PDA

View Full Version : Politco: Rand Paul might run for President




Matt Collins
02-04-2011, 03:47 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Another_Paul_campaign.html

DrRP08
02-04-2011, 04:45 PM
Interesting. I think he definitely has a better chance than his father, but of course his father is also wiser and a better debater imo.

sratiug
02-04-2011, 04:52 PM
Of course, what he said was, "if nominated, I will run." Nominated by whom, he did not say.

specsaregood
02-04-2011, 04:57 PM
Saw that coming......

ItsTime
02-04-2011, 05:02 PM
Not going to happen in 2012.

2young2vote
02-04-2011, 05:03 PM
Err, i say wait at least one term.

trey4sports
02-04-2011, 05:07 PM
he wasn't talking about this cycle.

However, his father is a perfect candidate if i may say so myself!

muzzled dogg
02-04-2011, 05:25 PM
could be why ron was like, ehhhhhhhhh

sailingaway
02-04-2011, 06:17 PM
could be why ron was like, ehhhhhhhhh

If Ron wants Rand to run, Ron has to not be coy about it. If Ron doesn't want to run and wants to be busy in committee, and wants Rand to carry the message, it has to come from Ron. Ron has a record of consistency when these topics WEREN'T popular, and people are set to see him run. They won't look anywhere else unless that option isn't available.

Justinjj1
02-04-2011, 06:26 PM
God, I hope he doesn't. I want Ron to run.

satchelmcqueen
02-04-2011, 09:11 PM
talk about an informative debate for the average citizen. rand and ron ..... awesome.

tangent4ronpaul
02-04-2011, 09:15 PM
Paul/Paul ticket?

Nic
02-04-2011, 09:33 PM
Interesting. I still like the idea of a Paul/Paul ticket in spite of what some others may say.

RonPaulFanInGA
02-04-2011, 09:36 PM
Politico trolling for hits.

Nic
02-04-2011, 09:52 PM
After watching the video, there's no hints of Rand running in 2012. Agreed...politico trolling for traffic

R3volutionJedi
02-05-2011, 11:32 AM
2012: Ron Paul
2016: RP's vp or Rand

juvanya
02-05-2011, 05:59 PM
Too young. Too early. Wait for 2016 or 2020 at least.

anaconda
02-05-2011, 11:05 PM
Rand's "run" would not have to amount to anything more than participating in the debates and would only cost him air fare. He has a lot of unique things to say about national policy. He should run. If he polls well, he can step it up and try to raise money. Why leave the debates to a monopoly of statist hacks? In fact, Mike Lee should jump in also. And Ron Paul. Ron and Rand could spend the money jointly: "I'm Ron Paul, and I'm Rand Paul, and we approve this message."

Agorism
02-05-2011, 11:11 PM
I say one term as well. We haven't even see many votes.

sailingaway
02-06-2011, 09:59 AM
Rand's "run" would not have to amount to anything more than participating in the debates and would only cost him air fare. He has a lot of unique things to say about national policy. He should run. If he polls well, he can step it up and try to raise money. Why leave the debates to a monopoly of statist hacks? In fact, Mike Lee should jump in also. And Ron Paul. Ron and Rand could spend the money jointly: "I'm Ron Paul, and I'm Rand Paul, and we approve this message."

No. If Ron and Rand run it would split votes. Also, Rand is much more careful with how he says things and frankly isn't as satisfying simply on the debate front. What Rand has is that IF Ron doesn't want to run and IF most of Ron's supporters can be enthusiastic about Rand, then Rand also has people willing to give him a fresh look whereas due to Ron's age and past demonization in the media, this is not something as many in the GOP primary are necessarily are open to with Ron. How much that would weigh against the fact that Ron is more popular with independents and some progressives, I don't know, but it sure could make a difference in a primar IF they see him as 'fresh', not 'really out of line' for starting too soon. But Rand only makes sense if Ron won't run or if we are going to win.

In DEBATES Ron can say the truth and it can't hurt him much, because he always has. Rand is trying to get things done and is being more conciliatory. Even on the subway speech, we are all happy to hear him say 'I might ask if we should spend $100 million a month to go after 100 Taliban', which is 'edgy, but you know what Ron would say, and even if it pisses some off, it makes people think. And he still marshalls history better, he is more used to arguing these points with people who don't agree and has sat on the foreign policy committee since forever. And he sends out clarion calls to liberty, and when you look at his record, he is absolutely solid. If this is to be an educational campaign, Ron is the one to run it -- unless he is busy with a committee he has worked to get for a decade at least, and wants to have Rand do it. Ron deserves to make his own decisions, and if HE decides not to run, I'd support Rand.

anaconda
02-06-2011, 05:49 PM
No. If Ron and Rand run it would split votes. Also, Rand is much more careful with how he says things and frankly isn't as satisfying simply on the debate front. What Rand has is that IF Ron doesn't want to run and IF most of Ron's supporters can be enthusiastic about Rand, then Rand also has people willing to give him a fresh look whereas due to Ron's age and past demonization in the media, this is not something as many in the GOP primary are necessarily are open to with Ron. How much that would weigh against the fact that Ron is more popular with independents and some progressives, I don't know, but it sure could make a difference in a primar IF they see him as 'fresh', not 'really out of line' for starting too soon. But Rand only makes sense if Ron won't run or if we are going to win.

In DEBATES Ron can say the truth and it can't hurt him much, because he always has. Rand is trying to get things done and is being more conciliatory. Even on the subway speech, we are all happy to hear him say 'I might ask if we should spend $100 million a month to go after 100 Taliban', which is 'edgy, but you know what Ron would say, and even if it pisses some off, it makes people think. And he still marshalls history better, he is more used to arguing these points with people who don't agree and has sat on the foreign policy committee since forever. And he sends out clarion calls to liberty, and when you look at his record, he is absolutely solid. If this is to be an educational campaign, Ron is the one to run it -- unless he is busy with a committee he has worked to get for a decade at least, and wants to have Rand do it. Ron deserves to make his own decisions, and if HE decides not to run, I'd support Rand.

We need more than just one libertarian voice on stage simply for the peer dynamic.Otherwise everyone giggles at Ron and moderators get rude and so forth. We are still educating people and Ron and Rand would be cool up there. Father and son in the debates would be press worthy. One or the other could drop out by Xmas. Or maybe give their delegates to one or the other later down the road, but I don't know how that works. So I'm not sure I'm fully on board with the vote splitting theory. Plus it can only help us to have more freedom voices who will call out the neocons on their insincerity even though they will all be trying to sound like Reagan this time. Rand and Ron will be able to easily call bullshit on them.

anaconda
02-06-2011, 05:52 PM
Too young. Too early. Wait for 2016 or 2020 at least.

I think he might be wildly popular. He is well prepared to be President. Now. He understands politics far better than Reagan ever did. He'll have gobs of good advice.

sailingaway
02-06-2011, 07:33 PM
We need more than just one libertarian voice on stage simply for the peer dynamic.Otherwise everyone giggles at Ron and moderators get rude and so forth. We are still educating people and Ron and Rand would be cool up there. Father and son in the debates would be press worthy. One or the other could drop out by Xmas. Or maybe give their delegates to one or the other later down the road, but I don't know how that works. So I'm not sure I'm fully on board with the vote splitting theory. Plus it can only help us to have more freedom voices who will call out the neocons on their insincerity even though they will all be trying to sound like Reagan this time. Rand and Ron will be able to easily call bullshit on them.

I disagree. I think Bachmann et al being there is going to peel people off enough, with having listened to him just enough to parrot some back to audiences who don't know batter. I've seen this idea before, previously with GJohnson, and I personally think it has zero merit. It sounds like spin, not logic to me. (I don't mean YOU aren't sincere, I just mean it baffles me how people can come to that conclusion.)

Matt Collins
02-07-2011, 07:14 PM
WSJ now thinks that Rand might run instead:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/07/a-presidential-run-for-rep-ron-paul/


So does HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/rand-paul-president-2012-video_n_818816.html