He’s probably the only man in existence that could make me vote for a Democrat if I lived in KY.

Matter of fact, if he wins the primary (highly unlikely), I’d consider moving to KY just to vote against him. The last thing we need is a member of the conspiracy theory mongering surrender caucus elected statewide as an R.

A poll just released by Survey USA found that Paul is within striking distance in the Republican primary and in a virtual tie in a general election matchup.

Bowling Green ophthalmologist Rand Paul is a wild card, especially if he can tap into the national fundraising support of his father, former presidential candidate Ron Paul.

So far, Grayson leads 37% to 26% despite the 11 point lead, that’s a strong early showing for the relatively unknown eye doctor.

… Rand Paul, the son of former presidential candidate Ron Paul, might be the biggest surprise of any in any of this poll’s results.

Paul is especially strong against the democrat Dan Mongiardo, figuring in the 2.3 % margin of error, Paul is in a virtual dead heat with the Lt. Governor.

The fathers of our great nation escaped the clutches of an English tyranny primarily promulgated through primogeniture. Whatever the apparent merits of a particular candidate’s character, abilities, or positions, the fact that someone seeks to seize upon the fame of their family to acquire power waves a red flag before us that we ought to doubt the purity of their intentions towards the republic. That we as a nation follow multigenerational cults of personality, whether to take the easy way out by saving on campaign spending through using a known name brand or out of a halcyon remembrance of Camelot in willful ignorance of history, clearly shows that we no longer fully treasure our liberty.

The framers of the Constitution sought to bring about a limited government. One of their many triumphs was a ban on titles of nobility, for a permanent and possibly hereditary title carries with it the prospect of irrevocable power. With that in mind, it should be obvious that one of the best ways to constrain the power of government is to limit the duration of individuals and their kin in high office. After the tenure of FDR, the nation decided that we had erred in not placing term limits on the chief executive, and we corrected this through a constitutional amendment. Notwithstanding the facts that election or appointment to high office do not constitute treason and that Article III, Section 3 prohibits the corruption of blood, I do not hesitate to say that we, the people, must fight against the formation of political dynasties at the ballot box.

This is not meant to be an indictment of this particular candidate or an endorsement of his opponent. We don’t live in a perfect world and sometimes familial ties are the lesser of two evils, but ours is a large nation with many talented and conscientious citizens. I really think we’re doing something wrong if we can’t find fresh caretakers of our freedom. Please discuss and keep it principled. Endeavor to be the party of ideas, not personal attacks.

To have a Senator with Ron Paul’s views on Economic and Social issues would be awesome. It would be like having another DeMint and Coburn. The problem that I have is some of his views concerning foreign policy. Ron Paul makes it sound like it is our fault that the Muzzies are killing people. Is Rand anything like his father when it comes to foreign policy?

From Rand’s website:

Defending our Country is the most important function of the federal government. When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted by and derived from free men and women.
Our supreme law, the Constitution, enumerates certain powers for the federal government. Primary among them is national defense.

The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war. As James Madison wrote, “The Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the power most prone to war. The Constitution has, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature.”

However, in the face of an imminent nuclear attack or in response to an assault, the executive [Presidential] branch can and should make military responses without Congressional authority. After 911, an immediate raid by 10,000 Special Forces on camps in Afghanistan would have been justified by the executive, even if the decision was made in secrecy.

But, any military action that takes more than a few days or weeks to organize and is directed against a country’s government should require a declaration of war. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Congress met and declared war within 24hrs.

Congress has had plenty of time to declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq. As a member of Congress, Dr. Rand Paul would have demanded and voted in the affirmative for a declaration of war with Afghanistan. He would have demanded and voted against a declaration of war with Iraq.

In addressing the reality of our debt-laden economy, we must recognize that every dollar spent on the military is not necessarily a dollar spent on national defense. Were Dr. Rand Paul in charge of the budget, he would first demand that it be balanced. And second, he would make defense spending a top priority. In Rand’s proposed budget, defense spending would represent a larger percentage of the total budget than it does today, while military spending on unnecessary programs and unconstitutional operations would be eliminated.