Rand Paul Skips Iowa Confab, Hits Hamptons Fundraiser

Before it’s all over Rand Paul is going to look worse than his co-hort, Mitch McC.

So it begins. Paul lies to Iowa grassroots social conservatives so that he can kiss the rings or whatevers of the Wall Street $$$$ crowd. Mitch McTurtle probably helped arrange this latest sellout. We have also recently witnessed Paul weaseling around wanting to restore voting rights to felons, waffling on social issues generally, carrying on the family tradition of foreign policy weakness, etc.

However, note the important point of this article that big money is more important by far than are rank and file voters.

He’ll find out, like so many others have before him, that you can’t win Iowa or New Hampshire with big money.

Paul is likely not going to bother with Iowa. New Hampshire is a place where he can finish top two.

Like it or not, $$$MONEY$$$ is mother’s milk in politics.
90% of voters do not log on to political web sites and
get familiar with issues. All they see is Ads on TeeVee.
And that my friend, requires $$$money$$$.

Maybe we could establish an initial price list for public offices---as a starting point for each "race." Let's say $500 million for POTUS, $200 million for a U.S. Senate seat. $50 million for a House seat. Anyone willing to meet the initial price schedule qualifies for the finals and has to post the relevant amount to continue.

Next, we can have a grand auction in which the candidates try to outbid one another to "win" the "race." Highest bidder for each office takes office. None of that messy voting by mere peasants need be allowed to interfere with the overriding "principle"---The nation should be run by those who own it.

Finally, here's the best part. The money goes not to government or special interests or for now irrelevant television advertising but to legitimate charities caring for disabled children, disabled war veterans, cuddly abandoned pets, soup kitchens, shelters, the one third of Americans driven from their jobs by corporate greedheads, etc. The money will be applied doing good in the private sector and Americans will not be bombarded with endless TV propagandistic advertising every other fall.

The downside is that the corporate greedheads still run the country. What else is news? BUT, the greedheads get to pay for that privilege. Most folks still get trampled because of that but at least the greedheads and trust funbd babies have to give the campaign money to something more worthwhile than the Lame Stream Media. We would be formalizing America's dirty little political secret at the expense of the common enemy: the Lame Stream Media.

Keeping the status quo means that $$$$MONEY$$$$ is the Mother______'s milk of politics. At least we can redirect the $$$$MONEY$$$$ to worthy causes.

I still believe in the 1st Amendment.
Everyone should be free to express their preference
by donating to whoever, as much as they want.

I would rather have the successful and intelligent picking
our leaders than the takers and dependents.

Capitalism may sound selfish on the surface but it has a
proven history of creating the most prosperity in every
country where tried. It is of course not perfect or ideal,
but beats big government based socialism.

I was trying to help you by coming up with a useful and respectable system. Remember the chief features:

1. No more annoying barrages of lying commercials enriching our media enemies.

2. The obscenely wealthy still get to buy nominations and elections.

3. The money goes to good causes.

4. Their tax lawyers can figure out how to make the contributions tax deductible, thereby padding Muffie's trust fund, with some left over to buy new strings of polo ponies and maybe a new Gulfstream.

5. This system would have the virtue of honesty and candor in that it admits up front that the nominations and elections were bought by the highest bidders: the successful and the intelligent as you phrase it.

Of course, by this standard, the Massachusetts Mittwit would be deemed more successful and intelligent than Albert Einstein. I think that would be an example of cognitive dissonance. Oh, never mind. At least it gets rid of all that dangerous "democracy" stuff. After all, generations of soldiers have fought and died for the sacred right of greedy zillionaires to buy and sell our public offices without the peasants interfering.

Also remember, online Paulbots' talking points emphasize ALWAYS bringing up the name of an actual Republican -- both Rand and Ron are Democrats in all but name -- in an attempt to change the subject, when a factual story appears about either one (as opposed to the PR pieces that invariably state how Rand is the front runner etc).

Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'
Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists]
[Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]

Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"
I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.
[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]

Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.
[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]

Rand Paul's immigration speech
...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.

Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.

Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.

Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.

If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...

This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.

Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reform
Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...
[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]

The potential problem for the ambitious lawmaker arose when he was photographed and interviewed Saturday by Bloomberg News at a high-end fundraiser in the Hamptons, which was co-hosted by actor and liberal activist Alec Baldwin -- not exactly a Hollywood favorite among Iowa’s Christian conservative set.