I know that ordinarily, I would focus on the sheer wingnuttery of Rep. Steve King, who, when confronted by DREAMer activists, could not help but put his hands on the young lady and complimented her on her English (like a person mostly raised in the States wouldn't have good English--why?) when Erika Andriola was making the valid point that he doesn't know her and misrepresents her and people like her when he makes ridiculous comments about drug smuggling undocumented young people. But no. Senator Rand Paul getting up juuuussst then and going on his merry way is such a more interesting view to me. Like it would be to anyone.
Let's get Rand Paul's equivocations out of the way--one isn't attending a fundraiser for the somewhat obvious nativist know-nothing without actually being caught in the act of showing support. I have no doubt that Rand Paul, who has come up with the startling formula of staking out headline-worthy positions that then somehow magically conform to the party line, has media-related things he could be doing that are way better than interacting with activists--especially when Steve King is right there to be himself and provide a figure of fun.
That he is there to support. Because it is a fundraiser. For Steve King. Who said that migrants have calves like cantaloupes and all that. Like here. Oh--so sorry, that was only as of 2008. He's clearly gone out of his way to cover himself over in glory since. Oh, wait, what, he hasn't? Good heavens, whatever is Rand Paul up to, associating with known bigots in just this fashion? People are going to get some kind of idea about him, definitely.
That's certainly no way to behave, if as a one-term Senator you're already "the most creditable candidate for president since Henry Clay." And why wouldn't Rand Paul be every bit the man Henry Clay was, in full? He's done his part with respects to light bulbs, toilets , and lady bits, and exposed a possible problem with pistol-packing weathermen and even guns being an issue during the attack that occurred in the vicinity of Benghazi. Look I don't know what to think. He's brave enough when on Alex Jones' show though, isn't he? And when he's against foreign aid, except for Israel if you like, and against drones, unless someone is really guilty.
He's a fun piece of work to blog about. I believe the term 'round Kentucky way might be "bless his heart".
4 comments:
Hi Vixen, it's understandable that Democrats would try to besmirch Rand Paul and haul out the usual ridicule machine.
However, there is something about Rand Paul that i find to be mildly interesting.
In our world today, basically we have politicians who are all cliches being commented on by advocacy journalists who are all cliches and bloggers who also fit into this category.
Rand Paul, on the other hand, is trying to do something a little different. His base is not really the conservative wing of the Republican Party. His main supporters are primarily Millennials who frankly have gotten so sick of both our main parties that they're really looking for some new possibility.
Will Rand Paul actually be able to reconstruct a new political sensibility based on his ideas and Millennial voters? Remains to be seen.
One thing for sure, nothing much is going to distract people from the inevitable juggernaut getting ready to roll in the midterms.
See the Republican,
Lying there to someone.
Will Rand Paul actually be able to reconstruct a new political sensibility based on his ideas and Millennial voters? Remains to be seen.
I got your outreach to millennials right here.
I'm going to give Rand Paul a bit of credit--I think he is an adaptable politician with some genuine feel for political realities, and if he is capable of working across the aisle with people like Cory Booker, this is commendable, but, regarding the importance of bipartisanship--would being able to work with Republicans ever make someone like Teddy Kennedy a viable presidential candidate for otherwise conservative voters? My bet is, no, and my guess is that any plus on foreign policy that Rand Paul has with what some libs refer to as "dude-bros" is lost to the larger liberal community because his record includes a personhood bill and being anti-gay marriage, and even just recently, he said:
"The party can’t become the opposite of what it is," the libertarian-leaning senator said. "If you tell people from Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia, 'You know what, guys, we’ve been wrong, and we’re gonna be the pro-gay-marriage party,' they’re either gonna stay home or -- I mean, many of these people joined the Republican Party because of these social issues."
And yet, millenials are more oriented towards marriage equality and some feminist-thinking folks might wonder why libertarian-leaning doesn't include bodily autonomy.
Me, I don't think pointing out his associations is "besmirching" him so much as acknowledging a flaw he may--as he becomes a more seasoned politician, grow out of. What I've been saying for some time is that I think presidential ambitions might just not be where someone of his skill set needs to be. There's a good place in the senate for someone interested in building bridges. I'd hate to think running for president in an untimely way would derail that.
Post a Comment