Obama!!!

Isn't that the point of party politics?

You think you've got problems? Obama isn't even from America.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

lol

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

Obama was born on a flying saucer when his mother was abducted and had sex with ET. His actual birth certificate reflects this, but the Air Force covererd it up.

Maybe, but you'd think someone from Kentucky who understands the needs of the state would be better suited for the job, no matter his affiliation. Rand Paul is about to get elected simply because he isn't a Democrat, and I think that's a problem.

I agree, but I go back to my original comment, isn't that the point of Party politics? The stronger the feeling for a party in a certain area, the less need there is for a 'good' candidate. This means that 'lesser' or newer/less experienced politicians can be parachuted in with little or no understanding of the area, as most will vote purely because of the Party they represent.

Or, they may just have cooler and better commercials than the other candidate. Which is really important here in America, where television decides the majority of elections.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Sadly, that's something which has become far more prevelent over here, too. Not as bad as I believe it is over there, but then, we've got a lot of time to make up.

I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to catch up to America in that department. But that's just me and I'm obviously a kook. Obviously.

Who has the cooler political commercial? Is there such a thing? They are either puff pieces with the candidate making sound bite speeches or attack ads. The only one I saw recently that was somewhat clever showed Arnold saying something, then Meg Whitman saying the same thing, an endless supply, with the tagline "We already tried that. It didn't work." True enough, but we tried Jerry Brown before also and that didn't work. The polarized system defeats the best intentions of anyone running for executive office. Gray Davis tried to stop runaway spending but his fellow Democrats in the legislature paid no attention to him. Arnold tried to get tough, but found trying to be the schoolyard bully didn't work. He then tried to be more cooperative with the Demos who finally realized they had to make some cuts, but the Republicans wouldn't cooperate because of their vow for absolutely no taxes. Then some of them try to make side deals for their district which involves more spending, not less. Finally they get a budget through with no new taxes, not enough spending cuts, and accounting tricks and false assumptions about tax revenue, which means nothing has been solved. Democrats won't cut enough, Republicans won't raise taxes, and neither of them really want to make cuts their interest groups like.

Re: Rand Paul. I think honeykid's right about party politics (there's nothing really unusual going on here; Hillary Clinton won in New York for no particular reason), but putting that aside, Rand Paul's running for the Senate, not the House or the Governorship. The latter two require a good deal of knowledge about the state or the individual district the candidate's running in, but the Senate doesn't do as much haggling over local funding or interesting projects. It's more about national issues; they tend to cast broader votes. I'm generalizing, but of those three offices, this is the one where the candidate's ties to the region probably matter the least. Not that "I'm just one of you" and "born and raised" were every great reasons to vote for someone to begin with.

Anyway, I'm sure Paul and his supporters would dispute the idea that he "doesn't understand the needs of the state." They probably just think it has different needs than you do.

Um, I wouldn't call state-wide farm subsidies and the Kentucky Educational System "local funding or interesting projects."

Does that make him right? Shouldn't he listen to those who will ultimately be affected by his policies?

By "local," I mean state-wide, as opposed to national. Congressmen deal with their district (usually trying to secure something for it), and Governors with the state at large. Senators deal with a much bigger mix of national and local issues than Congressmen or Governors. This is why they tend to run on "bigger" issues like financial reform or abortion or immigration, rather than "here's the funding I will secure for our state/district/whatever."

I actually don't know where the word "interesting" came from. That was supposed to be another word, but I can't for the life of me figure out what word I wanted to put there.

No, it doesn't make him right, but saying otherwise doesn't make him wrong, either. Your statement was "you'd think someone from Kentucky who understands the needs of the state would be better suited for the job." My point is, I doubt anyone disputes this, they just differ on who's better suited, which is pretty much par for the course. It's not as if Paul is some bizarre candidate who's claiming he doesn't have to understand what's good for Kentucky to represent Kentucky; he just has a different idea of how best to do that than some (though not most, if the polls are any indication).

It's up to voters to decide that stuff. If he doesn't do a good job of representing the interests of Kentucky if elected, he won't be back. Plenty of politicians have been voted out of office because they were seen as out of touch with the needs of their state.

But like I said, he's running on the Tea Party platform of less spending and drastically cutting budget items, specifically naming the Dept. of Agriculture and Education as entities he'd vote to ax. Unlike campaign finance reform or stem cell research, these are issues that directly affect the state of Kentucky.

True, but I'm not taking issue with the fact that he has a different idea. I'm taking issue with the fact that his different idea ignores the concerns of many Kentuckians and piggybacks on the Tea Party's larger, more general platform of "less spending."

I'll give you an example. Rand Paul advocates completely dismantling the Department of Education and placing the financial responsibility on local government and community support, through state taxes (which he favors lowering as well). That means that some $730 million in annual funds will be gone.

That's fine for prep schools, but what about schools in low-income areas? How are these people, particularly in an economy like this one, supposed to keep their schools afloat and still keep up adequate teachers and materials? Paul need look no further than private and Catholic schools, which rely on funding from the local Archdiocese: they're rapidly combining and many have already closed.

I've worked in the school system here, and federal funding was never the issue. Funds come down, but the majority goes to administrative infrastructure and not teacher salary and materials. Moneys that do reach schools to improve their systems are currently allocated based on standardized testing scores, with higher scores getting the most money.

So again, how are low-income schools with low test scores and inadequate resources supposed to turn their fortunes around? Changes to these policies will fix the problem, not shrinking the pot. Less money will only make it harder on the schools that already scrape for it. But of course, that doesn't mesh with the en vogue Tea Party mantra of drastically cutting spending. It's a different idea, alright. But it ignores the better solution in favor of, in my view, forwarding a national agenda.

Also, a point of note: Rand Paul , "I don't like the idea of somebody in Washington deciding that Susie has two mommies is an appropriate family situation and should be taught to my kindergartener in school."

Frankly, I find that pretty tasteless in a public debate, and the implication is frightening. Does that mean that he'd prefer local school boards to decide the curriculum? Maybe I don't want my kid learning that blacks and homosexuals are bad people. Maybe I don't want the school board to decide that evolution is inappropriate for my child's curriculum.

Sure. Six years from now. Let's hope an opthamalogist with no prior public service experience and a far-reaching political agenda can't cause too much irreversible damage in that time.

He won't have any significant influence on legislation as a rookie Senator. He can just be ineffective.

They sure are, but now we're just talking about whether or not his ideas are any good, which makes him the same as any other candidate.

Your statements about Paul were not just that you disagreed with him, but that there was something fundamentally wrong with him as a candidate that should disqualify him in many people's minds regardless of our political beliefs. IE: whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, an elected official should understand his job. That's certainly true, but it seems to me that Paul does understand the job: he's just going to do things you don't like. I've got no beef with you making the case that some of them are bad ideas, but this doesn't make him fundamentally different from any other candidate you dislike.

He's Ron Paul's son, isn't he? I kinda doubt he's piggybacking on all this; I'll bet he's held these positions for quite awhile, they just happen to be more politically popular now.

Anyway, the obvious question is: if he's ignoring many Kentuckians, why is it likely he'll win with room to spare?

Your description of the funding and how little of it gets to the ground floor is exactly the reason Paul would probably cite for the need to dismantle the department in the first place: it's not working.

We had public education before it became heavily institutionalized, so I fail to see why ceding more control to individual districts represents some kind of apocalypse. The education system is vast and unwieldy, often one-size-fits-all, and is basically a giant money-devouring machine that has produced increasingly poor results, so I don't know why this sort of shakeup should strike anyone as horrifying. It might be a bit scarier if we had a decent system in place, but if things get bad enough you have to ask: what are we afraid of losing? A failed system?

This is assuming any of this actually comes to pass. Most of it's probably implausible, politically, and I've never been much for drumming up fear over what someone wants to do unless I have reason to believe they'll be able to.

Those tea party guys are getting in mainly as protest votes. Watch what happens when they try to pass the most radical of their ideas. People like the idea of change until they understand what the change is.

I guess you'd just have to live in Kentucky to understand. It'd be different if he advocated less spending but displayed a real understanding of the industries those cuts would affect. In fact, that's how I'd characterize John McCain. I differed with his views, but I was convinced that he understood the implications of those views.

But to those of us who actually listen to Rand Paul, he seems to be completely out of touch. Asked about his thoughts on the rampant issue of illicit methamphetamine production in Eastern Kentucky, Rand Paul said, "I don't think it's a real pressing issue." Asked about coal mine safety, in the wake of a non-Union mine operation that had 840 safety infractions in 2009 and two deaths in April, Paul claimed that no regulations were needed because no one should apply for dangerous jobs (nevermind that coal mining is a huge part of Kentucky's economy and somebody has to do it).

It's easy for you to posit that he simply must know what he's doing. But I'm sorry, I've listened to the man and I just don't see it.

What I mean is, he's piggybacking on more general aims to cut spending without really looking at how it will affect the state he'll represent.

Because in a political climate in which misinformation and mudslinging on both sides sings the loudest, most voters have neither the energy nor the education to dig up what's really going on in their state. Most people I know have no idea how the education system in Kentucky operates, for example. All they know is, people are losing homes and jobs and savings, and they're confused, and everyone needs something to blame. All it takes is a flip of the channel, and Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh is telling them that Obama and Democrats are the Devil and the real root of today's financial woes (nevermind that they started well before anyone knew who Obama was).

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that not every voter opinion is an informed one.

That doesn't necessary make his strategy the right one. Republicans were all lathered up over healthcare reform, saying that simply remaking the system from scratch wasn't the answer. While I think that was an issue of something far more "broken" than the state education system in Kentucky, the comparison is still relevant. Why do we need to completely abolish the Department of Education? The problem isn't funding, it's administration. Revisit the policies. Restructure the programs. But don't cut the funding while the U.S. performs so poorly as it is and the cost of higher education continues to rise.

I rather think it has more to do with balancing the budget, which is what the Tea Party seems to have in mind. A noble goal, obviously, but let's look at what exactly we're cutting first and consider alternative options.

Hindsight is 20/20. I'm not one to shrug my shoulders if there's any chance an out-of-touch candidate can get into office and start affecting in ways he may or may not even comprehend, particularly when he's buffered by voters who buy into the "Democrats bad, Republicans good" hate rhetoric of the media mongers.