Rand Paul raises $1 million

[Beet]

http://www.randpaul2010.com/

He still polls worse than SoS Trey Grayson in both the primary and the general, but if I were Grayson, I'd watch out. Note that Grayson was in DC raising money from GOP Senators.

[Beet]

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative.

[Beet]

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative.

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.

My point has been proven.

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.

[Beet]

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative.

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.

My point has been proven.

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.

I would still support someone like Rand over Grayson.  Rand Paul can contribute a valid perspective to the conversation.  Grayson would just be a Chamber of Commerce stooge.  Sure, Paul might be more inclined to be the lone objector in unanimous consent clauses, but he'd be far more willing to side with a Democratic coalition on issues of war powers and civil rights.

The idea that Grayson would be a workable partner on any piece of legislation is utterly naive.  At BEST, he'd be like Bob Corker, but 10000% unwilling to negotiate on any issue where Mitch McConnell disagrees, so, he'd be pretty much as useless at McConnell except on rare issues like the bank bailout.

On civil rights? Don't you mean civil liberties? On civil rights he's already proven himself farther from the Democratic coalition than Trey Grayson would likely have been.

I don't consider that a rigid perspective is necessarily a more valid one. Just because the Chamber of Commerce does whatever they think will make them more money while Rand Paul does whatever fits with his worldview, it doesn't mean the Chamber of Commerce can't be right when Rand Paul is wrong, or even that the Chamber of Commerce is right less often than Paul. While I'm no fan of the Chamber, the notion that rigid and 'principled' always leads to better outcomes than pluralistic venality is incorrect. I'd rather have a venal money grubbing bastard who will help me pass the right policy than honest opposition that prevents the right policy from getting into place and undermines the people and the nation as a result. There is truth the oft-quoted Frederick the Great saying, "If I wished to punish a province, I would have it governed by philosophers."

[Beet]

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative.

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.

My point has been proven.

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.

I would still support someone like Rand over Grayson.  Rand Paul can contribute a valid perspective to the conversation.  Grayson would just be a Chamber of Commerce stooge.  Sure, Paul might be more inclined to be the lone objector in unanimous consent clauses, but he'd be far more willing to side with a Democratic coalition on issues of war powers and civil rights.

The idea that Grayson would be a workable partner on any piece of legislation is utterly naive.  At BEST, he'd be like Bob Corker, but 10000% unwilling to negotiate on any issue where Mitch McConnell disagrees, so, he'd be pretty much as useless at McConnell except on rare issues like the bank bailout.

On civil rights? Don't you mean civil liberties? On civil rights he's already proven himself farther from the Democratic coalition than Trey Grayson would likely have been.

I don't consider that a rigid perspective is necessarily a more valid one. Just because the Chamber of Commerce does whatever they think will make them more money while Rand Paul does whatever fits with his worldview, it doesn't mean the Chamber of Commerce can't be right when Rand Paul is wrong, or even that the Chamber of Commerce is right less often than Paul. While I'm no fan of the Chamber, the notion that rigid and 'principled' always leads to better outcomes than pluralistic venality is incorrect. I'd rather have a venal money grubbing bastard who will help me pass the right policy than honest opposition that prevents the right policy from getting into place and undermines the people and the nation as a result. There is truth the oft-quoted Frederick the Great saying, "If I wished to govern a province, I would have it governed by philosophers."

I don't disagree with you on the Chamber of Commerce, but what indication is that that Grayson will perform fair evaluations of legislation that can be worked with?  Paul gives so many inclinations that he'll be able to work across party lines on a host of issues.  On most economic issues, he'll be utterly entrenched, but Grayson would NEVER be the swing vote on anything, so why not have an ally on the GOP caucus who disagrees with unlimited war powers?

I'm certainly never of the believe that rigid beliefs are the best.  I'm a huge devil's advocate.

Really? Like what issues would Rand Paul be the swing vote on that Grayson would not?