Posted on 02/13/2013 5:49:23 PM PST by ExxonPatrolUs
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delivered a tea party response to the State of the Union that was a mixed bag. At its best it reflected real movement on the right in favor of immigration reform; at its worst it was just plain weird. However, political opponents should be wary; Paul’s style is deceptively effective, projecting a calm and almost sweet demeanor.
Ironically, he was least convincing on the topic for which he is best known. He promised to balance the budget in five years, but what he offered was not promising: It is time for a new bipartisan consensus. It is time Democrats admit that not every dollar spent on domestic programs is sacred. And it is time Republicans realize that military spending is not immune to waste and fraud.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtonpost.com ...
Since when does Rand think DOD spending is immune from fraud?
Very nice job Jenny. Now run and get me a cup of coffee. Good girl.
If the GOP wants immigration reform, they can do it without me. It’ll become pointless to hold elections anyway
You can’t expect different sentences, or even parts of the same sentence, to logically connect to eachother in journalists’ writing. They want to say what they’re saying precisely when they say it, and who cares if the end product is readable, much less convincing? Nobody reads anymore anyway, really.
Jenni sure likes her some GOPe,, don’t she?
I’m glad some of you read this crap and know the people who write it. I wouldn’t know her from Eve.
Well...if Ms Rubin likes your take on “immigration reform”....you are an Amnesty Liberal.
Where Have All the Conservatives Gone
From what I can tell, the reaction seems to be similar to when Ann Coulter endorsed and campaigned for Romney in 2008, but her adoring fans swore she had "endorsed Duncan Hunter" for President on the basis that she said nice things about him. She's not REALLY for Romney, no sir. NO WAY Ann would help a RINO win the primary. She's just saying that to tease us and get a reaction.
In other words, they'll still in denial.
Paul's not "really" for amnesty, he doesn't mean that. He promises he'll stop illegal aliens from coming here first. All the other pro-amnesty politicians pledge that they'll "secure the border first", and they'll lying through their teeth, but when Rand Paul says it, gosh darn it, he MEANS it, cuz he's such a terrific principled conservative leader, you know. Never mind the fact that the most militant libertarians and Paulbots are pro-open borders and believe anyone has a "right" to live here for any reason.
Might take another election cycle or two for them (2014 or 2016) to figure out they've been conned. Of course, by then it will be too late and we'll have millions of new RAT voters.
Just what I was waiting for today; Jennifer Rubin’s lefty take on Rand Paul.
pay attention, that's not what he said....he said that it's time for Republicans to recognize that all DOD expenditures are not justified.
Liberal Agenda Media TEA Party File.
Rand Paul should get real
It scares people to death to hear the cold hard facts, the ones who have done this did not get voted for even by the people who were for them, why? because talking about it is one thing, but cowards are cowards.
For instance if a politician got up there and made the statement that the second amendment was to preserve freedom and not for hunting he would be in trouble.
But if he said that the second amendment was for the purpose of killing some one in order to protect themselves he would not get any more votes from the so called conservatives than he would get from the liberals, he would not get to first base.
So we can blame the politicians all we want but the only way we are going to weed out the bad apples is to vote them out and that is not likely to happen unless people are willing to stand on their own feet and bring up their off spring the same way, and socialists do not live that way.
From what I can tell, the reaction seems to be similar to when Ann Coulter endorsed and campaigned for Romney in 2008, but her adoring fans swore she had “endorsed Duncan Hunter” for President on the basis that she said nice things about him. She’s not REALLY for Romney, no sir. NO WAY Ann would help a RINO win the primary. She’s just saying that to tease us and get a reaction.
Homeland InSecurity and DOD have alot of excess and waste.
Cut ‘em - with a brain.
At the risk of nit-picking, Rand made the typical GOP kneee-jerk “WE have to please Hispanics with immigration reform’ reaction comment while Rub is making it a front and center issue/stand for the GOP to do it, for his own ambitions.
I liked Rand for a while, he seemed to avoid many of the nutty positions of his dad and took some good stands, but now he has been doing lots of grandstanding talk, just talk.
That always arouses my suspicion.
And in the Senate he has no business lecturing the House Republicans on what not to do,
If he wants to earn my support then his job in the Senate is to kill Reid/Obama bills so Bohner and House Rs are not in the position to be crucified by either conservatives or public opinion on them. Results count not woof woof.
Talk is cheap and I have had it with those ‘woof-woff’ers.
First off, RINO stands for Republican In Name Only. There is no political term called "rhino".
Second, you're missing the point. The vast majority of conservatives held their noses and voted for Romney when the choice was Romney or Obama.
Furthermore, I'd say a majority of freepers (probably at least 60%) reluctantly switched to Romney late in the 2008 primary season, when the choices were down to Romney, Huckabee, or McCain. They believed Romney was the "most conservative" of those three. (that's why it was amusing when those same freepers bashed Rick Santorum for endorsing Romney under the same circumstances, and refused to publicly say who THEY had voted for, since 80% of them probably did the very thing they were trashing Santorum for doing)
What Ann Coulter did was something entirely different. She didn't reluctantly back Romney towards the end of the primary season, she proudly started pimping from Day 1 of the 2008 primaries and urged conservatives to vote for him when there a dozen other candidates to pick from. Her fan club refused to accept she had sold out and went into spin mode claiming she had "endorsed Duncan Hunter" on the basis of her saying "I think Duncan Hunter is a great conservative" (by that logic, EVERY Republican would have "endorsed Duncan Hunter")
Coulter did the same thing in 2012 as she did in 2008. She kept desperately trying to push Chris Christie to run, and after about the twelfth time of him telling her, "NO", the primary season started and Ann Coulter was pimping for Mitt Romney from Day 1 of the primaries and urging conservatives to vote for him when there were a dozen other conservatives to pick from. It was no surprise she would do this, she was taking the same position she had in 2008 and she said months earlier that if Christie didn't run, she'd back Romney whole-heartedly.
Of this time her fan club acted "shocked" and didn't try to spin it and claim she was endorsing someone else. They had to accept it after Romney won the nomination.
I'm seeing the same denial from Paulbots. Whenever someone NOT named "Rand Paul" says they want to work with Democrats on "comprehensive immigration reform" and a "path to citizenship", they're a La Raza sellout and a lying SOB when they pledge there won't be amnesty until the borders are secured first. But when Rand Paul says it, gosh darn, he's a wonderful tea party leader, he really means he'll secure the border first and he would never sell out.
Like the Coulter thing, they might figure out they've been sold out by Rand Paul by 2014 or 2016 after the "bipartisan" immigration bill makes it out of the Senate. But by that time it will be too late.
First off, RINO stands for Republican In Name Only. There is no political term called “rhino”.
Second, you’re missing the point
Romney lost so we can blame Ann Coulter or rand Paul or we might blame a dozen others, i also went over Pauls voting record which much of it i did not understand as it does not get down to what it is all about, but the ones i did understand i agree with.
I don,t have to understand the point based on a certain premiss to know that people are caving in to socialism.
For goodness sakes, half of the Freepers raging against Romney the other half raging against one of the other candidates, a pretty fair reason why none of them could have won any more than Romney did, i bet the socialists loved it.
As for Ann Coulter i may not agree with her but i can not see how she let any one down as by your own words she was with Romney from day 1, i did not see any wrong in that.
I doubt if any two people can exactly agree so i am sure i would have disagreements with even Ron Paul but i believe in Capitalism which is not a system thought up by societies but is a natural system whereby free people can live and prosper.
For the reason stated i did not look forward to voting for any of the candidates who were running, i am a product of socialism just like every one else, i have paid into social security for more years than i care to remember and am going to get it all back plus interest if i can.
Regardless of that i would vote for a real Constitution advocate even if it meant that i would lose it.
Yup. Cruz and Paul aren't good enough. Better to focus on their 5 or 10% impurities rather than the 80 and 90% leftwing tack of the rest of the GOP. That will sure advance Conservatism.
Let me guess, you thing Sarah is damaged goods and needs to be brought down, but Jeb and Christie are a-ok.
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.