The Ron or Rand choice

[Chomsky]

I am trying to figure out if this is a coordinated effort with a predetermined desired outcome on the part of the father and son. It has to be I believe. I think they have sat down and decided that Rand has a real chance to win if he runs. I think Ron is fully on board because he did not really want to run anyway, do to age and having done it just two and a half years ago. Rand would have all of Ron's liberty movement cred as well as incredible articulation and direct access to the Tea Party constituency. Not to mention boatloads of energy, both mental and physical.

I think they are trying to gauge if Ron's support would transfer directly with no holdouts. My feeling is that it would transfer flawlessly with few holdouts because while our movement can be idealistic it is also now seasoned politically and obviously see the benefits of a Rand candidacy as opposed to a Ron candidacy.

To be completely pragmatic about the situation, Rand passed the statewide test even with the aqua buddha and the maddow attack. Ron had trouble continuing the momentum after the newsletter attack, which I think they would use again in the MSM. And what would the answer be? We know here on these boards that it is not a fair attack and that Ron did not write those comments (point to anything in Dr. Paul's voting record that supports allegations of racism should always be the response), but its tough to combat in the MSM.

Recently we have seen the left(cnn and msnbc) desperately attacking Rand, they are trying to cut him off at the pass because they know Rand is not only Obama's but the entire establishment's worst nightmare. Someone who can talk articulately on not only the debt and dollar crisis but also have a principled opposition to the foreign interventions, not to mention wanting an audit of the Fed.

Is there anybody here that would hesitate to support Rand if he should run as opposed to Ron? If so what are your reasons?

Let me go one step further and ask if you would prefer Rand to Ron?

[freshjiva]

I like Rand. I'd support him, but not as passionately as I would for Ron Paul.

[The Dude]

I wouldn't hesitate in voting for Rand but I'd be severely disappointed if he did. He has a commitment to the people of Kentucky. It would reflect poorly on the Paul's if Rand decided to ditch his seat and run for Pres not even a year after being sworn in. After all the jabs Repubs made against Obama in 08, Rand will get grilled for inexperience and breaking his promise for serving Kentucky until his term is up.

This is Ron's election. This is his last chance, and we can make a lot of noise running a Ron Paul campaign. Even if Ron doesn't win, and I think if we play our cards right we could run away with the nomination, it will set up nicely for a Rand Paul 2016 run. Anyone other than Ron/Rand running in 2012 is an Obama win anyway. In 2016, Rand will be a juggernaut.

[Chomsky]

In presidential politics it is easy to underestimate the attacks that they used to discredit Ron Paul in the MSM. Presidential politics are much different than Congressional or even Senate campaigns, you have the people that are VERY casual citizens and don't pay much attention to politics. It is hard for people to fight through Ron Paul's delivery/age to get to his great message, and that really hurts me to say that but we have to be realistic about the situation. This is why we already have the young people on board/the people who are interested in ideas.

[LatinsforPaul]

What would happen if at the time when Ron, or Rand, makes the announcement that he is running for POTUS he also lets everyone know that his running mate is his son, or father in Rand's case?

I think that would be an incredible announcement!

Ron and Rand Paul to the White House

[gerryb]

Of course I would support Rand in 2012, but I think Ron should run. Rand in 2012 seems pre-mature. I have and will continue to donate to Ron right out of the gate for 2012.. I will be a little more hesitant to put money on the line to directly support Rand and it will insteadd go to C4L or DownsizeDC.org .

The absolute best scenario(not realistic, of course) would be Rand campaigns as VP from the get go =P, and Ron for the Presidency.

[Chomsky]

In a perfect world I would prefer Ron to Rand, but anyone that was in the trenches in the 08 cycle knows that Rand would make things A LOT easier.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

First, let me preface, that I don't believe either will win - under most realistic scenarios - in 2012. I don't think a Paul has a chance to win until the post dollar crisis - whenever that may be. I think Americans want to live above their means as long as possible - and want to keep with the delusion all will be well. Which means no Paul telling them all is not well.

That being said, I think Ron needs to run. And only Ron. The movement needs his voice and track record to continue to build support. He has passionate support for certain. I think there is a much too great of chance of Rand being marginalized immediately because of his inexperience and forced to drop out prematurely. I also think Rand Paul is no Ron Paul. Not yet. He still has a tendency to come across badly (bitter maybe and not as strong as Ron. For instance - do you think Rand could handle Rudy as well as Ron did in 2008?) in interviews vs Ron Paul - the friendly ole' grandpa. (Getting better recently - but still needs more seasoning.)

And most importantly, I think a Rand failed run in 2012 could damage him in 2016 - so I think he needs to wait and concentrate on the Senate fully. He is doing good things there.

So Ron in 2012. Or nothing. Pls.

[reardenstone]

Rand in 2012 would be premature, but not that is not capable. Avoid the easy target fodder and run later, if the world survives 2012.

[Orgoonian]

First, let me preface, that I don't believe either will win - under most realistic scenarios - in 2012. I don't think a Paul has a chance to win until the post dollar crisis - whenever that may be. I think Americans want to live above their means as long as possible - and want to keep with the delusion all will be well. Which means no Paul telling them all is not well.

That being said, I think Ron needs to run. And only Ron. The movement needs his voice and track record to continue to build support. He has passionate support for certain. I think there is a much too great of chance of Rand being marginalized immediately because of his inexperience and forced to drop out prematurely. I also think Rand Paul is no Ron Paul. Not yet. He still has a tendency to come across badly (bitter maybe and not as strong as Ron. For instance - do you think Rand could handle Rudy as well as Ron did in 2008?) in interviews vs Ron Paul - the friendly ole' grandpa. (Getting better recently - but still needs more seasoning.)

And most importantly, I think a Rand failed run in 2012 could damage him in 2016 - so I think he needs to wait and concentrate on the Senate fully. He is doing good things there.

So Ron in 2012. Or nothing. Pls.
I agree with the Egg on this.
More Ron Paul for now.We are making great strides,and Ron(with our help)has shaped the political debate.
Rand is incredible,but needs more seasoning to fight the MSM opposition that will assault the liberty perspective.
2016 will be our year.

[Chomsky]

The inexperience thing is a moot point because of Obama and the context of his first candidacy.

[low preference guy]

The inexperience thing is a moot point because of Obama and the context of his first candidacy.

What about the point that he might lose and weaken his chances for 2016?

[Chomsky]

What about the point that he might lose and weaken his chances for 2016?

What about the point that 2016 will be far to late...

[TheNcredibleEgg]

The inexperience thing is a moot point because of Obama and the context of his first candidacy.

Two points:

The inexperience is not necessarily a moot issue. Yes, it is for Democrats - but Rand would need quite a few Republican votes to win. And quite a few Republicans explicitly opposed Obama due to his inexperience. So those might not be so willing to give Rand an easy pass. If enough decide it would be hypocritical to vote for Rand - well, that's a big problem.

Secondly, I don't worry about Rand's inexperience for inexperience's sake. I worry that he really might not be ready for the national stage. Ron has been in debates and speaking publicly for decades. Rand - just a few years. Rand is no Ron Paul. Not yet. I think he needs to have a lot more practice debating and framing the issues himself. I don't think Rand can handle debates like Ron can. I don't think Rand would have, in effect, squashed Rudy Guiliani like Ron did in 2008. He still seems to come across cold (to me) in interviews. It doesn't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling that listening to Ron does in his public speeches.

Yes, Rand is improving greatly - but I still just think he needs more seasoning. So that's why I'm hoping Rand focuses fully on the Senate until 2016 - and Ron announces soon.

[lynnf]

there's no choice in here for us. Ron and Rand will make the choice -- if Ron runs, Rand won't. the only role we have here is in showing our support, which will influence their decision. maybe not a bad position to be in, with the opposition not able to tell which will run and therefore not able to necessarily pick their best option to run against Ron/Rand.

oh, and I was listening to the radio and the reporter was saying that this is the latest that an incumbent President has waited before deciding to run for re-election. I think they were waiting to see what the economy would do and now that it is "up" by their definition, or at least presentable in that fashion, they think they can bamboozle the public enough to win.

lynn

[Chomsky]

there's no choice in here for us. Ron and Rand will make the choice -- if Ron runs, Rand won't. the only role we have here is in showing our support, which will influence their decision. maybe not a bad position to be in, with the opposition not able to tell which will run and therefore not able to necessarily pick their best option to run against Ron/Rand.

lynn

I think you are wrong on the "there's no choice in here for us." part. That mindset goes against everything I understand this movement to be as well as I believe everything Ron and Rand believe this movement to be. This is why they are throwing it out there in the same test run paradigm that the establishment test runs things.

[Chomsky]

Two points:

The inexperience is not necessarily a moot issue. Yes, it is for Democrats - but Rand would need quite a few Republican votes to win. And quite a few Republicans explicitly opposed Obama due to his inexperience. So those might not be so willing to give Rand an easy pass. If enough decide it would be hypocritical to vote for Rand - well, that's a big problem.

Secondly, I don't worry about Rand's inexperience for inexperience's sake. I worry that he really might not be ready for the national stage. Ron has been in debates and speaking publicly for decades. Rand - just a few years. Rand is no Ron Paul. Not yet. I think he needs to have a lot more practice debating and framing the issues himself. I don't think Rand can handle debates like Ron can. I don't think Rand would have, in effect, squashed Rudy Guiliani like Ron did in 2008. He still seems to come across cold (to me) in interviews. It doesn't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling that listening to Ron does in his public speeches.

Yes, Rand is improving greatly - but I still just think he needs more seasoning. So that's why I'm hoping Rand focuses fully on the Senate until 2016 - and Ron announces soon.

The inexperience issue is nothing compared to Ron's difficulty in properly conveying the issues. Mainline GOP voters want somebody that can beat Obama...bottomline...and that is Rand more than Ron. I would love to see a Ron vs Obama debate for my own reasons, believe me I would. But I believe that Rand would fair better in that debate seen through the eyes of the electorate as it stands in the US right now. So I want Rand.

[Bman]

I wouldn't hesitate in voting for Rand but I'd be severely disappointed if he did. He has a commitment to the people of Kentucky. It would reflect poorly on the Paul's if Rand decided to ditch his seat and run for Pres not even a year after being sworn in. After all the jabs Repubs made against Obama in 08, Rand will get grilled for inexperience and breaking his promise for serving Kentucky until his term is up.

This is Ron's election. This is his last chance, and we can make a lot of noise running a Ron Paul campaign. Even if Ron doesn't win, and I think if we play our cards right we could run away with the nomination, it will set up nicely for a Rand Paul 2016 run. Anyone other than Ron/Rand running in 2012 is an Obama win anyway. In 2016, Rand will be a juggernaut.


A couple things. Becoming President does not negate a commitment to the people of Kentucky it just broadens the scope. Secondly, he's not going to be able to push one piece of legislation through until 2013 anyway. Until Repubs, hopefully friendly repubs, take over the Senate anything he does is a mot point in regards to advancing an agenda to return America to any form of sanity. What Rand has been doing to this point is trying to move the conversation. Running for Pres would give him an even larger stage to try and accomplish that goal. The whole argument that he is breaking any promise to Kentucky is founded on an emosional basis rather than grounded on logic of what the best move could be.

At the very least this time is a great time for Rand to feel out and communicate any ambitions for the Presidency whether it be now or waiting until 2016.

[low preference guy]

What about the point that 2016 will be far to late...

I prefer to take the chance and wait for 2016 if Rand is more likely to win then.

[Occam's Banana]

I am trying to figure out if this is a coordinated effort with a predetermined desired outcome on the part of the father and son. It has to be I believe. I think they have sat down and decided that Rand has a real chance to win if he runs. I think Ron is fully on board because he did not really want to run anyway, do to age and having done it just two and a half years ago.

I think there are several problems with the idea that Ron & Rand are in "cahoots" for the purpose of Ron "stepping aside" & supporting a Rand bid for the presidency.

The biggest problem is that Ron has repeatedly & explicitly said that:
1) he hasn't ruled out a run, and
2) he hasn't discussed the matter with Rand.

So the "cahoots" theory just doesn't hold up - unless you think Ron Paul is a bald-faced liar.

I, for one, do not think there is a lying bone in Ron Paul's body. But that's just me.

The notion that Ron might be "massaging" the truth for the sake of gaining some sort of advantage for himself or Rand doesn't hold up either.

For one thing, I don't see what benefit there is to playing coy like this - so why shold anyone think he is doing it? Even if there IS something to be gained (which I doubt), Ron Paul has never displayed the sort of sly, devious & ugly "pragmatism" that this strategy requires.

[acptulsa]

IThe notion that Ron might be "massaging" the truth for the sake of gaining some sort of advantage for himself or Rand doesn't hold up either.

For one thing, I don't see what benefit there is to playing coy like this - so why shold anyone think he is doing it? Even if there IS something to be gained (which I doubt), Ron Paul has never displayed the sort of sly, devious & ugly "pragmatism" that this strategy requires.

Sure they are. Come on. Look at the headline at the top of this thread. You can't buy that. They're going to play this for publicity as long as they can. If Ron Paul has never played coy like this before, well, I don't ever recall him being in a position to do so before. And playing for press and building a buzz is in no way dishonest.

And just in case they haven't really decided which is the better candidate (which they claim and is believable--Rand may feel too close to the subject to risk pressuring his father and Ron may be constipating it hard, as we say down South) then I want my two cents in: Rand is so slick he'll blend in with the others on the stage. The voters have had enough of business as usual. Grandfatherly Ron Paul is not business as usual, and doesn't look like it either. And he's the one with twenty-two years of reliability on his resume'.

If he feels he's too old, then Rand can run in 2016 whether Ron wins or loses. One term by choice. LBJ knew he had blown it and couldn't win. Before him, the last guy who held himself to one term out of a concern for the nation's needs and his own viability was...?

[Stary Hickory]

Rand will need support to win, if people here abandon him it will make it harder on him. I certainly hope it does not happen. I am more excited about Rand than Ron at this point because I think Rand can win. Don't get me wrong I wish Ron had won last time, I wish he could win this time. God knows he has earned it, he sat quietly by and did the right thing for 30+ years with almost no support and recognition. If politicians in Washington DC had even 2% of Ron's integrity and honor our problems right now would be rather insignificant.

[acptulsa]

God knows he has earned it, he sat quietly by and did the right thing for 30+ years with almost no support and recognition. If politicians in Washington DC had even 2% of Ron's integrity and honor our problems right now would be rather insignificant.

That's why I think he can win. Voters are valuing such things more these days, thanks in no small part to our efforts. And this time, the Democratic candidate will be stripped of the illusion of integrity.

[Stary Hickory]

That's why I think he can win. Voters are valuing such things more these days, thanks in no small part to our efforts. And this time, the Democratic candidate will be stripped of the illusion of integrity.

Well if he runs he has my support fully. I would like to be wrong here, I have no problem being wrong. My only goal is to see a pro liberty POTUS in the Whitehouse and to see the repeal of Obamacare+the wars ending. These are my immediate goals. Ron or Rand could accomplish this, like I said Ron deserves to be POTUS, but I think Rand can win it. And Rand Paul is a good guy, like his dad but a little more sophisticated in how he plays politics.

[acptulsa]

And Rand Paul is a good guy, like his dad but a little more sophisticated in how he plays politics.

Well, at the moment they're both benefitting from Rand's play. To the tune of a CNN headline. :D

[nobody's_hero]

I wouldn't hesitate in voting for Rand but I'd be severely disappointed if he did. He has a commitment to the people of Kentucky. It would reflect poorly on the Paul's if Rand decided to ditch his seat and run for Pres not even a year after being sworn in. After all the jabs Repubs made against Obama in 08, Rand will get grilled for inexperience and breaking his promise for serving Kentucky until his term is up.

This is Ron's election. This is his last chance, and we can make a lot of noise running a Ron Paul campaign. Even if Ron doesn't win, and I think if we play our cards right we could run away with the nomination, it will set up nicely for a Rand Paul 2016 run. Anyone other than Ron/Rand running in 2012 is an Obama win anyway. In 2016, Rand will be a juggernaut.

I think so, too.

[ds21089]

The funny thing is you guys think in 2016 we'll actually have elections anymore. By then we'll be under a one world government if Ron or Rand doesn't win in 2012

[sailingaway]

We don't have this choice, Ron will make it. Also, I'm not reading this thread and am really glad I wasn't here yesterday. The fact is, some few people pushing this is imho are dividing people unnecessarily, and are causing some real resentment as some think the few are trying to shove Ron out, when he built the whole movement (not the liberty movement, but the post 2007 growth). EVERYONE will be needed in whatever campaign runs, and this fractionalization is counterproductive.

Rand hasn't been through the ego stroking and shunning yet that tests principles. He has only been in the public eye while there was at least a cheering crowed for what he stands for, he hasn't kept pushing them for thankless years against all temptations of advancement. Ron has, and stood by his principles for 30 years. He is inspiring to a new generation many of whom are for the first time active, or are even in office because of him. Because Rand's strategy is to play it safe where he can but vote correctly, he isn't as inspiring, however well liked by more of a margin of GOP (may of whom may have other 'first choices.)

With all of that, I think Rand is terrific, and defend him and trumpet his triumphs, widely. But this is Ron's year, people have put themselves into positions specifically to help HIM, and he still has the most eye opening depth of knowledge for answering debate questions. It is his decision to make, and I think we are leaving it in good hands to leave it to him to decide.

[Occam's Banana]

Sure they are. Come on. Look at the headline at the top of this thread. You can't buy that. They're going to play this for publicity as long as they can. If Ron Paul has never played coy like this before, well, I don't ever recall him being in a position to do so before. And playing for press and building a buzz is in no way dishonest.

"Playing for press" IS dishonest - IF you tell lies in order to "build a buzz." If the OP is right, then Ron Paul IS being dishonest. But I don't think the OP is right. (Which doesn't mean Ron will run & Rand won't. I just don't think they're in "cahoots" about it, one way or the other.)

[acptulsa]

I don't either, though I have nothing resembling proof. I think Rand is going to take the baton and run with it when it gets handed to him. That's what Texas sons who aren't spoiled brats do.

[FreedomRings]

I know quite a few folks who would support Ron but not Rand. I don't know anyone who would support Rand but not Ron, although such people appear to exist.

Personally, I'd drop everything I'm doing and dedicate 100% of my time to a Ron Paul run, but just 20% or so for Rand. That's just the way it is; after all I've been through for Ron Paul I'd feel played and deceived if he were stringing us along just to set things up for an eventual Rand run.


To be completely pragmatic about the situation, Rand passed the statewide test even with the aqua buddha and the maddow attack. Ron had trouble continuing the momentum after the newsletter attack, which I think they would use again in the MSM. And what would the answer be? We know here on these boards that it is not a fair attack and that Ron did not write those comments (point to anything in Dr. Paul's voting record that supports allegations of racism should always be the response), but its tough to combat in the MSM.

That's easy: have the actual writer come forward, accept responsibility, and apologize.


I, for one, do not think there is a lying bone in Ron Paul's body. But that's just me.

The notion that Ron might be "massaging" the truth for the sake of gaining some sort of advantage for himself or Rand doesn't hold up either.

For one thing, I don't see what benefit there is to playing coy like this - so why shold anyone think he is doing it? Even if there IS something to be gained (which I doubt), Ron Paul has never displayed the sort of sly, devious & ugly "pragmatism" that this strategy requires.

Ron Paul often says that he quit Congress in 1984 because he missed contact with real people outside of Washington and wanted to go back to practicing medicine. However, the real reason was that he ran for the Senate (and lost) which he conveniently never mentions at all.

He often says he was drafted into the military. That's not entirely true; he volunteered to avoid being drafted. And his commercials in Texas said that he is a "Vietnam-era veteran", subtly creating the impression that he served in Vietnam. But he never did.

As for the newsletters, of course he knew what was going on. It was all part of Murray Rothbard's strategy to build a broad populist alliance. Those were different times, and Ron could never admit the truth in this day and age without instantly losing 35%+ of his support.

He took about $4 million from his 2008 campaign and rolled them over into an unaccountable organization staffed by friends and family. That money had been donated for him to make an all-out effort to win the primary, not to hold back and later set up a new organization. Of course it has turned out to be a savvy move, and C4L has done a lot of good things, but if that wasn't "sly, devious & ugly pragmatism" then what is?

I just don't think that playing the media, setting us up for an eventual Rand run, and raising money until the last possible minute (Rand's announcement day) is something Ron Paul would shy away from. He is not a god, but a human being like the rest of us. Still, I hope he runs and I will do everything in my power to support him.

[IDefendThePlatform]

I personally would still prefer to see Ron run this time around. He has a great chance to point out how right he was past time and thereby greatly advance the message.

"See, the wars don't end."

"See, the economy did go to crap."

[White Bear Lake]

We need Ron to run. Not that I don't like Rand but I sincerely believe Ron has a better chance in winning both the primary and the general. Rand's great but he's more just a typical politician that happens to have great views and great ideas. I don't think the country wants just a typical politician, they want an inspirational leader - someone who's very name is homogenous with a movement and change in a new direction. FDR was this person for the keynesian liberals - politicians ran as "FDR democrats" and "new-deal democrats" for decades after him. Reagan was this person for the current day GOP and many people today still define themselves as "Reagan conservatives". The next movement is libertarianism and Ron Paul is the person who defines it.

[sailingaway]

I know quite a few folks who would support Ron but not Rand. I don't know anyone who would support Rand but not Ron, although such people appear to exist.

Personally, I'd drop everything I'm doing and dedicate 100% of my time to a Ron Paul run, but just 20% or so for Rand. That's just the way it is; after all I've been through for Ron Paul I'd feel played and deceived if he were stringing us along just to set things up for an eventual Rand run.



That's easy: have the actual writer come forward, accept responsibility, and apologize.



Ron Paul often says that he quit Congress in 1984 because he missed contact with real people outside of Washington and wanted to go back to practicing medicine. However, the real reason was that he ran for the Senate (and lost) which he conveniently never mentions at all.

He often says he was drafted into the military. That's not entirely true; he volunteered to avoid being drafted. And his commercials in Texas said that he is a "Vietnam-era veteran", subtly creating the impression that he served in Vietnam. But he never did.

As for the newsletters, of course he knew what was going on. It was all part of Murray Rothbard's strategy to build a broad populist alliance. Those were different times, and Ron could never admit the truth in this day and age without instantly losing 35%+ of his support.

He took about $4 million from his 2008 campaign and rolled them over into an unaccountable organization staffed by friends and family. That money had been donated for him to make an all-out effort to win the primary, not to hold back and later set up a new organization. Of course it has turned out to be a savvy move, and C4L has done a lot of good things, but if that wasn't "sly, devious & ugly pragmatism" then what is?

I just don't think that playing the media, setting us up for an eventual Rand run, and raising money until the last possible minute (Rand's announcement day) is something Ron Paul would shy away from. He is not a god, but a human being like the rest of us. Still, I hope he runs and I will do everything in my power to support him.

I believe he didn't know about those specific statements in the newsletters. There was someone else involved who might have followed that strategy and Ron didn't exercise control, however. He lets people say what they are going to say, imho.

[Occam's Banana]

Ron Paul often says that he quit Congress in 1984 because he missed contact with real people outside of Washington and wanted to go back to practicing medicine. However, the real reason was that he ran for the Senate (and lost) which he conveniently never mentions at all.

He often says he was drafted into the military. That's not entirely true; he volunteered to avoid being drafted. And his commercials in Texas said that he is a "Vietnam-era veteran", subtly creating the impression that he served in Vietnam. But he never did.

As for the newsletters, of course he knew what was going on. It was all part of Murray Rothbard's strategy to build a broad populist alliance. Those were different times, and Ron could never admit the truth in this day and age without instantly losing 35%+ of his support.

He took about $4 million from his 2008 campaign and rolled them over into an unaccountable organization staffed by friends and family. That money had been donated for him to make an all-out effort to win the primary, not to hold back and later set up a new organization. Of course it has turned out to be a savvy move, and C4L has done a lot of good things, but if that wasn't "sly, devious & ugly pragmatism" then what is?

I just don't think that playing the media, setting us up for an eventual Rand run, and raising money until the last possible minute (Rand's announcement day) is something Ron Paul would shy away from. He is not a god, but a human being like the rest of us. Still, I hope he runs and I will do everything in my power to support him.
Well, smear my ass with jam & sit me on an ant-hill! I stand corrected. That'll teach me not to over-indulge in hyperbole.

[nayjevin]

Rand's great but he's more just a typical politician that happens to have great views and great ideas.

Any of that I had in me was gone when I saw this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeQQvThww3w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0WoNzQSn50

[Original_Intent]

At the press club speech, RAnd did something that makes me admire him less than Ron, and yet it also will make him more electable than Ron.

That was when he took a jab at Newt, saying that he has maybe more positions on the war than he has wives.

Everybody kind of "oooohed" over that, and it is something that I think Ron is too classy to have said.

But the truth is, I think it will serve Rand well should he decide to run. People want someone who will go for the jugular. I really respect Ron for the way he distinguishes himself by not doing that. But I think it hurts him in elections.

[Justinjj1]

I completley disagree with the notion that Rand is more electable. Yes, Rand was successful in getting elected in Kentucky, but that was only because he pandered to all the neo-cons, and warmongering, Israel-loving, good ole boys. He was only elected in the primary because he distanced himself from libertarian positions.

Ron has a far broader national appeal and an established nationwide network of grassroots supporters. These supporters are not going to automatically jump on the Rand's bandwagon just because his last name is Paul. He has to prove himself in the Senate and establish some credibility first.

[acptulsa]

But the truth is, I think it will serve Rand well should he decide to run. People want someone who will go for the jugular. I really respect Ron for the way he distinguishes himself by not doing that. But I think it hurts him in elections.

Everyone seems to have the idea they're the good cop/bad cop team, but no one seems to be able to agree which is the good one and which is the bad one.

Magic. They're going to be so effective, campaigning together.

[The Dark Knight]

I will support either one but Ron needs to run to further educate the masses. It will set up a run by Rand in 2016, which I think he can win.

[payme_rick]

I see a lot of people here who know exactly what would happen if Ron ran instead of Rand/Rand ran instead of Ron and what would be better etc... To me that means a lot of you don't know chit (no offense, but it's impossible for all of you to be right ;))!

I think it's a good discussion, though, just see too many personal feelings framing arguments....

My gut tells me Rand could get through the primary easier than Ron and that Ron could get through the General easier than Randy... Then wudda ya know, my gut does a 360...

I'm gunna let these two make the decision, then I'll go all in for Paul...

[acptulsa]

My gut tells me Rand could get through the primary easier than Ron and that Ron could get through the General easier than Randy... Then wudda ya know, my gut does a 360...

A '360' degree turn leaves you pointed in the same direction you were before. And puts your gut right in line with mine. We don't need to run Rand to pander to the neocons. We need to run Ron so we can win the general. And we need to inform those neocons who hate him that if they don't want to win the general election, but merely want to promote their 'neo-McCain', then they aren't 'team players' and ought to go away...

[payme_rick]

A '360' degree turn leaves you pointed in the same direction you were before.

Haha, for sure caught my goof... 180 it is :)

[cdc482]

I'd rather Rand than no Pauls run, but
I would be about 9284923874107837120470128 times more passionate for Ron Paul.

[UtahApocalypse]

I know this for absolute fact, I will be my house on it:

I'm voting Paul for President :)