That ‘insider’s account of Ron Paul is written by a guy whose only claim to fame is hating Ron Paul and having worked for him. FYI, Ron Paul fired him, years ago. He usually is spouting about how treasonous Ron Paul’s foreign policy is, but he’s flexible.

By the way, I understand he may have worked on the newsletters. Who exonerated HIM from writing them?

The military is authorize under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and the government is an EMPLOYER acting in giving medical care to vets, not acting as socialized medicine.

There are distinctions here.

But in any event, Ron Paul’s priority is not to cut anyone’s health care or social security, but to cut overseas and corporate welfare, and he has said so, many times. Yet the spending does need to be cut, or all will be out on the street when the system can no longer pay its bills.

Every representative is supposed to have equal input or people represented by those who don’t are disenfranchised. Gang of 6 bills and think tank bills were bad enough because the overall framework was laid as a practical matter. But at least other reps not in the discussions could amend them.

I’m a Ron Paul supporter, and we need to coordinate on this. This is unacceptable.

Oh please, thank you at least for being skeptical of what Reid pretends the amendments were. They are being reported elsewhere as ‘gun amendments’ to make progressives split from libertarians on this issue. We disagree on issues where we disagree, but if we don’t work together on issues where we do agree, we will never be able to address them. Here are the amendments Rand wants http://www.randpaul2010.com/2011/05/senator-rand-paul-introduces-amendments-to-usa-patriot-act-extension-bill/

Yeah, Rand Paul was pretty frustrated about this on Anderson Cooper 360 Friday night. He gives an interesting insight into how dissent is prevented on the Senate floor, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSlKzbR0gLg&feature=player_embedded

How do I do a blog or post? The Patriot Act is supposed to be put up for a cloture vote for a 4 year extension Monday at 5pm and I wanted to let people know and ask them to contact their reps opposing it.

Like his Dad, Rand Paul wants to end the energy department. Rand Paul’s budget proposal puts nuclear into defense, but ALL the energy subsidies to oil, etc would be gone. He wants to cut back military spending, hardly looking out for Halliburton. He wants to audit the federal reserve and EXPOSE Goldman Sachs. You really are missing out by only looking through a ‘red lens’ ‘blue lens’ point of view.

Trotskyite? I don’t think that word means what you think it means….either that, or you don’t know much about Rand Paul.

You say, “You should have also noted Paul’s multiple positions on Libya as well.” I assume you are referring to what O’Donnell said on MSNBC but O’Donnell owes Rand Paul a retraction.

O’Donnell pretends Rand ‘voted’ for a nonbinding resolution that urged the UN to look into a no fly zone, but in fact that was a procedural ruse we all should be outraged by. The nonbinding resolution wasn’t even read on the floor, only the title which had no mention of military action was read, with a request to pass it ‘without objection’ by unanimous consent WITHOUT reading it, and without giving it to Senators. By the time Rand Paul made it back to the floor so he could have objected, the resolution was already in and out, with him (and the other Senators) still not knowing what was in it.

http://t.co/Yp3YAvF

You can look it up in the Congressional Record and on CSPAN, the whole thing was in and out, without description, in 40 seconds. O’Donnell knows this and just pretended a unanimous consent, supposed to be used only for noncontroversial matters’ was ‘voting [intentionally] by remote control’. O’Donnell has no credibility at all, at this point.

Rand Paul spoke against this consistently and is leading the fight against it, and they are just trying to pretend he is inconsistent so people won’t listen to what he is saying — which is compelling.

Well, Rand Paul just came out with a way to balance the budget in 5 years and produce a surplus, without cutting medicare or social security…. mind you they have their own problems, but this DOES balance the budget…

Um, actually, Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jim De Mint all voted against the spending bill, and even Rubio says he’ll vote against the next one. And Mike Lee plans to filibuster the debt ceiling.

Just saying….

And it wouldn’t be a shut down, they could still spend what comes in. It WOULD be an automatic balanced budget requirement for however many weeks it took them to work something out.

Sigh, me too, but she’s pushing that three year thing and should at least know she’s been in a fight.

Here’s Rand Paul on the floor opposing it, and she comes up next. She and the presiding officer both look like they are suffering from indigestion after this speech skims through some of the abuses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwPKSLJzwjA