PDA

View Full Version : Should Rand Paul run in 2012?




itshappening
03-23-2011, 08:46 AM
Should Rand Paul run in 2012? He would easily win Iowa IMHO but is it too soon after being a senator for like 6 months?

low preference guy
03-23-2011, 08:54 AM
Missing option: He should not run but should toy with the idea that he might run to generate publicity.

Sola_Fide
03-23-2011, 09:03 AM
Rand Paul would win the Presidential race. He would be our next president if he ran in 2012.

STILL, I don't want him to run. I want Ron in those debates this year. I want the pure, hard-nosed libertarian fire-breather to destroy everybody on that stage...for the mere fact that it might likely be our country's last chance to see something like that.

AuH20
03-23-2011, 09:09 AM
Yes, yes and yes. Ron will probably ride off into the sunset knowing that brushfires have been lit across the nation. Meanwhile, Rand Paul is running in the most paleoconservative/libertarian friendly climate in decades. The state is literally crumbling around us, while we're searching for a safe haven.

Stary Hickory
03-23-2011, 09:15 AM
Yes it is his chance. Otherwise we get Rs for 8 years, and then he would have to face off against a VP.

This is an opportunity for Rand, moreso than for Ron IMO. And Rand is very effective at implementing and making palpable the message his dad is great at articulating.

JamesButabi
03-23-2011, 09:21 AM
Yes.....if Ron doesn't. I trust them to make the right decision. I can't imagine the level of commitment it takes to put your hat in the ring for a serious run, and I wouldn't blame run if he chose not to do it again.

Still going to see him in NH tomorrow :p

sailingaway
03-23-2011, 10:06 AM
You need a category for if his Dad doesn't run, only. That may be assumed, but I'm not voting because it isn't said.

However, even taking Ron out of the equation, there are downsides. Immediately some of the press got less glowing about him, and the leftist comments went back to primary mode, many of them. It would cut short his honeymoon, and he is having a terrific honeymoon. Right now all the conservatives are getting into his corner. As soon as he is seen as a threat to their favorite for president, that will change in many quarters. Also, some will say his great proposals were stunts for the Presidency to discount them, and they are really great proposals, and weren't anything of the sort.

However, if Ron really were to decide not to run, I would support Rand wholeheartedly. I disagree about Rand being better than Ron for this year, however. But he is head, shoulders and torso above anyone else.

Joseph
03-23-2011, 10:14 AM
I think it would be interesting if Rand ran instead of Ron, it would make for a good story. The father preparing his son to take on the establishment and then after setting the stage and starting the revolution, he passes the torch on to his son. I think if Rand ran he would win.

Having said all that I'd still be delighted to have Ron run, I think there is just so much enthusiasm for Ron Paul, just his name brings the ideas of liberty and what all he stands for to the forefront of peoples minds. Ron Paul is our version of Martin Luther King or Ghandi, he is the person who decided to step up and be a leader and we all decided to rally behind him and show the world that these ideas are worth something.

If either Ron or Rand ran in this political climate it would be a race that would continue on with the momentum that started in 2007 with the race that has changed the American political climate forever, the race that shook the political establishment to it's foundations. Either Ron or Rand would have a very good chance of winning this time around.

TheeJoeGlass
03-23-2011, 11:26 AM
I love Rand, but voted no. After Obama, it will be impossible for another Senator to get elected after just two years. 2016, I'm counting on it.

PaleoForPaul
03-23-2011, 11:38 AM
Yes, he has a better chance of winning than Ron does, and these are once in a lifetime opportunities.

I posted my opinion as to why he's more viable here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284350-Rand-Only-decision-I-ve-made-is-that-I-won-t-run-against-my-Dad&p=3172051#post3172051

Either way though, we win. :)

gls
03-23-2011, 11:45 AM
Voted "Yes" because I think that Rand would have a decent chance of winning the GOP nomination, not great, but certainly better than Ron (who unfortunately has slim to no chance given the numbers). Ron's record of being consistently proven right logically should work in his favor but emotionally I think voters will continue to "shoot the messenger". Even though father and son have nearly identical policies Rand couches his rhetoric in a much more careful manner which allows him to appeal to a wider swath of the party electorate, perhaps even enough to build a winning coalition.

itshappening
03-23-2011, 12:29 PM
I agree with the "once in a lifetime" opportunity.

i'm starting to come round to it now. I thought no way after just being elected but..

The GOP field sucks. He would cruise to a win in Iowa and SC and win the nomination. He would have big backing from us.

You just know it.

itshappening
03-23-2011, 12:32 PM
Also although he has only been in the senate a few months he can tell voters he has KEPT his promises, with his budget proposal etc. ("and now it's time to get it done, we dont have a lot of time, Obama is destroying America and refuses to lead")

itshappening
03-23-2011, 12:37 PM
this could be Rand's calling

There isn't much time to act..

AuH20
03-23-2011, 12:40 PM
even Salon agrees. Ignore Rand Paul at your own peril! If Rand enters, it's his race to lose in this incredibly pathetic GOP field. Yea, I just said that!! The outcome of the GOP nomination in 2012 will be almost entirely built from the initial excitement and numerous donations at the grassroots level, where the Paul machine dominates:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/23/rand_paul_president/index.html


Rand Paul could potentially deliver such a performance. In a crowded field likely to underwhelm the GOP base, it's not hard to imagine Paul -- with his brash style and message of absolute ideological purity -- standing out in debates and winning over more Republican voters than his father, who still struggles with basic television skills. The best-case scenario for Paul would probably be replicating what Pat Buchanan achieved in 1996: a surprisingly strong showing in Iowa (he nabbed 23 percent, good for second place), followed by a startling win (with just 29 percent of the vote) in New Hampshire -- at which point a panicked GOP establishment rallied around the strongest non-Buchanan candidate (Bob Dole) and denied him the nomination.

If this doesn't seem like much to shoot for, just remember that for a few weeks in the winter of 1996, Buchanan's rise was the biggest news story in America. It didn't last long and it's largely forgotten now, but it probably provided Buchanan enough thrills to last the rest of his life. And while he was riding that post-New Hampshire wave, he surely believed the ultimate prize was within his reach -- even if his party was never going to let it happen.

And anyway, even if Paul failed to do as well as Buchanan, his campaign would still be a delight to watch: Just imagine what his debates with Mitt Romney will be like when the subject turns to healthcare ...

itshappening
03-23-2011, 12:42 PM
Rand could announce his run on the steps of the KY legislature in May, during prime time

Imagine it, with his family.

"I want to tell the people of Kentucky why i've decided to seek the GOP nomination for president. Because I believe Obama has failed and there's not much time.. I believe I can take the message to the country and win"

The he flies to Iowa.

The whole nation will be shocked and talking about it

Go on Rand, do it!

tangent4ronpaul
03-23-2011, 01:01 PM
I love Rand, but voted no. After Obama, it will be impossible for another Senator to get elected after just two years. 2016, I'm counting on it.

I agree. Even Ron said he needs more experience. If he did run, the Obama mistake would be used against him. Now running for VP - that's a diff story... and I still think a Paul/Paul ticket might work. Double the face time, at a min. They could cover a lot more ground. OTOH: Rand will campaign for his dad if he runs, anyway.

-t

AuH20
03-23-2011, 01:11 PM
Dear Rand, if you're reading this, please run. Note the term "GENERIC REPUBLICAN."


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/151461-pew-poll-obama-would-deliver-shellacking-to-generic-republican

RP Supporter
03-23-2011, 01:18 PM
I'd prefer Ron Paul to run, even if his chances might not be as good as Rand's. I think Obama will win in 2012, which sets Rand up perfectly for 2016(Though hopefully he runs for Senate again as well) He's already established a record as a conservative politician who sticks to his principals, and the tea partiers love him. Honestly, I think he'd be one of the frontrunners for the nomination. The only politician I could see challenging him for it would be Rubio, who it's become evident is being groomed for the role. But I think Rand could win, especially since Rubio's disappointed a lot of his earliest backers who thought he'd be much more conservative then he actually is.

After 8 years of Obama, the nation would be begging for some real leadership, and Rand would provide that. If he won the primary he'd be almost a shoe in to win the general. I mean, who do the Democrats really have, besides Hillary? So IMHO Ron should run to win this year. If he loses the nomination we hope Obama wins, because that sets up the path perfectly for Rand in 2016.

S.Shorland
03-23-2011, 01:24 PM
The MSM seems to have chosen Pawlenty (T-Paw).Already,old ladies of the sort that anyone would love are saying 'I'd like to hear more about him'.(Probably in response to a leading question to elicit that exact quotable response but anyway).Any politics student who wants to record these instances of bias and voter leading would launch a career for themselves,imo.

speciallyblend
03-23-2011, 01:28 PM
Missing option: He should not run but should toy with the idea that he might run to generate publicity.

exactly what i was thinking!!

PaleoForPaul
03-23-2011, 01:29 PM
From Salon:


The best-case scenario for Paul would probably be replicating what Pat Buchanan achieved in 1996: a surprisingly strong showing in Iowa (he nabbed 23 percent, good for second place), followed by a startling win (with just 29 percent of the vote) in New Hampshire -- at which point a panicked GOP establishment rallied around the strongest non-Buchanan candidate (Bob Dole) and denied him the nomination.

I'm not sure the GOP would deny Rand Paul. They perceive Rand to be less ideologically pure than Ron Paul. Furthermore the party elders really rallied against Buchanan because ideologically he was very far from what they could accept, and furthermore they thought he'd sink the party forever. There were a few reasons for this in my opinion:

1. Buchanan was anti-Free Trade. Not just a little bit either, he wanted to slap tariffs on all foreign goods. This meant just about every corporation in the 1990's that was drooling to get slave labor overseas and sell cheap goods to Americans were against Buchanan. A lot of those big donors wouldn't be happy with the RNC had Buchanan got the nomination.

2. Buchanan's nomination would have meant a lifetime of mau mau'ing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_%26_Mau-Mauing_the_Flak_Catchers) of the Republican party. Buchanan made a career out of controversial statements about minorities and women. Even if some of his statements had merit, I'm sure everyone here is aware of how things work nowadays after seeing what happened to Rand's attempt to intellectually discuss the civil rights act being reported on as if he had called for a genocide.


3. Buchanan's prior statements about the Jews didn't sit well with Republicans either.

Overall, the Republican establishment did not want to be "the white party" which was what they were afraid Buchanan would make them.

Rand carries none of the baggage Pat Buchanan did. Comparing him to Buchanan is simply a way to smear him in my opinion, due to the 1964 civil rights act bs from the madcow show.

I think the Republican establishment could live with Rand Paul, long before putting up with Pat Buchanan. In fact I believe they would see Rand as someone they could work with because of his lack of record, while they might not view Ron Paul in the same light.

Rand Paul could win the nomination. Almost anyone who runs can win the nomination in modern politics.

Nobody thought Carter could win the nomination in 1976, and he won the presidency. The same happened with Clinton in 1992. McCain was dead in the water at one point in 2008, out of money and was expected to drop out. Who thought Obama would beat Hillary or Edwards before the 2008 primaries?

PaleoForPaul
03-23-2011, 01:38 PM
I think Obama will win in 2012, which sets Rand up perfectly for 2016(Though hopefully he runs for Senate again as well) He's already established a record as a conservative politician who sticks to his principals, and the tea partiers love him. .

By 2016 Rand will have a voting record which is actually detrimental at this point in presidential politics:

Picture it, in 2014 a bill comes to the house floor named:

the "SAVE THE CHILDREN FROM IRANIAN RAPE AND PROVIDE EQUALITY TO MINORITIES act of 2014"
which is 4000 pages of pork, handouts, deceleration of a war against Iran, and requires anal probes of anyone boarding a plane.

Rand votes against it, in 2016 when he runs, everyone on the view says he rapes children and hates minorities. 55% of people are stupid enough to believe it and vote against him.

This is one of the reasons Obama did so well, and Kerry faired so poorly. Kerry had a lot more experience, but he was dogged as a "flip flopper" because after so many years of course he had some votes that contradicted each other. Obama had no record, and people are so shallow that they didn't care. Yes, there were a lot of other factors.

Don't think the same thing won't happen to Ron Paul either. He voted against the "Violence Against Women Act" which if you look into it is indeed an awful law. If Ron gets the nomination, I guarantee you the harpies on the view will be saying "RON PAUL SUPPORTS VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN!!!!"

AuH20
03-23-2011, 01:44 PM
From Salon:



I'm not sure the GOP would deny Rand Paul. They perceive Rand to be less ideologically pure than Ron Paul. Furthermore the party elders really rallied against Buchanan because ideologically he was very far from what they could accept, and furthermore they thought he'd sink the party forever. There were a few reasons for this in my opinion:

1. Buchanan was anti-Free Trade. Not just a little bit either, he wanted to slap tariffs on all foreign goods. This meant just about every corporation in the 1990's that was drooling to get slave labor overseas and sell cheap goods to Americans were against Buchanan. A lot of those big donors wouldn't be happy with the RNC had Buchanan got the nomination.

2. Buchanan's nomination would have meant a lifetime of mau mau'ing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_%26_Mau-Mauing_the_Flak_Catchers) of the Republican party. Buchanan made a career out of controversial statements about minorities and women. Even if some of his statements had merit, I'm sure everyone here is aware of how things work nowadays after seeing what happened to Rand's attempt to intellectually discuss the civil rights act being reported on as if he had called for a genocide.


3. Buchanan's prior statements about the Jews didn't sit well with Republicans either.

Overall, the Republican establishment did not want to be "the white party" which was what they were afraid Buchanan would make them.

Rand carries none of the baggage Pat Buchanan did. Comparing him to Buchanan is simply a way to smear him in my opinion, due to the 1964 civil rights act bs from the madcow show.

I think the Republican establishment could live with Rand Paul, long before putting up with Pat Buchanan. In fact I believe they would see Rand as someone they could work with because of his lack of record, while they might not view Ron Paul in the same light.

Rand Paul could win the nomination. Almost anyone who runs can win the nomination in modern politics.

Nobody thought Carter could win the nomination in 1976, and he won the presidency. The same happened with Clinton in 1992. McCain was dead in the water at one point in 2008, out of money and was expected to drop out. Who thought Obama would beat Hillary or Edwards before the 2008 primaries?

Rand is staunchly anti-Wall Street & anti-Empire, especially when considering his well-known opinion of the Federal Reserve. He doesn't worship at the altar of GDP like the other generic republicans. He is simply too dangerous for the GOP elders to let navigate the party. I think they will do all in their power to crush him, just like Goldwater and Buchanan. You have to understand that the fear is palpable when a constitutionalist like Rand is governing based on what's right for the America citizen, as opposed to a select group of special interests inside the U.S. and abroad.

AuH20
03-23-2011, 02:05 PM
It's pretty shocking to see how many Hannity forum members believe Paul to be their first choice.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=2224991

And while this conclusion may be non-scientific, if you ever stumble into Free Republic he surprisingly gets more love there than you would think. You can feel the tremors throughout the various conservative circles. "Who is this Rand Paul guy creating all the fuss and challenging the Republican orthodoxy?"

PaleoForPaul
03-23-2011, 02:14 PM
Rand is staunchly anti-Wall Street & anti-Empire, especially when considering his well-known opinion of the Federal Reserve. He doesn't worship at the altar of GDP like the other generic republicans. He is simply too dangerous for the GOP elders to let navigate the party. I think they will do all in their power to crush him, just like Goldwater and Buchanan. You have to understand that the fear is palpable when a constitutionalist like Rand is governing based on what's right for the America citizen, as opposed to a select group of special interests inside the U.S. and abroad.

I have no doubt that the Fed stuff and the anti-interventionist stuff scares the hell out of the Party. Rand really isn't anti-Wall Street, he's anti public funds to wall street. Of course the GOP's donors won't like that. I could easily see them thinking they could reign in Rand on some things, whereas they might not feel the same way about Ron. Rand gives the illusion of more flexibility because he's more understated than Ron.

I don't think they will fear Rand the way they did Buchanan. Rand would mean they have to deal with someone who disagrees with them on civil liberties, the fed, and interventionism. Buchanan would have meant all the Neocons were going to be chased out and the party's platform remade. Rand isn't the type to chase anyone out, or at least he hasn't verbally threated to do so.

I believe Pat even said something about "chasing the money changers out of the temple", even the Paul's with their anti-fed stance don't really go to the length of advocating violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple