Rand Paul Pulls Ahead In Kentucky...

[SquidInk]

Personally I think the teabaggers should protest more, they are uneducated on the topics I have seen videos.

For sure. For starters, the Boston Tea Party was more or less about trade policy, not taxation. Even with the Tea Tax, the colonists would have paid less for British tea.

In other words, they were willing to pay more - on principle!

[Joolz]

I watched both videos. I don't see what the problem is. Of course, as SquidInk points out, Bob Baar is taking credit. Why wouldn't he, if he can pull it off? And I'm sure he's right that a lot of the people at the "teabag parties" were/are Libertarians. However, Rachel's research is solid, and backed up. Despite his on-the-surface protestations, Dick Armey is obviously involved. So, yes, there are Libertarians at the protests, and perhaps Baar is right and the movement did ORIGINATE with Libertarians, but if that's true, then their movement has been co-opted by Conservative organizers because Armey's involvement is apparent.

Also, I don't see why we need to be picking "corners" here. This isn't some after-school brawl out behind the gymnasium. But, Linda, I see what you see, and have for a long time.

[Kaztronic]

Waiting for your defenders to post now, its really preditcable.

Well, like SquidInk and Biker, I will be predictable as well and defend HB3 here - especially as he has been baited throughout this thread.

Like some others, I also enjoy his posts, and in particular the skepticism he brings to the whole absurdly partisan angle to alliances/arguments that occur so frequently. He may be a pain in the ass sometimes, but in his own way, he does a fairly good job at cutting through the bull**** when it pops up.

I'll also say this for him (since you brought up predictable behaviors), at least he doesn't coordinate, and request assistance from others whenever he is put on the defensive - or is otherwise ticked off at someone....... :p

As for the headline article here, I found during the last election that the SurveyUSA polls were often off by quite a bit. Still, intriguing to see anyone from outside the party mainstream making a move like this. The two parties need to be shaken and stirred a bit in my opinion.

[Joolz]

I'll also say this for him (since you brought up predictable behaviors), at least he doesn't coordinate, and request assistance from others whenever he is put on the defensive - or is otherwise ticked off at someone....... :p

Exactly what do you mean by this, Kaz? Coordinate? Request assistance? Explain, please.

[HB3]

You still didn't answer my question HB?

There was a question?

[SquidInk]

...the secret crypto behind the scenes leadership doesn't have to be ideologically similar to the people they're organizing. In fact, it might be better if they aren't. And those Randians are a foolish bunch -- I bet they'd be easy to trick.

Good point.

I wonder if Rand Paul's followers will end up being called Randies.

[HB3]

"Randians" is insulting enough. Ooh, they hate that.

[HB3]

Not to be confused with this guy....

[racehorse]

Most of Rand Paul's supporters are truly committed to him and very loyal because they like him and agree with him on the issues. There is however a large number who are followers of Larry Forgy, a very prominent and discontented Republican leader and twice failed GOP candidate for Governor who are supporting Rand Paul in the primary because they oppose Trey Grayson because he is aligned with the dominant Mitch McConnell faction of the Kentucky Republican party.

Forgy and McConnell have a long History of being against each other and have battled for control of the Kentucky GOP for thirty years. Rand Paul unlike almost every other politically involved Kentucky Republican is not a member of either faction but benefits from the Forgy backers support which reinforces his own support which he has rightly earned.

[HB3]

I think it was Squidink who mentioned that there might be more in common between libertarians and progressives than libertarians and conservatives. And that's an interesting point. In general, libertarians dismiss the concept of sovereignty in the traditional sense -- if they aren't for illegal immigration, they're usually for unlimited legal immigration, and of course typically pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, and, yes, anti-Christian like (Ayn) Rand. Of course there are exceptions. I guess Ron Paul is anti-abortion or something?

Of course, their economic policy makes them anathema to progressives -- but a smart progressive community would certainly see their potential usefulness in pushing other elements of their agenda, including in a surreptitious, "spy in the house of love" type of way.

[HB3]

(Ayn) Rand pretty much thought of culture as something created by men but that didn't act back on them -- that is, it didn't really have any organic existence you could point to as a tradition worth preserving, that shaped men as much as it was created by them. That would be too "mystical." The Randians are also pretty much radical egalitarians like the progressives, sharing the "blank slate" theory of human development and consciousness. The difference is that the Randians believe in the clarifying power of rationality as a guiding principle -- Apollonians, whereas deep down, most progressives are probably Dionysians.

[SquidInk]

Actually, libertarians are less of an anathema to progressives than they are to conservatives, IMHO.

Libertarians are fantics when it comes to "free markets" & private property. They believe in a minimal gov't to accommodate those things.

Progressives believe a little (or, a lot) more gov't is required to battle against the oppressive consolidating tendencies of corporations.

But modern conservatives, being fanatic believers in capitalism, are essentially anti-free market. They need an enormously invasive government to first warp the system so it favors the economic minority, and then more government to enforce these market distortions, protect their corporations & contracts, etc.

Of course, libertarian social ideas are hideous to the typical conservative, but not the progressive.

[HB3]

Right. But are the libertarians anti-corporation? I don't think (Ayn) Rand was anti-monopoly -- just the opposite, as I recall. I think she disputed the basic concept.

[SquidInk]

Right. But are the libertarians anti-corporation? I don't think (Ayn) Rand was anti-monopoly -- just the opposite, as I recall.

I don't know about Ayn Rand, but I doubt libertarians are anti-monopoly. They just don't want the government to provide an artificial framework for monopoly building, especially a framework which favors one economic class over another, and uses threats/force of violence & various types of coercion to maintain it's influence.

That's a guess.

[HB3]

fanatic believers in capitalism are essentially anti-free market.

This was the sort of statement that would throw Ayn Rand into a frothing rage. Oh, you'd be excommunicated!