Rand Paul’s race for US Senate in Kentucky has quickly come to exemplify everything that is right — and wrong — with the mainstream conservative movement. Let’s start with what’s right: as the son of the outspoken, anti-establishment Republican Congressman Ron Paul, eye surgeon Rand Paul entered a daunting GOP senate race promising to shake things up on Capitol Hill, quickly won the support of grassroots conservatives with his earnest limited government message, and now has a substantial lead in the polls over his more established opponent, Trey Grayson.
Now for what’s wrong with the mainstream conservative movement — or as former Vice President Dick Cheney announced earlier this month: “I’m a lifelong conservative, and I can tell the real thing when I see it. I have looked at the records of both candidates in the race, and it is clear to me that Trey Grayson is right on the issues that matter.”
Cheney is a Bush Republican and as such, it might be first worth noting what issues don’t matter to him — exorbitant government spending, TARP bailouts, amnesty for illegal aliens, massive entitlement expansions of Medicare and increasing federal control of public education through programs like No Child Left Behind. Bush grew government more than any president since Lyndon Johnson, doubling the national debt, something Cheney famously dismissed by saying “deficits don’t matter.” Trey Grayson, whom Cheney considers the “real thing,” is a former Democrat who voted for and supported Bill Clinton in 1992, and though his former party affiliation has been of some concern to Republican voters in Kentucky, it doesn’t seem to faze Cheney, who still insists Grayson is right on the “issues that matter.” What the former vice president neglects to mention is that for “conservatives” of his stripe only one issue matters.
Read the whole thing here: Dangerous Rand Paul
[...] and now has a substantial lead in the polls over his more established opponent, Trey Grayson. - theCL A USA Today/Gallup poll finds that almost two-thirds of people think the healthcare reform bill [...]
At you're really describing is a war with the Establishment. Pretty much all our bad habits were established the first ten years after WW Ii. We took over international banking and Enforcer from the folks who gave us the first two world wars. Until Reagan came along, no one seriously questioned expanding outlays. In the Sixties, I witnessed Dems make fun of conservatives who worried about inflation, or debt. Pay-up time has been a long time coming. I don't see any leader emerging who will tell the truth. The big Fat Man has been coming up on a crash diet for a long long time.
Richard Nixon was the first Republican to go gang busters on Big Gov. The macihine you describe was already in place.
And, I would argue, wasn't always or necessarily nefarious. The 50s decisions to get into Nam make sense to me, even if, in retrospect, it looks goofy. I just think we, as a country, were never cut out for the roll we took on.
But I'm glad. We we there.
Yes, a war against the Establishment (conservatives first coined that phrase btw).
Guys like Dick Cheney claim to be the standard bearers of conservatism, but have done nothing to limit government, nothing to return us to our representative republic, yet have expanded the size and scope of the government as much as any lefty Democrat.
People who grow the government are my political adversaries, regardless of their excuses.
As for Nam ... I was born in '68, so it's a history lesson for me. But I can't, for the life of me, find what we gained that was worth over 58,000 American lives. I'd rather have had those lives. Not to mention that it's a proven fact the Bay of Tonkin was a lie.
As for me, I was appalled by the errors in my comment. Posting from the I phone.
Regardless of how Vietnam was fought, there was a clear consensus that being passive in the face of Red Adventuring was a mistake. Michael Medved has a great history lesson that.
LBJ's presidency was an all-round disaster. It was Nixon that closed the Nam chapter, yet to this day militarism is pinned on the Repubs.
What I'm saying is, we stood up to Red aggression but had no means for thinking outside the box. By the time Korea got under way, the American State you're familiar with was in place. There's never been any slow down on our maniacal superpowering. A fundamental in our system is that there is no method to force Congress to be honest about money. The Leviathan we feed and serve has been alive and well since 1952 anyway.
I meant to say fundamental flaw. There is no way to break the robbery. Only the voters can change the tune.
I agree, and as I've often said, we chased the red menace down around the globe with our military, while the red menace made itself at home in our own backyard.
I agree that Nixon shouldn't necessarily take the heat for Nam, that belongs to JFK and LBJ, but it was during Nam that the left and right started to switch sides on the war debate. Prior to the sixties and more so the 70's, the right was always anti-war. It was the right who didn't want to get involved in WWI and WWII, while the progressive left was clamouring for war! Republicans, lead by "Mr. Republican" Robert A. Taft fought against the draft, while the progressive Democrats trumpeted the draft!
The Leviathan has growing in earnest since Teddy Roosevelt. The right has failed to stop it. Why? Because we give in too easy to the whims of the party and support Big Government types like Cheney and the Bush family.
I honestly don't think the average American has any notion of what a limited State social system would look like. I wonder, at least. The thought's gone through my head more than once that we're wasting our breath. Let the dollar crash. Go back to basics.
Rand could have his race wrapped up if he wasn't being taken to task constantly by the libertarians who by and large refuse to belly up to the bar financially like they did for Ron.
Yes, I can understand their hesitations and legitimate concerns because he's not a known quantity like Ron Paul, but we complain that neo-conservatives always walk all over us and traditional-conservatives (me) never get anywhere. A lot of it, to me, is that we can never come to terms with our differences to the point of opening up the checkbook. Right now, Trey Grayson is uniting Democrats AND Neoconservatives AND Party-hacks to oppose Rand. Perhaps it is their lack of puritanical views on most things that allow them to do so, but I've set aside my issues with Rand Paul and have donated significantly to his campaign. Even those who won't open their checkbook, feel the need to go denigrate and cast doubt on his candidacy. FFS, he's getting attacked from his opponents, and the puritans?
No wonder the neoconservatives run stuff on the right.
The libertarian puritans don't like him because he isn't as hardcore against things like Gitmo than his father. It's a childish complaint really. Rand Paul is exactly what we all need!
There's no such thing as a politician who you can agree with 100%. It's their basic philosophy that matters most. Rand Paul is a genuine, limited government guy.
They'll probably come around as the election gets closer.
I just wish they'd understand the sheer gravity in American politics of a U.S. Senate seat. He could be the deciding vote on practically everything. This is why the Establishment is unleashing hell on him.
Oh, and after yet another ADHD-riddled rant on your fantastic blog, I just have to say Jack Hunter is an asset to traditional conservatives, and I am pumped to see him doing articles and videos for The American Conservative. He is guest-hosting for Mike Church for 3 hours tomorrow morning 9am-12pm EST on Sirius Patriot #144, and I can't wait to tune-in. Jack is a great fellow and I am excited he's going to get some national air-time.
Yeah, I like the Southern Avenger!