Paul's relationship with Congress

[ShaneEnochs]

So I'm in a training class at work, and I get to talking to this girl about politics. Turns out she's very politically active, and a Republican on top of that. We talked about economics and how the country needs to go through bankruptcy and all kinds of things including the Fed. She was totally spot on as far as the economy goes. So naturally I think she's a Paul supporter, but just in case, I asked her who her horse in the race was.

"Well, at first I really liked Cain, and then I liked Perry until he opened his mouth. I like Gingrich because he has big ideas, but he's very hot headed. I honestly think we're going to have to get behind Romney if we want to beat Obama."

My jaw dropped. I immediately told her that I liked Paul, and you should have seen the look of disgust on her face. "I like his economic stuff, but his foreign policy is a disaster. And even if it wasn't, the entire Congress hates him. He would be a very ineffective President. He's also very hateful and never answers any of the questions in the debates. But it doesn't matter, because he is not going to be the nominee."

I didn't want to get into a fight with her, so we changed topics and began speaking about other politically related things.

Here's the kicker: She campaigned for Rand Paul. She said, "I LOVE Rand. My family and I have even had dinner with him and his family several times. If he was running, he'd definitely win. He has all the good qualities of his dad but none of the bad ones."

This girl is from a very influential, very connected family in Kentucky. I think if I can convince her, it might build up into something good.

However, I must admit, I don't know what Ron's relationship with Congress is. All I remember is a former Whip saying that no matter what they did, they couldn't buy Ron's vote.

Also, on the topic of Rand, aren't Rand's and Ron's foreign policies similar, except for the fact that Rand believes on a slightly more hands-on approach to countries (sanctions)?

 

[RonPaulMall]

Ron is a polite gentleman and I have never heard of anybody in Congress "hating" him. He does not compromise and does not vote for unconstitutional bills, that is true. That sets him apart from nearly everyone else in Congress. I guess her complaint is that Ron's absolutist positions would mean that he wouldn't be able to "get anything done". But maybe you should ask her what "getting things done" in Congress has actually gotten us? Bare minimum with Ron is you would have somebody in the White House that would NEVER compromise on an unbalanced budget. In a Paul Presidency, any spending would pretty much require a 2/3 super majority in Congress to pass rather than the simple majority it has needed the past few decades because Ron would veto all spending bills. That alone is worth her support if she is a true fiscal conservative. All the rest (specific bills where Paul could build coalitions of support such as Personal Privacy, Drug War, Patriot Act, Auditing the Fed, Eminent Domain, ect) would all be gravy.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

I guess you could say "slightly more hands on." Here is the thing though, in congress, RP is primarily an outsider, he is on the very fringe of the modern day GOP. He has fought hard to be taken seriously and only recently have his views brought him main stream exposure, but not mainstream acceptance. Most of congress are corrupt establishment politician elitists. They do not have principles, and that is considered de rigueur in American politics. Many within the party see him as a complete wacko. His popularity now probably adds weight to his views but only in so far that other members would want to use that to their advantage. They snicker at RP behind his back and his political views are seen as extreme, much like you see in the media portrayals. She is going to be a hard sell dude, she is a neoconservative for sure. +rep for the effort.

 

[gerryb]

He is the only one who can actually get congress to work together to come up with constitutional solutions to our problems.

Because he can(and probably will) veto everything that isn't. They will either work together to over-ride his veto, or work together to formulate constitutional bills that will pass.

Edit: There's a reason Congress is at 9% approval rating....

 

[AlexG]

so did you hit that?

 

[ryanmkeisling]

He is the only one who can actually get congress to work together to come up with constitutional solutions to our problems.

Because he can(and probably will) veto everything that isn't. They will either work together to over-ride his veto, or work together to formulate constitutional bills that will pass.

Edit: There's a reason Congress is at 9% approval rating....

LoL

 

[StilesBC]

so did you hit that?

First things first.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Yeah, it seems to me that if Congress's approval rating is 9%, you want a guy that is at odds with them to be President.

jeez

 

[eleganz]

She watches too much FOX.

 

[ssjevot]

She likes Rand for the same reasons I don't like him. Who would have thought.

 

[idiom]

Embedded Cognitive Dissonance. It's a pig.

Step number one though... The Ability to veto any attempt to raise the debt ceiling would be pretty powerful. Between that and bringing the troops home a huge chunk of the problem would be solved.

 

[cindy25]

most things a President Paul accomplishments will be outside of congress, using the power of commander in chief to end the wars; the pardon power, even the power to remove FDR from the dime.

by the way, the president most liked personally by congress , Jerry Ford, had to issue veto after veto

 

[crh88]

Sounds like she needs some non-interventionist foreign policy truth bombs. Who the hell can work with Congress? Like they're gonna have a Romney lovefest?

 

[PolicyReader]

There is also the "coat tails" effect to consider. If she's highly politically active she's sure to know that an elected president often is able to bring new members into Congress who stand with him on policy due to the 'bleed over' of momentum from his own election. This is by now means a guarantee of course, however if a President Paul endorsed someone for the House or Senate it follows that they would gain (at least some) access to his grassroots network in their area. That kind of ground up support can win elections even against incumbents and better funded campaigns (won't always, but it certainly can) as the Tea Party has recently proven. This effect will be even more likely during the upcoming elections because of congress setting new approval records (and not in a friendly "we love them" way either )

Beyond that Politicians are creatures of self-interest. How many times has Romney changes his stances to suite is political goals? That's the standard and as such you'll see a lot more political acceptance of (at least some) of Pauls ideas the better he does in this race (let alone what would happen upon his election). Newt and Rick aren't changing their tunes because they've had a change of heart, they are just doing what politicians tend to do and go whichever way the winds are blowing.
Meaning that Congress doesn't have to be convinced that Paul was 'right all along' only that their seats are endanger from his supporters if they don't play ball.

On foreign policy maybe you could get her to actually watch this? http://endorseliberty.com/press/blowback/

This is what concerns me most about trying to bring her round "He's also very hateful and never answers any of the questions in the debates. But it doesn't matter, because he is not going to be the nominee." Unless she hasn't actually watched any of the debates that's a pretty deep seeded antipathy (and for my part I don't see how it's logically accurate, Paul surly does fly in the face of what a lot of people believe in but 'hateful and evasive' aren't things that I've seen any case for in his debates)
However that may just be overflow from other things and not an actual stance per se (not sure if I'm saying this part clearly).

All things considered I think if you can use the factual "we can't afford another foreign policy" fiscal side of things to transition into bringing her around on foreign policy then it seems like you've got a good shot. She sounds intelligent so it'll be about getting her to really consider the information rather than dismiss it out of hand. (as a bonus round on this there's also the 'there is no path to the white house without Ron Paul' which honestly I think is completely accurate but your call on if/when that should even be mentioned at all)

$0.02 hope some of it's useful and +rep for making the endeavor

 

[Article V]

However, I must admit, I don't know what Ron's relationship with Congress is. All I remember is a former Whip saying that no matter what they did, they couldn't buy Ron's vote.

Ron is one of the most beloved members of Congress. Even Newt Gingrich said in an interview after all the Iowa attacks, "It's Ron Paul. How can you not like Ron Paul?" Because even Newt, when under fire from Ron, knows that Ron is doing it from a principled place where he's trying to get the truth out to voters, at least the truth as Ron Paul sees it (which is usually the truth as it is, even if everyone else is not yet wise enough to see it). Ron Paul doesn't hang out with members of Congress after hours, he goes home to read about economics or read legislation or spend time with his family. His independent streak to always read on his own and vote as he sees it causes him to be limited in building influential groups for his own legislation--you kind of need to play ball with the party or spend a lot of time meeting after-hours to get your projects pushed up in priority; but everyone on the Hill widely agrees Ron Paul is lovable and principled.

I've never heard of a single Congressman who doesn't have immense respect for Ron Paul and enjoy him personally, even when they disagree with him politically.

Ron Paul is the epitome of class and defines what it means to be a gentleman for our entire generation.

 

[JJ2]

So I'm in a training class at work, and I get to talking to this girl about politics. Turns out she's very politically active, and a Republican on top of that. We talked about economics and how the country needs to go through bankruptcy and all kinds of things including the Fed. She was totally spot on as far as the economy goes. So naturally I think she's a Paul supporter, but just in case, I asked her who her horse in the race was.

"Well, at first I really liked Cain, and then I liked Perry until he opened his mouth. I like Gingrich because he has big ideas, but he's very hot headed. I honestly think we're going to have to get behind Romney if we want to beat Obama."

My jaw dropped. I immediately told her that I liked Paul, and you should have seen the look of disgust on her face. "I like his economic stuff, but his foreign policy is a disaster. And even if it wasn't, the entire Congress hates him. He would be a very ineffective President. He's also very hateful and never answers any of the questions in the debates. But it doesn't matter, because he is not going to be the nominee."

I didn't want to get into a fight with her, so we changed topics and began speaking about other politically related things.

Here's the kicker: She campaigned for Rand Paul. She said, "I LOVE Rand. My family and I have even had dinner with him and his family several times. If he was running, he'd definitely win. He has all the good qualities of his dad but none of the bad ones."

This girl is from a very influential, very connected family in Kentucky. I think if I can convince her, it might build up into something good.

However, I must admit, I don't know what Ron's relationship with Congress is. All I remember is a former Whip saying that no matter what they did, they couldn't buy Ron's vote.

Also, on the topic of Rand, aren't Rand's and Ron's foreign policies similar, except for the fact that Rand believes on a slightly more hands-on approach to countries (sanctions)?

Tell her she has to quit supporting Rand then, because his policies are virtually identical to his father's. And tell her to tell Rand that his father is hateful to his face.

 

[goldpants]

I have heard similar arguments from intelligent people on Facebook and other social networking sites. These people have some understanding of the debt debacle, federal reserve, and many other in-depth issues facing the country the MSM doesn't cover. They are so sure he is unelectable based on a mixture of racism charges/allegations, being old, being unsuccessful in passing legislation, kooky/crazy and other nonsensical things. The media propaganda has done a fine job of setting the narrative and I think many of us as Ron Paul supporters have allowed this to continue for too long. We the staunch supporters have done a fine job of supporting RP via donations, spreading videos/social networking, meetup group efforts, etc. but we are falling short in real life interaction. How many supporters here don't have signs on their yard or bumperstickers on their automobiles? How many supporters don't make a point to wear atleast one article of RP signage ( shirts/hats/pins/etc.) every opportunity they leave their house? How many supporters have allowed the MSM stigmas against RP to make themselves feel embarrassed to support RP openly in public? It is time to stop being coy, it is time to stop being timid, it is time to be seen and heard. We must no longer fear what others perceive us to be for supporting RP and only fear for what we could have done better to win them over. The MSM is in the masses eyes and ears but our counter punch would be louder and brighter if only we were willing to engage.

 

[gerryb]

Tell her she has to quit supporting Rand then, because his policies are virtually identical to his father's. And tell her to tell Rand that his father is hateful to his face.

Please join the Libertarian party and don't come out of your hole.

 

[Lafayette]

I can understand all the Hannity neo-con talking points this ... trying to find a nice word...nope...


But WTF is this shit?

never answers any of the questions in the debates

First of all when he does get asked a question, which is rare, he is the only that doesn't spout 10 minutes of BS ,dodges the question or spouts off a substance-less GOP talking point.

You should hit that alright...hit it with a brick wrapped in the Constitution.

 

[PolicyReader]

Tell her she has to quit supporting Rand then, because his policies are virtually identical to his father's. And tell her to tell Rand that his father is hateful to his face.

This made me think, do you know if she's ever ask Rand about non-interventionist foreign policy?

I'd be highly interested to know what her list of "the bad things" that Ron has and Rand doesn't comes down to from a policy/legislative perspective. (Also, and not likely useful here but I always wonder, why does "everyone" seem to think Romney is such a solid candidate for the General? I have major issues with Obama but I just don't see the idea of him losing to Mitt as terribly plausible, am I missing something or is this just people buying media spin?)