Cloudy
51°
Cloudy
Hi 50° | Lo 42°

Editorial

Rand Paul’s visit: Let the party begin

We were contemplating what to say about Sen. Rand Paul’s recent pre-presidential campaign stop in Concord when he sent us a letter, sort of. It had our post office box number, but the addressee was the Monadnock PAC. That’s a political action group affiliated with former Republican congressman Charlie Bass.

Senator Paul, Charlie doesn’t live here.

Neither Paul’s visit nor the letter is surprising at this point in the primary process. But together, they do suggest how much the senator and his party have to change if they want the next presidential race to end differently than the last one did.

Paul spoke at the state Republican Party’s Liberty Dinner, and in doing so he accomplished three things. He impressed the crowd of 500 true believers. He helped the party raise money – in part by writing a check for $10,000 himself. And he fueled expectations that he’s a candidate by refusing to say so.

On the other hand, there is the matter of his message. Paul offered this in the way of a mission statement: “We need to be that party of opportunity.”

If that sounds familiar, perhaps you are recalling the Republican Party’s 2012 platform, which runs to 62 pages and begins, right there in the second paragraph, with: “The Republican Party is the party of opportunity.”

So Americans get that already and voted no. Saying it again won’t change that. What will, Paul said, is showing that Republicans care for the downtrodden and “look more like America.” The party, he explained, needs black, brown and white people; people with or without tattoos; with long or short hair; and with or without beards.

That leaves out a lot of dimensions – what about height? – and doesn’t answer the question of how a party that has fallen out of step on gay rights and other social issues while offering nothing new in the way of policies is going to broaden its appeal.

But that’s not unusual, as a party gathers itself after a defeat. Democrats have been there, too. The next few years are for testing ideas and refining the pitch.

There is also the need to boost the spirits and tap the wallets of core supporters – which brings us to that letter. It was written by Paul on behalf of the Leadership Institute, a group dedicated to turning back “radical billionaires” on the left and their “socialist ideas” that President Obama plans “to ram down our throats.”

If the execution of the mailing is any indication, Paul and the institute need to step up their game if they hope to turn back anyone, never mind a mob of left-leaning billionaires with violent tendencies.

First, there’s getting details like the address right. The mailing is 11 pages long – in the Twitter age? – and each is printed on only one side. (Anti-government waste!) We pity the intern who licked the 10 stamps used to cover the postage, nine of them 13-centers celebrating the Founding Fathers and the 10th a conservation stamp featuring a Great Gray Owl who must be wondering why he’s associated with an interest group that equates regulation with socialism.

It’s amateurish. But again, there’s time, and perhaps Paul, the institute and the party will make the most of it. After all, Republicans are the party of opportunity.

Legacy Comments23

Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching. ~ unknown author

True. And Paul the Whelp (to distinguish him from his father, Paul the Geezer) ought to take his loony ideas to where nobody is watching.

Isn't it illegal to open a letter addressed to someone else? We get mail all the time addressed to a neighbor with our address on it because some kind of typo. Would we ever consider opening up the letters. No. The right thing to do is get the letter to the right place. I guess liberals with no ethics would open a letter that isn't addressed to them. Shame on the Monitor. A classless act. But I am not surprised.

Not illegal in this circumstance....just plain old unethical and wrong.

Notice the liberals didn't see anything wrong with it. It just goes to show how corrupt they are.

Too bad the letter didn't come from the IRS. Then the monitor could have gotten a questionaire. Opening mail that is addressed to someone else is another one of those laws that is poorly written, It does show lack of ethics to open it and then write about it. Pretty much admitting that your business is so desperate to smear Rand, that any inside info is fair game,even if that info is obtained by opening mail that was not intended for them.

Would the Monitor scream to high heaven if the Union Leader did that to a liberal. Marland would have a Month of cartoons showing how unethical it was.

Rand Paul is selling old wine in new bottles. In fact, that wine long ago turned to vinegar--round about 1932. The GOP as "the party of opportunity"? Dream on. It didn't happen in the 20th century. And it surely won't happen in the 21st, if the the hidebound GOP of Boehner and McConnell are exemplars. And it won't by the Tea Party/Libertarians led by Paul or Ted Cruz(missile). Not with spouting disingenuous fear-mongering nonsense like "'radical billionaires' on the left" and their "socialist ideas". The threat to our democracy and our economy comes from radical billionaires on the right like the Koch Brothers, who underwrite the ideas and the political campaigns of opportunistic politicians like Cruz and Paul. As to the 'old wine': who made this up to the minute speech, torn from today's headlines?: "We have seen tax-and-tax, spend-and-spend reach a fantastic total greater than in all the ...previous years of our Republic....sinister...ghosts are mixing poison for the American people...Karl Marx and his socialism...and Keynes, with his perpetual government spending, deficits, and inflation. And we added a new ideology of our own. That is government giveaway programs....If you want to see pure socialism mixed with giveaway programs, take a look at socialized medicine." If you guessed Herbert Hoover, go to the head to the class.

Paul and Cruz have one thing going for them. Their last name is not Clinton.

You're right about one thing--that's "one thing".

Actually 2 things.."We are the President" after all.

"Tea Party/Libertarians "? Both rather ambiguous labels in this currently ever changing world of assessment of proper government. The two tend to disagree with each other most, and quite considerably, over issues of social conservativism as related to government. I'll simply affiliate, by and large, with "minarchist". I will say that "opportunistic politicians" seem rather common on all sides, and that I am not always sure where such as Rand Paul most genuinely side with regard to this particular Tea Party/Libertarian fundamental issue.

Both Cruz and Paul are darlings of the Tea Party, and claim affiliation and identify with its membership. Whether or for how long the TP/Libertarian alliance can last is anybody's guess. Suffice to say that the TP is not about to embrace any "new ideas" regarding immigration any time soon. And Paul's foreign policy claims will have a short shelf life with traditional conservatives--whites who feel threatened by the demographic and social changes taking place in the country, that may endanger their own hard-won entitlements, but who also support out of fear an open-ended war against Islam. The TP contains lots of "low information voters"--contrary to assertions made by Carp Per Diem posters on this site; indeed the posters themselves exemplify such voters on a daily basis here. They fully embrace the Faux motto: "We deceive, you recite."

Is ANYTHING that anybody is required to say in order to be a viable Republican presidential candidate based even remotely in reality? Two examples from the editorial: 1) "radical billionaires," whom did Rand have in mind? George Soros, a dead-heat tie with Warren Buffett as the world's most visible finance capitalist? 2) Obama's "socialist ideas," like his foreign trade policies that benefit nobody but transnational corporations? Socialist indeed! To say nothing about climate change, accepted as a fact by nearly 100% of legitimate experts in the field but denied by heart and soul Republicans. Or the Republican party's close embrace with the most extreme Conservative (self-proclaimed) Christian groups and their backward positions on the whole spectrum of gender issues. And then there's the TeaParty connection. Not nearly enough time & space for that except to point out that tea parties are for little girls with imaginary friends.

gracchus. Again, I am disappointed. More school-yard level anemic attempts to belittle people instead of address the issues. And global warming? The noted meteorologist and inventor who started the Weather Channel is quoted, "98% of weather comes from solar activity and the other 2% from lunar...." And from Berkley, (yes- Berkley) professor counters global warming myths-- http://archive.dailycal.org/article/111906/professor_counters_global_warming_myths_with_data

Yours is the response that is "anemic", to say the least. As regards the Weather Channel 'inventor', his quote clearly refers to weather--not climate. There is a difference. And the Berkeley professor you link to (Richard Muller--originally a skeptic) led a study that was funded in part by the Koch Brothers. Much to the dismay of the Kochs, the study concluded that global warming is real, and that CO2 is the main culprit, which is the conclusion of 97%+ of climate scientists. Your link is either outdated, or is inaccurate.

I apologize. I should not have belittled, demeaned or otherwise insulted little girls with imaginary friends by associating them with the TeaParty movement. I will make every effort to do better next time.

“The planet is no longer warming. The brief warming episode of the late 20th century completed its course in the mid 1990s, and is now extinct. These are now uncontroversial statements.” "IPCC Head Pachauri acknowledges ‘No warming for 17 years’"...."UN IPCC Lead Author Hans Von Storch Blasts Climate Scientists: Not The 'Keepers Of The Truth' -- Says They 'Oversold' The Science -- Accuses colleagues of hype & 'methodical failure"......"Global Climate Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago, UK Met Office Admits ... Research Unit at the University of East Anglia"

The master of the cut-and-paste strikes again. Any objective-minded person can debunk those distorted headlines in 5 minutes or less. Suffice to say none of them are accurate, as I've shown in a previous response to the same nonsense from the deniosphere. For those inhabiting the real world, this link to the dramatic loss of Arctic ice makes for disturbing reading. Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy" columns now on Slate come highly recommended. He targets anti-science nonsense frequently, from anti-vaccine hysteria to creationism, to climate science deniers. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/28/arctic_sea_ice_global_warming_is_melting_more_ice_every_year.html

Interesting that rather than try to better explain the GOP views to gain votes, the GOP party leaders decided it will just change the polices. The real key will be if the actual GOP voting record shows the change or is it all just cheap political talk. How does one get all those Congressional leaders to change their lifelong views in a day.

Still too early to tell what may happen...but I was just thinking, if the democrats don't run Hillary, who else is there?

Another poorly written partisan hack piece from the liberal CM rag.....another minute wasted of peoples lives they will never get back......this hack piece coming from the hypocritical CM that editorialize on more civility in politics

Sail hits the bulls-eye.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.