tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872239785607728837.post3973716049406119469..comments2024-03-28T00:02:02.310-04:00Comments on The Brooklyn & Staten Island Independent GOP Fountainhead: And Today It Will Be — RAND PAULGalewyn Masseyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09210379476512207622noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872239785607728837.post-26657831268706490642015-04-09T03:21:06.692-04:002015-04-09T03:21:06.692-04:00UPDATE: THE “RAND PAUL MIGHT BE THE REAL CHANGE TH...UPDATE: THE “RAND PAUL MIGHT BE THE REAL CHANGE THAT AMERICA HAS BEEN WAITING FOR” EDITION<br /><br />FIRST DAY ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL — RAND PAUL FIRMLY PUTS THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA IN ITS PLACE — MEN, WOMEN AND CERTAINLY WHATEVERS <br /><br />PUSHES BACK ON HANNITY — WON’T TAKE ANY CUTESY CRAP FROM SAVANNAH GUTHRIE OR FROM AN AP REPORTER NOT SATISFIED WITH PAUL’S FIVE-MINUTE ANSWER ON THE ABORTION ISSUE<br /><br />THE WASHINGTON POST, CHUCK TODD AND MEGYN KELLY ALL PILE ON RP — BUT KELLY ALSO DEMURS ABOUT THE “SEXIST” MALE DEFENSES OF WOMEN REPORTERS LIKE SAVANNAH G<br /><br />CAN WE ALL AGREE WITH GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE RAND PAUL THAT: “THANKFULLY, OUR NATIONAL MEDIA DOESN’T GET TO PICK AND CHOOSE OUR REPUBLICAN PARTY’S PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE....”<br /><br /><br />On his first day on the campaign trail, which was largely a big media day, the GOP’s newest candidate has shown that he does not suffer fools gladly, even if some people think that they are important news personalities or arbiters of how candidates need to answer questions.<br /><br />People like Chuck Todd, or the Washington Post’s Katie Zezima and Vanessa Williams, or Republican consultant Katie Packer Gage (whoever that is), even Fox News’ Megyn Kelly might not like how Rand Paul pushes back on what he thinks is inferior interviewing; but as far as I’m concerned, how Rand Paul responded and what he had to say was long over do. And frankly, I completely agree with him when he says, “Thankfully, our national media doesn’t get to pick and choose our Republican Party’s presidential nominees....”<br /><br />Here’s the Drudge Report Main Headline at Midnight tonight: “RAND SLAMS MEDIA; PRESS TURNS TOUGH AFTER OBAMA SLUMBER — DRUDGE REPORT”<br />(See 4/8-4/9/15 Drudge Report [ http://www.drudgereport.com/] with link to the WaPo story mentioned below [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-first-official-day-on-the-trail-rand-paul-turns-a-prickly-performance/2015/04/08/2be3a326-de35-11e4-a1b8-2ed88bc190d2_story.html]).<br /><br />And it was much the same headline coverage by the rest of the MSM as well: “Rand Paul Gets the TV Spotlight and Turns It on Interviewers in Testy Encounters” – New York Times; “Rand Paul rips slanted media coverage” – The Boston Herald; “On first official day on the trail, Rand Paul turns in a prickly performance” – Washington Post....<br /><br />As long as Rand Paul keeps channeling his inner Sarah Palin, with her rants against the “lame stream media,” he’ll do well with a big chunk of the Republican base, even as he takes on the Neo-Cons and others in the foreign adventures-interventionist wing of the Grand Old Party.Galewyn Masseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09210379476512207622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872239785607728837.post-20733316786209583862015-04-08T00:51:19.866-04:002015-04-08T00:51:19.866-04:00"And you always have to bring it back to Hill..."And you always have to bring it back to Hillary...." <br /><br />Is the person who posted that comment nuts?<br /><br />The post by the blogger Galewyn M was 100% about Rand Paul, and the first comment was by some wackadoo Hillary Clinton hysteric wanting to correct something about Cory Booker and saying that he supports Hillary Clinton along with some other Democrat Senators. That's who brought everything back to Hillary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872239785607728837.post-42787225204405049232015-04-07T16:21:37.978-04:002015-04-07T16:21:37.978-04:00Such talk!
Hillary's people are losing it.....Such talk! <br /><br />Hillary's people are losing it... and over Rand Paul, would you belive!<br /><br />To bad, so sad....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872239785607728837.post-5496313924846036162015-04-07T15:55:05.424-04:002015-04-07T15:55:05.424-04:00And you always have to bring it back to Hillary. T...And you always have to bring it back to Hillary. Trust me Hillary supporters would love to have a run against Randy in the general election. The guy's a joke. The establishment Republicans can't stand him. And the jokes mocking him are already trending on Twitter. Hillary will trounce him and have tons of fun doing so. So enjoy your brief moment of GOP excitement. Rand will crash and burn soon enough. Who's next to tumble out of the Reoublican clown car? Ben Carsan? Or Walker? It's like a parade of imbeciles.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872239785607728837.post-28394412522190345112015-04-07T15:42:35.689-04:002015-04-07T15:42:35.689-04:00Why are Hillary Clinton and Hillary’s supporters s...Why are Hillary Clinton and Hillary’s supporters so terrified about Rand Paul?<br /><br />The answer is really very simple. Rand Paul is on the short list of Republicans who are already beating Hillary Clinton in some head-to-head polling; and he is doing very well against her across the country to boot.<br /><br />The biggest blow in polling to the Hillary Clinton Campaign came about a week ago when Rand Paul beat Hillary Clinton head-to head in Pennsylvania, which up to that moment was looked at like a reliable bedrock of Hillary Clinton’s base. As of March 31st, Rand Paul got 45 percent in Pennsylvania to Clinton's 44 percent. That compared to a 53 - 34 percent Clinton lead on February 3rd [http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2180].<br /><br />And now, even the HuffPost Model Estimate of forty (40) polls by nine (9) different pollsters nationwide currently has Hillary Clinton ahead by only single digits over Rand Paul. Here are the HuffPost numbers: Hillary Clinton - 49.8% to Rand Paul - 42.1% with Undecided - 8.0% [ “POLL CHART – 2016 General Election: Paul vs. Clinton”; http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-paul-vs-clinton#!selected=Clinton,Paul,Undecided]. The most notable statistical fact in the HuffPost Model Estimate is that Hillary Clinton dropped below the 50% mark against Rand Paul on 3/30/15 and that dropping trend has continued for a whole week.<br /><br />Hillary’s terror about Rand Paul is caused by this: at this stage of the race, Rand Paul’s numbers are looking great and Hillary’s numbers are not; and, if Rand Paul can hold his lead over Hillary in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton can never be President of the United States.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872239785607728837.post-12596646511817446542015-04-07T14:55:28.204-04:002015-04-07T14:55:28.204-04:00UPDATE: THE “WHO IS JOHN GALT” EDITION
THERE ARE ...UPDATE: THE “WHO IS JOHN GALT” EDITION<br /><br />THERE ARE TWO FULL-FLEDGED CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES — AND NEITHER OF THEM IS NAMED “BUSH” OR “CLINTON”<br /><br />RAND PAUL ANNOUNCES FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE “GALT HOUSE” HOTEL — JOINING FELLOW REPUBLICAN TED CRUZ AS THE ONLY CANDIDATES IN THE RACE THUS FAR<br /><br />TED CRUZ WELCOMES RAND PAUL'S ENTRY INTO THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE WITH KIND REMARKS<br /><br />In a lengthy and detailed article about Rand Paul, The New York Times reported that “...Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky officially declared himself a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination on Tuesday [4/7/15], promising a crowd of cheering supporters that he is ready to shake up Washington and disprove those in his own party who doubt that a fiercely libertarian conservative can be a serious contender. *** ‘The Washington machine that gobbles up our freedoms and invades every nook and cranny of our lives must be stopped,’ Mr. Paul told a jubilant audience at the Galt House hotel. “I want to be part of a return to prosperity.’...” (See “Rand Paul Announces Presidential Run” by Jeremy W. Peters & Alan Rappeport, 4/7/15, NY Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/politics/rand-paul-republican-presidential-nomination.html?_r=0]).<br /><br />The Times went on to note, “Mr. Paul, 52, becomes the second Republican to enter the 2016 campaign, following his colleague in the Senate, Ted Cruz of Texas....”<br /><br />The Times also reported that “... [a]s Mr. Paul made his announcement, Mr. Cruz welcomed his Senate colleague into the race and praised his talent and passion.... ‘His entry into the race will no doubt raise the bar of competition, help make us all stronger, and ultimately ensure that the G.O.P. nominee is equipped to beat Hillary Clinton and to take back the White House for Republicans in 2016,’ Mr. Cruz said....”Galewyn Masseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09210379476512207622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872239785607728837.post-88367058354844458752015-04-07T14:31:25.732-04:002015-04-07T14:31:25.732-04:00... but there was no misstatement of any kind... ...... but there was no misstatement of any kind... <br /><br />What are you going on and on about Cory Booker and the rest of New York/New Jersey Democrat officials for Hillary Clinton? It looks like you're as thin-skinned and insecure as Hillary herself; the question is why? <br /><br />And you are completely wrong when you say it is misleading for somebody to think Cory Booker is in any way aligned with Rand Paul; because he certainly is, even if it's only on one piece of legislation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872239785607728837.post-92180430673472572462015-04-07T13:30:49.155-04:002015-04-07T13:30:49.155-04:00A cursory reading of #3 in the post could easily m...A cursory reading of #3 in the post could easily mislead one into thinking that Senator Cory Booker was in any way aligned with Rand Paul. The fact is he is not. Cory Booker is a civil rights activist and a staunch advocate of progressive Democratic policies. Additionally, the entire NY NJ Democratic elected officials caucus is among Hillary's strongest supporters in Washington. Thus, the comment clarifying the blogger's post was entirely appropriate. Moreover, since this blogger has chosen to unfairly and outrageously bash Hillary at every turn he should expect that his mis-statements will be corrected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872239785607728837.post-89404105038917483752015-04-07T12:14:29.759-04:002015-04-07T12:14:29.759-04:00To first "Hello" comment.
Everybody has ...To first "Hello" comment.<br />Everybody has endorsed Hillary but nobody is supporting Hillary.<br /><br />Just like in 2008.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872239785607728837.post-21298530369883450232015-04-07T11:31:21.858-04:002015-04-07T11:31:21.858-04:00RESPONSE: THE "HILLARY BULLIES" EDITION
...RESPONSE: THE "HILLARY BULLIES" EDITION<br /><br />THE COMMENT ABOVE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A CLINTON CAMPAIGN STRATEGY TO "END DEBATE" IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN BY THE BRUTE FORCE OF BURYING OPPOSING CANDIDATES AND THEIR EVENTS WITH AN AVALANCHE OF HILLARY CLINTON NON-SENSE AND GIBBERISH, AND IN MANY INSTANCES MISINFORMATION<br /><br />BY LATE JANUARY, HILLARY HAD SOME KIND OF GOOD WISHES FROM 27 out of 46 DEMOCRAT SENATORS --- HAS HILLARY PILED UP ANY MAJOR ENDORSEMENTS SINCE HER E-MAIL DISASTER ? <br /><br />That 27 out of 46 Democrat Senators have "endorsed" Hillary is NOT NEWS --- I don't know why CNN would publish a letter about that "yesterday" [I could not find such a letter by CNN; and that item was actually reported by CNN on February 3, 2015]. <br /><br />Since the report about 27 out of 46 Democrat Senators being on board for Hillary was made one month before Hillary Clinton's multi-faceted E-Mails disaster, an interesting issue is whether the E-Mails thing effected her so-called "support." <br /><br />WHAT MIGHT BE NEWS in the "fact" of the 26/47 support in the Democrat caucus in the Senate is that no new Democrat Senators appear to have gotten onto the Hillary bandwagon in over two months, and certainly not since she fell on her face over her E-Mails.<br /><br />BTW, contrary to what "Anonymous... 6:58 AM" had to say, there is nothing misleading in "...Number 3 above..." as reported in my main post above. And if there were, it would be the fault of Colin Campbell and the folks at the Business Insider --- you know, members of the vast anti-Hillary media conspiracy.Galewyn Masseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09210379476512207622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872239785607728837.post-63237022353837591902015-04-07T11:31:05.162-04:002015-04-07T11:31:05.162-04:00How is that misleading anyone with a brain???How is that misleading anyone with a brain???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872239785607728837.post-70649660192290714942015-04-07T09:58:08.405-04:002015-04-07T09:58:08.405-04:00Hello. Number 3 above is misleading. Senator Cory ...Hello. Number 3 above is misleading. Senator Cory Booker has already endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in the 2016 election. In a letter published by CNN yesterday Cory Booker is one of 27 Senators who have already signed on to support HRC. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com