It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: Pandora on April 03, 2011, 11:05:47 AM
-
Is this who we are now? Humiliating dullards for sport? Poor, poor Harry. (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/01/bad-news-rand-paul-outsmarts-embarrasses-slow-witted-democrat/comment-page-1/#comments)
POOR HARRY!? Is there any doubt what an asshole "Allahpundit" is?
In Reid’s defense, much like Bob Gates, he’s only trying to swallow the “turd sandwich” prepared by our master chef in the White House.
On Wednesday, Paul, with little notice, attached an amendment to the small-business re-authorization bill. The amendment, which chastises President Obama for his actions in Libya, urges members to adopt the president’s own words as “the sense of the Senate.”
To make his point, Paul quoted, in the legislative language, from Obama’s 2007 remarks on the subject: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” According to Paul’s office, “the measure aims to put the Senate on record affirming Congress as the body with constitutional authority on matters of war.”
GOP sources tell National Review Online that Paul’s proposal flummoxed Reid, who does not want his members to have to weigh in on Obama’s dusty quote about congressional authority, even if the vote is only to table the measure.
Makes me wonder if opinion on Libya inside Congress is already so sour that Democrats fear a vote to authorize the mission retroactively might not go Obama’s way.
I'm liking the cut of Rand-not-Ron's jib more and more; he's not intimidated by "what they're gonna say" and he's more than willing to put his ass on the line for principle.
"Is this who we are now" indeed. ::gaah::
I sincerely hope so.
-
Yup. Rand Paul is full of bold proposals and a willingness to step up and step out. The rest dither over $30 billion and he says, "why not $500 billion?" and he comes up with a plan to demonstrate that it's possible. Making Reid eat his vapid ideology comes from the same boldness.
Think of how much better this country would be if the GOP had been the party of people like Rand Paul all along. We're playing catch up too late in the game.
-
I must say I had thought that he qould be like his father and so far I'm pleased to say I'm wrong.(reseving the right to change my mind)
-
Rand paul has been a breath of fresh air......And I could live with a few "quirks" if we had enough of his types to actually cut the budget 500 billion....
-
The thread title just seems like such a "well, duh!", but it illustrates how much we have been lacking in leadership. Rand is a leader. More are needed.
-
I know both Rand and Ron Paul, and you'll seldom meet more candid, more sincere lovers of freedom, especially in public office.
The elder Paul has turned too completely isolationist for my taste -- he makes me wish we could have one domestic president and one foreign-policy president -- but it would appear that Rand has evaded that particular trap, at least for now. He'll make a fine national candidate in 2016 or 2020.
-
There ya go. That's a pretty good recommendation in my book.
There's no reason, Constitutional or otherwise, if a Pres./VP team decided to unofficially divide the domestic/foreign policy duties between 'em as long as the buck stopped at the Big Chair.
-
I don't disparage Ron Paul like some do because a) I agree with him on more issues than not, b) he votes the right way almost all the time, and c) it's quite obvious that his heart and mind were captivated by the constitution long ago. My problem is with his firebreathing worshipers.
But for whatever reason, this guy who - if blessed with a different persona - would likely be a hailed as a conservative dynamo, wears the "kook" mantle for the GOP. It was driven home directly last evening, when I saw him standing side by side in solidarity with... Dennis Kucinich... in opposition to our involvement in Libya.
Both men are deep believers in their respective ideologies. Both men believe in their principles and live them out to the best of their ability. Both men assert themselves forcefully as representatives of their constituents. And both men are just a little bit... off... quirky... hard to take seriously. They juxtapose one another politically, ideologically, and philosophically, but at the very same time, they are two peas in a pod.
Whether we take them seriously or not, they take their roles seriously. But neither of them will ever translate their persona into national electoral victory. It was as obvious as ever watching them working together last night.
-
I don't think either expect to win a national election. I think Paul considers it his duty to use national elections that he may inject his thoughtful spark into the national discourse. His character and intellect interjects a perspective the worms dare not approach.
They are also afraid of him as they are of Bachmann, both who were denied committee chairmanships they were inline to receive. They are untethered to the beltway unlike the leadership who values beltway membership more than the Constitution, thus America.
Yeah, I think he goes too far out on the kook limb but if I had the opportunity to dump my rep for him... in a heartbeat.
-
...Yeah, I think he goes too far out on the kook limb...
I think it's more how he looks and sounds - his demeanor and the tone in his voice - coupled with how he characterizes issues, than it is his stance on most issues. He comes across more kooky than most of his positions actually are.
-
Being a libertarian, a non-conformist, and a curmudgeon allows Paul a certain latitude that others might not get away with. That said, I don't mistake it for leadership, because it ain't. Anyone can be a loose cannon. The reason why there aren't more of them is because, outside the atmosphere of his part of Texas, he (or his type) couldn't get elected.
So he does well, quite well actually, in his niche. On a national stage he comes off like a fool.
-
Is this who we are now? Humiliating dullards for sport? Poor, poor Harry. (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/01/bad-news-rand-paul-outsmarts-embarrasses-slow-witted-democrat/comment-page-1/#comments)
POOR HARRY!? Is there any doubt what an a-hole "Allahpundit" is?
At the risk of answering a rhetorical question, NO! There is no doubt that Allahpungent is an a-hole!
-
Is this who we are now? Humiliating dullards for sport? Poor, poor Harry. (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/01/bad-news-rand-paul-outsmarts-embarrasses-slow-witted-democrat/comment-page-1/#comments)
POOR HARRY!? Is there any doubt what an a-hole "Allahpundit" is?
At the risk of answering a rhetorical question, NO! There is no doubt that Allahpungent is an a-hole!
THANK YOU, Janny! You are the only responder to my original question and it's gratifying to have the validation!