Rand Paul has asked Sarah Palin to campaign for him

Texas for Sarah Palin ^ | Sunday, November 15, 2009 at 1:35 PM | Josh Painter

[Josh Painter]

Rand Paul, a candidate in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky revealed in an interview Thursday for the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog that his campaign has asked 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to campaign for him:

Washington Wire: Do you want Sarah Palin to campaign for you?
Paul: We’d love to have her come. We’ve made some overtures to her.

But the son of Texas congressman Ron Paul did not seem too excited about two other potential Republican presidential candidates:

Washington Wire: What about Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney?
Paul: I don’t know much about Tim Pawlenty. Romney, there’s a mixture of beliefs there.

Read the full Rand Paul interview here.

- JP

[Bokababe]

I’m guessing it’s a hat tip to Ayn Rand, but I could be wrong

Rand Paul has said that the "Ayn Rand connection" with his name has always been the number 1 question for reporters so he answered it in a video.

Sorry, Henry, but in this case you are wrong. He was legally named Randall, was called Randy as a kid, and as an adult his wife started calling him "Rand" & it stuck.

[rabscuttle385]

Do you think North Dakota, under our Constitution, could outlaw guns, or free speech, or freedom of the press, or trial by jury, or parental rights?

No BUT with respect to the citizens of the State of North Dakota and their State government, I don't think it's in MY place, as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, to decide for them, nor do I think it is in their place to decide for me and for my fellow Citizens of the Commonwealth.

Do you think that the citizens of one State should be allowed to make decisions for the citizens of another State, as a general rule?

[Bokababe]

"Rand Paul is an isolationist, Libertarian, pro-choice for states, candidate, just like his father. Reagan conservatives should not allow themselves to be fooled by his slick talk.

If you could say something like that, then you have no idea who Ronald Reagan really was.

[EternalVigilance]

The Fourteenth Amendment makes a clear and easily understood distinction between citizens and persons. And under its provisions, all persons are to be protected by the states.

Blackmun even admitted in Roe that if the “fetus” is a PERSON, they are “of course” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Do you, like Blackmun, choose to dehumanize the child, or do you think they are a person?

One last note: Politicians like Rand Paul are in fact WORSE than Blackmun. They admit that the child is a person, and then advocate that states can allow their killing if they see fit. They don’t even feel the need for Blackmun’s fig leaf.

[Stonewall Jackson]

Shortly after the war started, there was concern that Germany might be planning an invasion of the Southern United States via North Africa. My grandfather's unit was stationed at Camp Blanding, Florida (just outside Jacksonville) in case there was such an invasion.

After the war, it was learned that the Germans had actually considered this, but had rejected the idea in favor of a naval blockade.

[BobL]

Let’s be reasonable here...we are talking 1948, at the earliest to invade the US, but the INVASION would have to take place, in order to end the war (for the Axis to be victorious). Does anyone REALLY believe that Germany and Japan would have been happy with just the Eastern Hemisphere?

[EternalVigilance]

Ronald Reagan was a peace through strength, personhood pro-life, moral conservative.

The Pauls are not. This is abundantly clear.

[The Comedian]

No, they're not. They hold the position of Gerald R. Ford, not Ronald Reagan. They are pro-choice for states.

Anti-Paul BS anti-serum coming right up:

Ron Paul, 1981:

"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

Rand Paul, 2009:

I believe life begins at conception. I recognize the most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I strongly oppose any federal funding for abortion and will always vote to protect life.

Before 1973, abortion was illegal in most states. Since Roe v. Wade, over 50 million children have died in abortion procedures.

I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment.

I would support legislation, a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement."

Pro-choice my a$$.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[rabscuttle385]

Do you, like Blackmun, choose to dehumanize the child, or do you think they are a person?

Do we have conception certificates and do we celebrate the anniversary of a person's conception with cake and candles and a party?

Of course not.

Each of us has birth certificates and birth days.

So no, a fetus (and this otherwise nebulous term, in the context of my comments, encompasses everything from the fertilized egg to a child about to be born) is not a legal person until it is actually born, as far as I see things.

But is that unborn child capable of becoming a person? Yes--at a future time, i.e., birth, and that's why I wrote at post 39 that

the unborn are worthy of some legal protection

So:

Do I support partial birth abortion? No, it's disgusting and morally repugnant.

Do I support abortion at any time (without appropriate cause) for individuals who voluntarily consented to engage in activities that led to a pregnancy? No.

Do I support bans on condoms, spermicides, and other birth control methods that prevent a pregnancy? No, at least, not at the federal level.

Do I support making lawful contraceptive methods for victims of rape and incest? Yes, if done so within a short period of time (e.g., one week, but this is arbitrary on my part) following the rape or the act of incest. No abortion for a woman who is eight months into a pregnancy caused by rape!

Do I support the Federal government regulating abortion, as a general rule? No, with one exception: regulation of individuals crossing State and Federal boundaries to solicit abortions (i.e., interstate commerce). Otherwise, repeal Roe v. Wade, and return the issue to the various States.

[EternalVigilance]

So no, a fetus is not a legal person until it is actually born, as far as I see things.

Well, you agree with the Judge Blackmun, so I have no more time for you. Good night.

[EternalVigilance]

I would support legislation, a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement."

The Pauls "act" is insidiously wicked. It says that the states "can" stop abortion, but not that they "must."

Which other unalienable rights do you want the states to be able to alienate if they want to?

[GoldStandard]

Does anyone REALLY believe that Germany and Japan would have been happy with just the Eastern Hemisphere?

Doesn't matter if they were happy about it, they didn't have the manpower to conquer the world.

[EternalVigilance]

By the way, if the child isn’t fully a person most of your post has no basis whatsoever. It’s all your arbitrary , every subjective, opinions. A very poor basis for constitutional self-government and liberty. In fact, your position, and the Pauls, destroys every true basis for both.

[yongin]

The candidates asking for a Palin appearance are those who have not been annointed by the DC establishment. In the Ky race, the DC establishment wants Trey Grayson over Rand Paul.

[EternalVigilance]

And Reagan personhood pro-life, peace through strength, moral conservatives want Bill Johnson.

[browniexyz]

Of course DC wants Greyson — he was a DEMOCRAT until a couple of years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GoldStandard]

And Reagan personhood pro-life, peace through strength, moral conservatives want Bill Johnson.

All 2% of them apparently.

[EternalVigilance]

I’ve seen other polling that tells a different story. The campaign has only just begun.

And besides, I don’t make my decisions on moral issues or candidates based on polls.

Bill Johnson is clearly the best man for the job, and this race is one more test of whether the GOP is going on the ash heap or not. If it chooses Democrats with R’s by their name like Grayson, or pro-choice for states, isolationist, Libertarians like Paul, it deserves to die.

[EternalVigilance]

Grayson was actually the head of the Democrats at Harvard and a national delegate for BILL CLINTON.

He’ll be whatever he thinks he needs to be to garner political power. We need more people like that in Washington like we need a hole in the head.

But the GOP establishment loves him. No surprise, because that’s exactly what they are too.

[browniexyz]

Grayson is a twit. I hope Rand Paul cleans his clock.