May 18 2010

Rand Paul Wins Big

Published by at 8:01 pm under 2010 Elections,All General Discussions

Just a note about the huge win for Tea Party-aligned GOP senate candidate Rand Paul. He won big. He beat the GOP establishment and its state-wide machine. If there is one good measure of the tsunami heading to DC this was one of those data points. Message: time to clean out DC.

Rand’s acceptance speech indicates some warning signs. On substance I can support everything he says, but his delivery needs some work. But if I had to pick, Paul with his libertarian angle is top choice. America is not looking for the perfect package, but the best approach plan for re-alignment. Congrats to a fresh voice and perspective.

We loved his comment about GOP promising to lower taxes, but here’s your pork spending. An

9 responses so far

9 Responses to “Rand Paul Wins Big”

  1. sjreidhead says:

    I am glad I do not live in Kentucky. There are very few “republicans” I cannot and will not support. Rand Paul is one of them. I am sick over this. I think the tea party “patriots” have just lost the GOP a Senate seat.

    The Pink Flamingo

  2. kathie says:

    Obama says, Pearl’s Beheading ‘Captured the Imagination of People Around the World.’ We can not leave one supporter of Obama standing…….these people are crazy.

  3. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Free To Prosper, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: Rand Paul Wins Big […]

  4. WWS says:

    I’m no Ron Paul fan – far from it! But Rand has convinced me that he’s not nearly as far out as his father is, and he showed it in his campaign. Ron Paul’s biggest flaw is his horrendous views on foreign policy, and Rand’s opponent challenged him on this topic. But Rand presented himself very reasonably and ably, and neutralized this issue well.

    I rather like the fact that the establishment republicans are going to be running scared now. Mitch McConnell has been far too much of a “go along to git along” guy so far – that needs to change.

  5. colin says:

    Mitch McConnell may be the best minority leader we’ve ever seen in the Senate. He has accomplished things with 40 seats a less accomplished, more “go-along, get-along” leader couldn’t have accomplished with 47 seats. He’s been able to keep moderate Senators on side when it would have been far easier for them to vote with Democrats, and he has used parliamentary manuvers to tie up Reid time and time again. McConnell deserves our thanks, not our scorn.

    As to Paul, he may have toned down the crazy in comparison to his father, but he still opposed the Iraq war (and is quite public about it), still appears on the Truther Alex Jones show, and still talks about “constitutional” uses of American military force. He’s his father. Only he’s a little smarter and more willing to flat-out lie to his constituients. I’d rather see the Democrat win than Rand Paul. The Democrat will probably end up being more hawkish, if for no other reason than pure cynicism.

    This is my litmus test issue. Paul fails it.

  6. Terrye says:

    Kentucky could do a lot worse than Mitch McConnel and some of those folks really should tone down their condemnation of the man, he won his seat every bit as much as Rand Paul did.

    I don’t think Rand Paul is as far out as his father, but his national security stance is almost left wing. That bothers me. Too isolationist for me. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I hope he is not like his father, because if he is the Democrats will use it against him and the entire Tea Party movement.

  7. colin says:


    I’m sure you’re right, and that my statement was a little intemperate (especially about voting for the Democrat. I just don’t think I could actually do that). I just have absolutely zero trust for anyone who opposed the Iraq war. That’s just kind of a black-and-white issue to me. You confront threats that are building, or you ignore them. If you ignore them, you shouldn’t be put in a position to wield power, in my opinion at least.

  8. Terrye says:


    I feel the same way. In fact, it kind of makes you wonder why people are not calling Paul a RINO. After all, a few years ago, it was considered apostasy for a Republican to not support confronting threats. But now, we have this guy who does not support the Patriot Act. The subject has changed, now the RINOs are the people who supported TARP.

    I think it is kind of ridiculous myself.

    But then again, if Palin and DeMint supported Rand Paul and both of them are strong on national security issues, then how far off can he be?

  9. colin says:

    My worry is that people have a case of political “tunnel vision.” Conservatism is defined by one all-important issue. Right now, it’s the size of government. During the Bush years, it was defined as support for the War on Terror. Before that it was defined according to a more “socially-conservative” set of issues, like abortion and disapproval of Clinton’s moral and ethical failures.

    I worry Palin and DeMint will come to regret supporting Paul over Grayson. The acid test will come when he casts a vote on a homeland security measure, or against sanctions on Iran, or in support of dissidents, or for military equipment for Israel. If he comes down on the right side of those issues, I’ll be happy to eat my words.