~ Where the Sun Will Never Set on Our liberty ~
Jealous old goats afraid of the "new" guys....
They ARE the problem with the country!
They certainly are!! Can't understand how they've been able to keep their jobs as long as they have. Lot's of low information voters has to be the answer. They just see an "R" next to the name and assume that's who they are. Should anyone ask you what a RINO is ... just point to McCain and Graham ... no further explanation should be needed. :-(
Hobbes, most incumbents get reelected repeatedly often due to name recognition. If there is no huge scandal in their recent past, the have an edge. I can't recall the exact numbers, but name recognition accounts for around 10% of the popular vote. I think that is how Bob Casey won that PA senate seat, defeating Rick Santorum. Not sure what the analysts say, that is just my opinion, as I used to live there. Casey's father was a rather popular governor, with the same name.
"If there is no huge scandal in their recent past"
JG, this only applies if they are Republicans. For Democrats, things are 'different'. It (scandals) appears to make them MORE popular.
Of course, the scandals are a prerequisite for the Democrats.
In regard to how democrats seem to be more popular after scandal, DC Mayor Marion Berry, who I believe was re-elected after serving in prison for his previous scandals involving cocaine as Mayor of DC, comes to mind;
Charlie Rangle and his condos in pursuing the Donald Trump approach to wealth;
Not sure what happened with the Maxine Waters investigation, that it seems to have petered out seems to mean this one won't get the benefit of their wrongs under the Liberal political light;
Now, it seems Anthony Weiner is out to get his seat back;
And Impeachment didn't seem to affect Bill Clinton's appeal, which he owes to Newt who is the forgotten part of that Democratic President's time in office;
Jesse Jackson, Jr., will be back, for, to Liberals, he was "wrongfully persecuted" and likely many democrats see this as an Obama ploy to get Jackson out of any running in 2016. Imaging if Obama had to endorse him and this scandal had come out then, Obama would never stand for this stain on his pristine Oracle of TOTUS Robes that he's confused with Muslim Messiah garb.
Blago somehow return as well, and that ends the relatively well known and 20 years recent list of democrats who will benefit from their wrongs done in office, and thereby to the People.
It seems naturally that the way we've been so "politically corrected," via education that now we're "gapped" in our knowledge. Specifically the darker side of things because these are controversial, and thus deemed "politically incorrect," and verboten from any conversation.
A plethora of things in this area of, per se "dark matter," are viewed and held up by Liberals as one plague: Victimhood, to which they play 99% of their message to, centralizing the focus of a bunch of people who, in almost every case, erroneously see themselves as victims in one way or another to the mechanisms of society, how much money they have the most common problem that they believe government should fix for them.
The Left is always angry -- and kept angry by the failed Liberal Politician who is only trying to transform Americans away from their Individual Liberty -- always ready to mass a group to protest something that they want their way, seeing this as a form of force in pushback against the oppressive force of nature, embraced by America's Founders, requiring them to survive on their own; the icon for their enemy brought forward in the idea of "fighting the man." If we could speak amongst ourselves with all the politcally incorrect terms for our differences, racial as well, all of this would be something we're working out amongst ourselves, Individual-to-Individual, American-to-American. But there is no power for a Liberal Politician in anything but the victimhood these people chose to live in being spun into a narrative of a blamable system run by a blamable race they directly link to the ideology of Conservatism, knowing that not a single one of these "victims" will know they are being used like this, merely abusing the already abused, exploiting their weakness for some Liberal Politician (and their friends) gain.
As long as there is this silent rule of silence, upheld by those who should be speaking out (the media since they hide behind the 1st Amendment, thus are required not to be biased for the bias undermines their protection entirely) we'll have quite an anecdotal and often misinformed people as a whole. This leads to them eventually tuning-out and we can't even try to help them understand the value of their Individual Liberty because they didn't see it on their "most trusted news" source. McCain and Graham seem like examples of those tuned-out and misinformed that we've elected to office because they had statisticians and a campaign director, assuring our blindness to the mindlessness of the candidate themselves, their dishonorable and lacking any merit or reason views.
While these institutions of media should carry weight in what they have to say because of their not having bias and thus being able to stand behind not giving up a source and rightfully use the 1st Amendment, these institutions now are weightless, void of all weight because of their complete and utter bias, void of any merit or presumption of being reasonable, honorable or honest. But the low information voters and people who've tuned out to what is unbelievable when compared to what they've heard on media are entirely unaware of the heinous media situation, that they are letting the media lead them down a trail of pure fiction and politically designed moral purposes and belief.
See we used to use the backdrop of knowing we fought a war to be free, and would carry that attitude of knowing we're free and that government is limited, that this would be how we'd filter what we heard, what was done, whatever happened that DC is flapping its dress over to get our attention and concern over them. Now our backdrop is an empty space where we search for what we can do about it, we aren't the confident self-governing rugged individuals we were a little more than 150 years ago in how we lead ourselves.
The Democrats, as a party, are, and have been, embraced by Liberals because Democrats portray themselves, as rebels, and this is an accepted view of those of the collectivist victimhood mentality, where the idea of doing it all yourself seems like an overwhelming chore because (in perfect narcissistic fashion) their life has just been too horrible. The Constitution formed the government right? Which, to those of the victimhood mind means it formed "the man." This is affirmed and exacerbated to Liberals by the fact this nation is based on each Individual doing for themselves. This message automatically makes the Conservative the status quo, and therefore the enemy to the Liberal indoctrinated blind follower. And this is what denies Conservatives the ability to be received as the rebel or revolutionary to Liberals.
And the truth be damned, the very system that's carrying out this stranglehold illusion, knowing more than 50% of the people will comply to it, is designed by the very Liberals who are being lauded as the rebels!
For me, Rand Paul's stance against the drones carried real power the moment he and Ted Cruz had legislation proposed about their concerns, and in his taking this stand Rand Paul showed their are Rebels that aren't Liberals to the Left. Van Jones and the ACLU are well aware of who all carried out this social engineering away from Individual Liberty, starting with the 14th Amendment. They know the considered "pendulum" has moved the center of this nation left, and that standing up to have some portions of their agenda rejected will still leave America to the left of where center used to be just 10 years ago.
And Leftists who voted for Obama and aren't some hardcore political strategists/Communist Comrades, they don't care what Holder admitted, nor of any of the details of what Rand Paul brought up, for the Mainstream Media didn't give them that to consider, with exception of what would lead to sharing Van Jones and/or ACLU agreement.
McCain and Graham are as Progressive as one can get to still have an R next to their name. Odd that in 2008 John McCain mentioned his hero is Teddy Roosevelt and we didn't hear boo out of Glenn Beck either. I am completely at a loss how McCain is able to run unchallenged in Arizona, as far as the Republican ticket. I haven't voted for him for Senator ever here in hopes he'd lose.
Graham is a fossil of an ancient dynamic who will soon be fossil fuel as the meteor of Conservatives in South Carolina nominate a true Conservative to expand the Conservative voice in the Senate!
Could have done 10 posts but figured it's better to just put it all here haha
Graham said this and I couldn't agree more, any true Conservative would completely agree:
“If I can’t go have dinner with the president of the United States to talk about the problems that face our nation, I shouldn’t be running,” Mr. Graham said. “If you want to elect me and for me to promise you I’ll never talk to any Democrats or to the president about solving our problems, you’re voting for the wrong guy.”
Time to help the people in his state take those words seriously and vote him out!
I don't agree with their reasons for being against the filibuster simply because they admit their view is one against Liberty right at the beginning:
“The country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about,”
I agree Rand Paul doesn't fully appreciate the Constitution nor Bill of Rights, in that he's not enforcing these on the government as a whole, or assuring his father made those efforts when Congressman. Nor is he sharing how we enforce the Constitution when government fails. Both of these are to admit the very role of the Constitution as OUR INSTRUMENT to use upon government when it violates the boundaries of the Constitution.
The language of the Bill of Rights, those that were ratified amendments and those that were not, are directive to the government and do not confer in any way ANY RIGHT upon the people. This Bill of Rights language is consistent with the language of the entire Constitution, as it would be in styling the Amendment to fit the purpose and intention of the original document, as Our Founders would do, especially considering the Bill of Rights was written by James Madison.
This is what "Liberty" is about, the people moving without the constraint of government. And Senator McCain just stated he knows that is the meaning, and then was upset for what Rand Paul didn't know about Liberty, while at the same time McCain doesn't have a clue about National Government's job in relation to Liberty, to abstain if they can't get a consensus, and choose not to get involved otherwise, versus the activist political wranglings of McCain and Graham in their actions over the years to assure re-election, never recognizing they are in a seat-of-privilege and not a seat-of-power.
All I think any of us want is people who objectively act according to the Constitution, and by doing so, they immediately satisfy their obligations to their constituency. But those politicians, who therefore cannot act with any honor whatsoever, have set aside their job for the "prestige" of power and how we've allowed government to be respected in the "laws" they pass, whether by respect of their ability to use force or fear of prison government doesn't care so long as they get to move freely, to move without assuring Liberty.
So Rand Paul sticking up for the Constitution is a political stunt, but, going out to dinner with the Dictator in Chief is not? Oh yeah, that's right, the "ever popular reach across the aisle!" We know how well that has worked over the years!
I know you believe you are much "smarter" than I am, but, if you can't see what sorry examples of statesmen that McCain and Graham are then whose side are you really on?
First, that's your second attack on me. You cannot read my mind for one, so anything you think I am thinking is purely your own assumption. No way you know what I believe about you at all. You assume what I don't see, on the basis of me having escalated the value of parties to the point you have. I am not into parties, I am a Conservative, meaning I believe in a government acting according to the Constitution, no more and no less; according to the spirit of it when originally drafted, of all the intention that comes with that, of the Honor required of those who we pick for office to know they'll maintain the lines drown by the Articles governing the branch they are elected to. I am saying only one more time. Do not attack me.
I railed McCain and Graham for not following the Constitution, for that's all that matters. The Parties are a distraction at best, a complete means of divide at worst. And if you have to ask what side I am on you didn't even read what I wrote.
Don't be so pugnacious if you don't want someone to punch back.
That's your third effort at making this personal by personally attacking me. You apparently don't realize this is where people of LIKE mind come, not those out to argue and ridicule others. That's all I can take from your attacks on me, and failure to read what I said.
Hobbes, I think Toddy was saying that perhaps the SC voters should choose another senator next time around.