Rand Paul

[GP1]

Update: Paul 49% Conway 41%

This is a drop from a 25% lead to an 8% point lead. Rand has been quiet. If I were Conway, i would try to goad him into talking, and get the national media frenzied up again. The anti-establishment fervor will not be a part of this race because they are both new to the seat.

The problem Conway has is eventually he is going to have to start talking. Once he does that, the rest of the state will realize he is a leftist. This could be as close as he gets to Paul.

[cornbread]

Update: Paul 49% Conway 41%

This is a drop from a 25% lead to an 8% point lead. Rand has been quiet. If I were Conway, i would try to goad him into talking, and get the national media frenzied up again. The anti-establishment fervor will not be a part of this race because they are both new to the seat.

The problem Conway has is eventually he is going to have to start talking. Once he does that, the rest of the state will realize he is a leftist. This could be as close as he gets to Paul.

Very true. This election is very much about defining Rand Paul. I hope I can watch their debates this summer online. Dems have gotten pretty good during recent elections at tacking to the center and peeling away at the middle; I bet it gets much closer.

[GP1]

Update: Paul 49% Conway 41%

This is a drop from a 25% lead to an 8% point lead. Rand has been quiet. If I were Conway, i would try to goad him into talking, and get the national media frenzied up again. The anti-establishment fervor will not be a part of this race because they are both new to the seat.

The problem Conway has is eventually he is going to have to start talking. Once he does that, the rest of the state will realize he is a leftist. This could be as close as he gets to Paul.

Very true. This election is very much about defining Rand Paul. I hope I can watch their debates this summer online. Dems have gotten pretty good during recent elections at tacking to the center and peeling away at the middle; I bet it gets much closer.

The only thing the Democrats have gotten good at is keeping quiet while Republicans slouch to the left and lose public support. Democrats are as far left as they ever have been....with Republicans not far behind. KY is too Red of a state for Paul to lose this one. Democrats are in heap big trouble this year in states far more Purple than KY.

[Z.I.P.]

The only thing the Democrats have gotten good at is keeping quiet while Republicans slouch to the left and lose public support. Democrats are as far left as they ever have been....with Republicans not far behind. KY is too Red of a state for Paul to lose this one. Democrats are in heap big trouble this year in states far more Purple than KY.

Well, in part this is a perceptive statement on GP's behalf. After a quarter-century of liberalism and neo-liberalism (from both parties, but especially the GOP), Democrats have been shaken awake by the grassroots of their party to realize that the gap between rich and poor is the greatest it has been in over a century of wealth and opportunity maldistribution. The last time that inequality was this great, we had a progressive era (led in part by that icon of Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt), and a populist movement that was brutally opposed by fed troops.

But on the other hand, one of my favorite (comedic) statements from American "conservatives" is the deadpan remark, "The US is a center-right nation". Well of course it is dummy! There are only two political parties allowed in the US, one in the center, and one on the right! America will change if and when it is permitted to have a full political spectrum, instead of two thirds of one. And don't get me wrong, I'm not personally a supporter of "left-of-center" (by international standards) politicians. But, the influence and impact of having the involvement of a real left would be huge. Even a "tiny" and relatively irrelevant left-of-center party like the New Democrats puts Canada to the left of the US, even though their other two parties are center (Liberals) and right (Tories). This lack of a "real left" is what allows out-of-this-world rhetoric like calling middle-of-the-road Democrats, like the current POTUS the 'S' word. The other effect of that is to legitimize some of the elements of the far left who are often as loony as their opponents on the Tea Party right.

[Hilltopper]

The only thing the Democrats have gotten good at is keeping quiet while Republicans slouch to the left and lose public support. Democrats are as far left as they ever have been....with Republicans not far behind. KY is too Red of a state for Paul to lose this one. Democrats are in heap big trouble this year in states far more Purple than KY.

Well, in part this is a perceptive statement on GP's behalf. After a quarter-century of liberalism and neo-liberalism (from both parties, but especially the GOP), Democrats have been shaken awake by the grassroots of their party to realize that the gap between rich and poor is the greatest it has been in over a century of wealth and opportunity maldistribution. The last time that inequality was this great, we had a progressive era (led in part by that icon of Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt), and a populist movement that was brutally opposed by fed troops.

But on the other hand, one of my favorite (comedic) statements from American "conservatives" is the deadpan remark, "The US is a center-right nation". Well of course it is dummy! There are only two political parties allowed in the US, one in the center, and one on the right! America will change if and when it is permitted to have a full political spectrum, instead of two thirds of one. And don't get me wrong, I'm not personally a supporter of "left-of-center" (by international standards) politicians. But, the influence and impact of having the involvement of a real left would be huge. Even a "tiny" and relatively irrelevant left-of-center party like the New Democrats puts Canada to the left of the US, even though their other two parties are center (Liberals) and right (Tories). This lack of a "real left" is what allows out-of-this-world rhetoric like calling middle-of-the-road Democrats, like the current POTUS the 'S' word. The other effect of that is to legitimize some of the elements of the far left who are often as loony as their opponents on the Tea Party right.

That would make for a good routine on Comedy Central. After all, thats where most of the left gets their talking points.

[Dave in Green]

A common tactic of both the left and the right is to try to convince the electorate that extremists from the other side have taken over and pushed the country way too far to either the right or the left, thus setting up America for a big fall. Fear is a powerful motivator to get a lazy electorate out to the polls.

So I always listen to who is preaching the fear factor the loudest to get an idea of which side is more desperate to gain power. With desperation comes even greater distortions about how bad things are going to be if that other evil party takes over. Fact-checking the wildest claims of each side can be enlightening.

America's two-party system, along with the Constitution's system of separation of powers and checks and balances, tends to balance and moderate the extremes of both the left and right. As long as things don't swerve too far to the left or too far to the right for extended periods, American remains generally moderate and balanced.

Voters closest to the center are critical to maintaining this balance, as the most extreme leftists and rightists are totally entrenched in their belief systems. In essence, the true believers of both the right and the left are "sellers" pushing agendas.

Voters closest to the center are "buyers" looking to see which side has the best solutions at any given time. These swing voters are the ones who are not committed to extreme political dogma, but are pragmatists who know from past experience that neither extreme has all the answers, and what's most important is what works best for all.

Personally, I'm a "buyer" and not a "seller." I'm always looking for the best ideas, regardless of which side they come from. My vote is won by good ideas, not fear and deception. Political sales people who preach anger and hate to me will be shown the door.

[cornbread]

A common tactic of both the left and the right is to try to convince the electorate that extremists from the other side have taken over and pushed the country way too far to either the right or the left, thus setting up America for a big fall. Fear is a powerful motivator to get a lazy electorate out to the polls.

So I always listen to who is preaching the fear factor the loudest to get an idea of which side is more desperate to gain power. With desperation comes even greater distortions about how bad things are going to be if that other evil party takes over. Fact-checking the wildest claims of each side can be enlightening.

America's two-party system, along with the Constitution's system of separation of powers and checks and balances, tends to balance and moderate the extremes of both the left and right. As long as things don't swerve too far to the left or too far to the right for extended periods, American remains generally moderate and balanced.

Voters closest to the center are critical to maintaining this balance, as the most extreme leftists and rightists are totally entrenched in their belief systems. In essence, the true believers of both the right and the left are "sellers" pushing agendas.

Voters closest to the center are "buyers" looking to see which side has the best solutions at any given time. These swing voters are the ones who are not committed to extreme political dogma, but are pragmatists who know from past experience that neither extreme has all the answers, and what's most important is what works best for all.

Personally, I'm a "buyer" and not a "seller." I'm always looking for the best ideas, regardless of which side they come from. My vote is won by good ideas, not fear and deception. Political sales people who preach anger and hate to me will be shown the door.

I like the way you envision it. Did you pick that up somewhere or make it up yourself?

[Z.I.P.]

A common tactic of both the left and the right is to try to convince the electorate that extremists from the other side have taken over and pushed the country way too far to either the right or the left, thus setting up America for a big fall. Fear is a powerful motivator to get a lazy electorate out to the polls.

So I always listen to who is preaching the fear factor the loudest to get an idea of which side is more desperate to gain power. With desperation comes even greater distortions about how bad things are going to be if that other evil party takes over. Fact-checking the wildest claims of each side can be enlightening.

America's two-party system, along with the Constitution's system of separation of powers and checks and balances, tends to balance and moderate the extremes of both the left and right. As long as things don't swerve too far to the left or too far to the right for extended periods, American remains generally moderate and balanced.

Voters closest to the center are critical to maintaining this balance, as the most extreme leftists and rightists are totally entrenched in their belief systems. In essence, the true believers of both the right and the left are "sellers" pushing agendas.

Voters closest to the center are "buyers" looking to see which side has the best solutions at any given time. These swing voters are the ones who are not committed to extreme political dogma, but are pragmatists who know from past experience that neither extreme has all the answers, and what's most important is what works best for all.

Personally, I'm a "buyer" and not a "seller." I'm always looking for the best ideas, regardless of which side they come from. My vote is won by good ideas, not fear and deception. Political sales people who preach anger and hate to me will be shown the door.

I like the way you envision it. Did you pick that up somewhere or make it up yourself?

Actually, that's the same "conservative center" rhetoric that you get to hear and read every day from the so-called "mainstream media". The owners of that media work very hard to ensure that as few truly "outside the box" ideas as possible ever hear or see the light of day, regardless of whether they come from the right or left (though the right is very much better represented on network news, and that one cable hole). Sorry for my skepticism, but I've been paying close attention to this subject since my days of specializing in "sociology of knowledge" at Olin Hall. Yes, there is a connection between access to power and access to information. Both are controlled by the same forces, and that is not a conspiracy theory, just reality.

[cornbread]

Actually, that's the same "conservative center" rhetoric that you get to hear and read every day from the so-called "mainstream media". The owners of that media work very hard to ensure that as few truly "outside the box" ideas as possible ever hear or see the light of day, regardless of whether they come from the right or left (though the right is very much better represented on network news, and that one cable hole). Sorry for my skepticism, but I've been paying close attention to this subject since my days of specializing in "sociology of knowledge" at Olin Hall. Yes, there is a connection between access to power and access to information. Both are controlled by the same forces, and that is not a conspiracy theory, just reality.

I was talking more about the "buyers" and "sellers" definition you applied to politics in general. It sounds like a good way to explain ideas in context of coverage and leveraged marketing to an audience.

[Dave in Green]

I like the way you envision it. Did you pick that up somewhere or make it up yourself?

Output = input + processing. It's the same for all of us. Individual differences lie in the quantity, quality, and balance of all three elements.

I was always really embarassed as a kid that I was so bad at memorization. I could never make it as a dittohead. To compensate, I had to learn to think things out for myself and put them in my own words instead of just quoting. So my input may undergo different processing than the norm before being output.

Specifically addressing the concept of "sellers" and "buyers" in politics, I don't recall ever reading or hearing of it put exactly that way. It just came to me in the course of processing the current state of political discourse. Doesn't mean it hasn't been expressed before by others. Few thoughts are truly unique and original.

[Dave in Green]

Actually, that's the same "conservative center" rhetoric that you get to hear and read every day from the so-called "mainstream media". The owners of that media work very hard to ensure that as few truly "outside the box" ideas as possible ever hear or see the light of day, regardless of whether they come from the right or left (though the right is very much better represented on network news, and that one cable hole). Sorry for my skepticism, but I've been paying close attention to this subject since my days of specializing in "sociology of knowledge" at Olin Hall. Yes, there is a connection between access to power and access to information. Both are controlled by the same forces, and that is not a conspiracy theory, just reality.

Few "outside the box" ideas are worthy of seeing the light of day. They are mostly trial and error experiments. Ever wonder why it's called "trial and error" rather than "trial and success?" Because errors outnumber successes exponentially. For every Albert Einstein there are millions of snake oil salesmen. Should they all get equal coverage in the media? What's a fair process for separating the winners from the losers? Who do you trust to make the call?

[g-mann17]

Did someone say Snake Oil Salesman?

Because I have a few ideas. If your willing to listen and buy my wonder tonic, it will make all your troubles go away. It is genuinely guaranteed to remove gout, scurvy, goiters, anxiety, insomnia, and it will make the opposite sex more attractive. This wonder drink, contains 99% pure coca powder, the wonder leaf that made the Mayans and Aztecs so fierce.

So listen in ladies and gentlemen as I tell you how to fix this country...

Realize that government intervention in corporate America is not socialism it's simple rule making keeping companies honest and preventing monopolization. Economics is as much mysticism as it is science. It requires a perfect environment that disassociates human behavior (greed).

Real government intervention and infringement on rights comes in the form of laws. Mandated highways that funds are contingent on states obeying outdated puritanical rules. No bid contracts for government construction and equipment. Laws mandating what adults can and cannot do despite consent by both parties. Laws that infringe on your freedom while saving banks and insurance companies money. Ah yes, and lets not forget a privatized "credit" bureau that is only required to name and address match for "credit" information at the same time placing the burden of proof on consumers. Laws that say what material you may have access to, and what is "good for you".

[cornbread]

Few thoughts are truly unique and original.

Not a special snowflake here... But there is something comforting in that. Not being original or vastly different is acceptable; a feeling of shared destiny and humanity I guess.

Now back to hating on Rand Paul.

Working Man Rand Paul lost an Anthem. Can no longer play Rush songs

note:

Ayn Rand inspired some of their music.

[Z.I.P.]

Few thoughts are truly unique and original.

Not a special snowflake here... But there is something comforting in that. Not being original or vastly different is acceptable; a feeling of shared destiny and humanity I guess.

Now back to hating on Rand Paul.

Working Man Rand Paul lost an Anthem. Can no longer play Rush songs

note:

Ayn Rand inspired some of their music.

Just to show that Rush is treating all parties alike, they didn't even allow Tom Sawyer to use the song "Tom Sawyer"!

[GP1]

Actually, that's the same "conservative center" rhetoric that you get to hear and read every day from the so-called "mainstream media". The owners of that media work very hard to ensure that as few truly "outside the box" ideas as possible ever hear or see the light of day, regardless of whether they come from the right or left (though the right is very much better represented on network news, and that one cable hole). Sorry for my skepticism, but I've been paying close attention to this subject since my days of specializing in "sociology of knowledge" at Olin Hall. Yes, there is a connection between access to power and access to information. Both are controlled by the same forces, and that is not a conspiracy theory, just reality.

Actually, really smart people are rarely delivering the news. There are too many people in the mainstream media who where former staffers for various political figures. George Stephanopoulous (sp?), Bill Kristol, etc. People in politics are really stupid people. We have really stupid people talking on tv about politics. Our society is getting more stupid because we listen to stupid people. Seems simple to me.

MSNBC is owned by General Electric and it is a small part of their business portfolio. They literally don't have time to care about what is said on that network.

[Dr Z]

People in politics are really stupid people.

Voters aren't that smart either. I think the heat is melting some brains in SC.

DeMint, a conservative Republican and tea party darling pursuing a second term, has marshaled a $3.5 million war chest already to face the bare-pockets Democratic underdog.

Sounds like an easy way to get reelected, make sure you run against a homeless guy who can hardly speak.

You like watching train wrecks GP1, hopefully this guy agrees to some debates.

[cornbread]

Hmmm.... interesting.

I'll call your raise of one Crazy Democrat... and raise you one republican being an idiot.

Best comments on it yet. I hope they are his.

[meatwad]

Bump.

[Zippysgotagun]

Bump.

[GP1]

People in politics are really stupid people.

Voters aren't that smart either. I think the heat is melting some brains in SC.

DeMint, a conservative Republican and tea party darling pursuing a second term, has marshaled a $3.5 million war chest already to face the bare-pockets Democratic underdog.

Sounds like an easy way to get reelected, make sure you run against a homeless guy who can hardly speak.

You like watching train wrecks GP1, hopefully this guy agrees to some debates.

I had the chance to vote for Senate in SC and voted for Green. I knew he wasn't going to win and as long as I had a vote to waste, why not. My thinking was since I believe Washington is full of retards, I my as well vote for a real one. Made sense at the time and the logic still holds.

[ksu sucks]

It's apparent that some of you need a history lesson.

There's growing split in the Republican party between the neoconservatives(Bush,Cheney,McCain,Graham, etc) and the true conservatives(Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Barry Goldwater, Bob Barr, etc). Neoconservatives do NOT represent true conservatism. If you look it up, all neoconservatives are a product of former Democrats who switched partisanship when they become disgruntled with the movement of the Democratic party(Google "Irving Kristol"). The fact is, there is very little difference between liberals and neocon's when it comes to foreign and monetary policy. It's evident that many Americans on both ends of the political spectrum don't(and don't want to) understand this.

As for the tea party; it's a movement, not an organized political party. There are many different groups who are a part of the movement. To try and lump them all together and claim that 'society has matured' beyond their message is laughable. Once people started to hear Ron Paul's message of fiscal conservatism and non-interventionism foreign policies during the Republican primary debates, there was an outbreak of support for his presidential campaign. He broke single day campaign fund raising records multiple times.

Of course, the second he starting gaining momentum, Fox News blocked him from appearing at the New Hampshire primary. It was a very shady move. Once they heard Fox News' decision, the New Hampshire Republican Party immediately dropped it's sponsorship of the event. It's obvious that the neoconservative right(more specifically, the corporate lobbyists that fund them) is deathly afraid of what a guy like Ron Paul could do for this country.

Check out the video below to get a taste of what I'm talking about:

[Z.I.P.]

It's apparent that some of you need a history lesson.

There's growing split in the Republican party between the neoconservatives(Bush,Cheney,McCain,Graham, etc) and the true conservatives(Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Barry Goldwater, Bob Barr, etc). Neoconservatives do NOT represent true conservatism. If you look it up, all neoconservatives are a product of former Democrats who switched partisanship when they become disgruntled with the movement of the Democratic party(Google "Irving Kristol"). The fact is, there is very little difference between liberals and neocon's when it comes to foreign and monetary policy. It's evident that many Americans on both ends of the political spectrum don't(and don't want to) understand this.

As for the tea party; it's a movement, not an organized political party. There are many different groups who are a part of the movement. To try and lump them all together and claim that 'society has matured' beyond their message is laughable. Once people started to hear Ron Paul's message of fiscal conservatism and non-interventionism foreign policies during the Republican primary debates, there was an outbreak of support for his presidential campaign. He broke single day campaign fund raising records multiple times.

Of course, the second he starting gaining momentum, Fox News blocked him from appearing at the New Hampshire primary. It was a very shady move. Once they heard Fox News' decision, the New Hampshire Republican Party immediately dropped it's sponsorship of the event. It's obvious that the neoconservative right(more specifically, the corporate lobbyists that fund them) is deathly afraid of what a guy like Ron Paul could do for this country.

Check out the video below to get a taste of what I'm talking about:

Can't State sucks, have you heard? The same lobbyists are funding the Tea Party. Ever heard of Dick Armey and Freedomworks?

I think that one way Obama can survive is to more openly break with the generals and declare a definite end date to combat operations in Afghanistan. That would not just endear him to his base, but help divide the GOP branches of libertarians and neo-cons.

[ksu sucks]

Can't State sucks, have you heard? The same lobbyists are funding the Tea Party. Ever heard of Dick Armey and Freedomworks?

Z.I.P, apparently you missed the following in my last post:

As for the tea party; it's a movement, not an organized political party. There are many different groups who are a part of the movement. To try and lump them all together and claim that 'society has matured' beyond their message is laughable. Once people started to hear Ron Paul's message of fiscal conservatism and non-interventionism foreign policies during the Republican primary debates, there was an outbreak of support for his presidential campaign. He broke single day campaign fund raising records multiple times.

If Chairman Dick Armey decides to financially support Ron Paul and LB's specifically, that's fine as well. Just because you accept funds from an individual doesn't mean you support all(or any) of their ideals.

I think it's important to distinguish between lobbyists who represent large corporations and sway the vote of a politician on a specific issue, and individuals or groups who contribute to a large, ideologically diverse movement.

I think that one way Obama can survive is to more openly break with the generals and declare a definite end date to combat operations in Afghanistan. That would not just endear him to his base, but help divide the GOP branches of libertarians and neo-cons.

Dream on. His voting record shows his true colors. His foreign policy has for the most part been a continuation of the Bush Regime.

If he were to actually end combat operations in Afghanistan, he would suffer serious backlash come 2012. Idiot America(read:Sarah Palin supporters) would go nuts. They want someone like McCain, who actually ran in 2008 on the notion that we should stay in Afghanistan for 100+ years....and then won the Republican primary.

It's mind boggling, really.

[Z.I.P.]

Z.I.P, apparently you missed the following in my last post:

As for the tea party; it's a movement, not an organized political party. There are many different groups who are a part of the movement. To try and lump them all together and claim that 'society has matured' beyond their message is laughable. Once people started to hear Ron Paul's message of fiscal conservatism and non-interventionism foreign policies during the Republican primary debates, there was an outbreak of support for his presidential campaign. He broke single day campaign fund raising records multiple times.

If Chairman Dick Armey decides to financially support Ron Paul and LB's specifically, that's fine as well. Just because you accept funds from an individual doesn't mean you support all(or any) of their ideals.

I think it's important to distinguish between lobbyists who represent large corporations and sway the vote of a politician on a specific issue, and individuals or groups who contribute to a large, ideologically diverse movement.

I think that one way Obama can survive is to more openly break with the generals and declare a definite end date to combat operations in Afghanistan. That would not just endear him to his base, but help divide the GOP branches of libertarians and neo-cons.

Dream on. His voting record shows his true colors. His foreign policy has for the most part been a continuation of the Bush Regime.

If he were to actually end combat operations in Afghanistan, he would suffer serious backlash come 2012. Idiot America(read:Sarah Palin supporters) would go nuts. They want someone like McCain, who actually ran in 2008 on the notion that we should stay in Afghanistan for 100+ years....and then won the Republican primary.

It's mind boggling, really.

See, that's exactly what I said -- IF Obama would get out of AFG, it would SPLIT the GOP, giving an upper hand to the Paliniacs, the Democrats' dream opponent in 2012. Unfortunately, I have to agree that BO has shown no inclination to stand up to either the Tea Party OR the Pentagon.

And BTW -- Dick Armey is nothing but a huge pipeline for corporate cash. Not to say that the Dems don't have their own pipelines, but how bouts plugging them all?

[ksu sucks]

See, that's exactly what I said -- IF Obama would get out of AFG, it would SPLIT the GOP, giving an upper hand to the Paliniacs, the Democrats' dream opponent in 2012. Unfortunately, I have to agree that BO has shown no inclination to stand up to either the Tea Party OR the Pentagon.

I think you're underestimating just how stupid the American public is. Swing states like Ohio might actually vote for a Palin-esque candidate in 2012, which would be bad news for Barack & company and even worse news for the American people.

And BTW -- Dick Armey is nothing but a huge pipeline for corporate cash. Not to say that the Dems don't have their own pipelines, but how bouts plugging them all?

Trust me, Z.I.P, I give most Republicans plenty of credit for being a bunch of corporate pawns.

I have a tad more respect for Democrats than I do Republicans. When you get down to it, at least Democrats are honest about their economic policies. Republicans preach fiscal conservatism and then go blow cash like there's no tomorrow. Also, the whole social conservatism BS isn't my cup of tea, either.

So when people like myself are voting Republican, it's safe to say(in the words of James Carville): "This is not my uncle's Republican party."