Should a liberal Democrat vote for Rand Paul? Here's one who says, "yes."

[boneyard bill]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html

Here's one liberal Democrat who's so disaffected with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that he's ready to support Rand Paul for president in 2016. Anybody here think he's wrong?

 

[ksen]

Rand Paul wouldn't be the most horrible of the GOP nominees for sure.

 

[laughing dog]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html

Here's one liberal Democrat who's so disaffected with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that he's ready to support Rand Paul for president in 2016. Anybody here think he's wrong?

I think a better question is does anyone think he is right? He seems to be infatuated with excluded middle theory.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think an even better question is does anyone think any of them are right?

Let's be honest. We're really down to choosing the least of the evils now.

 

[NobleSavage]

I'll probably vote for him over Hillary.

 

[boneyard bill]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html

Here's one liberal Democrat who's so disaffected with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that he's ready to support Rand Paul for president in 2016. Anybody here think he's wrong?

I think a better question is does anyone think he is right? He seems to be infatuated with excluded middle theory.

He seems to be to the left of most democrats on foreign policy, defense spending and civil liberties, but that's because the Democrats have pretty much abandoned that field. His foreign policy views don't seem to me to be much different from Eisenhower's, and Ike was no peacenik. But where are the Dems on civil liberties? That was once thought of as one of their core principles (at least among liberal Democrats). Now there seem to be scarcely more Democrats supportive of this issue than Republicans.

Then there's drug sentencing reform and allowing felons to vote. Those should have been Democrat issues all along. But Rand has stolen their thunder here. But I don't know about the excluded middle part. I don't see where he's really so fringe on most issues. He's a little to the right of most Republicans and a little to the left of most Democrats on a few issues, but he's right in the middle on others, such as immigration reform, for example.

 

[boneyard bill]

Rand Paul wouldn't be the most horrible of the GOP nominees for sure.

But would you vote for him over Hillary? That's the question at hand. Do you think this fellow at the Huffington Post has made a good case?

 

[boneyard bill]

I think an even better question is does anyone think any of them are right?

Let's be honest. We're really down to choosing the least of the evils now.

We're always in that situation. The question is, who is the least evil on the questions that matter the most. For the Huffington Post author, the issues of war and peace dominate all the others, but he doesn't seem to find Rand to be so bad on other issues as well even where he ultimately disagrees with him.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll probably vote for him over Hillary.

Interesting. Did this article convince you, or did you feel that way before?

 

[Ford]

Well let's go down the list, shall we?

1. Rand Paul will be more cautious with waging war than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush.

There was this guy...perhaps you remember him...who ran on the notion that nation-building was a terrible idea, and that America should adopt a more humble foreign policy.


His name was George W. Bush.


2. The Los Angeles Times has referred to Paul as "one of the foremost critics of the government's domestic spying program."


As was Obama...until he got into the White House and saw (apparently) just how awesome that spying program was.


3. Rand Paul has teamed up with liberal Democratic Sen. Cory Booker


And Ronald Reagan was buds with Tip O'Neill. McCain and Kennedy were pals. Just because a Senator can find common ground with a fellow Senator does not magically make him Presidential.




4. POLITICO states Hillary Clinton is "Wall Street Republicans' dark secret" in 2016. I don't see Clinton as being any more liberal than Paul on Wall Street or banking, although perhaps she'd be more willing to save failed corporations than the Kentucky Senator. Also, Paul is one of the few Republicans who's addressed the GOP's love affair with corporations, stating that, "We cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people, and Wall Street...corporate welfare should once and for all be ended."





Until Rand Paul actually takes action to end the GOP's love affair with corporations, I'll write this one off as cheap populist rhetoric.



5. Sen. Paul thinks Edward Snowden was treated unfairly as a whistleblower and should have only spent "a few years" in prison.



How incredibly generous. This makes him a liberal because...?




6. Rand Paul publicized the issue of a possible government drone strike, on American soil, against American citizens. No, I'm not making this up.



Yeah, you kind of are making it up.



7. Rand Paul could bring back an era in American politics when conservatives and liberals socialized with one another.


Uh...yeah. And Jennifer Lawrence is gonna go out with a fan because she's just that nice of a person. Seriously, who writes this stuff?


8. Rand Paul will not gut the economic safety nets of this country in the manner espoused by Paul Ryan and others.


Given his druthers, Rand Paul will absolutely gut the social safety net. Will he do it in the same manner as Paul Ryan? No. He'll actually be far more drastic.


I mean, this is Rand Paul we're talking about.


9. Neoconservatives hate Rand Paul.


But does he hate them back?


10. Rand Paul could be the answer to our philosophical conundrum as a nation.



I'm sorry, but if my response moving forward has some spelling mistakes, it is because I've just emptied the contents of my stomach on my keyboard.


Rand Paul is not even close to being a "lesser of two evils" for progressive and/or liberal voters. He is not even close to being anything that a liberal or progressive can support. In fact he stands firmly against everything even remotely progressive or liberal.

 

[KeepTalking]

Rand Paul wouldn't be the most horrible of the GOP nominees for sure.

But would you vote for him over Hillary? That's the question at hand. Do you think this fellow at the Huffington Post has made a good case?

It would be a close one for me. In a Hillary v. Paul presidential race I would really have to take a hard look at Paul, and just might vote for him. If we had the same Hillary we had 2-3 decades ago, I wouldn't even look in Paul's direction, but she seems to have sold out her party since then. Of course, this is all academic, as there is no way that Paul gets the GOP nomination in 2016. It will more likely be Perry, Walker, Christie, or Cruz, and there is no way I am voting for any of those guys.

 

[NobleSavage]

We're always in that situation. The question is, who is the least evil on the questions that matter the most. For the Huffington Post author, the issues of war and peace dominate all the others, but he doesn't seem to find Rand to be so bad on other issues as well even where he ultimately disagrees with him.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll probably vote for him over Hillary.

Interesting. Did this article convince you, or did you feel that way before?

I've never been much of a Hillary fan. I like Rand Paul except for his stance on the Fed, abortion, and his first name. Democrats are framing the main issue as income inequity. I'm more concerned about civil liberties.

 

[funinspace]

But would you vote for him over Hillary? That's the question at hand. Do you think this fellow at the Huffington Post has made a good case?

It would be a close one for me. In a Hillary v. Paul presidential race I would really have to take a hard look at Paul, and just might vote for him. If we had the same Hillary we had 2-3 decades ago, I wouldn't even look in Paul's direction, but she seems to have sold out her party since then. Of course, this is all academic, as there is no way that Paul gets the GOP nomination in 2016. It will more likely be Perry, Walker, Christie, or Cruz, and there is no way I am voting for any of those guys.

It can't be Cruz, as he is Canadian born, with commie roots from Cuba Though it would be funny to see teabaggers disassemble his birthing...

But, yeah I agree that the odds of Paul getting the Repug nod would seem very low, but maybe not as low as RP when he ran and ran.

 

[boneyard bill]

Well let's go down the list, shall we?

1. Rand Paul will be more cautious with waging war than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush.

There was this guy...perhaps you remember him...who ran on the notion that nation-building was a terrible idea, and that America should adopt a more humble foreign policy.


His name was George W. Bush.


2. The Los Angeles Times has referred to Paul as "one of the foremost critics of the government's domestic spying program."


As was Obama...until he got into the White House and saw (apparently) just how awesome that spying program was.


3. Rand Paul has teamed up with liberal Democratic Sen. Cory Booker


And Ronald Reagan was buds with Tip O'Neill. McCain and Kennedy were pals. Just because a Senator can find common ground with a fellow Senator does not magically make him Presidential.




4. POLITICO states Hillary Clinton is "Wall Street Republicans' dark secret" in 2016. I don't see Clinton as being any more liberal than Paul on Wall Street or banking, although perhaps she'd be more willing to save failed corporations than the Kentucky Senator. Also, Paul is one of the few Republicans who's addressed the GOP's love affair with corporations, stating that, "We cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people, and Wall Street...corporate welfare should once and for all be ended."





Until Rand Paul actually takes action to end the GOP's love affair with corporations, I'll write this one off as cheap populist rhetoric.



5. Sen. Paul thinks Edward Snowden was treated unfairly as a whistleblower and should have only spent "a few years" in prison.



How incredibly generous. This makes him a liberal because...?




6. Rand Paul publicized the issue of a possible government drone strike, on American soil, against American citizens. No, I'm not making this up.



Yeah, you kind of are making it up.



7. Rand Paul could bring back an era in American politics when conservatives and liberals socialized with one another.


Uh...yeah. And Jennifer Lawrence is gonna go out with a fan because she's just that nice of a person. Seriously, who writes this stuff?


8. Rand Paul will not gut the economic safety nets of this country in the manner espoused by Paul Ryan and others.


Given his druthers, Rand Paul will absolutely gut the social safety net. Will he do it in the same manner as Paul Ryan? No. He'll actually be far more drastic.


I mean, this is Rand Paul we're talking about.


9. Neoconservatives hate Rand Paul.


But does he hate them back?


10. Rand Paul could be the answer to our philosophical conundrum as a nation.



I'm sorry, but if my response moving forward has some spelling mistakes, it is because I've just emptied the contents of my stomach on my keyboard.


Rand Paul is not even close to being a "lesser of two evils" for progressive and/or liberal voters. He is not even close to being anything that a liberal or progressive can support. In fact he stands firmly against everything even remotely progressive or liberal.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that the "liberals" and "progressives" that you are referring to, (especially Hillary Clinton) do not stand for anything remotely progressive or liberal either. Of course, we have no assurance that Rand Paul would keep his campaign promises any more than Obama or George Bush did, but we can be assured that those, like Hillary, who do not even make the campaign promises certainly won't keep them.

You have to see how the campaign develops. The key issue will come to who Rand Paul owes his election to. I knew Obama wouldn't get us out of Iraq as soon as his campaign switched from "withdraw all troops" to "withdraw all combat troops." Of course, then it became, "within 16 months" and finally, what really happened is that we withdrew when Iraq told us to get out.

 

[boneyard bill]

But would you vote for him over Hillary? That's the question at hand. Do you think this fellow at the Huffington Post has made a good case?

It would be a close one for me. In a Hillary v. Paul presidential race I would really have to take a hard look at Paul, and just might vote for him. If we had the same Hillary we had 2-3 decades ago, I wouldn't even look in Paul's direction, but she seems to have sold out her party since then. Of course, this is all academic, as there is no way that Paul gets the GOP nomination in 2016. It will more likely be Perry, Walker, Christie, or Cruz, and there is no way I am voting for any of those guys.

Forget about Perry, too forgetful, Walker, too unknown, or Cruz, too far-right. Christie maybe but he's got a tough row to hoe. Look at Jeb, Paul Ryan, and Rand. But that assumes that neither Huckabee nor Romney enters the race. The dark-horse is John Kasich, Governor of Ohio, who just won re-election by a huge landslide.

 

[boneyard bill]

We're always in that situation. The question is, who is the least evil on the questions that matter the most. For the Huffington Post author, the issues of war and peace dominate all the others, but he doesn't seem to find Rand to be so bad on other issues as well even where he ultimately disagrees with him.

- - - Updated - - -



Interesting. Did this article convince you, or did you feel that way before?

I've never been much of a Hillary fan. I like Rand Paul except for his stance on the Fed, abortion, and his first name. Democrats are framing the main issue as income inequity. I'm more concerned about civil liberties.

Rand's first name is actually Randall. His wife, not his parents, gave him the name Rand. Democrats are ill-equipped to run on income inequality given Obama's track record there and the fact that they are probably more in the tank for corporate America than the Republican's are. Meanwhile, the voters are more concerned about their own income than about the income of their neighbors.

 

[boneyard bill]

It would be a close one for me. In a Hillary v. Paul presidential race I would really have to take a hard look at Paul, and just might vote for him. If we had the same Hillary we had 2-3 decades ago, I wouldn't even look in Paul's direction, but she seems to have sold out her party since then. Of course, this is all academic, as there is no way that Paul gets the GOP nomination in 2016. It will more likely be Perry, Walker, Christie, or Cruz, and there is no way I am voting for any of those guys.

It can't be Cruz, as he is Canadian born, with commie roots from Cuba Though it would be funny to see teabaggers disassemble his birthing...

But, yeah I agree that the odds of Paul getting the Repug nod would seem very low, but maybe not as low as RP when he ran and ran.

Keep in mind that Rand Paul has generally been among the top three in most national polls and has often been first. Guys like Rubio and Cruz swept to the top for a while and then tanked into the middle to low single digits, but Rand has remained steady and never very far out of first place. And RP's organization is strong in three of the first four primary states: Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Only South Carolina lacks a strong Ron Paul-built grass-roots organization.

 

[Ford]

Well let's go down the list, shall we?

1. Rand Paul will be more cautious with waging war than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush.

There was this guy...perhaps you remember him...who ran on the notion that nation-building was a terrible idea, and that America should adopt a more humble foreign policy.


His name was George W. Bush.


2. The Los Angeles Times has referred to Paul as "one of the foremost critics of the government's domestic spying program."


As was Obama...until he got into the White House and saw (apparently) just how awesome that spying program was.


3. Rand Paul has teamed up with liberal Democratic Sen. Cory Booker


And Ronald Reagan was buds with Tip O'Neill. McCain and Kennedy were pals. Just because a Senator can find common ground with a fellow Senator does not magically make him Presidential.




4. POLITICO states Hillary Clinton is "Wall Street Republicans' dark secret" in 2016. I don't see Clinton as being any more liberal than Paul on Wall Street or banking, although perhaps she'd be more willing to save failed corporations than the Kentucky Senator. Also, Paul is one of the few Republicans who's addressed the GOP's love affair with corporations, stating that, "We cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people, and Wall Street...corporate welfare should once and for all be ended."





Until Rand Paul actually takes action to end the GOP's love affair with corporations, I'll write this one off as cheap populist rhetoric.



5. Sen. Paul thinks Edward Snowden was treated unfairly as a whistleblower and should have only spent "a few years" in prison.



How incredibly generous. This makes him a liberal because...?




6. Rand Paul publicized the issue of a possible government drone strike, on American soil, against American citizens. No, I'm not making this up.



Yeah, you kind of are making it up.



7. Rand Paul could bring back an era in American politics when conservatives and liberals socialized with one another.


Uh...yeah. And Jennifer Lawrence is gonna go out with a fan because she's just that nice of a person. Seriously, who writes this stuff?


8. Rand Paul will not gut the economic safety nets of this country in the manner espoused by Paul Ryan and others.


Given his druthers, Rand Paul will absolutely gut the social safety net. Will he do it in the same manner as Paul Ryan? No. He'll actually be far more drastic.


I mean, this is Rand Paul we're talking about.


9. Neoconservatives hate Rand Paul.


But does he hate them back?


10. Rand Paul could be the answer to our philosophical conundrum as a nation.



I'm sorry, but if my response moving forward has some spelling mistakes, it is because I've just emptied the contents of my stomach on my keyboard.


Rand Paul is not even close to being a "lesser of two evils" for progressive and/or liberal voters. He is not even close to being anything that a liberal or progressive can support. In fact he stands firmly against everything even remotely progressive or liberal.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that the "liberals" and "progressives" that you are referring to, (especially Hillary Clinton) do not stand for anything remotely progressive or liberal either. Of course, we have no assurance that Rand Paul would keep his campaign promises any more than Obama or George Bush did, but we can be assured that those, like Hillary, who do not even make the campaign promises certainly won't keep them.

The problem with your response is that the "liberals" and "progressives" I am referring to are the voters.

The idea that liberals and progressives should run into the loving arms of Rand Paul merely because Hillary Clinton isn't all that terribly liberal or progressive is absurd. Yeah, I get it...Hillary is considered by many to be only Democratic in name, but whatever you consider her to be, and whether she keeps the promises of the campaign which hasn't even started yet, it still doesn't make Rand Paul a progressive or liberal, nor a candidate that a progressive or liberal voter should support.

You have to see how the campaign develops.

Not really. No matter how the campaign develops, Rand Paul will never be a progressive or a liberal or even a moderate.

 

[laughing dog]

Hope springs eternal among Paulistas. Now that Papa Doc Paul has removed himself from the limelight, their focus turns to Baby Doc Paul.

 

[funinspace]

It can't be Cruz, as he is Canadian born, with commie roots from Cuba Though it would be funny to see teabaggers disassemble his birthing...

But, yeah I agree that the odds of Paul getting the Repug nod would seem very low, but maybe not as low as RP when he ran and ran.

Keep in mind that Rand Paul has generally been among the top three in most national polls and has often been first. Guys like Rubio and Cruz swept to the top for a while and then tanked into the middle to low single digits, but Rand has remained steady and never very far out of first place. And RP's organization is strong in three of the first four primary states: Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Only South Carolina lacks a strong Ron Paul-built grass-roots organization.

LOL...and how much did that grass-roots org help RP get "close" to the nomination? National polls at this point are essentially meaningless...just fodder for the junkies. The Repug machine would go to war against RPII if he was getting real traction in the primaries.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh heck no! Not two years of Rand Paul crap up ahead!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html

Here's one liberal Democrat who's so disaffected with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that he's ready to support Rand Paul for president in 2016. Anybody here think he's wrong?

That's a rhetorical question, right?