Rand Paul raises $1 million

[Devilman88]

Well, now Paul is polling well above Grayson.

[Zot]

Rand Paul is cultivating relationships with republicans county by county.  Grayson is relying on the national party to get him through.  This is almost a mirror image of the Florida race.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     I find some of Rand Paul's views disturbing, though I suppose he's as good as can get elected in Kentucky.

[bgwah]

I do hope he's nominated.

Same here. The Democrats need to pick up this seat.

There's no reason to think the Democrats would be favored if Rand Paul won the GOP nomination.

He'd certainly give them the best shot.

There's a good chance that a Republican who isn't a raving loony will attract some typically Democratic voters.

Kentucky Democrats? lol

[Stranger in a strange land]

I do hope he's nominated.

Same here. The Democrats need to pick up this seat.

There's no reason to think the Democrats would be favored if Rand Paul won the GOP nomination.

He'd certainly give them the best shot.

There's a good chance that a Republican who isn't a raving loony will attract some typically Democratic voters.

Kentucky Democrats? lol

Kentucky is DINO Heaven - make of that statement what you will

[Zot]

People want to vote for democrats here, but quite often are unable to do so.

Rand Paul has been speaking in heavily democratic areas which is odd given that crossover votes aren't allowed.  It looks like he is preparing for the general election now.

[timmer123]

Rand Paul is very authentic. He'll make a good senator.  This is a "toss up" race now, but by next summer it'll be a likely R.

[Vepres]

I guess he's good for a Kentucky R, but he still has some of the similar unappealing positions of his father (illegal immigration, federal reserve).

[Ronnie]

Rand Paul isn't so bad...I think he would vote with the GOP at least 85% of the time.

[bgwah]

I do hope he's nominated.

Same here. The Democrats need to pick up this seat.

There's no reason to think the Democrats would be favored if Rand Paul won the GOP nomination.

He'd certainly give them the best shot.

There's a good chance that a Republican who isn't a raving loony will attract some typically Democratic voters.

Kentucky Democrats? lol

Kentucky is DINO Heaven - make of that statement what you will

"DINO" in that they like authoritarian Huckabee-style Republicans, not libertarians.

[Beet]

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative.

Ah yes because everyone knows Grayson would've been such a moderate because he voted for Bill Clinton 18 years ago when he was younger than both of us.

[War on Want]

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative.

We also have our chance to win this seat. It's doubtful but it could happen. Who knows what skeletons Paul could have in the closet or who Paul associated with that could be seen poorly through the media's lense.

[War on Want]

My point has been proven.

[Lunar]

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative.

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.

[Beet]

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative.

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.

My point has been proven.

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.

[Lunar]

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative.

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.

My point has been proven.

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.

I would still support someone like Rand over Grayson.  Rand Paul can contribute a valid perspective to the conversation.  Grayson would just be a Chamber of Commerce stooge without anything interesting to say.  Sure, Paul might be more inclined to be the lone objector in unanimous consent clauses, but he'd be far more willing to side with a Democratic coalition on issues of war powers and civil rights.  Paul may be more extreme than Grayson, but at least Paul gives legislative negotiators a viewpoint that they can operate within!  Far too many Republicans [and vice versa when the other party is in charge] 100% oppose issues that they used to support before just because a Democrat is proposing them.  Look at the Republican health care alternative from the early 90's, it looks not that different from HCR reform today.  Look at RomneyCare, not that different.  Yet electing someone like Romney as Senator isn't going to yield productive results, he'll just do whatever his partisan interests dictate him to do.  Although Paul is a minimalist, at least you can begin negotiations with him knowing that he's an honest negotiator.  And that's important.

The idea that Grayson would be a workable partner on any piece of legislation is utterly naive.  At BEST, he'd be like Bob Corker, but 10000% unwilling to negotiate on any issue where Mitch McConnell disagrees, so, he'd be pretty much as useless as McConnell except on rare issues like the bank bailout.  If we have too many more issues like the bank bailout in the near future, we're going to be in so much trouble that it doesn't matter whether there's a Senator Kucinich or Senator Beck sitting in D.C.

[Beet]

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative.

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.

My point has been proven.

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.

I would still support someone like Rand over Grayson.  Rand Paul can contribute a valid perspective to the conversation.  Grayson would just be a Chamber of Commerce stooge.  Sure, Paul might be more inclined to be the lone objector in unanimous consent clauses, but he'd be far more willing to side with a Democratic coalition on issues of war powers and civil rights.

The idea that Grayson would be a workable partner on any piece of legislation is utterly naive.  At BEST, he'd be like Bob Corker, but 10000% unwilling to negotiate on any issue where Mitch McConnell disagrees, so, he'd be pretty much as useless at McConnell except on rare issues like the bank bailout.

On civil rights? Don't you mean civil liberties? On civil rights he's already proven himself farther from the Democratic coalition than Trey Grayson would likely have been.

I don't consider that a rigid perspective is necessarily a more valid one. Just because the Chamber of Commerce does whatever they think will make them more money while Rand Paul does whatever fits with his worldview, it doesn't mean the Chamber of Commerce can't be right when Rand Paul is wrong, or even that the Chamber of Commerce is right less often than Paul. While I'm no fan of the Chamber, the notion that rigid and 'principled' always leads to better outcomes than pluralistic venality is incorrect. I'd rather have a venal money grubbing bastard who will help me pass the right policy than honest opposition that prevents the right policy from getting into place and undermines the people and the nation as a result. There is truth the oft-quoted Frederick the Great saying, "If I wished to punish a province, I would have it governed by philosophers."

[Lunar]

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative.

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.

My point has been proven.

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.

I would still support someone like Rand over Grayson.  Rand Paul can contribute a valid perspective to the conversation.  Grayson would just be a Chamber of Commerce stooge.  Sure, Paul might be more inclined to be the lone objector in unanimous consent clauses, but he'd be far more willing to side with a Democratic coalition on issues of war powers and civil rights.

The idea that Grayson would be a workable partner on any piece of legislation is utterly naive.  At BEST, he'd be like Bob Corker, but 10000% unwilling to negotiate on any issue where Mitch McConnell disagrees, so, he'd be pretty much as useless at McConnell except on rare issues like the bank bailout.

On civil rights? Don't you mean civil liberties? On civil rights he's already proven himself farther from the Democratic coalition than Trey Grayson would likely have been.

I don't consider that a rigid perspective is necessarily a more valid one. Just because the Chamber of Commerce does whatever they think will make them more money while Rand Paul does whatever fits with his worldview, it doesn't mean the Chamber of Commerce can't be right when Rand Paul is wrong, or even that the Chamber of Commerce is right less often than Paul. While I'm no fan of the Chamber, the notion that rigid and 'principled' always leads to better outcomes than pluralistic venality is incorrect. I'd rather have a venal money grubbing bastard who will help me pass the right policy than honest opposition that prevents the right policy from getting into place and undermines the people and the nation as a result. There is truth the oft-quoted Frederick the Great saying, "If I wished to govern a province, I would have it governed by philosophers."

I don't disagree with you on the Chamber of Commerce, but what indication is that that Grayson will perform fair evaluations of legislation that can be worked with?  Or, as you imply, even corrupt evaluations that will result in positive outcomes in your perspective.  Paul gives so many inclinations that he'll be able to work across party lines on a host of issues.  On most economic issues, he'll be utterly entrenched, but Grayson would NEVER be the swing vote on anything, so why not have an ally on the GOP caucus who disagrees with unlimited war powers?

I'm certainly never of the believe that rigid beliefs are the best.  I'm a huge devil's advocate.

[Beet]

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative.

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.

My point has been proven.

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.

I would still support someone like Rand over Grayson.  Rand Paul can contribute a valid perspective to the conversation.  Grayson would just be a Chamber of Commerce stooge.  Sure, Paul might be more inclined to be the lone objector in unanimous consent clauses, but he'd be far more willing to side with a Democratic coalition on issues of war powers and civil rights.

The idea that Grayson would be a workable partner on any piece of legislation is utterly naive.  At BEST, he'd be like Bob Corker, but 10000% unwilling to negotiate on any issue where Mitch McConnell disagrees, so, he'd be pretty much as useless at McConnell except on rare issues like the bank bailout.

On civil rights? Don't you mean civil liberties? On civil rights he's already proven himself farther from the Democratic coalition than Trey Grayson would likely have been.

I don't consider that a rigid perspective is necessarily a more valid one. Just because the Chamber of Commerce does whatever they think will make them more money while Rand Paul does whatever fits with his worldview, it doesn't mean the Chamber of Commerce can't be right when Rand Paul is wrong, or even that the Chamber of Commerce is right less often than Paul. While I'm no fan of the Chamber, the notion that rigid and 'principled' always leads to better outcomes than pluralistic venality is incorrect. I'd rather have a venal money grubbing bastard who will help me pass the right policy than honest opposition that prevents the right policy from getting into place and undermines the people and the nation as a result. There is truth the oft-quoted Frederick the Great saying, "If I wished to govern a province, I would have it governed by philosophers."

I don't disagree with you on the Chamber of Commerce, but what indication is that that Grayson will perform fair evaluations of legislation that can be worked with?  Paul gives so many inclinations that he'll be able to work across party lines on a host of issues.  On most economic issues, he'll be utterly entrenched, but Grayson would NEVER be the swing vote on anything, so why not have an ally on the GOP caucus who disagrees with unlimited war powers?

I'm certainly never of the believe that rigid beliefs are the best.  I'm a huge devil's advocate.

Really? Like what issues would Rand Paul be the swing vote on that Grayson would not?

[So the Heroes Fall]

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.

That's right. All Rand Paul has to do is win a Senate seat in Kentucky, and then all of a sudden a majority will support restoring the gold standard and repealing the Civil Rights Act. All it takes is one Senator who believes in that stuff to bring it about! Just like how Bernie Sanders turned the US socialist so easily.

Oh and:

Really? Like what issues would Rand Paul Grayson be the swing vote on that Grayson Rand Paul would not?

Oh I forgot Grayson supported Clinton 18 years ago so he's obviously an Olympia Snowe clone.

Really, there is likely to be next to no difference between what Paul and Grayson's voting records would look like. But Paul is easier to beat. And if he gets elected, it just means the GOP hold a Senate seat currently held by a lunatic with a lunatic. What's the big deal? With people like DeMint and Inhofe in the Senate and considering what who ever replaces Bob Bennett is obviously going to be like, why fear Rand Paul as the Antichrist?

[Badger]

Because individual senators have a great deal of power with holds and other abilities to single-handedly forstall consideration of issues and nominees. Paul is so much a utopian whackjob he'll likely (ab)use those senitorial perogatives more in a single term then Jesse Helms did in 30 years.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Because individual senators have a great deal of power with holds and other abilities to single-handedly forstall consideration of issues and nominees. Paul is so much a utopian whackjob he'll likely (ab)use those senitorial perogatives more in a single term then Jesse Helms did in 30 years.

But he's such a utopian whackjob that he'll probably block a bunch of stuff when the Republicans control Congress, too.

[Gravis Marketing]

Because individual senators have a great deal of power with holds and other abilities to single-handedly forstall consideration of issues and nominees. Paul is so much a utopian whackjob he'll likely (ab)use those senitorial perogatives more in a single term then Jesse Helms did in 30 years.

But he's such a utopian whackjob that he'll probably block a bunch of stuff when the Republicans control Congress, too.

If he tries, the Republicans will disregard his holds and move forward.