Rand Paul leaves open 2016

[radiofriendly]

He seemed quite willing to leave open the possibility of his own run for the White House in 2016.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeG_iIzFYJI
(The question on running for president in 2016 is at 2:22.)

You can view the complete 30+ minute interview here.

Would you support a Rand Paul presidential run in 2016?
Poll: http://iroots.org/2012/10/28/will-rand-paul-run-in-2016/

Extra: This is also cross posted over at Daily Paul for those interested:
http://www.dailypaul.com/260904/rand-paul-open-to-2016-presidential-run
(They love to hate on Rand Paul over at the DailyLoveWeAreChangeourDiapers.com)

[Matt Collins]

This isn't news anymore :p

[PatriotOne]

Too early for Rand Paul 2016 yard signs and bumper stickers or shall we at least wait until after we see if Mitt loses in a couple weeks :p?

[Suzu]

You can view the complete 30+ minute interview here.Where's "here" please?

[AlexAmore]

Too early for Rand Paul 2016 yard signs and bumper stickers or shall we at least wait until after we see if Mitt loses in a couple weeks :p?

For me it's not too early for a Rand Paul tattoo on our foreheads! People will be like "WTF" at first but give it 4-8 years and they'll get it.

[radiofriendly]

Here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/309092-1

What I meant was the link to the full video is in the post:
http://iroots.org/2012/10/28/will-rand-paul-run-in-2016/

[Aratus]

we have about 8 or 9 days and then 2016 almost officially starts

[jeremiahj13]

Guys!!! Rand Sounded very much to me like if Mitt Romney wins this election, he will not run. Why would he care what happens on election?
Unless Mitt really screws up in office, I have my doubts about Rand running in 2016 :(

Maybe Ron Paul will run in 2016??? :D

[whoisjohngalt]

Guys!!! Rand Sounded very much to me like if Mitt Romney wins this election, he will not run. Why would he care what happens on election? Unless Mitt really screws up in office, I have my doubts about Rand running in 2016 :(

Maybe Ron Paul will run in 2016??? :D

Rand has known for a long time that Mitt will not win. He has to say he wants Mitt to win or commit political suicide. I guarantee you he is quietly counting on an Obama victory.

[jbauer]

I already emailed his office asking where to get 2016 materials. They emailed me back and said they were honored by me thinking he had it.

[jbauer]

Guys!!! Rand Sounded very much to me like if Mitt Romney wins this election, he will not run. Why would he care what happens on election?
Unless Mitt really screws up in office, I have my doubts about Rand running in 2016 :(

Maybe Ron Paul will run in 2016??? :D

Um.....because you're not going to primary a sitting Republican president

[kathy88]

Um.....because you're not going to primary a sitting Republican president

Um yeah, this.

[supermario21]

Why not, Pat Buchanan did and I'd argue that he got a lot what he wanted out of his insurgency. Keep in mind Rand was talking about shaping the party and leading it into a different direction more than actually running the country. I'd argue that if he really made Republicans think about the direction of the party, causing it to shift towards a more small government, libertarian position, he'd consider even a primary loss a success. Then he would go back to the Senate and serve as a counterweight to the Rubio's of the world, and maybe run again in 2020 if Romney were to win this year.

[Shane Harris]

Well he will definitely need to change his pragmatic rhetoric to a more idea based rhetoric if he wants to gain traction in the primaries. However this is what he did in 2010 so I trust him to know what to say and when to say it. His current rhetoric seems like he wants to tinker at the budget relentlessly. He will need to paint with bold colors and broad strokes based on the central unifying idea of liberty and freedom like his father if he wants to win the primaries. He's talented in ways Ron isn't, he just needs to channel Ron more often. He can do the compromising and the political speaking, he just needs to do the educating and idea spreading.

[RickyJ]

You got me excited for a second, then I saw it was Rand Paul, and not Ron Paul.

[radiofriendly]

It's pretty difficult to get any love for Rand Paul over at the Daily Paul (or P AU L or whatever?), but here's an article over there w/ the same video and question about 2016. Some of those folks don't even know his voting record, so any help would be appreciated:

http://www.dailypaul.com/260904/rand-paul-open-to-2016-presidential-run

[Shane Harris]

It's pretty difficult to get any love for Rand Paul over at the Daily Paul (or P AU L or whatever?), but here's an article over there w/ the same video and question about 2016. Some of those folks don't even know his voting record, so any help would be appreciated:

http://www.dailypaul.com/260904/rand-paul-open-to-2016-presidential-run

Tangent. Why on earth is "LOVE" any part of this revolution. Where in libertarian theory or property rights or Ron Pauls message is there anything about love? Love is great for sure, but I know a lot of Republicans who are turned off by the ridiculous rEVOLution signage because they think it means we're hippies for free love or something. When in reality love has absolutely nothing to do with our message. Yes, its a peaceful revolution (so far), but not a love revolution like the 60s. It's also not a love revolution like the one Jesus intended in the form of loving your enemies. I don't understand and its really annoying.

Ron Paul has never advocated that we all love each other or love our enemies. I haven't heard him say the word love that many times (if at all) on the campaign trail. I hear him talk a lot about liberty, property rights, natural rights, peace, civil liberties, prosperity, freedom, free-markets. Not really love. Don't see love pop up too much in Rothbard, Friedman, Hayek, Nock, Spooner, Woods, Rockwell, etc. either. Seems out of place, and misleading to those we need to convert, who already think we are idealistic pussies and pacifists.

[July]

Tangent. Why on earth is "LOVE" any part of this revolution. Where in libertarian theory or property rights or Ron Pauls message is there anything about love? Love is great for sure, but I know a lot of Republicans who are turned off by the ridiculous rEVOLution signage because they think it means we're hippies for free love or something. When in reality love has absolutely nothing to do with our message. Yes, its a peaceful revolution (so far), but not a love revolution like the 60s. It's also not a love revolution like the one Jesus intended in the form of loving your enemies. I don't understand and its really annoying.

Ron Paul has never advocated that we all love each other or love our enemies. I haven't heard him say the word love that many times (if at all) on the campaign trail. I hear him talk a lot about liberty, property rights, natural rights, peace, civil liberties, prosperity, freedom, free-markets. Not really love. Don't see love pop up too much in Rothbard, Friedman, Hayek, Nock, Spooner, Woods, Rockwell, etc. either. Seems out of place, and misleading to those we need to convert, who already think we are idealistic pussies and pacifists.

Well, Ron Paul is a Christian, so "love" comes into the mix when he talks about faith, and following the golden rule, and that type of thing. :p

But thankfully for you, now we also have the RepubliCAN logo... Which, unfortunately, I can't look at without thinking "Are you a RepubliCAN, or RepubliCAN'T?"

Anyway I don't think it was the word "love" that bothered some people, but the word "revolution." Of course it was just meant in an intellectual sense, as in an intellectual revolution, but it can be a strong word.

[Keith and stuff]

I agree with Rand Paul about the Republican Party. I would like to see the party more competitive in ME, CT, WA and OR.

[Shane Harris]

Well, Ron Paul is a Christian, so "love" comes into the mix when he talks about faith, and following the golden rule, and that type of thing. :p

But thankfully for you, now we also have the RepubliCAN logo... Which, unfortunately, I can't look at without thinking "Are you a RepubliCAN, or RepubliCAN'T?"

Anyway I don't think it was the word "love" that bothered some people, but the word "revolution." Of course it was just meant in an intellectual sense, as in an intellectual revolution, but it can be a strong word.

What makes you think I like the RepubliCAN logo? I think all that word inside a word crap is cheesy. I am not against love, but his faith is not the cornerstone of the movement. I just think its poor advertising and misleading to people we are trying to convert. Confusing at the least. I am not just guessing either. I've had people say this to me. Design and image are very important.

[Shane Harris]

I agree with Rand Paul about the Republican Party. I would like to see the party more competitive in ME, CT, WA and OR.

me too, but he can't use this as the reason for his policy suggestions or political philosophy. If he does it will look like he's trying to "compromise" or "water-down" the republican message. His message needs to be that his beliefs and philosophy are a pure and true message and that if we finally followed it we would in the process become more appealing and competitive.

[July]

What makes you think I like the RepubliCAN logo? I think all that word inside a word crap is cheesy. I am not against love, but his faith is not the cornerstone of the movement. I just think its poor advertising and misleading to people we are trying to convert. Confusing at the least. I am not just guessing either. I've had people say this to me. Design and image are very important.

Well, maybe. Though, I haven't really had anyone mention the logo to me yet, as a reason for not supporting. Some got the idea it was mostly just a youth based movement, and therefore something that wouldn't appeal to them--but most I talked to seemed to be getting that impression from the media. Not that it isn't partly true, Ron did visit a lot of universities and he does have a lot of youthful supporters, and that is a demographic he did well with. But the media did tend to focus one specific stereotype. This probably wouldn't have hurt in a hypothetical general election matchup with Obama, but not so great in an aging Republican primary....most often cited reason for not supporting Ron, in my experience, was social security. Some were even willing to listen on foriegn policy, but the moment SS came up, they stopped. And it wouldn't matter how I tried to explain his position on SS, phasing it out gradually, etc... They heard him say it was unconstitutional, and that's the only thing that mattered. Anyway, I do notice Rand taking a different stance on this issue, and talking about it differently, so that will probably help him.

[ZENemy]

Liberty 2016!! DARN, never mind, some jerk won it

yaaay some liberty guy 2020!! oh wait, damn, we lost again

Keep waiting around though the liberty movement sure seems to be "waiting" for that "next" move all the time, almost as if the establishment knows it...oh WAIT, I bet they do!!

In my opinion, anyone who thinks Rand is a "Double agent" and is secretly working for us is in for a big surprise. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting up with fleas.

No one man, especially no POLITICIAN will save us.

[July]

//

[Uriah]

we have about 8 or 9 days and then 2016 almost officially starts

2016 has already started. Rand started his 2016 presidential run the day of his victory speech in 2010.

[anaconda]

LOL "I'm hoping that Governor Romney wins a week from Tuesday.."

[brandon]

Chris Christie is going to be really really hard to beat. He is pretty much the perfect candidate, from a political perspective.

[Uriah]

Chris Christie is going to be really really hard to beat. He is pretty much the perfect candidate, from a political perspective.

Yawn....

Rand Paul has a ground game in waiting, here in Iowa.

[mz10]

Chris Christie is going to be really really hard to beat. He is pretty much the perfect candidate, from a political perspective.

He's too abrasive and doesn't look presidential at all. I think Paul Ryan is far more likely than Christie.

[Bastiat's The Law]

LOL "I'm hoping that Governor Romney wins a week from Tuesday.."
Who said that just to spite Rand? :(

[Bastiat's The Law]

Chris Christie is going to be really really hard to beat. He is pretty much the perfect candidate, from a political perspective.
I don't think that Jersey tough guy persona is going to work in the midwest or south. Our main competition will be Jeb Bush.

[anaconda]

He's too abrasive and doesn't look presidential at all. I think Paul Ryan is far more likely than Christie.

Paul Ryan is a pathological liar and it keeps getting in his way. I find Christie to be a poor and uninspiring speaker. Ryan simply makes no sense, period.

[anaconda]

Who said that just to spite Rand? :(

Rand said it in the interview.

[Shane Harris]

Liberty 2016!! DARN, never mind, some jerk won it

yaaay some liberty guy 2020!! oh wait, damn, we lost again

Keep waiting around though the liberty movement sure seems to be "waiting" for that "next" move all the time, almost as if the establishment knows it...oh WAIT, I bet they do!!

In my opinion, anyone who thinks Rand is a "Double agent" and is secretly working for us is in for a big surprise. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting up with fleas.

No one man, especially no POLITICIAN will save us.

I think most people here agree, but that doesn't mean that national campaigns aren't important. At the very least everyone here has to admit that national campaigns provide a stage for sparking a lot of energy and enthusiasm in the movement, as well as education. Evidence of this can be seen in the fact that without a national campaign for Ron Paul this website would not exist right now and the liberty movement would be a fraction of what it is.

[Shane Harris]

I don't think that Jersey tough guy persona is going to work in the midwest or south. Our main competition will be Jeb Bush.

Jeb Bush should not be a threat.

[anaconda]

Randslide!

[Agorism]

Better to have a crowded primary again.

[Matt Collins]

Keep waiting around though the liberty movement sure seems to be "waiting" for that "next" move all the time, almost as if the establishment knows it...oh WAIT, I bet they do!!Uhh... no one is waiting for anything, we are actually DOING it now. The movement has been growing and moving ahead making huge gains and successes over the last 4 years. Where have you been? :confused:


In my opinion, anyone who thinks Rand is a "Double agent" and is secretly working for us is in for a big surprise. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting up with fleas.Rand isn't secretly working for us, he's openly working for us.

[Matt Collins]

Rand Paul has a ground game in waiting, here in Iowa.The game isn't waiting, it's active and has been for a couple of years now ;)

[Matt Collins]

2016 has already started. Rand started his 2016 presidential run the day of his victory speech in 2010.An even which I produced by the way *breaks own arm patting on the back* :D





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKYZjo5bdUg

[Matt Collins]

Chris Christie is going to be really really hard to beat. He is pretty much the perfect candidate, from a political perspective.Maybe not: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?393982-Chris-Christie-Praises-Obama-And-Shows-His-True-Colors

[Matt Collins]

Jeb Bush should not be a threat.HA! Jeb should be taken very seriously, he has the means, the name, and the ability to do it. All he has to say is "I'm not my brother".

[Matt Collins]

Guys!!! Rand Sounded very much to me like if Mitt Romney wins this election, he will not run. Why would he care what happens on election?
Unless Mitt really screws up in office, I have my doubts about Rand running in 2016 :(

Maybe Ron Paul will run in 2016??? :D
Um.....because you're not going to primary a sitting Republican president


Actually it's very possible that Rand could do that. In fact the mere threat of Rand doing that could cause Romney serious heartburn and might even maybe be enough to change his behavior. Rand has an independent fundraising base seperate from the Party structure (us) and also the IAGOP is full of Paul supporters.

[Matt Collins]

Why not, Pat Buchanan did and I'd argue that he got a lot what he wanted out of his insurgency. Keep in mind Rand was talking about shaping the party and leading it into a different direction more than actually running the country. I'd argue that if he really made Republicans think about the direction of the party, causing it to shift towards a more small government, libertarian position, he'd consider even a primary loss a success. Then he would go back to the Senate and serve as a counterweight to the Rubio's of the world, and maybe run again in 2020 if Romney were to win this year.Exactly, "winning" an election doesn't always mean getting elected.

Here are ways you can win an election without getting elected -

- build name recognition for a future run
- build an advocacy organization
- raise awareness of an issue
- force the other candidates to discuss things they don't want to
- cause pain to others by forcing them to spend money and effort competing against you
etc

[Matt Collins]

He will need to paint with bold colors and broad strokes based on the central unifying idea of liberty and freedom like his father if he wants to win the primaries. :confused: Did you actually see his budget proposal?

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/senator-rand-paul%E2%80%99s-budget-plan-is-still-the-best

[Indy Vidual]

An even which I produced by the way *breaks own arm patting on the back* :D





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKYZjo5bdUg

If you get another chance, please put a camera on a tripod, and also make a recording with better sound.

[alucard13mmfmj]

He cant look too weak to the war hawks. He must make sure he addresses that he will get shit done if there was for sure an imminent threat to the USA.

Or else its "I agree with Rand Paul, but not his foreign policy"... all over again.

[Aratus]

thah collinz is lookin' ferrr the rollin' bandwagon i see

[kathy88]

The game isn't waiting, it's active and has been for a couple of years now ;)

You mean the secret ground game which doesn't involve grassroots, then.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Jeb Bush should not be a threat.
Neither should Romney, but look where we are now. The establishment loves these guys and will bankroll them with $100 million dollars into their campaign coffers and various Super PACs will also aid them.

[Bastiat's The Law]

HA! Jeb should be taken very seriously, he has the means, the name, and the ability to do it. All he has to say is "I'm not my brother".
Not to mention being a Governor of a large state gives the air of credibility to most voters. Florida will also be one of the 5 early states. Jeb could be a force to reckon with in SC and especially Florida.

[Bastiat's The Law]

He cant look too weak to the war hawks. He must make sure he addresses that he will get shit done if there was for sure an imminent threat to the USA.

Or else its "I agree with Rand Paul, but not his foreign policy"... all over again.
Rand phrases it well when speaking to republican groups. A lot of people were under the impression that Ron was a pacifist and wouldn't protect the country. Rand defuses that right away by saying national defense is vitally important. You really have to walk voters through that obvious stuff otherwise they go off believing all kinds of crazy stuff about your candidate.

[Matt Collins]

If you get another chance, please put a camera on a tripod, and also make a recording with better sound.Yeah, I didn't make that recording heh. I Just snagged it off YT

[Matt Collins]

You mean the secret ground game which doesn't involve grassroots, then.No, I mean Ron Paul 2008, and 2012 will ultimately end up Rand 2016, if he should indeed decide to run.

[Uriah]

The game isn't waiting, it's active and has been for a couple of years now ;)


I meant "in waiting" until Rand makes it official. BTW I am part of that active ground game in Iowa. I know we are active and we will continue doing work no matter what candidate is running.

[Uriah]

He cant look too weak to the war hawks. He must make sure he addresses that he will get shit done if there was for sure an imminent threat to the USA.

Or else its "I agree with Rand Paul, but not his foreign policy"... all over again.

Watch this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMtrhNaQ0l0&list=UU9heskZX7KdDDNycXOHN0jw&index=7&feature=plcp

[Shane Harris]

Actually it's very possible that Rand could do that. In fact the mere threat of Rand doing that could cause Romney serious heartburn and might even maybe be enough to change his behavior. Rand has an independent fundraising base seperate from the Party structure (us) and also the IAGOP is full of Paul supporters.

lala land. The idea that some remote and entirely unrealistic primary threat from Rand will make Romney be a better President is so beyond ridiculous. That has to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses to think Romney might not be so bad after all.

[Shane Harris]

:confused: Did you actually see his budget proposal?

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/senator-rand-paul%E2%80%99s-budget-plan-is-still-the-best


I did see it. Its great, but ever since he's been in general campaign mode he's been seeming more pragmatic in his approach. utilitarian in his whole "see what works and what doesn't" stuff that seems to suggest just making government more efficient rather than ending programs or phasing them out. On the Daily show he made his book sound like just a handful of odd regulations he wants to be more reasonable about, but made sure everyone knew he likes some regulations and didn't make much of a philosophical or moral stand against the entire idea.

[Shane Harris]

Not to mention being a Governor of a large state gives the air of credibility to most voters. Florida will also be one of the 5 early states. Jeb could be a force to reckon with in SC and especially Florida.

He's definitely capable of winning the primaries, but most republicans should be smart enough to realize that he would be toxic in the general. The country will NOT elect another Bush. They just won't. Who cares how many times he says he isn't his brother.

[Uriah]

He's definitely capable of winning the primaries, but most republicans should be smart enough to realize that he would be toxic in the general. The country will NOT elect another Bush. They just won't. Who cares how many times he says he isn't his brother.

I think enough Republicans would know how toxic his family name is to keep him from getting the nomination. With that said, his candidacy would force others to put in extra effort to pull out a victory.

[Uriah]

@ Shane Harris

You are currently 1337!!!! Don't mess it up! ;)

[ronpaulfollower999]

HA! Jeb should be taken very seriously, he has the means, the name, and the ability to do it. All he has to say is "I'm not my brother".

This.

I know plenty of Dems who despised Dubya, but loved Jeb...especially because he was governor during our bad hurricanes in 2004 and 2005.

[Matt Collins]

lala land. The idea that some remote and entirely unrealistic primary threat from Rand will make Romney be a better President is so beyond ridiculous. That has to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses to think Romney might not be so bad after all.You fail to understand the nature of politics. And no, I don't support Romney.

[Matt Collins]

I did see it. Its great, but ever since he's been in general campaign mode he's been seeming more pragmatic in his approach. utilitarian in his whole "see what works and what doesn't" stuff that seems to suggest just making government more efficient rather than ending programs or phasing them out. On the Daily show he made his book sound like just a handful of odd regulations he wants to be more reasonable about, but made sure everyone knew he likes some regulations and didn't make much of a philosophical or moral stand against the entire idea.It's called knowing one's audience which is needed if you are to win people over to your side.

[RickPerryLost]

You fail to understand the nature of politics. And no, I don't support Romney.

Are you a Rand apologist or something? Does he do no wrong in your eyes. Please, pass the kool-aid.

[Matt Collins]

Are you a Rand apologist or something? Does he do no wrong in your eyes. Please, pass the kool-aid.No, not at all. I don't care for his rhetoric sometimes, but I realize it is just that, rhetoric. His policies (voting record) I fully support.

[ZENemy]

Uhh... no one is waiting for anything, we are actually DOING it now. The movement has been growing and moving ahead making huge gains and successes over the last 4 years. Where have you been? :confused:

Rand isn't secretly working for us, he's openly working for us.

oh yeah, that time he endorsed Mitt Romney really helped us out.


Where have I been? Ive seen nothing but a loss of freedom in the last four years and a bunch of "internet" folks saying "we wont take this for much longer"

[cero]

some of the things Rand has done...

>Stops Iran sanction bill that would lead to troops without congressional approval
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/senator-rand-paul-calls-t_b_1386042.html

>Blocks marijuana ban
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_Senator_Rand_Paul_blocks_synthetic_marijuana_le gislation

>Sen. Rand Paul joins Oregon Sen. Wyden's push for legal hemp
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/06/11/151867/sen-rand-paul-joins-oregon-sen.html

>Democratic majority leader Harry Reid Blocks Rand Paul’s Filibuster of the PATRIOT Act
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/harry-reid-rand-paul-patriot-act-showdown-goes-132752391.html

>Introduced legislation that would prohibit law enforcement agencies from using unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct surveillance without a warrant.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/12/rand-paul-proposes-bill-to-prevent-warrantless-drone-surveilla
nce/

>Rand Paul Breaks With Top Romney Legal Adviser, Endorses Constitutional Right To Contraception
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/03/637041/tea-party-senator-breaks-with-top-romney-legal-ad
viser-endorses-constitutional-right-to-contraception/

>Anti-Lobbying bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFe7k9_ESI8&feature=g-all-u&context=G2275f11FAAAAAAAAAAA

>Rand Paul Outlines his support for Internet Freedom, keeping the internet unregulated without SOPA and CISPA legislation. (Starts at 15:00)
http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/08/rand-paul-internet-freedom

>Rand Paul tries to end the Iraq war
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00211

>Rand Paul onl no agaisnt preemptive war with Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-approves-resolution-iran-044224956.html

[Uriah]

I like ^^^

[Shane Harris]

@ Shane Harris

You are currently 1337!!!! Don't mess it up! ;)

I had to google this haha

[Shane Harris]

No, not at all. I don't care for his rhetoric sometimes, but I realize it is just that, rhetoric. His policies (voting record) I fully support.

This I know. I agree, but I don't think Ron would've attracted the enthusiasm or movement he did if his rhetoric wasn't the way it was. It's been more than Ron's voting record. The Ghouliani moment was about him not mincing words and speaking the truth, which is more commendable than just quietly voting the truth (which is also necessary). I know that he will switch his rhetoric, its just irritating to hear and to know that what might help him with the establishment might hurt him with the movement and stunt his ability to educate and bring more people into the fold for more than just one election. This might help win votes but could stunt the movement's REAL growth in terms of hearts and minds truly changed towards liberty and apathies cured. Tailoring your message too much results in soft support. Speaking the truth might not win you as much as fast, but what you win you keep forever. Ron showed us this. I support Rand in 2016 and that's why I care and why I hope he can retain his many talents while being a little more like Ron as well.

[Uriah]

This I know. I agree, but I don't think Ron would've attracted the enthusiasm or movement he did if his rhetoric wasn't the way it was. It's been more than Ron's voting record. The Ghouliani moment was about him not mincing words and speaking the truth, which is more commendable than just quietly voting the truth (which is also necessary). I know that he will switch his rhetoric, its just irritating to hear and to know that what might help him with the establishment might hurt him with the movement and stunt his ability to educate and bring more people into the fold for more than just one election. This might help win votes but could stunt the movement's REAL growth in terms of hearts and minds truly changed towards liberty and apathies cured. Tailoring your message too much results in soft support. Speaking the truth might not win you as much as fast, but what you win you keep forever. Ron showed us this. I support Rand in 2012 and that's why I care and why I hope he can retain his many talents while being a little more like Ron as well.

This is our job. To educate and bring more people into the fold. Rand is playing politics to pass legislation in favor of liberty. He is on a different path. I think many others need to realize that Ron and Rand are playing different roles pursuing the same goal. This is not a one man revolution. We need many people with different skill sets.

[Matt Collins]

oh yeah, that time he endorsed Mitt Romney really helped us out.It sure didn't help out Mitt, that's for sure.

[PatriotOne]

^^

I've never really had a reason to say this before but I keep thinking this is appropriate for the Rand situation.....

"Don't Hate The Playa, Hate The Game"

[RickPerryLost]

It sure didn't help out Mitt, that's for sure.

Based on what? There is more proof it did help him than it didn't. If you have somebody campaigning for you, that usually helps you.

[trey4sports]

Rand phrases it well when speaking to republican groups. A lot of people were under the impression that Ron was a pacifist and wouldn't protect the country. Rand defuses that right away by saying national defense is vitally important. You really have to walk voters through that obvious stuff otherwise they go off believing all kinds of crazy stuff about your candidate.

This.

Most Americans are fucking stupid.

See Here Comes Honey Boo Boo for an example.

[radiofriendly]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CvqXjp87-s
CNN.

[Matt Collins]

Based on what? There is more proof it did help him than it didn't. If you have somebody campaigning for you, that usually helps you.How did it help? Do you think any Rand / Ron supporters actually change their mind to vote FOR Mitt Romney because of Rand's endorsemrnt? :confused:

[Shane Harris]

This is our job. To educate and bring more people into the fold. Rand is playing politics to pass legislation in favor of liberty. He is on a different path. I think many others need to realize that Ron and Rand are playing different roles pursuing the same goal. This is not a one man revolution. We need many people with different skill sets.

true

[Feeding the Abscess]

This is our job. To educate and bring more people into the fold. Rand is playing politics to pass legislation in favor of liberty. He is on a different path. I think many others need to realize that Ron and Rand are playing different roles pursuing the same goal. This is not a one man revolution. We need many people with different skill sets.

Rand playing politics to pass legislation led to 10 votes in his favor to cut a measly few billion dollars in foreign aid to a few countries. It's also bleeding support from Ron's core base. You'll forgive me if I'm not exactly excited by those prospects.

[Uriah]

Rand playing politics to pass legislation led to 10 votes in his favor to cut a measly few billion dollars in foreign aid to a few countries. It's also bleeding support from Ron's core base. You'll forgive me if I'm not exactly excited by those prospects.

You are referencing one vote, out of many, over the past two years. Can you show any evidence that Ron's core base is bleeding support? From my perspective in Iowa and here at RPF I do not see any real hard evidence of this. What I see is quite the contrary.

There are many folks I know that are still active across the state as evidenced here (http://news.iowapublicradio.org/post/ron-paul-fans-stay-active-local-politics-some-snub-romney#.UJEqU3EPimo.twitter). Paul supporters hold just under half of our county's GOP central committee positions. We aren't bleeding support in my opinion. We are strengthening our support and finding new supporters for liberty.

Also of note, at my local GOP meeting two months ago there was an argument between a Paul national delegate and our county co-chair. They argued about what the Paul supporters were doing at the convention. Some harsh words were exchanged and they couldn't see eye to eye. Somewhere in the mix Rand Paul was brought up. Our Paul delegate said to the co-chair that Rand and Ron are virtually identical in philosophy and end goals. The co-chair shook his head and said 'no they aren't'. To be clear, my county co-chair is vehemently and adamantly against Ron Paul and his policies.(except the federal reserve :D) But somehow is favorable towards Rand Paul.

[Shane Harris]

Rand playing politics to pass legislation led to 10 votes in his favor to cut a measly few billion dollars in foreign aid to a few countries. It's also bleeding support from Ron's core base. You'll forgive me if I'm not exactly excited by those prospects.

This is the recent obsession of Rands that he keeps harping. This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. He spends all this time harping on something that is NOT the real issue. http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/sen-rand-paul-on-benghazi-where-in-the-hell-were-the-marines-audio/

From his facebook :

"While our diplomats were being attacked in Libya, we had 10 Marines stationed in Paris. Where were the Marines in Benghazi? We've spent $100,000 making our embassy in Vienna more "green." Who thought we couldn't commit resources to protect our ambassador in Libya? Most importantly: Who will answer for this?"

Instead of talking about blowback, interventionism and the reasons WHY they attacked our embassy, he spends all this time attacking the President's leadership and every little decision about these things that, while true, are not the major issues.

[69360]

I'm all in for Rand '16. I'm not nearly as picky as some here, I think he is just as good as Ron.

[Matt Collins]

Rand playing politics to pass legislation led to 10 votes in his favor to cut a measly few billion dollars in foreign aid to a few countries. It's also bleeding support from Ron's core base. You'll forgive me if I'm not exactly excited by those prospects.That's because you don't understand politics or the political process at all.

Rand was getting these guys on record voting for more foreign aid. That is VERY useful when it comes to primarying these politicians; especially the Republicans.

[Feeding the Abscess]

That's because you don't understand politics or the political process at all.

Rand was getting these guys on record voting for more foreign aid. That is VERY useful when it comes to primarying these politicians; especially the Republicans.

Mitch McConnell voted to keep the aid going, and Rand is already on record as supporting his reelection. Plus he's fundraising for him. Are you certain you know how the political process works?


This is the recent obsession of Rands that he keeps harping. This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. He spends all this time harping on something that is NOT the real issue. http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/sen-rand-paul-on-benghazi-where-in-the-hell-were-the-marines-audio/

From his facebook :

"While our diplomats were being attacked in Libya, we had 10 Marines stationed in Paris. Where were the Marines in Benghazi? We've spent $100,000 making our embassy in Vienna more "green." Who thought we couldn't commit resources to protect our ambassador in Libya? Most importantly: Who will answer for this?"

Instead of talking about blowback, interventionism and the reasons WHY they attacked our embassy, he spends all this time attacking the President's leadership and every little decision about these things that, while true, are not the major issues.

I agree, the Marines shouldn't even be in Libya at all, and his rhetoric on this issue is abysmal.

[Matt Collins]

Mitch McConnell voted to keep the aid going, and Rand is already on record as supporting his reelection. That's because Mitch isn't vulnerable, plus, having him on our side in 2016 is helpful.

[Dick Chaney]

Good for him, not voting for him.

[mz10]

Good for him, not voting for him.

Because he endorsed someone? Good god, I am so sick of all this crap, you really don't think liberty would be massively better off in this country with Rand Paul as president? I really think this has just become a self-indulgent thing for a lot of people.

[radiofriendly]

Because he endorsed someone? Good god, I am so sick of all this crap, you really don't think liberty would be massively better off in this country with Rand Paul as president? I really think this has just become a self-indulgent thing for a lot of people.

Most of these people are anarchists and don't vote anyway.

[alucard13mmfmj]

Unless someone better comes up to the plate in 2016 and has a chance, I'd probably vote for Rand... Probably better than whatever the democrats or republicans will get in 2016.

[Michigan11]

I'm 100% for Rand Paul running for President when the time is right. Hopefully 2016.

[SneakyFrenchSpy]

Look at the Demographics and the timing of Rand's popularity:

http://i.imgur.com/35pCc.jpg

Compare it with Ron's page:

http://i.imgur.com/JkTMP.jpg

Rand is getting the old farts in droves. Sure he's losing some of Ron's die-hard younger core support among us, but it's being dwarfed by the converts he's getting in return: The Old Vote. The ones that actually VOTE. ALL THE TIME.

[Shane Harris]

I'm 100% for Rand Paul running for President when the time is right. Hopefully 2016.

me too

[Rede]

I'm 100% for Rand Paul running for President when the time is right. Hopefully 2016.


I'd hazard a guess that this is the majority opinion amongst most Ron Paul supporters but there is a vocal minority who won't accept anyone other than a duplicate of Ron Paul. I can understand that - I loved that Ron didn't play their game - but I also like seeing an advocate for Liberty playing their game and actually beating the establishment at it.

I think Rand has taken some more traditional Republican positions ... some of which, admittedly, likely have to do with political expediency and playing their game... and that has probably turned off some of Ron's supporters (both the positions and the expediency). I don't love that he does that, but understand why he has to. On balance, though I think Rand will be the best advocate for liberty in the Senate or the House come next year... and he is laying some solid groundwork for 2016 if Mitt doesn't pull off an upset. Unfortunately, this is what it takes to win and I'm glad someone in the liberty movement is both prepared to and in a position to have a serious shot at doing that.

We've got to be the educational and philosophical arm of this movement - a role I'm sure Ron will also continue to fulfill. Rand is part of the political arm, so he has to play the political game.

[itshappening]

I have no doubt Rand can win Iowa if he tailors the message correctly, this would make him a top tier candidate in 2016.

The only question is if he can put the right campaign and people in place to pull it off, im talking building bridges with evangelicals who are very powerful there and building lists of voters who can be turned out at the polls i.e organizing coach loads of voters throughout the state in a massive turnout operation along with robocalls, door to door voter contact and being on tv and radio constantly with ads, which isnt cheap so would need our backing ofcourse.

We should have a decent infrastructure in Iowa and half the GOP state committee are Ron Paul people including Drew Ivers. They know the state party, voters, county's, precincts etc. This would give us a big advantage if used correctly.

New Hampshire has the FSP people and we have lots of state rep's and local people who support(ed) Ron Paul to help build the infrastructure to deliver the state plus momentum from Iowa would propel Rand and make him a valid choice for all those McCain/Romney voters.

I dont see why we would not have a big advantage in IA and NH which other candidates will find it hard to compete with as long as it's done properly and we have the funds.

[AuH20]

Look at the Demographics and the timing of Rand's popularity:

http://i.imgur.com/35pCc.jpg

Compare it with Ron's page:

http://i.imgur.com/JkTMP.jpg

Rand is getting the old farts in droves. Sure he's losing some of Ron's die-hard younger core support among us, but it's being dwarfed by the converts he's getting in return: The Old Vote. The ones that actually VOTE. ALL THE TIME.

I really lose sleep about losing the Los Angeles 25-34 Ron Paul demographic. ROFL

[Shane Harris]

I have no doubt Rand can win Iowa if he tailors the message correctly, this would make him a top tier candidate in 2016.

The only question is if he can put the right campaign and people in place to pull it off, im talking building bridges with evangelicals who are very powerful there and building lists of voters who can be turned out at the polls i.e organizing coach loads of voters throughout the state in a massive turnout operation along with robocalls, door to door voter contact and being on tv and radio constantly with ads, which isnt cheap so would need our backing ofcourse.

We should have a decent infrastructure in Iowa and half the GOP state committee are Ron Paul people including Drew Ivers. They know the state party, voters, county's, precincts etc. This would give us a big advantage if used correctly.

New Hampshire has the FSP people and we have lots of state rep's and local people who support(ed) Ron Paul to help build the infrastructure to deliver the state plus momentum from Iowa would propel Rand and make him a valid choice for all those McCain/Romney voters.

I dont see why we would not have a big advantage in IA and NH which other candidates will find it hard to compete with as long as it's done properly and we have the funds.

Agreed. Iowa looks great, New Hampshire looks great, and South Carolina is shaping up to potentially look pretty decent by 2016 as well. A Davis endorsement (hopefully a Senator by that time), and probably a Demint endorsement will hold lots of water. Our best hope for Florida is that it falls in line if Rand wins the first three. It really is fortunate that perhaps two of our strongest state organizations and demographics are the first two primaries. Its exciting to think about. Here's to praying for an Obama win tomorrow (without voting for him of course)!

[Bastiat's The Law]

You are referencing one vote, out of many, over the past two years. Can you show any evidence that Ron's core base is bleeding support? From my perspective in Iowa and here at RPF I do not see any real hard evidence of this. What I see is quite the contrary.

There are many folks I know that are still active across the state as evidenced here (http://news.iowapublicradio.org/post/ron-paul-fans-stay-active-local-politics-some-snub-romney#.UJEqU3EPimo.twitter). Paul supporters hold just under half of our county's GOP central committee positions. We aren't bleeding support in my opinion. We are strengthening our support and finding new supporters for liberty.

Also of note, at my local GOP meeting two months ago there was an argument between a Paul national delegate and our county co-chair. They argued about what the Paul supporters were doing at the convention. Some harsh words were exchanged and they couldn't see eye to eye. Somewhere in the mix Rand Paul was brought up. Our Paul delegate said to the co-chair that Rand and Ron are virtually identical in philosophy and end goals. The co-chair shook his head and said 'no they aren't'. To be clear, my county co-chair is vehemently and adamantly against Ron Paul and his policies.(except the federal reserve :D) But somehow is favorable towards Rand Paul.
Rand is a political master. He's the Liberty movements Bill Clinton in that regard. What he's doing is working brilliant like you pointed out above. I've seen it with my own eyes as well, the people who vehemently oppose to Ron, actually really like Rand, and it has all to do with how you phrase things. For whatever reason it seemed to really pain Ron to talk about how he would defend this country. When Charles Krauthammer asked him about he gave a very succinct, yet strong answer on it and shut Krauthammer down. That should've been rinse, repeat from day one, from Ron's mouth at every campaign stop to quell the pacifistic notion that circulated for years, but alas, it came on the eve of the Iowa caucus.

Rand avoids that trap with ease and with the crowd disarmed, can then move forward to educate them on the issues and sell himself as the guy to get things done.

[Bastiat's The Law]

That's because Mitch isn't vulnerable, plus, having him on our side in 2016 is helpful.
Correct. Why pick a fight with the big guy at the end of the bar, when he'll actually help your cause when the real brawl starts? Besides, this gives the Liberty-minded farm team candidates in Kentucky time to get some experience under their belt. This will likely be McConnell's last term. Allowing him to go out graciously will put Rand even more in line to inherit the McConnell political machine and their tremendous fund raising ability.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I have no doubt Rand can win Iowa if he tailors the message correctly, this would make him a top tier candidate in 2016.

The only question is if he can put the right campaign and people in place to pull it off, im talking building bridges with evangelicals who are very powerful there and building lists of voters who can be turned out at the polls i.e organizing coach loads of voters throughout the state in a massive turnout operation along with robocalls, door to door voter contact and being on tv and radio constantly with ads, which isnt cheap so would need our backing ofcourse.

We should have a decent infrastructure in Iowa and half the GOP state committee are Ron Paul people including Drew Ivers. They know the state party, voters, county's, precincts etc. This would give us a big advantage if used correctly.

New Hampshire has the FSP people and we have lots of state rep's and local people who support(ed) Ron Paul to help build the infrastructure to deliver the state plus momentum from Iowa would propel Rand and make him a valid choice for all those McCain/Romney voters.

I dont see why we would not have a big advantage in IA and NH which other candidates will find it hard to compete with as long as it's done properly and we have the funds.
Don't forget we should have a strong grassroots movement going into SC too, given that Tom Davis has his sites set on Graham in 2014. Rand could pull a trifecta right out the gate!

[Matt Collins]

This I know. I agree, but I don't think Ron would've attracted the enthusiasm or movement he did if his rhetoric wasn't the way it was. It's been more than Ron's voting record. The Ghouliani moment was about him not mincing words and speaking the truth, which is more commendable than just quietly voting the truth (which is also necessary). I know that he will switch his rhetoric, its just irritating to hear and to know that what might help him with the establishment might hurt him with the movement and stunt his ability to educate and bring more people into the fold for more than just one election. This might help win votes but could stunt the movement's REAL growth in terms of hearts and minds truly changed towards liberty and apathies cured. Tailoring your message too much results in soft support. Speaking the truth might not win you as much as fast, but what you win you keep forever. Ron showed us this. I support Rand in 2016 and that's why I care and why I hope he can retain his many talents while being a little more like Ron as well.Please note that winning an election and growing the movement are not the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive, but it's very hard to do both. Ron grows a movement, Rand wins elections.

[Jamesiv1]

Please note that winning an election and growing the movement are not the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive, but it's very hard to do both. Ron grows a movement, Rand wins elections.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[alucard13mmfmj]

I think if we end up with someone like Obama vs Rand. I hope most people would consider voting for Rand (assuming he keeps his voting record mostly consistent by then). Or if it was Rand was against someone like santorum (there has to be a christian conservative!), a gingrich (a southern boy), and possibly another crazy GOP woman... I'd probably vote for Rand. But hey, if someone better than Rand shows up, I'll vote for that person.