I want to clear something up as regards Erick of Redstate before exposing Rand Paul's latest stupid pet trick.
Gregory Cole links to an item of mine from yesterday and notes Erick's gig at CNN.
Dan has a point here especially with Erickson's DC gig with CNN.
That's not an issue here. I still think it's great that Erick's now with CNN and I am not questioning his dedication to conservatism. The issue is what's the best way to advance the conservative agenda, not whether someone is abandoning it. I don't believe Erick is doing that.
There's a bit of an inside versus outside the beltway view here. Erick seems to have decided that beating Trey Grayson because he's McConnell's protege weakens McConnell and it will lead to more conservative leadership in the Senate in the next Congress. That's the only principled conservative rationale for supporting Paul. And I'm not suggesting Erick is unprincipled. I disagree on the strategy, especially as Redstate is not going after McCain aggressively.
I don't care how weak McConnell is, or what deals may, or may not have been made. So what if Rand Paul might vote for a more conservative leader in the Senate, if you don't like McConnell? Paul is still going to be a bat crap crazy caucus of one libertarian who will break with conservatives on a host of important issues, especially foreign policy. And maverick, or non-maverick, depending on the election cycle, McCain will still be rounding up Lindsey Graham and others to head off to the Sunday news shows to bash conservatives, before reaching across the aisle to sell us out.
This is a disagreement about strategy, not ideology. I'm not accusing Erick of selling out. I believe he believes what he is doing is the right thing for conservatives. Obviously, I strongly disagree.
Last night Cubachi praised Rand Paul as allegedly one of some new constitutionalists.The problem is, the alleged constitutionalist's latest gimmick is unconstitutional.
... Rand Paul, ... gave a great speech about our constitutional rights, gun rights, limited spending, the err of the democrats and republicans fiscal ways in the past two years, and his proposal to introduce as his first piece of legislation: term limits
It was introduced as a Constitutional Amendment by four Senators in November, DeMint, Coburn, Hutchinson and Brownback for heaven's sake. Are you going to tell me Kay Bailey Hutchinson is suddenly all that? Do you think Rand Paul's big idea is some big deal? It's not. Does he not even know what's gone on so recently in the Senate? Paul's BS is just that, more BS to pander to the crowd without any substance to back it up.
As usual, Rand Paul's stumping is nothing but a lot of tell them what they want to hear nonsense from an apparently un-serious man who got tired of making eyeglasses. Term limits as legislation is a non-starter and the fool deserves to be exposed for the silly games he is playing on a host of issues because it sells! That's not leadership. It's the same as his Dad, who goes on about fiscal responsibility while rounding up all the pork he can because it's his Constitutional duty. Serious times call for serious men, not stunts and clowns. And Rand Paul appears to be just that, an impractical clown who may not even be able to win the general election given his lack of seriousness and past associations. And I will continue to argue that putting a Senate seat at risk just to slap at Mitch McConnell is not a sound strategy for conservatives, especially given where we are right now.
Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who is the darling of the Libertarian Right, has more earmarks in the pork-laden $410-billion spending bill than any other Republican.
Update: Smitty asks:
Sarah Palin endorsed Rand Paul, no? So, if we forgive Sarah, do we have to forgive Newt Gingrich for the Dede S. endorsement?
I don't know, is she running for anything? Even some key supporters don't seem to think so. The irony here is that it was Erick's going after Grayson for saying he didn't think her ready today that kicked this off. It didn't strike me as a bright move by Palin at the time, especially given their differences on foreign policy issues, as well as others.
Sarah Palin endorsed Rand Paul, no?
So, if we forgive Sarah, do we have to forgive Newt Gingrich for the Dede S. endorsement?
Posted by: smitty | Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 07:35 AM
If he were alive, would Thomas Jefferson vote for Rand Paul or Trey Grayson? Everything I know about him suggests he would not only vote for Rand Paul, but it wouldn't even be a difficult choice for him. I'm not a Paulbot or a libertarian, but I am struck by how often conservatives give lip service to the Founding Fathers while at the same time calling guys like Ron (and Rand) Paul nuts.
Of course, one could ask "Who would Alexander Hamilton vote for?" and POSSIBLY get a different answer, but I don't consider Hamilton to be one of the good guys. He was in favor of an over-reaching centralized government, which conservatives oppose.
Posted by: Rick | Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 09:07 AM
Say what you want about McCain, he surely gets foreign policy- one of the best there is.
Outside of economic issues, these Libertarians like the Pauls live in a fantasy world... they don't like us being a military superpower any more than Obama does, apparently.
They are extremely dangerous to our national security, I would never vote for them if I could avoid it- they fail to understand the nature of the enemy, as well as just who would fill the global power vacuum Libertarians would create.
And Palin screwed up on this one, imho-
Posted by: Reaganite Republican | Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 10:43 AM
"This is a disagreement about strategy"
I'll disagree with you. I see it as a disagreement over the makeup and constitution of individuals. Their basic integrity. Can they even be trusted ... at all?
By their actions, by their words. And yes, by the people they stand beside.
I think it fair to say, the Maggot King and his legion, have stiffies. At the very thought of Ron/Rand Paul taking a larger spot on the nation's stage.
And no one's giving Sarah a free pass on anything. We most definitely acknowledge her efforts, and very hard work. Putting boots on the ground. Hauling bucket after bucket of water, by hand. THANK YOU!
If she's charted a long eastern course? The she will have to choose which road she takes. She now, at a not so small fork. And maybe, before getting back in the car ... checking her shoes. To see if perhaps she's stepped in anything?
At this point, I'm willing to let her make her own decisions. Succeed or fail ... on her own. Sink or swim.
Though might be a trick, wrapped ... with a lead neck chain hallmarked 'Paul'?
She'll either prove her mettle in the days, weeks and months ahead. Or not. There is no shortage of horses in the stable. Luckily (quite), many of them stunningly brilliant runners. I don't see the great need/rush, to euthanize any particular one today? For their (real or imagined) bumping or getting bumped, before the race even gets underway proper (though yeah, we can certainly send Johnnie out to pasture). We can stay in pocket til November 3rd.
Only 199 days to go!
It's a wide open field. It isn't anywhere near post time. Nowhere near. No one's loaded in the gate. All this virtual jockeying a waste. Of everyone's energy and time. Relax, have a beer and some popcorn. While we roast bambi on the barbie.
Mustard anyone?
Posted by: Elmo | Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 10:58 AM
"This is a disagreement about strategy, not ideology. I'm not accusing Erick of selling out. I believe he believes what he is doing is the right thing for conservatives. Obviously, I strongly disagree."
I believe McCain believes what he is doing is the right thing for conservatives.
I believe Lindsey Graham believes what he is doing is the right thing for conservatives.
I believe Newt Gingrich believes what he is doing is the right thing for conservatives.
I believe George Bush believes what he was doing was the right thing for conservatives (no child left behind, drug benefits, $700B bailout).
I believe that all of them did what they did for what is best for the conservatives and it conveniently fit the mold of those who they wished to get accolades from. McCain, Graham and Gingrich love to be the darlings of the media and other elites. Bush wanted to make people believe that conservatives could feel their pain and show compassion for them.
The question you need to ask yourself is who is Erick trying to impress today? A few months ago, he was trying to impress real life solid to the core conservatives. Today he is trying to impress ... CNN liberals? ... Elite Progressives? ... The same core conservatives? That is where his ideas will be tailored to fit in, and that is who he will slowly transform into.
Posted by: astonerii | Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 01:47 PM
I went to Washington to change Washington for the better. Washington changed me. It is the known event that is so frequent that people call for term limits constantly.
Posted by: astonerii | Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 01:50 PM
Erick Erickson's ego is getting the best of him. His post about the tea party movement starts out as a lament about having leaders in a leaderless movement. He then goes on to tell everybody what they should be doing and asks them to join him in leaving the movement. He seems to have this asinine notion that we can't protest and support candidates at the same time. I don't remember anyone asking for his advice but Erick sure has no shortage of it.
The fact that a failing cable network that acts as the house organ for the Democratic party hired him is certainly no great accomplishment either. I am pretty much done with reading articles about the tea party movement from the left or the right. It is what it is and we don't need to endlessly analyze it.
Posted by: kroyall | Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 07:32 PM
Just sayin'...........I totally agree. I do not question Erickson's conservative principles at all. The strategy bites. Meanwhile, down here in Kentucky, seasoned, average every day, hard-working REAGAN conservatives who don't like bailouts any more than you guys do are sitting back and saying WTF???????????????? And are supporting Grayson, I might add.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. Dan Riehl is right, 100%.
Bad strategy. Very bad.
Posted by: Lisa Graas | Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 10:07 PM
Since Rick wants to talk about who Thomas Jefferson would vote for.....let me hit a little closer to home realistically speaking with something through the lens of history. Paul is from the anti-Lincoln / Ayn Rand mindset. It simply amazes me as someone who has studied history and philosphy to hear Paul's supporters give me Confederate arguments and talk about how it's okay if states have laws allowing parents to kill their toddlers. I am not exaggerating. That was an argument given to me by a law student who supports Rand Paul. I'm not talking merely about "states rights". I'm talking about their rejection.....in full....of the fourteenth amendment, supporting nullification, etc. We fought that war. They lost. Moreover, the Republican Party was founded to preserve the union and to promote federal protection of human rights. When Palin said at SRLC "This is the party that put an end to slavery" I breathed SUCH a sigh of relief! I thought she'd forgotten having endorsed Rand Paul. Maybe Jefferson would have voted for Rand Paul but Lincoln would have opposed him.......if we're going to discuss it through that lens. I love Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party THEREFORE I'm opposed to having Rand Paul as my Senator here in Kentucky.
Posted by: Lisa Graas | Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 10:16 PM
I too, am a Kentucky Republican through and through and like Ms. Graas have the love for Lincoln and the Republican Party. I will not nor could I even for a nano second give voting for Rand Paul a second thought, he is so far off base for me as a woman and as a conservative. I find him to be misleading and often decietful like so many we already have in DC. I, too will be voting for Grayson come May and if he doesn't get the nod, then I will look else where or possibly do a write in. Many could say that I would be throwing my vote away, but voting for Paul goes against every fiber of my being. Erick Ericson doesn't influence me whether he is on CNN, NBC, MSNBC or FOX for that matter. Kudos to Dan Riehl for calling it as he sees it!
Posted by: Erica Coyle | Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 10:53 PM
There are many more problems than term limits if Rand Paul becomes the Republican nominee from Kentucky. He wants to help daddy "restructure" the Republican Party. My argument for that is WHY? There is already a political party that has all the things you respect regarding a platform, Rand. It's called the Libertarian Party, and I know you've heard of it because you said that you are Libertarian but would run as a Republican because a third-party candidate can't win. Not true. A Libertarian candidate in Kentucky can't win because the people of Kentucky are NOT socially liberal people like you are, Rand Paul.
Just go home to daddy, Rand. Leave politics to the REAL Conservatives who respect the Republican platform and plank regarding abortion. You are NOT WANTED IN KENTUCKY.
Erick, you and Sarah made a bad choice in this campaign. Are you trying that hard to impress her by endorsing the same candidate she endorsed in error?
Posted by: Teri | Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 11:03 PM
I trust that Honest Abe Lincoln is smiling on his faithful Kentucky Republicans fighting the "Campaign for Liberty" menace.
Posted by: Lisa Graas | Saturday, April 17, 2010 at 11:28 PM
To answer the question asked, yes Erick has changed since joining CNN. His ego has become huge. I loved Redstate, had been an avid reader of the site for the last couple of years. I had noticed over the last year that Erick's persona was threatening to overtake the site. His opinion pieces were bordering on arrogant. Once he signed with CNN, he became unbearable. I gave up on the site. I just couldn't take it anymore. If you don't agree with him, you aren't a conservative and may as well be a democrat. Hopefully he realizes that he needs to step back and deflate the ego, so people can get back to enjoying Moe and Art and the rest of the bunch.
Posted by: Paula | Sunday, April 18, 2010 at 01:47 AM
Hey, Dan, let Erickson know that this race is NOT Rand Paul vs. Mitch McConnell. You see, Rand won't stand up to Mitch. That's why Mitch and the NRSC are nowhere mentioned in Rand Paul's "machine" ad. Rand would have us believe AIG is the "machine" according to his ad. Why? Because he's pals with Mitch now! That's why! He has no intention of going after Mitch. Didn't you see his ad? AIG is the "machine" according to Rand's ad. Mitch, well, Rand loves Mitch.
What a FARCE.
Posted by: Lisa Graas | Sunday, April 18, 2010 at 02:20 AM
Quiz: Which of the two main candidates in the GOP Senate primary in Ky took bailout banker money?
Hint: It's not Trey Grayson.
Posted by: Lisa Graas | Sunday, April 18, 2010 at 09:31 AM
Lisa,
It's true that there was a war fought over whether the federal government exists at the will of the states and the people, or whether the states exist at the will of the federal government. And you're right that Lincoln and the federalists beat the Jeffersonian republicans. And, if "might makes right" Lincoln was certainly right. But, if the question is, "What did the founders intend?", a better source to reference might be the founders' writings and, more specifically, the ratification documents of the various states. That's what original intent is about.
If the Republican Party wants to say, "We agree with Lincoln, not the Founding Fathers", that's great and they should say so. But, what they should stop doing is pretending they are following in the footsteps of the founders and governing (or even WANT to) within the original intent of the Constitution. They are no more honest when they do so than the "living Constitution" adherents in the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Rick | Monday, April 19, 2010 at 02:25 AM