Posted on 05/09/2009 9:34:17 PM PDT by GoldStandard
During an appearance in Paducah on Friday evening, Dr. Rand Paul told a crowd of about 50 people that they could expect to hear something definitive regarding his candidacy for the US Senate by this Thursday, May 14th. Moments later, Paul used langauge that was a bit more straighforward:"I'm going to give this a go...It's a long shot at this piont, but I wouldn't do this unless I think it was a possibility." After Paul's speech, Christopher Hightower, Paul's right-hand man, confirmed that national media coverage has already been scheduled for next Thursday.
Paul, who considers himself an "outsider" from the "Republican estabishment," is the son of former Presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul, and for more than two months now, he has been dropping hints at public appearances across the state that he is planning to add his name to the hat should Bunning decide not to seek re-election. On Friday in Paducah, the 46 year old eye surgeon spoke at lengh on issues ranging from immigration and the economy to national security and the budget deficit.
Here's a sneak peak of Rand Paul on the issues:
Abortion
"I would introduce and support legislation to send Roe v. Wade back to the states."
Term Limits
"I think term limits are a good idea."
Taxes
"I do want to reduce the income tax and if possible, eliminate the income tax...The first thing you do is balance the budget, the reduce the size of government."
Immigration
"We have people coming in by the millions...Am I absolutely opposed to immigration? No...We have to find a way to believe in the rule of law, believe in border control and at the same time, not villify the issue."
Okay, let’s see what he’s got to offer!
Chip off the old block. Pro-life libertarian, believes in federalism, border security...I expect the RINO establishment to release the hounds.
Federal statewide's are a bad place to start your political career.
As a resident of Cincinnati and frequent visitor of Kentucky, I am bookmarking the kywordsmith.com website. Nicely done!
Obama was nothing yesterday, today he is POTUS.
bookmark
Media assassination beginning in 3....2...1...
Ping
Rand Paul is the son of Al Qaeda’s mouthpiece in the USA. He is a paleopipsqueak who, like his dad, will pose for various holy pictures while doing absolutely nothing constructive. He is a distraction and he will, like his dad, be political roadkill only without the membership in Congress. That first name Rand doesn’t sound very socially conservative or sane either. What kind of “conservative” names his child after a serial adulterer?
Isn’t that “chip off the old Al Qaeda loving blockHEAD????” Also, SAYS he is pro-life and refuses to DO anything about it. Like dear old dad, Rand doesn’t give a rat’s patoot as to the murder of 50 million so long as we do nothing to really stop it. How does he feel about dad’s shrimpin’ earmarks???? Is a Libertarian in Name Only a LINO???? PaleoPaulie is no Republican either.
“I would introduce and support legislation to send Roe v. Wade back to the states.”
Eh, good luck with that. If the guy isn’t bright enough to understand that legislation doesn’t trump current Supreme Court precedent, he’s an idiot.
You really have no grasp of the Constitution at all, do you?
If you ALSO take away the court’s authority to look at it, you can. And look at the legislation his father keeps introducing: would declare that life begins at conception, override Roe and take away any power of judicial review.
Have you had your rabies shot? You’re frothing again.
Who's the idiot now?
I really find it funny that you hate Paul so much that you actually believe that the fact he has authored a bill that would end abortion translates as him not caring about it.
If you think, that in the real world, any future Supreme Court would uphold the constitutionality of any legislation stripping away its authority over “core” privacy issues, you’re delusional. It’s just a cute (and losing) little argument. Ever thought to wonder why Right to Life and other organizations have worked so hard to get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe rather than simply electing 50.1% pro-life legislators?
Used to work with this guy in BG KY. Don’t have a lot of good or bad to say about him. He was just another guy.
dwcusmc: Yep, unlike you, I get angry at the Al Qaeda mouthpiece who undermines his nation in time of war, and exhibits his basic cowardly insanity as widely as possible in GOP POTUS primaries, no less. Blunderbusses and letters of marque and reprisal are not of our era and they are not a foreign or military policy. Avast, matey, you better cower in yer boots! If them Muslims don't behave, paleoPaulie will hold a press conference or bore the nation with another three hour collection of self-serving inanities during special orders. That'll teach ye!!!!
Most marines (other than John Murtha and his ilk) would understand the need for an international search and destroy mission against our nation's and our civilization's enemies and that it is better to kill them in Baghdad than to have to defend against them in La Jolla or Marin County or your backyard because paleoPaulie is too busy hallucinating to recognize reality. Sorry about you!
ovrtaxt: Any imagined "constitutional" specifics you care to address and have addressed??? Feel free to specify. Bear in mind that this requires more than a few reading lessons and possession of the text. You also need to have a grasp of reality and to understand that edicts are not going to wipe away the constitutionally degenerative detritus of two centuries plus of other opportunistic politicians. I will give you a few suggestions: A strict reading of the constitution would seem (particularly by reference to the 10th Amendment) to prohibit Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, virtually anything done by HHS, HUD, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, most Treasury activity as practiced today, the Federal Reserve banking system, the federal income tax (according to Irwin Schiff's quite plausible analysis of internal constitutional conflict between the 16th amendment and other clauses in the original constitution as to apportionment and levy of taxes, paper money, and many, many other things. When you tell me what you are concerned about in the constitution, try to address the explosion and its consequences that would be triggered by a sudden across-the-board outburst of constitutional integrity. We did not get this deep in the mess we are in overnight and we won't get out of it overnight either. Preparing and building a principled political movement that will succeed in enacting its goals takes more, a lot more, than primal screaming of the Constitution mantra.
Such legislation would not be retroactive and would not affect the SCOTUS or other court’s power to equitably punish violations of pre-existing injunctions. As a constitutional expert, Paulie is as smart as he is on foreign and military policy. Not at all.
SS: I beg to differ with you. If the Congress stripped the SCOTUS of jurisdiction, SCOTUS would comply or really unravel. It would not affect judgments already rendered or the enforcement of injunctions already entered but it sure as hell would affect future “privacy” issues, core or not. People might be amazed if they are motivated to actually read their constitution. Congress would win that battle. Not under paleoPsulie, mind you since his credibility among his colleagues is less than zero. Let the record show that I found an issue on which to agree with EEE.
In other words, like his father and the McCain ticket he stands foursquare against the Reagan Republican pro-life platform.
Unless, of course, it's a constitutional amendment.
I hope you at least realize how much of a loon you come off as.
I don't believe a "political movement" is nearly enough to restore Constitutional limits upon government. In fact, I believe government won't allow it without initiating violence upon otherwise free citizens.
If what you listed above is truly your opinion, I don't understand what your problem is with Paul. Seems to me you would be thankful for a man who stands there year after year and exposes the immoral looters and control freaks for who they are.
No, he was a state senator, then a US senator, then a US president.
Did you just imply that his mother is the New York Times?
Oh, though I disagree about the Ayn Rand thing. She is awesome and when you are that awesome, you get the privilege of sleeping around.
Foreign policy?
As long as he isn’t another damned lawyer I would vote for him in a heart beat.
I just wished he lived here in Ohio.
In 2009, we are well behind where we were in, say 1965. We were willing to fight for every vote. We got labor support and had minority support and veterans' support. We waged a war of ideas and principles. Now, we have a bunch of Ron Paul enthusiasts who seem far more motivated by emotional overreaction to the state of the world around them and willing to accept just about anything in the way of third raters (such as, say, Ron Paul) who will say what they want to hear. They seem to be devoid of systematic ideological knowledge and chock full of rage and empty libertarianism of the "I wanna do what I wanna do" sort.
The future will tell just how much damage the paleowimps will do to the movement and the nation but I bet I am not the only veteran conservative of the Reagan years determined that this nation not be flushed down an amoral Randian or paleo sewer.
Standing there and exposing are just different words for posing for holy pictures. Paulie accomplishes nothing whatsoever. No one takes him seriously other than his zombies. Now he wants to give us the next generation in the form of an offspring named Rand. I have known far better times wjhen we knew how to play this game. I won't settle for a transparent actionless fraud like Paulie.
Constitutionalists will be flabbergasted to realize that there is a very substantial percentage of the public who will visit violence upon them well before BO's army gets there if that percentage sees their "entitlements" threatened. It took decades to educate the general public to get to the point of "ending welfare as we know it" (or at least cutting it back. BO will restore it by the end of the year while Paulie whines about whether a Congressional enactment has used the right template to justify a necessary war. BO will do substantial damage to our nation and civilization in the six or eight months of media-slave puffed credibility remaining to him. Which conservatives and which organizations are preparing for the day when the public, out of the pain of $5 gasoline, heatless days in winter, renewed Islamofascist attacks on our soil, further turbo-cranked security measures, economic failures of unprecedented proportion, leftist fascism generally, cap and trade, and the insufferable nannynagging of the self-appointed "morally superior" leftists (the "church" of radical leftism has many micromanaging plans for your life and mine and everyone else's)? Certainly not these paleocreatures who are as devoid of leadership qualities as the Ku Klux Klan is of blacks, and as devoid of foreign and military policy reliability as Code Pink or Sean Penn.
Raising your taxes and controlling your life against your reasonable and moral wishes are certainly immoral. Far more immoral is tolerating the wanton slaughter of 50 million unborn innocent babies. A disturbing percentage of Paulie's support comes from people no more moral on that score (or "gay""marriage", for that matter) than Planned Barrenhood or NARAL or the GLAAD types. We got off on the wrong foot backing Barry Planned Barrenhood Goldwater in 1964 but we recovered nicely because there was a Reagan. We need not repeat the Goldwater error with paleobirdbrains. There seems to be no Reagan in the wings this time.
I would seriously suggest to you that you read In Defense of Freedom by Frank Meyer or another book which was a compendium of ghis columns. He deals with the Paulian heresy in what had best be an effective manner. This movement, as Frank Meyer observed, consists of libertarianism and traditionalism. Each must make concessions to the other without compromising its core principles. This is do-able. We don't have a Frank Meyer nowadays since he died in about 1972 of lung cancer, and was baptized on his deathbed as a Catholic, finally acting on the rejection of dogmatic atheism that separated him from a position as a top theoretician of the Communist Party USA in the late 1940s. He had better credentials as a libertarian than as a conservative when he did his most important writing but (like Ludwig von Mises) he did not fall for Ayn Rand's dogmatically atheist capitalism any more than he could stomach atheistic communism under Stalin when Stalin was close to the grave.
Where once we had Frank Meyer, we now have Tom Tancredo. Where once we had a host of talented and principled political leaders, we now have the likes of Paul. Where once we had a Bill Buckley to read the Ayn Rands and the Robert Welches (a very nice but politically incompetent fellow) out the conservative movement to maintain quality control of the message, we now have no genuine authority on the right. What we have instead is a thoroughly distracted and distracting food fight.
I trust that this makes clear why I will be thankful when Ron Paul finally retires from public life and hopefully leaves no one like him behind to carry on.
And look at what a disaster Obama has been so far.
If conservatives want to get back in power, they need to start running quality people in state and local races. Get some good quality people in the state legislatures, in local offices and build the kind of record that leads to federal office.
Wisconsin is a perfect example. The GOP keeps running career RINOs or wealthy businessmen for senate. They have money, but no name recognition or record of conservative government service.
Apparently you never heard of "separation of powers?" There's nothing SCOTUS can do. Congress can easily nullify Roe vs Wade with the legislative equivalent of snapping its fingers.
It’s just a cute (and losing) little argument.
Yeah, like your argument currently is.
Ever thought to wonder why Right to Life and other organizations have worked so hard to get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe rather than simply electing 50.1% pro-life legislators?
Probably because they've been putting the cart before the horse on this issue as stated in your example above?
Yeah, because it's in the unborns' best interests to go for a hail mary bomb trying to amend the Constitution which doesn't have a snowflake in Hell's chance of passing rather than doing the smart thing and going the federalism route.
The Constitution already protects the lives of all innocent persons, in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, and states its own purpose as being to “secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY.”
You’re the one who mentioned amending the Constitution, not me.
And, oh yeah: the Reagan pro-life plank recognizes the personhood of the unborn child and their protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. It has since 1984.
Sad that your party’s leaders, and so many Republicans in general, completely ignore something so foundational to justice, to liberty, and to our republican form of government.
Federalism does not include the right of any government to alienate unalienable rights. Those who think it does don't even understand our form of government.
Are you serious? A Paul presidency would have never appointed a Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter or Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court, let alone even make put them under consideration. Roe should have been overturned with the Casey decision 17 years ago.
Yes I’m serious. Ron Paul takes the Gerald R. Ford position on abortion, not the right Reagan position. And it is obvious this particular rotten apple didn’t fall far from the tree.
By the way, you’re mistaken if you think the whole problem is with who is on the bench.
And why would you want judicial appointees who think like Ron Paul anyway, judges who believe that the unalienable rights to life and liberty are only for those Americans who happen to live in particular states?
Which other unalienable rights beside the right to LIVE do you want to let the states “decide”? The right to keep and bear arms? Free speech? Free association? Freedom of the press? What?
Well actions speak louder than words. Reagan and the "platform" may have supported a constitutional amendment for life, but he put O'Connor on the bench for life, knowing that she was pro-abortion and supported Roe v. Wade. It was more important that we have a woman on the bench, or that a confirmation battle is avoided after Bork (Kennedy). My point is that Paul would have never put these people on the bench, and the whole issue would be irrelevant because Roe v. Wade should have been overturned and it would be a state issue.
The problem started with states not recognizing that all persons, born and unborn, have the unalienable right to live. The Blackmun court agreed with them that unborn children are not PERSONS. "Sending it back to the states" solves nothing. The recognition that every officer of government, in every branch, at every level of governance, has a sworn duty to protect innocent human life solves EVERYTHING.
There’s really no use arguing with someone who isn’t grounded in the real world. Good luck with that fed jur final exam.
I also know that a former Ron Paul Texas aide, Eric Dondero, a self-described "pro-war libertarian"; likes Rand, says he knows him personally and that he isn't his father on foreign policy.
...At least, that’s what Carolyn said. Joke. Randall Paul, would be a welcome change for us in Cain-tuck. Bunning and McConnell need to go. Even in the HOR. I’d get out of Lex, and move to BG, to be in the district...
Now, the situation over in Kentucky is that Jim Bunning has a pretty solid conservative voting record but is damaged goods and likely to lose if he runs again (he barely won re-election last time, and he started that race with the odds overwhelmingly in his favor). I'm not saying I'd support Rand Paul (given the current options I'd probably say KY Sen. of State Trey Grayson is the best choice, assuming he's a conservative), but the point is we don't want to risk nominating Bunning again.
As most of you are aware, I can't stomach Ron Paul's foreign policy views and if little Rand is a "chip off the ol' block" in that department (and it sounds like he is), there's no way I could support him in the primary. The last thing we need in the Senate is more "Republicans" with a Sept. 10th mindset, especially those drinking the kool-aid that Islamofacists are decent people and it's all American's fault whenever they kill someone.
That being said, I have to disagree with BlackElk about Ron Paul's views on social policy. I've never had any problem with Paul's record on abortion, and I believe he's sincere when he says abortion is repugnant to him and he wants to work to end it. He does use that annoying "send it back to the states" rhetoric, but the fact is Ron Paul is an elected official at the FEDERAL level, NOT the state level, and has a solid pro-life FEDERAL voting record. In other words, despite his rhetoric, he votes for federal restrictions on abortion when push comes to shove, and recognizes that the federal government has to deal with the issue as long as Roe v. Wade remains on the books. For example, Ron Paul voted YES on the (nationwide) partial birth abortion ban, he didn't stick his head in the sand and say "gee whiz, we officials of the federal government can't tell people they're not allowed to slaughter 9-month infants at the moment they're being born... let's punt this issue elsewhere and see how the state legislatures of Massachusetts and Vermont feel about this matter". Instead, he voted to ban infanticide across the nation, period. I have a lot more respect for Ron Paul because he votes that way in Congress than these Losertarians who claim Ron Paul is a deity yet they won't embrace his pro-life record and choose the failed Stephen Douglas policies that state governments get to decide whether human beings have rights. In that respect, Ron Paul is no different than Fred Thompson in saying it's not the federal government's job to deal with abortion, but they nevertheless work to restrict abortion at the federal level whenever they have the chance. If Rand Paul votes the same way in the Senate as his dad does in the House, I'd be satified with his pro-life record.
Basically, if it came down to Rand Paul or a socialist RAT, I'd hold my nose and support Paul.
I agree with everything Bill said about Rep. Paul. I agree with him about the budget and abortion, but I disagree with him about Iraq. I was in Iraq for six months, and Paul didn’t support my unit’s mission of defeating terrorists. If Rand Paul’s views are identical to his dad’s, he would be better than the Democrats, on the majority of the issues, and he would be better than my congressman, Mark Kirk.
Agreed. It's unfortunate that so many conservatives have learned nothing from history. They should read about what happened in Kansas when members of the House and Senate decided it wasn't the federal government's job to deal with the slavery issue and the prefect solution was to wash their hands of determining it's legality and "send it back to the states". Stephen Douglas has certainly ended up on the wrong side of history with that idea. We did finally put an end to slavery in this nation, and it wasn't because the state legislatures of heavily-slave states like Alabama, South Carolina, etc., decided to recognize on their own that black people are human beings with rights.
Of course I understand the sentiment that the federal government shouldn't stick its nose in everything and needs to defer to states on most matters, but basic human life is not a matter that's up to "states" to decide, anymore than state governments have the "right" to determine whether people are allowed to have freedom of speech or religion. Certain inalienable rights should be a guaranteed law of the land nationwide, and the right to life is one of them.
Not sure where you have been the last few months. But please go back...
2. You may disagree with me. It won't be the first or likely the last time. Paul is addicted to holding press conferences and filing bills that he has no intention of pursuing and no chance of getting enacted if he did. He has zero respect from his colleagues of whatever persuasion other than Weepy Walter Jones of North Carolina and Dennis Cuckoocinich of Cleveland and maybe Paul Abercrombie of Hawaii. An occasional vote on the floor makes him no less two-faced.
If we need Paulie's son to run in Kentucky, that seat is already lost. Fortunately AG Grayson is available and we need not sink so low as to encourage the next generation of Pauls. Bunning is a very solid guy but he seems to have run out of steam and has not raised enough $ to run.
SCOTUS made abortion a federal issue and destroyed all state laws against abortion when it handed down Roe vs. Wade with no authority whatsoever to do so. It is more than 35 years too late for Tenth Amendment arguments. Paulie, if he wants to be regarded as a pro-lifer, will have to lead, follow or get the hell out of the way and he will have to cut out the dishonest press conferences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.