Posted on 12/01/2015 7:16:58 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I don’t know how common it was for governors to select Senators. I thought it was usually the state legislatures that elected the Senators.
He’s just as much of a sideshow freak as his dad. That’s all the success his dad ever had, he never mattered, he simply entertained.
>> I don't know how common it was for governors to select Senators. I thought it was usually the state legislatures that elected the Senators. <<
Alberta's Child is correct, the anti-17thers are pushing for state legislatures to choose the U.S. Senators, not Governors.
There was a recent thread discussing statehood for Puerto Rico and Impy & I encountered some anti-17ther whose only objection to PR statehood was that the 17th needed to be abolished first so their legislature would pick the Senators. I explained to this bozo that PR had an overwhelmingly RAT controlled legislature and they would appoint nothing but socialist RATs to the U.S. Senate if his fantasy scenario became reality. I asked if he'd still be OK with Puerto Rican statehood in such a scenario and he quickly left the thread.
They don't like pesky facts getting in the way of their fantasy of a modern-day U.S. Senate filled with Thomas Paine and John Madison clones.
>> I don't know how common it was for governors to select Senators. I thought it was usually the state legislatures that elected the Senators. <<
Alberta's Child is correct, the anti-17thers are pushing for state legislatures to choose the U.S. Senators, not Governors.
There was a recent thread discussing statehood for Puerto Rico and Impy & I encountered some anti-17ther whose only objection to PR statehood was that the 17th needed to be abolished first so their legislature would pick the Senators. I explained to this bozo that PR had an overwhelmingly RAT controlled legislature and they would appoint nothing but socialist RATs to the U.S. Senate if his fantasy scenario became reality. I asked if he'd still be OK with Puerto Rican statehood in such a scenario and he quickly left the thread.
They don't like pesky facts getting in the way of their fantasy of a modern-day U.S. Senate filled with Thomas Paine and James Madison clones.
What success? Coming in 3rd instead of 8th? Big friggin difference.
This is a wider field with more credible candidates than 2008 and 2012, when Ron ran.
Good point!
Good point!
My fault,
I haven’t taken their argument( our buddy Levin’s) the least bit serious so I forgot the details were.
Thanks for politely correcting me.
He needs to get a man’s haircut. And, stand up straight.
In short, altering the selection process of federal offices so voters can vote them out will "destroy our Republic"... UNLESS Rick Perry himself is the one proposing the amendment. Then its a saavy, necessary reform.
Levin will argue both sides of an issue from time to time, but usually it changes based on which party is in the White House at the time, rather than contradicting himself a few chapters later in the same book.
Back on topic to the subject of this thread, I think Rand gets a pass from the Paulbots on issues that they would constantly trash another Republican for doing (like endorsing Mitch McConnell in the primary) That being said, there's no doubt ol' Ron inspired at least 10X the enthusiasm among the Paulbots that little Rand inspires. For whatever reason, they're just not fighting for him.
That is something I noticed after Obama got elected, Levin swapping ‘principles’ when the WH or congress changes parties
I loved posting them here.
Like in 2006 with GWB and a GOP congress and Levin claiming that the Senate filibuster was ‘un constitutional’
Heck, its in one of his books too.
Fast forward to 2009 and Levin is calling for that ‘unconstitutional’ action on almost EVERY bill.
Fast forward to this year, GOP takes the Senate, calling for end to filibuster again.
Nothing wrong with partisanship but then he should spare us the 'I am above it all with the Founders' silliness.
For example, the pro-Oberweis crowd in Illinois spent a decade (2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010) screaming "we've had enough professional politicians in Illinois. How's that workin' out for Illinois? It's time we run a BUSINESSMAN for office!" Then there hero Oberweis FINALLY got elected to a local state senate seat in 2012, and ran again for the U.S. Senate in 2014 -- this time facing a private sector guy. They immediately flip-flopped on their "principles" and screamed that we MUST nominate Oberweis because we need someone with "experience" in office to face off against Dick Durbin, and we're DOOOOOOOOOOOMED if we nominate a private sector guy with no political experience.
And don't get started on their "Bill Brady MUST drop out and endorse Oberweis. We must ALL vote for the HIGHEST POLLING CONSERVATIVE in the primary, or we'll split the vote and a RINO will get in!!" lecture in the 2006 Governor's race, followed by their die-hard support for Adam Andrejewski in the 2010 Governor's race... when he was steadfastly polling in 5th and had no chance of winning the nomination. Not a single one of the former Oberweis fanboys demanded Adam drop out and endorse Brady when the shoe was on the other foot.
But what's really amusing is when they contradict themselves in the SAME election cycle. Again, Perry's book arguing both for and against amending the constitution so a formerly appointed office will be up for re-election by voters. And my favorite, the Gingrich people taking a page from the Oberweis people and rant & raving that we MUST vote for the highest polling conservative in the presidential primary, only to flip-flop mere weeks later and hail Newt for staying in the race when was polling a distant 3rd or 4th place and had only won a single state.
But recall what I said in the comment that you are responding to. I was very careful with it:
Nothing wrong with partisanship but then he should spare us the ‘I am above it all with the Founders’ silliness.
Excellent point. Worse, the Levinites actually BELIEVE it.
Levin infallibility is far worse than Papal infallibality because his followers, unlike the even the most ardent Catholic, actually believe Levin has God-like abilities to be all-wise and all-knowing at all times. His fans officially reached the level of Ron Paul cultists when they drank the "only our guy understands the Constitution and the founders intent" kool-aid.
It would be interesting to see what would happen in Levin and Ron Paul had a debate over the Constitution. Pack both camp's supporters in a room, and police would probably have to tear gas them within five minutes, tops.
I agree about the 2006 governor primary. Since Oberweis lost statewide primaries in 2002 and ‘04, he shouldn’t have considered running in ‘06. He should have stayed out of the race, helping Brady win the primary.
Doubtful it would’ve mattered in 2006. No Republican was going to win the Governorship in that climate.
Give him time. His old man took a while to mature onto the national stage.
Does this mean Rand is going to run for president every four years until he’s 80?
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.