Rand Paul has asked Sarah Palin to campaign for him

Texas for Sarah Palin ^ | Sunday, November 15, 2009 at 1:35 PM | Josh Painter

[Josh Painter]

Rand Paul, a candidate in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky revealed in an interview Thursday for the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog that his campaign has asked 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to campaign for him:

Washington Wire: Do you want Sarah Palin to campaign for you?
Paul: We’d love to have her come. We’ve made some overtures to her.

But the son of Texas congressman Ron Paul did not seem too excited about two other potential Republican presidential candidates:

Washington Wire: What about Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney?
Paul: I don’t know much about Tim Pawlenty. Romney, there’s a mixture of beliefs there.

Read the full Rand Paul interview here.

- JP

[henry_reardon]

probably so it’s an acknowledgment, I’m not really fluent in “hip hop”.

[BobL]

“We would? I don’t think Germany ever considered an invasion of America.”

Maybe I got something wrong, but I thought Germany wanted to WIN World War 2, and I really doubt that they could have kept their conquest intact without subduing us...whether that was in their immediate plans or not.

[BobL]

“Well, I guess a leftist collectivist could.”

Thanks for addressing my problem with Mr. Paul.

[EternalVigilance]

Many apples don’t fall far from the tree.

Rand Paul landed right next to the trunk.

[EternalVigilance]

Rand Paul is an isolationist, Libertarian, pro-choice for states, candidate, just like his father.

Reagan conservatives should not allow themselves to be fooled by his slick talk.

[EternalVigilance]

US Senate candidate Bill Johnson responds to the WSJ and Rand Paul

Bill Johnson for U.S. Senate

November 13, 2009

Bill Johnson campaign comments about the WSJ Washington Wire blog interview of Rand Paul:

Washington Wire: Are there any areas where you disagree with your father’s views on issues?

Paul: There are some minor areas where we disagree. One is on taking the pledge not to put earmarks in bills. He’s probably the most fiscally conservative member of the House, but he’s just taken the position that when his constituents ask for a particular road or museum, he puts them through. I think the whole system is broken down, and it’s my opinion that we shouldn’t put earmarks on bills.

Bill Johnson: I disagree with the Pauls on many issues.  First, I do not agree with their pro-choice for states abortion position outlined in the ‘Sanctity of Life act’.  Establishing personhood for the unborn and then denying them federal protection is even worse than Judge Blackmun's (the author of Roe vs. Wade).  Second, I do not support the Paul's position in support of the closing of Guantanamo Bay and bringing the prisoners to the U.S. for trial.

Washington Wire: So do you think drugs should be legalized?

Paul: It’s a state issue. All issues of crime are better addressed at the state level.

Bill Johnson:   On the one side, you have the liberal statists who pretend the Federal Government has authority over every aspect of our lives.  With the Paul’s Libertarian views, you have an equally unbalanced and destructive view that the federal government has no power to regulate anything.  I side with common sense conservative thinking and the Founding Fathers who had no intention that liberty included dependence on mind-altering drugs.

Washington Wire: Your father opposed the war in Iraq.

Paul: I would have voted no on the Iraq war and yes to Afghanistan. The main thing I say on war is that we need to obey the law and formally declare war.

Bill Johnson: The Constitution is clear that the Congress has the responsibility to provide for (fund) the common defense.  Mr. Paul is ignoring the fact that Congress approved and funded both actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The President, as Commander-in-Chief, has authority over the USE of the military.  Acting on a clear and present danger is the responsibility of our President as Commander-in-Chief, regardless of the actions of Congress.  If Congress disagrees with the actions of the President, they can choose to not provide the funding.

Washington Wire: What should happen in Afghanistan?

Paul: I support a declaration of war in Afghanistan. We have to now determine what our mission is. It’s become somewhat murky.

Bill Johnson: We need to provide the troops needed to win against the terrorists and stabilize the region.  The fact that we don’t have a war declaration does not remove the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief to protect our nation.

Washington Wire: Do you consider yourself a libertarian?

Paul: I call myself a constitutional conservative. I see myself as sort of, part of this insurgency that’s out there, the way [former Florida state legislator Marco] Rubio is a conservative and fighting against an established moderate like [Gov. Charlie] Crist. Our race in Kentucky is going to shape up to be very similar.

Bill Johnson: Rand Paul claims to be a Constitutional Conservative.  He is not.  He is a Libertarian.  An honest assessment of his statements and actions during the past two decades bears this out.  The most obvious example is that he denies equal protection to all unborn children under the 14th Amendment.

Washington Wire: How much of your campaign is built on the Ron Paul base?

Paul: Probably 75% of people at the “tea parties” I go to didn’t support Ron Paul. It opened the door [for my candidacy] that 25% who did were big supporters of mine and my dad.

Bill Johnson: Rand Paul’s campaign is based entirely on his father's fame and notoriety.  My campaign is based on the support of grassroots citizens of Kentucky.

Washington Wire: How do you talk about the economy on the campaign trail?

Paul: I see us in the latter stages of the Roman empire, when you have bread and circuses to placate the mob. But in our current society, we have Cash for Clunkers and the stimulus package. And the mantra we get from Washington is this soothing George Carlin voice that says, ‘You just need to go to the mall and spend your checks.’ But nobody believes that.

Washington Wire: I see.

Paul: I think there’s a danger that we could destroy our currency and be like 1923 in Germany, with the Weimar currency, with money in wheelbarrows. Germany was a civilized country in Europe, and they destroyed their currency and then elected Hitler, so things have happened before and they could happen again.

Bill Johnson:  Our country is in debt to the tune of $13 trillion dollars and rising.  We are funding this debt through selling our country to other governments, the printing of money, and increased taxation.  All of these actions are leading to high unemployment, devaluation of our dollar, and the loss of national sovereignty.

Washington Wire: Do you want Sarah Palin to campaign for you?

Paul: We’d love to have her come. We’ve made some overtures to her.

Bill Johnson: Her help in this campaign would be appreciated.

Washington Wire: What about Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney?

Paul: I don’t know much about Tim Pawlenty. Romney, there’s a mixture of beliefs there.

Bill Johnson:  I am happy with the support of true Reagan Conservatives like Dr. Alan Keyes.

[The Comedian]

Rand Paul is an isolationist, Libertarian, pro-choice for states, candidate, just like his father.

Reagan conservatives should not allow themselves to be fooled by his slick talk.

Boy, you sure can pull complete BS out of thin air pretty well.

Now let's clear your cloud of crap with some actual facts:

Neither Rand nor Ron Paul are isolationist - they are both "America First" proponents who call for the outdated and expensive overseas military presense to be reduced in line with budgetary and military prudence, not Cold War nostalgia or planet-wide "peace keeping" excuses.

Both Rand and Ron are as pro-life as you can be. Ron Paul is an obstitrician who has personally delivered over 4,000 babes.

Libertarian - small 'l', there's a difference. Learn it.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[EternalVigilance]

Both Rand and Ron are as pro-life as you can be.

No, they're not. They hold the position of Gerald R. Ford, not Ronald Reagan. They are pro-choice for states.

[rabscuttle385]

planet-wide "peace keeping" excuses

Y'know, the irony here is that the U.S. borrows from foreign powers and then turns around and spends the borrowed funds to defend those very same foreign powers, the blood of U.S. citizens spilled in the process notwithstanding. At the same time, the U.S. slits its own economic wrists by refusing to make use of its own natural resources and by hobbling its own economy with excessive and improper taxes and regulations.

Both Rand and Ron are as pro-life as you can be.

Ron Paul delivered babies, and Rand Paul is so pro-life that he's to the right of me! (He has gone on the record as supporting an end to all abortions, with no exceptions made for rape, incest, or the life of the mother.) It seems, though, that EV's point of contention is that Rand Paul is unwilling to end abortions at the Federal level but would prefer that the matter be handled at the state level, in keeping with the Constitution and the sovereignty of the various States.

[rabscuttle385]

They hold the position of Gerald R. Ford, not Ronald Reagan. They are pro-choice for states.

So if, as you implicitly claim, "pro-life" means that one must support an end to abortion at the Federal level, wouldn't that also mean that "pro-life" also means that one must support an expansion in Federal power, authority, and jurisdiction? Or do the ends justify the means in this one case?

[calex59]

Yeah, I am sure he wants Palawnty and Mitt to campaign for him, he needs to know how to lose an election.

[deport]

It probably matters not what some others think about Paul so much as it matters as to what the people of Kentucky think of him and the other opponents. The following would indicate it’s a two man race with the others down at the wannabe level.

http://www.whas11.com/community/blogs/political-blog/Exclusive-WHAS11Survey-USA-poll—Rand-Paul-surges-for-GOP-Mongiardo-maintains-lead-in-Democratic-race-68970162.html
Updated Tuesday, Nov 3 at 6:38 PM
The Republican party in Kentucky has never seen anything like it.
Bowling Green eye doctor Rand Paul has no political experience, but with the support of the same people who backed his Dad, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, when he ran for president. Rand Paul has now at least pulled even with Secretary of State Trey Grayon in the GOP U.S. Senate primary.

32% Grayson
35% Paul
2% Johnson
1% Oerther
3% Thoney
10% Other
18% Undecided

[GoldStandard]

Yeah, Germany wanted to win. But they were trying to defeat America via a defensive war; like the Confederacy during the War Between the States. Meaning winning a war without taking over so much as one inch of your opponents land.

I’m pretty sure they knew they wouldn’t be able to actually invade this country.

[EternalVigilance]

The securing of the Blessings of Liberty to posterity is the sworn duty of all in American government, in every branch and at every level.

The Founders said that the protection of God-given rights is the very purpose of human government.

[EternalVigilance]

in keeping with the Constitution and the sovereignty of the various States.

Hogwash. The Fourteenth Amendment requires the states to provide for the equal protection of the laws. Like the Fifth Amendment, it says that no person shall be deprived of life without a fair trial.

[rabscuttle385]

The Founders said that the protection of God-given rights is the very purpose of human government.

True, but that doesn't mean that one must default to using the Federal apparatus to achieve goals. Our government has many layers; what we are disagreeing upon here is not the outcome (i.e., an end to abortions) but the means of accomplishing the outcome (i.e., at the Federal level vs. the state level).

[EternalVigilance]

Try a little exercise: instead of the right to life, insert any other unalienable right into the Paul family’s formulation and see how well it works out for you, logically.

Do you think North Dakota, under our Constitution, could outlaw guns, or free speech, or freedom of the press, or trial by jury, or parental rights?

Let me remind you, the right to life is the supreme unalienable right; the one right without which you can never again hope to ever enjoy all the rest.

[EternalVigilance]

We’re talking about the supreme obligation of all.

[rabscuttle385]

Like the Fifth Amendment, it says that no person shall be deprived of life without a fair trial.

Which can only be applied to "fetuses" (unborn human individuals) if the legal concept of "personhood" is redefined. Now, while we would probably agree that the unborn are worthy of some legal protection, I would rather that "personhood" not be redefined from a legal perspective because doing so opens up a whole new can of worms with potential implications for citizenship (e.g., birth date vs. conception date, would an individual gain nationality status based on where they were conceived rather than born), and for legal rights (e.g., if the courts determined that a mother was not adequately protecting the legal rights of her unborn child, could they regulate her life in order to ensure that the child's legal rights are protected) in general.

[BobL]

“I’m pretty sure they knew they wouldn’t be able to actually invade this country.”

Sorry, but you’re clueless as to interdependence. Between Japan and Germany, they would have simply choked us until we invited them in (due to starvation). You are right, they would not have had to invade use, rather they would have strangled us.

Unfortunately this is a VERY difficult concept for Libertarians to understand.