Skip to comments.Rand Paul Wins: Changing of the Guard?
Posted on 03/07/2013 1:17:52 PM PST by BarnacleCenturion
Earlier today, I noted that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) were on opposite sides of a generational divide in the GOP that goes beyond ideology. That flared into an open spat as McCain, along with his closest amigo, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), openly slammed Paul, calling him uninformed. Graham pronounced that Paul didnt deserve an answer. McCain hissed: The country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what hes talking about. That peevish retort may have reflected McCains sense that he had been badly upstaged. Or maybe he hadnt followed the debate.
Then, with near-perfect timing, Paul got his response in a two-sentence letter from Attorney General Eric Holder. The first sentence was dishonest: It has come to my attention you have now asked an additional question: Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? In fact, that was Pauls question all along. But Holder then admitted, no, the U.S. government doesnt have the authority to target U.S. citizens at home who are not involved in hostilities.
Rand Paul got to crow in a series of interviews. He had pried an answer out of a White House habitually averse to treating a co-equal branch with respect. He certainly got more done than Graham and McCain did last night by attending a Georgetown dinner with the president, a White House move no doubt intended to reverse the presidents slide in the polls and make it seem like he was reaching out to Republicans.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It's time to cut off the imperial presidency ...
I certainly trust Rand Paul more than the likes of McLame.
1) Can you show me where in the Constitution the Federal government is authorized to outlaw marijuana across the entire country, even when there is no interstate traffic thereof? Let states and local communities decide the issue. The Founders didn’t leave that kind of issue to the federal government.
2) Regarding the military, why do we need to spend billions of dollars a year to keep foreigners half the world away from killing each other like animals?
I was following along until I read this-
someone who quits her job as governor
That's where you lost any credibility. You're either a PDS'er spouting discredited libtard talking points, or just plain ignorant. Funny, since you were talking about credibility.
I hope this sinks in with the whole “you aren’t a real conservative if you are a libertarian” set on here. I believe this is a real wakeup call for the leadership of the GOP... or at least the really dim bulbs that keep voting for this failed leadership.
“Rand Paul needs to show me that he is not anti-Semitic.”
Does the rest of the GOP also need to show you that they are not spineless empty suits?
This is only the opening salvo of a battle to re-take the Senate from the Progressive/Liberals. Rand Paul is a needed figure to focus the rage of the nation over the Vichy Republicans and the old guard. Even Democrats are growing restless and chaffing at the bite. I believe I can hear the fife and drums of the Tea Party warming up! Sarah Palin, got that new flag ready for us? You aint seen nothin’ yet!
A big HELL YEAH to that!!!!
McCain and Graham had a real hissy fit over this - priggy Graham going so far as to say the issue about Americans getting hit by a drone while drinking coffee was not even worthy of discussion - methinks there was a big bit of jealousy in their reaction - the guard, with the likes of Paul, Rubio, and Cruz, looks like it is changing - and leaving John and Lindsey way behind.....
Yes, send devastation, not troops.
legalization of marijuana/hemp
Sure, why not? Then the RATs will be too stoned to bother with voting.
If Cruz, born to two American citizens is a Canadian then Juan CaMe is from Panama.
Yes, the passive voice is ordinarily to try to avoid stating the obvious.
The quintessential example--and the one that invariably sends chills up my back--is the old saw, "Mistakes were made"...
Mistakes were made by zombies. The sentence makes sense and it is passive voice.
I made mistakes by zombies. This does not make sense and is therefore active voice.
In passive voice, the subject is what is acted upon by the verb. In active voice, the direct object is what receives the action. While some disdain the use of passive voice, especially in formal reports such as theses, passive voice is a good tool when desiring to keep a certain subject as the primary focus of the writing.
Exactly. It is that characteristic of what people refer to as the "passive voice" that I - erroneously as it turns out - inferred to be its definition.
Thus, I latched on to a more abstract characteristic of the "passive voice" and substituted that characteristic for a definition.
In a sense, what I did was similar (or at least a cousin to) a mondegreen which is another thing I've learned about recently. A mondegreen (if you've not heard of it) is when one hears "there's a bathroom on the right" as the singer is singing "there's a bad moon on the rise."
AZ GOP voters should be ashamed of themselves for not retiring McCain. The good voters of Indiana kicked Lugar out or he would have been enjoying the msm’s attention by clucking about Paul’s inappropriate filibuster, too.
The old moss-backs of the Republican Party should be primaries at every opportunity. They are no longer fit to serve.
I may not agree with everything Rand Paul says and stands for, but he has definitely raised questions that needed to be raised and highlighted issues that needed to be highlighted. He is doing what leaders do, and if leadership of the party shifts in his direction then I have no doubt that he’ll do a better job than the current crop of party leaders have been doing.
When Tea Party mentality Senators and Reps outnumber GOP bluebloods and RINOs, then we’ll have a changing of the guard.
Pogues like McCain and Graham can and will do damage to us. They can’t be trusted.
I'm pleased to see many Republicans move in the direction of a less knee-jerk interventionist foreign policy. The focus of defense spending should be national defense, not nation building or keeping the peace between feuding tribes and sects in God-forsaken places.
Unfortunately, I suspect that this skepticism towards global policing and nation-building will be short-lived. While I'm pleased that most Republicans oppose intervention in Syria's civil war, I suspect that they only do so because it's under the watch of a Democratic President. If Bush (or, more to the point, McCain or Romney) were President, we'd probably have troops in Syria already with full backing of the party. All too often, it's not about the policy but about who is pushing it - so Democrats give their own a free pass on what they criticize Republicans for doing, and vice-versa.
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.