Friday, February 7, 2014

Sen. Rand Paul Putting Republican Desperation on National Display Again...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


It's 1998, a sitting United States President has a liaison with a white house intern.

The United States House of Representatives votes in favor of Articles of Impeachment and William Jefferson Clinton is the second president in United States history to be impeached.

The United States Senate does NOT convict President Clinton and the matter is dropped, as set forth in the United States Constitution.

Fast forward sixteen years to 2014.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, a presumable 2016 republican presidential candidate brings the issue of the Clinton sexual dalliances to the forefront once again. This in response to the current democratic party claim that conservatives, and republicans in particular are waging a war against women.

So, a 1998 Congress impeaches the President, the Senate does not convict, the President serves out his second term of what was essentially a successful administration, and Senator Rand Paul thinks this strategy is a winning idea? That it will make a difference in the minds of the American voters in 2014 and 2016? That the electorate (other than hard core righties) actually cares about 1998 and an issue put to bed at the time?

Yep, when you ain't got the goods, when you're floundering for substance, when ya just know the road ahead is going to be rutty and difficult, why just dredge up some stuff from the past that the majority of the American people could not at this point give a s*it less about, and run with it.

Sounds like a republican plan to me.

Read the entire Washington Times story below the fold.

Via: Memeorandum

22 comments:

  1. I give up. I googled "desteration," and found nothing. What does it mean?

    ReplyDelete
  2. When one is quite tired and attention to detail is blunted.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The GOP is not with mainstream America today. Most people are not angry white American males anymore.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree jmj. However, there will likely always be throwbacks. It seems as though it is, and probably has always been this way. Yet we continue to advance, some say progress, as a society in many but certainly not all ways.

      Delete
    2. Not sure why Jersey had to bring race into it, however. The only thing the news story had to do with "white" anything was the mention of the White House.

      Delete
  4. It kind of reminds me of that old Pep Boys commercial with the 2 morons trying to bang those round pegs into square holes....Yeah, this Rand fellow is a little bit erratic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Difficult to understand methinks. In some ways spot on, others off the rails as RS notes below.

      Delete
  5. I think "desteration" is a form of "topy" or "poty" if you're into acrostics.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BTW, I happened to know why Rand Paul is resurrecting this old shibboleth, but you'll have to say "pretty please" to find out.

    ReplyDelete

  7. Pigs will fly before Rand Paul gets the nomination.......he is farther off the rails then his father.....but he does have a bit of a point here.

    Bubba did kinda of force a 20 year old intern to polish his knob in the oval office...not that there's anything wrong with that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What's next, Eisenhower's WWII romantic maneuvers with his perky British aid? I'll go along with
    Paul's 'desteration'.

    ReplyDelete
  9. RN, I have seen posts from you praising Rand Paul, And posts like this condemning him. What this shows is not any sort of inconsistency, but your willingness to evolve your views given changes and facts, and also your really trying to have any sort of "hero worship" of these figures. Both quite laudable.

    Both are also typically missing from such discussions. On most of these political blogs, you will find blind hero-worship of Limbaugh, Obama, Reagan, Chomsky, and other such figures. You do a good job of avoiding that...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks dmarks. I get a lot of flak and have had my character assassinated exactly because of this. It is always rabbit non thinking partisans and generally, although not always, it comes from the right.

      Delete
  10. Randal is a Libertarian, so I'd have thought RN and Will would be throwing their support behind him. But I don't understand Libertarianism, and Randal must be quite different than his father (whom I though RN supported)... not that I see any difference. But we're clearly dealing with something I'm obviously unable to understand (as I already pointed out).

    As for the "forcing" referred to by Rusty, it is my understanding that what happened was consensual, that Monica was sort of a groupie, and that she tried to blackmail Mr. Clinton for a job. Not that that makes what Clinton did excusable, but I think it hardly rises to the level of an impeachable offense. And definitely not rape, which is what "forcing" would make it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What Mr. Sanders, and perhaps others, are apparently and willfully ignorant of is although I lean fiscal conservative and socially libertarian I am not a "party member" and I do not support all things the popular and poweful advocate.

    The above concept is difficult for some to understand and therefore they are often critical of people like me who do note march to the beat of a particular ideology or goosestep to the cadence of a particular party or movement. I suspect Mr. Sanders is one of those type of individuals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your comment is much more likely to cause sputtering, stamping and gnashing of teeth that it is to cause any sort of soul-searching or choosing a more rational course, I am afraid.

      Delete
    2. Are you fellows insinuating that Mr. Sanders only orders the blue-plate special?

      Delete
    3. RN said: "....I am not a "party member"..."

      What some fail to understand that Rand Paul is a party politician first and foremost....with all that lack of principle, corruption and the rest that this implies, for either Democrat or Republican. And the rest comes second, if at all.

      Which is why and quite understandable that Rand Paul gets condemned for being such a party animal here, and Paul Ryan gets applauded for breaking free of the mold, the narrative in a recent post.

      Delete
    4. As for me "throwing my support behind Rand Paul", a) I'm not entirely certain just how much I actually agree with the guy and b) this whole idiotic construct of basing one's opinion on a person entirely on where the dude may or may not reside on the political spectrum isn't even remotely my thing to begin with. Nope, I leave that one to the true believers of the world.

      Delete
  12. RN: "It is always rabbit non thinking partisans..."

    I hate those "miswable wabbits!"

    Couldn't resist. Typos rock!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just another desteration moment Shaw, and it gives me great pleasure to give someone else such great pleasure!

    Yes, those "rabbit" politicians like WJC certainly are rascally now aren't they?

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's the new party animal mascot.

    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.