[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: Rand Paul Has a Daddy Issue (VOTE TED CRUZ) There’s probably no easier layup in Republican politics, no bigger no-brainer to utter without fear of consequence, than criticizing Vladimir Putin for his actions in Ukraine. Yet Rand Paul couldn’t quite pull it off without taking some friendly fire. The 52-year-old Kentucky senator, who will announce his outsider candidacy for the GOP nomination this week in Louisville, is a lifelong noninterventionist, but even he couldn’t abide Putin’s invasion of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, and he joined the GOP chorus calling for retribution. “Putin must be punished,” Rand Paul wrote in a blistering March 2014 op-ed in Time—marking the start of his center-ward shuffle toward the GOP mainstream. One problem: His 79-year-old father, Ron, didn’t agree and didn’t feel like silencing himself. The three-time presidential candidate, and original source of his son’s credibility among libertarians, has been a frequent guest on Putin-controlled Russian state television, where he has railed against almost every U.S. plan to counter Putin’s aggression—from military aid to diplomatic censure to sanctions. “I don’t think we have any business there,” Ron Paul said of Ukraine in an interview with Moscow-run RT television at the time—and he’s kept on saying similar things ever since. In February, he said, “I am not pro-Putin, I am not pro-Russia, I am pro-facts,” before going on to say “the Ukraine coup was planned by NATO and EU,” in an echo of the Kremlin’s line and despite the well-documented scenes of thousands of ordinary Ukrainians braving the freezing cold to demand their Russian-backed president step down. Rand Paul is a singular figure in American politics, whose selection of the Galt House Hotel as his kickoff venue and possibly his choice of nickname (shortened from “Randall”) reflect his admiration of Ayn Rand, the literary godmother of the individualism movement. But his libertarian birthright, the political bedrock of his 2016 bid, owes a lot to his father’s willingness to speak his truth—and sometimes his own version of the truth—to Big Government power. Rand’s 2016 campaign is an expansion, not a hostile takeover, of the family business, a candidacy rooted in his father’s folksy, contrarian campaigns against Washington, Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, the two-party establishment and an alphabet soup of internationalist bogeymen from the IMF to NATO to the U.N. But Rand Paul wants to rebrand Ron Paul’s libertarianism into a more potent political force and capitalize on its popularity among younger voters. And, unlike his father, he’s willing to compromise to actually get elected president. Meanwhile, it isn’t clear that Ron Paul, while supportive of his son’s candidacy, is entirely committed to this succession plan. As Rand maneuvers, Ron seems oblivious—or disdainful—of the realpolitik considerations of his son’s campaign and bent on expressing himself at his usual pennywhistle pitch. “Ron is so crazy, he says all this crazy shit, and he won’t shut up, and it’s damaging his kid. … It’s a terrible situation,” says Michael Goldfarb, a veteran conservative operative and founder of the conservative Washington Free Beacon, which has been critical of the elder Paul. “What is he supposed to do, throw his father under the bus?” In a 2016 field crowded with familial entanglements—the Clintons, Bushes, Cruzes—the Pauls might be the most tangled of them all. Ana Navarro, a veteran GOP operative from Florida and a CNN contributor who supports Jeb Bush, says Rand Paul will eventually have to own up to his father’s legacy—just like everybody else in the race with a famous, lightning-rod relative. “Sure, he’ll have to answer for some of his dad’s rants,” Navarro said. “Scott Walker had to answer for what a staffer wrote on Twitter. Jeb Bush has to deal with questions about 41 and 43 [former presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush] everywhere he goes. Rand’s going to have to respond to some of the good, bad and ugly things said and done by the man who shares his DNA, last name and base of voters.” A top adviser to one of Paul’s likely primary opponents put the father-son relationship in blunt operational terms. “He’s got to distance himself from Ron if he wants to get out of his cul-de-sac,” the aide told me. “But he’s already underperforming his dad, and he can’t afford to lose a single libertarian vote his father got.” “He’s in a box,” this aide said. “I feel kind of bad for him.” The dilemma, however, isn’t merely what Ron Paul has said but also what he might say. In his world, he’s every bit as powerful and ungovernable as Bill Clinton is in his. There’s no keeping him to a script, and nobody’s really trying, not Rand and not the handful of top Rand aides who have also worked for his father—and view the former Texas congressman as a living legend. Rand’s people were exasperated when Ron prematurely predicted his son’s presidential candidacy last November (on Russian TV, of course), but there were no lectures, just Ron-being-Ron sighs of resignation. Jesse Benton, who has worked as a top adviser for both men and married into the family a few years back, says it’s a mistake to view father and son as a twofer. “Ron is in his lane, and Rand is in his lane,” Benton, who is now working for Rand’s presidential campaign, told me. “They rarely talk about policy. Their personal relationship is much more mundane than you’d think. Mostly, they talk about their kids, and what they are going to do when they get together with their kids.” There is no estrangement. Father and son remain personally close, aides say, but there is a clearly discernible public distance between the two. It wasn’t clear until the last minute, for example, that Ron Paul would even attend his son’s Louisville campaign kickoff. Rand’s mother, Carol Wells, was always on the guest list, but Ron wouldn’t cancel a paid speech at the University of Minnesota during the week, and the underfunded campaign scrambled to pay for an expensive charter flight to hustle him back in time for his son’s debut. For his part, Ron Paul has bristled at any suggestion he’s undermining his son’s candidacy. In January, when a Washington Post reporter asked him if his public statements (he had just spoken favorably about Texas seceding from the Union) were unhelpful, the elder Paul slammed the media. “If we had decent reporters, there would never be any problems. You think you could ever meet one?” he asked. “Have a heart, buddy.” In an interview with The Wall Street Journal this week, Rand’s brother Robert said the rigors of the campaign would be “a negative for my family” but that Rand is a “better politician” than his father ever was. “My daughter once said, ‘If people would just listen to Granddad, they would vote for him.’ But they don’t listen. Rand can get them to listen to the message.” Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
#1. To: Abraham (#0)
Putin's invasion of Crimea? You bunch of knuckle dragging retards, the people of Crimea CHOSE to rejoin Russia after the US/NATO backed overthrow of THEIR government. The world should be sanctioning the US and the rest of the NATO war mongerers, who not only instigated and supported the violent overthrow of the Ukraine government, but supported the coup government's massacre of Eastern Ukraine civilians by use of tanks, artillery, and aircraft. Being that Rand is such a low IQ fool and tool for bloodthirsty morons who wish to start WWIII, I will NEVER vote for the weasel.
Putin's invasion of Crimea? You bunch of knuckle dragging retards, the people of Crimea CHOSE to rejoin Russia after the US/NATO backed overthrow of THEIR government. According to Abraham, Thousands of Ukrainians, including a US ambassador, protesting that a properly elected president step down is a valid expression of the people, while 95% or more Crimeans deciding by formal referendum to rejoin Russia is Russian tyranny. The right of self determination is apparently only valid when it's in line with the outsider's foreign interests. I will never be able to fathom the blatant hypocrisy of people who see the Ukraine situation as Abraham apparently does.
I will never be able to fathom the blatant hypocrisy of people who see the Ukraine situation as Abraham apparently does. It's been getting worse over the years. Back when I was a kid, it seemed everything was on the right track, that the government was becoming more susceptible to the will of the people. The Vietnam War was ending, cops weren't being huge buttwipes, and things were looking bright. The Cold War ended, the economy was doing great, and the so-called American Dream was still achievable. Nowadays, the economy is in shambles, our freedoms have been eroded, we've killed millions of innocent people, and now our leaders are trying to provoke a war against Russia. I am aghast at how most people these days just accept whatever is beamed at them, and care not if the words and images they hear and see are real, or just MADE to look real, whereas in the past, things were at least MORE real than what is seen as "reality" today. WTF, will we have a world left after this reaches it's logical conclusion?
I'm sorry to tell you this, but no. Everything was supposed to peace and love when the suits who gave us Vietnam retired and boomers took over. WRONG NUMBER..... the peace and love generation may be more brutal than any. Guess we should have seen that at Altamont, the Riverfront Coliseum et al.
There are no replies to Comment # 17. End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||