Posted on 08/14/2014 5:40:45 AM PDT by C19fan
Senator Rand Paul was spotted hobnobbing at a party in the Hamptons last weekend after he claimed he could not attend a high-profile conservative event he was listed as a sponsor of because he had a 'family commitment.' Paul told the Family Leader he had to skip the group's annual summit on Saturday because he had to attend an event in New York with his family. The presumed 2016 presidential candidate's absence at the influential Iowa gathering was called into question, however, after the New York Post reported that Paul and his wife, Kelley, attended the East Hampton Library fundraiser that day.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Your joke about free, open, and fair primaries was funny. There was more cheating (Florida, who held their primary early should have lost half their delegates, but didn't) and rule-changing by the GOP-E than ever before to make sure their anointed was selected.
I will continue to work to politically destroy the liberal republican party.
I can't get the liberals out of the democrat party, but I can keep the liberals in the republican party from winning.
/johnny
I haven't seen that win many elections.
/johnny
Cruz has just as good a chance as Obama did.
1. Parlay the senate seat
2. Very telegenic
3. Excellent rhetorical skills
Just an observation from a mostly disinterested observer. Seems to me you a CEW have been doing the attacking. Just about every post you two post is little more then nasty name calling. Persuasion requires reasoned logic, not personal abuse. Just saying :)
And I'm not trying to get conservatives to vote for whatever liberal republican candidate the party decides to put up.
I'm trying to politically destroy liberal republicans.
/johnny
Well, it seems you are wrong. I NEVER start it. Repeat, I NEVER start it. But I will return fire often.
And another thing, I really am tiring of this infantile (that’s a description, an adjective, NOT a name) idea that strong rhetoric is “name calling.” Sheesh, kindergarten recess much? (uh oh, is that name calling?)
As for the debate: not trying to persuade someone who is lost to the kool aid - and in this case, I was clarifying you absurd the accusation of me was.
Well I owe you an apology. I way over estimated your ability to have a coherent and rational argument where perhaps some analogy or examples might be used. I will try and keep future comments to you in the shallows…...
And I wouldn’t quite call Rand a “liberal Republican” altho he has certainly moved in that direction in the last year. I would more say he is philosophically incoherent, and has a petty and shallow political team.
The issues are important if Rand Paul develops a follwing. If the Federal Reserve and out of control banking oligarcies aren’t an issue Rand Paul takes as his own, I’d hope someone else will.
We can go by the South or West rule that states that a winning republican has to be from the south or the west, which means either Jeb Bush, Huckabee, Cruz, or Rick Perry. Most discount Perry but since he started wearing those Barry Goldwater eye glasses, his chances have improved.
There is also the Florida Pivot Rule that says that if the GOP candidate can't win Florida, he can't win the presidency. So, you nominate the candidate that has the best chance of winning Florida. And winning Florida is becoming harder and harder for the GOP as more blue state Yankees, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans move there. But that rule means Jeb Bush.
Did he lie? The Hamptons are in New York. If you are in DC, you might very well say you were going to New York.
A better approach is to calmly take your opponents argument apart. No you likely will not convince him/her, but who cares? It's all about the lurkers. You want to influence their thinking.
A pissing contest convinces no one of anything, except that a ass so and so is.
Is Rand Paul acceptable to conservatives? At this time, I'd have to say no. I certainly like him on many issues but IMHO he has put entirely too much effort into making himself acceptable to the GOPe. He has greatly softened is position on illegal amnesty, which is a deal breaker for me. He'd gone over to the dark side on homosexual issues such as gays in the military and he appears to be very naive on matters of national security and foreign policy. Ted Cruz although far from perfect(wrong on Egypt and Syria) is vastly better then Paul at this point.
That all sounds high minded and superior and all of that, but I do respectfully reject a couple of your premises….like every post is an attempt to persuade…it is not….I also reject that a point made with vinegar does not persuade….they do sometimes…..and thus, I further reject the characterization of “pissing contest” - which you know you used pejoratively and unnecessarily.
As for your Paul/Cruz breakdown, I’d tend to agree with most of it.
you are still in the micro.
I’m in the macro.
You are still in the consultant conventional wisdom. I reject almost all consultant conventional wisdom because it is only conventional, but rarely wise.
But what you really are is just another obnoxious asshole.
If some feel attacked because I point that out, that's on them.
Cruz doesn't fail on abortion, gun-control, amnesty, socialized medicine, or smaller government. He is an acceptable candidate for me.
/johnny
We all have our own style in this fight. And I will admit you has Paul pegged correctly long before I did.
Rubio is a good example, Rubio got his A$$ handed to him by conservatives when he joined the gang of 8. He has been working hard to regain our trust. Do I trust him? No, but I've learned that enough pressure will force him to change his position. I like that. I suspect Paul would be similar. So should Paul be the nominee I would vote for him in the general.
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive you know.
(someone can explain that to you)
Well I think I agree with all of that. And yes, he wants a kind of specialized niche of the GOPe plus some of his young Paul bots - and “niche” his way to the nomination. Huckabee and Santorum are others who never tried a broad approach, they tried to “niche” their way. The GOPe tries to win Prez elections by “niching their way to 271 electoral votes.
Reagan, and the 94 mid terms, and the 2010 midterms proved that Republicans win when they have a broad bold coherent message, not a mishmash of niche supporters here and there.
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.