Time for a Rand Paul Thread

Until as late as 2007, no one was really quite sure if the ophthalmologist would ever follow in the footsteps of his father, former Texas Congressman and libertarian icon, Ron Paul. After all, he has never openly displayed any ambition for even state level politics. His seemingly abandoned advocacy group, the Kentucky Taxpayers United, along with the opening of his own private medical practice in Bowling Green, strengthened the impression that the Duke graduate was content on watching his father from the sidelines.

All that changed when Rand traveled with his father’s campaign across ten states during the 2008 Republican primary season. Speaking to supporters at numerous rallies and stopovers, Rand was polished, knowledgeable, and above all, struck a deep chord with the embryonic Tea Party movement. The following year, the self -professed constitutional conservative launched his Senatorial campaign, and within 24 hours of his announcement, created political online history in Kentucky when his campaign collected over $430,000 in donations.

Rand would go on to defeat the favorite, Kentucky’s Secretary of State Trey Grayson, in the Republican primary by 23.4% to set up a contest with Democrat Jack Conway, the state’s Attorney General. In a surprising turn, Rand and PACs working on his behalf received almost 50% more contributions compared to Conway, allowing him to claw back from a 5% polling deficit to a 15% lead. Rand maintained his form in the run up to the general election to emerge as the winner by a comfortable 11% margin. His swearing in on January 5, 2011, marked the first time that a father and son combo served in Congress.

Senator Paul currently sits on five Senate Committees and is roundly seen as the leader of the conservative-libertarian bloc in Congress.

Rand Paul will announce his candidacy today in Louisville, Kentucky. Immediately following the announcement, he sets out on a four-day tour of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, some of the first four states holding 2016 primaries or caucuses. What are his chances for a Republican nomination? A general election?

I believe his recent move towards the center has alienated any libertarian following, and he'll have trouble gaining momentum with the mainstream GOP. He may jump in the polls over the next week or so, but that will be short lived.

 

Rand Paul will probably have modest success in the Republican primaries, but I don't think he has what it takes to win the nomination. Even if he did, Hillary would probably mop the floor with him. Those are just my thoughts.

 

Randy is the only hope Republicans have of attracting younger and minority voters, so it's essential to the party bosses that he appears to be taken seriously by them, but Netanyahu would never allow him to be nominated.

He could be setting the groundwork for a 2020 run when circumstances, priorities, and the GOP will have shifted significantly.

 

I can see the headlines now...."Dream's of my Father".....no not Obama, but Rand Paul...

Personally I like many of his idea's, but on Foreign affairs, I feel and think many voters will consider his isolationist policy as a bit archaic. Then most folks want some governing experience, have many to choose from, Paul has none.

 

He could win the primaries, if the Karl Roves of the repubs would stay out of it. Their ilk is why the repubs have been losing presidential races. McCain and Romney, are you kidding?? Hillary would never mop the floor with Rand in a debate, she doesn't present well.

 

I don't like him. He sells himself off as a Libertarian, but he's not. I wouldn't want the name "Libertarian" ruined by a candidate like that. If he wasn't saying that, he wouldn't make too bad of a candidate. He's open to listening to minorities, something not too many people in his party can say. I don't think he's going to win the nomination, but I can see him running when he's gotten more experience under his belt.

 

No libertarian is really libertarian, scratch any of them and you come up with hard shell conservative justified by a slightly different ideology

 

That's just it, there are Libertarians out there. The issues they support might sound similar but they're coming from very different backgrounds. A Libertarian and Conservative will disagree over the role of the state, interference in the economy etc. There are noticable differences between them.

 

I like him better than Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Hillary, Huckleberry, etc. and I don't care what he calls himself.

 

I feel like libertarian best describes me. I am quite liberal on a lot of social issues, abortion, the death penalty, etc. Basically, I feel that the government works for ME and not the other way around, and I feel that they have no right to interfere in our individual liberties or what we do with our own bodies.

I am a lot more conservative when it comes to fiscal governmental issues. I believe in a strong military. I believe in lowering taxes, etc.

 

As long as he calls himself a chameleon.

 

Claiming Rand Paul is not a "true libertarian" and therefore does not deserve any support is the latest from the "progressive" media. It means the progs are afraid of Paul, progs know Rand Paul crosses party lines and will attract a lot of young voters the "progressives" take for granted (and Paul has been talking to African American audiences, that scares progs more than anything).

And are you a libertarian? I never would have guessed it, you come across in almost every thread as a "progressive".

 

You need to read "all of the papers" Ron Paul wrote while serving in Congress and then read his exit speech have gave on the floor the first time he left Congress. They are awesome. His son is quite different than his father, IMO, even though both support the majority of what would be considered Libertarian positions.

There is only one reason he wouldn't do well in the Primaries, and that is verbal attacks by the radical right and by mainstream media outlets.

I would vote for him because he supports my more liberal social views and my more moderate-conservative fiscal views. Only Republican Candidate I see that would do this.

And, he isn't in the pocket of the Republican Party. If you want a President that supports your civil/constitutional rights, less Federal government control of our lives, restoration of State rights , working toward a balanced budget he is the only person that fits the bill. Plus, as far as National Security and Defense, Paul follows the Constitution.
1. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution lists 17 separate powers that are granted to the Congress. Six of those powers deal exclusively with the national defense—far more than any other specific area of governance—and grant the full range of authorities necessary for establishing the defense of the nation as it was then understood. Congress is given specific authority to declare war, raise and support armies, provide for a navy, establish the rules for the operation of American military forces, organize and arm the militias of the states, and specify the conditions for converting the militias into national service.

2.Article 2 establishes the President as the "Commander and Chief", when Congress declares War.

3. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.

4.National Defense is the only "mandatory" function of the Federal Government. National defense is exclusively the function of the national government, only exception being that states may act on their own if actually invaded.

Sounds good to me. But in order to fulfill this mandatory function we need to beef up our defenses on our borders, update our missile defense, satellite systems "first". Before we deploy our servicemen, give away equipment, guns, ammunition, and the like to Countries fighting the same religious wars they have been fighting since the time of Jesus. Historically, attempting to fight these Countries wars for them has been a losing endeavor in the long run. We should deploy our resources only when are goal is to win and win quickly. And when the citizens and the Government of these Countries are fully on board.

Rand Paul wants to restore our controlling military position in the world first and foremost to protect the country and our boarders, but, he is not objectionable to deploying are forces when it is necessary to protect, OUR Country, first and foremost. This is actually what the Founders of the Constitution desired.

Sorry, but if things keep up the way they have been going since Obama and his socialist Administration took office, we will back where we started prior to establishing this Country and revolting against monarchy and autocracy. Or worse, living in a welfare state or under a

 

Rand Paul isn't as pure libertarian as his father - what do people expect? Ron Paul has been the face of libertarianism in the U.S. for years, that'd be like saying Nader's son isn't green enough. :/

Rand isn't super-libertarian, but let's be real here and note two things: 1) neither party has a serious contender who is as libertarian as he is, and 2) if nominated, he would easily be the most libertarian nominee of our lifetimes [so far].

Now as to whether he can win the nomination - I wouldn't write him off. He was a top contender in polling for a long time, and has only dropped off recently because of the massive media attention that Bush and to a greater extent Walker have been getting. Paul has a lot of advantages that people seem to forget out of sheer desire:

1. Paul really does have the base that his father built, which is strong in key states. Ron Paul was 3rd in Iowa with 21.5%, just 3% behind the winner. Ron Paul was also 2nd in NH, with 23%.
2. Rand Paul is the most popular 2nd choice - consider how that will impact elections when candidates drop.
3. The candidates most likely to drop draw largely from the same kinds of voters as Paul. These are namely Cruz and Carson, neither of which have a real chance of winning the nomination. There is a fair chance these two will endorse Paul on their withdrawal.
4. Paul is probably the most skilled public speaker of the candidates that are considered.
[video=youtube;vBRlpzT5soc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBRlpzT5soc[/video]
5. The Koch Brothers. Look, we all know that Rand Paul is the most libertarian candidate, and he has an actual shot at winning the nomination. Let's be straight here - would anyone be shocked if the libertarian Koch brothers decided to back the libertarian Rand Paul?
6. There is a very real chance that the Libertarian Party may co-nominate Rand Paul

 

rand paul is a nazi so is his dad ron, so is everything about their policies

http://www.amazon.com/Ron-Paul-Americas-Most-Dangerous/dp/147001453X
http://www.slideshare.net/AJWeberman/ron-paul-the-most-dangerous-nazi-in-america

 

I agree with your first claim, but not your second. Rand Paul is not far right enough to win the nomination IMO, but if some sort of freak accident occurs and he does win, I think Hillary will (*)(*)(*)(*) her pants. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if alot of the hawkish PACs pushing the attack ads against Paul aren't getting partial funding from Clintonites. Not a big Rand Paul fan myself (I'm a little wary of alot of his economic views), but I see Rand Paul as having great appeal with voters outside the general Republican voting bloc. Hillary being the somewhat conservative Democrat she is, alot of moderate liberals in the media (such as Bill Maher) have expressed great interest in Paul. He has also been able to speak and even receive standing ovations at highly minority populated, liberal places (like Berkely). I think a Clinton vs. Paul race will be a rare race where the Republican is to the left of the Democrat on many issues, and the minority vote is largely secured with the Republican. It would be an interesting one indeed, and one Paul would probably come out ahead of in a landslide.

 

I don't think there is a place in America for a Libertarian like Rand Paul. He believes in negotiation before invasion. That just ain't America.

 

Criticizing Israeli foreign policy does not make you a nazi. Get over yourself.

 

This guy does not look presidential, his policies are half baked, and god forbid he ever gets in a tank this doufus would make Dukakis look manly.

 

Oh please, this is what the Tea Party has been doing for years about the GOP. "They're not Conservative enough." "They're Democrats in disguise." I might believe the outrage, but it just doesn't seem like the honest thing to do.

No, but that doesn't mean that I don't share similar positions with him. I would rather have a Libertarian in office then a Liberal or Conservative. Remember, I wanted Gary Johnson to win in 2012.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure he's better then them, but it's still the lesser of two evil. I wouldn't want to vote for that, I would vote for the person I want to win, regardless of they win or not.

 

Sure, that's completely possible. The political spectrum is for people to say whatever they feel best describes them. At the end of the day it's better to say what you think describes you versus what some test says. Political ideologies are a strange thing, and the arguments we hear for one doesn't necessarily reflect all of the different views of that ideology.

 

I have a difficult time associating myself with any political party to be honest. I like bits and pieces from each and dislike a LOT about them all.

 

Ask anyone, we hate them the big two ones. I'm sure you'll find some party you can agree with the most part with. That's why third parties exist.

 

Evening Chris, I think the problem today is too many who identify or affiliate themselves with the two major parties are too busy putting their party way above country and nation. We should have Americans serving in Washington who just happen to be Republicans and Democrats. Not Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans.

I still claim the Reform Party as my party. Stay out of social issues and get your fiscal house in order. That about sums them up.

 

Absolutely. I don't trust or like either of them. What have they done for us lately? Scandals, lies, corruption, using loopholes to get what they want. It's the three Ds, disgusting, disappointing and discouraging. Lol.

I'm not familiar with the reform party. I'll have to check them out.

- - - Updated - - -

The playing field has to be leveled off in order for them to compete. Most of the time, 3rd party candidates just cannot compete with the republicans or democrats and their huge super PAC funding.