Forget Sarah Palin: It's Rand Paul's moment and Ron Paul's opportunity

The Hill, Washington, DC ^ | 2010-05-17 | Brent Budowsky

[rabscuttle385]

Behind the scenes the insider Republican establishment is now in an uproar as the odds are high that Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination for senator from Kentucky. This would be a major embarrassment to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and raises a big question about 2012: Why is Sarah Palin getting so much attention, and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) so little, from the national media and pundit classes?

Certain pundits appear strangely infatuated with Palin, but it seems to me that if Ron Paul runs for president in 2012, he could win a plurality of delegates in a multi-candidate field. My guess is that Ron Paul does run for president and Sarah Palin does not, but who knows? Why is it that major media are so unwilling to take a close and serious look at Ron Paul as a potential candidate for president, while they pant with excitement at every breath Palin takes?

If Rand Paul wins, it sends cold chills up the spines of Washington Republicans, and it may well force the media to take a close look at what happens if Ron Paul runs for president.

Do the math, folks. If there are three, four, five or more Republicans running for the nomination in 2012, Ron Paul suddenly has a shot at doing very well in the delegate count, possibly winning a plurality of delegates, depending on how many Republicans run and who they are.

If Republican power brokers try to lock him out, what happens if Paul runs as an Independent?

And why don't Republican or Democratic pundits give Ron Paul his due? After Election Day, they just might have no choice, right?

[gunsequalfreedom]

BTW, do you know their foreign policy? Military policy? That Ron, and I’ll bet Rand, thinks we should ...withdraw all our troops worldwide.

Wow, what a radical concept.

Me thinks we now bow to the political parties and no longer to the founding guidance that made this country great. Even in the face of a political pendulum swinging continually to the left, for the sake of the party we marginalize and dismiss those that will help move us towards equilibrium.

George Washington's farewell address.

- The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

- Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

- Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

[Bokababe]

fyi...I looked at your links... It’s all about Bosnia.... I don’t give a shit about Bosnia...and your BS propaganda. F Bosnia...I’m American...I care about America.

FYI, although they relate to Bosnia, those links were primarily about incidents IN AMERICA, because we brought those wars to OUR American towns. I am an American too -- born and bred-- but thanks to YOUR foreign policy lunatics who think that the world is theirs to play with, "They (the jihadists) ARE over here because we were over there."

The point is that you believe in kooky conspiracy theories about how US politicians are making money off the WOT. What utter bullshit.

Politicians are in it for power, not just money, but they need money to get re-elected and many are whores to anyone who'll stuff their campaign coffers. Globalist business interests are in it for money and power-- and they don't give a rat's ass about America. Put those two amoral elements together and you've got megalomaniacs with the power and resources to sell America down the river as it suits them -- and they do it, routinely.

Meanwhile, because the Constitution, has been relegated by politicians as "suggestions" instead of as ironclad constraints on their legislative powers, they do what they want -- and we let them-- as long as they cover it with a blanket called "keeping America safe" -- even when it puts us in more jeopardy.

If you don't think that there aren't $Billions involved on the WOT, then wake up and smell the coffee.

If the Federal government -- even during the Bush Administration -- took the WOT and "protecting America" as seriously as you take it, don't you think that they would have made some move to secure our borders? Don't you think that they would have severely limited even legal immigration from Islamic countries, known to have links to terror? Of course they would! Yet if they did that, they might actually solve the security issue -- or at least greatly improve our chances of protection from attack. And that would mean that there were $Billions less that needed to spent on Homeland Security, TSA and other government contracts to private security firms -- money that that they now spread around to their supporters.

To quote a friend of mine who was with a previous Administration, "The one thing that you can be completely certain about people who say that they don't believe in any conspiracy theories, is that they have never worked for government."

[rbmillerjr]

“but thanks to YOUR foreign policy lunatics who think that the world is theirs to play with, “They (the jihadists) ARE over here because we were over there”

Typical “blame America first” Left wing claptrap...hiding under the skirt of “I’m blaming the politicians not America” lies.

“as long as they cover it with a blanket called “keeping America safe” — even when it puts us in more jeopardy.”

Conservatives don’t buy the “peace through appeasement” logic that if we just let them be, they’ll let us be.

“If you don’t think that there aren’t $Billions involved on the WOT, then wake up and smell the coffee.”

Sure, it’s obvious there is a lot of money involved. But where you Paulnuts go off the deep end is to suggest that our leaders got us into a WOT to make money. It’s conspiratorial mumbo jumbo.

[Bokababe]

"Typical “blame America first” Left wing claptrap...hiding under the skirt of “I’m blaming the politicians not America” lies."

And typical, know-nothing, blah, blah, blah neocon butt covering claiming everyone who disagrees with you is "a Liberal".

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. -Hermann Goering

[rbmillerjr]

“claiming everyone who disagrees with you is “a Liberal””

Insufficient rhetoric.

The foreign policy you advocate, is in reality, painfully close to the Liberal Democrat Party.

That’s reality.

[Bokababe]

The foreign policy you advocate, is in reality, painfully close to the Liberal Democrat Party.That’s reality.

BS. They are liberal interventionists just like you are.

[oneamericanvoice]

If you would like to engage in civil discussion I will continue with you. However, sarcasm will not work, unless you can take as good as you give. I don’t think that is what you really want. Right? I am a patriot same as you. We simply disagree on Rand Paul. If one comes from a place of defense then they can’t see clearly. Like Dennis Prager is fond of saying, “Think a second time.”

The Founders never condoned not engaging outside our borders for the sake of national security. Privatizing military was ended by most nations in the 1800s.

[gunsequalfreedom]

The Founders never condoned not engaging outside our borders for the sake of national security. Privatizing military was ended by most nations in the 1800s.

We are way beyond anything our founding fathers envisioned with regards to foreign entanglements.

The debate is not about Rand Paul, it is about foreign policy how to swing the pendulum in the other direction. My view is that instead of taking a position against someone like Rand Paul, instead of the party smearing someone like him, the Republican Party should be embracing him. He will help move the pendulum in the conservative direction.

Even if he did not get his entire foreign policy wish list, I think he would be happy to see some progress in the right direction. I know I would. To the extent Rand Paul can help, I say welcome aboard.

This is my belief and you can disagree with it, but I believe the GOP nationally and many local GOP organizations have become all about keeping power for the party and give not a wit about advancing conservative initiatives. Bringing someone like Rand Paul (and many others) into the fold is a threat to their hold on the party.

[rbmillerjr]

“They are liberal interventionists just like you are.”

“Interventionist” is a loaded liberal word, not unlike “imperialist”.

You are soooo transparent.

Should we be in Afghanistan?

[Bokababe]

You never answered my questions:

If the Federal government -- even during the Bush Administration -- took the WOT and "protecting America" as seriously as you take it, don't you think that they would have made some move to secure our borders? Don't you think that they would have severely limited even legal immigration from Islamic countries who were known to have links to terror?

Pony up, rb.

"Should we be in Afghanistan?"

Now, no -- because we should have declared war and scorched earth Afghanistan eight years ago.

You don't go to war without a set of objectives and a plan on how to meet them in some reasonable period of time. Instead, we have been in Afghanistan more than twice as long as it took to change the entire world order during WWII -- and we still don't know when our troops are coming home as now the Afghanistan war bleeds into Pakistan. That's BS.

Afghanistan should have been our one and only focus, not Iraq. Instead GWB used 9/11 as an excuse to do what he had been wanting to do for years, invade Iraq..

We had every reason to take down Saddam in 1990 in the first Gulf war, but GHB didn't have the balls.

[rbmillerjr]

“You never answered my questions:

If the Federal government — even during the Bush Administration — took the WOT and “protecting America” as seriously as you take it, don’t you think that they would have made some move to secure our borders? Don’t you think that they would have severely limited even legal immigration from Islamic countries who were known to have links to terror? “”

Both Democrat and Republican Parties have failed to protect our borders, one Party is catering to simple votes and politics in the future and the other Party is catering to business interests for cheap labor.

However that is a stronger issue for Democrats due to the power of future votes. That is just one aspect of national security.

How does this prove your point that we should adopt appeasement in relation to terrorists? It doesn’t. Because our security isn’t being maximized, we should just give up, concede and appease because it’s not perfect? Try to make a better point.

[Britt0n]

Hands down, Bokababe handed you your a$$ on a platter. Neocons go round and round, like a dog chasing their tale.

Everything will be A-okay, once we put the Republicans back in power in November! */s

*Remember Contract with America?

[Britt0n]

Should we be in Afghanistan?
____________________________________

Yes! Do guard the poppies!