Monday, May 27, 2013

Senator Paul Questions the President's Moral Authority to Lead...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Li
berty -vs- Tyranny


I like Rand Paul. In some ways he is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise boring and oh so predictable and stale chamber.

Having said this, and yes I think we need to resolve the IRS "scandal" as quickly and ethically as possible, to question the President's moral authority to lead over this is premature and questionable at best at this precise point in time. Especially in light of the small matter that the man in charge when the IRS "scandal" begin was a GWB appointee.

From Mediaite - Appearing on This Week on Sunday morning, Rand Paul challenged President Barack Obama‘s moral standing in the wake of multiple controversies.

“The constellation of these three scandals ongoing really takes away from the President’s moral authority to lead this nation,” Paul said. “Nobody questions his legal authority, but I think he’s really losing the moral authority.”

“I don’t care whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, nobody likes to see the opposite party punishing you for your political beliefs.”

Martha Raddatz, ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent, asked Paul if he’d seen evidence that the IRS had broken the law.

“I don’t know,” Rand said. “The main woman from the IRS that’s involved has taken the Fifth Amendment—she’s no longer cooperating, so I have called for her suspension. The President did respond to that and he has suspended her, however he’s still paying her and I don’t want that to go on forever.”

“I think there needs to be a speedy resolution on this,” Paul said. “[Obama] says he’s going to listen to his new IRS commissioner in 30 days. Well, the investigation’s been going on over a year now, so I would think it wouldn’t tkae very long. If he goes beyond 30 days and if no one is fired over this, I really think it’s gonna be trouble for him trying to lead in the next four years.”

Video:



Patience in the pursuit of truth and justice is a virtue. We ought to expect ALL of our Representatives and Senators to act accordingly.

Via: Memeorandum

41 comments:

  1. I think he has shown patience and he is circumspect in his comments.

    The president should turn the investigation of these matters over to an independent investigator.

    Investigating yourself and voicing confidence in the man who sold guns to Mexican drug gangs does not help his moral authority/

    And I'm with you on Paul. We need 60 more like him in the Senate, and about 250 more like him in the House

    ReplyDelete
  2. Silver: Given that Obama said there are 58 states, I think we need 115 more Senators like him in the Senate.

    As I said, I like him when i read him and read about him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Give the 58 a rest dmarks, a honest misstatement is after all a honest misstatement. Just bask GWB about that one if ya ain't buying it ;-)

      Delete
  3. RN: The same people who usually say give this one a rest (no, I don't mean you) endlessly flog Sarah Palin for specifically saying she could see Alaska from her house. And yes they bring up things about Bush. Because to those blind partisan idiots, gaffes are only bad if they come from those with an (R) after their name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is definitely a double-standard. When Michelle Bachmann (who I don't like and never in a million years would support - but that's beside the point) went on Jimmy Fallon, the band starting playing some song with the word, bitch, in the title and laced throughout the lyrics. Can you even begin to imagine the response had those folks ever tried to pull that stunt on Hillary or Mr. Obama?

      Delete
  4. I strongly dislike Rand Paul. In many ways he is a breath of crazy air in the Senate.

    dmarks: The same people who usually say give this one a rest... endlessly flog Sarah Palin for specifically saying she could see Alaska from her house.

    They don't. She never said this. It was a SNL skit and most people know this. You can continue to pretend otherwise (and I am sure you will) but that does not change the fact that you're in la-la land on this one. Also, I call bullpucky on your claim that "gaffes are only bad if they come from those with an (R) after their name".

    Will: There is definitely a double-standard. ...the band starting playing some song with the word, bitch, in the title and laced throughout the lyrics.

    There isn't. This was the drummer's decision. Jimmy Fallon didn't instruct the band to play this song. None the less he apologized. Also, they did not sing the lyrics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't care whose frigging decision it was. It was done and it would have never been done to a Democrat and if it had been done to a Democrat the person would have been fired (in this instance the drummer) EXPEDITIOUSLY. Sewage indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Don't feed the troll, Will. We've gone over this before, and as always the facts are as you say on this. It is pointless to argue with those who make up facts as they go along and chuck all idea of any sort of principle, intellectual rigor, and consistency out the window (or crawlspace air vent as it may be) and instead only judge matters by what political side someone is on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I am a "troll", but only according to dmarks' redefinition of the word. He thinks it means anyone who disagrees with his point of view and voices their disagreement too strongly. Also, dmarks is far more partisan than I, and I am not the only one who thinks so. Remember it was Jersey McJones who accurately assessed dmarks' extreme partisanship when he suggested dmarks legally change his name to "Fox Republican". I could say something about principles and intellectual rigor, but that no doubt would be interpreted as a personal attack and cause my comment to not be published.

      Delete
    2. Actually WDelusional it is more true of you with respect to one who runs with only BLIND partisanship. However, after having said this I must say it really does not matter what my perspective of your political acumen proclivities are. Rather it is best left to the reading public to make their own determinations.

      Good day...

      Delete
    3. Honestly, I looked for something true in WD's comment, but couldn't find a thing.

      Delete
    4. dmarks, Jersey DID suggest you change your name to "Fox Republican". He said you were like a computer program that spits out Repub talking points. It is 100 percent true that he wrote that (follow the link if you doubt me). Shows that dmarks is just winging it... making stuff up as he goes.

      Delete
    5. Jersey was saying something that simply wasn't true in any way, WD. That you parroted one off his careless untrue comments instead of making it up yourself, WD, is hardly a saving grace.

      And a knee jerk untrue dismissal of what you disagree with as "talking points" is rather unintellectual. Not not mention completely untrue: this is one of those times Jersey said something cut of whole cloth and his own imagination.

      Delete
    6. What Jersey said was true in every way. Just like with Michele Bachmann, there is absolutely no need to make anything up to make dmarks look bad. This is what Rachel Maddow did on her program last night -- play video tape of Bachmann saying crazy stuff that was 100 percent wrong. dmarks does this quite frequently, like when he says bush didn't lie about Iraq having WMD, etc (I could go on and on, but won't due to concerns about this comment not being published). dmarks and Bachmann are very similar in this regard.

      Delete
    7. Haven't you anything original? You've beat the WMD to death. And, on balance, you are a distant last in the pack. Well behind dmarks.

      Delete
  7. There isn't a Democrat who lies like Bachmann does. Not saying it wasn't inappropriate, as it was, but the guy needn't be fired. That's over the top. She did not ever know. It wasn't as if anyone called her the "B" word to her face. Nobody said (or sang) the "B" word at all. And I strongly disagree with your assertion that if a Democrat were treated the same way things would be different. But, like I already said, no Democrat lies like she does. When you lie so much your name becomes a punchline things like this are bound to happen. As for your phony outrage and "sewage" insults, I couldn't care less.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nancy Pelosi IMMEDIATELY comes to mind.

      Delete
    2. Uh, no. We were talking about Congresspersons who lie, not those we dislike for partisan reasons. Nancy Pelosi comes to mind for me as someone who tells the truth, the exact opposite of Michele Bachmann. As for your "reading public" making the determination... you're referring to dmarks and Will Hart. Those are the only two who are regular readers. 186 members? Where are their comments?

      Delete
    3. WD, once again showing your distinct partisanship. Carry on... I agree Bachman is a joke, have said so in past posts when she was a candidate and we got to know her better.

      As for the followers, well, where are your commentators at your site? When I'm active, which I haven't been by choice for some time) I was AVERAGING over 1250 hits a week. Sometimes more. But the bigger point is WHO CARES? I don't as I post for fun and when the urge or issue grabs me.

      Toddles WDelusional...

      Delete
    4. You're the one who referred to the "reading public". I wasn't claiming my blog gets more hits than yours. It gets far less, not that I care either. Now that Bachmann is leaving Congress Rachel Maddow is doing a retrospective on her craziness. Remember "Hoot Smalley"? What the hell is up with that? You'd think she has a staff that would fact check these things for her. With some Republicans it seems the level of gaffes is so much higher. Nancy Pelosi may have made some, but she certainly isn't known for them like Bachmann. And RN is showing his distinct partisanship in attempting to compare the two.

      Delete
  8. I find Rand cold and calculating. His father held similar viewpoints, but at least
    had a folksy manner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i can't disagree BB Idaho. Still, his demeanor aside I like much of his philosophy. At least as far as it coincides with Classical Liberalism.

      Delete
  9. Unfortunately, any time Maddow does anything like this it shows her own craziness at least as well as it does of anyone she attacks. Thanks to her one-sided, "mirror image of Hannity" approach.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pelosi is a perfect example of someone who is like Bachman, but on the left. Only blind partisans who are grossly uninformed could argue otherwise. In fact, it is generous to call their claims "arguments".

    Back on topic and away from WD blizzarding this blog with ridiculous offtopic claims... I find Rand to be much too partisan and less principled than he could be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Off topic? I was responding to things YOU wrote. So, in regards to being off topic... you were "off topic" and "blizzarding" first. And I wouldn't feel compelled to rebut your nuttiness if you'd stop leaving nutty comments.

      And Nancy Pelosi is nothing like Bachmann. Bachmann is well known for her nuttery, while Nancy Pelosi is only despised by those on the Right (and some who claim to be Moderates). Come on, you have to at least acknowledge this fact (although I doubt you will... still, it is a fact).

      In regards to Randal Paul. His name is Randal, not "Rand". I heard this question put to his father. According to his father he was not named after Ayn Rand.

      Delete
    2. I disagree with Bachmann's crazy statements, just as I disagree with those of her fellow lousy legislator, Pelosi (Pelosi's thing about having to vote for it before we find out what is in it is no less crazy than anything Bachmann said). So, WD's claim that I am like her goes on the pile of his fictional faith-based claims along with the bogus WMD and other arguments which put him, as Les put it, so far behind.

      Hopefully we can talk Rand without more of the nuttiness. Les, would you vote for him as President?

      Delete
    3. Actually, likely not. He is smart but too divisive. His most useful position for the foreseeable future is the one his constituents elected him to.

      Delete
  11. Give an example of ONE "crazy statement" from Nancy Pelosi. I doubt you will be able to. You'll probably be able to produce one you THINK is crazy, but has actually only been spun by the Right to distort what she meant. BTW, the WMD claim that bush made WAS bogus, so glad to see you're coming around to reality on that one.

    No way I'd vote for Randal for president. I can hardly believe he's in the Senate. WTF were the voters of Kentucky thinking electing this loon? Did they think that since his dad was leaving the House they were obligated to vote for him (so there would still be a Paul in Congress)?

    I'd like to vote for a true Progressive. I'm tired of the choice being between a Republican and a Conservative Democrat. And, yes, both Clinton and Obama are Conservative Democrats. Obama has even described himself as a "blue dog". But I'm sure dmarks thinks he knows better than Obama what kind of Democrat Obama is.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Think I've heard this tune over and over, and over again. Can you move on DS?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Measured from the center, Clinton and Obama are left-wing. The "blue dog" movement is of the near-left (not far left). Yes we've heard the tune before. DS is a man of faith on this, as opposed to a political agnostic. And the latter view is the only one which is valid in this. Look at things from the center. His tune is way off key.

    As for Pelosi, her statement about having to vote for something before we find out what is in it is scary-crazy coming from a legislator. The only people who can defend this are faith-based True Believers. The same sort of folk who see some fundamental difference between Maddow and Hannity... and defend the worst sort of craziness from Pelosi just because she is left-wing, has a D after her name, and consistently supports the rights of the powerful over those of the average person.

    As for Rand, he won election because the people of Kentucky judged him worthy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh, Mr. Fox Republican. BTW, I knew exactly what "scary crazy" statement from Nancy Pelosi you would bring up. What she said wasn't crazy at all, but the absolute truth. As for your "faith based" insult... it is total dmarks' gibberish. In regards to Randal, he won due to voter apathy and those who voted for him being misinformed. The people (as in ALL the people) did not judge him worthy. What a ridiculous statement.

      Delete
    2. "Thanks for the laugh, Mr. Fox Republican."

      That's a really silly insult too, by the way. I am quite well on the record as condemning Fox's mirrors of the MSNBC folks (O'Reilly, Hannity, etc).

      Also, I am not a registered Republican, and feel no affinity with them, certainly not enough to go to their Lincoln Day dinners. Though I do tend to vote for them most of the time (but not all the time, other votes going to libertarians and Democrats). I am a political agnostic (or try to be anyway), and judge such matters on reason and not faith.

      Delete
  14. dmarks, is it just me or does it appear DS is exhibiting excessive compulsive behavioral patterns?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Les: Either that, or his pony tail has gotten trapped in the hatch in the kitchen floor that leads to the crawlspace, way too many times.

      You can see how arrogant and ignorant he is, making such foolish judgements about Kentucky's voters.

      Delete
    2. I made no arrogant or ignorant statements, nor did I make any foolish judgments regarding Kentucky's voters. I only gave my opinion on a subset of those voters. Randal did not receive 100 percent of the vote, oh foolish Dennis. btw, I have decided that the "D" in dmarks stand for Dennis. I too can pull "facts" out of my ass and make them true (as dmarks believes he can) simply by repeating them over and over... which is why I've decided I'm going to call you Dennis from now on.

      Delete
  15. "nor did I make any foolish judgments regarding Kentucky's voters."

    You most certainly did. Kentucky's voters (the people of that state) chose Rand Paul in a democratic fashion. They did this not out of apathy, but because they felt he was the best one running, who was suited for the job. It is the height of arrogance and ignorance to claim otherwise. Anyone who would do so reveals themself as someone who only likes democracy if the people vote the way that one person wants.

    "I too can pull "facts" out of my ass"

    Certainly, that is what you do much of the time. Like when you posted in another item a partisan opinion piece that the intent of voters should be ignored in order to annoint Gore as President in 2000.

    "which is why I've decided I'm going to call you Dennis from now on."

    Everyone needs a hobby, I guess. Congratulations!

    ReplyDelete
  16. You really need to read more carefully Dennis. I only criticized the people who voted for Randal, which is actually a quite small percentage of the total population. "The people" did not choose him. Many of the people (anyone under 18) can't even vote. Anyway, I very much like Democracy. "Apathy" is what causes people to not vote. I want everyone who is eligible to vote to do so. Unlike Dennis, who revealed himself as not liking democracy by denying there even is any apathy (the fewer people voting the better in Dennis' world).

    Dennis also reveals himself to not like democracy when he agrees with the SCOTUS decision to ignore the will of the people (the majority of who voted for Gore) and anoint bush. I linked to no partisan opinion piece. It was a fact-based editorial. The facts say Gore received the most votes in FL and would have been president if not for SCOTUS partisans ignoring how the people voted.

    As for you not being a Republican, even though you mostly vote for them... right that makes sense. As much sense as a vegetarian who eats mostly meat.

    If you think me calling you "Dennis" is a "hobby", you must think you making up nonsense about me living in a crawlspace and having a pony tail is your "hobby"... to which I say: you are one extremely strange individual Dennis. EXTREMELY strange.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sorry, WD. Gore only wins in 2000 if you ignore how people voted. The Supreme Court chose to let how the people voted stand.

    And on Rand, using your logic, only a small percentage of the population voted for Gore in 2008. But consistency is not one of your virtues. In any case, the people who voted for Rand did so exactly because they were informed and looking out for their interests. The majority. Just like the minority did the same.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And what of my factual dismissal of the "Fox Republican" claim? When I hold that they are no better than their mirror images at MSNBC?

    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.