AuH20
08-01-2013, 01:13 PM
Sounds like reverse psychology to me. Read how arrogant and supremely confident they are.....
httx://www.mediaite.com/online/dear-conservatives-democrats-are-not-scared-of-rand-but-theyre-terrified-of-christie/
Paul, by 2016, will have achieved a variety of legislative accomplishments and delivered some well-received speeches during his tenure in the upper chamber of Congress. He may even sponsor a bill or two which become celebrated law — a big maybe given the present occupant of the Oval Office — but his accomplishments will pale in comparison to Christie’s.
Further, the Democratic Party can run virtually the same campaign that they ran against Romney in 2012 against Paul in 2016, substituting the former Massachusetts governor’s personal ties to wealth with Paul’s ideological attachment to libertarianism. They will depict Paul’s as a form of “no-government conservatism” on steroids. His opposition to many aspects of how America prosecutes the war on terror – lent bipartisan legitimacy by virtue of their being utilized by both the Bush and Obama administrations – could also become a net negative in a general election. Paul’s mistrust of many aspects of U.S. defense policy may win over some traditionally Democratic young voters while ceding as many adults and seniors to the Democrats. His candidacy would have the added catastrophic effect of surrendering the issue of national security to Democrats for a generation or more.
Speaking of the 2012 campaign, Paul’s baggage when it comes to his past embrace of a neo-confederate speechwriter is as potentially politically toxic in a general presidential election as his father’s questionable newsletters would have been. The Democrats and Clinton can use Paul’s checkered past relating to race issues to drive up minority turnout, cement the impression that the GOP as a whole is unfriendly to minorities, and further depress the white vote.
Rand Paul = Mitt Romney. ROFL
httx://www.mediaite.com/online/dear-conservatives-democrats-are-not-scared-of-rand-but-theyre-terrified-of-christie/
Paul, by 2016, will have achieved a variety of legislative accomplishments and delivered some well-received speeches during his tenure in the upper chamber of Congress. He may even sponsor a bill or two which become celebrated law — a big maybe given the present occupant of the Oval Office — but his accomplishments will pale in comparison to Christie’s.
Further, the Democratic Party can run virtually the same campaign that they ran against Romney in 2012 against Paul in 2016, substituting the former Massachusetts governor’s personal ties to wealth with Paul’s ideological attachment to libertarianism. They will depict Paul’s as a form of “no-government conservatism” on steroids. His opposition to many aspects of how America prosecutes the war on terror – lent bipartisan legitimacy by virtue of their being utilized by both the Bush and Obama administrations – could also become a net negative in a general election. Paul’s mistrust of many aspects of U.S. defense policy may win over some traditionally Democratic young voters while ceding as many adults and seniors to the Democrats. His candidacy would have the added catastrophic effect of surrendering the issue of national security to Democrats for a generation or more.
Speaking of the 2012 campaign, Paul’s baggage when it comes to his past embrace of a neo-confederate speechwriter is as potentially politically toxic in a general presidential election as his father’s questionable newsletters would have been. The Democrats and Clinton can use Paul’s checkered past relating to race issues to drive up minority turnout, cement the impression that the GOP as a whole is unfriendly to minorities, and further depress the white vote.
Rand Paul = Mitt Romney. ROFL