Sen. Rand Paul ready to 'explore' 2012 bid if...

[itshappening]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Thursday he intends to "explore" a run for president in 2012 should his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), decide against another campaign.

"He has not made his mind up," Paul said of his father at a Thursday appearance in Kentucky. "If he does not run, I have not ruled it out, and I will think about it."

Earlier in the day, Paul told a Kentucky radio station that if the Texas congressman doesn't run, "then I think there are options open and we will explore those options."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/151723-sen-rand-paul-ready-to-explore-2012-bid-

[ItsTime]

A little late to start exploring? But maybe this is a bad sign that Ron wont run.

[PatriotOne]

The more and more I think about it, the more it makes sense. If RP passes the torch to his son, I am ready to support Rand whole heartedly

[ItsTime]

^Same here.

[Aratus]

i'm happy either way! if neither run, we need
to somehow herding cats find a consensus or
at least an online agreement to be very nice
to each other if people here go threeways or
fiveways almost all across the political map!!!

[LudwigVonMisoSoup]

As I've alluded to on other posts here, Rand really is our best chance for 2012. The experience thing can't be lobbed his way because Obama, too, only had a few years in the senate before his run. Rand has the support of all of us Ron Paul supporters as well as a number of neocon radio hosts (Hannity, Dennis Miller, Levin, Igraham, etc.). There are also a good number of progressives who respect his views on the Patriot Act, Iraq War, etc. This is setting up to be a very interesting election cycle.

[roho76]

I'm having a hard time disagreeing with this idea.

Ron is where he needs to be. Grilling the FED on a regular basis.

Rand is uniting the republicans and they will vote for him in the primary where NeoCons will not vote for Ron.

If Ron doesn't run than Rand had better or at least Gary Johnson. I need someone with principal to vote for. I can't vote for Bob Barr and cool as chuck Baldwin is I'd like someone who can actually win.

[Wren]

As I've alluded to on other posts here, Rand really is our best chance for 2012. The experience thing can't be lobbed his way because Obama, too, only had a few years in the senate before his run. Rand has the support of all of us Ron Paul supporters as well as a number of neocon radio hosts (Hannity, Dennis Miller, Levin, Igraham, etc.). There are also a good number of progressives who respect his views on the Patriot Act, Iraq War, etc. This is setting up to be a very interesting election cycle.

A few years in the senate vs. the few months Rand has been in office are not really comparable. I'd still prefer if his dad ran, it's still way too early for rand to consider a shot at the presidency. Personally, I think he's just flirting with the idea so that it garners media attention and support for Ron. He's written an entire book designed for the average conservative but packaged in a way that lays out his father's policies.

[Aratus]

its seminally like barry goldwater's concience of a conservative

[sailingaway]

A few years in the senate vs. the few months Rand has been in office are not really comparable. I'd still prefer if his dad ran, it's still way too early for rand to consider a shot at the presidency. Personally, I think he's just flirting with the idea so that it garners media attention and support for Ron. He's written an entire book designed for the average conservative but packaged in a way that lays out his father's policies.

Me too. Those really pushing Rand over Ron mostly (but not all) are also pushing Gary Johnson. It seems like some subset just wants Ron to quit sucking the oxygen out of the room.

However, if Ron decides not to run -- on his own, not because he's pushed into it, I would be disappointed, but would back Rand in that circumstance if he chose to run. I'm not really sure it is in RAND's best interest to run, but that would be his choice, at that point.

[FrankRep]

Paul / Paul 2012!

[Agorism]

I'm fine with either, but I'm hoping Rand will call a vote for a declaration of war with Libya.

[gls]

Rand should run and win. He strikes the perfect balance between principle and pragmatism, and the country is ready for his message. Ron's forte is running educational campaigns, and he has done an excellent job of spreading a philosophically consistent message of liberty. But that is no longer enough; America desperately needs a president who truly believes in the power of freedom in the White House in 2013, and I honestly think Rand has what it takes to get there.

[AuH20]

Me too. Those really pushing Rand over Ron mostly (but not all) are also pushing Gary Johnson. It seems like some subset just wants Ron to quit sucking the oxygen out of the room.

However, if Ron decides not to run -- on his own, not because he's pushed into it, I would be disappointed, but would back Rand in that circumstance if he chose to run. I'm not really sure it is in RAND's best interest to run, but that would be his choice, at that point.

I think it's more attributable to the fact that the electoral dynamics have changed. Brand identity is at an all-time high and Rand is coming off a roaring upset in which he took out the Republican establishment candidate and then the democratic choice. Ride the momentum. The opposition will go back to the well dredging up Aqua Buddha, the Civil Rights Act, appearances on the Alex Jones Show & whatever they can twist and contort to their narrow agenda. But it's not going to stick. Even some members of the hardened opposition have regretfully admitted that Rand is likeable and well-spoken. This genuineness will go a long way in warding off attacks.

[FrankRep]

Glenn Beck: Rand Paul may be one of the only politicians I agree with and trust [8/14/09]
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284514-Glenn-Beck-Rand-Paul-may-be-one-of-the-only-politicians-I-agree-with-and-trust-8-14-09

[Liberty_Mike]

Rand Paul is the shit and I really hope he runs for president, but not in 2012. I think he needs to focus on reforming the Senate right now, and Ron should still plan on running. Plus, Rand could be the first US Senator to endorse Ron Paul for president! Maybe Mike Lee would follow?

[Slutter McGee]

Ron is hitting 8 to 12% in most polls. whereas in 2007 he was at 0 percent. Although I still think that Rand has a better shot politically at becoming president, I would still like Ron to run. Rand may be able to play the political game, but Ron can play the fundraising game. Personally, I would like to see Ron try again, with better chances than last time, and increase the fundraising base even more for a potential Rand run in 2016.

Granted, I am just an armchair campaign manager, but just my thoughts.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[nate895]

I really don't think anyone besides Ron Paul is truly viable this go around. Rand hasn't even been in the Senate long enough to memorize everyone's name, let alone make a serious case for President. Johnson could make a better case, but he's boring and is defined by his marijuana stance, so he cannot break out in the so-con crowd. Ron Paul has the same position as Johnson, but it doesn't define him and he makes a better argument for it.

[Matt Collins]

As I've alluded to on other posts here, Rand really is our best chance for 2012. The experience thing can't be lobbed his way because Obama, too, only had a few years in the senate before his run.

The Republicans would say: "we have an inexperienced President now, and look where that has gotten us, do we really want to go down the same path by electing another noob?" :(

[One Last Battle!]

Honestly, I am okay with either. However, I STRONGLY prefer Ron to Rand for the following reasons:

-This is almost certainly Ron's last chance to run for president. Rand is pretty much open for the next twenty years or so, whereas Ron is going to be way to old to run in 2016.

-Ron pushes his issues to the forefront, unlike Rand. Rand has a better chance at getting support of regular Republicans, but Ron is superior at educating the public and bringing about change in public opinion (look at 2008; Ron Paul started the fad of opposing the fed that regular Americans and even Anonymous are now supporting, despite the media's attempt to push the blame onto the free market as they always do). Honestly, I would prefer Ron trying and failing in 2012 but pushing American public opinion far into the libertarian direction for 2016 than Rand running and succeeding but being unable to do much due to Statism being too strong in congress/senate for him to oppose.

-Rand has only been senator for less than one term. He needs a bit more experience to brag about to the public before jumping to the presidency.

In terms of electability, that last issue is the only one that makes Rand less electable. He is a superb orator, and he is good at not going too deep into issues (like Ron Paul is apt to do at times). Plus, he can appear to be a run of the mill conservative or neocon when he wants without compromising his principles, as he has long since proven his libertarian-ness (fooling quite a few people on this forum).

[Agorism]

Rand could easily lose the grass roots base of his father if he wasn't careful though in which case his campaign would be dead in the water. For instance if a Fox News debate asked him if he thought Libya was an impeachable offense and he said not yet (with Ron already saying it was), I could imagine the base leaving him.

Just saying..

[AuH20]

Ron is hitting 8 to 12% in most polls. whereas in 2007 he was at 0 percent. Although I still think that Rand has a better shot politically at becoming president, I would still like Ron to run. Rand may be able to play the political game, but Ron can play the fundraising game. Personally, I would like to see Ron try again, with better chances than last time, and increase the fundraising base even more for a potential Rand run in 2016.

Granted, I am just an armchair campaign manager, but just my thoughts.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Rand can double Ron's numbers at minimum by himself. Then it depends what Palin does. Palin could probably bump him up 6 to 8 percent if she defers to him. The field is so weak that Rand stands out like a superstar for making principled stands. The 500 billion cut budget proposal was not only a by-product of Rand's inherent beliefs but a potentially brilliant campaign strategy. It sets up the narrative that he isn't your daddy's republican. The grassroots is starving for a leader to lead the rebellion against the Republican establishment. These people are aching for a fight.

[gls]

Ron is hitting 8 to 12% in most polls. whereas in 2007 he was at 0 percent. Although I still think that Rand has a better shot politically at becoming president, I would still like Ron to run. Rand may be able to play the political game, but Ron can play the fundraising game. Personally, I would like to see Ron try again, with better chances than last time, and increase the fundraising base even more for a potential Rand run in 2016.

Granted, I am just an armchair campaign manager, but just my thoughts.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

But will Ron run to win? I think it's safe to say that last time he didn't.

[Joey Fuller]

aww crap...

What am I going to do with all these Ron Paul 2012 stickers?
http://www.tennesseesonsofliberty.com/p/10-liberty-care-packages.html

I would be happy either way... but I hope ole Ron gives it one more shot.

[Liberty_Mike]

By the way, some classic Rand Paul footage on Ron's campaign trail in 2007!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRS-bhMUQos

[civusamericanus]

Ron is hitting 8 to 12% in most polls. whereas in 2007 he was at 0 percent. Although I still think that Rand has a better shot politically at becoming president, I would still like Ron to run. Rand may be able to play the political game, but Ron can play the fundraising game. Personally, I would like to see Ron try again, with better chances than last time, and increase the fundraising base even more for a potential Rand run in 2016.

Granted, I am just an armchair campaign manager, but just my thoughts.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee
I think Ron Paul's time has come. He has an obvious better chance this time, and the fact many uninformed people will simply confuse Ron-For-Rand, and support Ron simply because they think it's Rand. When Rand goes out giving speeches for his dad, his picture will be up on the MSM headlines just like Ron. The confusion is going to work in Ron's favor, since his son essentially carries the same message.

Running Rand instead of Ron in 2012, would likely be a mistake, although I'd support Rand, I think it's too soon in the public eye to elect a first term senator whom will have less than 2 years exp. by the time he could take the Pres. office.

As for Ron picking his son for VP, I think that is a logical move and the excitement of a father/son pick would be interesting. God forbide, anything would happen to Ron if he were elected, but having Rand as backup VP, would sure make us liberty minded people much more comfortable.

Setting the record book for the 1st father as President with 1st son as Vice President, would be an interesting achievment!

[nate895]

Rand can double Ron's numbers at minimum by himself. Then it depends what Palin does. Palin could probably bump him up 6 to 8 percent if she defers to him. The field is so weak that Rand stands out like a superstar for making principled stands. The 500 billion cut budget proposal was not only a by-product of Rand's inherent beliefs but a potentially brilliant campaign strategy. It sets up the narrative that he isn't your daddy's republican. The grassroots is starving for a leader to lead the rebellion against the establishment.

In six years, I can see this if Ron doesn't take off this year. Rand cannot make a serious case this year. While "experience" should not be as important as voters make it out to be, that does not change the fact that it is important to them and Rand has practically zero. This would be especially important in the GE. Obama has proven himself to be an ineffectual leader, which will be a huge advantage for the GOP side if they nominate anyone besides Palin or Rand, so it will effect the campaign all the way through.

If Ron doesn't run and win this year, Rand can make a great case in 2016 or 2020. That's when we should use him.

[TheTyke]

But will Ron run to win? I think it's safe to say that last time he didn't.

Exactly, that's what makes this so difficult to decide and weigh.

Rand got me excited right at the beginning by evenly declaring that he was running to win. That's why many of us put everything into electing him. He has more appeal with standard Republicans, he is "something new," and is well positioned as the most conservative candidate, and would definitely have tea party support. The "inexperience" thing will be a big attack used on him, but folks will attack Ron for the opposite problem.

I love Ron's principles and honesty, but I also want the same fire out of him! In the infamous Stephenopolis interview, when asked what the point of running was, Ron was like "Uhm, well, to win... is one.. is the..." and to this day he doesn't seem assured/confident, and that's one thing voters are looking for. But he does inspire more enthusiasm from the base, and has "experience" which will be used as an argument against Rand.

I'd support either, but it's not easy to determine who'd have the best chances. If Ron would adopt some of Rand's rhetoric and confidence, I think he'd be a real challenger... I just wonder if he will.

[acptulsa]

And if Ron does run and win, and decides he has had enough after four years, we get three terms.

And if he lasts eight years, we get sixteen.

[AuH20]

So DeMint is not running. Who the hell could anyone seriously vote for? Who is a disaffected conservative going to vote for after repeatedly taking the knife out of their back, after each election cycle? Palin is a glorified cheerleader. Huckabee is a Christian socialist. Romney is too enamored with the CFR. Newt is an immoral weasel. Gary Johnson makes me want to go to sleep when I hear him.

[Zatch]

The experience thing can't be lobbed his way because Obama, too, only had a few years in the senate before his run.

The difference between Rand Paul and Barack Obama is that Rand has ran a business. You know how some Republicans are always talking about how we need a candidate who has ran a business. Also, his medical background gives him credibilty on one of the most pressing issues right now: healthcare.

[AuH20]

The difference between Rand Paul and Barack Obama is that Rand has run a business. You know some Republicans are always talking about how we need a candidate who has ran a business. Also, his medical background gives him credibilty on one of the most pressing issues right now: healthcare.

Imagine Obama lecturing Rand about healthcare in a debate setting? It would be trapdoor central.

[Agorism]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqX43ry5Bqk

This commercial was the best

[anaconda]

A little late to start exploring? But maybe this is a bad sign that Ron wont run.

Not late at all.

[AJ Antimony]

What everyone in this thread missed so far is the glaring fact that in a GENERAL ELECTION, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson could pick up some liberal and independent votes. Polls have even shown that Ron Paul is popular among independents.

Like it or not, the liberal media has put Rand Paul in the Sarah Palin/Tea Bagger/Looney Toon boat, a boat which is very unpopular to non-conservatives.

I think Rand Paul may have the best shot at winning the GOP nomination, but I think Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would have a better shot at winning the general election, if they got there.

For other reasons, I think Ron Paul should run, and Rand Paul should not at all run. Personally, I think Rand's just making noise to help the Ron Paul 2012 campaign.

[TNforPaul45]

I'm having a hard time disagreeing with this idea.

Ron is where he needs to be. Grilling the FED on a regular basis.

Rand is uniting the republicans and they will vote for him in the primary where NeoCons will not vote for Ron.

If Ron doesn't run than Rand had better or at least Gary Johnson. I need someone with principal to vote for. I can't vote for Bob Barr and cool as chuck Baldwin is I'd like someone who can actually win.

This is exactly right, and this is the Paul's gameplan.

Ron knows that he will never be president, unfortunately. He's been around too long and the establishment has already made up their mind about him, no matter how loudly we yell to the opposite. Rand Paul, on the other hand, surprised them all and showed that a Liberty Platform was indeed popular.

Rand is young, he is liked by republicans, and most of all, he is his Father!

Remember, to win the primaries, you have to be liked by your party. Then you can take on the Liberals in the General.

A Vote for Rand is a Vote for Ron!

This is the way the liberty movement should go. It doesn't matter about late. Ron Paul can be a BIG organizing force behind the scenes and yes, he is where he is happy, grilling the Fed. Also, he can spend more time with Carol, who is sick, or so I've heard.

If the Pauls, C4L, and the Liberty Revolution know what is smart, this is the way they will go.

I know we want Ron to be president. I want him to be president so badly I could scream. But What we really want is his Ideas to be in charge. I would probably only trust Rand Paul to step in and fill those shoes with the same ideas. Rand is and can be broadly popular. And It's becoming a wide fact that NO ONE wants Obama in office any more, as aloof and heartless as he has proven to be (heartless, of course, being the worst evil of all to Democratic/REpublican progressives!)

A vote for Rand is a Vote for Ron!

[anaconda]

aww crap...

What am I going to do with all these Ron Paul 2012 stickers?
http://www.tennesseesonsofliberty.com/p/10-liberty-care-packages.html

I would be happy either way... but I hope ole Ron gives it one more shot.

Make the "O" into an "A" and add a "D" at the end. In fact. if Rand decided to run it might be slick for his campaign to do something like this...to infer the Ron Paul affiliation and imply its support.

[TNforPaul45]

And Also, one more thing:

Please tell everyone in the Liberty Movement you know. If Rand runs, please don't let him running split the Liberty movement. Don't let our arguments over who will run before they announce split or divide us either.

What ever happens, don't let them divide us.

[newbitech]

The Republicans would say: "we have an inexperienced President now, and look where that has gotten us, do we really want to go down the same path by electing another noob?" :(

Sad fact, but true.

[anaconda]

I really don't think anyone besides Ron Paul is truly viable this go around. Rand hasn't even been in the Senate long enough to memorize everyone's name, let alone make a serious case for President. Johnson could make a better case, but he's boring and is defined by his marijuana stance, so he cannot break out in the so-con crowd. Ron Paul has the same position as Johnson, but it doesn't define him and he makes a better argument for it.

I agree with much of what AuH2O said earlier in the thread about brand identity. The masses are asses and the outsider status of Rand will be at its apex in the earliest phase of his senate incumbency. Experience should be worth something, but the policy horrors are so glaringly obvious that most of us here on the forums would do 10000 times better than Obama. If Rand did nothing more than veto unbalanced budgets and bring all of the troops home that would go a long way towards fixing things. I was just thinking today how much negotiating power a budget-vetoing POTUS might have with congress. Like "you don't have to balance the budget in one year by cutting $1.5 trillion...I'll let you do it over 3 years at $500 billion per year, BUT: I will insist that you repeal the federal reserve act and replace the income tax with a national sales tax...."

[payme_rick]

Bleh, put "Paul" on a sign and campaign together...

Everybody has good points as to why one should run over the other, and they're all met with good points as to why everybody is wrong...

Whichever Paul runs I believe we're in better shape than we were for '08...

[anaconda]

Sad fact, but true.

At which point in this debate question Rand points out that the experienced Republicans gave us two wars and destroyed the economy in 8 years. If Rand is in the debates and polling high, the moderators will certainly toss in an "experience" question. Rand will have thought this through and hit this question out of the park.

[The Dude]

Rand absolutely needs more experience in the Senate...people grilled Obama for it and Rand barely has a few months. Rand needs to stay in the Senate until 2016, or be in the Ron Paul administration.

[nate895]

I agree with much of what AuH2O said earlier in the thread about brand identity. The masses are asses and the outsider status of Rand will be at its apex in the earliest phase of his senate incumbency. Experience should be worth something, but the policy horrors are so glaringly obvious that most of us here on the forums would do 10000 times better than Obama. If Rand did nothing more than veto unbalanced budgets and bring all of the troops home that would go a long way towards fixing things. I was just thinking today how much negotiating power a budget-vetoing POTUS might have with congress. Like "you don't have to balance the budget in one year by cutting $1.5 trillion...I'll let you do it over 3 years at $500 billion per year, BUT: I will insist that you repeal the federal reserve act and replace the income tax with a national sales tax...."

If Rand makes himself into an antagonist in the Senate, he will always be an outsider in the eyes of most voters. The fact is more voters are scared that the President won't know what he is doing than whether he has been corrupted by Washington, especially considering the fact that Obama has neither changed Washington as an "outsider" or known what he is doing. I mean, the neocons do have a point, he looks like a bumbling moron in office, even more than Bush. Like it or not, voters will compare the two.

[Fredom101]

Don't like it. Ron or bust!!!
Here's why:

Ron is changing the conversation by running for president. HUGE difference in his pro-freedom, ZERO taxes philosophy than Rand's "lower taxes and less war". Ideas matter. Ron has a bigger impact on the discussion at this point.

[Agorism]

He definitely doesn't need more "experience."

Staying there for 4 more years could make him corrupt like the other ones.

[Fredom101]

Or perhaps this is just a publicity stunt, and when Ron wins the GOP he will select his son as VP. :)

[nate895]

He definitely doesn't need more "experience."

Staying there for 4 more years could make him corrupt like the other ones.

If he does get corrupted by four years in the Senate, I don't want him to be President.

[anaconda]

Rand is uniting the republicans and they will vote for him in the primary where NeoCons will not vote for Ron.

I am in agreement with you that Rand could unify and ignite a wide span of the GOP. Not only rank and file voters but possibly even his peers in congress. They may discover that, through Rand, they find new pride and patriotism, and they may like it.

BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE: There are many powerful people in the world who will see a Rand presidency as their absolute worst living nightmare. And may do what ever they can to prevent it. On the other hand, some of these people are so arrogant that they might welcome it, with the plan of somehow discrediting Rand either personally or spinning every difficult problem as confirmation of the utter failure of libertarianism, and brainwash the public to vote for the statist of all statists in 2016, and finally break the U.S. into a 3rd world country.

[gls]

Don't like it. Ron or bust!!!
Here's why:

Ron is changing the conversation by running for president. HUGE difference in his pro-freedom, ZERO taxes philosophy than Rand's "lower taxes and less war". Ideas matter. Ron has a bigger impact on the discussion at this point.

Yes, but can he win with that approach...or would he even try to?

Personally Rand's less fiery rhetoric doesn't concern me because I'm convinced his philosophical underpinnings are every bit as strong as his fathers'.

[nate895]

I should point out that my argument is purely pragmatic, not based on the fact I believe candidates need to have so many years "experience" in politics in order to qualify. However, the voters at large do think that is very important. That factor cannot be ignored because lack of experience is no big deal for us. Experience is a matter of style, not principle, so I say go with the flow of the electorate when it comes to that.

[trey4sports]

To be completely honest, I think Ron winning the GOP nod would incredibly difficult. Just look at what the markets are saying http://intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=84328

I want Ron Paul to run though because he is a revolutionary candidate and his views will continually push the paradigm closer to the ideals of Liberty. I'm afraid that if Rand were to make a bid for the white house too early he could tarnish his reputation and ultimately damage his brand for 2016 or 2020.

[eduardo89]

The more and more I think about it, the more it makes sense. If RP passes the torch to his son, I am ready to support Rand whole heartedly

Ditto

[nate895]

To be completely honest, I think Ron winning the GOP nod would incredibly difficult. Just look at what the markets are saying http://intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=84328

I want Ron Paul to run though because he is a revolutionary candidate and his views will continually push the paradigm closer to the ideals of Liberty. I'm afraid that if Rand were to make a bid for the white house to early he could tarnish his reputation and ultimately damage his brand for 2016 or 2020.

Few are saying it would be easy. However, it might just be the right moment. Rand's time will probably come soon enough, but it just isn't yet. His momentum will almost certainly peak too late. Ron's momentum might just hit at the right moment. This has turned from a battle to a war, we have to be in for the long haul. Rand needs to be kept in reserve and not deployed until after Paul's momentum has exhausted itself.

[Dissident]

What are the consequences of a FAILED Rand Paul 2012 bid? Will he lose credibility amongst his base in Kentucky or for a future run?

How are people gauging Rand Paul's appeal to conservatives? It's clear the mainstream pundits have been supportive thus far. Will this change once he's up against the establishment candidate?

[nate895]

What are the consequences of a FAILED Rand Paul 2012 bid? Will he lose credibility amongst his base in Kentucky or for a future run?

That is my biggest fear. Ron Paul has nothing to lose by continuing his offensive into 2012. However, if Rand Paul loses, after just a few months in the Senate (Iowa will be apx. 13 months after he was sworn in), he will appear to be an ambitious politician and might not be able to run again for a while. The risks involved with a Ron Paul run are limited and the likelihood of success is much greater than the risks, if there are any. The risks with Rand are large and the likelihood not much better. It could turn into a political blunder for Rand to run this year.

[S.Shorland]

...

[sailingaway]

What are the consequences of a FAILED Rand Paul 2012 bid? Will he lose credibility amongst his base in Kentucky or for a future run?

How are people gauging Rand Paul's appeal to conservatives? It's clear the mainstream pundits have been supportive thus far. Will this change once he's up against the establishment candidate?

I think it would shorten Rand's honeymoon big time, and would splinter his now near universal conservative support, at least somewhat. If the election were in 2014 and he had 2 years of legislative battles to prove his mettle, that wouldn't be a s much of an issue, because people wouldn't be able to 'spin' him as much. Even if Ron refused to run, the best reason for Rand running in 2012 would be the various issues involved by his running in 2016, the same year he runs for a second term. He'd still be plenty young enough in 2020, but who knows what the finances of this country -- or the swing of the political pendulum, will be like then. That is why I'd support Rand if Ron chooses not to run. However, baiting this way is dividing supporters, and I really don't recommend it.

[trey4sports]

Few are saying it would be easy. However, it might just be the right moment. Rand's time will probably come soon enough, but it just isn't yet. His momentum will almost certainly peak too late. Ron's momentum might just hit at the right moment. This has turned from a battle to a war, we have to be in for the long haul. Rand needs to be kept in reserve and not deployed until after Paul's momentum has exhausted itself.


OK I get what you're saying and i somewhat agree

I would agree that Ron Pauls IDEAS could win the election but I think if we REALLY want to push for an electoral win then Rand Paul is probably more electable than Ron even with his perceived shortcomings.

Ron is incredible, and i find him much more inspiring than Rand but I just don't think conservatives will buy his message. He has been badgered by the GOP far too much and your average GOPer thinks hes a lib.

All that said, i dont think winning the white house should be our top priority. I think once again, our priority should be an educational campaign (as much as I know people HATE hearing that). It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to win (what better way to educate the masses than try to win the election?).

We need to focus on getting people into congress with Libertarian ideals. Jimmy Wales, Drew Carey, Peter Thiel, Robert Paul and a sleuth of others.

Remember, as great as it is to think that we could simply elect a president who is one of us and bring us back to the constitution the president doesnt even have that authority. I think the real battle is winning congress.

[nate895]

OK I get what you're saying and i somewhat agree

I would agree that Ron Pauls IDEAS could win the election but I think if we REALLY want to push for an electoral win then Rand Paul is probably more electable than Ron even with his perceived shortcomings.

Ron is incredible, and i find him much more inspiring than Rand but I just don't think conservatives will buy his message. He has been badgered by the GOP far too much and your average GOPer thinks hes a lib.

All that said, i dont think winning the white house should be our top priority. I think once again, our priority should be an educational campaign (as much as I know people HATE hearing that). It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to win (what better way to educate the masses than try to win the election?).

We need to focus on getting people into congress with Libertarian ideals. Jimmy Wales, Drew Carey, Peter Thiel, Robert Paul and a sleuth of others.

Remember, as great as it is to think that we could simply elect a president who is one of us and bring us back to the constitution the president doesnt even have that authority. I think the real battle is winning congress.

The fact is that having Rand run I do not think would significantly enough increase our odds at electoral success. Perhaps it would, but the risks are too much. You have to look at this from a strategic/military point-of-view. The fact is Ron Paul is making the "supreme bid" for victory and is moving forward. He is not held up by unassailable defenses. As long as he is moving, we have to throw our weight behind him and pick up as much we can as a result of his success. We probably won't "win it all" so to speak, but we will certainly continue to make gains without losing too much. Rand, however, has not even started to go for the jugular and probably won't make it before the primaries, and the GE will probably be even harder for him. Let him pick up strength and respectability in the Senate and let Ron go forward while he still can.

[Dissident]

However, baiting this way is dividing supporters, and I really don't recommend it.

Not sure what you mean by this comment.

If there is a Paul in the race, I will support him which I'm sure is what most Ron Paul supporters will do too.

Being on the outside of this, we don't understand the dynamics at play. If Ron does not want to run that is one thing. However, if Ron defers to Rand because he thinks Rand would be more effective then I think a few questions concerning the risks involved to Rand are certainly appropriate. Rand Paul is a major asset and unseating Obama will be no easy task.

[trey4sports]

The fact is that having Rand run I do not think would significantly enough increase our odds at electoral success. Perhaps it would, but the risks are too much. You have to look at this from a strategic/military point-of-view. The fact is Ron Paul is making the "supreme bid" for victory and is moving forward. He is not held up by unassailable defenses. As long as he is moving, we have to throw our weight behind him and pick up as much we can as a result of his success. We probably won't "win it all" so to speak, but we will certainly continue to make gains without losing too much. Rand, however, has not even started to go for the jugular and probably won't make it before the primaries, and the GE will probably be even harder for him. Let him pick up strength and respectability in the Senate and let Ron go forward while he still can.

That's a good way to look at it.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Honestly, I am okay with either. However, I STRONGLY prefer Ron to Rand for the following reasons:

-This is almost certainly Ron's last chance to run for president. Rand is pretty much open for the next twenty years or so, whereas Ron is going to be way to old to run in 2016.

-Ron pushes his issues to the forefront, unlike Rand. Rand has a better chance at getting support of regular Republicans, but Ron is superior at educating the public and bringing about change in public opinion (look at 2008; Ron Paul started the fad of opposing the fed that regular Americans and even Anonymous are now supporting, despite the media's attempt to push the blame onto the free market as they always do). Honestly, I would prefer Ron trying and failing in 2012 but pushing American public opinion far into the libertarian direction for 2016 than Rand running and succeeding but being unable to do much due to Statism being too strong in congress/senate for him to oppose.

-Rand has only been senator for less than one term. He needs a bit more experience to brag about to the public before jumping to the presidency.

In terms of electability, that last issue is the only one that makes Rand less electable. He is a superb orator, and he is good at not going too deep into issues (like Ron Paul is apt to do at times). Plus, he can appear to be a run of the mill conservative or neocon when he wants without compromising his principles, as he has long since proven his libertarian-ness (fooling quite a few people on this forum).

I agree with this.

But now seeing Rand say this makes it look like Ron is really done. While I'll be disappointed, I can understand why he wouldn't want to do that again. I just hope hope hope I'm wrong and he'll surprise everyone one last time. If not, the Revolution can put our weight behind Rand. :D

[itshappening]

I have no doubt Rand could sweep Iowa and South Carolina and have the nomination sewn up fairly quickly

He has delivered on his promises

He can use the argument that there isnt much time, that now is the time for principled conservative leadership. Now is the time to implement his budget.

As for the general election, it would probably be a toss up and i'd give Rand a very good chance of pulling it off depending on where the economy is an if people are sick of Obama. He would destroy Obama in debates.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand would DESTROY Obama in a debate.

[LudwigVonMisoSoup]

Rand would DESTROY Obama in a debate.

Rand: I opposed the Patriot Act. My opponent signed its extension into law... twice.
Obama: Uhhhh, I, uhhh, did what's best for the American people.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand: I opposed the Patriot Act. My opponent signed its extension into law... twice.
Obama: Uhhhh, I, uhhh, did what's best for the American people.

:collins: :) :collins: :)

[KramerDSP]

More fuel for the fire....

No Decision Yet On 2012 Presidential Run (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7490068.html)

DURHAM, N.H. — The large, enthusiastic crowd that greeted Texas Rep. Ron Paul at the University of New Hampshire on Thursday was perhaps not what he wanted to see as he mulls whether to run for president again.

"I think subconsciously I'm always waiting to see a very small crowd, and then I can say, `OK, I've done my duty, nobody wants to hear," he told reporters after his speech.

But that wasn't the case. About 800 people showed up to see him speak, cheering and applauding his call to abolish the Federal Reserve and his criticism of the recent U.S. military action in Libya.

"We've been taught if you say anything about (foreign) policy, that means you're un-American, you're not supporting the troops, you're not a patriotic person. Well, I think being patriotic is challenging your government when it's wrong," he said.

He said the uprising in Libya and elsewhere represents more than just people getting fed up with dictators.

"I think what they're sensing is that we may be a financial paper tiger, maybe even militarily," he said. "Yes, in a conventional war, we have more weapons and we spend more money than anyone else put together ... but I think people are thinking, `There are limits to what the United States can do. How many more troops can they call up?'"

Earlier Thursday, Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told reporters that there is a better than 50-50 chance that one of them will run for president. Asked about his son's plans, Ron Paul said, "I have no idea. We've had no discussion on the issue."

Paul said he is "not on the verge" of making up his mind.

"It has to do with how receptive my message will be. Last time, I didn't wait for that. I just thought I had to speak out," he said.

If the economy improves, he said his enthusiasm for running would lessen. But if the economy worsens, as he expects, "It makes it almost inevitable that somebody will have to start talking about what we need to do."

Paul finished fifth in the 2008 New Hampshire primary with less than 8 percent of the vote. In January, he came in second place in a New Hampshire GOP straw poll, with 11 percent.


Ron's heart does not seem to be into another run.

[Sola_Fide]

I really can't imagine how awesome it would be to see Rand destroy Obama on the issue of the debt.

[Aratus]

More fuel for the fire....

No Decision Yet On 2012 Presidential Run (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7490068.html)


Ron's heart does not seem to be into another run.


...or he's holding back to whet speculation...
...and this has pulled rand into things political...

[MikeStanart]

Paul 2012' Doesn't matter which one. I'll be just as freaking excited as I was in 2007 whichever one runs.


Oh, and Johnson for Senate. Keep him away from the debates imo.

[anaconda]

If Rand makes himself into an antagonist in the Senate, he will always be an outsider in the eyes of most voters. The fact is more voters are scared that the President won't know what he is doing than whether he has been corrupted by Washington, especially considering the fact that Obama has neither changed Washington as an "outsider" or known what he is doing. I mean, the neocons do have a point, he looks like a bumbling moron in office, even more than Bush. Like it or not, voters will compare the two.

The voters are a thousand times more scared of business as usual. Like financial ruin and WWIII. I believe they can be sold the approach that ONLY an outsider can lop the head off of the beast. Besides, Rand always appears to know exactly what he is doing. They will not be "scared." Experienced politicians always come to the presidency with corrupting alliances. This is what "experience" will mean to most voters.

[anaconda]

I have no doubt Rand could sweep Iowa and South Carolina and have the nomination sewn up fairly quickly

He has delivered on his promises

He can use the argument that there isnt much time, that now is the time for principled conservative leadership. Now is the time to implement his budget.

As for the general election, it would probably be a toss up and i'd give Rand a very good chance of pulling it off depending on where the economy is an if people are sick of Obama. He would destroy Obama in debates.

^This. We have an opportunity. Let's take it.

[puppetmaster]

so who is vp?

[MikeStanart]

so who is vp?

Paul/Paul imo; if TPTB wanted to take one out, then another would take the mantel; it's classic deterrance.

[KramerDSP]

Either one of the Paul's presiding over the Senate would be hilarious. Especially Rand.

[Adrock]

The Ron = Goldwater / Rand = Reagan comparison is dead on.
If Ron doesn't run I am fully behind a Rand Paul Presidential Run.

Rand with a united liberty movement behind him + the tea party movement + endorsements from DeMint and/or Palin (who I don't think is running) would make him an instant front runner.

[Eric21ND]

You KNOW if Rand wins Ron will be a huge influence and will definitely be Rand's right hand advisor.

I give Ron a 50% chance of winning the republican nomination, I give Rand 70%.

[acptulsa]

The Ron = Goldwater / Rand = Reagan comparison is dead on.

On a superficial level, so far as charisma goes, this is true. But so far as issues go, I like the Pauls better. Of course, they're adapted to a modern world. Even so, I passed on a chance to vote for Reagan's VP to vote for Ron Paul. Passed on a chance to vote for Reagan himself to vote for Paul's predecessor on the LP ticket, too. For all the good it did.

[sailingaway]

Rand isn't running if Ron runs, and I think Ron is running.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand isn't running if Ron runs, and I think Ron is running.

Yes. Ron is running. No doubt in my mind.

[Dissident]

The ambiguity on who will run is smart. Any Rand 2012 article will mention his uncertainty attributed to Ron's forthcoming decision. Let the speculation continue and the headlines grow. This seems like an effective way for Rand to use his platform to expand Ron's base.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Ron is hitting 8 to 12% in most polls. whereas in 2007 he was at 0 percent. Although I still think that Rand has a better shot politically at becoming president, I would still like Ron to run. Rand may be able to play the political game, but Ron can play the fundraising game. Personally, I would like to see Ron try again, with better chances than last time, and increase the fundraising base even more for a potential Rand run in 2016.

Granted, I am just an armchair campaign manager, but just my thoughts.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

100% agree with this. Nice post.