The following column appeared in the (Pikeville) Appalachia News Express and is reprinted here with permission by author:
Paul’s Strange Candidacy, By T. J. Litafik
Buoyed by his father’s aggressive, ragtag band of national followers, Rand Paul has raised a significant amount of money—over $1 million—for his quixotic U.S. Senate campaign. Paul, a Bowling Green eye doctor and political neophyte, is simply channeling the ideas of his father, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), into next year’s Kentucky race.
Congressman Paul has in many instances taken admirable and independent stances on a wide variety of issues, across the spectrum, and it has made him very popular with those outside the political mainstream. During the 2008 presidential cycle, Ron Paul supporters were easily identifiable as loud and unruly party crashers at both Republican and Democratic candidates’ campaign events. At one event this writer attended in Johnson City, TN with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, the rude and crude behavior of the Paulites went so far as to bring their own signs and shouts into Gov. Huckabee’s rally. On the way out, one fellow fervently waving a Ron Paul sign could be heard mumbling something about black helicopters and the Kennedy assassination.
The Paulite philosophy of government is basically this: the Federal government never did anything to help anybody; we’ve got to cut all “pork” out of the budget, scrap a variety of regulatory agencies, including the IRS and (gasp!) the Federal Reserve, and in the name of “freedom” repeal, repeal, repeal and we’ll start with anti-drug laws.
The senior Paul was the 1988 presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party. That was a silly and gratuitous political venture, just like his son’s U.S. Senate bid is now. While the Pauls can undoubtedly find a lot of takers for their ideology across America, the problem they have here is that in Kentucky people know better than the idea that all government is bad. Were it not for the progressive populism of Democratic and Republican leaders, Eastern Kentuckians would have never had a chance. Today we have the roads, schools, airports, flood control projects and hospitals that the Paul philosophy of government would have denied us.
Legislative politics, especially, are about tact, reasonableness and compromise—and yes, bringing home the bacon for the people you represent. The Pauls call such legislative accomplishment “pork” and denounce good public servants like Congressman Hal Rogers who deliver for their districts.
Earl Long once said of an opponent, “He’s got about as much chance to be Governor of Louisiana as I do Pope of Rome, and I’m not even a Catholic.”
Either Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo or Attorney Gen. Jack Conway would steamroll Rand Paul in the general election. Good Kentucky conservative Republicans who honestly seek a fresh political face and a change in Washington should think twice before joining the Paulite crowd. There is room for Ron Paul in the national debate, to be sure. But Kentuckians can’t afford a wild ideologue representing them; we must have earnest advocates for our people who want to continue the work of leaders like Hal Rogers, Carl D. Perkins, John Sherman Cooper and Wendell Ford. The problem with Paul is that he’s just too kooky for Kentucky.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
You can smell the desperation as conservatives reject Trey Grayson.
Nothing "quixotic" about a guy leading in a new poll in the GOP primary. What laughable spin.
You can't even link it to the original article. Pretty sad.
Link: To my email account. From TJ.
As for Quixotic, we'll see how this freakshow campaign takes a punch; that'll tell the tale.
Cyber and Right Wingers,
Please, KEEP THIS UP!
23rd shows blue streak
Democrat ends 150-year Republican reign with victory over Conservative
"On the way out, one fellow fervently waving a Ron Paul sign could be heard mumbling something about black helicopters and the Kennedy assassination"
Yeah.....
So you want me to be a GOOD conservative and vote for Bill Clinton loving former Democrat Trey Grayson??? Not this Kentuckian.... I support small responsible government. I will vote for Rand Paul.
Rogers, Perkins, Cooper and Ford? Makes me think that Litafik is saying that Eastern Kentuckians would vote for Stalin if the sumbitch was hauling a load of gravel for Granny's driveway. Hey, T.J. how about just starting with you guys kicking in a little for your own schools before Stumbo starts robbing the whole damn state? SCOOBY
Cyber,
Let's say Paul wins the primary. Come Nov. will you still be voting GOP?
This is turning out to be just like every election we've ever had. The crux of the problem is the lack of civility in the campaigns. Candidates vying for the support of the same party attack one another leaving a divide and bitter taste in the mouths of party supporters. After the primary you have a portion of the party that feels betrayed or "burned" by the supporters of their opponent or the candidate thus staunchly oppose that candidate in the general election even if it means voting for a D or in fact they leave the GOP all together and become a new fangled fan of the donkey party from then on.
We have to do things differently. We have to bring civility and decency into the realm of public service. We have to unite, not continue to divide the public. We have to stop attacking one another, even across party lines. Differing opinions are what created the greatest nation on the planet, but opposing the very fabric of the Constitution cannot be tolerated regardless of how well intended ideals might be.
As for NY d23, the only reason the D won was because there are tons of morons who voted for the candidate that dropped out of the race. Had the votes for the R been added to Hoffman's count, he would have won.
I don't care how slim a chance a candidate has to win, if that candidate embodies your beliefs more so than others in the same race and you are the only 1 vote cast for that candidate - that is NOT a wasted vote! However voting for a candidate that dropped out of the running too late to be removed from the ballot IS a wasted vote.
Chuck:
In Nov. I'll vote for the candidate who most represents my views on issues like:
1. Supporting EKY and its coal industry.
2. Maintaining the war on terror.
3. Continuing to support Israel.
4. Someone who can go to DC and work to shrink the welfare state.
5. Somone who understands two things: there's a role for government and that there's such a thing as too much government.
6. Someone who'd make our state proud... i.e. someone who wouldn't be an embarrassment like Ron Paul is for TX.
AT this point, the only person who embodies those things for me, 100%, is Trey. Come June I'll look at it again.
One other point: this is as much a culture war within the GOP as it is ideological. In fact, probably more so. There are lots of GOP Pannies in a wad types who get offended by the GOP establishment. I feel the same sometimes, which is why I don't hang out a lot in establishment circles. But elections, as you say, are about values, not feelings.
"...The crux of the problem is lack of civility in campaigns..." Now, now, Chuck, don't go all Rodney King on us. If you're going to mix this into your references to the Founders and our Constitution, see Burr-Hamilton. Politics has never been for pussies. P.S. If Hal Rogers jumps into the void Cyber will turn on Trey like a water logged pup on a fire plug. SCOOBY
FYI, Cyberito, I don't mean to call you a pissy pooch..:-) SCOOBYTURD
Now Scooby, don't go all shaggy on me. Candidates are expected to have heated and passionate debates on differing stands on the issues. Even supporters are entitled, encouraged to carryout spirited debates. It's the mudslinging fictional accusations - i.e. lies, slander, libel or creative personal attacks against candidates and/or supporters as evident on this blog. But by all means let the candidates duke it out over the issues. When we reduce ourselves to the childish name callings or "neener" mentality, we've all lost.
Yea, Chuck, that's why John Sidney Hey Who Said Hussein McCain won. SCOOBY PS Do you know why Obama isn't going to Berlin for the anniversary of the wall falling? His side lost. What's to celebrate.
A little PS on the PS.. Democrat Litafik went to a Huckabee rally in Tennessee? SCOOBYGOTAHEADACHE
Cyberhillbilly brings out a Democrat to advise Republicans on their primary vote. Hmmmmm.
Scoobybeingadick :-) mattiesezhey
Scoobybeingadick :-) mattiesezhey
"On the way out, one fellow fervently waving a Ron Paul sign could be heard mumbling something about black helicopters and the Kennedy assassination."
LOL, guess it's already "make crap up" time. Didn't expect it to be this early. Grayson's camp is getting desperate.
Trey's wife is a HUUUUGE Democrat and everybody in Northern Kentucky knows it.
Cyber...MOC here...
I've been reading Rand Paul's stand on issues and I have to tell you---HE'S NAILING IT. On everything from the Fed to the U.N. to his stance on energy. And he's simply promoting the ideals that have made America the greatest country on earth.
Cyber...please consider something. We need, this country needs, people like you. The people the "establishment" GOP claim to be reaching out to are people like yellowdog, TGINDH, billadkins, and that Pam P...and there's no "reaching out to them". They're mean people...angry...dishonest, and can't be trusted.
They're NOT the kind of people you should reach out to. They represent the ideology that must be defeated if we want to remain free.
I'm not sure I will vote for him yet...but I do know I won't be paying attention to whether he's a "D" or an "R".
Anyway, please consider all this.
God Bless and talk to you again soon.
BTW, I'm in Florida, looking for seashells on Sanibel Island. MUCH FUN :)
Rand and Ron Paul want to turn Sanibel Island into a concentration camp for Neo-Cons. Kooky, but true.
Nothing like the sound of crickets.
Wow, talk about KOOKY Cyber - how do you explain Grayson's desire to reform laws to make it easier for releaseing convicted felons and restoring their rights to vote and hold public office? That sounds pretty crazy to me.
"Governor Steve Beshear is working hard to help Kentucky felons. He has granted more than 700 pardons to convicted felons since March including murderers, rapists and sexual abusers. Now he is doing his best to restore their right to vote and run for office. Apparently the prior requirements to pay a $2 fee, write an essay and get three recommendations to regain the right to vote was considered too burdensome. It is good to know the Governor is so busy helping somebody.
Several Republicans, including Secretary of State Trey Grayson and Rep. Lonnie Napier of Lancaster agree with the Governor’s new policy, both citing their personal Christian principles. Rep. Napier said that when a felon “pays his debt to society, it should be marked paid in full.” “If the Apostle Paul lived in Kentucky … and wanted to vote, he probably couldn’t vote in Kentucky because he was put in jail many, many times.” How does one pay his debt in full to the murdered family, or rape victim, or abused child? In addition, if the debt is paid in full, then why not make them eligible to carry a gun?"
I guess I'll let him explain it. I take the man at his word. Have you ever met Trey?
But even though I don't agree with him on this one, I think when you look at the sum total of his views:
Fighting the war on terror
Winning in Afghanistan'
Supporting our Troops
Keeping FISA
Keeping the Patriot Act
Continuing federal support to combat our state's drug problem
Federal pro life policies
etc.
... he's the best candidate.
Are you familiar with a few quotes from Ben Franklin? I believe they went something like this:
- "A Republic if you can keep it."
- "He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither and will soon be parted from both."
Yet you still want to keep the Patriot Act and FISA? You do realize that if someone is suspected of plotting against our country, warrants can be obtained quite easily and in most cases up to 72 hrs AFTER raids/arrests are made. This doesn't require the destruction of privacy for any patriotic American, but still is useful in dealing with potential terrorists. Which btw, the FBI had hard evidence that Maj. Hasan was in contact with an imam known to recruit for al Qaeda yet they never bothered to detain him.
Why haven't they shut down the mosque that seems to be teaching the "kill non-believers, America is the great satan" dogma?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html
And why have they not detained the imam running a mosque on US soil who later published this crap on his blog :
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/nidal-hasans-imam-praises-fort-hood-massacre/
The Patriot Act and FISA were nothing more than federal gov't power grab. They'll use those laws as they see fit, not for the purposes which they sold the public on how they would be used. It's a dangerous naivety to think those laws were actually meant to protect us from terrorists.
"Chuck":
I think it's black helicopter time for you, my friend. Did you really write this:
The Patriot Act and FISA were nothing more than federal gov't power grab. They'll use those laws as they see fit, not for the purposes which they sold the public on how they would be used. It's a dangerous naivety to think those laws were actually meant to protect us from terrorists.
I vote we have two parties. One for the responsible people in this country who still believe in, and one of the nutjobs who think big brother is out to snoop on their library card.
I've never said they are coming after us, so that reply was quite childish. But it does paint a clear picture on what's wrong with our country as a whole these days. We don't appreciate real freedom. Liberty as the Founders intended. Instead folks like you are more than willing to surrender what rightfully belongs to the individual with the ignorant assumption that government will always play fair. Meanwhile they write and rewrite the rules as they see fit and more often than not they don't even stick to the rules as agreed to.
Black helicopters aside - you have absolutely no defense as to why the tragedy at Ft. Hood was allowed - read that again - A L L O W E D to happen despite the fact that we have the Patriot Act and FISA there to protect us. Do you want to keep up with the childish remarks or are you man enough to face the truth?
Chuck:
If it isn't us they're coming after, who are they going after?
You wrote: "The Patriot Act and FISA were nothing more than federal gov't power grab. They'll use those laws as they see fit, not for the purposes which they sold the public on how they would be used. It's a dangerous naivety to think those laws were actually meant to protect us from terrorists."
What purposes will they use them for? If this isn't black helicopter stuff then I'm not sure what is.
In your last comment you wrote:
"you have absolutely no defense as to why the tragedy at Ft. Hood was allowed - read that again - A L L O W E D to happen..."
Two things here. First, it's clear that the government dropped the ball on this one. I assume in large part b/c of the fear over civil rights. You don't want to confront folks over insane statements like the Ft. Hood shooter was making. That's partly due to the liberal backlash over the same laws you castigate, although by sending Rand to the Senate Obama would have some right wing cover on civil liberties for those who'd use them to destroy us.
But help me out on this commnent... "A L L O W E D to happen...". Obviously you're quite impressed with this assertion. What do you mean by allowed to happen? Are you suggesting that the authorities turned their backs despite knowing the shooter would kill innocent Americans? If this isn't Black Helos then I don't know what is.
As the facts are beginning to come out just now, we have learned that Dr. Nadal was raising red flags as far back as 2007.
That is strange, I thought everything went wrong after
1/20/2009.
Reading the comment about civility in campaigns makes me think that running a civil campaign certainly didn't help McLame against B. Hussein Obama, now did it?
McLame should have been hammering on Wright, Ayers, etc., instead of giving him a complete pass on Wright and only briefly mentioning Ayers. Better believe that if I was running for office I would not hesitate to take on my opponent on EVERY aspect where he or she might be vulnerable.
Post a Comment