David Adams really screwed up this time, JF.
Lisa, I read your article, and unless you know something I don't (and didn't include it in your article) I frankly don't understand what David Adams did wrong.
Lose-lose either way. This is going to cause a nuclers melt down in the Rand camp. If true it will push out the libertarian supporters. If not true then it will cost the campaign a million rads of lost credibility. I saw someting of particular note on Duncan's facebook today http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/1670/2/ This is double trouble and he even posted a winter sorm driving advisory for tomorrow. The Louisville event is essentially cancelled due to weather.
You are correct that if not true, it will cost the campaign some credibility. If true, I don't see how anyone else's actions have any bearing on who Rand is or what he stands for. For instance, just because OJ Simpson endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2008- that doesn't make her someone who supports murderers. Rand can't control who Palin endorses. Her endorsement won't cost him any of his libertarian fans, but will win him Grayson supporters.PS: Did any of you folks listen to Mr. Hunter's excellent analysis above? I just don't know how a Rand Paul detractor could respond to Hunter's very correct arguments.
You need to read the other blogs. Many Paul supporters are livid!
W., what Mr. Adams did wrong was accouncing an endorsement before it had actually happened.
CorpsmanUp- like on RonPaulForums.com or the DailyPaul, two of the biggest websites frequented by "Paulistas"? I don't see too many livid commenters there. And I certainly haven't seen someone say, "That's it- I'm calling it quits and not supporting Rand because Palin endorsed him."Pete- Meh, it's definitely a political mistake as CorpsmanUp and I agreed above. As a new campaign manager, he's going to make some. I certainly don't think it's a very costly political mistake, and especially not if that endorsement is indeed forthcoming. Lisa's article has a tone of sanctimony and outrage that I would say is unwarranted by Adams' actions.
Mess:Paul's folks reading Paul's stuff is a no brainer and I frankly don't mind. I'm referring to the rest of the world who read the completely wacked out comments written by Rand Paul "supporters" which are cutting him like the proverbial "Death by a Thousand Cuts."If you don't like Lisa's blogs, don't read them. They are rivitting, though. Aren't they?
The original assertion I was referring to was: "This is going to cause a nuclers melt down in the Rand camp. If true it will push out the libertarian supporters."-and-"You need to read the other blogs. Many Paul supporters are livid!"Now if I were going to try and determine the overall feeling of "Paul supporters" or people in the "Rand camp," one of the best ways to do so is find the website where most of them congregate and read through the comments.At RonPaulForums.com and DailyPaul, which are two of the most key Paul-supporting websites on the Internet, I'm just not seeing the "nuclear meltdown," lividity, or "Death by a thousand cuts" that have been referenced in this comment thread. We may disagree about whether or not Paul is the best candidate for US Senate representing Kentucky, but let's please have an earnest discussion here and not a fight. I totally promise I'm not interested in picking fights or trolling around the Internet.If anything I've said has come across as combative or antagonistic, I sincerely do apologize and want to assure you that such a tone was unwarranted and unintended. I'm just trying to have a discussion here.I disagree with the claim that Rand Paul's folks are going to be down on him if he gets a Sarah Palin endorsement. I also disagree with Lisa's assessment that this is some sort of colossal political gaffe.Please don't take it personally or tell me that if I don't like Lisa's blogs then don't read them. I didn't say I don't like Lisa or her blogs. I simply disagree with her assertion. That's okay. Well-meaning, reasonable people can do that together and have discussions about those disagreements.