Will Rand Paul give the GOP a ‘shellacking’?
Read Time:1 Minute, 57 Second
When President Obama used the word ‘shellacking’ to describe the serious beating Congressional Democrats had taken at the hands of the Republicans, his words were repeated over and over on the TV news shows. But if Rand Paul, the new Senator from Kentucky, is true to his words, the ‘shellacking’ could soon be on the other foot.
Church And State
• “Addressing President Bush’s program of channeling government money through religious-based charities, Paul said on KET’s Kentucky Tonight on June 30, 2008, that ‘churches do charity work, and that is wonderful, but they shouldn’t be corrupted with government money.’
“He also said the initiatives ‘obscure the church-state separation that there really ought to be,'” the paper reports.
Social Security
• Paul has alternately advocated eliminating Social Security and just eliminating the program as it’s known today.
“I think the average American is smart enough to make their own investments,” he told Kentucky public TV in October 1998. “The more freedom the better … Reform is going to happen, and I hope it’s privatization.”
• In 1999, Paul told Kentucky public TV that some vestige of the current system should be maintained, calling for a “a baseline … that is sort of a security net” that allows for some social security money to remain in government hands while the rest is invested individually by future recipients.
Capitalism
• “We have very little vestige left of laissez-faire capitalism,” Paul said in a speech at a Boston tea party rally in 2009. “We have a largely regulated economy, and we cannot let capitalism take the blame for this, or we will have less capitalism.”
“The other thing just infuriates me is that they blame greed,” Paul said at the rally. “Not that greed is a good thing to have. … But it is an indirect way of blaming capitalism. What is greed? Greed is an excess of self-interest, but what drives capitalism? Self-interest and profit. They are good things.”
So if Rand Paul honors his past statements and pursues this ideology, perhaps with support of other Tea Party members of Congress, we could witness some serious infighting in the next 2 years. There is always the chance that he will back away from his past utterances “for party unity” Republicans are masters at that.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
What a nasty toad. I bet his knee pads are worn out from sucking it on Wall Street.
Oh hell no, he will be coopted like the rest of the teapublicans into the party that made them. He already tagged a republican insider from Washington, as his chief of staff. So the baggers were used, like the Christian right was used, to get votes and now they will be tossed aside.
It’s already happening in the house. The baggers wet dream Michele Bachmann, was vying for leadership but they have decided to back Jeb Hensarling from TX for the position crazy eyes was eyeing.
Make no mistake, all the crap we heard about baggers being disaffected dems, indies and republicans was all total and utter bullshit. If they were, how come it was dems that lost seats, hmm how come? No need to answer, because here I believe we are on the same page as far as thinking. If not the same page, we are definitely in the same section of the book.
Yes Jess, the Tea Party are disaffected Ralph Reed fundies. They have nothing in common with any pissed off progressives or dems of any color. Leave us out of it. We get angry with ourselves, regroup and move on. We do not form a different party and call it a revolution.
Well I know the blue dogs, have a third way type group like the DLC, they are trying to bring to the forefront. Harold Ford(putz) is already on the talking point, that the dems need to move to the right and basically get on their knees blowing the republicans,(paraphrasing and pardon the crude analogy, but it works) because this is what the American people want. Pubbies idea of bipartisan, do what we want or else.
That isn’t true, it is lies his opponents in the election spread. He wouldn’t change anything for current users of social security and medicare or those near retirement. However some changes would be made to PRESERVE and FUND both for younger people which would have to be worked out in a bipartisan fashion, per Rand. However they might include a higher deductible for medicare for those who can afford it, and gradually over time raising the age for social security to 70.
Here he is on other issues: http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/
The election is over, aren’t you at all interested in learning the truth?
So all those documented things he said previously are now not true?
The election is over, aren’t you at all interested in learning the truth?
I didn’t get much truth from the campaigns. Not expecting any more now they are over.
Thanks for stopping by JKR.
“That isn’t true …”
Lies! It’s all lies! Never mind that Rand Paul actually said those things.
Jesus fuck, JKR, think before calling others liars.
You are serious aren’t you, with this lying thing? This is the same guy that said there are no rich, no poor, we are all the same. Oh by the way, we all work for rich people and we sell things to rich people so we should pity the rich people. Trust me, there are many poor people, getting poorer by the second because of people like Ayn Rand Paul and what they want to do to this country.
OMG, people really have been replaced by actual pods this election, instead of just pod people.