Senator Rand Paul Losing Credibility...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
If the following report is true Rand Paul, Republican Senator from Kentucky has succeeded, at least IMO, in losing a great deal of his credibility. Partisan politics and less than completely ethical tactics have pretty much been a staple in recent years from both parties. Senator Rand Paul has just elevated the practice to a new level.
I'll let The Huffington Post fill in the details.
If Senator Paul has a issue with the idea of the federal government funding a National Flood Insurance Program that is one thing. He should then have the integrity to argue his position in the Senate and let the chips fall where they may.
Or, if the real issue is debating when life begins in a hope the majority buys the argument it begins at the moment of fertilization as a precursor to overturning Roe -v- Wade then have the honesty to say so and let the debate begin.
Attaching a completely and totally irrelevant amendment to a bill for the purpose of defeating it is disingenuous and dishonest. Rand Paul should be ashamed of himself and the people who elected him to represent their state in the Senate ought to take him to the woodshed.
This is the kind of behavior that will ultimately render the republican party totally useless and irrelevant. I suggest you think about it republicans and conservatives. At least those that support this type of behavior.
The video of Senator Reid addressing this issue on the Senate floor. I have many issues with Senator Reid. But when you're right you're right.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
 |
| Senator Rand Paul ( R-Ky) |
If the following report is true Rand Paul, Republican Senator from Kentucky has succeeded, at least IMO, in losing a great deal of his credibility. Partisan politics and less than completely ethical tactics have pretty much been a staple in recent years from both parties. Senator Rand Paul has just elevated the practice to a new level.
I'll let The Huffington Post fill in the details.
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) moved this week to hold a noncontroversial flood insurance bill hostage until the Senate agrees that life begins at fertilization.
The bill, which would financially boost the National Flood Insurance Program on the cusp of hurricane season, had been expected to pass easily in the Senate. But since Paul on Monday offered an unrelated "fetal personhood" amendment, which would give legal protections to fetuses from the moment of fertilization, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is threatening to halt progress on the legislation.
"I'm told last night that one of our Republican senators wants to offer an amendment -- listen to this one -- wants to offer an amendment on when life begins," Reid said on the Senate floor Tuesday. "I am not going to put up with that on flood insurance. I can be condemned by outside sources; my friends can say, 'Let them have a vote on it.' There will not be a vote on that on flood insurance. We'll either do flood insurance with the amendments that deal with flood insurance, or we won't do it. We'll have an extension." {Read More}
If Senator Paul has a issue with the idea of the federal government funding a National Flood Insurance Program that is one thing. He should then have the integrity to argue his position in the Senate and let the chips fall where they may.
Or, if the real issue is debating when life begins in a hope the majority buys the argument it begins at the moment of fertilization as a precursor to overturning Roe -v- Wade then have the honesty to say so and let the debate begin.
Attaching a completely and totally irrelevant amendment to a bill for the purpose of defeating it is disingenuous and dishonest. Rand Paul should be ashamed of himself and the people who elected him to represent their state in the Senate ought to take him to the woodshed.
This is the kind of behavior that will ultimately render the republican party totally useless and irrelevant. I suggest you think about it republicans and conservatives. At least those that support this type of behavior.
The video of Senator Reid addressing this issue on the Senate floor. I have many issues with Senator Reid. But when you're right you're right.
Via: Memeorandum
and what makes what he proposed so dishonest? politicians have been adding riders that are totally unrelated to the primary bill for ages now. its a part of the legislative process until the rules change.
ReplyDeleteif it is dishonest and there is a loss of credibility it is not Paul that has lost it. it is Congress itself.
besides, doesn't the Senate have to approve of any riders before they can be added? if so, who is being dishonest, Paul or Reid for not allowing it for a vote?
I leave it to you to determine whether he is genuine or not. I stated my position in the post. I also acknowledged both parties engage in attaching amendments to bills. Philosophically I am opposed to these shenanigans.
DeleteIn this case Paul is blatantly over the top IMO.
By the way Griper, you make a great point wih respect to congressional honesty.
Don't you just want to throw your arms up in the air sometimes, Les? He's courting the Randall Terry vote now apparently.
ReplyDeleteThe great thing about being a classical liberal/libertarian is you get to throw your arms up in the air more often. Because you can focus on principle, or perhaps better said philosophy rather than carrying the bucket of water.
DeleteGo easy on Senator Paul. He also tried to kill farm subsidies just barely a week earlier.
ReplyDeleteI want to know what the real story on this is, because we are not getting it. The lefty blogisphere is aflame with this story, but I can't find any non-kook sources on it. Did he do it to make a point? We don't know. Even is official Senate web page says nothing about it.
In an environment where our government shakes down taxpayers to the tune of billions to they can hand out free cell phones to welfare bums, this is barely another brick in the wall...
Perhaps, perhaps not. Like you said we really don't know for certain, but I have found where there is smoke there is usually fire. Obama, executive privilege, Fast and Furious, Eric Holder Comes to immediate mind.
DeleteInteresting Rand Paul hasn't spoke out. Perhaps he has I been traveling and listing to music most of the day so perhaps he has by now. I'll surely check it out.
Funny thing about principles principles and values, they apply to both sides of the aisle. Or at least the ought to anyway.
Anybody who tries to get rid of farm welfare surely can't be all bad. I will concede you that, SF.
DeleteNow I didn't say Rand was all bad, just his integrity went down in my eyes. :)
DeleteI wonder if Rand Paul think a corporation is a "person." If so, then at what point does it achieve "personhood?" At the IPO stage? At initial incorporation? And what about LLC's? Are they "limited persons?" LOL!
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Corporations are lots of people. They come and they go. So I guess that makes a corporation revolving peoplehood.
DeleteLOL! Like some Hindus and Buddhists! I guess that's why we outsource so much to India - it's the reincarnation! After all, you don't have to re-birth, re-raise, and re-educate a reincarnated computer programmer!
ReplyDeleteBut of course, no. A corporation, as we all know, is an abstract contractual arrangement. Not a person in any sense whatsoever. It has no rights. It exists at the pleasure of the people. Real actual human beings who happen to live in a country that provides the opportunity for abstract contractual arrangements to become profitable for real live persons.
I wonder what Rand Paul thinks about that plain, obvious, stark reality, and what the notion of a corporation being a person means to humanity.
JMJ
Hi, RN –– or maybe I should call you Les? –– whichever you prefer. Just say the word.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that attaching "amendments" irrelevant to the named purpose of all bills is a lamentable practice, and ought to be declared "out of bounds." This would, of course, eliminate the corrupting practice of larding these bills with "pork," which would greatly improve the integrity and the efficiency of government in general.
At the same time Senator Paul is just indulging in a time-honored practice to stymie legislation he may sincerely oppose. I don't know.
What I do know, however, is that almost invariably the toxic atmosphere in Washington, DC has a corrupting, degrading influence on just about everyone sent there by constituents. Sooner or later they all fall into line and play The Game they pledged either to reform or to phase out.
I'm cynical about there being a real possibility that politicians could maintain their integrity, tell the truth, as they know it, and survive. Unfortunately, there are no Jefferson Smiths around today to succeed in challenging the system with their sincerity, purity of motive, and nobility of spirit.
Men, Alas! are fallible creatures, and prone to all the ills that flesh is heir to.
When The Exception came along, we crucified Him. I hasten to add that I mean that more symbolically than doctrinally. Another more colloquial way of putting it might be "No good deed goes unpunished."
You'll soon be on my list of favorites, as soon as I an figure out how to put you there.
Best regards,
Freethinke
Thank you for stopping in at RN USA Freethinker.
DeleteYou may feel free to call me either Les or RN, although those who have been around the site awhile tend to call me Les, which of course is my actual name. I have never been one to erect shields around my identity. A mistake methinks of late.
I too am cynical about the possibility that politicians will find the courage to act with integrity and honor. As you say once elected the temptations, or lure of power corrupts the overwhelming majority. It is indeed a sad statement on our republic.
However, preferring to view the glass as half full rather than half empty I suppose I shall continue to make waves and rock the boat in my small and rather inconsequential way.
Best regards, I shall be visiting often as well as adding you to my list of "featured" links. As soon as I recall how I might do so without messing something else up. :)
On the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare today, Mr. Paul said:
ReplyDelete"Just because the Supreme Court says it's constitutional, doesn't mean it is."
Really Mr. Paul?
Well, as is so often the case I suppose it depends on interpretation. 4 of 5 justices dissented. What pray tell anon does that say to you?
Delete