Pretty good little smear campaign you run there, mix in all the names, confuse two different people.
You never explain why Trey Grayson should be the GOP Senator instead.
You never explain why Jim DeMint, Jim Bunning, Sarah Palin, Steve Forbes, and Dr. James Dobson don’t buy all your conspiracy, name associations.
You also don’t explain why Kentucky conservatives don’t buy it.
The most infuriating Rand Paul smear is that he is an anti-Semite. Rand Paul’s political philosophy is rooted in the writings of the Founding Fathers. But his economic philosophy is rooted in the writings of four economic thinkers: Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Murray Rothbard. It is absurd to charge anti-Semitism against a man who acknowledges that his intellectual influences are all Jews. And, in fact, his economic philosophy is in direct opposition to that typically proposed by anti-Semites.
The propensity of RINOs and other big-government Republicans to engage in outright deception illustrates just how fearful they are of Rand Paul and the limited-government movement that he represents.
Certainly, anyone hearing Sarah Palin these many many months during and since her Election Campaign; by her appearances, interviews and/ or just reading her book ‘Going Rogue’ would have a hard time figuring ‘how it is’, that Sarah Palin has endorsed Rand Paul.
Don’t know the answer; save that the Tea Party – and it’s anti-Repub establishment-status-quo winds, blow naturally, in the direction of incumbents such as Rand Paul, rather than favoring what are viewed as ‘establishment’ candidates - in this case - KY Republican Trey Grayson. Supporters as well, easily caught - if not by necessity - in the updraft.
We know too, that politics makes for ‘odd couple’ pairings, when the upside appears to outweigh the downside and so it is; I think; that Palin and the rest of these ‘supporters’, feel compelled to support those who are seeding the ‘grass roots’ of America; and that they believe this is a win - for America – regardless.
Jeannette Pryor again at ‘newsrealblog.com’ Feb 8/2010 offers some politically esoteric analysis (and include the more politically practical, and contrasting considerations from 'Salon' already posted here at Free Republic, below as well.) Pryor contrasts statements by both Palin and Paul; and concludes with a warning, that I belive has merit. Link: link
Excerpt:
This primacy of ideas, as opposed to personality worship or political expediency, demands that conservatives quickly confront the significance and implications of Governor Palin’s endorsement of Dr. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul. Her $2,000 donation to Paul’s campaign came with this statement:
“I’m proud to support great grassroots candidates like Dr. Paul. While there are issues we disagree on, he and I are both in agreement that it’s time to shake up the status quo in Washington and stand up for common sense ideas.”<> On Fox News Sunday, Palin told Chris Wallace:
“There are things that I don’t agree with Rand Paul, and yet his domestic policies for the most part, I do agree with.”
The conclusion of Going Rogue is a magnificent outline of the author’s positions on key issues. Statements by Dr. Paul to Anti-War Radio and Alex Jones cause a jarring ideological cacophony when compared with those appropriated by his Alaskan supporter.
SP/Going Rogue: “Today our sons and daughters are fighting in distant countries to protect our freedoms and to nurture freedom for others…we do have a responsibility to complete our missions in these countries so that we can keep our homeland safe. America must remain the strongest nation in the world in order to remain free. And our goal in the War on Terror must be the same as Reagan’s, ‘We won. They lost.”
Dr. Paul:
“Part of the reason we are bankrupt as a country is that we are fighting so many foreign wars and have so many military bases around the world. I don’t say, ‘Out of Iraq now!’ I say out of Iraq two or three years ago, or never go in – even better.”
SP/Going Rogue:
“We are both the world’s sword and its shield…we lend not just our strength but the support of a free people to others who are fighting for their freedom. They need to know that America is not indifferent to their struggles…nations like Israel need to be confident of our support.”
Dr. Paul:
“You have to ask yourself, ‘Do you kill more terrorists than you create?’ We inflamed an entire region there and I don’t think it was the best thing for our national defense or for our country. We have to decide if putting missiles in Poland is going to provoke Russia or if we can afford to put missiles in Poland.”
SP/Going Rogue:
“But we have been given a unique responsibility to show the world the meaning and the rewards of freedom. America, as Reagan said, ‘is the abiding alternative to tyranny.’
Dr. Paul:
“I think that these issues [the economy and maintaining the American “empire:”] become the political coalition you need to win a race because there are people from the left who acknowledge the vast expenditure of the military industrial complex. There are some on the right that are beginning to understand that. It’s really that sort of right-left paradigm that you bring these groups together in order to try to win an election.”
[At least Dr. Paul had the decency to tell Alex Jones clearly:
“I’d say we’d be very very similar (Dr. Rand and Ron Paul). We might present the message sometimes differently.. I think in some ways the message has to be broadened and made more appealing to the entire Republican electorate because you have to win a primary.” ]
This means that, while Going Rogue insists:
“It is not in our best interests or the interests of the peace-loving nations of the world for America to project weakness to terrorists and tyrants,”
Dr. Paul’s ideas about terrorists would be “very, very similar” to his father’s: “They are terrorists because we are occupiers.”
Four months ago, Sarah Palin signed her name, tens of thousands of times, to Going Rogue’s vision of America. That vision is now so much silver to barter with. Endorsement rarely implies total concurrence. However, the logical conclusion of this endorsement is that Palin considers America’s global defense of freedom, national defense, the War on Terror, the defeat of Radical Islam, and the support of Israel and our allies, to be less important than “some” domestic policy issues.
By designating Dr. Paul as someone who should be influencing foreign policy, Sarah Palin has joined forces with a man whose vision of America substantively mimics that of Michael Moore. It is time to reread Horowitz. Deviating from principled intellectualism will reduce the Tea Party to a gruesome mirror image of the eschatological, savior-seeking deplored in the Obama apotheosis.
***************
They do not attack for what we are, they attack us because we are in their countries. (Rand Paul in Montana, January 29, 2009)
They are in our face, in our country because we are in their country. (Rand Paul in Montana, January 29, 2009)
And as posted here at FR: an insightful look as well from Salon: How Rand Paul became the Tea Party's Obama Salon.com ^ | 5-14-10 | Ben Van Heuvelen Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 4:49:47 PM by Christian_Capitalist
**********
(There are a number of insights offered here; would add as well, while Palin is unequivical on Israel, it appears that Paul's inclinations are not nearly as ardent.)
Personally, given 'our times'/politics/philosophy; and knowing what I know re Paul; and considering Cheney versus Palin endodrsements; I would not be casting my vote for Paul.