Posted on 01/17/2015 9:51:20 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
not saying I support Christie in any way, only that his initial attraction and claim to fame was his plain-spoken in your face attitude to teachers unions. Similarly, Walkers initial attraction and claim to fame is his standing up to the teachers union and facing down a recall election.
When you go beyond Christie’s (and Walker’s? I don’t really know) “good looks”, you see the ugly things inside.
Rand Paul campaigned for Romney and has tended to support the establishment candidates, we have no reason to think that he would endorse Cruz.
“Rand Paul to steer clear of Mississippi runoff” (anti-tea party)
“Rand Paul: It’s a ‘misnomer’ to say McConnell isn’t conservative”
“Rand Paul To Campaign for Romney”
March, 2013 (look at that date)—”Rand Paul endorses Mitch McConnell in 2014 Senate race, won’t back tea party challenge”
The law as written prevents an individual’s name from appearing twice (or more) on the same ballot.
As to whether it would stand a legal challenge, it would depend on what the liberal establishment thinks about a Rand Paul candidacy; would it aid or hinder the Democrats?
Who knows?
We want conservatives, not anti-conservatives.
"[N]ot-so-inner werewolf" -- like that?
I guess we really disagree on this one. (Please take the hatchet out of Sen. Cruz's head if you could .... I'll notify EMS on my way out.)
Conservative
in the sense of keeping things the same?
Or conservative
in the sense of returning to founding principles?
If the latter, then a non-negligible bloc of people in congress ascribing to the theory that government shouldn't use force except when absolutely necessary (e.g. invasion) would be far, far closer to the founders vision than either the Republican or Democratic party. (If you don't believe me, then please explain the 9th and 10th Amendments, in light of the preamble of the Bill of Rights, without destroying such extraconstitutional activities as the War on Drugs.)
In other words, you ought to explain how libertarians (in federal government) would be of equal or greater "badness" as the current parties WRT the Constitution.
Conservative in the sense of freerepublic.com. a conservative, social conservative, God fearing, political site.
A site where Ron Paul and Rand Paul are seen as too liberal.
Johnson had the law changed so he could run for Senate and as vice president in 1960. Bentsen took advantage of the same law change and didn't need to fiddle anything.
...in the year he was elected Vice President with Jimmuh, was it?
Ran with Dukakis in 1988.
As I remember it, Johnson and Bentsen were Democrats from Democrat-controlled states.
Rand Paul is a Republican in a state where one branch of the Legislature is controlled by Democrats.
There’s no chance of a new statute being passed that would overturn existing law. And, IIRC, Senator Paul has already said he wouldn’t try to get a judge to overturn it.
We’ll see.
By social conservative
do you mean someone willing to use government force at the federal level to impose your ideals of social norms?
Because that's what's at question here; are you for using the government for things you approve of that the Constitution does not authorize, or are you willing to hold to the Constitutional limitations especially when it is inconvenient for your personal ideals?
A site where Ron Paul and Rand Paul are seen as too liberal.
Actually, insofar as Ron Paul is concerned, the most common complaint I've heard from people here on FR is that his generally isolationist stance on foreign powers is "nuts" — which I find odd, as the whole reason the Congress gets a say in the congressional cabinet positions is to provide moderation to the President.
If you listen to his farewell address I think you'll find the message quite conservative, especially if you contrast it to the norm
of what most congressmen spew.
Hopefully Rand won’t be able to get KY law changed in time.
Grimes seems to be staying on top of it because she wants to run again for HIS seat.
He’s not a hater of America like most everyone on The Hill is.
Actually the zot list is full of Ron Paul promotors and social liberals.
A lot of your old buddies are not here anymore.
The title of this thread is a strawman!
Two false choices are no choice at all.
That's not the question — the question is this:Are you for using the government for things you approve of that the Constitution does not authorize, or are you willing to hold to the Constitutional limitations especially when it is inconvenient for your personal ideals?
As recently illustrated by Republican
v. Democrat
.
I’ve been down this road before with ansell2.
Before too long he will be accusing you of supporting gays in the military etc etc etc..
He won’t answer the fundamental question you asked.
Rather than let the thread be hijacked in the bottomless pit of libertarian trolling, I will repeat my answer.
Actually the zot list is full of Ron Paul promotors and social liberals.
A lot of your old buddies are not here anymore.
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.