Heh. I don't even remember this primary (or taking a stance on it) but clicking on his bio I see his family is Palestinian and he's a big Ron Paul guy. That would have been a big red flag for me that he's probably horrible on Israel.
>> I also recall that despite most of FR hating Ron Paul that his son was favored for the Senate nomination by more freepers than not because the eeeeeeeevil Mitch McConnell was for Trey Grayson and because Jr. Paul was a self-crowned Prince of the Tea Party. <<
The thing Grayson kept getting hit with is he voted for Clinton in '92, which somehow "proved" he was a RINO 18 years later when he had spent years being a loyal Republican. of course, when it was revealed that Rick Perry was out pimping for Al Gore in '88, those same freepers said it was OKAY because Manbearpig was a "conservative" back then. :: rolls eyes::
It's ironic freepers point to Mitch McConnell's support as proof of evil RINO support now, I remember being on this forum when Trent Lott was GOP leader and all they'd talk about is what a heroic conservative leader McConnell is for fighting John McCain and how he should be Senate Republican leader.
>> Amash has turned out to be a turd sandwich, casting ridiculous, Ron-Paul-type votes to “make a point,” thus giving liberal Democrats ammunition to claim that “even conservative Justin Amash agrees with us” or “the bill was so extreme that even Republican Justin Amash voted against it.” <<
As Impy noted, sometimes libertarianism goes together well with conservatism like iced tea goes with lemonade. The problem isn't that Paul and his followers are libertarian (Paul is even better than the "typical libertarian" on some issues like immigration), but that it's a nutty LaRouche style cult and Paulites often hold even more insane beliefs that their godlike idol "Dr. Paul"
Odd that Ron Paul is less popular than dirt here, but so many of his followers get huge freeper and tea party support. Kinda like how everyone hates the Kennedy clan but we're supposed to believe its most famous member, JFK, was a heroic conservative Democrat.
I tend to be pretty wary of candidates being heavily pushed the Paulite "Friends of Liberty RLOVEution" movement these days. Most of them have turned out bad. Even candidates I still consider far superior to the other choices we had, like Peter Schiff in CT, turned out to be a disappointment or dud. (and Schiff turned out to be lousy on social issues despite being much better on everything else)
I think "true conservative" Paulite Bob Conley would have turned out worse than Lindsay Graham if he had elected in '08. He would have handed the RATs a 60 seat majority where they could do even more damage until 2010, and I imagine the guy would actually be attacking Obama from the left on foreign policy now and routinely doing kooky press conferences with Dennis Kucinich demanding we gut the military and "bring our troops home". He probably would have still been solid on some domestic social issues like pro-life, pro-gun, pro-traditional marriage, etc., but Graham already got "A" ratings in those areas to begin with so there'd be no improvement.
>> “even conservative Justin Amash agrees with us” <<
Speaking of Graham, that reminds me of another reason why the freepers who say "At least Mark Kirk isn't as bad as Lindsay Graham" are on crack. Although I feel bad for Mark Kirk personally because he had a stroke and hope he recovers, I'm glad he's not in the Senate right now because the media delights in saying that kind of stuff whenever he gives cover to an issue that is otherwise exclusively supported by the far left. For example, when Susan G. Komen recently cut off funding for planned parenthood, they got a letter from 26 senators, all RATs, demanding the funds be reinstated. Had Mark "so proud of my 100% Planned Parenthood rating" Kirk been in the Senate, the media would have eagerly reported it was a "bipartisan" letter since the "junior Senator from Illinois, a conservative Republican veteran" had added his name.
>> More than a few less than ideal candidates won primaries in 2010 by self-proclaiming that they were the mostest tea partiest candidate. <<
Yep, I was just arguing with a "social conservatives can't WIN!!" freeper about that. He had quite a different recollection of the 2010 elections than me. Claimed "the TEA party ran exclusively on fiscal issues and we had the best election results in a generation as Republicans SWEPT the Senate". I could have sworn the 1994 wins where much bigger and the modest gains in the Senate in 2010 were actually disappointing as a lot of the Tea Party favorites turned out to be poor candidates and were defeated in otherwise winnable races.
Well the 2010 House race was better than 94 but Senate, no.
I suppose we should be pleased with a 6 seat gain especially since we already had most of the seats that were up. But we left wins on the table with crappy “weak tea” candidates in Nevada and Colorado. It would be 51-49.
And of course there was Delaware, not that I’m sad the Maine Twins grandpa Mark Castle isn’t in the Senate. I was an early backer of O’Donnell, long before it was clear she was.... you know. No win situation in Delaware last time.
WA state and West Va. also disappointed though that was not related to idiots being nominated, Raese was not a good choice but no one else ran.
I too remember McConnell use to be well liked when he wasn’t leader, people couldn’t wait till he was. I guess I should be glad Mike Pence wasn’t elected Speaker, he’d be hated by now instead of having people wish he had run for President. ;d
That democrat was better than Graham on one issue, immigration, everything else he was worse or the same and AFAIK he never said he wasn’t for democrat organization of the Senate. His supporters insisted he was only using the rats as a vehicle. No sale.