Posted on 10/19/2009 11:42:10 AM PDT by mnehring
Incorrect vis a vis anything I've ever said on this most important matter.
ALL officers of government, at ALL levels, in ALL branches, have a sworn constitutional duty to protect innocent human life, and to provide for the equal protection of the laws for ALL.
And, the oath they have taken to do so applies to them fully no matter how egregiously any other officer of government may have abrogated that duty.
This is not true of Ron Paul. He is for the Federal constitution and denying people’s rights in violation of the constitution (slavery, as this slanderer claims) is not anything he supports.
He’s from Texas and I have been exposed to him alot over teh years. I have never heard him suggest any of this nonsense. He is for the States to decide all these controversial social issues rather than the Federal liberal elite as is currently the case.
A lot of atheist radicals pretending to be libertarians want to use the Federal government to impose the most amoral and awful atheistic world view and society on America. They are NOT speaking for anyone but their twisted, ugly selves. Obama’s science death czar claims to be socially libertarian. BS He’s socially fascist and so are alot of libertarians.
Aside from $3,000 on hand and a mountain of campaign debt, Johnson is also polling 2% and is now so irrelevant the Lexington Herald-Leader has stopped mentioning him.
The guy just wants attention, posting this cheap blogspot site only feeds him.
He is being used as Trey Grayson’s attack dog in the fight, to ensure that the Lindsey Graham-esque republican (grayson) gets the nomination. Johnson will continue to attack Rand on the social-conservative issues and since the voters relize that Johnson can’t win, they will vote for Grayson who refuses to take any stances on the issues.
I don't know either, so I pinged his no. #1 supporter here GoldStandard a couple of weeks ago (looks like the account is now banned) and asked details about Rand Paul's policy positions on abortion, gitmo, the WOT, gay "rights", and so on, to see if Paul was really the "true conservative" in the race.
The only response I got from his supporters was silence -- and Rand Paul's website is intentionally vague on these issues. For example he doesn't say how he'll vote on abortion, only that he thinks it's morally wrong, opposes federal funding for it, and would prefer to see Roe v. Wade overturned. But as to the question of whether Rand Paul will vote in favor of a nationwide ban on say, late term abortion, or whether he's one of those "send it back to the states" types who takes the Stephen Douglas position (i.e., if Mass. wants abortion on demand, so be it), I don't know. I tend to suspect the latter, because if you're running as a "true conservative" in a Republican primary and need the base you tend to highlight all the policies you agree with them on, not duck the issue.
Since I don't have specifics, there's no reason to assume he's unacceptable, but on the other hand there's no reason to support him in the primary and assume he's the "best conservative" when he and his supporters refuse to tell you how he'll govern.
EternalVigalence does have a valid point that Bill Johnson appears to be the strongest conservative in the race, and has an impressive resume. However, the fact remains that Johnson is polling in single digits and extremely unlikely to win the primary. Freepers can interpret that however they wish. (I personally don't mind voting my conscience for a single-digits candidate in a primary, unless it's imperative we get behind the highest polling conservative to stop a RINO scumbag. If all the candidates in primary are "acceptable" in a general election, I vote for the one I like best)
I don't know either, so I pinged his no. #1 supporter here GoldStandard a couple of weeks ago (looks like the account is now banned) and asked details about Rand Paul's policy positions on abortion, gitmo, the WOT, gay "rights", and so on, to see if Paul was really the "true conservative" in the race.
The only response I got from his supporters was silence -- and Rand Paul's website is intentionally vague on these issues. For example he doesn't say how he'll vote on abortion, only that he thinks it's morally wrong, opposes federal funding for it, and would prefer to see Roe v. Wade overturned. But as to the question of whether Rand Paul will vote in favor of a nationwide ban on say, late term abortion, or whether he's one of those "send it back to the states" types who takes the Stephen Douglas position (i.e., if Mass. wants abortion on demand, so be it), I don't know. I tend to suspect the latter, because if you're running as a "true conservative" in a Republican primary and need the base you tend to highlight all the policies you agree with them on, not duck the issue.
Since I don't have specifics, there's no reason to assume he's unacceptable, but on the other hand there's no reason to support him in the primary and assume he's the "best conservative" when he and his supporters refuse to tell you how he'll govern.
EternalVigalence does have a valid point that Bill Johnson appears to be the strongest conservative in the race, and has an impressive resume. However, the fact remains that Johnson is polling in single digits and extremely unlikely to win the primary. Freepers can interpret that however they wish. (I personally don't mind voting my conscience for a single-digits candidate in a primary, unless it's imperative we get behind the highest polling conservative to stop a RINO scumbag. If all the candidates in primary are "acceptable" in a general election, I vote for the one I like best)
I wonder if GoldStandard got banned or merely suspended after the “Sarah Palin Gets Booed” thread he started yesterday. I’ve maintained all along my concern that Rand Paul is too fringy for the general election in KY. The family associations, the supporters, are simply not a part of the mainstream of the GOP (at least not the Conservative mainstream, since a substantial chunk of us regard Ron to be a nutter. I personally never held RP in high regard from the first time I saw him on tv as a teenager in the ‘80s. He was the anti-Reagan and ran against him as such in 1984). The Democrats will be able to exploit the “Paul factor” and denounce him as a fringe element (even considered so by Republicans, as I do). I expect Paul would lose by as much as 10% to Jack Conway, who would then try to pick up Republicans uncomfortable with Rand. Only if Mongiardo is the Dem nominee would Rand have a better shot, since Mongiardo has made himself a real enemy of his running mate, Gov. Beshear (whom I imagine might not be too heartbroken to see him lose the general).
I’ve never proclaimed Trey Grayson as spectacular, and he’s got a Dem background, but so have a number of Republicans, and that alone isn’t enough to dismiss him (I’d be a hypocrite myself, I’m not a lifelong Republican, I converted as a teenager). But Grayson will have 100% party backing for the general (meaning he won’t be left to twist in the wind - something that can’t be said for Paul, because if he gets the nod, the party will turn its attentions elsewhere), he’s seemingly done a good job as Sec of State of KY, he’s won twice (including in ‘07 when he had a toxic candidate at the top of the ticket which could’ve taken him down). I believe Bunning has endorsed him, so he seems like an acceptable choice without the RP baggage.
On the same note, I can't presume Rand Paul will be as flaky as his dad in office. I'm sure they have very similar political beliefs (I probably agree with my dad on 90% of the issues, but there is that 10% where we part ways), but Rand Paul is a different person and his governing style and personality isn't likely to be a carbon copy of dear old dad's wild eye rants.
What DOES alarm me is that Rand Paul has a good chance of losing to a RAT in a November general election but he's become the "front runner" in a big upset now (on paper, Greyson should win overwhemingly in the primary as a popular, two-term statewide official). Looks like Greyson has to seriously retool his campaign and run on a stronger message if he's trailing Rand Paul in fundraising.
If Paul is being coy on social issues and the WOT because he's weak on those issues (e.g., maybe his "libertarian" fan base is demanding the Patriot Act be completely repealed and he has to go along with them), Greyson needs to take advantage of that and make the case to primary voters that he is the stronger conservative.
As of right now I don't have a dog in this fight.
Yeah, Grayson is going to have to get on the ball. He does need to tie Rand to his father’s extremism. I do wonder how different the two of them may be. Problem is, even if Rand is more acceptable, he still inherits his father’s support, his father’s fundraising network, and his father’s supporters. Those folks are a bit like the Howard Dean supporters were in ‘04. Rand also trying to jump into the Senate when he has done virtually nothing in KY, never run for office or been involved in GOP functions as far as I can tell.
If he wanted to prove himself, he should set his sights on a lesser office, or one of the Dem-held ones (there are 2 House seats he could run for potentially). We can only go by what we see of him since there’s no voting record, only his associations. I still think there is too much outside interests trying to buy this seat. Grayson is the one with the experience and is a proven vote-getter (so I would say in this instance, I do have a dog in this hunt). Since Nashville’s media market extends into Southern KY, we get all the political ads and the like as any other in-state station would, so I expect (since we have no Senate race in ‘10) to be inundated with Senate commercials here. I’m just not looking forward to Rand Paul’s nomination and how the Dems may easily benefit from his getting the nod.
If Rand Paul were the nominee, I’d support him. As for the social issues, it’s very likely that Paul takes a state’s rights position/Feds stay out position, which is consistant with Libertarian philosophy, though it might not be satisfactory to those who are motivated by them.
I don’t know what to think about Rand Paul’s chances in the general election. Normally, I’d be pessimestic. But 2010 will likely be a good Republican year in this part of the country, and both DemocRATS have made avoidable gaffes.
Though I appreciate the state right’s sentiment and would vastly! shrink the federal government I like the thrust of Johnson’s argument here.
I don’t think states should have the ‘right’ to do things like legalize gay marriage, allow third trimester abortion, ban handguns, or let illegals vote.
States rights never trump individual rights protected by the Constitution.
While I believe the state-by-state approach is an efficient strategy to eliminate abortion, I don’t fall into the camp that it is the only approach justified by the Constitution. The 10th amendment never trumps an individual’s rights. Too many federalists take a hard line approach to this. The smaller the circle, the more rights, with the individual the only party possessing full inherent rights. Every other entity is restricted from infringing on those rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.