Frank Luntz: RAND has MOST LIKEABILITY of ANY candidate he's EVER polled the audience on

[DeadheadForPaul]

Edit: Crap, just saw that someone had posted this but it was on page 3. MY BADDDDD

According to "Fuck you" Frank, he polled audiences on political commercials, and Rand has the most favorable of any

In this clip, Rand speaks in front of a live audience, and the crowd unanimously agree with him - something Frank claims has never happened among Dems and Repubs

We got something brewing here, guys and gals


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyQSN3U_vU8&feature=player_embedded

[tasteless]

Clearly this means Rand Paul is universally hated.

[Vessol]

Randslide 2016!

[BrendenR]

Edit: Crap, just saw that someone had posted this but it was on page 3. MY BADDDDD

According to "Fuck you" Frank, he polled audiences on political commercials, and Rand has the most favorable of any

In this clip, Rand speaks in front of a live audience, and the crowd unanimously agree with him - something Frank claims has never happened among Dems and Repubs

We got something brewing here, guys and gals


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyQSN3U_vU8&feature=player_embedded

If you watch the second half of the video when the democrat is talking with the group, some guy asked about auditing the fed!

[Cleaner44]

This is huge. The truth is that people know Rand is right. Party bullshit does not matter. If Ron does not win in 2012 Rand WILL in 2016.

[Vessol]

Every Neocon I've talked to who hates Ron loves Rand.

[trey4sports]

Every Neocon I've talked to who hates Ron loves Rand.

The irony is that Rand just dumbs down his fathers message....

[Vessol]

The irony is that Rand just dumbs down his fathers message....

I know. That's what I was thinking inside when someone was explaining to me at CPAC why he loved Rand. I didn't want to say it out loud though.

[PaulConventionWV]

Dang I can't wait for 2016 now! He has to get some more rep in the senate first, though.

[MikeStanart]

The irony is that Rand just dumbs down his fathers message....

HAH! I know! Rand will be President some day.

[TruePatriotFreedomLover]

Fox has been scaring me with all of their pro-Paul coverage lately!

[FrankRep]

The irony is that Rand just dumbs down his fathers message....
Rand Paul speaks like a Conservative.

[nobody's_hero]

Rand Paul speaks like a Conservative.

I wish I had an idea what that label means anymore.

[AuH20]

Rand Paul speaks like a Conservative.

Notice that he stays on message and doesn't stray off into no man's land when it isn't necessary. He knows how the media kicked his old man's ass and won't let it happen again. Rand is brilliant.

[sailingaway]

Edit: Crap, just saw that someone had posted this but it was on page 3. MY BADDDDD



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyQSN3U_vU8&feature=player_embedded

That's ok, I'll put it in Rand's forum.

I wonder if Fox will be as enthusiastic when he runs for President? No matter, we save video clips!!

[Cleaner44]

The irony is that Rand just dumbs down his fathers message....

Ron was very eloquent when he was younger. Not as much these days. The message is there, just not as easy to follow for some.

[AuH20]

David Brooks and David Frum are nervously biting their nails after watching this.

[Sola_Fide]

The irony is that Rand just dumbs down his fathers message....

Sounds like the winning formula for any politican if they want to win in 2012 and beyond. I wish Ron would dumb his message down sometimes.

[MisterTickle]

I wonder if Rand would have been more favorable instead of Ron if he ran..

[angelatc]

I thought we thought Frank was full of crap.

[low preference guy]

I thought we thought Frank was full of crap.

hehehe

[AuH20]

I wonder if Rand would have been more favorable instead of Ron if he ran..

Rand's hypothetical election numbers against Obama were on par with GOP's favorite son Chris Christie! He's on another level than his father.

[Sola_Fide]

I wonder if Rand would have been more favorable instead of Ron if he ran..

When the race for 2016 begins, Rand will stand head and shoulders above every other candidate. It would be easier for the others to not even run against Rand. He will win.

Every Republican I've spoken to who has reservations about Ron, loves Rand. Rand is Ron Paul without the heroin and prostitutes.

[No Free Beer]

guys, we cant demonize frank luntz, then praise his polling. this guy is a clutz

[Sola_Fide]

guys, we cant demonize frank luntz, then praise his polling. this guy is a clutz

Huh?

[thehighwaymanq]

This is so awesome!

[josh.schisler]

Sounds like the winning formula for any politican if they want to win in 2012 and beyond. I wish Ron would dumb his message down sometimes.

Ron sounds significantly dumber than Rand when he speaks. Ron's arguments are less logical and less persuasive; I'm not sure how that constitutes a "smarter" message.

[Sola_Fide]

Ron sounds significantly dumber than Rand when he speaks. Ron's arguments are less logical and less persuasive; I'm not sure how that constitutes a "smarter" message.


Hmmm. I don't agree. Ron talks very much about philosophy. It goes over people's heads sometimes not because it is dumb, but because the sheep don't understand it.

Rand has a much more "Republican-sounding" delivery that appeals to conservatives. Rand is not going to spend time explaining how artificially low interest rates cause malinvestment, which lead to financial bubbles which cause recessions. Rand is just going to say he is against bailouts.


Same difference to me. Thank God we still have patriots like Ron Paul who love to teach though.

[AuH20]

Ron sounds significantly dumber than Rand when he speaks. Ron's arguments are less logical and less persuasive; I'm not sure how that constitutes a "smarter" message.

Ron tries to condense complex topics into 2 or 3 sentences during a short answer session & usually this backfires. Take for example his lackluster answer on why jobs are leaving the U.S. in which he basically jumped from point A to point C, completely bypassing the junction point of point B. I'm personally of the mind Ron would gain greater appreciation if he had visual aids, but you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

[AuH20]

I remember after watching this live, I turned to my mother and said, he's running for president! This was not your typical victory speech. This was an act of defiance and an aggressive claim on a potential leadership role.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku1TX9dvHYE&feature=related

[Eric21ND]

I remember after watching this live, I turned to my mother and said, he's running for president! This was not your typical victory speech. This was an act of defiance and an aggressive claim on a potential leadership role.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku1TX9dvHYE&feature=related
Dude that speech literally gives me chills!!

[Sola_Fide]

I remember after watching this live, I turned to my mother and said, he's running for president! This was not your typical victory speech. This was an act of defiance and an aggressive claim on a potential leadership role.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku1TX9dvHYE&feature=related


The msnbc pundits after his speech are comedic gold!

[BamaFanNKy]

What I love, Big Love Larry O'Donnell thinks raising the debt ceiling vote is a more important vote than sending our young men to kill and destroy another country's people vote.

[specsaregood]

Ron sounds significantly dumber than Rand when he speaks. Ron's arguments are less logical and less persuasive; I'm not sure how that constitutes a "smarter" message.

This indicates to me that you aren't quite so bright. not that there is anything wrong with that.

[puppetmaster]

I think he would be a solid 2012 vp...i mean why wait, what would be the downside? If we continue at the current rate 2016 is too late

[josh.schisler]

This indicates to me that you aren't quite so bright.

I think it takes much more intelligence to persuade than to spout off lines about property rights and evil government intrusions.

[Sola_Fide]

I think it takes much more intelligence to persuade than to spout off lines about property rights and evil government intrusions.

Ur crazy bro.

[rich34]

Every Neocon I've talked to who hates Ron loves Rand.


I get this to, I'm like "if you've seen the father you've seen the son!"

[Patrick Henry]

rand is ron paul without the heroin and prostitutes.


lmao

[angelatc]

guys, we cant demonize frank luntz, then praise his polling. this guy is a clutz

Yeah, I think it just shows that Frank likes Rand, and not much else.

[Aratus]

Randslide 2016!


yep... once again, could be!

[UK4Paul]

The irony is that Rand just dumbs down his fathers message....

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[speciallyblend]

maybe rand should enter the race to counter the gop est and announce he is running as well. something to shake the gop est to their foundations!!

[speciallyblend]

Rand Paul 2012 or Ron Paul 2012 or both are fine by me;) Paul 2012

[Adrock]

I love Ron but I feel that Rand could easily beat the current GOP field. The GOP and America is ready for the Liberty Message, just not the way Ron is delivering it. It is really too bad because I think Rand could trounce Obama too.

[speciallyblend]

I love Ron but I feel that Rand could easily beat the current GOP field. The GOP and America is ready for the Liberty Message, just not the way Ron is delivering it. It is really too bad because I think Rand could trounce Obama too.

get them both on the stage and we can worry about which gains traction;) personally i would vote for a Paul/Paul ticket, but i would trust ron and rand to figure out those plans as time goes by!

[Patrick Henry]

If this is true, (I refuse to trust Luntz) then Rand should get out there campaigning for his old man ASAP.

[TheTyke]

Yeah, it's pretty cool, but Luntz is a manipulation specialist... not sure why'd we'd take this seriously just because it's favorable. It's very cool that this is being broadcast, and hopefully we don't see a reversal of the media when Rand runs.... but I am sort of curious why they're doing it.

[Romulus]

The msnbc pundits after his speech are comedic gold!

He's going to cause a worldwide economic depression!!!!!111111

[Sola_Fide]

^^^:)

[BlackTerrel]

Wow. Thanks for the Tube.

[mconder]

Other than term limits are BS and his father probably disagrees, this was good.

[Sola_Fide]

If you watch the second half of the video when the democrat is talking with the group, some guy asked about auditing the fed!

I know! That was great huh?

[jacmicwag]

Well, maybe Frank got wind of how bad he was being bashed on RP Forums and decided to jump on the bandwagon in his own Luntzian way. Great piece but I can't help but wonder what's really behind it.

[georgiaboy]

Cool.

A possible scenario: establishment GOP candidate wins the 2012 nomination, and seeks Rand Paul as his/her running mate as a way to unite the party. Would Rand take the offer, and if he did, would we vote for the ticket? My instinct is that Rand, similar to his debt ceiling stance, would require the nominee to agree to making certain policy decisions as president, or he wouldn't get on board. Scary, but could work out, esp. thinking 2012.

Better scenario: establishment sees the writing on the wall, realizing that they won't get a victory over Obama without the RP republicans, conceding the nomination to Ron Paul and positioning Rand Paul as the running mate to bring the establishment GOPers alongside the RP republicans. Total victory.

[radiofriendly]

This has to be the weirdest piece of tv I've seen in years. It's like an infomercial for the establishment to learn how to attempt a coop of the message. Amazing but mega weird!

[PaleoForPaul]

When the race for 2016 begins, Rand will stand head and shoulders above every other candidate. It would be easier for the others to not even run against Rand. He will win.

Every Republican I've spoken to who has reservations about Ron, loves Rand. Rand is Ron Paul without the heroin and prostitutes.

What Obama did in the last election was so rare, getting elected as President from the Senate. What was interesting to me was it was actually advantageous that Obama was not in the Senate or government very long. Usually Senate candidates have a long string of votes and unpopular legislation that can be attacked for its incompetence or hypocrisy.

Obama had voted so little, there was nothing to use against him.

Rand would have been in that position for 2012. I fear by 2016 he will have made some kind of vote or slip up that will be used to marginalize him.

[Sola_Fide]

What Obama did in the last election was so rare, getting elected as President from the Senate. What was interesting to me was it was actually advantageous that Obama was not in the Senate or government very long. Usually Senate candidates have a long string of votes and unpopular legislation that can be attacked for its incompetence or hypocrisy.

Obama had voted so little, there was nothing to use against him.

Rand would have been in that position for 2012. I fear by 2016 he will have made some kind of vote or slip up that will be used to marginalize him.


Well, that's only because most politicians are unprincipled hypocrites. I don't see Rand going down that road. A consistently principled voting record will be an asset in 2016.

[ds21089]

In my opinion, this is just an attempt to give Rand overwhelming support so that people go "you know what.. i'll just hold off this election - voting for the one running most similar to Rand (obviously Ron) and just vote Rand in 2016 because I bet he will be running" This is an attempt by the establishment to get people to basically to give up this election cycle and pray for a good 2016, but in reality, this country won't make it to 2016, and they know that. By 2016, we'll be in the most horrendous, policed country in the world. That's why they're trying to divert the energy and give it to somebody who isn't currently running because they don't pose as big of a threat.

[PaleoForPaul]

You wrote about Ron Paul:


I think it takes much more intelligence to persuade than to spout off lines about property rights and evil government intrusions.

The last thing Ron Paul does is 'just spout off lines'. Just spouting off lines, or talking points is what almost every other candidate does. Lets take one 'line' that Ron Paul uses in relation to solving our economic problems:

"You have to allow the liquidation of debt and the malinvestment."

What exactly does it mean? It basically means that debts need to be paid off or defaulted on before saving and investing can resume at normal rates. Attempts to inflate and stimulate our way out of the crash will only cause more problems.

The problem with the line is that 90% of Republican primary voters don't know what it means. "Liquidate the debts" is probably above the heads of 80% of the primary voters, and the concept of Malinvestment which is specific to the Austrian school of economics is probably out of the reach of 95% of the primary voters.

Rand however, doesn't bother with such things. He just says "IM AGAINST BAILOUTS". I think Rand believes the same things, but he simply understands how to appeal to a broader base of voters by dumbing down the message.

Rand sneaks the Libertarian message by, while Ron Paul uses it as a hammer to hit people in the head with.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw_m1G4_F1o&feature=player_embedded#at=25

[PaleoForPaul]

Well, that's only because most politicians are unprincipled hypocrites. I don't see Rand going down that road. A consistently principled voting record will be an asset in 2016.

They'll name some authoritarian bill the "Protect our Senior citizen act of 2014" or some rubbish and Rand will vote against it. When Running against Jeb Bush in the primaries, Jeb will slander Rand as hating old people for voting against the act.

Don't think it could happen? I remember from 2008: "John McCain voted against the Violence Against Women Act". I can only imagine what they'd do to Rand.

I hope you're right though, and it all turns out well.

[PaleoForPaul]

Rand is Ron Paul without the heroin and prostitutes.

By the way, this is priceless.

[ds21089]

When the race for 2016 begins, Rand will stand head and shoulders above every other candidate. It would be easier for the others to not even run against Rand. He will win.

Every Republican I've spoken to who has reservations about Ron, loves Rand. Rand is Ron Paul without the heroin and prostitutes.

It seems the opposite for democrats though. Or at least the democrats I've encountered always think of Rand as a huge racist teabagger, yet they say "Ron is okay though".. I don't quite understand that, but whatever..

[georgiaboy]

I just wish Rand could've gotten in there after the unanimous raised hands, "If you really like what you just heard, check out my dad, Ron, who shares these perspectives, and is running for president this cycle."

:D

[thedude]

I just wish Rand could've gotten in there after the unanimous raised hands, "If you really like what you just heard, check out my dad, Ron, who shares these perspectives, and is running for president this cycle."

:D

Indeed. Rand isn't doing much stumping for his dad. Has he even publicly endorsed him yet?

[Sola_Fide]

It seems the opposite for democrats though. Or at least the democrats I've encountered always think of Rand as a huge racist teabagger, yet they say "Ron is okay though".. I don't quite understand that, but whatever..

Believe me, if Ron gains considerable traction, the attacks will begin. The attacks have already started on Rand because they know he can win. They always attack the greatest threat. We do the same thing.

[Sola_Fide]

By the way, this is priceless.

That was tongue in cheek. No offense to Ron meant at all. I was just speaking of perception:)

[BlackTerrel]

In my opinion, this is just an attempt to give Rand overwhelming support so that people go "you know what.. i'll just hold off this election - voting for the one running most similar to Rand (obviously Ron) and just vote Rand in 2016 because I bet he will be running" This is an attempt by the establishment to get people to basically to give up this election cycle and pray for a good 2016, but in reality, this country won't make it to 2016, and they know that.

Aha. Saying good things about Rand is actually an attack on Ron.

But saying bad things about Rand is also an attack on Ron. As is saying neutral things. Makes sense.

[DeadheadForPaul]

The msnbc pundits after his speech are comedic gold!

MSNBC is terrified of him. Talk about fear-mongering

They were FAR worse than Faux ever has been

[DeadheadForPaul]

I get this to, I'm like "if you've seen the father you've seen the son!"

I'd rather they hate Ron and love Rand rather than hating both

The larger conservative movement has already been brainwashed to hate Ron. It's a lost cause to convert them after all the RP = 9/11 truth and such.

I try to separate Rand and Ron in my discussions with conservatives

Tying them together is only going to blow up in our faces

[ForLibertyFight]

Indeed. Rand isn't doing much stumping for his dad. Has he even publicly endorsed him yet?

I hope Rand campaigns harder for his father.

[Sola_Fide]

I'd rather they hate Ron and love Rand rather than hating both

The larger conservative movement has already been brainwashed to hate Ron. It's a lost cause to convert them after all the RP = 9/11 truth and such.

I try to separate Rand and Ron in my discussions with conservatives

Tying them together is only going to blow up in our faces

Being here in Kentucky, it can easily be seen that Rand is getting popular. What Rand is saying is dominating the news. He is talked about on the local news shows, he is talked about in the Tea Party meetings, he is talked about by just about everyone who is connected to politics through Kentucky.

And I've noticed that there is something really profound and significant about Rand's time so far in the Senate. I've noticed that because Rand has had the courage to be principled, he has nudged run-of-the-mill conservatives over to a more principled position. It's now acceptable for conservatives to say "we shouldn't bomb bridges and rebuild them in Afghanistan when we need bridges here". It's now common to hear conservatives have reservations about the Patriot Act. It's now common for me to hear conservatives talking about actually ending federal departments.


All of this comes from Ron Paul. He is the wellspring of the ideas. But I think there is an irrational stigma that many conservatives still have with Ron, because to them he doesn't "sound" conservative (dumb, I know).

Rand sounds like a conservative (even though he is promoting libertarian ideas). I think Rand goes out of his way to sound conservative. This is the genius of Rand.

Ron does not go out of his way to sound like a conservative, and that's why people love him or hate him. He is fine with not appeasing conservatives, and I'm fine with too, because conservatives are usually wrong anyway. But there is the fact that you need them to vote for you.

[Justinjj1]

Ron sounds significantly dumber than Rand when he speaks. Ron's arguments are less logical and less persuasive; I'm not sure how that constitutes a "smarter" message.

Bullshit. Rand sounds like a stereotypical Washington politician, there's nothing logical or persuasive that I've ever heard him say. It's just a watered down version of the liberty message, with a bunch of red-meat thrown in for the tea-ocons and Sarah Palin type Republicans. It doesn't surprise me one bit that he hasn't came out hardcore campaigning for his father.

It also doesn't surprise that Fuck You Frank, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity are all huge Rand supporters but absolutely loathe Ron. Ron and Rand do not have interchangeable beliefs and values no matter what people on this board say. I would NOT vote for Rand Paul for president, until he comes out against the foreign wars, comes out for ABOLISHING the FEd, and against the war on drugs. But I am not holding my breath.

Somebody in this thread said Rand is Ron without the heroin and prostitutes, I would go further and say that Rand is Ron without the track record, the integrity, and the intellectualism.

[Sola_Fide]

Bullshit. Rand sounds like a stereotypical Washington politician, there's nothing logical or persuasive that I've ever heard him say. It's just a watered down version of the liberty message, with a bunch of red-meat thrown in for the tea-ocons and Sarah Palin type Republicans. It doesn't surprise me one bit that he hasn't came out hardcore campaigning for his father.

It also doesn't surprise that Fuck You Frank, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity are all huge Rand supporters but absolutely loathe Ron. Ron and Rand do not have interchangeable beliefs and values no matter what people on this board say. I would NOT vote for Rand Paul for president, until he comes out against the foreign wars, comes out for ABOLISHING the FEd, and against the war on drugs. But I am not holding my breath.

Somebody in this thread said Rand is Ron without the heroin and prostitutes, I would go further and say that Rand is Ron without the track record, the integrity, and intellectualism.

Uh. What vote of Rand's can you point to that was counter to a vote of Ron's?

Also, what Senator can you think of in recent memory who has proposed the elimination of federal departments?

Also, Rand is able to unify large segments of the Republican base--establishment, grass roots, and independent. The forces working against Ron in the Republican party are not working against Rand. But the fact still remains that they are both looking toward the same goal.

[CUnknown]

[...] I would NOT vote for Rand Paul for president, until he comes out against the foreign wars, comes out for ABOLISHING the FEd, and against the war on drugs. But I am not holding my breath.

Are you delusional? Rand has come out against the wars, especially Libya, and he's always been pro-auditing of the Fed, which of course is the first step towards abolishment. He's also said the drug laws should be handled by the States, hasn't he? So, that means he's against the federal drug war.

I can't believe you're taking this position when Rand is quite possibly the most anti-war member of the Senate.

It makes no sense for Rand to rave on and on about the Fed -- it will only serve to damage his credibility. Ron's job is to push the debate forward and to educate, Rand's job is to lead the liberty movement into the future. Not voting for Rand in 2016 (if Ron loses, anyway) would be shooting the liberty movement in the foot.

[puppetmaster]

Ron and Rand 2012.

2016 will be too late, in fact it may be too late already

[dannno]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

No I think it said it like it's an ironic thing :D

[BlackTerrel]

Bullshit. Rand sounds like a stereotypical Washington politician, there's nothing logical or persuasive that I've ever heard him say. It's just a watered down version of the liberty message, with a bunch of red-meat thrown in for the tea-ocons and Sarah Palin type Republicans. It doesn't surprise me one bit that he hasn't came out hardcore campaigning for his father.

It also doesn't surprise that Fuck You Frank, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity are all huge Rand supporters but absolutely loathe Ron. Ron and Rand do not have interchangeable beliefs and values no matter what people on this board say. I would NOT vote for Rand Paul for president, until he comes out against the foreign wars, comes out for ABOLISHING the FEd, and against the war on drugs. But I am not holding my breath.

Somebody in this thread said Rand is Ron without the heroin and prostitutes, I would go further and say that Rand is Ron without the track record, the integrity, and the intellectualism.

What's funny is I haven't seen you in about a year but the only posts of yours I remember were bashing Rand before he got elected. Calling him a sellout etc.. and seeming like you wanted him to lose.

"Welcome" back.

[Sola_Fide]

What's funny is I haven't seen you in about a year but the only posts of yours I remember were bashing Rand before he got elected. Calling him a sellout etc.. and seeming like you wanted him to lose.

"Welcome" back.

If the Rand-doubters are honest, they will admit that Rand has exceeded expectations.

[anaconda]

When the race for 2016 begins, Rand will stand head and shoulders above every other candidate. It would be easier for the others to not even run against Rand. He will win.


Rand won't get the chance in 2016 if a RINO wins the White House in 2012. We need an Obama second term. Unless Ron wants to pass the torch to Rand in the next few weeks.

[anaconda]

Ron and Rand 2012.

2016 will be too late, in fact it may be too late already


This has been my opinion for a while. I had imagined Rand running now for POTUS, with Ron quietly threatening/implying that he would run third party if a "true conservative" were not the GOP nominee in 2012. Which would put a lot of pressure on the party leadership to back Rand. I am also worried that 2016 will be too late. But it may not be. If there is not pervasive martial law I don't think it will be too late.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand won't get the chance in 2016 if a RINO wins the White House in 2012. We need an Obama second term. Unless Ron wants to pass the torch to Rand in the next few weeks.

I agree. It's Paul or nothing.

[AuH20]

Bullshit. Rand sounds like a stereotypical Washington politician, there's nothing logical or persuasive that I've ever heard him say. It's just a watered down version of the liberty message, with a bunch of red-meat thrown in for the tea-ocons and Sarah Palin type Republicans. It doesn't surprise me one bit that he hasn't came out hardcore campaigning for his father.

It also doesn't surprise that Fuck You Frank, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity are all huge Rand supporters but absolutely loathe Ron. Ron and Rand do not have interchangeable beliefs and values no matter what people on this board say. I would NOT vote for Rand Paul for president, until he comes out against the foreign wars, comes out for ABOLISHING the FEd, and against the war on drugs. But I am not holding my breath.

Somebody in this thread said Rand is Ron without the heroin and prostitutes, I would go further and say that Rand is Ron without the track record, the integrity, and the intellectualism.

Rand while disagreeing with his opponents does not inadvertently alienate them like Ron. That's why he curries favor with them. He doesn't go around squawking about blowback in the confusing light of 911 and insulting military families without explaining to them the error of their ways. That's is Rand's genius. He's assiduously leading them down the constitutional path of non-interventionism instead of chastising them. I view Ron as a the high priest of the movement and Rand as the pied piper. The abrasiveness of the high priest can only take the liberty message so far. There are other methods of influence and enlightenment which can be utilized by a more diplomatic Rand Paul. And as we've seen in the past, this method certainly didn't work out badly for the Neocons, who owned the party lock, stock and barrel.

You have to understand something about Rand Paul. He's been at his father's side all his life and is keenly aware of messaging & how it can be turned on it's head in an instant if it isn't properly framed. I have my doubts Ron Paul could ever be the senator in a state given his propensity for gaffes in such a hostile media environment.

[ThePursuitOfLiberty]

Bullshit. Rand sounds like a stereotypical Washington politician, there's nothing logical or persuasive that I've ever heard him say. It's just a watered down version of the liberty message, with a bunch of red-meat thrown in for the tea-ocons and Sarah Palin type Republicans. It doesn't surprise me one bit that he hasn't came out hardcore campaigning for his father.

It also doesn't surprise that Fuck You Frank, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity are all huge Rand supporters but absolutely loathe Ron. Ron and Rand do not have interchangeable beliefs and values no matter what people on this board say. I would NOT vote for Rand Paul for president, until he comes out against the foreign wars, comes out for ABOLISHING the FEd, and against the war on drugs. But I am not holding my breath.

Somebody in this thread said Rand is Ron without the heroin and prostitutes, I would go further and say that Rand is Ron without the track record, the integrity, and the intellectualism.

Unfortunate that this is your view from the outside.

I can assure you from the 'inside' this is not the case.

It's unfortunate - but true - Rand has more 'electability' than Ron. Ron has set the stage, lit the fire of this revolution, knowing perfectly well that he has paved the way for his son (or SONS) to follow in his footsteps. Rand is the SON of Ron Paul - the man every single person on these forums have been impacted by - and you're trying to make an assumption that he does not have a similar moral, ethical, or belief system like the man who has been his #1 influencer in his life? Come on now, son.

How about this for a scenario: MAYBE Rand understands how the game needs to be played, MAYBE Rand is observing that the tides are changing, MAYBE Rand understands that instead of alienating himself from the quasi-conservative Republican base that "DUMBING DOWN" the message of Liberty actually impacts them more, and MAYBE Ron's entire premise of his campaigns in 2008 and 2012 are to set up Rand's run in 2016 and/or beyond.

Rather than assuming things because you feel like you're "in the know" and then concluding with asinine observations, take a step back and look at the big picture. We as a movement have not done NEARLY enough - there are millions and millions still left to impact. That's why this needs to be looked at as a business.

We have a message - we need to market this message. Ron has opened the flood gates for those who "truly undestand" to be the first movers, the innovators. Now, Rand can come in and get the Early Adapters, Late Adapters, and Stragglers to follow the message by phrasing it a different way. The wider our net becomes, the larger the opportunity we have to catch more people with the ideas of freedom and liberty. This is not going to happen overnight, it will take time.

But cut me a break with trying to make any sort of assumption that you truly believe Rand and Ron are that different. Ideologically, Rand falls not far from the tree.. His message resonates with many and he still holds true to his values and beliefs that us "Paulites" should be able to follow.

Not everything is some elaborate, master conspiracy.... The world is evil, but be optimistic, for the love of christ.

[Sola_Fide]

One of the reasons I was really pissed at antiwar.com and Raimondo was this same dismissive attitude. But of course they finally ate some crow and eventually came to admit that they were wrong and they misled people.

I have no respect for people who still say the same things even after all of the ways Rand has come through on important votes. I don't agree with Rand on everything. I don't agree with him on a BBA. I don't agree on him trying to "save" the entitlement programs. But I do think that he is going in the right direction, and Ron has said a compromise in the direction of liberty is the only good compromise.

But his positions on foreign policy since he's been in office have been pretty close to perfect if you believe that non-interventionism is a good thing. He deserves respect for being so principled on foreign policy.

[Ethek]

There is an important task at hand for traditional Republicans. That task is to come to terms with their own closed mindedness and re-activity in time for them to make the right choices for liberty when they are most stressed and most anxious. This will coincide with a time when resources and the economy are most troubled. Rand will have a place and a time to be that philosophical anchor for the less alert traditional republicans in the coming fourth turning if anyone is familiar with that concept.

Our challenge as Ron supporters is two pointed

Ron is doing wonderfully, challenging people like Luntz and audience to come to terms with their core beliefs without Rand's likability to help them smooth over the glaring hypocrisy. We still need to help Ron get that message out in a politically digestible way. IE.. with a minimum of FreeState protest type tactics.

Second Ron supports have to recognize that they have all of the right ideas but a lot of the time we aren't able to tolerate it well those ideas are not articulated in just the right way. Take Justinjj1's post up above. Its not just disagreeing with Rand, its emotional reactivity on full display. We have to deal with our core issues of why liberty is so important to us individually (our deep apprecciation for liberty) but why liberty households are often so hypocritical with that philosophy. For example clinging to tradition and authoritarianism when we are challenged by children (young libertarians in training) or the Ive got mine mentality of 'Capitalism' without any of the neighborliness or responsibility. I see it time and time again.

As activists we need to be fit to fight. Excersize, good nutrition, good information organization tools to cut down on anxiety, get our frustration tolerance levels up enough to be an asset for Ron while he is still the philosphical support... but we better do it quick because Rand is the next one to carry the torch. He is absolutely ideologically on the same basis as Ron but he may not always come to the exact same conclusions and he certainly is not going to be as pure in his articulation of those principles. Its not going to be for our benefit, but for the benefit of bringing the general population along.

I saw this crap when I was working on Rand's campaign in Kentucky. A friend go to write a book that I was able to introduce (http://www.amazon.com/Discovering-Possibility-Conservative-Manifesto-Classical/dp/1456327267) Check out my forward in the search inside feature.

We have to get over our own demons of being the political outcasts for so long and be in place to be the examples to look to for other republicans when Rand is stepping up to challenge them... not completely flying off the handle.

[AuH20]

The Rand detractors need to read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671723650


Financial success, Carnegie believed, is due 15 percent to professional knowledge and 85 percent to "the ability to express ideas, to assume leadership, and to arouse enthusiasm among people." He teaches these skills through underlying principles of dealing with people so that they feel important and appreciated. He also emphasizes fundamental techniques for handling people without making them feel manipulated. Carnegie says you can make someone want to do what you want them to by seeing the situation from the other person's point of view and "arousing in the other person an eager want." You learn how to make people like you, win people over to your way of thinking, and change people without causing offense or arousing resentment. For instance, "let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers," and "talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person." Carnegie illustrates his points with anecdotes of historical figures, leaders of the business world, and everyday folks.

[Cdn_for_liberty]

I'm glad that many people here are speaking out on Ron's way of articulating issues is just not as influencial as Rand's way while both of them think the say. Most people here tend to think that if you think like a pragmatic libertarian, you're a sellout and that is not true. When I see Rand getting a positive reaction by the same people who despise Ron even though Ron and Rand think alike, it just goes to show that Ron is just articulating his views in a way that either bores the hell out of people or just not relating to the audience he wants to influence.

Sure, it sounds awesome whenever Ron says "let's follow the Constitution" whether it is in response to taxes, foreign policy or whatever. To us that sounds good but at the end of the day, the average voter want something more specific. Less talk about philosophy and more talk on policy; policy that is detailed and realistic.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Uh. What vote of Rand's can you point to that was counter to a vote of Ron's?

Also, what Senator can you think of in recent memory who has proposed the elimination of federal departments?

Also, Rand is able to unify large segments of the Republican base--establishment, grass roots, and independent. The forces working against Ron in the Republican party are not working against Rand. But the fact still remains that they are both looking toward the same goal.

He's one of those anti-Rand naysayers from back in the Republican primary

Don't waste your breath

[BlackTerrel]

If the Rand-doubters are honest, they will admit that Rand has exceeded expectations.

Honestly I don't fucking buy it. If you like Ron but don't like Rand there is something fishy going on.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I think he would be a solid 2012 vp...i mean why wait, what would be the downside? If we continue at the current rate 2016 is too late

+1

I agree, Rand should be VP for Ron in 2012, Ron's numbers aren't going anywhere & his poll-numbers aren't likely to shoot up from 8-10% to 30-40% in the next few months so he NEEDS Rand to get him the mainstream GOP votes otherwise 2012 will likely end up like 2008 where he hoped & hoped that numbers would magically shoot but obviously never did; as it is Ron has very little REALISTIC chance so getting Rand on-board as VP will at worse bring us a chunk of mainstream GOP which isn't bad at all.


Better scenario: establishment sees the writing on the wall, realizing that they won't get a victory over Obama without the RP republicans, conceding the nomination to Ron Paul and positioning Rand Paul as the running mate to bring the establishment GOPers alongside the RP republicans. Total victory.

+1

I agree, this is the reason I feel Ron MUST get Rand as VP because even GOP knows that they're NOT going to beat Obama without the RonPaul-bloc & that's precisely why mainstream GOP candidates are sounding more like Ron this season so if Ron declares Rand as his VP (hopefully after we win Iowa) then too much of GOP-vote will've been diluted & a victory without Ron & Rand would impossible & that might get more mainstream GOP voters to stand behind them just to avoid an Obama-presidency, not to mention such ticket would also appeal to Dems & Indies.

Many mainstream Repubs including MSM interviewers have asked Rand if he'd run for presidency which shows the stature of the man in the mainstream GOP so any criticisms of nepotism would drop dead right there. Further, we could also sell it like a "historic event" like "first black president", "first lady president" are sold where first time we've a father-son ticket, this is the sort of stuff that mainstream voters fall for anyway.


In my opinion, this is just an attempt to give Rand overwhelming support so that people go "you know what.. i'll just hold off this election - voting for the one running most similar to Rand (obviously Ron) and just vote Rand in 2016 because I bet he will be running" This is an attempt by the establishment to get people to basically to give up this election cycle and pray for a good 2016, but in reality, this country won't make it to 2016, and they know that. By 2016, we'll be in the most horrendous, policed country in the world. That's why they're trying to divert the energy and give it to somebody who isn't currently running because they don't pose as big of a threat.

Although I'm not that much into conspiracy theories but it's a possibility but the overall point should be that us thinking about Rand2016 is pointless, we don't even know what might happen by that time; Ron's numbers are too low to have any REALISTIC chance at the moment & it seems like another Obama-presidency so if we go into hyperinflation &/or a depression, we might see a socialist-fascist police-state with price-controls & wage-controls & in such a situation people vote for even more socialism, just like people kept voting for FDR even though he was killing the country so Rand with libertarian-leaning message wouldn't even be palatable because people'd in such a bad situation that they'd expecting government to help them, etc.

So 2012 is our time, we must throw in all we've got including Rand as a VP candidate to suffocate & takeover the GOP like I've said & stop pipe-dreaming that Ron would win by running a conventional campaign & then we'd've Rand in 2016. Reality might be telling us something different.

[UK4Paul]

Honestly I don't fucking buy it. If you like Ron but don't like Rand there is something fishy going on.

Not necessarily. I just think Rand Paul is better able to communicate ideas that resonate with people. As someone else pointed out, he doesn't talk over people's heads... i.e. "liquidate the malinvestment" is fine if you understand Austrian economics, but most people don't.

I think Ron and Rand are a perfect combination. Ron gets the deeper ideas out there, while Rand "dumbs it down" so to speak, so the average Jo on the street can actually understand it without needing a shelf full of Austrian economic text books.

Edit: I just realized, I assumed you were talking about liking Rand, but not liking Ron. Ah well, I think the post is essentially the same, they have two different complementary styles of communicating their message.

[Justinjj1]

He's one of those anti-Rand naysayers from back in the Republican primary

Don't waste your breath


Hey, I apologize, Rand has been so fucking great on so many issues. I mean, there's just so much pro-liberty stuff he's been behind since he's been elected......like that half-hearted statement against the Libyan War,....man that really motivates the shit out of me.....and that rant against low-flow toilets......breathtaking.. Please forgive me for doubting his greatness because he sure has proven me wrong.

:egg all over face:

[AuH20]

Hey, I apologize, Rand has been so fucking great on so many issues. I mean, there's just so much pro-liberty stuff he's been behind since he's been elected......like that half-hearted statement against the Libyan War,....man that really motivates the shit out of me.....and that rant against low-flow toilets......breathtaking.. Please forgive me for doubting his greatness because he sure has proved me wrong.

:egg all over face:

You forgot the Patriot Act.

[Sola_Fide]

Hey, I apologize, Rand has been so fucking great on so many issues. I mean, there's just so much pro-liberty stuff he's been behind since he's been elected......like that half-hearted statement against the Libyan War,....man that really motivates the shit out of me.....and that rant against low-flow toilets......breathtaking.. Please forgive me for doubting his greatness because he sure has proven me wrong.

:egg all over face:

That was pathetic dude.

[Justinjj1]

That was pathetic dude.

edit: delete

I'm probably going to be banned now for retaliating like last time. Oh well, enjoy your extremely mediocre senator, please feel free to rub it in my face when he actually does something note-worthy. Again, I'm not holding my breath.

[BlackTerrel]

edit: delete

I'm probably going to be banned now for retaliating like last time. Oh well, enjoy your extremely mediocre senator, please feel free to rub it in my face when he actually does something note-worthy. Again, I'm not holding my breath.

Ok. We'll enjoy. Bye.

[matt0611]

I don't mean to say I'm giving up on Ron for 2012, I'll fight 100% to the bitter end to get him to the White House, but I think we can all agree that Rand is our "plan B" so to speak ;)

Lets just hope 2016 won't be too late...

[TheDrakeMan]

Hey, I apologize, Rand has been so fucking great on so many issues. I mean, there's just so much pro-liberty stuff he's been behind since he's been elected......like that half-hearted statement against the Libyan War,....man that really motivates the shit out of me.....and that rant against low-flow toilets......breathtaking.. Please forgive me for doubting his greatness because he sure has proven me wrong.

:egg all over face:

I don't understand people like you. You want to turn this country into a 100% pure Libertarian hell hole within the next five years. The reality of the situation is that Libertarianism isn't perfect, and we need to slowly implement our ideas and see that they work and if the general population agrees with us. If Rand Paul started pushing a hard-core retarded Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy or purist Libertarian viewpoint (for whatever reason) then he would just become a fringe Senator.

[AlexAmore]

I've been thinking Goldwater or Jim DeMint. I still think they would be fine. However, after reading till the end I think Rand might be the best choice.

1. Rand will get even more publicity. Good for his eventual run for presidency.
2. The Paul/Paul ticket will get a lot of publicity for being a father son ticket.
3. Rand knows how to speak Conservative AND Independent.

It wasn't until just 20 min ago did it hit me there was a Paul family conspiracy to create a dynasty of freedom in America :D
It's like Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. except without the criminal element.

[wormyguy]

Randslide 2016!

Randslide 2020! ;)

[Justinjj1]

2. The Paul/Paul ticket will get a lot of publicity for being a father son ticket.

It wasn't until just 20 min ago did it hit me there was a Paul family conspiracy to create a dynasty of freedom in America :D
It's like Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. except without the criminal element.


The Paul/Paul ticket will never happen because Rand has already judged that as too disadvantageous politically. He hasn't even came out and campaigned for Ron in 2012 that I've heard about. I find it mind boggling that people on here still support Rand after he has been such a massive letdown. The freedom to take a shit in a regular toilet is about the only freedom I've seen him take a stand on.

[Sola_Fide]

The Paul/Paul ticket will never happen because Rand has already judged that as too disadvantageous politically. He hasn't even came out and campaigned for Ron in 2012 that I've heard about. I find it mind boggling that people on here still support Rand after he has been such a massive letdown. The freedom to take a shit in a regular toilet is about the only freedom I've seen him take a stand on.

The only one, huh?

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Not necessarily. I just think Rand Paul is better able to communicate ideas that resonate with people. As someone else pointed out, he doesn't talk over people's heads... i.e. "liquidate the malinvestment" is fine if you understand Austrian economics, but most people don't.

I think Ron and Rand are a perfect combination. Ron gets the deeper ideas out there, while Rand "dumbs it down" so to speak, so the average Jo on the street can actually understand it without needing a shelf full of Austrian economic text books.

+1
Well said, if we're to get our message across to the ordinary people & Ron is to have any REALISTIC chance of getting the GOP nomination then he needs Rand to get the mainstream GOP voters to vote for him.


I don't mean to say I'm giving up on Ron for 2012, I'll fight 100% to the bitter end to get him to the White House, but I think we can all agree that Rand is our "plan B" so to speak ;)

Lets just hope 2016 won't be too late...

I think 2016 might be too late because if Ron doesn't win then we'll've a socialist covert-dictator, be it Obama or Romney, & as history shows, people vote socialist during tough economic times, just look at how FDR kept giving people socialist misery & they kept re-electing him, the libertarian freedom message - fend for yourself - mightn't be so attractive come 2016 when the country will've gone down the $hitter even more under a socialist regime & manipulated currency. So we must throw everything we've got right now & that includes even Rand :D


I don't understand people like you. You want to turn this country into a 100% pure Libertarian hell hole within the next five years. The reality of the situation is that Libertarianism isn't perfect, and we need to slowly implement our ideas and see that they work and if the general population agrees with us. If Rand Paul started pushing a hard-core retarded Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy or purist Libertarian viewpoint (for whatever reason) then he would just become a fringe Senator.

True, it has to be understood that we're not going to turn back the clock to Constitutionally limited government overnight, it's going to take time & persistence to make it happen. What Rand does so well is that he slowly & surreptitiously pushes the mainstream people towards libertarianism without them even realizing it & without calling himself a "libertarian".


I've been thinking Goldwater or Jim DeMint. I still think they would be fine. However, after reading till the end I think Rand might be the best choice.

1. Rand will get even more publicity. Good for his eventual run for presidency.
2. The Paul/Paul ticket will get a lot of publicity for being a father son ticket.
3. Rand knows how to speak Conservative AND Independent.

It wasn't until just 20 min ago did it hit me there was a Paul family conspiracy to create a dynasty of freedom in America :D
It's like Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. except without the criminal element.

+1
So true


The Paul/Paul ticket will never happen because Rand has already judged that as too disadvantageous politically. He hasn't even came out and campaigned for Ron in 2012 that I've heard about. I find it mind boggling that people on here still support Rand after he has been such a massive letdown. The freedom to take a shit in a regular toilet is about the only freedom I've seen him take a stand on.

Well, it's not like Ron is the "frontrunner" & he doesn't have any REALISTIC chance of winning the GOP nomination so if Rand is declared as VP then the effect will only be net positive so I don't see anything "disadvantageous" because Ron's numbers are stagnant & going nowhere anyway. Not to mention, whenever Ron is asked about a Paul/Paul ticket, he only says, "we haven't talked about it yet" so they're open to that possibility
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGZj-LlP40I#t=46m5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QSQBBJwenI#t=37m45

As for Rand's performance, he's been good, he hasn't taken on the "libertarian" label & he's taken a more "centrist" positions & that's why mainstream GOP voters find him more palatable so he'll be the ideal guy for expanding Ron's severely limited & stagnant base within the mainstream GOP for him to have any chance of winning the GOP nomination.