I've got nothing against anti-incumbent sentiment. It would just be nice if candidates like Paul had something going for them other than a wave of anti-incumbent sentiment.

I mean, the goal shouldn't be simply to kick the bums out and replace them with the next person who walks through the door.

Ahhh...Thats right...No incumbent against Paul. Sorry bout that. But I like him alot. He defeated a Rupublican supported by Gulianni and Cheney.  On the issues that matter to me, I like his position.

With our national debt over 12 trillion dollars, the deficit spending by Washington DC continues to mortgage fruits of our future labor to fund federal programs we don’t need and cannot afford. Rand Paul would fight to balance the budget and dramatically reduce spending, before further interest on our debt requires government to reach deeper into our pockets and into our children’s piggy bank.

With so much blame going around for the current financial crisis it is surprising that so few in the mainstream press have discussed the role of the Federal Reserve System. For too long the Federal Reserve has operated behind a shroud of mystery—as Senator I would make sure that all Americans understand the dangers of unsound monetary policy and shed light on this secretive organization.

The Federal Government must return to its constitutionally enumerated powers and restore our inalienable rights. America can prosper, preserve personal liberty, and repel national security threats without intruding into the personal lives of its citizens

http://www.randpaul2010.com/

Still waiting to hear an actual detailed plan from these tea party candidates instead of the typical "cut taxes, cut spending" slogan that they keep pushing.  After looking at Rand Paul's website, I seem the same vague platform.  Like Anton pointed out, getting rid of the bums is a great idea, but replacing them with other bums is not the solution. 

Posted by antonsirius on 8/21/2010 1:00:00 AM (view original):
I've got nothing against anti-incumbent sentiment. It would just be nice if candidates like Paul had something going for them other than a wave of anti-incumbent sentiment.

I mean, the goal shouldn't be simply to kick the bums out and replace them with the next person who walks through the door.

But isn't that kinda what happened with the 2008 Presidential election?

Obama talked a great game, but he had no real experience actually doing much.  There were plenty more experienced candidates that got rolled over though.

Posted by creilmann on 8/21/2010 12:24:00 PM (view original):
Still waiting to hear an actual detailed plan from these tea party candidates instead of the typical "cut taxes, cut spending" slogan that they keep pushing.  After looking at Rand Paul's website, I seem the same vague platform.  Like Anton pointed out, getting rid of the bums is a great idea, but replacing them with other bums is not the solution. 

Hope and Change, Hope and Change

Granted, there was more of a plan than that, but that was the main message for the masses that turned out to vote for him.  That and he wasn't George Bush.

You may not agree with Obama's platform, but he had a detailed one.  Something that you could compare to other candidates and make a decision on wether or not you agree with.  I would say that McCain may have lost quite a few votes due to some of his vagueness, especially in the financial area.

I agree that he had a more detailed plan (and rather vaguely said as much above), however, I would assert that over half of the people that voted for him had no idea about any of it.  They voted for him because he was not George Bush, and all they knew was "Hope and Change" and "Yes we can"

Granted - the same could be said of the people that voted for McCain.

Posted by creilmann on 8/21/2010 1:50:00 PM (view original):
You may not agree with Obama's platform, but he had a detailed one.  Something that you could compare to other candidates and make a decision on wether or not you agree with.  I would say that McCain may have lost quite a few votes due to some of his vagueness, especially in the financial area.

It is never the specifics of the plans that people vote for in a President. It is a general direction and the feeling that he is the kind of person you want.

People liked Obama, Bush and Clinton. Not for anything specific, just that they felt that they would take care of America!

Posted by wrmiller13 on 8/21/2010 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 8/21/2010 1:00:00 AM (view original):
I've got nothing against anti-incumbent sentiment. It would just be nice if candidates like Paul had something going for them other than a wave of anti-incumbent sentiment.

I mean, the goal shouldn't be simply to kick the bums out and replace them with the next person who walks through the door.

But isn't that kinda what happened with the 2008 Presidential election?

Obama talked a great game, but he had no real experience actually doing much.  There were plenty more experienced candidates that got rolled over though.

"Talking a good game" is still more than I can say for Paul or especially Angle, who seems to react to questions the way a vampire does to a cross.

And any Dem would have had the same advantages as Obama, in terms of not being Bush and not being a Republican. Obama still had to have something more going for him to beat Clinton et al in the primary, even if you do want to write it off as just good oratory and charisma.

Glenn Beck hates the 1st and 2nd Amendments:

What can I NOT bring?
As a security precaution, the following items will be prohibited from the event sites:

• NO signs (political or otherwise) as they may deter from the peaceful message we are bringing to Washington.
• Firearms (either real or simulated)

Posted by antonsirius on 8/21/2010 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wrmiller13 on 8/21/2010 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 8/21/2010 1:00:00 AM (view original):
I've got nothing against anti-incumbent sentiment. It would just be nice if candidates like Paul had something going for them other than a wave of anti-incumbent sentiment.

I mean, the goal shouldn't be simply to kick the bums out and replace them with the next person who walks through the door.

But isn't that kinda what happened with the 2008 Presidential election?

Obama talked a great game, but he had no real experience actually doing much.  There were plenty more experienced candidates that got rolled over though.

"Talking a good game" is still more than I can say for Paul or especially Angle, who seems to react to questions the way a vampire does to a cross.

And any Dem would have had the same advantages as Obama, in terms of not being Bush and not being a Republican. Obama still had to have something more going for him to beat Clinton et al in the primary, even if you do want to write it off as just good oratory and charisma.

I think Obama had this sense of "newness" going for him, which is ultimately what may have put him over the top against Hillary (and perhaps a deeper sense of sexism than racism prevailed?).  Obviously, while campaigning he was a tremendous speaker, and ran a flawless campaign.  It seems strange, but his lack of experience seemed to be the clincher for a lot of people.  The proverbial "breath of fresh air" if you will.  Which Hillary Clinton (and McCain) certainly were not.