Today’s News Rand Paul Calls Mitt Romney ‘Yesterday’s News’

[NACBA]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who reluctantly gave Mitt Romney his endorsement in 2012 and has himself not been shy about his intentions to run for president in 2016, is apparently not thrilled by the idea of facing off against last cycle’s loser.

“If he runs to the right of Jeb Bush, he’ll still be to the left of the rest of the party, so it may be a difficult spot to occupy,” Paul told Fox News Radio’s John Gibson. “Look, I like Governor Romney, I like him personally, I think he is a good person, I think he was a great businessman. But you know that’s yesterday’s news.”

“He’s tried twice — I don’t really think that there is a third time out there,” Paul continued. “I think he did a lot of things right, but in the end you got to have a bigger constituency, you got to get new people, you got to attract new people to win and I think it’s time that probably the party is going to be looking for something fresh and new.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/todays-news-rand-paul-calls-mitt-romney-yesterdays-news/

[Mr.NoSmile]

“He’s tried twice — I don’t really think that there is a third time out there,”

Huh. Rand Paul does realize that his father had three failed presidential runs, right?

[NACBA]

Huh. Rand Paul does realize that his father had three failed presidential runs, right?

REP +1

[Todd]

Huh. Rand Paul does realize that his father had three failed presidential runs, right?

know what rhetoric is?

[Mr.NoSmile]

know what rhetoric is?

I know what rhetoric is as well as I know what hypocrisy is. That's not the point.

[specsaregood]

Huh. Rand Paul does realize that his father had three failed presidential runs, right?

The first run as a Libertarian Party nominee doesn't count. I mean, not seriously anyways.

[Mr.NoSmile]

The first run as a Libertarian Party nominee doesn't count. I mean, not seriously anyways.

No, it was a Presidential run. It counts. My point is that this can easily be flipped on Paul, for him to point out someone running multiple times for President makes them look like yesterday's news, when his father has done the exact same thing. If folks here don't point it out, you know folks out there will and call him out for it.

[specsaregood]

No, it was a Presidential run. It counts. My point is that this can easily be flipped on Paul, for him to point out someone running multiple times for President makes them look like yesterday's news, when his father has done the exact same thing. If folks here don't point it out, you know folks out there will and call him out for it.

I think most reasonable people would agree that it doesn't really count. But if you want to worry about the folks that mocked his father for making a 3rd try at it calling him out for it, feel free.

[Mr.NoSmile]

I think most reasonable people would agree that it doesn't really count. But if you want to worry about the folks that mocked his father for making a 3rd try at it calling him out for it, feel free.

You mistake my critique for worrying. Amusing. If he's willing to call out Romney, then people are just as free to call out his father. And a Presidential run is a Presidential run- especially when folks are still gung-ho on the idea of Ron Paul running as a third party candidate. Again, point is what Romney's doing isn't anything new. Even if Paul wants to paint Romney as yesterday's news with him wanting to run again after failing before, Romney isn't alone in that.

[specsaregood]

You mistake my critique for worrying. Amusing. fair enough, I didnt mean to imply you were quivering or peeing your pants or anything.



If he's willing to call out Romney, then people are just as free to call out his father.
Plenty did already in '12, that's my point. Randal is just throwing the argument back at them.



Again, point is what Romney's doing isn't anything new.

I'd be more "worried" about Romney's folks pointing out that Reagan won on his 3rd run for the presidency. '68, '76, '80

[Valli6]

Ron Paul's presidential run as a Libertarian was 24 20 years before he ran as a Republican. That's quite different than running 3 consecutive times in the same party.

CORRECTION: 20 years (to 2008, but 24 years before 2012 run). 2 Decades = long time

[Bergie Bergeron]

Ron Paul's presidential run as a Libertarian was 24 years before he ran as a Republican. That's quite different than running 3 consecutive times in the same party.
Exactly.

[acptulsa]

No, it was a Presidential run. It counts. My point is that this can easily be flipped on Paul, for him to point out someone running multiple times for President makes them look like yesterday's news, when his father has done the exact same thing. If folks here don't point it out, you know folks out there will and call him out for it.

Firstly, none of Ron Paul's runs will ever be 'yesterday's news' because the mainstream media never reported them in the news at all. Secondly, none of Ron Paul's runs made the news because liberty might indeed be 'yesterday's news' but certainly wasn't a message being put forth by anyone else at the time, whether you're talking about two decades prior or the mainstream party runs in this millennium. Thirdly, what specs said about Reagan.

As for hypocrisy, what Ron Paul brought to the table was so fresh that the oldest candidate in the race had the youngest supporters of all. The tripe coming out of Romney's mouth, whether before or after he flip flopped, was all yesterday's news long before he blathered it. Hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder, and as hard as you try to invent it in the public's imagination, you will fail. Finally, Ron ran because we told him to, begged him to, and paid him to. And we did it twice, because we were quite rightly sure that not everyone had heard his message the first time.

Who is telling, begging and paying Romney to run? Anyone you know?

But hey. Thanks for playing.

[LawnWake]

Mr.NoSmile is correct. You need to stop looking at Ron Paul's runs from your own perspective and start looking at them from the way that the average voter will view them.

However, this won't come back to hurt Rand too much. It'll be brought up, but it'll be a minor thing.

There's two things that we should be really mindful of during the campaign: his original comments on civil rights act (I agreed with his innitial comments, by the way). Another thing that might hurt him with liberals, mostly in the general election, is a comment he's made in Iowa a few years ago. Saying that Obama's stance on gay marriage "couldn't by any gayer" (even though, from what I recall, it's the same as Rand's). That clip will be played. Just wait. He can overcome the latter, though.

[specsaregood]

Firstly, none of Ron Paul's runs will ever be 'yesterday's news' because the mainstream media never reported them in the news at all. Secondly, none of Ron Paul's runs made the news because liberty might indeed be 'yesterday's news' but certainly wasn't a message being put forth by anyone else at the time, whether you're talking about two decades prior or the mainstream party runs in this millennium. Thirdly, what specs said about Reagan.

As for hypocrisy, what Ron Paul brought to the table was so fresh that the oldest candidate in the race had the youngest supporters of all. The tripe coming out of Romney's mouth, whether before or after he flip flopped, was all yesterday's news long before he blathered it. Hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder, and as hard as you try to invent it in the public's imagination, you will fail. Finally, Ron ran because we told him to, begged him to, and paid him to. And we did it twice, because we were quite rightly sure that not everyone had heard his message the first time.

Who is telling, begging and paying Romney to run? Anyone you know?

But hey. Thanks for playing.

Also, Neither Ron Paul nor Reagan failed to win the general election AFTER winning the GOP nomination a very crucial difference I'd say.

[acptulsa]

Mr.NoSmile is correct.

No, he isn't. Rand Paul is. Romney is yesterday's news. Indeed, he never really made any news at all. And while his milquetoast "style" undoubtedly helped him secure the nomination, it guaranteed him a loss in the general, and ensured he never made any news at all.

Bob Dole made more headlines than Romney. Rand might have been more accurate if he had responded to the Romney "news" by saying, "No news is no news."


Also, Neither Ron Paul nor Reagan failed to win the general election AFTER winning the GOP nomination a very crucial difference I'd say.

I'll get back to you after I spread some reputation around.

[William Tell]

Also, Neither Ron Paul nor Reagan failed to win the general election AFTER winning the GOP nomination a very crucial difference I'd say.

That's the thing, you can run for a nomination as many times as you like till you win. That's just inner party politics, but when you win the nomination and carry the standard to defeat, that's another issue. Generally speaking, you are toast if you win the presidential nomination of a major party and lose the general election. Not many people have tried running again after that, and for good reason.

[LawnWake]

No, he isn't. Rand Paul is. Romney is yesterday's news. Indeed, he never really made any news at all. And while his milquetoast "style" undoubtedly helped him secure the nomination, it guaranteed him a loss in the general, and ensured he never made any news at all.

Bob Dole made more headlines than Romney. Rand might have been more accurate if he had responded to the Romney "news" by saying, "No news is no news."

He is correct in that both Ron Paul and Romney both ran multiple times and that if Romney's 2 previous runs make him "yesterday's news" (from that perspective) then Ron Paul's 1988 and 2008 runs made him 'yesterday's news' in 2012. It's a simple matter of applying Rand's logic about Romney's run to his father. Yes, there are differences, but that's not how they will be picked up by most people. As I previously said, don't look at this situation through the eyes of a die hard Ron Paul supporter because the average voter will not be a die hard Ron Paul supporter. And what matters in elections isn't what die hard Ron Paul supporters think, but what average voter's think. It's the average voter that wins you campaigns, not the Ron Paul fanatic.

[specsaregood]

Generally speaking, you are toast if you win the presidential nomination of a major party and lose the general election. Not many people have tried running again after that, and for good reason.

Nixon did it. course I don't think Romney is gonna gladly compare himself to Nixon.

[NACBA]

As I previously said, don't look at this situation through the eyes of a die hard Ron Paul supporter because the average voter will not be a die hard Ron Paul supporter. And what matters in elections isn't what die hard Ron Paul supporters think, but what average voter's think. It's the average voter that wins you campaigns, not the Ron Paul fanatic.

AMEN--glad that there are some astute folks here

[William Tell]

He is correct in that both Ron Paul and Romney both ran multiple times and that if Romney's 2 previous runs make him "yesterday's news" (from that perspective) then Ron Paul's 1988 and 2008 runs made him 'yesterday's news' in 2012. It's a simple matter of applying Rand's logic about Romney's run to his father. Yes, there are differences, but that's not how they will be picked up by most people. As I previously said, don't look at this situation through the eyes of a die hard Ron Paul supporter because the average voter will not be a die hard Ron Paul supporter. And what matters in elections isn't what die hard Ron Paul supporters think, but what average voter's think. It's the average voter that wins you campaigns, not the Ron Paul fanatic.
What's your point? that Ron Paul is yesterdays news too? If so, so what? He is from the presidential politics perspective.
He stays active, he gives endorsements and he matters to a lot of us. But he's not running again.

[specsaregood]

He is correct in that both Ron Paul and Romney both ran multiple times and that if Romney's 2 previous runs make him "yesterday's news" (from that perspective) then Ron Paul's 1988 and 2008 runs made him 'yesterday's news' in 2012. It's a simple matter of applying Rand's logic about Romney's run to his father. Yes, there are differences, but that's not how they will be picked up by most people.

I think what is "correct" here is that anybody trying to come after Randal for making this comment and bringing up his father as a retort is leaving the ball hanging right over the plate for Randal to smack. once again, people should remember that Randal often employs the rope-a-dope. nobody is going to attack him for this off the cuff comment.

[William Tell]

I know what rhetoric is as well as I know what hypocrisy is. That's not the point.
Hypocrisy is doing what you preach against, not your dad doing what he wants.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Other post.

[Mr.NoSmile]

He is correct in that both Ron Paul and Romney both ran multiple times and that if Romney's 2 previous runs make him "yesterday's news" (from that perspective) then Ron Paul's 1988 and 2008 runs made him 'yesterday's news' in 2012. It's a simple matter of applying Rand's logic about Romney's run to his father. Yes, there are differences, but that's not how they will be picked up by most people. As I previously said, don't look at this situation through the eyes of a die hard Ron Paul supporter because the average voter will not be a die hard Ron Paul supporter. And what matters in elections isn't what die hard Ron Paul supporters think, but what average voter's think. It's the average voter that wins you campaigns, not the Ron Paul fanatic.

Basically, yes.

[acptulsa]

Hypocrisy is doing what you preach against...

...like closing and gutting smaller corporations in favor of bigger ones, inventing Obamacare, and flip flopping on every issue under the sun...


...not your dad doing what he wants.

Like killing Hudson, eviscerating Nash, and effectively killing Studebaker and Packard, all for the obvious and real benefit of the Big Three at the expense of the American people; talking up Civil Rights but spurning Dr. Martin Luther King; backstabbing Barry Goldwater and more than doubling the size and cost of Michigan state government...?

No, Romney isn't going to push this. I think he's just almost smart enough to know what the memory of his own father will get in return.

[mosquitobite]

That's the thing, you can run for a nomination as many times as you like till you win. That's just inner party politics, but when you win the nomination and carry the standard to defeat, that's another issue. Generally speaking, you are toast if you win the presidential nomination of a major party and lose the general election. Not many people have tried running again after that, and for good reason.

Especially when you can't beat someone with the current approval rating Obama has! Ridiculous the idiots that are screaming to give Romney another try! He couldn't beat Obama! Why in the WORLD do they think he'll beat Hillary???

[Valli6]

Another argument I find misguided, but Rand may have to deal with:

I’ve heard a few people suggest Rand is part of a “dynasty”, as if the Pauls have ever received the same special treatment that the Bushs, Clintons and Romneys could count on. :rolleyes:

I'm referring mainly to Ron's treatment here - but when the only “special” treatment you get from your party or the media is intended to destroy you, is it fair to call you part of a dynasty?

[specsaregood]

Especially when you can't beat someone with the current approval rating Obama has! Ridiculous the idiots that are screaming to give Romney another try! He couldn't beat Obama! Why in the WORLD do they think he'll beat Hillary???

Maybe they don't want him to beat the Dem nominee.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Especially when you can't beat someone with the current approval rating Obama has! Ridiculous the idiots that are screaming to give Romney another try! He couldn't beat Obama! Why in the WORLD do they think he'll beat Hillary???

Weren't you paying attention to the 2012 campaign? He knows Hillary Clinton and all women back and front. Remember, he's got binders full of women! Romney has a photo of Clinton in his binder.

[LawnWake]

I think what is "correct" here is that anybody trying to come after Randal for making this comment and bringing up his father as a retort is leaving the ball hanging right over the plate for Randal to smack. once again, people should remember that Randal often employs the rope-a-dope. nobody is going to attack him for this off the cuff comment.

Rand is politically smart, and I agree that the comment won't make any noticable dent (even if it wasn't the best move). But this type of thought process was part of why Ron wasn't more successful at the voting booths. You're kinda idealizing Rand as some sort of plotting genius who can or say no wrong.

Supporters idealized Ron in 2008 and 2012 and pretended like any possible fault or flaw or problem of him as a candidate wasn't there. In 2012 everyone was religiously convinced that the campaign would have the perfect retort against the newsletters and then.... the campaign didn't. Everyone convinced themselves that Ron Paul's weaknesses were his strengths and it disabled the grassroots from adequately handling Ron Paul's flaws.

[acptulsa]

Maybe they don't want him to beat the Dem nominee.

The GOP establishment clearly doesn't want a Republican in the White House. Fox and Rupert clearly don't want a Republican in the White House--at least, they don't want any Republican that can actually win the general election.

But there are people out there who do. I wonder if they've figured out how much less they have in common with Reince Priebus and Rupert Murdoch than they do with us.


Rand is politically smart, and I agree that the comment won't make any noticable dent (even if it wasn't the best move). But this type of thought process was part of why Ron wasn't more successful at the voting booths. You're kinda idealizing Rand as some sort of plotting genius who can or say no wrong.

He really is doing fine. He's getting a lot of attention with this stuff. What's more, he's making people chuckle, and nothing but nothing will bring down a corrupt establishment faster than humor. That was something we begged Ron Paul to consider, but saw no sign that he did.

And if it wasn't the best move, there is no best move. Romney knows better to engage in a battle of wits with either Rand Paul or us, as he knows he's barely half armed for it. He's certainly not going to take us both on at once.


Supporters idealized Ron in 2008 and 2012 and pretended like any possible fault or flaw or problem of him as a candidate wasn't there. In 2012 everyone was religiously convinced that the campaign would have the perfect retort against the newsletters and then.... the campaign didn't. Everyone convinced themselves that Ron Paul's weaknesses were his strengths and it disabled the grassroots from adequately handling Ron Paul's flaws.

You joined in 2011 and try to make this claim? You must never, ever have logged in here until after the 2012 campaign was over, and must never have lurked here during 2008 either, to spew mendacity like this.

Oh, I'm not saying no one fits your description. I'm just saying not every Ron Paul supporter, nor even the majority of us, fit your description. Why are you trying to rewrite history? What makes you think we'll let you get away with it? Are we confusing our willingness to spin for the benefit of our candidate with delusion?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?87115-Sound-Bites-for-Ron-Paul

[mosquitobite]

Maybe they don't want him to beat the Dem nominee.

I understand why the power brokers would want him. I'm talking about everyday R idiots on facebook saying it! (yes! they are out there!)

[specsaregood]

./

[LawnWake]

meh, I'm not idealizing anything or saying Randal can do no wrong. I'm just pointing out that he has a record of playing his opponents and media just like this, saying something that looks like an opening and counterpunching with great accuracy. I'm not the first to notice this and Randal's own past campaign manager posted on this site years ago that Randal likes to employ the rope-a-dope.

I agree, he's good at trolling and entrapping others. But as with anything, there's a danger to the tactic and he can put his foot in his mouthand he has in the past (like the aforementioned comment about Obama's position on gay marriage being "gay"). I might agree with what he's saying too, but I'm trying to be mindful of how it will be spun. Rand is good, but the massmedia apparatus is too.

[Unknownuser]

Plus it's his father so there is always that.

[idiom]

Hate to break it to you lads, but Ron Paul is yesterdays news. Ron Paul would not win the nomination if he ran in 2016, neither would Mitt.

Fortunately we are not pinning our hopes on a 4th Ron Paul run.