TheAgitator.com
Rand Paul Takes Lead in the Polls
Wednesday, November 4th, 2009Over at the blog In the Agora, Joshua Claybourn notes that libertarian (and Ron Paul offspring) Rand Paul has taken an early polling lead for the Republican nomination to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). Paul has already raised far more money than his opponent, Kentucky’s GOP establishment-backed Secretary of State Trey Grayson. But Paul has also been able to convert dollars into poll points. He has jumped 14 points in the last three months.
Claybourn, an attorney and writer just across the Ohio River in Evansville, Indiana observes:
Rand Paul is a strong states’ rights advocate who wants the federal government out of people’s lives. He opposes federal drug laws and says the U.S. government should not outlaw gay marriage because only churches should be in the marriage business. He is skeptical of foreign interventionism and doggedly Constitutional about any engagement. But more than anything he likes talking about fiscal issues and the need to scale back government intrusion in economics and reform the nation’s fiscal policies…
Libertarian intrusions into Republican primaries are nothing new. But what separates Rand Paul from most other libertarian candidates (including his father) is that Rand is not a novelty act. He is a known commodity as a long-time practicing ophthalmologist in western Kentucky. Along with tremendous intellectual heft, Rand is a polished public speaker with a professional presence. In short, he is an ideal candidate for the libertarian cause.
All of which would explain why the national GOP is trying like hell to make sure he doesn’t get the nomination.
Now see, there’s a reasonable Republican this libertarian-leaning Democrat could get behind.
good to see Claybourn still writing. I recall his IDS articles at IU.
“only churches should be in the marriage business”
This is “intellectual heft”?
Ron Paul was a novelty act? I assume it’s his lack of “polished” public speaking, since he has every other credential mentioned in comparison with Rand. I’m guessing Claybourn gets a shiver up his leg when Obama speaks.
I also hope Radley doesn’t piss on Rand like he did Ron.
From Rand’s website: “For too long the Federal Reserve has operated behind a shroud of mystery—as Senator I would make sure that all Americans understand the dangers of unsound monetary policy and shed light on this secretive organization”
Yet again another Federal Reserve conspiracy theorist nut job- just what america needs- someone to lead us back to the boom and bust cycles (that make our current recession look like a picnic) we had before the founding of the very non-mysterious federal reserve. Just because republicans like father and son Paul are too stupid to understand how the Fed works doesn’t make it “mysterious” or “secretive”.
What other elected official is making that argument?
@yoshi
I’m under the assumption that when he says churches, he means that marriage should only be given meaning by voluntary institutions, as opposed to the state.
I agree, only churches should be in the marriage business as the primary and quite possibly the only reason government is in the marriage business is the tax breaks (or penalties) marriage provides. It really has nothing to do with promoting family values and whatnot.
Marriage is nothing more than a contract between two consenting (for the most part) persons.
One of the questions I like to throw at the anti-gay marriage crowd: “If you met two homosexuals on the street and they told you they were “married to each other”, who are you to proclaim them not married?” If you claim they cannot be married then you have no choice but to acquiesce to the permissions of the government in your own marriage.
A free person doesn’t have any need for permissions when deciding who to marry.
Oh yeah, my signature:
Cappy, Atheist.
What Cappy said.
If we’re lucky, in 100 years we’ll have no more state. If they still exist, we might have them out of marriage and the business of “who’s going out with whom.”
“A free person doesn’t have any need for permissions when deciding who to marry.”
–Cappy
P.S. The Fed needs to be open to public audit. No conspiracy, just sound business and responsible government as communicated to me during anal probing by Kodos and Kang.
I had no idea that Ron Paul had a son named Rand, and when I read the headline I totally thought it was some kind of joke.
How on Earth does being a “practicing ophthalmologist in western Kentucky” make you a “known quantity” ?? I mean, maybe western Kentucky only has one ophthalmologist, but if my eye doctor ran for Congress, I probably wouldn’t even recognize his name.
I’ve known about Rand supported him for some time now…not new news… but GOOD news. He’s a choice pick for the direction I’m wanting to go.
@#11 ClassAction: “How on Earth does being a ‘practicing ophthalmologist in western Kentucky’ make you a ‘known quantity’ ??”
Hey, Bub, we live in a democracy, and in a democracy the “eyes” have it.
bobzbob,
I find it very interesting, that on the Internet, if one does not share the same opinion of another, it often drops into a juvenile game of name calling. I guess the other 300+ that support the audit the fed bill are just as stupid as DR’s Paul. LOL!
Best part is, he has the most money, and he doesnt have to pay people to work for him because there are plenty of volunteers. He should be able to leverage ALL his money into advertisements and organization.
I don’t like the idea of putting a national spotlight on state elections. I don’t want New Yorkers influencing my candidates nor do I want my neighbors influencing who is on the ballot in NY-23.
@ bobzbob,
“Yet again another Federal Reserve conspiracy theorist nut job- just what america needs- someone to lead us back to the boom and bust cycles (that make our current recession look like a picnic)”
Seriously…you think the federal reserve actually stopped this recession from being worse rather than being the main component of it all? Conspiracy nut jobs we may be, but at least we don’t buy into the bullshit that the federal reserve actually knows what the fuck it is doing. The FED has done nothing to stop boom and bust cycles. It’s artificial lowering of interest rates has created booms followed by explosions.
Seems I once saw a graph that showed that booms and busts were much worse before the Fed than after the Fed. Does such a thing exist or did I dream that?
I’ll be the first to say I do not know shit about economics.
So somebody tell me. Has the United States ever practiced the kind of economics proposed by Ron and Rand? Exactly what in the hell are they talking about?
#5, go read some books about how the Federal Reserve was founded, the people tied to its creation, and how the banking system works before resorting to the childish behavior of name calling; it’s a sign of you not knowing anything on the topic and therefore trying to guide any debate into pointless name calling and labeling.
Libertarian attempting to run on the republican ticket. That’s kind of an oxymoron isn’t it? Last time I checked, republicans weren’t in the liberty business. That said, this will be interesting to watch unfold.
Great to see Rand Paul out ahead early. Would be good press for his dad as well. Not too many senate candidates against federal drug laws, we’ve got a long way to go before ending prohibition
Guido: The Democrats certainly aren’t in the liberty business, either. Nor is the third party thing working out. At the least, a libertarian in a Republican primary can put his opponents on the spot to explain why their version of “small government” keeps increasing the size of government.
Y’all should read a little Mencius Moldbug at Unqualified Reservations.
He has a lot of interesting ideas about why government is the way it is. And why it is so difficult to reverse the tide of progressivism.
Hint: it has to do with the permanent civil service government controlling the elected politicians and their appointees.
Rand Paul, even if elected, won’t be able to change a thing.
I wish it were not so.
#3 | yoshi — “only churches should be in the marriage business”
“This is “intellectual heft”?”
I agree with Yoshi. A marriage is a business contract. Period. If a couple wants a church to “sanctify” the marriage, so be it. But otherwise marriage should fall entirely under contract law.
While I realize that you HAVE to be BFFs with Glenn Beck to win an election in Kentucky, I still wish Rand Paul wasn’t.
The law has to be involved in the marriage business to the extent that we want the law to take notice of marriage and treat married couples differently from other random pairs of people. Part of that is automatic stuff that could be handled with the right legal documents, inheritance and wills and such. Part is specific to marriage, as with alimony and child support and some legal privileges (under some circumstances, your spouse can’t be forced to testify against you, I think).