Article suggests 'Ron Vs Rand' discussion occuring on forums?

[123tim]

Funny, I don't remember seeing any discussion about Ron Vs. Rand on our forum (as this article suggests). Maybe I just missed it since I don't go anywhere (much) except for the General Politics, Economics,and Freedom Living sections? I do have lapses logging in sometimes though - might have missed it then.

I can't help but to detect a bit of Social Engineering in this article. I guess that's everywhere. I even inserted a little into my subject title. :)


Senator Rand Paul just wrapped up a successful weekend trip to Iowa. His next stop on the 2012 campaign trail: New Hampshire.

The strange thing is that his father Ron Paul just visited both of these early voting states last month. Are both Paul's testing the waters for a possible presidential campaign in 2012?

Supporters have been debating this unlikely Rand vs. Ron scenario in online postings and forums for some time now, but a family feud is the last thing the Republican Party needs, going into next year's presidential election.
It could be that Rand Paul is hoping to pull a Barack Obama by running for president before completing his first full term in the U.S. Senate. If so, his dad could prove to be a real asset on the campaign trail. At a recent event at the University of New Hampshire, Ron Paul mentioned his son's recent election to the U.S. Senate, much to the delight of local supporters. Could be a harbinger of things to come.

Huffington Post reports that Rand impressed Iowa Republicans during his recent trip to the Hawkeye State. He'll make two appearances at local GOP fundraisers in New Hampshire on April 28.

Here's an idea that will blow Paul enthusiasts minds. What about Ron Paul/Rand Paul at the top of the Republican Party ticket in 2012? Discuss...


http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979188922

[sailingaway]

I'd be fine with Ron at the top and Rand as VP. I think people would be enthusiastic on our side. I always thought people picked VPs for political necessity, but since I would be happy with this choice, it doesn't bother me a bit. And the transition to supporting Rand in 2016 would be clear.

I'd change your title, personally. I think trolls have set some people up to post stuff to divide us, and thought this was one of those posts.

[123tim]

I'd be fine with Ron at the top and Rand as VP. I think people would be enthusiastic on our side. I always thought people picked VPs for political necessity, but since I would be happy with this choice, it doesn't bother me a bit. And the transition to supporting Rand in 2016 would be clear.

I'd change your title, personally. I think trolls have set some people up to post stuff to divide us, and thought this was one of those posts.

I agree with you on this.

* Just one problem....I've never been able to figure out how to edit the actual title once I've posted.
Any suggestions?

If I can't, maybe a Mod. could change it to something more suitable. This would be fine with me.

Seems like everything is set up to divide us.

Thank you.

[acptulsa]

IIRC, edit the OP and then 'Go Advanced'.

[nayjevin]

Changed, that suit you 123tim?

[123tim]

Changed, that suit you 123tim?


That's much better. Thank you Nayjevin.

I was working on trying to edit and you did it for me. :)

Thank you as well, Acptulsa. I appreciate all of the help.

[speciallyblend]

if you were reading several threads in rpf along with news of both talking and book signing etc etc. I can see where you might get that impression that both might run! as for paul/paul nonsense!!

[jmdrake]

Sure there has been some discussion, but the Huffington post calling it a "family feud" is ridiculous. It's not like the "Baldwin versus Barr" wars of 2008, or the potential "R. Paul versus Gary Johnson" battle. Most people (here anyway) believe Rand and Ron both share the same core values, principles etc, but they have different strengths when it comes to electability. (Ron has experience, and Rand appeals to conservatives who didn't support Ron but are too stubborn to admit they were wrong.)

[nobody's_hero]

I don't really see them running against each other, of course, but I've been thinking how awesome it would be to have both of them in the debates at the same time.


Tag team pwnage!!! :p

[ItsTime]

I don't really see them running against each other, of course, but I've been thinking how awesome it would be to have both of them in the debates at the same time.


Tag team pwnage!!! :p

That would be a sight to see! To bad the money would be split or I would say go for it! ha

[sailingaway]

That would be a sight to see! To bad the money would be split or I would say go for it! ha

And the straw poll votes. The things that get headlines, which will be needed. But, yeah, it would be fun.

[UtahApocalypse]

They missed the point of our discussions: This is not a case of Ron Vs. Rand but rather Ron Or Rand, and Secondly is if you would give full support to whichever throws the hat in. I don't think you could find one person here seriously thinking they both will run.

Until they; and only that father and son can do so, I have found my solution:

Paul for President

[angelatc]

I'd be fine with Ron at the top and Rand as VP. I think people would be enthusiastic on our side. I always thought people picked VPs for political necessity, but since I would be happy with this choice, it doesn't bother me a bit. And the transition to supporting Rand in 2016 would be clear.

I'd change your title, personally. I think trolls have set some people up to post stuff to divide us, and thought this was one of those posts.

Isn't there some law against that, dating from the Kennedy era?

[specsaregood]

....Rand appeals to conservatives who didn't support Ron but are too stubborn to admit they were wrong.

^That is so freaking true.

[acptulsa]

Isn't there some law against that, dating from the Kennedy era?

Never heard of such a thing. Are you thinking of the Twelfth Amendment, which states that if both the presidential candidate and the vp candidate are from the same state, no electors from that state may vote for the ticket? Doesn't apply to the Pauls--at least, not since Rand grew up and moved out.

[sailingaway]

You know, someone mentioned that Ron wasn't on the list for some 'faith and family' forum Rand was invited to and will speak at. It occurs to me that actually, this might be a great strategy. If it ever got to the point where Ron would get the nomination IF he had a different VP he and Rand could discuss it, but otherwise, it gives Rand a huge roll, lets Ron travel less, and work on his committee more, and actually does pull in two different arms of conservatives, while 'covering' Rand's inexperience and 'arrogance' as some detractors see it for running 'so soon'. In the general, Ron still has the cross appeal, and if someone won't vote for Ron/Rand in the general who pretends to be a conservative, they are actually 'anti liberty' and won't vote for either of them, anyhow. Meanwhile, transition is ingrained.

I actually like this.

And Rand could speak, not just as 'Ron' Son' but as his Vice Presidential candidate. As far as getting the message out goes, it is twice the message and no division of straw polls or anything.

I don't know if the Paul's are open to this, but I'm psyched!

[K466]

Interesting- that article is from Gather.com, which I've commented (http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979188922#comme nts)on.

That's a site almost anyone can sign up to write for. I've been a member there for over two years, it's fun but overwhelmed by statists of one stripe or another. However there are a few solid libertarians there, myself (http://www.gather.com/viewPostsByMember.action?memberId=564194) and Steve Bachman (http://bachman.gather.com/) for sure. May I especially recommend Bachman's marvelous but infrequent posts (http://www.gather.com/viewPostsByMember.action?memberId=130842)...