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

[GoldStandard]

I’ve seen other polling that tells a different story.

What 3%?

Johnson's been at 2% in three seperate scientific polls spanning nearly three months. Johnson has been trailing Roger Thoney in the polls and Thoney hasn't campaigned one iota. He has $3,000 cash on hand and $32,000 debt.

Anyone with a lick of common sense can tell he ain't winning squat.

[rabscuttle385]

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.

I thought you said you had "no more time" for me!

Large parts of my earlier post can be justified readily, actually: e.g., the argument that "the unborn are worthy of some legal protection" can be justified on straight utilitarian grounds, as they represent the continuation of society, which is obviously a good thing for a self-interested society that on the whole wants to continue existing into the future.

A very poor basis for constitutional self-government and liberty.

Since when is the sovereignty of the States a poor basis for self-government and liberty? Let me remind you that we are--or at least, we should be--a nation of fifty sovereign States, not fifty provinces subject to the rule of a central government in Washington!

[EternalVigilance]

Trey Grayson's Troubling Campaign Tactics [Run, Trey, Run!]

[EternalVigilance]

Large parts of my earlier post can be justified readily

Yes, we've had an entire political and legal class doing so for more than 35 years. And the result is 50 million or more babies tortured to death.

[EternalVigilance]

Since when is the sovereignty of the States a poor basis for self-government and liberty?

State sovereignty is not superior to the God-given, unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property.

[EternalVigilance]

straight utilitarian grounds

Hundreds of millions died at the hands of those who held to that philosophy in the last century.

as they represent the continuation of society, which is obviously a good thing for a self-interested society that on the whole wants to continue existing into the future.

Utter nonsense. Killing posterity does the exact opposite.

[rabscuttle385]

State sovereignty is not superior to the God-given, unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property.

Two questions:

One, would you prefer to deal with nine Americans in black robes in Washington or your state government?

Two, if another country's government was committing what you perceived as morally reprehensible (yet perfectly legal, according to that country's laws) acts, yet not in any way committing acts of violence (war) against the United States, would you support using U.S. military and other resources to enter into that country, overthrow its government, and force those within its jurisdiction to cease acting in such a manner?

[EternalVigilance]

One, I would prefer that ALL sworn officers of the United States keep their sworn oaths to protect and defend innocent human life, to secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Two, only if it is done in the interest of securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

[The Comedian]

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?

How's your holy war going against the infringement of the 2nd Amendment by every state concealed carry law?

Or your demand that Federal drug laws be repealed?

Or are you only selectively outraged at Ron Paul for daring to be a clear anti-Federalist and supporting one of the few pieces of legislation which actually is worded to be Constitutionally valid?

Surely not, for that would be the height of hypocrisy, wouldn't it?

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

[Bokababe]

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

Ah yes, I suppose it was "insidious wickedness" that prompted Ron Paul to introduce H.R.1233 - Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act of 2009: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family plan..."

But then again, Ron and Rand Paul back what can be done, whereas in the rules of your Holy War, if you can't save every child from abortion, might as well not save any.

That's insane.

[BobL]

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

Sorry, General, but Japan did manage to tie up a LOT of the world with their meager manpower.

[Republican Wildcat]

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

Do you Rand Paul supporters EVER tell the truth? Ever?

[browniexyz]

You mean the truth about Trey Greyson being a Clinton delegate? Of course!! Say it loud, Trey, you’re a Dem and you’re proud!

[Republican Wildcat]

Are you really that ignorant? Grayson would have been, at most, 20 years old then, assuming your allegation is even correct, and given your whopper above that Trey has only been a Republican for “a few years” there’s no reason to believe your comment is true...but even if it is, it’s pretty ridiculous.

[Republican Wildcat]

You mean the truth about Trey Greyson being a Clinton delegate?

And here's another problem for you - I've looked it up - and Trey Grayson was NEVER a Clinton delegate. This is just another blatant, outrageous lie you and the Rand Paul camp have been spreading. It's disgusting and typical.

[browniexyz]

No, Mr. Wildcat, it’s a problem for you. See www.treygraysonforsenate.com where he himself proudly admits he was a Clinton delegate. And by the way, while I am not a Rand Paul “person” as you say, you clearly are a “Treygraysonperson”. Check out the guy’s OWN website, Mr. Wildcat. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have had it with RINOS and if you were a true Reaganite, as am I, you would be fed up, too. Please don’t persist in your silly arguing.

[Republican Wildcat]

He was never a Clinton Delegate. That’s a bald faced, blatant lie - one of a number of bald faced lies on that site and being told by people like you. It’s disgusting and an indictment on your character to keep pushing that lie.

[Republican Wildcat]

Check out the guy’s OWN website, Mr. Wildcat

And are you really that ignorant to think that website you put up is Trey Grayson's website? Did you even read it? Obviously not Trey Grayson's website to anyone looking at it with a modicum of intelligence.

No, I will not stop my "silly arguing" - I will continue to expose the outrageous falsehoods being peddled either wittingly or unwittingly by you and people like you. If you persist in this nonsense I will continue to show up and shine the light of truth.

By the way, here is Trey Grayson's website: http://www.treygrayson.com - as opposed to the obviously phony one set up to defame Grayson that you linked and presented as the real one.

[browniexyz]

Fine, Trey, thanks for pointing out your “real” website. Not that it will help the candidacy much. Kentucky is finished with Republicans like you!

[BillyBoy]

>>> 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, <<

Well, it seems to me that it would be the national government in D.C. deciding what laws North Dakota would be follow. It wouldn't be up to a citizen in the commonwealth of Virgina to determine national policy for North Dakota.

Now, that being said... Rabscuttle, since you don't think it's right for a national policy that allows those outside North Dakota to tell North Dakota what to do regarding guns, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, trial by jury, or parental rights, then shouldn't you support repealing the ENTIRE bill of rights?

Remember, prior to their ratification in 1791, the original 1789 language of the constitution was silent on those matters and left it up to local and state governments to decide policy on those matters as they saw fight. It wasn't until the constitution was amended that we had a sweeping, national policy on right to bear arms or freedom of the press that all states were bound to obey.

Since you argue the feds should have no authority to guarantee protection of innocent human life throughout our nation, then logically they should have no right to protect the rights of gun owners or freedom of speech or force any other human rights as policy in all 50 states.

Shouldn't we therefore repeal the 2nd amendment and stop the feds from "interfering" with state governments like Massachusetts and Illinois desires to ban all firearms within their state boundaries?

Wouldn't that be a victory for "federalism" and "states rights", whereas keeping the bill of rights and having the feds "impose their will" and force all 50 states to maintain basic liberties for their citizens be an example of "big government"?