I believe what you don't like, essentially, is that Rand Paul is a good politician whereas his father is not.
Oh for FAIL...
Seriously my pal, this bears your careful reexamination. What you are doing is conflating
effective political activity with the
goodI result. In our current climate, this is a terrible and most fundamental error. By the implied standard, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Schumer, Feinstein, Dodd, Graham, Boxer, McCain, and all the long list of sordid little personalities of this ilk are
good politicians.
Ron Paul is a "bad" politician precisely because he is a
good man. I will take Ron Paul's brand of good over the other any day of the week. The reason Ron Paul was not EFFECTIVE as a politician was not because he wasn't a good one, but because he was to completely and overwhelmingly outnumbered by bad ones. Please print that out onto a full ream of paper and smack yourself in the head with it until it sinks in. Seriously, it is critical to understand why Ron Paul "failed", according to some. He failed at being just another miserable scumbag as are most of the rest. To this I honor him highly and my greatest might because he could have so very easily done what the vermin were doing and could have profited from it handsomely. He didn't and he never made any pretense of appearance to anything other than what his actions fully corroborated. The problem was not that Ron Paul was not a good politician, but that there were not many more just like him at his side and that the people of America, rotten with corruption, ignorance, lassitude, and grasping, did not rush to him in support of everything for which he stood. THAT is where the failure lay, and not in the man. The man is about the only thing that hasn't failed in the context of this exchange.
May God and the Galaxies bless Dr. Ron Paul for his fortitude and steadfast kindness in the face of that den of iniquity in which he marinated for 30+ years. For a man who had sacrificed much for the sake of his fellow men to be labeled a "bad politician" hints of something with a foul odor. Please reconsider your position with some care.
Ron is not a politician, and he doesn't play that game, so naturally he cannot get anywhere in that game. He stands on the sidelines and alerts everybody to the absurdity of the game. That is important.
He did considerably more than just that.
But his son is also important as a different actor in the liberty movement. He can move the ball because he can play the game exceptionally well.
This is not yet proven and remains to be seen. Thus far, I view him as but a marginal improvement. I would prefer a Congress full of Rand Pauls over one stuffed rotten with Pelosis, but I consider such as a half-measure and the time for such is long past us. Were we to pack Congress with Rand Paul clones all we are likely to accomplish is the setting back of the Globalist agenda a few more decades, after which I suspect we will have had crept right back to where we now find ourselves. Wishy washy and equivocal postures are not much better than those of a Harry Reid. If we are going to have "leaders", and we really do not need them IMO in the capacities in which we currently have them, they must possess a comprehensively sound set of "positions", understandings of what so-called "government" is and is not, what its functions are and are not, and the fiber and will to act on those alone.
Empire is the most perilous endeavor humanity has ever undertaken. We have let that wolf into our houses and are now panicking as we slowly come to realize he didn't come just to curl up innocently beside the fire to warm himself. He is here to eat every last one of us.
In my view essentially the only difference between Ron and Rand is that Rand is a diplomat.
Then you have not been paying attention. Rand Paul has made statements that are in clear opposition to the notions of individual liberty. Some of his positions are good and some are utter shit. It's those latter bits that give me pause.
He speaks to his audience. He doesn't shout about the Fed every day because some audiences don't want to hear that.
What a revolting mischaracterization of Ron Paul. Dr. Paul has resisted the sound-bite ADD habit and has stuck to the fundamental issues that beset us. Until those are resolved there is absolutely no point in addressing anything else. In this, Ron Paul has been abfab.
And make no mistake about it, in many ways Rand so very obviously panders and has flip-flopped on a few issues. BAD BAD BAD. This is thermonuclear FAIL and is what sent up the red flags for me almost immediately. I initially held great hope for Rand Paul, but with each passing day that hope fades.
He can say bits of truth that coincide with the opinions of the audience he is speaking to, and leave a lot of the rest of it out, saving it for another audience. This is a much different thing than fabricating a new truth as does most of the political establishment.
Oh please, get real here. Lies of omission == lies of commission. Bullshit == bullshit, whether it be positive or negative.
The fact of the matter is that most Americans are not Ron Paul libertarians.
Oh, silly me... you're right. OK everyone, he's right... lets all go home... nothing to see here.
If Rand were speaking to one of us in private he'd very likely sound very much like his father.
Well, when he calls me for lunch, I will happily pay, and I hear the right things leaping from his pie hole, I will be greatly moved to his support. Until then, I can only move with the impetus of that to which I bear witness, knowing full well that it could be ruse but not knowing in which direction it moves. That is the hazard of adopting a false front as your words suggest he has: smart people who pay attention see the problem and are compelled to ask what brand of man is this in reality.
It is what he leaves out in public that separates him from his father
And that is the very source of the problem. He is playing their game for the sake of "winning", which immediately separates him in character from his father and not in a way I would view as favorable. Sleep with dogs, do not complain about the fleas.
but try to remember that he is not speaking to us because we're both already in his corner and also not significant in number.
Sweet Jesus howling on the cross for agony... are you SERIOUS? This is a steaming load of shit - a mountain of it. You are attempting to justify his walking away from those supposedly most like-minded because they are so few? WTF? Really? If you do not see the problem there, one that borders on being grotesque, then I really do not know what to say.
The fruits of his labor are that average republicans have the perception that they are more in agreement with him than with his father.
Not so terribly unlike their Democrat fellows, the average Republican is a FUCKING IDIOT. I can see the strategy he may be taking, but it is nearly as bankrupt as that of those he would proclaim to act against. Time for half-measures is long gone. The average American is so far gone in terms of intellect that this strategy to which you tacitly point will fail. Why? Because we have no luxury of time; the thinking processes of the average man are so far contaminated as to be beyond salvation by any of the conventional means. Theye have capitalized on every human weakness and have been wildly successful in corrupting the great wad of humanity. That wad WANTS what Theye are offering, or are at least willing to
tolerate it. The only thing that stands to correct this is for the fundamental basis of their narrowly channeled realities to be ruptured such that they are faced with the choice of coming to their senses or dying. THAT is how bad things are right here, right now. Rand Paul's apparent approach will do little to help by effectively continuing to perpetuate the radical basis of the rot that has permeated the world. You may not like hearing it, and neither may I, but a quantum shift at the most fundamental levels of our societal reality now appears to be the only thing that will break the cycle of our self-reinforcing march back into abject slavery and destruction. But believe what you will. It's your ass on the line and you are entitled to do with it as you please. I, for one, am doing differently.
They see a contrast between father and son that while wholly due to presentation tactics nevertheless appears significant, as if Rand is an exception to the smears against his father -- that he lives in "the real world" and can work within it.
They ARE significant. They are fundamental and thus far speak ill of the son.
Do not underestimate the significance of what is going on. Ron alerted people to the paradigm and struck a contrast, but his son is making his viewpoint more mainstream, making it appear more reasonable through the art of presentation (just as a master speaker does), and moving Americans toward his positions -- not least due to their associations with eminently popular ones such as anti-targetted-killing.
I call baloney. I am well cognizant of the significance of what I see, but unlike yourself I see it not as a good thing but very much the same old pig with a different shade of lipstick. As I have written here many times before, I am open to persuasion but to be so persuaded will require a good game and thus far nobody has come even close. When assertions are made I vivisect them carefully and the moment the truth in them vanishes I point it out with cold and clinical precision. When a greater truth comes to my attention I will readily accept it and if someone can demonstrate the value and character of Rand Paul, my skepticism will turn into enthusiastic support. Until then I ride the fence.
Ron opened the conversation to include liberty ideas. But Rand is persuading people in the same ways it has always and will always be done. Speaking to your audience is critical. Ron did not try to persuade people, in part because it wasn't his strength and in part because the conversation as he found it was in such a state that it had to first be broadened.
Whatever it is you're smoking I would suggest you lay off. This statement is just pure nonsense.
Rand also offers something to the GOP because the coalitions he builds help to build their brand more than Rons did.
With this I must agree, but so what? The GOP is shit. Michael Steele was of questionable character and Priebus is no better. Consider what GOP did to Dr. Paul during the most recent election cycle. You want to build bridges and form coalitions with THAT? Why not drop all pretense and just get on your Satan knee pads and get to busy busy work? Hope your neck muscles are in good shape.
Jesus help us.
