Gauging various parts of Rand Paul’s national electorate

I like this “Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment” advocacy — another of those contrarian causes from the sort that demand we never refer to Democracy and always refer to a Republic.  At once it is a theory that if we can just get a crack at crossing out a statues and laws, we will downsize government.  The other theory at work is something along the lines of finding auxiliary causes for “Rise of Big Government” rooted out of causes that broke away from what apparently groups of Libertarians and these groups of Right-wing populists they’ve lead along view as the Golden Age of America — the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century.  I recall this surreal suggestion cracked by Ann Coulter about a year ago — maybe two — that giving women the right to vote lead to this inexorable Nanny State.

I am reminded The latter days of the Federalist Party saw them, frustrated by the Democratic Party’s rise and strength out of their Expansionist colonies, shirked to a hold of the power and Supremacy of the Original Colonies.  The peoples seeking to overturn the thirteenth Amendment remind me of those Federalists.

But you know something?  As Rand Paul gives voice to that segment of the population wanting to overturn such things, I’m back to some questions.  It is not uncommon for people to look into the visage of a politician and see what they want to see, and we are sometimes not helped by the bellicose nature of political punditry.  Certain nostrums pop up and lines are drawn for what a Democrat and what a Republican is apt to be doing, and what a “Centrist” is doing to jump back and forth “between” the two.

Rand Paul presents a very peculiar example of this phenonemom as he trades off of his father’s name for undeserved glory.

Rand Paul, upon nomination, announced that he and his crowd were going to storm into Washington and “Take Our Government Back”.  For perspective’s sake, it needs to be noted that Rand Paul is capable of taking one small slice of the government away, and away from current Senator Jim Bunning.  Jim Bunning was last seen emerging for 15 minute’s worth of glory as a Conservative Champion for obstructing Jobless Benefits.  Is Rand Paul going to somehow differ from Jim Bunning’s terms of service?

Last week, I saw that someone had linked an anti-Rand Paul blog post of mine alongside a couple other links.  One curiously from a figure that I’ve trashed about — Webster.  And another from antiwar.com, which I was glad to see that they’ve swerved from their automatic position of extolling the virtues of Ron Paul to consider Rand Paul of that same “War Party” cloth.  (Thus saving Justin Raimondo the disservice of being a hypocrite.)   I do see what the bastions at lewrockwell glean to Rand Paul — whatever leads to a corporate hegenomy, I guess.  But reading through Alex Jones land and the prisonplanet website, and their full fledged support of the candidacy of Rand Paul — I guess I see a good opportunity to assess what, at the end of the day, their political strictures truly are.  What is it that binds Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Cynthia McKinney, Jesse Ventura, and Dennis Kucinich into one tight little package, with Ron Paul coming up in the first fifteen slots and Rand Paul the next six?  I am coming up empty.

I must be missing something about Rand Paul, he’s come out and said that he wants to keep Guantanemo open, that he supports Israel, that he would vote for a declaration of war with Afghanistan and that he’s open to a nuclear strike on Iran. His campaign was even endorsed by Sarah Palin. In what way is he good, besides simply being Ron Paul’s son?

They’re so very easy with the phrase “neo-con”, such that the term has no meaning.  It’s there that I will very easily plunk the term and say “Neo-con Rand Paul”, bitches.

Does it boil down to someone who can lackadasically toss about conspiracy theories together — discuss symbolism on the dollar bill, back over the Gold bugs of the commercial break?  Can they excuse the problems of Israel at Gaza and Rand Paul’s adherance to an “Israeli Lobby” in lieu of ripping off on FEMA?  Are they taking his words as insincere, as the commenter “InfoArsenal” is doing?  These are the questions of the political trade-offs being given, and I’ll have to watch and see.  The only thing I know for sure is we’ll see a fist pump at every positive poll and cries of bias at every middling poll.

And one last question: Are there any other Constitutional Amendments to be culled for nullifying?

3 Responses to “Gauging various parts of Rand Paul’s national electorate”

  1. Justin Says:

    It reverberates:
    http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/So_Rand_Paul_shunned_Meet_the_Press_for_a_Kremlin-linked_911_conspiracy_news_org.html

  2. Mark Says:

    Holy shit.. You’ve bought the BS of the main stream media. Rand Paul is NOT a neo-con. John McCain is an example of a neo-con, ie, a flip-flopper on issues, a liar in the public face, and someone who plans to undermine our liberty.

    Before you make another statement about Rand, Ron, or anyone else that is anti-BIG BANKSTERS, you need to watch more video’s that have words coming from that person’s mouth. People can lie about what someone says on their blogs, FYI. As a result, lots of statements in this post are inaccurate.

    Do your research first, watch some videos of the people you’re talking about, or you end up looking like a liar or a fool in the end. BTW, their have been lots of “conspiracy theories” throughout history that were in fact true, and there have been even more that were false. Seeing the difference between the truth and lies is difficult, so DO MORE RESEARCH.

    Best wishes.

  3. Justin Says:

    #1: Rand Paul is not Ron Paul. (Rand Paul is Ron Paul if you lop off anything I like about Ron Paul.) Then again, I am back to my question with Rand, based off a post from the “Daily Paul”: “Dude. Where’s my Hemp?”

    #2: Holy shit.. You’ve bought the BS of the main stream media. You see in Rand Paul what you want to see. . Define “mainstream media”. Is antiwar.com the “mainstream media”? I guess you can define, say, Te Nesha Coates at The Atlantic as such. Does “antiwar.com” (another source that looks wearily at Rand Paul, even as it thinks Maddow played a “dirty trick”.) count as the mainstream media? Is it okay if I reference words Rand Paul spoke to the mainstream media? Is Rand Paul now going to run his campaign by Alex Jones and Russia Today appearances, and Laura Ingraham, shunning Rachel Maddow and Meet the Press?

    #3 The phrase “neo-con” has come to have no meaning. You may as well be saying that “Barack Obama is a socialist” — another meaningless expression (and I reference that in particular because Ron Paul stated to his crowd that no, Barack Obama does not fit the definition of a socialist.) Surely John McCain is more a neo-con than Rand Paul. But Rand Paul is more a neo-con than Ron Paul. And probably as much of one as Jack Conway.

    But one thing I find a little fascinating here: Why are you instructing me to watch videos instead of reading some articles? This is not a question of sources, but of medium.

Leave a Reply