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
.

[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 $#@! 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/politica...in-the-senate/

[DevilsAdvocate]

From Lew Rockwell's Political Theatre...

“Mussolini Mitch” - perfect



https://www.lewrockwell.com/politica...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 $#@! 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.