Democrats Give Rand Paul the Beating They Never Cared to Gave His Father

[jct74]

Democrats Give Rand Paul the Beating They Never Cared to Gave His Father

RUSSELL BERMAN
August 14, 2014

Democrats have taken notice of Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.).

Operatives from the Democratic National Committee have spent the last two weeks relentlessly attacking the first-term senator as he's traveled in and out of Iowa, hammering him over everything from scampering away from an undocumented immigrant to skipping a conservative event to party in the Hamptons.

Yet those are a few scrapes that Paul will gladly accept, because the Democrats' obsessive focus on him is the clearest sign yet that he's a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

"Most people don't beat a dead horse," Ryan Williams, a Republican consultant and former aide to Mitt Romney, told The Wire. "Sen. Paul has proven he's a legitimate contender for 2016 if he decides to run."

In just the last 10 days, the D.N.C. has blasted out 16 separate emails attacking Paul, who was elected in 2010 and is considered an all-but-declared White House candidates. The missives have accused Paul of distorting his record on Israel, pandering on gay marriage, opposing access to birth control, and "berating" immigrants, among other things.

...

Democrats are using the incidents to portray Paul as "not ready for prime time," in the words of D.N.C. spokesman Michael Czin.

But at the risk of legitimizing him in the eyes of the conservative base, the D.N.C.'s early attacks are designed to prevent him from making a connection with younger independents as a more modern, appealing kind of Republican.

...

read more:
http://www.thewire.com/politics/201...g-they-never-cared-to-gave-his-father/376060/

 

[acptulsa]

They criticized Ron Paul for having flipping eyebrows for God's sake. What kind of revisionist history is this?

The only reason they didn't criticize him more is that he was He Who Must Not Be Named. They were ignoring him (and us) in hopes that he (and we) would go away.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Democrats were soft on Ron Paul because he was never perceived as a threat to win the GOP presidential nomination, much less the White House.

 

[TonySutton]

...never cared to GAVE...

Is that proper English?

I will admit my English skills are weak but I don't profess to be a journalist I hold journalists to a higher standard!

 

[Ronin Truth]

Democrats were soft on Ron Paul because he was never perceived as a threat to win the GOP presidential nomination, much less the White House.

That's my take on the reason too.

 

[klamath]

Democrats were soft on Ron Paul because he was never perceived as a threat to win the GOP presidential nomination, much less the White House.

This. They considered him a nonwinable Republican that attacked the GOP as hypocrites. To them he was a help not a threat.

 

[francisco]

"If you're catching flak, it means that you're right over the target."

(Old WWII Bomber Pilot expression)

 

[economics102]

The only reason they didn't criticize him more is that he was He Who Must Not Be Named. They were ignoring him (and us) in hopes that he (and we) would go away.

Exactly. They (the establishment) DID perceive him as a threat -- if they didn't, they wouldn't have gone to such extraordinary lengths to avoid even mentioning his name, as The Daily Show famously lambasted them for.

Their strategy for attack was to avoid drawing attention to him, because that's the only effective way to stop a truth teller who is pure and uncorruptible. Everywhere Ron Paul was allowed to speak, he spread truth and gained new followers.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

Must be doing something right. I don't hear much about Democrats going after the likes of Rubio or Bush because they probably figure their records- not that the average voter pays attention to that- speak for themselves. Not that the GOP right now is going to rally behind Paul, but the fact that he's getting so much heat from the other side, I think, would make them likely to eventually come to his defense. But then, this is Priebus we're talking about, who'd probably be happy if Paul weren't a factor altogether.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Democrats were soft on Ron Paul because he was never perceived as a threat to win the GOP presidential nomination, much less the White House.

Half right. Half wrong. With the GOP more than willing to take out Ron, they didn't worry - publicly - about the latter. It would have been one hell of an election. Both parties would have pissed their pants.

 

[Vanguard101]

Ron Paul was never a threat. He was just the candidate with a true base that loved him. Rand Paul is a threat because he can bring everyone together

 

[cindy25]

Ron Paul was never a threat. He was just the candidate with a true base that loved him. Rand Paul is a threat because he can bring everyone together

and the times have changed. Ron was ahead of his time

 

[Vanguard101]

and the times have changed. Ron was ahead of his time

No. He was a messenger. That is all.

 

[Dogsoldier]

He absolutely was a threat to the status quo....

It was obvious....When the dems,reps and the media are against you....You are a threat...

 

[Dogsoldier]

He still is a threat and they know it....He didn't need to win the election...He started a brush fire in the hearts and minds of the people.

 

[Aratus]

"If you're catching flak, it means that you're right over the target."

(Old WWII Bomber Pilot expression)

RAND IS CATCHING FLAK!!! He is being taken seriously...

 

[anaconda]

Democrats were soft on Ron Paul because he was never perceived as a threat to win the GOP presidential nomination, much less the White House.

And they loved to highlight his polarity with the rest of the Republicans who actually were a threat, especially when it exposed the GOP hypocrisy or stupidity. Maddow loved to use Ron for this purpose.

 

[mosquitobite]

They're in a catch 22 as well.

When the left leaning media attack, the right wingers will support him stronger. "Well if HuffPo hates him, he's doing something right!"

When the right leaning media attacks, the left wingers start to think "hmm, that's different for a pub."

bwhahahaha!

 

[klamath]

There is no question Rand get's hit way harder. You cannot read an article about rand without some mention of his madow CRA answer. Ron was on record fully opposing the cra, had a newsletter with his name on it being racist, opposed the civil war yet with the exception of the one week he led in Iowa and just before the NH primary in 07 none of this was hammered. had RP been viewed a threat the left would have made him a full blown KKK neo-Nazi with his statements.