Why Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul offer glimmers of hope — but not for 2016

[NACBA]

Why Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul offer glimmers of hope — but not for 2016

Elizabeth Warren, Rand Paul (Credit: AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta/Reuters/Kevin Lamarque/Photo montage by Salon)

It looks like Sen. Rand Paul just had his first audition for the role of screwball, off-kilter, Philip K. Dick alternate-universe refuge for disgruntled leftists in the 2016 presidential campaign – and based on his recent Salon interview, he totally whiffed. This does not come as a total surprise. While Paul has staked out some intriguing counter-Republican positions, and has been an important voice in Washington against NSA spy programs, the Bush-Obama regime of endless war and other forms of national-security overreach, his reputation as an intellectual lightweight trapped by his party identity seems entirely justified. Other than a few remarks about the militarization of domestic policing and the defensive reassurance that he’s not a racist (which felt like an oblique acknowledgment that racism is the secret diesel fuel powering the entire Republican Party), Paul offered no specific reasons for dissident liberals or leftists to consider voting for him. He’s in favor of them doing so! He just can’t quite say why.

There may yet be reason to hope that Paul can serve as a disruptive force within the Republican Party and within what looks to be the dreadful, stultifying totality of the 2016 electoral cycle. His father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, briefly seemed to pose such a threat in 2008 and 2012, and if there’s one thing that establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans agree on, it’s that the Pauline insurgency must be crushed. That’s because establishment Democrats and Republicans actually agree on lots of other things that don’t get debated in public: neoliberal economic policies, the rule of the financial oligarchy, a foreign policy based on permanent war, the entrenched power of the national-security “deep state.” Those are precisely the issues that the Pauls, after their loopy, libertarian fashion, try to drag out into the sunlight.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/22/the_elizabeth_warren_trap_and_the_rand_paul_delusion/

 

[NACBA]

Elizabeth Warren Won't Rule Out Future Presidential Run

"I'm, I'm not running for president. That's not what we're doing. We had a really important fight in the United States Congress just this past week. And I'm putting all my energy into that fight and to what happens after this," Warren responds.

Would you tell these independent groups, "Give it up!" You're just never going to run.

I told them, "I'm not running for president."

You're putting that in the present tense, though. Are you never going to run?

I am not running for president.

You're not putting a "never" on that.

I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-rule-out-future-presidential-run_821331.html

 

[Spikender]

Reading that Salon article was the equivalent of running a cheese grater over my eyes over and over again while massaging my brain with a roll of sandpaper.

 

[acptulsa]

There may yet be reason to hope that Paul can serve as a disruptive force within the Republican Party and within what looks to be the dreadful, stultifying totality of the 2016 electoral cycle. His father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, briefly seemed to pose such a threat in 2008 and 2012, and if there’s one thing that establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans agree on, it’s that the Pauline insurgency must be crushed. That’s because establishment Democrats and Republicans actually agree on lots of other things that don’t get debated in public: neoliberal economic policies, the rule of the financial oligarchy, a foreign policy based on permanent war, the entrenched power of the national-security “deep state.” Those are precisely the issues that the Pauls, after their loopy, libertarian fashion, try to drag out into the sunlight.

They admit that the Pauls are holding these forces--like 'the rule of the financial oligarchy'--in check as much as anyone is. This is something that should be done by the fourth estate, but Salon doesn't even seem to be trying. Yet they make fun of them for doing it any way they can.

Hardly surprising, that. But how can they pretend to be anything but shills on behalf of 'the rule of the financial oligarchy' as they do it?

 

[Bergie Bergeron]

Why the fuck do they always choose a shitty picture like that. Fuck MSM.

 

[rich34]

They admit that the Pauls are holding these forces--like 'the rule of the financial oligarchy'--in check as much as anyone is. This is something that should be done by the fourth estate, but Salon doesn't even seem to be trying. Yet they make fun of them for doing it any way they can.

Hardly surprising, that. But how can they pretend to be anything but shills on behalf of 'the rule of the financial oligarchy' as they do it?

This writer tries to come off sounding like he's some intellectual problem solver from how to beat Hillary, to acting as if he's got all the solutions to every problem without ever even remotely giving not one solution to anything he said. He attempts to dislike Hillary to the far left, while his whole piece reeks from the closet. His solution to defeat Hillary is

"But if the goal is to defeat Hillary Clinton – and there can be no doubt that a significant contingent of liberals and leftists would love to do that — then I repeat what I said in passing last week: The spectral Warren 2016 campaign is a pointless distraction from a larger and far more important task. Indeed, it’s more than a distraction. It’s a trap." "Have we not learned anything from the last eight years? (Wait, don’t answer that.) The way to defeat Hillary is to look way past Hillary. The way to defeat Hillary is to ignore her."

Wow this Andrew fella is really sharp! Simply Ignore her and she'll go away. But wait, I thought that's why they did to candidates like Ron not establishment front runner picks?? You can't play the Ron treatment to establishment they get to much free media you have to attack them. Unless of course you're not wanting them to get exposed and that's who you're backing lol.

The guy is an establishment hack attempting to look anti-establishment with his critiques of Hillary Clinton, but of course this is all for giving the appearance to the far left that "he's one of them." Normally I don't even spend the time on responding to stuff like this, but it sounded all to familiar like how they went after Ron.

Without all the accolades and strictly just looking at the method of attack his playbook strategy is no different than to Glen Beck on the Right. You know how Beck will use rhetoric that sounds very anti establishment or as I like to say just real solutions to problems that politicians lack fortitude to support, but like in years past when it comes down to voting time Mr. Beck will go back to his roots and Qcards and support whatever establishment candidate there is and uses whatever intellect he can to convince his followers that is the right choice. This writer is no different.

I found the following statement mind boggling...

"That’s because establishment Democrats and Republicans actually agree on lots of other things that don’t get debated in public: neoliberal economic policies, the rule of the financial oligarchy, a foreign policy based on permanent war, the entrenched power of the national-security “deep state.” Those are precisely the issues that the Pauls, after their loopy, libertarian fashion, try to drag out into the sunlight."

To my knowledge most political minds on the far left are opposed to what he just said, but if you're a Paul then you're obviously loopy and must be on something..

He also lumped Rand in with the rest of the republican party as in favor of subsidizing big oil without using a quote or offering any proof. I guess to people like himself it would be much better subsidizing alternative fuels like wind and solar even when the companies went bankrupt. I guess trying to get the government out of the subsidizing business is a pretty big damn deal depending on which side your on and what business you own.

His comment "his reputation as an intellectual lightweight,,,Paul offered no specific reasons for dissident liberals or leftists to consider voting for him. He’s in favor of them doing so! He just can’t quite say why."



LOL, he's calling Rand an intellectual lightweight, and I'm sure his readers will just eat it up. Simpletons like this guy are easy to spot all you have to do is look for the name calling which is what liberals do without even debating the issue at hand. Then his assertion that Rand simply can't explain why a liberal would vote for him following up the previous comment is his attempt to "prove" that Rand is truly an intellectual "lightweight" at best. Reading this article really felt like a blast from the past when journalist, uhh writers, would attempt to project Ron's positions to whatever audience they were speaking to as quixotic by simply using name calling without technique without explaining the rationale behind it.


"Here’s how crazy America is: We could have a Clinton-Romney matchup in 2016, and people will take it seriously. Instead of closing up the whole shop in boredom and despair and mailing the keys to the People’s Bank of China, we’ll all pretend it’s for real and people will trudge to the polls by the millions to vote for one or the other of them, driven by God only knows what combination of hope and fear and self-hypnosis and search for political antivenom."

LOL, He says this as if he won't be running out first thing in the morning and voting for Hillary on election day.

"There’s only one real reason, of course, why Paul might lure in a few granola voters: He may be a loon, but at least he’s not Hillary Clinton. That’s not nothing."

Wow, I'm glad I read that Rand picked up that savvy Tech guy from Texas because this is going to be the type of nonsense he'll be up against. They'll need to sharply and swiftly counter any msm journalist that writes sloppy articles like these because it's this kind of writing that causes shallow minded people on either side to take the persons word as gospel and form an opinion. Along with that opinion comes a wall that over time becomes difficult to break down.

I probably shouldn't even have bothered with this, I know that guy isn't going to sway many opinions. My main point was for those that haven't been around long to recognize this is the type of bs that Rand will be up against. And while this guy may not be a big time writer, you'll be surprised once primary season just how many so called "professionals" will write nonsense like this.

 

[Warlord]

Why the fuck do they always choose a shitty picture like that. Fuck MSM.

There's nothing wrong with that picture=. It's one of his best ! where he's raising and wagging his finger..


it's this one no
?

 

[serenityrick]

There's nothing wrong with that picture=. It's one of his best ! where he's raising and wagging his finger..


it's this one no
?

When the mainstream media doesn't like a candidate (usually conservatives) they'll use pictures in their article or on the tv of them with their mouth open just like what Rand is doing there.

It's not coincedence that the far left/progressive webstie Salon.com used a perfectly nice picture of Warren smiling cutely while Rand is looking like an ape.

With that said conservative publications do the same thing to progressive politicians too.. it's just a subtle way of mocking someone.

 

[acptulsa]

With that said conservative publications do the same thing to progressive politicians and Ron Paul too.. it's just a subtle way of mocking someone.

FTFY

 

[idiom]

Money quote:

and anyway consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Bloody leftists.