Rand Paul backs Teri Lynn Land

[compromise]

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run...nation-of-2014

Sen. Rand Paul’s political action committee has donated to one GOP Senate candidate so far this year -- and it’s Michigan’s Terri Lynn Land.

Rand PAC, the vehicle used to fund Paul’s political travel and support his favored candidates, doled out $7,500 to Land on March 28, according to a filing with the Federal Election Commission that posted Tuesday. That included $2,500 for the primary and $5,000 for the general.

[READ: Rick Perry's Own Texas 'Bridgegate?']

Land is locked in a battle with Democratic Rep. Gary Peters for a seat left open by retiring Sen. Carl Levin. Polls have shown a single-digit race with Peters recently tracking slightly ahead in the Wolverine State, which hasn’t elected a Republican senator since 1994.

Paul visited Detroit in December to tout his tax plan to revitalize economically slumping urban areas, but has not publicly endorsed Land.

The only other candidate Rand PAC sent money to during the first quarter of the year was Rob McCoy, a conservative state assembly candidate in California. Rand PAC sent McCoy $8,200 on March 17.

While The Washington Post first reported last week that Paul’s PAC raised an estimated $500,000, it appears now that was a rosy projection.

[ALSO: Cuomo 'Does Not Play Nice With Other Democrats']

Rand PAC took in $322,498 in contributions between January and April, according to the FEC filing. It burned through more than $500,000, mostly on airplane tickets, hotels and political staffing supporting Paul’s robust travel schedule.

Rand PAC has $331,697 left in the bank as it heads into the spring.

Paul’s personal campaign finance report has not yet been filed online.

I'm guessing Rand's vetted Land, hopefully she's good.

[angelatc]

She is not good. She is an establishment candidate through and through. I will NOT be voting for her.

She has no policy positions on her web page. She supports keeping "at least some parts" of Obamacare in place. She also supports "looking at" raising the minimum wage because it's been so long since it was last raised. She shut down a press conference when asked for a position on the Ukraine situation.

She has no legislative record to judge - her government experience is limited - she was an administrator, not a legislator.

The Michigan GOP is not run my anybody at all sympathetic to the TEA Party, and ANY candidate they put up should not be trusted in the slightest. This woman is a McCain / Graham clone.

I'll be voting for Scotty Boman, assuming he's running again.

[mwkaufman]

She is not good. She is an establishment candidate through and through. I will NOT be voting for her.

She has no policy positions on her web page. She supports keeping "at least some parts" of Obamacare in place. She also supports "looking at" raising the minimum wage because it's been so long since it was last raised. She shut down a press conference when asked for a position on the Ukraine situation.

She has no legislative record to judge - her government experience is limited - she was an administrator, not a legislator.

The Michigan GOP is not run my anybody at all sympathetic to the TEA Party, and ANY candidate they put up should not be trusted in the slightest. This woman is a McCain / Graham clone.

I'll be voting for Scotty Boman, assuming he's running again.

And yet Rand and Amash have been unusually cozy with her. Given she has no record to judge and two of our most distinguished leaders are supportive of her I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, and this would sway me to cast a vote for her rather than be indifferent, if I lived in Michigan.

[Uriah]

And yet Rand and Amash have been unusually cozy with her. Given she has no record to judge and two of our most distinguished leaders are supportive of her I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, and this would sway me to cast a vote for her rather than be indifferent, if I lived in Michigan.

Their coziness could be purely political. It would be wise for Amash to have support of other elected Republicans in his home state. As for Rand, if Michigan turns red then Land's endorsement of a presidential candidate in 2016 would be highly coveted.

[markese20]

I think she's an establishment type but this race can be won for the Republicans

[lib3rtarian]

I would suggest not to read too much into this. This is one of those cases where you donate to show that you are not an enemy. Even Karl Rove does this. This is not an endorsement.

[limequat]

Yah I think so. Land is a tool. My guess this is a strategical move to get an R in Levin's old seat. Levin's been in the senate I think longer than I've been alive. More R's in the senate are good for Rand.

Does leave a sour taste in my mouth though. Yuck.

I'm with you angelatc. If I bother to vote for this one it will be a protest for Boman.

[angelatc]

And yet Rand and Amash have been unusually cozy with her. Given she has no record to judge and two of our most distinguished leaders are supportive of her I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, and this would sway me to cast a vote for her rather than be indifferent, if I lived in Michigan.

Sure, I can make a case for that. But contrary to what our resident trolls constantly, I won't vote for a candidate just because she's on Team Red. I'm not an ideologue either. I am a fiscal conservative. I would vote for a candidate who disagrees with me on social issues, especially on a federal level. IN a similiar manner, I won't discredit a candidate who doesn't share my foreign policy views 100%. There's a lot of room in between "Bomb Bomb Iran" and me, and I will grudgingly meet in the middle *if* I think political sentiment is swinging my way.

But I won't sway too much on fiscal policy.

I've had several go-rounds with the Rogers wing of the party, and all I can say is that they are nasty, horrible people through and through. There are a lot of Republicans that aren't "us" and yet we get along with them. IMHO, these people aren't them.

There's no challenger to her in the primary so it makes perfect sense for Rand to endorse her. His goal is to get a Republican in the Senate. My goal is to get liberals out of the MI GOP, and I don't think rewarding them with seats in DC is the answer.

Having said that, I'm not filling up the forums with every clip and snippet that pisses me off every time she opens her mouth. That's as much support as they're getting from me.

Yesterday we got a request for money from them. The reply card asked for $25, $50, $75 or Other. I checked other, and sent it back empty.

[menciusmoldbug]

She is not good. She is an establishment candidate through and through. I will NOT be voting for her.

Then you will be in effect casting half a vote for Gary Peters. Let's see what wikipedia has to say about Gary Peters:

Gary Peters was sworn into his first term in January 2009. During his time in office, he's voted for all of the major Democratic issues including the Recovery Act, Affordable Care Act, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Monsanto Protection Act, and the DREAM Act.
Peters worked with the Obama Administration to obtain debt forgiveness for Chrysler.^[15] For his work, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said Peters was the "single most effective person" in fighting against the forces that wanted to letDetroit go bankrupt.^[16] In Congress, Peters worked to stop the GOP from cutting $1.5 billion from the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program.^[17] Peters also played a role in writing and passing the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act as one of 10 Democratic members of Congress tasked to serve on the Conference Committee.^[18] In this capacity, Peters worked to include his Shareholder Empowerment Act^[19] in the final legislation. This legislation gave shareholders the power to vote on CEO bonuses and wages.^[20]
In July 2010, the Michigan Messenger wrote that Peters was "criticizing the leadership of his own party. Peters and three other Democratic legislators...this week formed the Spending Cuts and Deficit Reduction Working Group and proposed a series of bills to cut spending. Peters’ bill makes cuts in the federal energy budget.”^[21] “We have been growing increasingly frustrated with the lack of action and talking about specifics and putting those on the table,” Peters said. “We’ve been frustrated with both Democratic leadership and Republicans.”^[22]
Peters allied himself with the Occupy Wall Street movement, making an appearance at Occupy Detroit on November 6. Speaking to reporters, he stated: "It's speculation on Wall Street that we're still paying the price for here, particularly in Detroit that almost brought the auto industry to a collapse because of what we saw on Wall Street. So we put in restrictions, or put in regulations necessary to reign that in, and right now in Washington I’m facing a Republican majority that wants to undo that."^[23]
On the issue of abortion, Peters has received (100%) ratings consistently from pro-choice groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. In addition, he was one of 118 house Democrats who signed a letter to the president urging him to support the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), a multinational organization that provides health services (including birth control) to women, children and families in over 150 countries.<sup>[24]

Enjoy your new Senator!</sup>

She has no policy positions on her web page. She supports keeping "at least some parts" of Obamacare in place. She also supports "looking at" raising the minimum wage because it's been so long since it was last raised. She shut down a press conference when asked for a position on the Ukraine situation.

She has no legislative record to judge - her government experience is limited - she was an administrator, not a legislator.

The Michigan GOP is not run my anybody at all sympathetic to the TEA Party, and ANY candidate they put up should not be trusted in the slightest. This woman is a McCain / Graham clone.

How on earth can you make the latter (bolded) judgement if the former (bolded) statement is true?

Terri Lynn Land will run as a moderate Republican because Michigan is blue state, and the median voter there is a left-of-center moderate. Justin Amash chose not to run for this Senate seat because he is an intelligent person and astutely recognized that he would have less of a chance to win it than a less conservative Republican would. You are correct to observe that Terri Lynn Land is not "one of us," but this should not be taken to mean that she is an enemy. Taking the Senate back from Harry Reid and the Democrats is a prerequisite to repealing Obamacare, and having Michigan elect Land over Peters would be an enormous step towards that end.

I'll be voting for Scotty Boman, assuming he's running again.

I would encourage you not to do this, despite the fact that Boman would make a better Senator than Land by an enormous margin. The rules of American elections are structured such that voting for the "best" candidate is very rarely correct; instead, one ought to pick one of the two major party's candidates and support him/her. This is not a moral claim but a strategic one - in a parliamentary/multi-party system of voting, Boman would obviously be a better pick (just as in England, UKIP is an enormously better pick than the Conservative Party). However, in a first-past-the-post system, you should often be willing to vote for the lesser of two evils. A failure to do so represents an intellectual failure to correctly perceive the strategic nature of contests in this tradition.

Voting is not something you should do with your heart. Voting is a minuscule act of violence in a constant Cold Civil War. Your goal when firing that bullet should be to fire it strategically and intelligently

Please note that these comments should not be taken as a blanket endorsement of always voting (R) > (D). I cast a write-in vote for Ron Paul in the 2008 presidential election, for example, because I believed that the issues on which McCain was better than Obama were roughly counter-balanced by the issues on which Obama was better than McCain. However, in the 2014 Michigan Senate race, I do not think any reasonable person can compare Land with Peters and come to the conclusion that they are roughly equal. Land might be annoying/bad, but Peters would be an abomination, and you should ally with others who do not always (or even very often) agree with you in order to prevent him (and hence Harry Reid) from taking/holding power.

[menciusmoldbug]

My goal is to get liberals out of the MI GOP, and I don't think rewarding them with seats in DC is the answer.

This should not be your goal. Your goal should be to get MORE liberals IN the MI GOP, because the median voter in Michigan is a moderate liberal. You do understand how democracy works, right? If you want to win races, you have to move to the center.

It is disappointing that the issues on which the MI GOP wants to do so are fiscal, as I agree that these are of paramount importance, but the people to blame for this behavior are the voters, not the politicians, who are simply responding rationally to the incentives created by their constituency.

That Land/Rogers/others in the MI GOP suck horribly on important issues is not something I'm disagreeing with. What I'm asking you to consider is whether they suck as bad as Gary Peters. I think an honest evaluation will force you to conclude that they do not.

[compromise]

I don't know much about Michigan politics but Rogers is definitely a bad guy and we should avoid supporting people like him because they are part of the Lindsey Graham/Peter King wing of the party. I don't know whether Land is one of them too, but I'd be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt for now, especially seeing as there's no liberty candidate and this is a swing Senate seat.

[MichaelDavis]

She is not good. She is an establishment candidate through and through. I will NOT be voting for her.

She has no policy positions on her web page. She supports keeping "at least some parts" of Obamacare in place. She also supports "looking at" raising the minimum wage because it's been so long since it was last raised. She shut down a press conference when asked for a position on the Ukraine situation.

She has no legislative record to judge - her government experience is limited - she was an administrator, not a legislator.

The Michigan GOP is not run my anybody at all sympathetic to the TEA Party, and ANY candidate they put up should not be trusted in the slightest. This woman is a McCain / Graham clone.

I'll be voting for Scotty Boman, assuming he's running again.

Wow. So you're going to help ultra-liberal Gary Peters win by voting third party instead of someone who is supported by Rand Paul and other liberty activists? People like you are a greater threat to liberty than the establishment.

[mz10]

Then you will be in effect casting half a vote for Gary Peters. Let's see what wikipedia has to say about Gary Peters:

Gary Peters was sworn into his first term in January 2009. During his time in office, he's voted for all of the major Democratic issues including the Recovery Act, Affordable Care Act, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Monsanto Protection Act, and the DREAM Act.
Peters worked with the Obama Administration to obtain debt forgiveness for Chrysler.^[15] For his work, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said Peters was the "single most effective person" in fighting against the forces that wanted to letDetroit go bankrupt.^[16] In Congress, Peters worked to stop the GOP from cutting $1.5 billion from the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program.^[17] Peters also played a role in writing and passing the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act as one of 10 Democratic members of Congress tasked to serve on the Conference Committee.^[18] In this capacity, Peters worked to include his Shareholder Empowerment Act^[19] in the final legislation. This legislation gave shareholders the power to vote on CEO bonuses and wages.^[20]
In July 2010, the Michigan Messenger wrote that Peters was "criticizing the leadership of his own party. Peters and three other Democratic legislators...this week formed the Spending Cuts and Deficit Reduction Working Group and proposed a series of bills to cut spending. Peters’ bill makes cuts in the federal energy budget.”^[21] “We have been growing increasingly frustrated with the lack of action and talking about specifics and putting those on the table,” Peters said. “We’ve been frustrated with both Democratic leadership and Republicans.”^[22]
Peters allied himself with the Occupy Wall Street movement, making an appearance at Occupy Detroit on November 6. Speaking to reporters, he stated: "It's speculation on Wall Street that we're still paying the price for here, particularly in Detroit that almost brought the auto industry to a collapse because of what we saw on Wall Street. So we put in restrictions, or put in regulations necessary to reign that in, and right now in Washington I’m facing a Republican majority that wants to undo that."^[23]
On the issue of abortion, Peters has received (100%) ratings consistently from pro-choice groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. In addition, he was one of 118 house Democrats who signed a letter to the president urging him to support the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), a multinational organization that provides health services (including birth control) to women, children and families in over 150 countries.<sup>[24]

Enjoy your new Senator!</sup>


How on earth can you make the latter (bolded) judgement if the former (bolded) statement is true?

Terri Lynn Land will run as a moderate Republican because Michigan is blue state, and the median voter there is a left-of-center moderate. Justin Amash chose not to run for this Senate seat because he is an intelligent person and astutely recognized that he would have less of a chance to win it than a less conservative Republican would. You are correct to observe that Terri Lynn Land is not "one of us," but this should not be taken to mean that she is an enemy. Taking the Senate back from Harry Reid and the Democrats is a prerequisite to repealing Obamacare, and having Michigan elect Land over Peters would be an enormous step towards that end.



I would encourage you not to do this, despite the fact that Boman would make a better Senator than Land by an enormous margin. The rules of American elections are structured such that voting for the "best" candidate is very rarely correct; instead, one ought to pick one of the two major party's candidates and support him/her. This is not a moral claim but a strategic one - in a parliamentary/multi-party system of voting, Boman would obviously be a better pick (just as in England, UKIP is an enormously better pick than the Conservative Party). However, in a first-past-the-post system, you should often be willing to vote for the lesser of two evils. A failure to do so represents an intellectual failure to correctly perceive the strategic nature of contests in this tradition.

Voting is not something you should do with your heart. Voting is a minuscule act of violence in a constant Cold Civil War. Your goal when firing that bullet should be to fire it strategically and intelligently

Please note that these comments should not be taken as a blanket endorsement of always voting (R) > (D). I cast a write-in vote for Ron Paul in the 2008 presidential election, for example, because I believed that the issues on which McCain was better than Obama were roughly counter-balanced by the issues on which Obama was better than McCain. However, in the 2014 Michigan Senate race, I do not think any reasonable person can compare Land with Peters and come to the conclusion that they are roughly equal. Land might be annoying/bad, but Peters would be an abomination, and you should ally with others who do not always (or even very often) agree with you in order to prevent him (and hence Harry Reid) from taking/holding power.

This should not be your goal. Your goal should be to get MORE liberals IN the MI GOP, because the median voter in Michigan is a moderate liberal. You do understand how democracy works, right? If you want to win races, you have to move to the center.

It is disappointing that the issues on which the MI GOP wants to do so are fiscal, as I agree that these are of paramount importance, but the people to blame for this behavior are the voters, not the politicians, who are simply responding rationally to the incentives created by their constituency.

That Land/Rogers/others in the MI GOP suck horribly on important issues is not something I'm disagreeing with. What I'm asking you to consider is whether they suck as bad as Gary Peters. I think an honest evaluation will force you to conclude that they do not.

This is the most horrendous logic I have ever seen. This was literally a train wreck of illogic, misconceptions and false premises. I have to congratulate you for leaving me completely stunned and speechless, which isn't an easy thing to do given the political stupidity I run into on a daily basis. To you I award no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[menciusmoldbug]

This is the most horrendous logic I have ever seen. This was literally a train wreck of illogic, misconceptions and false premises. I have to congratulate you for leaving me completely stunned and speechless, which isn't an easy thing to do given the political stupidity I run into on a daily basis. To you I award no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I apologize for leaving you stunned and speechless. Stickler for logic that I am, I'd deeply appreciate it if you could kindly point to any instances of logical errors you've identified, in addition to any misconceptions or false premises you believe I hold. Thanks!

[angelatc]

Wow. So you're going to help ultra-liberal Gary Peters win by voting third party instead of someone who is supported by Rand Paul and other liberty activists? People like you are a greater threat to liberty than the establishment.

LOL - I didn't vote for Romney either. Deal with it.

How may Republicans sit up there and vote against liberty every day? Sorry, I'm not sending them another one. THAT'S a far bigger threat to the liberty movement than demanding a candidate at least present a platform?

A Peters win is indeed a price I am willing to pay, especially since she hasn't uttered or produced a single policy statement I can agree with. Pretty funny that you think I'm a threat to the liberty movement because I won't vote for somebody who won't even make campaign promises, much less be trusted to keep them.

And if you are not yet seeing red, allow me to double down: I am well aware that it is entirely possible that Michigan could mean the difference between the Republicans being the majority and the minority in the next Congress.

Let that sink in: when it is vitally important to win every seat we can, the best candidate the MI-GOP can produce is Land? That doesn't say much for the party, now does it?

[angelatc]

I apologize for leaving you stunned and speechless. Stickler for logic that I am, I'd deeply appreciate it if you could kindly point to any instances of logical errors you've identified, in addition to any misconceptions or false premises you believe I hold. Thanks!

Well for starts, we have no idea where Land stands on almost anything, so it's pretty much impossible to compare her to Peters. IF that doesn't send up a big purple warning flag, what would?


Second, take your "WE haz to vote against the Democrats" and move along. We've discussed that as nauseaum for the past 5 years, and that ship sailed without me on it a long time ago.

You guys can't give me one reason to vote for her other than "She's not Gary Peters?" Shame on you both.

[menciusmoldbug]

Well for starts, we have no idea where Land stands on almost anything, so it's pretty much impossible to compare her to Peters. IF that doesn't send up a big purple warning flag, what would?

I simply disagree with the notion that we have no idea where Land stands on almost anything or that it's pretty much impossible to compare her to Peters. That Rand PAC has donated money to her campaign strongly suggests to me that she is - if not exactly one of us - at least tolerable. Do you imagine that Rand PAC made this donation without doing any kind of vetting at all? Do you really think Rand PAC would be caught dead making donations to Lindsey Graham?

I'd likely put her in much the same category as Mitch McConnell - obviously, Bevin would be better, but McConnell >>>>>>>>> Grimes. In the same vein, Boman is obviously going to be better than Land, but Land >>>>>>>>> Peters.

Second, take your "WE haz to vote against the Democrats" and move along. We've discussed that as nauseaum for the past 5 years, and that ship sailed without me on it a long time ago.

I don't really know what to say to this other than to quote my own words back to you again.

Please note that these comments should not be taken as a blanket endorsement of always voting (R) > (D). I cast a write-in vote for Ron Paul in the 2008 presidential election, for example, because I believed that the issues on which McCain was better than Obama were roughly counter-balanced by the issues on which Obama was better than McCain. However, in the 2014 Michigan Senate race, I do not think any reasonable person can compare Land with Peters and come to the conclusion that they are roughly equal. Land might be annoying/bad, but Peters would be an abomination, and you should ally with others who do not always (or even very often) agree with you in order to prevent him (and hence Harry Reid) from taking/holding power.

[limequat]

Wow. So you're going to help ultra-liberal Gary Peters win by voting third party instead of someone who is supported by Rand Paul and other liberty activists? People like you are a greater threat to liberty than the establishment.

Oh, bull$#@!. You are NOT gonna pull the old throw-your-vote-away card here. This is the RonPaulForums where we've been working to tear down the two party fallacy for seven years. Left/right. Two sides. One coin.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'd likely put her in much the same category as Mitch McConnell - obviously, Bevin would be better, but McConnell >>>>>>>>> Grimes.

I majorly disagree. McConnell is establishment of the establishment, and is responsible for setting policy into place. Grimes will simply be a junior freshman Senator. McConnell is the ringleader of the GOP establishment. Getting him out is a win, no matter his replacement.

[angelatc]

I simply disagree with the notion that we have no idea where Land stands on almost anything or that it's pretty much impossible to compare her to Peters.

You can disagree all you want to, but you can't tell me where she stands, can you? (For those of you playing at home, here's her web site: http://terrilynnland.com/) Read her stance on the issues - where's the dog whistle?

She's an establishment candidate - she came up through the ranks of the Anuzis era. There is absolutely no good reason to think that she is a stealth liberty candidate. That's bordering on the absurd.

That Rand PAC has donated money to her campaign strongly suggests to me that she is - if not exactly one of us - at least tolerable. Do you imagine that Rand PAC made this donation without doing any kind of vetting at all? Do you really think Rand PAC would be caught dead making donations to Lindsey Graham?

The fact that she's a Republican with no record running against nobody else in the primary makes her the perfect establishment candidate for Rand to endorse. It allows him to avoid a TEA Party tempest while also proving to the establishment that he indeed a Republican and not a Libertarian.

He endorsed Romney, too. Oh well.

I'd likely put her in much the same category as Mitch McConnell - obviously, Bevin would be better, but McConnell >>>>>>>>> Grimes. In the same vein, Boman is obviously going to be better than Land, but Land >>>>>>>>> Peters.

It is far better for me to keep her out of the office, then, if she's lining up to be the next McConnell.

don't really know what to say to this other than to quote my own words back to you again.

There's nothing you can say. Despite all those paragraphs, you can't give me a single reason to vote for her, other than the "She's not Gary Peters" sobbing.

[MichaelDavis]

Oh, bull$#@!. You are NOT gonna pull the old throw-your-vote-away card here. This is the RonPaulForums where we've been working to tear down the two party fallacy for seven years. Left/right. Two sides. One coin.

We're working to "tear down the two party fallacy"? RonPaulForums is the website that supported the 2012 Libertarian Party presidental candidate, right? Ron Paul said he wouldn't run as an independent because he knew he couldn't win. Two sides of one coin? Please try to name one congressional Democrat that supports liberty. Hint: There isn't. Nearly all Republicans have a more pro-liberty record than every Democrat. Hell, John McCain has a more pro-liberty record than every senate Democrat.

[angelatc]

We're working to "tear down the two party fallacy"? RonPaulForums is the website that supported the 2012 Libertarian Party presidental candidate, right?

Uh no. RPF didn't take a stand at all. But it's pretty telling that you're alternating between insulting us and begging us to vote for someone.

Ron Paul said he wouldn't run as an independent because he knew he couldn't win. Two sides of one coin? Please try to name one congressional Democrat that supports liberty. Hint: There isn't. Nearly all Republicans have a more pro-liberty record than every Democrat. Hell, John McCain has a more pro-liberty record than every senate Democrat.

So what position, liberty or otherwise, does Land hold that you could support?

[r3volution 3.0]

From what I've read, Land sounds like a moderately conservative Republican: not one of us, but better than your average Republican. Peters is an establishment Democrat. There's a real difference between them. All else being equal, it would be better for our cause to seat Land in the Senate than Peters. And since there is no viable alternative, I'd vote Land if I were in Michigan. Evidently Rand and Justin came to the same conclusion.

[boneyard bill]

Their coziness could be purely political. It would be wise for Amash to have support of other elected Republicans in his home state. As for Rand, if Michigan turns red then Land's endorsement of a presidential candidate in 2016 would be highly coveted.

Does Rand even have any control over RANDPAC? I'm thinking that he doesn't or the contributions would be illegal. But Terri Lynn Land is unopposed in the primary, and she would likely be better than Gary Peters although that's small praise. This is a no lose situation, and Michigan will be very important in 2016.

[angelatc]

So what position, liberty or otherwise, does Land hold that you could support?

*crickets*

[limequat]

We're working to "tear down the two party fallacy"? RonPaulForums is the website that supported the 2012 Libertarian Party presidental candidate, right? Ron Paul said he wouldn't run as an independent because he knew he couldn't win. Two sides of one coin? Please try to name one congressional Democrat that supports liberty. Hint: There isn't. Nearly all Republicans have a more pro-liberty record than every Democrat. Hell, John McCain has a more pro-liberty record than every senate Democrat.

And that's how I know you're trolling

Ron Wyden took on the NSA and was the one to caused Clapper to perjure himself. Russ Feingold was alright. Kucinich - good on civil liberties. I'd take any of those in a heartbeat over most republicans in office.

Next, I'm going to name some SOCIALISTS that I'd rather have in office than John McCain: Noam Chomsky, Lewis Black, George Orwell, Glenn Greenwald

[limequat]

*crickets*

You could shorten it to "What position does Land hold."

and it would still be *crickets*

The only position Land holds is that of furthering her own career living off the taxpayer.

[angelatc]

You could shorten it to "What position does Land hold."

and it would still be *crickets*

The only position Land holds is that of furthering her own career living off the taxpayer.

The media is ignoring her now, but they'll shred her in the general. She's a weak candidate. It's a shame this is the best the GOP could come up with.

[limequat]

We're working to "tear down the two party fallacy"? RonPaulForums is the website that supported the 2012 Libertarian Party presidental candidate, right? Ron Paul said he wouldn't run as an independent because he knew he couldn't win. Two sides of one coin? Please try to name one congressional Democrat that supports liberty. Hint: There isn't. Nearly all Republicans have a more pro-liberty record than every Democrat. Hell, John McCain has a more pro-liberty record than every senate Democrat.

In 2008 Ron Paul set up a shindig to support all 3rd party candidates, sharing a stage with Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin. In 2008 Ron Paul voted 3rd party. I'm sure he did in 2012 too.
Not being able to win as a libertarian has nothing to do with supporting neoconservativism.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Wow. So you're going to help ultra-liberal Gary Peters win by voting third party instead of someone who is supported by Rand Paul and other liberty activists? People like you are a greater threat to liberty than the establishment.

Ron Paul endorsed Ronald Reagan and Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney. I guess not voting for those 2 establishment candidates makes us a threat to liberty.