Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 19, 2019, 10:53:21 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2010 Elections
  Rand Paul raises $1 million (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Rand Paul raises $1 million  (Read 16481 times)
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,423
Ireland, Republic of
« on: September 23, 2009, 08:38:52 pm »

Me too, I bet Rand would make for a hilarious Senator.
Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,423
Ireland, Republic of
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2009, 07:11:04 am »

Please dont tell me he was named after Ayn Rand.

lol I think everyone has this moment of realization at some point, Randall chose the nickname during his Father's Libertarian presidential campaign in the 80s or whenever that was, in celebration of Ayn Rand.
Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,423
Ireland, Republic of
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2009, 01:33:15 am »

He still polls worse than SoS Trey Grayson in both the primary and the general

At this point, that's all name recognition.

Still, money don't necessarily equal success in campaigns and I haven't seen him on TV to make a judgment there yet either.

I probably know the most about Kentucky politics on this board, being a daily reader of KY politics,

and Paul does NOT have his campaign together whatsoever, his campaign keeps making childish errors indicative of a poorly run grassroots campaign

He sounds okay on TV, but he spends most of his time on national programs like Morning Joe and FOX News, and he's against the entire Republican establishment that wants a reliable conservative vote from Kentucky

Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,423
Ireland, Republic of
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2009, 06:11:22 pm »

Money doesn't translate into votes, obviously.

Ron Paul demonstrated that already, and the Kentucky GOP primary is hardly the libertarian heartland of America

If Rand is willing to accuse Trey of being a government-loving Clinton-voting liberal in sharp negative ads, Rand will have a better chance
Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,423
Ireland, Republic of
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2009, 09:36:54 pm »

that won't be his problem, Senate candidates have a very limited window of opportunity from which to send a very limited message
Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,423
Ireland, Republic of
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2010, 06:53:32 pm »

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. Roll Eyes

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.
Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,423
Ireland, Republic of
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2010, 09:18:28 pm »
« Edited: May 21, 2010, 09:25:28 pm by 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. Roll Eyes

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. Tongue

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.
Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,423
Ireland, Republic of
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2010, 09:27:40 pm »

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. Roll Eyes

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. Tongue

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC