Rand is itching to run

[Johnnybags]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/153555-rand-paul-says-hes-ready-to-run-in-2012

[Aratus]

Rand's strategic positioning on
the issue of the debt is good
for the next three elections,
namely 2012, 2016 & 2020!

[AuH20]

I wonder if Ron will endorse him? :D

[AuH20]

Under no circumstances will the TPTB let Rand Paul debate the One. I think this commenter hit the nail on the head. Do they really want Obama the salesman debating the philosopher-statesman?:


If the President will not field unscripted questions from the reporters, just what in the heck is the President going to do when someone like Rand Paul debates the President while also fielding unscripted questions. President Clinton can do alot, but he cannot be a substitute debater. Watching the great deceiver squirm on live tv will be better than watching the superbowl! BY debate the issues on 04/04/2011 at 10:17

[acptulsa]

Under no circumstances will the TPTB let Rand Paul debate the One. I think this commenter hit the nail on the head. Do they really want Obama the salesman debating the philosopher-statesman?:

And how do they escapt the corner they are painted into? Debate and you expose yourself, refuse and you tip your hand.

Hey, look over there! tactics are past effectiveness. Even Ghaddafi can't make our dictators look good any more.

[sailingaway]

It is Ron's decision. If Ron doesn't want to run, I'd back Rand, but I hope he has taken into account what this could do to his honeymoon.

[AuH20]

And how do they escapt the corner they are painted into? Debate and you expose yourself, refuse and you tip your hand.

Hey, look over there! tactics are past effectiveness. Even Ghaddafi can't make our dictators look good any more.

The only tactic is to give nondescript answers or feign outright ignorance. And in the aftermath, then utilize the state subsidized media to figuratively bludgeon your opponent over the head,

[AuH20]

Or I could see the Obama people making some phone calls to the RNC, so as to rein the maverick in. You know the old CFR reach-around.

[TNforPaul45]

Wow! From Rand Paul's own mouth, he's ready to run instead of being a Legislative "back bencher."

I stand corrected.

I stand with Rand!

[Krugerrand]

And how do they escapt the corner they are painted into? Debate and you expose yourself, refuse and you tip your hand.

Hey, look over there! tactics are past effectiveness. Even Ghaddafi can't make our dictators look good any more.

Or - accuse your opponent of being a racist and therefore unworthy of your debate time.

[squarepusher]

Why didn't Rand just not run for senate, and skip straight to presidential election? Would have helped a lot with campaign donations, money bombs etc...

[Cowlesy]

Bwahaha, yeah he is.

2016 Rand...2016....

[acptulsa]

Good. He does one hell of a good job of it. Whether he's the candidate or his father is, he does one hell of a good job of it.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I would back Rand 100% but I still really hope for one more run from Ron. I think Rand could benefit from the experience and Ron will just grow the movement even larger and set us up nicely for Rand in 2016 assuming Ron does not make so much sense to the statists that he actually wins this thing.

[Krugerrand]

Why didn't Rand just not run for senate, and skip straight to presidential election? Would have helped a lot with campaign donations, money bombs etc...

Even if he runs, there's no guarantee he wins. If he were to now run and lose, he has a Senate seat to go back to. Otherwise he'd be back to "What looks better - 1 or 2?"

[jmdrake]

Quote of the interview:


In response to a question about his relative lack of experience as a lawmaker, Paul noted in an interview with Radio Iowa that President Obama faced the same criticism during his 2008 campaign.

"Didn't seem to hurt him, did it?" said Paul.

[freejack]

Having little experience may not have hurt Obama but it will hurt anyone who tries to do it again. After witnessing what a huge failure Obama was, people will be more careful to elect someone with his credentials or lack thereof.

[matt0611]

I feel like if Rand ran he'd have a much better chance of winning the republican nomination than Ron.
I'm so torn on who I want to run more...

[S.Shorland]

I'm happy with either.Actually I'd prefer both and Johnson too so the populace at large are exposed to Libertarian thought and it becomes completely mainstream.Rand isn't the honeymoon type and actually realises that the 'senior/junior' senator nonsense was set up purposely to maintain cronyism and special interest control.Ryan,Rubio and the other creeps are running to catch up.If he was the only 'Tea Party' senator elected last cycle I would say no but I really think he has an open goal.Ron has had a vastly greater effect than most give him credit for.Personally I don't think America has until the 2012 election.If he and/or Ron are running when the collapse comes,it will be a walk in.

[gls]

Having little experience may not have hurt Obama but it will hurt anyone who tries to do it again. After witnessing what a huge failure Obama was, people will be more careful to elect someone with his credentials or lack thereof.

I don't think the recent record of "experienced" politicians is anything to write home about...12 trillion dollars in debt (with tens of trillions more in unfunded entitlement obligations), never-ending wars in the Middle East, double-digit unemployment and the major curtailing of long-cherished civil liberties.

[TIMB0B]

I stand with Rand!Nice slogan!

[TheTyke]

Why didn't Rand just not run for senate, and skip straight to presidential election? Would have helped a lot with campaign donations, money bombs etc...

That wouldn't have worked, at all, hehe. He is a Republican rockstar BECAUSE he won a Senate Seat, proving our ideas are popular and electable. Plus, we had to battle doubts/attacks from within the liberty movement during his entire campaign - now that he's actually been in the Senate, with his record on balanced budgets, "Patriot" Act, Libya, audit the Fed etc. he has proven himself to the liberty movement so we can all get behind him.

Had he not won the senate seat, he'd have been even more unknown than Ron was in 2008 - and for that matter, Ron himself has a bigger profile due to Rand's victory.

[eduardo89]

I wonder if Ron will endorse him? :D

That's nepotism.

[speciallyblend]

Paul/Johnson 2012

[speciallyblend]

That wouldn't have worked, at all, hehe. He is a Republican rockstar BECAUSE he won a Senate Seat, proving our ideas are popular and electable. Plus, we had to battle doubts/attacks from within the liberty movement during his entire campaign - now that he's actually been in the Senate, with his record on balanced budgets, "Patriot" Act, Libya, audit the Fed etc. he has proven himself to the liberty movement so we can all get behind him.

Had he not won the senate seat, he'd have been even more unknown than Ron was in 2008 - and for that matter, Ron himself has a bigger profile due to Rand's victory.

exactly, now we need rand to kidnap the gop republicans and force them to do bong hits instead of hitting the whiskey:)

[randolphfuller]

The one event Obama is not afraid of is a debate.

[puppetmaster]

i will back Rand as I backed Ron...with $$ and boots on the ground!

[puppetmaster]

Paul/Paul......

[acptulsa]

The one event Obama is not afraid of is a debate.

I strongly disagree. It isn't is he or isn't he a good debater. It's about, is his record defensible? This isn't 2008, when he was a neophyte making vague promises.

[AuH20]

I strongly disagree. It isn't is he or isn't he a good debater. It's about, is his record defensible? This isn't 2008, when he was a neophyte making vague promises.

Obama's kyptonite:

(1) Goldman Sachs being one of his chief benefactors. Doesn't Goldman Sachs have like a national approval rating below 25%? Stick this to his forehead with a national advertising campaign and the man is politically dead. Run through all the ex-GS employees in his cabinet. The GOP elders would never sign on to this though. But who cares? Play to win. Crush the opposition.
(2) Individual mandate in the health care bill. Mr. President, are you against freedom of choice? Secondly, why did you censor the the details of the meeting with the health care industry execs? What are you trying to hide after announcing that you would have the most transparent administration?
(3) Hypocrisy of the kinetic military action which took place in Libya.

There is so much material that could make him hide under the podium.

[AuH20]

the press protects him. the GOP must have a gentleman's agreement not to go here as well:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/goldman-obama039s-enron-no-it039s-worse-updated

[anaconda]

Under no circumstances will the TPTB let Rand Paul debate the One. I think this commenter hit the nail on the head. Do they really want Obama the salesman debating the philosopher-statesman?:

I think Soetoro is required to debate the Republican nominee. Just like Bush had to "debate" Kerry.

[jmdrake]

Having little experience may not have hurt Obama but it will hurt anyone who tries to do it again. After witnessing what a huge failure Obama was, people will be more careful to elect someone with his credentials or lack thereof.


I don't think the recent record of "experienced" politicians is anything to write home about...12 trillion dollars in debt (with tens of trillions more in unfunded entitlement obligations), never-ending wars in the Middle East, double-digit unemployment and the major curtailing of long-cherished civil liberties.

Exactly! Obama isn't a "failure" in the NWO sense. He's just continuing the policies of every president post Kennedy. The beauty of the Rand quote on Obama's experience, coupled with Rand's brilliant move on attack Obama on foreign policy using Obama's own words, shows why Rand should be the nominee if the GOP has any brains (which is questionable). Sarah Palin got crushed in 2008 because her response to her lack of foreign policy experience was that Alaska was near Russia. She should have turned that around and said "Why aren't you making a bigger deal about Obama's foreign policy experience"?

[sailingaway]

Actually, the prospect of a debate with Obama is where Ron would really shine.

[AuH20]

I think Soetoro is required to debate the Republican nominee.....

with certain assurances. McCain never really took the fight to Obama. It came off very scripted.

[anaconda]

Actually, the prospect of a debate with Obama is where Ron would really shine.

Rand or Ron would dominate Soetoro in a debate.

[anaconda]

with certain assurances. McCain never really took the fight to Obama. It came off very scripted.

I don't see how they could cancel a debate without "assurances" from a liberty candidate nominee. Plus they are live and unedited so the only way they could try to control the content is by discriminatory questioning. But even then the candidate can go off and talk about whatever they want pretty much.

[Stary Hickory]

Rand will piledrive Obama in the debates. He doesn't get angry easy and always seems to have argument x or y before and has a well planned response. The thing is like most libertarian- types Rand has done the mental legwork to understand what freedom and liberty are about, what the role of government should be, and he also has Austrian Economics as a solid foundation for economic arguments.

Obama will have nothing but veiled insults and demogauging in his arsenal. I don't think it will be enough.

[Bruehound]

Rand is positioning himself to be second on the ticket. Politically, this is a freaking brilliant way to combat the "Ron is too old" mantra. Two generations, two messengers and one message. And all the tease right now is getting tons of free press.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Rand is positioning himself to be second on the ticket. Politically, this is a freaking brilliant way to combat the "Ron is too old" mantra. Two generations, two messengers and one message. And all the tease right now is getting tons of free press.

I see this. And I will support him if he runs. I just really want Ron to run one last time. Otherwise, what is the point of CPAC and all of these polls?

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

It would feel like quite an odd curve ball if Rand runs. I'm not sure how I would feel since I really want to see Ron Paul 2012. If this was the decision, though, I would back it.

[TNforPaul45]

I think Soetoro is required to debate the Republican nominee. Just like Bush had to "debate" Kerry.

No debates are not required, they are just agreed to conveniences.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand is not going to run. Ron is. And the great thing about that is that Levin and all of the Rand-fans are going to have to come to grips with the fact that Rand is campaigning for Ron.

It is going to be fun to watch!

[QueenB4Liberty]

Rand is not going to run. Ron is. And the great thing about that is that Levin and all of the Rand-fans are going to have to come to grips with the fact that Rand is campaigning for Ron.

It is going to be fun to watch!

I'm not sure...Rand keeps making more and more hints he is going to be the one running. I do hope you are right.

[nayjevin]

Whatever happens, I'll start looking into why that was the best plan. I don't have near enough information to say what the best plan is now, but these two do.

[Matt Collins]

Rand is positioning himself to be second on the ticket. Politically, this is a freaking brilliant way to combat the "Ron is too old" mantra. Two generations, two messengers and one message. And all the tease right now is getting tons of free press.
Precisely. The idea is to set Rand up to be VP.

[cindy25]

Bwahaha, yeah he is.

2016 Rand...2016....

2016 would risk the senate seat

the most important is Jan 20th 2013 the president is Paul.

[low preference guy]

Precisely. The idea is to set Rand up to be VP.

I doubt Rand will tolerate being #2. You can't do crap as VP.

[Matt Collins]

I doubt Rand will tolerate being #2. You can't do crap as VP.
As VP you just get to run the United States Senate. No big deal, right?

[Sola_Fide]

As VP you just get to run the United States Senate. No big deal, right?

Matt,

Who would Rand run with? I don't see him running with Romney, Huck, Newt, etc.

[sailingaway]

As VP you just get to run the United States Senate. No big deal, right?

That's only a vote when it ties. He has a vote on every single bill, now.

Rubio wants to be VP. Now there is a born VP if I ever saw one. The man was born to say 'absolutely! I agree!' to leadership.

[Legend1104]

I wish he had kept this to himself. I would not mind Rand, but I am afraid that this will lead Ron Paul to turn down another run because his son is taking his place. I want Ron Paul much more than Rand Paul right now.

[R3volutionJedi]

Ron Paul 2012

[MikeStanart]

All I know is ONE of them is running. I'm just as excited either way. This board needs to stop arguing over which one is going to run, and should be damned happy that we have 2 great, amazing candidates...One of which is going to represent us all on a national stage! :D

EDIT: Could you ever imagine having this argument in 2007? "Well guys, we have 2 amazing, legitimate candidates who are definitly going to get amazing exposure for the cause of Liberty, who do we choose? Damn, guys...this situation blows!" LOL we would be so lucky to have this problem in 2007!

Count your blessings, folks!

[Nic]

I'm good with either one, but 2 things make me prefer that Rand waits until 2016...

1) I'm positive that our economic system is going to collapse between now and 2016 and I think we've already reached the point of no return. It's no longer a matter of IF it's going to happen, it's simply a matter of WHEN. Whoever is in office at the time is going to get blamed for the collapse. I'm not thrilled about the idea of having a liberty-minded President in office when this happens.

2) Everybody seems to either be ignoring or be afraid to address the 800 lb gorilla in the room: Obama was elected because of ethnicity and Obama is going to be reelected based on ethnicity. This is America we're dealing with here. We don't elect our Presidents based on merit.

[nayjevin]

I'm not thrilled about the idea of having a liberty-minded President in office when this happens.

Isn't that better than the alternative of NOT having victimless crimes pardoned, NOT having our brothers and sisters in the military come home, and NOT having thousands more dead innocent people?

[puppetmaster]

Either way we have an advantage with a paul stumping for the other paul. I still like a paul/paul ticket. Talk about the press having a hard time ignorning a father son team

[anaconda]

I'm good with either one, but 2 things make me prefer that Rand waits until 2016...

1) I'm positive that our economic system is going to collapse between now and 2016 and I think we've already reached the point of no return. It's no longer a matter of IF it's going to happen, it's simply a matter of WHEN. Whoever is in office at the time is going to get blamed for the collapse. I'm not thrilled about the idea of having a liberty-minded President in office when this happens.

2) Everybody seems to either be ignoring or be afraid to address the 800 lb gorilla in the room: Obama was elected because of ethnicity and Obama is going to be reelected based on ethnicity. This is America we're dealing with here. We don't elect our Presidents based on merit.

Rand or Ron will, ironically, choose to wield MUCH more power than most presidents. They will veto unbalanced budgets and gut the military industrial complex by bringing the vast majority of troops home. Various actions may prove inspirational. Imagine if Rand pardoned all tax offenders and drug offenders. Investigations may reveal new and old corruptions and yield high approval ratings. Etc. These are boat rocking measures that no president dares to try.

[jmdrake]

I doubt Rand will tolerate being #2. You can't do crap as VP.

Ummmm....with his dad being the pres? How is that untolerable? In fact I think Rand would rather be VP under Ron than anyone else. That's anti-assassination insurance. (Nobody's going to off the elder Paul if you know that just means you'll get the younger Paul.)

[Nic]

Isn't that better than the alternative of NOT having victimless crimes pardoned, NOT having our brothers and sisters in the military come home, and NOT having thousands more dead innocent people?

That depends. Does it mean that we wind up with 4 years of liberty followed by never having another one of our candidates elected again? Im not willing to settle for short term satisfaction if it means long term oppression.

[acptulsa]

That depends. Does it mean that we wind up with 4 years of liberty followed by never having another one of our candidates elected again? Im not willing to settle for short term satisfaction if it means long term oppression.

I'm not so worried about the voters confusing cause and solution, or failing to understand the concept of a solution that 'takes a minute', as I am this question: What sort of 'Teapot Dome' scandal are they going to create and will they make it stick?

And they will do their best to create a Teapot Dome and stick it on him. If they don't do an 'anti-Goldwater Nuke Commercial' on them both first, and make that stick.

Count on both and be ready.

[georgiaboy]

I'm happy with either.Actually I'd prefer both and Johnson too so the populace at large are exposed to Libertarian thought and it becomes completely mainstream.Rand isn't the honeymoon type and actually realises that the 'senior/junior' senator nonsense was set up purposely to maintain cronyism and special interest control.Ryan,Rubio and the other creeps are running to catch up.If he was the only 'Tea Party' senator elected last cycle I would say no but I really think he has an open goal.Ron has had a vastly greater effect than most give him credit for.Personally I don't think America has until the 2012 election.If he and/or Ron are running when the collapse comes,it will be a walk in.

This. I want the first "ten candidates" GOP debate to have a plethora of Ron Paul Republicans in it, so that true conservative ideas come across as the mainstream ideas that they actually are. Amash, Johnson, Paul, Paul, Mike Lee. Get the principles right, then debate the finer points, policies, etc. Put the RINOs in the minority position they deserve!

[nayjevin]

That depends. Does it mean that we wind up with 4 years of liberty followed by never having another one of our candidates elected again? Im not willing to settle for short term satisfaction if it means long term oppression.

I'm sympathetic to that reasoning, but when I envision a Ron Paul presidency I see no chance of losing the intellectual battle to the media soundbytes. Ron will have a chance to state his purpose and methods and will have an international audience for them. Media outlets will be under far less pressure to cater to an establishment mindset - as that mindset won't hold the executive. And competing currencies will ensure that far fewer people suffer from the inevitable dollar crash than would have otherwise. I just don't see how he'd be blamed for all the ills by enough voting people to make a re-election or succeeding election of a liberty candidate impossible.