The cult leader is on Leno.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I saw Rick Santorum on a show in some guys basement once. The studio audience consisted of Keystone Phill and a bunch of stuffed animals. And besides that, at least our cult is sucessfull

You know, Paul's lost his share of elections too. 1974 and 1976 House, 1984 Senate primary, 1988 President, 2008 President primary... Heck, Paul lost to a Robert Casey too. Paul is 9/14 (64.3%) in his "final" elections for a seat before this year. Santorum is 4/5 (80%) in such races, which would have been higher if he would have stayed in the House like Paul.

Well, those early losses occurred when Texas (including Paul's seat) was basically safe Dem. He lost the primary for Senate because it was against Bush and he was a lesser known (outside of the Houston area) congressman, and he lost in 1988 because the silly electoral system of the US means that even Jesus Christ Himself running as a Libertarian would probably lose without one of the major parties folding (or being a billionaire and not pissing away his chances by dropping out for no reason, like Perot).

Anyway, he won his first house elections in a district that was fairly Democratic, and he won his second house elections by increasingly wider margins despite never compromising his views and being targeted by the Democrats for attacks whereas Santorum won his first election by a decent margin and was destroyed just one term later.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Santorum won his first election by a decent margin and was destroyed just one term later.

Uh, I'm pretty sure I have been over this with you before but we'll give it one more try...

Rick Santorum has won four elections out of five attempts so I'm not sure how he won his first race then lost just one term later. If you're referring to his statewide record, he ran three times, winning the first two races then losing while attempting to get a third term. So, no, he didn't lose "just one term later."

It would help if you were a little more informed before posting and (continuing) to look like an imbecile. Probably too much to ask of a Paultard though.

Ahem. He won TWO elections, the first just barely, the SECOND by a decent margin, and the third was one of the biggest stompings of a challenger over an incumbent.

The fact still stands that he was defeated by nearly 20% of the vote, something I would expect for maybe New York or Vermont, not a lean-ish (at least outside of presidential elections) D state.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm counting the statewide elections because if you count congressional elections its pretty clear who the "more electable" is.

Santorum: 2 successful elections as a congressman!
Paul: 12 successful elections as a congressman!

Oops.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? The senatorial candidate lost because he was running with wildly unpopular views against a well liked opponent? Why, that sounds like what would happen if a man who is most noted among those not affiliated with politics for hating gays and supporting wars found himself running against a president who still has decent favourability despite effectively being at the helm during a depression.

He's not much of a conservative either, going by what I've heard of his economic policy. What he supports is more like the Christian equivalent of a Kibbutz.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Watching Republicans duke it out is so much fun.

Paultards are not Republicans.

Some are, some aren't.

I would note that when "moderates" attract supporters outside of registered Republicans that it is described as "broadening the base," yet Paul is being attacked for doing precisely that.

Paul's supporters include so-called "libertarians," and the followers of the cult author Alice Rosenbaum. [Paul named his son after her pen name.] While the followers of so-called "libertarianism" might be beyond the pale, the Rosenbaum cultists reject the morally defective people so-called "libertarians" seem to attract. [I would refer readers to the sordid tale of Jim Purden, his embrace by the "libertarian" party in New Zealand, and the outrageous level of truth denial his "libertarian" defenders  resorted to evade his past.] In fact, another of her cultists won a Congressional seat in Indiana in 1980, and, others served in the Reagan administration.

I agree with alot of that, but Rand Paul actually is not named after Ayn Rand. They call him Randy, his wife gave him the Rand nickname.

They named him "Randal," and, I simply don't believe the denials.

I doubt being named after Ayn Rand is an incredible shame in the Republican Party (among those who even know who she is), so I don't see why Paul would need to deny it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 I think he's referring to Ross Perot, the independent who was a couple of steps away from walking away with the election (and would have led to a vastly improved American electoral system IMO) before inexplicably walking AWAY from the election and then changing his mind to get crushed.