Tuesday Open Thread

“Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names.”

–John F. Kennedy

20 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Les Ismore says:

    Rand Paul, “A different kind of Republican”.

    hmmmmm…… where have i heard that before?

    • BlueCat says:

      Whenever my sweet late mother-in-law was asked what she thought of a dish, if she didn’t like it she was too nice to say so.  Instead she’d say it was “different” and we knew what she meant.

  2. FrankUnderwood says:

    Who in CO will stand with Rand? I’m guessing the powers that use to be be (Owens, Both Ways, Bensen, Hank Brown) will back Jeb. 

    • DaninDen says:

      Actually, I don’t mind as much listening to Rand as the rest of the pack (where do they all come from?). Jethro tripped outa the gate (see 1st speech) & is gaffe-prone good for laffes

       Rand should be able to garner youth votes, something the R party is less capable of.

      • ajb says:

        Because everybody knows how important the youth vote is in a Republican primary.

        • BlueCat says:

          And youth, regardless of party, leans heavily pro-choice, pro gay marriage and pro all sorts of things you’d think someone who says they’re libertarian would be for but Rand isn’t. Nowadays you have all kinds of pols calling themselves libertarian who want the government to dictate how you’re allowed to plan your family and what kind of family you’re supposed to have. I guess there’s a new oxymoronic definition of libertarian in competition with the plain old moronic one where, I guess, nobody pays taxes and everybody gets to build their own road. At least with the Ayn Rand brand you still get to have autonomy over your sex and reproductive life. I suppose that compensates a little for being expected to plow through her sophomoric books and call them profound lit.

        • DaninDen says:

          As for the process, ( horse racing, Jeb is a foregone conclusion, IMHO) Paul knows this, setting the stage for the future run. I don’t hear an antiwar, anti interventionist voice so much on the (D) side, I just like to hear what he says thx..

          As for BC neatly putting him in the Lib box, what is in a name? ( I’m sure he might have some angst at being named that 45 yrs ago) Pols lead by getting in front of the crowd.

          • DaninDen says:

            Randal, not “Randapparently a self adopted nickname His age is 52 not  (was an approx guess ) 45 And, as for empty boxes, 538 says there aren’t many Libertarians ( from Paul Krugman , NYC). Krugman also manages to  clarifiy what Conservatives are actually “conserving”

            conservatism is instead about preserving traditional forms of authority: employers over workers, patriarchs over families.

            .

            • FrankUnderwood says:

              The problem with counting libertarians starts with defining “libertarian.” Real libertarians wants government out of people’s economic and personal lives (out of my wallet and out of my bedroom).

              But for the folks like Randal”Rand” Paul who have hijacked the term libertarian, their definition of freedom begins and ends with economic regulations and gun control. To try to beef up their credentials, they’ve added the anti-vax movement to their coalition, although it’s made these quasi-libertarians look a little foolish in the process.  

              They conspicuously leave out reproductive choice, marriage freedom and freedom from religion because it will upset the social conservatives (who are polar opposites to libertarians and) who are essential to Randal’s chances of winning the GOP nomination since there are not enough libertarians (genuine and quasi combined) to win.

              • Duke Cox says:

                “They conspicuously leave out reproductive choice, marriage freedom and freedom from religion because it will upset the social conservatives”

                Yup…sure sounds right. That will be the same problem for any politician who courts the Christian evangelical, southern, white, demographic. Sadly, the coalescing forces in said demographic are hatred and ignorance, in no particular order of importance (since they sort of feed on each other).

                These were the Dixiecrats who powered the careers of George Wallace and Lester Maddox among so many others. Their world view and political activities cannot be separated from hate and resentment because that is the basis of their religion. I grew up in the South and recently had the opportunity to spend significant time there…what was once overt is less so but still very much alive.

                Add to that the influence of the recent Hispanic population explosion, and its subsequent effect on the labor market, and you have a three-tiered system of resentment and hostility, instead of two.

                There are, of course, many exceptions to this, but the overwhelming majority of southern, evangelicals I know (and I know a bunch), are driven by misinformation applied in a matrix of long standing prejudices…It is destroying the Republican party.

                They are welcome to them….

          • BlueCat says:

            It isn’t me putting him in a box and it isn’t just his name. He is universally placed in the libertarian wing of the GOTP  and likes to present himself in that light. As for a neat libertarian box, there isn’t one anymore. Faux big government in your bedroom libertarians have co-opted the designation. It is now most often equated with the anything but libertarian Tea Party rather than with its roots just. The same goes for HBC’s conservatism which has been completely overshadowed by what the 21st century GOTP calls conservatism. No neat boxes for that anymore either.

            Insisting on what real conservatism or real libertarianism is is an exercise in semantics with little real world relevance in the face of what is most widely accepted by self described conservatives and libertarians as the way they choose to define these terms when they apply them to themselves. It’s best to take them at their word for practical purposes, even when their word is oxymoronic, as in ” libertarian conservative”. 

  3. Duke Cox says:

    There is only one endorsement that matters…

    who is Dr. Chaps supporting?

  4. Duke Cox says:

    I was thinking he would be kinda liking on Ted Cruz, what with his mentioning Jesus as much as he does. You know…a friend of a friend…laughing

  5. FrankUnderwood says:

    Cruz is too liberal for Chaps. And despite all the Jesus name-dropping, Cruz knows when to shut his pie hole.

    I think Chaps would support Carson who is also prone to shooting his mouth off first and thinking second……much like Chaps.

  6. BlueCat says:

    Just in case AC is peeking these latest pols are pretty interesting, especially in light of the Iran deal. If most Americans were buying that it would be better if we went to war, it probably wouldn’t look like this. Here goes. Not sure how to do this without the handy dandy source button. From RealClear:

    Tuesday, April 7 Poll Results Spread

    President Obama Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 47, Disapprove 51 Disapprove +4

    President Obama Job Approval Gallup Approve 49, Disapprove 46 Approve +3

    Oh well. It’s not too hard to read this way.  This makes two very recent positives from Gallup. That’s certainly new and different. Oddly, Rasmussen, which had Obama doing better than Gallup all last year, scores him lower. Did they change their methodology after being so far off on the positive side for most of the past year? In any case, besides the astonishing Gallup +3, the 47% to 50% (Gallup the other day) approval ratings are the best in ages.

    Yes these polls fluctuate from day to day and this is hardly comparable to Obama’s early high approval ratings following his 2008 election. But if America hated the Iran deal these numbers would be moving the other way.

    Hope Bennet, who is once again contemplating voting with the Rs and the indicted Menendez, to throw a monkey wrench in the works, is paying attention. He’s also contemplating supporting fast tracking for TPP with it’s completely unacceptable ISDS. Combined with his vote to over-ride Obama’s veto on the pipeline just for show, this is shaping up into three strikes with the grass roots and he’s a hopeless moron if he thinks it will win him a single Republican leaning vote in 2016.

    Even most American Jews want to give the deal a chance, for God’s sake. Makes sense since we voted for Obama in huge majorities despite all the noise the old guard lobbies make. The next loud noise Bennet hears may be the ice cracking under his feet in the sunshine of the smile of some happy talking Republican looking to do to him what team Gardner did to Udall. While Colorado Dems don’t want to have two R Senators, I’m guessing few tears would be  shed for Bennet personally if he loses because this triple dose of votes sapped grass roots enthusiasm for him.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.