I can understand the confusion for some Americans who do not understand what Baby Paul's beliefs really stand for. The media does a terrible job when it comes to explaining the positions our politicians take. And they are even worse when someone like Poppa Paul takes the podium because they either don't spend the time researching a fringe type figure, are afraid to expose their views publicly, or feel it's not worth the effort to do so.

But for any liberal who does know the difference, especially a smart one like Robert Scheer really makes me shake my head.

He wrote a piece in The Nation called: Who's Afraid of Rand Paul?

I understand his frustration absolutely at what has happened since the 2008 election, but Scheer is either too angry to think straight or he's being played for a sucker. He writes:

How bad could it be to have another irascible Paul in the Congress?

How bad? Very, very, very f'n bad.

I imagine he's seen Baby Paul's appearance on Rachel Maddow already.

(How quick is Baby Paul backtracking now?)

If Scheer cringed, was it because he actually thought Paul would make a good Senator and he just looked really bad on TV or was it awakening to the fact that he had let himself get conned? Paul worships at the alter of anti-government, free markets and big business (He hates that the ladies have rights too) and after watching the oil spill nightmare, I bet Rand is still against regulating Big Oil. I'm waiting for a reporter or pundit to ask him that question. I won't get into every problem Baby Paul represents to our country if he becomes a Senator, they are too numerous to write down here.

Just so you know, one of the reasons I call Rand 'Baby Paul' is because of the nepotism that has fueled his run at office.