There you go again. This was a phrase used by Ronald Reagan during his 1980 debate with Walter Mondale. It was humorous and effective. So did I just plagiarize Regan in my headline? How about quoting statistics from the CBO or making a speech written by a staffer in which he/she cut and pasted something from the Internet?
Is it really as big a deal as the media is making it that Rand Paul is accused of lifting phrases, imagery or other words from various sources in public speeches? Article after article is trying to make this to be the undoing of Rand Paul, suggesting that he is not ready for the national campaign for the presidency.
In reality this is not much different than the "patent trolls" who are suing everybody they can for using technology everybody else is already using.
In fact, it has gotten so bad in the litigation circus that a lawyer for Office Depot has threatened Reddit over the use of an Office Depot logo in a satirical piece.
This trend is being fueled not only by powerful lobbyists who sometimes
seem like they control both Congress and the White House but law firms
that have made this a virtual cottage industry. There are a large number of law firms on retainer
to bring these actions and artists and companies that do little to
limit them. The latest example was brought to light by the good people
at Techdirt which posted a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
letter to Reddit informing them that they had violated copyright laws
with a posting of an individual known as heisenberg69 with this image
satirizing Office Depot. [Turley]
The real test for Rand is how successfully he lets this phony outrage roll off his back. As he steps up into the tougher class of competition he can expect far more eye gouging, ball busting and dirty underhanded tactics from all sides, particularly now that New Jersey Fats is in the race.
In this new ad, Alison Lundergan Grimes is being tied to Obama's lies about Obamacare in Kentucky.
And the nightmare of Obama's lie has come home to roost in the Commonwealth. The Courier Journal is reporting that 280,000 Kentuckians will not get to keep their current health insurance as Obama promised:
About 280,000 Kentuckians will have to give up their current
insurance policies in the months ahead and enroll in alternatives that
comply with the Affordable Care Act, the federal health care reform law.
Kentucky
Department of Insurance spokeswoman Ronda Sloan said individual
policies for about 130,000 people will be discontinued, as will
small-group policies for about 150,000 more.
Who in their right mind would vote to elect ALG to go to Washington to help prop up the fraud of Obamacare when the team we have up there right now, Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell represent the best combined effort of all factions of the republican party and successful political strategies designed to end the nightmare of Obamacare to be found in the nation?
Where is Kentucky's Mike Wallace chasing the running ALG with microphone and camera and forcing her to either embrace or denouce the president?
Okay my conservative friends, those who still have the ability to reason, those who have enough life experience to know that things never get fixed until the yapping stops and the wrenches turn, Barack Obama in one of his most out of touch speeches yet has given you your marching orders.
After the gridlock and the shutdown ended he went to the podium and said that people are fed up with Washington and that Congress needs to learn that the way things are done there needs to end.
Say whaaaat?
He is the President yet he spoke as if he was completely removed from Washington politics instead of the main reason things are not getting done. But he did give one good piece of advice. He preached from his high horse that if republicans want to get something done they have to go out and win elections.
I agree Mr. President. That is precisely what we intend to do. Starting with enough seats in the Senate to make you not only a lame duck president, but the most ineffective lame duck president in history.
There are many reasons why Obamacare is a bad idea, not the least of which is that despite what the US Supreme Court said, I believe it is unconstitutional to order people to buy medical insurance or be fined by the government if they don't. And there are other compelling reasons why Obamacare is a bad idea.
It looks like it will hurt the job market and turn many employment opportunities into "part time" positions so employers can avoid paying fines for not providing insurance coverage. The cost of buying insurance will be disproportionately higher on young people who may opt for paying the fine instead of buying costly insurance thus defeating the actuarial calculations which make some coverages cheaper for older citizens. In the long run, rates will have to be altered to accommodate reality.
Coverage options may not be as favorable as the what are currently available due to the requirement that pre-existing conditions be covered. This could force a lot of uninsured, very ill people into the marketplace, subsidized with government money, and put a tremendous burden on the system. To prepare for this many companies are requiring very high deductibles and pretty high premiums for many classes of enrollees.
These are some of the arguments being advanced by the GOP in opposition to Obamacare. But what if they are wrong?
What if people actually go onto the exchanges and find that acceptable coverage will be available to them at a lower cost than they are currently paying? What if many young people without insurance who would otherwise default in paying their occasional medical bills, find that buying a cheap policy with the help of government credits is responsible and desirable. Could the expectation of medical care providers that they will not go unpaid as often eventually lower the cost of services?
What if some insurance companies adapt to the new system rather than lobby heavily to crash it and find a way to make a profit? Might that eventually result in lower premiums and even cheaper coverage?
I know, the GOP and many others are convinced that the system is set up to fail, that acutuarialy it will never work because younger people aren't likely to pay the higher premiums which are necessary to fund the program. And I know that if the system fails then we are headed to a "single payer" system, which is shorthand for "government provided and funded" universal health insurance, a totally socialist program which we cannot afford. And I know that if we get to a single payer system taxes will go up beyond belief and could crash our entire economy. I know all this is possible, but what if it works?
Then we are left with the argument that it is unconstitutional and little else. What might Congress do if the whole thing works out but the purists will never accept the law and continue to protest? They could remove the individual and employer mandate and let people continue to use the system voluntarily once they found out it was a good idea, if ever that day comes.
Right now, without doubt, the biggest opponents of the system are insurance companies who do not want to let go of their total control of the industry. They are the ones lobbying Congress the hardest, and it is their bidding that opponents of Obamacare are doing.
I still don't like it, I still think it is unconstitutional, I still think it is a trap set for all of us designed to fail and hurt the economy, but I also have great faith in the ingenuity of American business, the adaptability of the American people, and the process of elections which have made Obama a lame duck president and the people more aware, informed and engaged.
It's not just the narrative about republicans not being conservative enough, anymore. Now it's all out warfare between people elected under the republican banner. The big question is, however, considering how stealthily the enemy always tries to infiltrate the opposition's camp, who's the foe?
It’s the Senate Conservatives Fund, an organization that used to prop up
underdog conservative candidates but now is training its fire mainly on
Republican incumbents — rather than Democrats. The group has ginned up
anger on the far-right towards Republican senators for refusing to use a
government shutdown threat as leverage to defund Obamacare — a campaign
that has been good for its bottom line.
Since it started engaging in the defund Obamacare campaign, the group
brought in the vast majority of the $3.5 million it has raised this
cycle, pulling in $1.5 million in August as it unleashed a barrage of
attacks on party leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn and
veteran Republicans like Lamar Alexander.
The group didn’t stop there, attacking GOP senators for lacking the
courage to fight a law the party collectively hates. The group dropped
$340,000 in an ad buy in Kentucky where it said McConnell “refuses to
lead” the fight against Obamacare.
“Obamacare starts in October, but Congress can stop its funding,” the
ad said. “What’s Mitch McConnell doing? Nothing. … What good is a
leader like that?” [POLITICO]
So what do the targets of this attack have to do in order to keep this movement from completely derailing the effort to win a majority in the Senate and hold the majority in the House? Spend money raised for the purpose of defeating democrats fighting back against their own party members?
Sounds like a great strategy to help democrats doesn't it? Particularly when the guys firing the shots at their leaders have no plan for what to do once the earth has been scorched.
The first fund raising event for Rand Paul 2016 is scheduled for November 15th in Louisville. In addition to the traditional higher dollar reception and gala, there is also scheduled for the same evening a rally for Rand with the much more affordable $50 price tag, a clear signal that the organizers understand the importance of Rand's grass roots support in Kentucky. Details below, and more to come.
Not surprisingly Rand Paul is out in front of the opposition to military action against Syria. His father, and he, have been staunch "non-interventionists" for evah. And of course according to national polling, most Americans don't want to launch any kind of attacks on Syria, so Rand has political backing for his stance.
But there is a bigger risk in what he is doing than might at first appear. While there are any number of reasons why NOT taking action against Syria might be the safer course, our enemies, like Iran, will interpret what Rand would like to think of as "discretion" as "timidity". We are likely to be tested again, and again.
At what point do we say, "alright, that's enough?" And at what point do we move to the fore potential presidential candidates who walk softly and carry no stick? If our nation for economic, or pacifistic, or "constitutional" reasons begins to behave like the kind of people who just want to be left alone, the rest of the world which is crawling with wolves will steadily come to see us as easy prey.
I agree, the plan advanced by Obama is stupid. Announcing that we are not going to have "boots on the ground", will only send in a "limited" number of missiles over a very few number of days is clearly like threatening to hit Assad with our purse.
And the notion that this operation will be funded by the Saudis and that we will be helping the Al Qaeda forces at work in Syria means, as one friend commented, that our military is now a bunch of mercenaries and we have become Al Qaeda's air force.
And while these reasons coupled with the nation's total lack of respect for Obama as a leader provide ample justification for taking no action against Assad, despite the popularity of Rand taking a stand against Obama and claiming, perhaps, victory in defeating the request for use of force authority, there is a bigger problem coming.
Are we as a nation now willing to let the growing threat of world wide violence by the hands of radical Islamic Jihadists go unchecked? When our nation was attacked in 1941 it was we who used WMD's to end that war. When our nation was attacked again in 2001 we acted with the silliest kind of restraint and though the war in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to many to be wasted efforts, the problem isn't that we went in and fought, the problem is that we didn't fight enough.
In the early days of Viet Nam the sons of WWII veterans rushed to sign up to go fight for America. It was only after our leaders decided to prosecute a never ending war without a clear path to victory that America grew weary and draft cards were burned in protest. Had we then, early, and with resolve, acted in such a way as to win a decisive victory for democracy against the communists we would have once again been the proud symbol of freedom and bravery.
Had George H.W. Bush crushed Saddam the first time and boldly cut off his plans to take over the Middle East there would have been no reason for a second war. Had Bill Clinton not let Osama Bin Laden go, we might have avoided the tragedy of 9-11.
I don't know if America has grown war weary, as much as we have grown weary of the modern version of American style wars.
Is there a threat to our national security from radical Islam? You bet your sweet bippy there is. Have we designed an appropriate response to end that threat? Not by a long shot. Will firing a few missiles into Syria accomplish anything toward the goal of making America safer? That is highly doubtful. But one thing is clear.
If this, the next or any presidential candidate thinks that the path to a brighter future in this mad, murderous, vengeful, hate filled world is to sit back and wait for the fight to come to us, then it will.
It is far better to shoot a rabid wolf at a distance than to fight him off of your chest.
Rand needs to consider what America wants in a president, not whether America wants our current one or not to take a few pot shots at Assad. Confusing the current issue with a change in America's heart could be disastrous for his future plans.
Cynics will tell you that Obama's only reason for going into Syria would be to make himself look good after having made the "red line" speech. Haters will tell you that Obama wants to do everything possible to collapse the US economy and another war is a quick way to do that. But what is the Syria issue really about?
First, when you hear the word Syria, think Iran. Assad is the bait Iran has laid in the Middle East to entice us into armed conflict. The goal is a war in which Iran can excuse its planned attack on Israel and other interests in the region of importance to the United States.
Second, much of the Middle East is aligned with our interests. Despite the homegrown terrorism of Osama Bin Laden, we are still very entangled with Saudi Arabia. We have friends in Turkey and Jordan. Iran is the bully thug of the region and the more stable governments would like nothing more than to see the Iranian's brought to heel. While our friends don't want war to disrupt their comfy lives, they would welcome somebody putting a boot on Iran's throat and Syria is as close as it gets.
Third, with Iraq and Afghanistan winding down buhzillionaires who you never hear about are facing loss of revenue from sales of everything from food, fuel, and clothing to weapons, machinery and vehicles. They have a very well funded lobby in Washington that is charged with the duty to see that government contracts for their goods continue to get signed. In otherwords, forces behind the scenes at home are pushing war.
Fourth, Obama has a political game to play. And a show of military strength has always helped give presidents more political capital. By putting the GOP right smack dab in the middle of the debate whether to take action or not, Obama can score points, divide his opponents and create political chaos.
Fifth, what's at stake is the world's view of America's tolerance of dangerous activities like using chemical weapons, amassing nuclear weapons, threatening global terrorism and Islamic Jihad. Iran is creating a recruiting and training station for these activities and has virtually declared war on the rest of the world. Many countries are worried what might come to them out of Iran. The United States is viewed as the least tolerant of terrorism having 9-11 as a reason to have declared war on it. The world is looking to see if the USA blinks on this one.
And next, there is of course the issue of human rights for which the USA still stands as a beacon of hope. Do we have credibility, or do we engage in selective enforcement of human rights only when it serves our needs. No, we are not the world's policemen, but we are the world's savior as our fathers proved near the middle of the last century.
What's the Syria issue really all about? These things and any other sales pitch for one viewpoint or the other which will be trotted out as America debates what we stand for, what we stand against and who stands with who.
If there is one establishment libertarian organization in America it is the CATO institute. Formed in 1974 with the help of Charles Koch, the CATO institute is America's libertarian think tank whose stated mission is "to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace."
David Boaz, its executive vice president, gave an interview to "The Atlantic". In it he had this to say about Rand Paul.
There are all sorts of Washington establishments who are going to want
to take down Rand Paul. The spending establishment is certainly not
going to like what he's talking about. The Republican political
establishment doesn't particularly want to change. And certainly the
national security establishment is extremely eager not to debate our
policy of global interventionism. They have always sought to rule out of
bounds any challenge to it.
If you want a pure libertarian to run for president, you've got the
Libertarian Party. If you think the Libertarian Party's candidates
aren't pure enough, you can write in Murray Rothbard. When we talk about
a U.S. senator running for president, you are talking about the real
world of politics. Nobody is going to be a doctrinaire Ayn Rand
libertarian. Rand Paul has rounder edges than his father. He has a
number of other advantages over his father: He's not 77 years old; he's a
not a House member, he's a senator; and he has rounder edges in the way
he presents libertarian ideas.
There is the old story of a small town in Kentucky with only one lawyer. He was struggling to stay in business. Then another lawyer moved to town and they both got rich suing each others clients. The interplay between Rand Paul and Chris Christie seems drawn from that plot.
Yesterday on FoxNews Rand defended Chris Christie's right to his views within the framework of the GOP by defending Rand's own recipe for growing the party.
"The party's big enough for both of us," the Kentucky Republican said on
"Fox News Sunday." "The party's big enough for lots of different
Republicans. This all started with him saying, 'We don't have enough
room for libertarian Republicans.' The thing is, that's how we grow our
party."
"There's room for people who believe in bigger government in our party,"
Rand Paul said. "Some of the things that he seems to have promoted
makes us believe that, well, he seems to think there's a lot more
spending that could be going on." [POLITICO]
Nice little left handed compliment, huh? Looks like these two are going to milk the attention their "spat" is getting for a while yet. Fun times ahead.
All original content on this blog is copyrighted to Marcus Carey. All rights to all content on this blog are reserved to Marcus Carey. Any use of the ideas, imagery, analogies, analysis, comments or other content is subject to approval. You may link to any content on this site and approval to use content will be freely granted upon request subject to appropriate attribution.
COMMENT POLICY NOTICE
Vulgar or profane language will not be published. Defamatory language will not be published. Your right to post comments may be revoked at any time without recourse. All comments are moderated. Comments do not necessarily reflect or represent the opinions, attitudes or beliefs of the blogger, but reflect only the opinions of the comment writer. Publishing a comment does not mean that I have either adopted or agree with the comment or support any of its content.
If for some reason you cannot abide by these simple rules, you are invited to read here only.
SUPPORT FOR THIS BLOG:
From time to time this blog will post paid advertisements, and may link to Amazon.com where this blog is participating in a revenue generating program offered by Amazon.com for purchases made of products accessed by the link on this blog.
