Rand Paul: ‘Old guard’ Losing Elections

Politco ^

[drewh]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he agrees with those that say there is pushback from the Republican establishment when the party faces heat from factions such as the libertarian wing.

Newt Gingrich said Thursday that he thinks the establishment is growing “more hysterical” as Paul and fellow Republican Sen. Ted Cruz rise in prominence. Paul said Friday on “The Laura Ingraham Show” that he thinks the establishment needs to welcome new ideas.

I think there’s some truth to that and I think the other thing about it is that the old guard needs to realize they’re the ones that have been losing the last couple of elections,” Paul said. “If we want to win for presidency we have to compete in the states where we’re not competing. Precisely, up in the northeast and on the west coast where Republicans are basically on life support. We need to reach out with issues that may attract new people to the party.”

One of the most divisive issues in the GOP has been the threat from some, including Paul, Cruz and fellow Sen. Mike Lee, to shut down the government as a means to defund Obamacare. Paul said he does not support shutting down the government, but rather using the continuing resolution as leverage against the president’s signature health care law.

Paul added that he thinks using the continuing resolution to defund Obamacare gives Republicans in the House leverage against Democrats in the Senate during a conference committee on the budget.

“But if we don’t use our leverage at all, basically the House becomes impotent,” Paul said. “And having a Republican controlled House stops bad things, but we never use our leverage to try to get good things. And the good thing might be that we can’t defund Obamacare, maybe we don’t have the muscle to do that, and we probably don’t. But we use the leverage of the House voting to defund it to try to find an in-between.”

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Maybe Republicans should up the ante. Instead of promising an Obama phone, we promise them.... FORTY ACRES AND A MULE!

Oh wait, that means work!

[DainBramage]

If you had told a founding father that representatives would strive to spend their whole lives in Washington,
and would be termed “the old guard” they would have put term limits in the constitution.

[Vigilanteman]

Newt Gingrich said Thursday that he thinks the establishment is growing “more hysterical” as Paul and fellow Republican Sen. Ted Cruz rise in prominence.

Newty is right here, but he was part of the problem when he was in office.

Not just the problems with keeping his snake in the cage, but the idiotic attacks on conservatives.

We might have had a chance with Rick Santorum when it was clear Newt was not able to compete with a guy from Pennsylvania even on his own turf. Santorum had his problems, but at least he had a connection to the Main Street working class people who've grown disgusted with the Wall Street jerks in BOTH parties.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The GOP could just offer two chickens in every pot. :-)

[bigbob]

put differently, the Old Guard is doing it’s damndest to retain control of the GOP. And winning.

[Vigilanteman]

I’m sure there will be people willing to give them crack, booze, big screen televisions and whatever else it is that they want in return for their FORTY ACRES AND A MULE.

[mulligan]

And in the process will continue to lose elections. The GOP is incompetent, ignorant, leaderless and very un-American.

[meadsjn]

Rand Paul: ‘Old guard’ Losing Elections

What the heck is he talking about?

The 'Old Guard' GOP is losing elections for the same crap Rand Paul is promoting -- amnesty for illegals; gays in the military; "America Loses" foreign policy; bigger government; higher taxes; and on, and on.

Rand Paul only pretends to be conservative when talking to conservatives.

FIAT MONEY
Come on and vote for me, all you dope-smoking, animal-molesting, Alex-Jones-type, drooling retards.
FIAT MONEY -- CONTRAILS -- SPACE ALIENS -- MONEY BOMB

[Sans-Culotte]

In the 19th century, Prime Minister William Gladstone was affectionately known as the "GOM", or "Grand Old Man". He was PM during the time Charles George Gordon was trapped in the Sudan in the city of Khartoum. Gladstone eventually sent a relief force to rescue Gordon; but it arrived a couple of days after the defenders (including Gordon) had been killed by the Muslims. The public was outraged, and Gladstone was mockingly referred to as the "MOG" (Murderer of Gordon).

We need to do some sort of reworking of GOP to refer to the feckless Rovians as what they are. Maybe something like POG (Progressive Other Guys).

[DoughtyOne]

My instinct is to desire a new voice rising out of the ranks to lead Conservatism.

Unfortunately, many of the people whose voices I would like to listen to have caused me to see them like this.

They do not grasp the threat of illegal immigration at all.

So while they try to make great thought out sound-bytes, I can only hear one thing.

They think that the collective thoughts of one large body of people, will be improved by pumping in over 100 million new 'foreign national' voices in under 20 years.

Many of those voices will be the voice of people who are committing very serious crimes here.

Tens of millions of those voices will be made up of people who didn't respect this nation enough to come in legally.

Tens of millions more will be the voices of people who directly benefited from members of their family disobeying the laws of our nation.

And how is it these folks are going to make our nation stronger, add to the moral fiber here?

Mr. Rubio, Mr. Curz, Mr. McCain, Mr. Graham...  you're all the same to me.  If you can't get immigration, then you can't get U. S. Sovereignty.

Ramirez's latest political cartoon LARGE VERSION 07/30/2013: LINK  LINK to regular sized version of Ramirez's latest, and an archive of his political cartoons.

FOLKS, THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN, PLEASE CLICK HERE AND PENCIL IN YOUR DONATION TO HELP END THIS FREEPATHON.  THANK YOU!
...this is a general all purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

[Venturer]

Nah they would sell the mule to buy dope and the 20 acres would grow up with weeds until taken by the Democrats for taxes.

[plsjr]

rand paul’s more of the same... like rubio.

flush ‘em all.

[iopscusa]

In hind sight Santorum would definitely have been a better VP CN than bird legs sack-o-shitte Paul Ryan!

[iopscusa]

Right on, that’s some righteous anger @ those dang blasted kids on the lawn!

[The Unknown Republican]

The GOP-e has welcomed new ideas...the problem is they are Democratic Party platform ideas.

[drypowder]

he thinks the establishment needs to welcome new ideas

gee, does Newt mean something as novel as following contitution law and punishing those elected officials who break their oaths by supporting unconstitutional legislation??

[newfreep]

“West of the Rockies, you’re on the air.”

h/t - “A. Bell”

[sarge83]

They are winning the gop but losing the country. They haven’t won an election since 2004. They rode the tea parties backs in 2010 and demanded to be put in charge for 2012 and the result was the usual.

The old guard has to go for the sake of the country. They are as much a part of the problem as the democrats.

[AdaGray]

My dislike of RINOs has grown exponentially since the last election. Above all, the are cowards. I support anyone who primaries a RINO and will never vote for one for President again.

[Starboard]

The stupid Republicans are always looking to compromise with liberals, who have no intention on compromising with them.

Politics is bloodsport to Democrats and they play to win. Republicans will never understand this. They are losers.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

It’s interesting that the Republican establishment now has opposition on both sides of the spectrum, conservatives and libertarians. It actually makes sense.

First of all, what does the Republican establishment stand for?

Corporatism, select parts of ginormous government, specifically the “military-intelligence-police-international order” authoritarianism, and cooperation with the Democrats in achieving this. To a great extent, they also believe in some form or other of Keynesian economics.

Importantly, they are more willing to support leftist Democrats than they are conservatives.

For their part, the conservatives find common ground with libertarians in wanting to end the authoritarian “super-state”, while keeping some of its important characteristics. For example, conservatives want the War on Terror to continue, but against America’s *enemies*, not against its honest citizens. The war should be *there*, not *here*.

Government has grown so immense that conservatives are now talking in terms of what percentages of government need to be cut, be it 10%, 25%, or even 50%. Anyone’s guess how much cutting needs to be done just to cut through the fat.

Libertarians find agreement in that, but they even want to go further, ending a lot of foreign involvement at all. And they also want for an end to most federal laws that have no constitutional justification.

It is far easier for conservatives to agree with most of that than it is for conservatives to accept the unsustainable and destructive edifice created by the Republican leadership and the Democrats.

[AdaGray]

My dislike of RINOs has grown exponentially since the last election. Above all, the are cowards. I support anyone who primaries a RINO and will never vote for one for President again.

[junta]

Money done runnin out and the Dems are going to have to jettison some of their baggage so as not have to share the loot beyond the magic 51% of the electorate. So my guess is that blue collar whites from the NE and Midwest get the heave ho and will be looking to vote somewhere else.

[Jacquerie]

Probably so, although our first screw-up of their system was the 17th Amendment.

[Vigilanteman]

VP CN ? Hell, he would have been a better P CN as well.

[Liz]

REMINDER Checks And Balances—The Constitutional Structure For Limited And Balanced Government-—to guard the people’s liberty against government power.

The Constitution was devised with an ingenious and intricate built-in system of checks and balances to guard the people’s liberty against combinations of government power. It structured the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary separate and wholly independent as to function, but coor­dinated for proper operation, with safeguards to prevent usurpations of power. Only by balancing each against the other two could freedom be preserved, said John Adams.

Another writer of the day summarized clearly the reasons for such checks and balances:
•
“If the LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIAL powers are united, the MAKER of the law will also INTERPRET it (constitutionality).

•
Should the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE powers be united... the EXECUTIVE power would make itself absolu te, and the government end in tyranny.

•
Should the EXECUTIVE and JUDICIAL powers be united, the subject (citizen) would then have no permanent security of his person or property.

“INDEED, the dependence of any of these powers upon either of the others ... has so often been productive of such calamities... that the page of history seems to be one continued tale of human wretchedness.” (Theophilus Parsons, ESSEX RESULTS)

What were some of these checks and balances believed so important to individual liberty? Several are listed below:
•
HOUSE (peoples representatives) is a check on SENATE - no statute becomes law without its approval.

•
SENATE is a check on HOUSE - no statute becomes law without its approval. (Prior to 17th Amendment, SENATE was appointed by State legislatures as a protection for states’ rights - another check the Founders provided.)

•
EXECUTIVE (President) can restrain both HOUSE and SENATE by using Veto Power.

•
LEGISLATIVE (Congress - Senate & House) has a check on EXECUTIVE by being able to pass, with 2/3 majority, a bill over President’s veto.

•
LEGISLATIVE has further check on EXECUTIVE through power of discrimination in appropriation of funds for operation of EXECUTIVE.

•
EXECUTIVE (President) must have approval of SENATE in filling important posts in EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

•
EXECUTIVE (President) must have approval of SENATE before treaties with foreign nations can be effective.

•
LEGISLATIVE (Congress) can conduct investigations of EXECUTIVE to see if funds are properly expended and laws enforced.

•
EXECUTIVE has further check on members of LEGISLATIVE (Congress) in using discretionary powers in decisions regarding establishment of military bases, building & improvement of navigable rivers, dams, interstate highways, etc., in districts of those members.

•
JUDICIARY is check on LEGISLATIVE through its authority to review all laws and determine their constitutionality.

•
LEGISLATIVE (Congress) has restraining power over JUDICIARY, with con­stitutional authority to restrict extent of its jurisdiction.

•
LEGISLATIVE has power to impeach members of JUDICIARY guilty of treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors.

•
EXECUTIVE (President) is check on JUDICIARY by having power to nominate new judges.

•
LEGISLATIVE (Senate) is check on EXECUTIVE and JUDICIARY having power to approve/disapprove nominations of judges.

•
LEGISLATIVE is check on JUDICIARY - having control of appropriations for operation of federal court system.

•
LEGISLATIVE (Peoples Representatives) is check on both EXECUTIVE and JUDICIARY through power to initiate amendments to Constitution subject to approval by 3/4 of the States.

•
LEGISLATIVE (Senate) has power to impeach EXECUTIVE (President) with concurrence of 2/3, of members.

•
The PEOPLE, through their State representatives, may restrain the power of the federal LEGISLATURE if 3/4 of the States do not ratify proposed Constitu­tional Amendments.

•
LEGISLATIVE, by Joint Resolution, can terminate certain powers granted to EXECUTIVE (President) (such as war powers) without his consent.

•
It is the PEOPLE who have final check on both LEGISLATIVE and EX­ECUTIVE when they vote on their Representatives every 2 years, their Senators every 6 years, and their President every 4 years. Through those selections, they also influence the potential makeup of the JUDICIARY.

It is up to each generation to see that the integrity of the Constitutional structure for a free society is maintained by carefully preserving the system of checks and balances essential to limited and balanced government. “To preserve them (is) as necessary as to institute them,” said George Washington.

---

Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5

http://www.nccs.net/articles/ril31.html

[zeugma]

And the good thing might be that we can’t defund Obamacare, maybe we don’t have the muscle to do that, and we probably don’t.

I forget. Which party has the majority of congresscritters in the house? You know, if we didn't have so many republicans whoring themselves out to the media, we absolutely could defund obamacare. The funding has to be appropriated, and the appropriation has to start with the house. If it ain't included, it ain't funded.

The fact that these things are just funded as a matter of course, and that it's a huge deal to even limit them to the rate of inflation just shows us how much theater it all ls.  They are playing like they have power in order to enjoy the perks of office, and we're the ones being laughed at.

[Theodore R.]

Rand does leave a lot to be desired. But “pretend” is the way of Republicans, and the primary remain clueless. Already Rand is lined up with Mitch McC. for the May 2014 primary.

[Theodore R.]

We are slowly learning that HHH would have been as good as Nixon, and Dukakis would have been more forthcoming as GHWB.

[Theodore R.]

Republicans will never understand this. They are losers.

For some strange reason the GOP people want so badly to be praised and recognized by liberals. I don't think they can learn that they are being played for fools.