Friday, May 21, 2010

Leftwing/Democrat Industrial Complex Howling to Bring Down the Candidacy of Liberty Stalwart GOP/Libertarian Candidate Rand Paul: Here's Why

rand

by the Left Coast Rebel

Featured above: Rand Paul, Tea Party favorite turned far-left establishment scapegoat (in under 24 hours).

God forbid that any candidate to higher US office proclaim any other credo than the progressive-socialist dogma. God forbid that a humble man from a humble background that has never run for any office would be such an instant catch.

That just one candidate for the United States Senate in a small conservative state like Kentucky could elicit such a unanimous, lockstep, leftist reaction tells one all that is needed to know. And that is this:

Rand Paul, riding the momentum of his big Republican Primary win on Tuesday, now posts a 25-point lead over Democrat Jack Conway in Kentucky’s U.S. Senate race, but there’s a lot of campaigning to go.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Kentucky, taken Wednesday night, shows Paul earning 59% of the vote, while Conway picks up 34% support. Four percent (4%) percent prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

Paul consistently led Conway prior to winning the Republican primary, but had never earned more than 50% support. Conway has been stuck in the 30s since the first of the year. Last month, Paul posted a 47% to 38% lead over the Democrat.

Alas, the neo-Bolshevik far left goes for the only tool left in their dying philosophy-arsenal. Today's nutroots chatter proves that in spades.

Via Rasmussen, Memeorandum. Photo c/o Gage Skidmore.

14 comments:

  1. Paul is an extremely bright guy. Hell, I might even go as far as to say that, in certain respects, he's admirable. But, to see a guy who's so inflexibly stuck on theory that he simply cannot see the evil of separate restrooms, etc., that, I have to admit it here, is somewhat troubling.

    ReplyDelete
  2. >that he simply cannot see the evil of separate restrooms

    I think his point--something that I thought he stated very clearly--is that he believes that it's wrong, but he also knows that government has no place telling private citizens what they can or can't do with their own property, even when it's wrong, unless such actions infringe on the rights to life, liberty, or property. The left is trying to spin it as if he were saying that he supported segregation, bigotry, etc., even though what he said was exactly the opposite. What he opposes is Big Mother getting violating the fundamental right to control one's own property. Violation of those fundamental rights is always and forever far worse than bigotry, racial or otherwise, because it attacks life and purpose itself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Will "take no prisoners" Hart - Rand clearly has Said nothing that should lead one to believe he is bigoted, racist, or discriminatory.

    He is talking about individual freedom and the right to do with your private property as you will. In so long as it does not infringe on any other individuals right to their life, liberty, property, and pursuit of their own happiness.

    Cut away the tendency to be emotional and it really is straight forward. At least IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bastiatarian - Again, what else can be said?

    Perhaps just this... Violation of those fundamental rights will lead to what the Bosheviks gave Russia.

    ReplyDelete
  5. RNUSA, I never meant to imply that Paul himself was a racist. I personally DON'T think that he is. I just don't think that his advocating for a pre-1964 mindset is the way to go here. And, yes, I think that Dr. Paul himself recognizes that. He's already said that he is NOT in favor of repealing the act. And just on CNN yesterday, he said that he indeed WOULD have voted for its passage. So much for his absoluteness, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Will "take no prisoners" Hart - To me, because I am somewhat a purist in a philosophical sense, I am disappointed that Rand is back peddling to save his political skin.

    He should have thought out his answers a bit more throughly and perhaps he would not be in the fish bowl he now finds himself. There were better ways to get his very valid point across.

    Having said this I believe no matter how he spoke the truth the extreme left would misrepresent his views and attempt to discredit his reasoned logic.

    They have a purpose... And it ain't honorable. At least in my humble opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. RN and Bastiatarian,
    I think you both state the case well.I'm a "from the left end" Paul supporter and I'm put off by the liberal reaction as well.

    What particularly frustrates me is we just got screwed by the Senate gutting the financial reform package, but liberals concern themselves with attacks on Rand Paul. If they took time to research his position on the issues they might realize they have more in common with him than they'd think.

    However I'd be remiss if I didn't state my reservations on his position. I believe he'd have marched with King, I believe his heart is good. But what I'd view as an extreme Libertarian position is flat-out wrong.I know he's standing on principle, but can't help feeling that he doesn't realize the hurtfulness and wrongness of bigotry.

    I'm afraid we must agree to disagree on this particular aspect.

    ReplyDelete
  8. >but can't help feeling that he doesn't realize the hurtfulness and wrongness of bigotry.

    Oh, I think he does. I know I do, having suffered my share of it myself. However, I also understand that the violation of the individual's inherent right to complete control of his or her private property (such as a company or a restaurant) is more immoral and destructive, both to the individual and to society, than bigotry could ever be.

    If we don't stand on principle, we stand on emptiness. We've got enough of that in D.C. already.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oso - In as much as I despise bigotry and know it is hurtful I also realize you cannot legislate morality and ethics.

    The hand of government has every right, and indeed obligation to the public to pass laws that govern public sector behavior. IE; Things that either the government invests public money in or things that the general public must use from time to time.

    The principal of private ownership of property and business is a principal that our free society must stand firm on. The right of an individual or business to do what they chose with their property is the basis of liberty in a free society. Even when the results are reprehensible to some or many. In so long as the behavior does no physical harm or deny another person(s)their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of their own happiness it must be allowed.

    Rand Paul is correct to stand on this principal for to move away from it is to move away from freedom and liberty itself and brings us one step closer to Bolshevism or the old communist Soviet Union.

    So on this your are correct... we must agree to respectfully disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Reed - Well stated and absolutely correct in the analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Apparently, I posted as "Reed" last night.

    Moral of the story: If you are posting from a computer that might be logged on to a different account, check to see if you are logged on to the correct account BEFORE you post.

    ReplyDelete
  12. RN,
    Nothing wrong with disagreement.The important thing is discourse which we both enjoy.

    Too many people on either end base their views on ideology rather than careful analysis of facts.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oso - Agreed.

    I for one admit to being driven by principles, another name for ideology I suppose.

    While I obviously cannot speak for anyone but myself I admit to occasionally allowing myself to take the emotionalism road. When I do I usually find that I open myself to valid criticism.

    You and I are on different sides of the political spectrum (or perhaps continuum is a better word, I don't know)but we can have reasonable discourse. That my friend speaks volumes about you.

    The problem I have with most of the left is this... I see in them that which I occasionally see in myself. The problem (at least in my perception) is that most of the left fails to see the same problem with themselves.

    You and Truth however are different. I respect that and both of you, unlike some others whom will remain unnamed.

    It is called the ability to be introspective. Most of the left seems not to posses that ability.

    You and Truth seem to have it. Irrespective of what many in your community may believe so do I.

    After almost 6 decades I have learned a few things.

    You, Truth, and I will just have to agree to continuing to respectfully disagree.

    I ain't about to change much after 6 decades of living, observing, and learning.

    That's my opinion and I am sticking to it.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.