Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul, darling of the “Tea Party,” got into much publicized trouble last month after his primary victory gave him the all-clear to start regurgitating some spectacularly immoderate viewpoints: Paul’s troubles after being vaulted to prominence by the right wing could portend trouble all around the country for Republicans this fall.
Not altogether different from what we talked about yesterday evening with Colorado Senate candidate Jane Norton, Paul has had trouble reconciling the red meat sloganeering that endears candidates to the “Tea Party” with the need to appeal to the larger mainstream of voters in the general election. In Norton’s case, she released a TV spot in key GOP primary markets that directly contradicts other (arguably more reasonable) statements she’s made about the possibility of “repealing Obamacare.” As for Rand Paul? He’s waffling back and forth on–sweet irony for Norton–abolishing the Department of Education! Louisville’s WHAS-TV reports:
Rand Paul went back on local radio in Kentucky on Wednesday, on Leland Conway’s WLAP show.
In the interview, Paul appears to have shifted his position again on whether he wants to abolish the Department of Education…
“There are many departments, including the Department of Education, that the founding fathers intended to be handled at the state level,” Paul said.
The reference to the Department of Education appears to be at odds with Paul’s answer to my question several weeks ago when I asked him directly:
“Do you want to abolish the Department of Education?”
“No,” he replied, [Pols emphasis] “I say what we do is take a multi-step look at every department. but you do look at everything across the board and say ‘what can we downsize? what can we privatize? ‘what can we eliminate?'”
It’s just a slobbering mess of contradiction, isn’t it? Especially since Paul, whatever he and his campaign say now, has called for ‘abolishing’ the Department of Education as daily stump-speech material from the very start of his campaign. As you can see, Jane Norton isn’t the only candidate all over the map on this crazy hodge-podge of slogans “Tea Party” devotees call “issues,” though until August 10th, we don’t expect Norton’s views to shift much further. And Paul can always contradict himself again, one-upping Norton’s 360 degree pirouette on “repealing Obamacare.”
Because it’s clear they’re not targeting voters who even take notes, let alone compare them.
You’d have the Buck sockpuppets in here guffawing but it’s not a very kind point about “Tea Party darling” Rand Paul, and Democrats are starting to worry more about Buck than Norton. Is Norton just irrelevant now?
Maybe I should be archiving all the positive articles on Buck to bring up later.
With the poll out showing Buck 10 points up on Norton, sooner or later, later being Aug 10th, Buck is going to get some attention from the Dems. I look at it as Norton provides a constant lay up drill so why would they bother shooting jump shots.
One of the things Buck has done well so far, and it is reflected in his low unfavorable numbers, is let Norton pick the fight with the Dems. She has been more than happy to do so and she then gets the heat in return.
On the Department of Ed issue Buck has stated we need to look at cutting out programs and having things done at the state and local level. When you think about it where does this federal money come from that the states are all stepping over themselves to get, but from the states themselves. This is classic Republican local government is the best kind of government mantra. I think Buck is happy to have Jane be the one in the lead on this, have her be over the top on its elimination and come off looking like a nut. Norton must think she still needs to get her name out there and that all publicity is good publicity. Her numbers tell me otherwise.
all you can do is throw stones. The fact remains that Democrats have no answers for our staggering deficits that threaten to cripple our economy and democracy. I say Democrats are now the party of no.
put taxes back where they were under Eisenhower and/or Nixon.
Seriously? That’s your recipe to fix the economy?
Taxes are NOW at the SAME levels as During Eisenhower.
Obama REDUCED Taxes.
And the economy is sluggishly rebounding.
Taxes are under Eisenhower were much higher than they are now.
I thought he mostly just railed against the Bush tax cuts. If the economy is rebounding, it is doing so VERY sluggishly, much slower than previous recessions.
“Tax Day Fact Check: Most Americans Got A Tax Cut This Year”
“Even conservative economic analysts acknowledge that there really is no basis for middle- and working-class Americans to believe that they’re suddenly paying more.”
“Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families at Historically Low Levels”
“Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels, according to the latest available data. That’s true whether it comes to their federal income taxes or their total federal taxes.”
The increased spending will lead to higher taxes eventually, or just inflation, which is worse than a tax.
Brilliant, just brilliant. When you are shown that you are just flat out wrong, you change the topic.
This would be comical if you weren’t in a position to influence the education of college students.
Well, as I learned in grad school, there isn’t anyone so dumb that I can’t learn something from them. From you, I’m learning how to appear dumber than a rock.
Still waiting for your answer about the spending and inflation.
Where did you ask me about spending and inflation?
Regardless, you’d be better off asking an economist.
On the other hand, if you have a question about CO2 and stomatal conductance, I might be able to help you out…
Can you read? You replied to that comment, so I was hoping you were going to address the topic.
All I see is your attempt to change the subject, thus my comment about shiny objects.
So, how’s that hope-stuff workin’ for you?
The hopey-changey stuff is not working out very well at all and has me ready to throw Obama out of office the first chance I get.
the facts I laid out for you about tax cuts, not spending and inflation.
My point was that Dems can’t coherently address deficits, and it is a huge weak spot for them. All they say is “they don’t matter” which is crap.
And no, you didn’t address the middle class tax cuts, you’re harping about spending and deficits. Try to focus.
There were no tax cuts. There was a virtual tax increase, because of the spending and deficits. Does that make sense to you?
No, bj, it doesn’t make sense to me.
“Something someone said that someone posted here” isn’t a source to prove a point.
You’re arguing with a moron troll for what reason? To prove that you’re smarter than a moron troll?
BJob is better left unanswered.
“You only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent.” I’m trying to do them a service.
Easy pickings, yes, but sometimes I get bored.
gives them column-inches.
and that’s the best you can come up with? “it’s all spin?”
You can’t respond to data and analysis, so you go off-topic? Great debate skill, bj.
how to “fix the economy”…you asked how to fix the deficit.
It is really quite simple..when addressing a deficit situation you have to either increase the money coming in or decrease the money going out…or a combination of the two. My recipe: stop nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan (spending); implement a means test on social security and medicare (spending); increase taxes on the highest wage earners to the level where they were under Eisenhower (income); eliminate the earnings cap on FICA and Medicare taxes (income); close loopholes that encourage corporations to offshore their HQ’s (income)…you want to sell your stuff here…then pay your taxes here.
That would be a pretty good start…
it’s an illusion that capital investment is better for the economy than any other kind of spending, and until we fix it, rich people will continue to have a 15% marginal tax rate regardless of the top income tax rate.
If we want to keep a capital gains tax, limit it to actual initial investments in companies, not in stock market gambling.
Rein in Defense spending – no more second engines for F-22s that the Armed Forces say they don’t need. (spending)
Ask for more foreign contributions to our overseas military involvement; we’re giving the rest of the world somewhat of a free ride in military support. (income)
Modify our trade agreements to be more equitable; we are handicapping ourselves by equating goods from countries with few environmental and labor standards with our own safer practices. (indirect income via tariff and/or tax income)
Expounding on offshoring corporations: do what most countries do – require a domestic division that pays U.S. taxes for all domestic revenues. Also, define corporations as domestic (paying U.S. tax rates on corporate income if they meet a majority of the following qualifications: majority of major officers work in the U.S., majority of the board is in the U.S., majority of shares are held by U.S. persons or entities, company HQ address is in the U.S., or majority of employees are in the U.S.. (income)
End subsidies for fossil fuel companies. (spending)
Re-evaluate farming subsidies, in conjunction with our trade agreements. (may be revenue-neutral, but it’s worth exploring)
who says the grassroots ideas are only coming from the tabaggers? (And I dare say that ours are more reasoned)
Abolishing the Dept. of Education?
There’s no reason education can’t be controlled locally or at the state level. That is, unless you’re a leftist hoping to brainwash a generation of kids.
My son has special needs, so he needs more than most other students. And I don’t trust conservatives to look after my son’s best interests.
If education was controlled at the state level, you would have 50 choices to choose from and could pick something perfect for your son.
to go from pandering to the Tea Party to actually trying to get voted into office.
It’s hard to figure out where to start! We’ll start with the number one…
1. According to you, what is “my side”?
2. What does my comment have to do with the Reconquista movement?
3. Why don’t we want government to give us what we want? Isn’t that the point of our government?
I was just commenting how hard it is to go from pandering to extreme groups to trying to get elected by a general majority. I’ll use an example you’ll like then…
I can see how hard it would be to go from pandering to welfare queens to actually trying to get voted into office.
(There, is that better?)