Is Rand Paul struggling because he isn't libertarian enough?

[Dianne]

This is so disappointing. Even a few months ago Chris Matthews claimed Rand Paul would be the nominee. He seemed to have such good momentum.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is-rand-paul-struggling-because-he-isnt-libertarian-enough/article/2569402

This has been the week of articles painting a dismal portrait of Rand Paul's presidential campaign. His polling has slipped since the last time I wrote about this topic and his fundraising numbers, including super PACs, have been a major letdown.

Disappointed libertarians are starting to speak out about these struggles, some lamenting that Paul hasn't been libertarian enough while others note that he hasn't recaptured the excitement of his father Ron Paul's Republican presidential campaigns.

The younger Paul's greatest successes have come when he has been able to identify issues that simultaneously galvanize the younger libertarians inspired by his father and older Tea Party conservatives, usually at the expense of President Obama and the Democrats.

A good example is when Paul got certifiably mainstream Republicans like Mitch McConnell and Jerry Moran, and even hawks like Marco Rubio, to participate in his filibuster over drones, as a proxy for discussing extrajudicial killings by government.

For a variety of reasons, Paul has struggled to replicate that success this year. Libertarians were happy that he forced the expiration of Patriot Act provisions that were about to sunset, but he had fewer traditional Republicans on his side than when he stood against drones. Libertarians generally don't mind his moves to defund Planned Parenthood — they're against taxpayer funding of most things and the Pauls have made libertarians more pro-life — but it excites conservatives more.

When at least 10 Republicans take the debate state Thursday, it would be a mistake for Paul to try to resolve this dilemma by diluting his own distinctive brand. Nevertheless, libertarians who think the only problem is that Paul hasn't been interesting or libertarian enough are mistaking a symptom for the cause.

Donald Trump's rapid rise is one of many reasons to suspect the broader Republican primary electorate isn't ready for a "generation-shifting campaign." Paul is competing for the conservative vote against candidates like Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee and to a lesser extent candidates like Scott Walker and Rubio who seldom tell Fox News-watching, talk radio-listening grassroots conservatives who vote in Republican primaries anything they don't want to hear.

Criminal justice reform may be a safer issue than, say, breaking with fellow Republicans on foreign policy because it is easier to find conservatives who are on board. But it does involve challenging the views many Republicans hold on things like Ferguson, and being portrayed as soft on crime is not exactly a risk-free proposition in a Republican primary.

The groups where Paul is under-performing relative to other conservative, non-establishment candidates for the 2016 nomination are older Republican voters, evangelicals and Southerners. Even the poll that purported to show 30 percent of Ron Paul's 2012 Iowa delegates standing with candidates other than Rand this time around mainly had the defectors going to Cruz and Walker, both Republicans who are more conventionally conservative and interventionist than Paul.

The main reason to have any optimism that Paul can outperform his father in the primaries is that his favorability ratings among Republicans and conservatives, while slipping, are much higher. Not only do majorities of conservative Republicans view him favorably, but the percentage of Republicans open to supporting him and who would be content with his nomination is higher than it was for his father at any point — and in fact higher than for front-running 2016 Republicans Trump and Jeb Bush.

Insufficient libertarian activist enthusiasm may be a bigger factor in the lack of fundraising success, though the jury it still out on what Ed Crane and Matt Kibbe will be able to do for Paul. But there were libertarians, especially anarcho-capitalists, not sold on Paul as far back as when I wrote my 2010 Reason profile of him before he won Kentucky's Republican senatorial primary.

Nevertheless, the path for electoral success for libertarian-leaning Republicans has generally been to win the support of economic and social conservatives while isolating national security hawks. That's how Paul beat Trey Grayson in Kentucky and it's a factor in the victories of Republican congressmen like Justin Amash and Thomas Massie.

Even Gary Johnson, the least "right-wing" of the prominent libertarians to get elected as a Republican, was more operationally aligned with social conservatives — including pro-lifers — when he was winning gubernatorial races than as a Libertarian Party candidate, where getting over 1 million votes out of some 118 million cast is considered a success.

Libertarians too often ignore how much Ron Paul appealed to conservatives in his successful campaigns. The elder Paul was elected to Congress 12 times, including three wins as a non-incumbent. He represented congressional districts that voted for presidential candidates like George W. Bush and John McCain. His successor after his first long stint in the House was Tom DeLay.

Ron Paul was arguably more critical of arms control treaties with the Soviets than Rand has been of the nuclear deal with Iran. His political inner circle included not just libertarians, but also social conservatives who had supported Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan. His 1996 campaign manager said that while Ron opposed the Persian Gulf War he "fully supported our effort once the war was underway" and you can bet his early support of Ronald Reagan was emphasized over his later criticisms (except by Paul's Republican opponents).

The entire 2016 field has been unsettled by Trump, who has risen at the expense of nearly every leading candidate except for Bush. And even Bush is under-performing compared to past establishment candidates. But it's not clear that this dynamic, like Trump's current momentum, will last forever. It's too early to be writing political obituaries.

Maybe the liberty movement needed a transitional candidate between the two Pauls, or at least between father's campaigns to educate voters about libertarianism and the son's more conventional political approach. But we're not that far removed from equally premature pieces calling the Kentucky senator the GOP front-runner.

Rand Paul needs to be true to himself if he is going to stand out, and he can't be seen as equivocating or flip-flopping. But there also needs to be some realism about the Republican primary electorate as it is in 2015-16, not just how young libertarians wish it will be in the future.

[acptulsa]

Yet more coverage of his perceived weaknesses, sandwiched in between clips of Trump talking about how politicians talk and Trump is a man of action, and still no mention of the genuine fact that Paul has done far more for the cause of liberty and to end corruption in the few short years since he became a Senator than Trump has done in his whole lifetime.

Surprise, surprise.

But does that explain why there's an unbroken link to an Examiner hit piece in the OP?

[LatinsforPaul]

If he is good enough for Ron, he is good enough for me...


“His philosophy is close to my philosophy,” Ron Paul told Breitbart News of Rand Paul in a recent interview in Houston, Texas, at a fundraiser where several family members attended. “It’s for less government, for liberty, and nobody else even has the vaguest understanding if you compare what his understanding is for free markets and Austrian economics. Nobody else even comes close.”

[Sola_Fide]

One of the media's angles this year is going to be how "libertarians" are dissatisfied with Rand. It's going to be one of the major themes, but I think it could backfire on them. To mainstream Republicans, a libertarian's disappointment is a good thing.

[timosman]

Is Rand Paul struggling because he isn't libertarian enough - what a stupid question. Who writes this drivel ?

[DevilsAdvocate]

I've noticed that whenever presidential candidates are mentioned on talk radio, or on the news, Rand's name is deliberately ignored.

[CPUd]

Like this one?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?479304-Rand-Paul-on-The-Laura-Ingraham-Show-7-30-15

[RonPaulMall]

From a personal standpoint, I wish that were the case. But Rand's problem isn't that he hasn't been "libertarian" enough. His problem is that he hasn't been Conservative enough and he's framed his libertarian leanings in a way that is offensive to conservatives rather than appealing.

2010 Rand Paul would be killing it right now. But for some reason he has been trying to present himself as seeming more liberal (not libertarian, but liberal) I guess in an attempt to appeal to Establishment Republicans but it hasn't won them any of them and it has cost him dearly among both Libertarians and the Conservatives that comprise the base of the GOP.

[acptulsa]

From a personal standpoint, I wish that were the case. But Rand's problem isn't that he hasn't been "libertarian" enough. His problem is that he hasn't been Conservative enough and he's framed his libertarian leanings in a way that is offensive to conservatives rather than appealing.

2010 Rand Paul would be killing it right now. But for some reason he has been trying to present himself as seeming more liberal (not libertarian, but liberal) I guess in an attempt to appeal to Establishment Republicans but it hasn't won them any of them and it has cost him dearly among both Libertarians and the Conservatives that comprise the base of the GOP.

Firstly, libertarian is conservative. The more self-styled 'conservatives' agree with us, the more RINO they are.

Secondly, if you people don't want someone who can appeal to independent voters, then you want to lose to Clinton, Sanders or (insert name of socialist here) in November of 2016. Because reality says that there is no third way.

[RonPaulMall]

Secondly, if you people don't want someone who can appeal to independent voters, then you want to lose to Clinton, Sanders or (insert name of socialist here) in November of 2016. Because reality says that there is no third way.

Sounds like you are advocating the Cuckservative strategy that has lost the GOP the last two elections in spectacular fashion. Weakness and sniveling is not how you win elections. Check out the states Ronald Reagan won in 1980- Maine, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan- he even won Vermont!

[acptulsa]

Sounds like you are advocating the Cuckservative strategy that has lost the GOP the last two elections in spectacular fashion. Weakness and sniveling is not how you win elections. Check out the states Ronald Reagan won in 1980- Maine, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan- he even won Vermont!

Cuckservatives don't do more to end Obamacare than anyone you freaks consider conservative. Rand's record speaks for itself. It is more conservative than the records of the most conservative non-libertarians.

Tell me the name of one person currently in either house (except maybe Massie or Amash) whose actual record of Congressional votes is more conservative than Rand Paul's and we'll just have an in-depth look. What say?

You're not going to convince him to stop taking principled, conservative positions and throw red meat and play for kneejerk reactions instead, and you aren't going to convince anyone here but your own echo chamber to pressure him that direction. So why don't you go where the rank-and-file idiots are and convince them that anyone sane enough to win the general election isn't good enough for them?

[William R]

Rand's problem is he started running a general election campaign before he got the nomination. His 3 biggest mistakes were, Voter ID, Immigration, and going to Ferguson after the riots. I know he didn't but it appeared he was siding with the rioters. Showing an ID to vote is a big issue with the Base of the GOP. Also his 180 on immigration hurt him with the Base too. You can't win the general election with only the base, but you can't win the GOP nomination without it.

At this weeks debate when immigration comes up Rand should say I won't even considered what to do with the people already here until the border is secured. After 5 years and illegal immigration has been stopped we can open up discussions about what to do with the illegal aliens. !! Also we need challenge the 14th amendment on birthright citizenship. End birth tourism etc etc.

Rand first act as a Senator was to introduce a bill ending birthright citizenship. Since then he's thrown that down the drain trying to win over the big donor class and today they still aren't giving him any money.

[euphemia]

Rand has been talking to fringe groups, and I can see how he is sharing a position to grab a voting bloc. I think that's a really good idea. Still, the bulk of his votes will come to from the base. He needs to be talking to all of us, not just folks on the fringes.

[acptulsa]

Rand's problem is he started running a general election campaign before he got the nomination.

That's not a mistake if there's anyone--anyone at all--in the GOP who wants a Republican in the White House.

Now, I realize that it's obviously an open question whether anyone in the GOP wants one of their own in that house. But if they suddenly decide they do, they have a choice. And you can bitch about Rand taking that tack all you want. I approve.


He needs to be talking to all of us, not just folks on the fringes.

But the Republicans who want a Republican in the White House ARE 'the fringe' right now.

[phill4paul]

I can imagine how tough it is for him. I can't even begin to think of the amount of time spent by the campaign trying to sculpt a script that tries to compromise in such a way as to try to appeal to everyone. It honestly can't be done. Ron never had to worry about this. Ron just kept on being Ron for the most part. It's one of the many reasons why I respect him. If he were to throw his hat in, which he won't, I'd go all in again.

[Krugminator2]

Tell me the name of one person currently in either house (except maybe Massie or Amash) whose actual record of Congressional votes is more conservative than Rand Paul's and we'll just have an in-depth look. What say?



It is weird the alternate universe people live in. You could legitimately flip a coin on Rand, Massie, and Amash. But Rand is off the charts radical. I posted the 538 chart in the past where he has the most hardcore libertarian/conservative voting record of any Presidential candidate in modern history. He beats out Ron Paul by a hair. He beats Goldwater, Cruz, you name it.

Here is his Freedomworks score. http://congress.freedomworks.org/legislators/rand-paul

Here is Massie's (who is great) Freedomworks score http://congress.freedomworks.org/legislators/thomas-massie

And here is Walter Jones for good measure. http://congress.freedomworks.org/legislators/walter-beaman-jones-0

[CPUd]

The numbers for this question are fairly consistent across all the polls where it is asked:

http://i.imgur.com/lJo1RSf.png

[William R]

Rand's problem is he started running a general election campaign before he got the nomination. His 3 biggest mistakes were, Voter ID, Immigration, and going to Ferguson after the riots. I know he didn't but it appeared he was siding with the rioters. Showing an ID to vote is a big issue with the Base of the GOP. Also his 180 on immigration hurt him with the Base too. You can't win the general election with only the base, but you can't win the GOP nomination without it.

r

Rand first act as a Senator was to introduce a bill ending birthright citizenship. Since then he's thrown that down the drain trying to win over the big donor class and today they still aren't giving him any money.

He should also say that the people who came here illegally should never be granted citizenship. The right to vote. Legal status is something I will consider. And we should end immigration from Nations where terrorists come from. That means ending Muslim immigration. After 9/11 on his congressional website Ron Paul said the same thing.

[William R]

That's not a mistake if there's anyone--anyone at all--in the GOP who wants a Republican in the White House.

Now, I realize that it's obviously an open question whether anyone in the GOP wants one of their own in that house. But if they suddenly decide they do, they have a choice. And you can bitch about Rand taking that tack all you want. I approve.



But the Republicans who want a Republican in the White House ARE 'the fringe' right now.


Back in the spring of 2014 he was leading in many polls. Now he's at 5.5 nationally among Republicans. He's even way down in the Live Free or Die State. Sorry, but you don't win the nomination by alienating the base of the GOP. Hopefully he can regain the momentum after the Debate.

[acptulsa]

It is weird the alternate universe people live in.

This newly coined buzzword 'cuckservative' is an amusing case in point. It starts out as a description of the Cruzes and McCains who claim to be conservative, but vote with Democrats, and the media and pundits immediately try to turn it into a way to demonize anyone who could actually win the general election.


The numbers for this question are fairly consistent across all the polls where it is asked:

http://i.imgur.com/lJo1RSf.png

Now if they could only grow enough brain cells to see just who that is. But even when you stick a poll of independent voters under their noses, they prefer to be blind.


Back in the spring of 2014 he was leading in many polls. Now he's at 5.5 nationally among Republicans. He's even way down in the Live Free or Die State. Sorry, but you don't win the nomination by alienating the base of the GOP. Hopefully he can regain the momentum after the Debate.

You don't win by going into desperation mode six months before Iowa, and a month before the first debate, either.

Let Trump have his premature ejaculaton. Who cares? The horse in the lead at the quarter mile post almost never wins the race.

[Krugminator2]

This newly coined buzzword 'cuckservative' is an amusing case in point.



And the underlying meaning of cuckservative is pretty clear. And for people saying Rand twists himself into a pretzel reaching out and how awful it is to reach out to different groups, Ron Paul used to do outreach to this guy's group.

625366449335308292

And if it isn't clear what this guy and the people with Swastikas commenting found so offensive, this one clears it up
626523761299173376

And here is one more for good measure

627649661352943616.

[Smitty]

This is why Rand is struggling.


It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.


The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a WALL!"


The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a SPEAR!"


The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a SNAKE!"


The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he:
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a TREE!"


The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a FAN!"


The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a ROPE!"


And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

[AuH20]

Rand's problem is he started running a general election campaign before he got the nomination. His 3 biggest mistakes were, Voter ID, Immigration, and going to Ferguson after the riots. I know he didn't but it appeared he was siding with the rioters. Showing an ID to vote is a big issue with the Base of the GOP. Also his 180 on immigration hurt him with the Base too. You can't win the general election with only the base, but you can't win the GOP nomination without it.

At this weeks debate when immigration comes up Rand should say I won't even considered what to do with the people already here until the border is secured. After 5 years and illegal immigration has been stopped we can open up discussions about what to do with the illegal aliens. !! Also we need challenge the 14th amendment on birthright citizenship. End birth tourism etc etc.

Rand first act as a Senator was to introduce a bill ending birthright citizenship. Since then he's thrown that down the drain trying to win over the big donor class and today they still aren't giving him any money.

That's why Trump is kicking his ass. He's not radical enough within the hijacked political discourse which is predicated on disassembling common sense. If you're not willing to fight against of the key globalist planks, why should anyone vote for you? And his wishy washy rhetoric regarding TPP didn't win him any fans either.

[acptulsa]

Remember that episode of The Simpsons where Homer is trying to explain why a suburban head of a family of five has no need for a three passenger, four wheel drive, six MPG truck, but the salesman keeps making a whipcrack sound?

That, in a nutshell, is the whole of the GOP today--and the reason why Fox is just the Liberal Media's controlled oppo component.


That's why Trump is kicking his ass. He's not radical enough within the hijacked political discourse which is predicated on disassembling common sense. If you're not willing to fight against of the key globalist planks, why should anyone vote for you? And his wishy washy rhetoric regarding TPP didn't win him any fans either.

Uh huh. Rand Paul has done more to fight the machine than any man alive. All Trump can do is pause long enough between rants against the machine to admit that he has always been an integral part of that machine.

You think words speak louder than actions. We get that already. The only part we don't get is why you think that if you repeat it often enough, we'll start considering words louder than actions too--and so will independent voters.

Neither will ever happen. Foolishness isn't contagious. Fox can tell fools how to use their foolishness to shoot themselves in the foot, but they can never make fools out if people with a lick of common sense.

[cajuncocoa]

That can't be why he's struggling. Even if it was true, everyone knows libertarians don't make up enough of the electorate to significantly impact polling data anyway. :rolleyes:

[AuH20]

And the underlying meaning of cuckservative is pretty clear. And for people saying Rand twists himself into a pretzel reaching out and how awful it is to reach out to different groups, Ron Paul used to do outreach to this guy's group.

625366449335308292

And if it isn't clear what this guy and the people with Swastikas commenting found so offensive, this one clears it up
626523761299173376

And here is one more for good measure

627649661352943616.

Where did the black folks come from? Were they adopted?

[Brett85]

Where did the black folks come from? Were they adopted?

Yes, Huelskamp's were anyway.

[acptulsa]

Where did the black folks come from?

Their mothers.

You would presume to tell us who to nominate, but you don't know where babies come from? Amazing.

[TheTexan]

He's struggling because he's too much of a libertarian.

Had he completely dismissed any notion of that idea, of being libertarian, and instead stuck to traditional good old Republican basics, he would be much better off right now. Being Republican (or Democrat) is how you win.

[TheTexan]

Where did the black folks come from? Were they adopted?

Either that or Tim has a rare genetic mutation that causes half his kids to come out black.

[H. E. Panqui]

acptulsa asserts: Uh huh. Rand Paul has done more to fight the machine than any man alive.

:rolleyes:

...lol!...rand appears as a go-along...like the rest of these republicrat stinkers....not a stinking peep from rand about the PRIVATE COMMERCIAL bankster$ acquiring bond$ for nothing, controlling the issuance (or non-issuance) of 'our' money...etc. fraud ad nau$eam...also rand is yet another iZraeli apologist and go-along...little/new iZrael gets to have a super-secret squirrel nuke program...iran--with ten times the pop.--gets a nuclear butt-cheek check....and it's all good with rand...threaten iranians, bully them and steal their oil...and then play 'christian' :rolleyes: for the stinking, stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid, murderous, conservative republican vote...:mad:

[Smitty]

acptulsa asserts: Uh huh. Rand Paul has done more to fight the machine than any man alive.

:rolleyes:

...lol!...rand appears as a go-along...like the rest of these republicrat stinkers....not a stinking peep from rand about the bankster$ acquiring bond$ for nothing...etc. fraud ad nau$eam...rand is yet another iZraeli apologist and go-along...little/new iZrael gets to have a super-secret squirrel nuke program...iran--with ten times the pop.--gets a nuclear butt-cheek check....and it's all good with rand... :mad:

I don't think it's actually "good" with Rand, but he's being unrealistic.

If you're the liberty candidate, you're going to have to go against the Israel lobby.

Rand is trying to find a middle ground that doesn't exist.

[TheNewYorker]

There are two segments of voters, the younger anti-establishment crowd, and the older establishment crowd. Ron did well because he was anti-estaishment. But he didn't win because the establishment vote was more powerful.

Rand is trying too hard to pander to both crowds. He either needs to be full on neo con, or a near anarchist to win.

This is why Bernie is doing so well, and has most of Ron's younger supports... Because they see him as the most anti establishment candidate in the race.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Rand has been pretty pathetic on Iran so far, but there's still time for all of this to play out. Wiegel is now claiming that Rand will go hard anti-warmonger in the Thursday debate. We'll see.

[phill4paul]

There are two segments of voters, the younger anti-establishment crowd, and the older establishment crowd. Ron did well because he was anti-estaishment. But he didn't win because the establishment vote was more powerful.

Rand is trying too hard to pander to both crowds. He either needs to be full on neo con, or a near anarchist to win.

This is why Bernie is doing so well, and has most of Ron's younger supports... Because they see him as the most anti establishment candidate in the race.

"Defeat the Washington Machine!" But, ya know, work with it some. I mean c'mon. You can't defeat it by defeating it. "Unleash the American Dream!" Well, he's got that right. The "American Dream" translates into being protected from boogie men and being housed, fed, educated, given a well paying job and, sans that, a government stipend.

[Sola_Fide]

This is why Bernie is doing so well, and has most of Ron's younger supports... Because they see him as the most anti establishment candidate in the race.


Anyone who sees Bernie Sanders as the "most anti-establishment candidate" is a complete moron, and if they were a "Ron Paul supporter" then they had no idea what Ron was all about.

[phill4paul]

Anyone who sees Bernie Sanders as the "most anti-establishment candidate" is a complete moron, and if they were a "Ron Paul supporter" then they had no idea what Ron was all about.

That youthful "Ron Paul supporter" vote is a fickle one. We got them on our side in 2012 because Ron was the anti-establishment candidate. Now we bemoan them because Rand isn't anti-establishment enough to get their attention. Is there any wonder? The "kids" are a rebellious sort. Always have been. Rand hasn't positioned himself to be rebellious. At all. So he is not going to get that crowd. Whether or not that crowd makes a difference is to be seen. It's at least a couple of percentage points. That can make a difference. Sometimes.

[TheNewYorker]

My step son during the 2011 primaries and all of his teenage friends at school were all hard on for Ron Paul... Despite being a RP supporter myself, I didn't even introduce RP to him. That's just how popular Ron was with the youth who wanted to stick it to the man.

Unfortunately at the time, they were all 15-17 and too young to vote. But now that they finally are able to vote now, guess who they are all gunning for? Bernie. Because Bernie is always talking about those evil rich people and sticking it to the man.

[phill4paul]

My step son during the 2011 primaries and all of his teenage friends at school were all hard on for Ron Paul... Despite being a RP supporter myself, I didn't even introduce RP to him. That's just how popular Ron was with the youth who wanted to stick it to the man.

Unfortunately at the time, they were all 15-17 and too young to vote. But now that they finally are able to vote now, guess who they are all gunning for? Bernie. Because Bernie is always talking about those evil rich people and sticking it to the man.

Amazing that. The seed was sown. Then some agent orange was spread on the crop. SMDH.

[Ronin Truth]

Since when has "not libertarian enough" ever been an electoral liability?

[rg17]

Hope Rand Paul surges in the debates.