missteps, others might say wily like a fox. I think this all went according to plan and was choreographed throughout.

Personally, I think the NSA wants it to expire.

I think what they want is actually the USA Freedom Act because it legalizes some of their snooping that was illegal even with the Patriot Act. And I expect that they'll actually get the USA Freedom Act passed.

[specsaregood]

I think what they want is actually the USA Freedom Act because it legalizes some of their snooping that was illegal even with the Patriot Act. And I expect that they'll actually get the USA Freedom Act passed.

Exactly. And IIRC the patriot act provision that is expiring only covers landlines (not cellphones) which has got to be completely useless. So why keep something that is useless and just gives bad press? this was all a ploy, they want it to expire; mitchie went along with Randy's game because it didn't really matter if he won on this issue.

[jj-]

Exactly. And IIRC the patriot act provision that is expiring only covers landlines (not cellphones) which has got to be completely useless. So why keep something that is useless and just gives bad press? this was all a ploy, they want it to expire; mitchie went along with Randy's game because it didn't really matter if he won on this issue.

I think I was partly wrong in my post, in that the preferred outcome would've been to renew the Patriot Act, and then pass another bill to legalize some of the parts that were deemed illegal. So they're getting their second preferred outcome. They really didn't have 60 votes for this.

[nikcers]

I think what they want is actually the USA Freedom Act because it legalizes some of their snooping that was illegal even with the Patriot Act. And I expect that they'll actually get the USA Freedom Act passed.

yep UFA closes loopholes in current article and makes what they were doing legal, extend the provision and it ends when the supreme court rules, reform it and trick people into thinking there is reform and the program continues on in spirit under a different name. if we garner enough support and build a coalition it all ends 2016. Even if we strip away a section it is symbolic enough for us to win this, Bush created a neoconservative movement i think this will be bigger.

[jj-]

It's funny that Kristol says Rand is a leftist for opposing the Patriot Act, while the Patriot Act was already proposed by Joe Biden way before 9/11 (under another name), and it's main purpose is to raise more income taxes, hardly a genuine conservative goal.

[nikcers]

It's funny that Kristol says Rand is a leftist for opposing the Patriot Act, while the Patriot Act was already proposed by Joe Biden way before 9/11 (under another name), and it's main purpose is to raise more income taxes, hardly a genuine conservative goal.

I cant wait to hear Bill call the tea party liberal insurgents when we take over the parties nomination, he strikes me as a sore loser.

[Occam's Banana]

I explained what about this is wrong.

You didn't explain why anything was "wrong."

You merely expressed subjective distaste for something.

The latter is fine - but it is not the same thing as the former.


You know when some person is being an a-hole and their friends say "he's just like that?". Well, yeah, that's the problem.

You know when some friends get together and make fun of the stuff they don't like? That's what Lew and his readers are doing via Political Theatre.

And, no, that's NOT a problem - at least, not to anyone except the prudish, self-appointed hall-monitors of the "Liberty Movement" ...


Explaining that this might just be his tactic doesn't negate that he's using a very poor and useless tactic.

A "tactic" necessarily presupposes some objective towards the achievement of which the tactic is directed. Lew's objective at PT is to mock and castigate (and ultimately, to promote disrespect & contempt for) the political establishment - and to expose it for what he believes it is (namely, a fraud and a sham). For those whose purpose is, say, "electoral success" or "reforming the system from within" or whatnot, Lew's "tactic" at PT might very well indeed be "poor and useless." So what? The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that people who have one of those other objectives should probably avoid the "tactic" Lew uses at PT.

IOW: You are perfectly free to eschew his objective and pursue some other one - but if you do so, it is absurd to complain that his "tactic" won't achieve your objective. In that event (as should be obvious), he isn't trying to achieve your objective ...


They kind of do.

No, they don't. If they did, they'd actually seek to address the substance of Rockwell's perfectly "serious" and "intellectual" content (which is voluminous and can easily be found elsewhere) - rather than pretend that they can dismiss him as an "anti-intellectual jackass" merely on the basis of his japeries at PT.


I for one don't debate people who don't support their views and I have trouble taking people seriously who don't.

*shrug* I for one doubt that Lew has any wish to "debate" you about anything - so he probably won't be very abashed by the fact that your "trouble" with him would prevent you from doing so.

And in any case, if you really think that Lew Rockwell - the author of numerous substantive books, articles, speeches, etc. - has not "supported" (or is not able to "support") his views in a "serious" or "intellectual" manner (when it is his purpose to do so), then you are the one who is not to be taken seriously.

[nikcers]

"unhinged crackpot":rolleyes: Especially when it's someone who's a friend to liberty. Do you sincerely believe Mitch McConnell is a friend?

Well one person I could quote on this..

“I think we have good relations,” he said last week. “Really, period. We’re friends and we disagree on this issue. . . . We have disagreements in our caucus all the time. But I try to keep it on a friendly basis, and, you know, I don’t think this will hurt our friendship"

[RabbitMan]

I second the previously motion to dislike Lew Rockwell. He currently acts like a shock-jockey in the Liberty Movement.

Which is to say, makes us look bad. He made us look bad in '07 and '11 and he makes us look bad now, channeling something more akin to Limbaugh than Hayek or Mises.

Back to the OP though, McConnell must have know that he didn't have the votes for a clean extension, which raises some serious questions as to what in the hell is going on in his head.

[r3volution 3.0]

The turtle beats the hare, except when the turtle depends on the hare for re-election.

[Sola_Fide]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rand-pauls-once-budding-relationship-with-mitch-mcconnell-starts-to-fray/2015/05/24/6a617550-016d-11e5-8b6c-0dcce21e223d_story.html

[William Tell]

No one in the entire Congress, now that Ron Paul is gone, wants to abolish what I always think of as the National Socialist Apparatus.





https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/fun-in-the-senate/

Wow, Lew actually believes that?