Skip to comments.Rand Paul supporters target Kentucky Democrat Chandler
Posted on 03/14/2010 12:58:25 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
Rand Paul supporters target Kentucky Democrat Chandler
By John Cheves | Lexington Herald-Leader
Ahead in recent polls, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul came to Lexington Friday to share the spotlight with five men who want to replace U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler, D-Versailles.
Paul and the GOP congressional candidates staged a lunchtime "Take Back the House" rally outside Chandler's district office on Beaumont Centre Circle.
Paul, who faces Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the May 18 Republican primary, told a crowd of about 100 people that the Tea Party movement is a tidal wave that will sweep incumbents out of Congress in November.
"We want to spread the love to all the Republican candidates running against Ben Chandler," Paul said.
Each GOP candidate for the 6th Congressional District spoke for a few minutes. The only candidate who didn't attend was Andy Barr of Lexington.
Mike Templeman of Frankfort said Congress has spent the country so deeply into debt that the next two generations of Americans will be hobbled. A career politician, Chandler is part of the problem, Templeman said....
(read more at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at mcclatchydc.com ...
Rand Paul is endorsed by:
GREAT to see Rand Paul working as a real team player, lending his burgeoning support and popularity to other fine GOP candidates in Kentucky. Good news all around!!
Rand Paul Team Player ping!
I think one of the most underappreciated relationships in Palin’s political career is her affinity with Steve Forbes.
I agree! I've always liked Steve Forbes; and while Sarah Palin may not be quite as strong on the "policy wonk details" as Forbes (though that's something she can work on, and improve), I think that in terms of her broad vision she's very much in the same camp philosophically. Call her the female "small-business & moose-hunter" version of Forbes. Heh.
Will Sen. Rand Paul bash Israel as much as dear old Dad? Not exactly what we need right now.
Rand Paul: "I think Israel is an important ally in the Middle East, its a democracy, and there are many things that we will have in common and should work together with. I do say, and Ive told the people who do support Israel in a big way, Ive said, look, the problem is that we give $6 billion to Israels enemies that are all around her, and we give Israel $4 billion. We have to ask the question, where is the money coming from, we have a massive debt and were out of money."
I think that Rand Paul makes an important point -- if you want to talk about cutting foreign aid to Israel, then you need to talk about cutting all foreign aid to Israel's enemies as well. He's certainly right about that!
(Maybe ole' Ron Paul should listen to the way his son presents the argument!)
He certainly is. In fact even Netanyahu has advocated the end of Israel's $3 billion anual foreign aid, calling it "welfare" which allows Israel to divert defense dollars to social welfare spending he wants to ditch. But of course Egypt desperately needs the cash, and it is guaranteed to both sides out of the Camp David Accords of 1977.
You're probably right, but good grief -- do we really need to continue subsidizing Jimmy Carter's promises to Egypt? Forever??
(Sigh). Rand Paul -- and you, and Bibi Netanyahu -- are right. It makes no sense to call Israel an ally while we are subsidizing her enemies (not to mention interfering in her domestic politics; does Israel try to tell us what housing we can build in Washington DC?). We need someone with the political willpower to take the Arabs off the welfare dole.
It's worse than that. The U.S. is now sending Egypt--an Arab dictatorship--our most advanced surface-to-air missles, presumably to use against Israel...as part of Obama's new "hardline" vs. Israel. I agree ALL aid should be cut yesterday, to both nations.
You know, I tend to think that Treaties of Alliance -- and I would include in that the Privilege of buying America's most advanced weaponry (I'm more agnostic and unconcerned about other countries buying our old "leftovers") -- should only be concluded with Nations that bring something to the table for America's benefit. Otherwise, it's just a "Defense Subsidy" for another country that's a pure Cost to us, with no Benefit.
Even if you ended all foreign aid (aka, "international welfare") tomorrow (yes, please!), we would still have to make decisions about whom we permit to buy our "kill-kill bang-bang" stuff. If ANYONE should have the right to shop the shelves for advanced US anti-aircraft weaponry, it oughtta be a country like Israel which worked jointly with the USA to develop the Arrow anti-ballistic missile!
What the sam-hill has Egypt ever done to help US develop military hardware? Or Saudi Arabia?
I’m not a fan of his father (to put it kindly) but I hope Rand Paul wins. He might be more libertarian on foreign policy issues than I’d like, but his limited government stance far outstrips that.
On some foreign policy issues he is a little more hawkish than his dad. So, for me -- it's sorta like you get Ron Paul's free-market, federalist domestic ideals, but with a little more realistic pragmatism and willingness to work with the team... and with somewhat more willingness to "shoot back" in foreign affairs. (Somewhat).
That's my general impression, anyway.