Daily Caller "Why Rand Paul should skip the 2016 presidential race"

[Havax]

Why Rand Paul should skip the 2016 presidential race

Sen. Rand Paul continues to impress in the senate. During today’s hearings, he pressed Secretary Clinton harder than any of his colleagues over her failure of leadership regarding Benghazi. (Last month, I also praised his proposed FISA amendment.)

Predictably, Paul’s confrontation with Clinton fueled speculation about 2016. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake went so far as to write that, “Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is quickly establishing himself as the conservative option in the 2016 Republican presidential primary.”

There is little doubt that Rand Paul could be formidable in a GOP primary. He would likely tap into his father’s political network, and also expand his base by attracting more mainstream Republicans than his father ever could.

But he can’t win a general election — and he shouldn’t try.

If you thought the 2012 stakes were high, the 2016 stakes are even higher. It’s going to get ugly. Conservatives who witnessed how Mitt Romney was demonized (in a pretty similar manner as I predicted) must now realize that it is the goal of liberals to cast Republicans as crazy, evil, racists.

Fair or not, Paul would be easily cast in that negative light.

Some of it is his fault. His comments to Rachel Maddow about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will be used against him. This, of course, would only confirm the negative narrative his liberal opponents (and their friends in the media) wish to perpetuate. (Note: I get that Rand Paul hates racism — and that his position is a nuanced one. But that won’t matter in our sound bite media culture.)

Some of it’s not his fault. It’s not fair to blame him for the sins of his father, but that won’t stop the media or Paul’s political opponents. It might not be fair for Rep. Ron Paul’s racist newsletters to impact his son’s presidential ambitions — but you know they will.

All of this becomes even more important if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. If that’s the case, you can expect the “war on women” meme to come back in a big way. Already, Mediate is headlining today’s spat as a sort of domestic dispute — “Rand Paul Brutalizes Hillary Clinton.”

The 2016 elections are a long way off, but it’s not too early to ask this question: Is Rand Paul really the best messenger for 21st century conservatism — in this political environment — with so much at stake?



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/wh...#ixzz2IpTBaruZ

[Mr.NoSmile]

There's a lot right to this article and more: if unemployment drops by the time Obama's second term is done, and if Hillary Clinton does indeed run again, Republicans can pray and swear to whoever they want- it would be more than an uphill battle to try and win that election. Also, like the article mentioned, in this sound bite culture, the whole War on Women and Rand Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Bill, whatever your opinion on either, will come back to bite him.

This is why I wonder whether Rand's grilling of Hillary Clinton is going to do more harm than good. Sure, you have people who like him, but the fact is Democrats and liberals in general will just see this as more fuel for the fire when the attacks on him begin. I say when, not if, because you know that this grilling he did will come back on him in the days to follow. It's easy to cast Paul in a negative light: he's a member of a party that suffered a devastating loss, has members like Todd Akin who make outlandish comments, and looking at how liberal people are thinking, come 2016, people may just ignore the GOP altogether. Changing demographics, the fact that the GOP takes such hard stances on immigration, marriage, gun control, all of these things will be lumped onto whoever the 2016 GOP candidates are.

[Havax]

There's a lot right to this article and more: if unemployment drops by the time Obama's second term is done, and if Hillary Clinton does indeed run again, Republicans can pray and swear to whoever they want- it would be more than an uphill battle to try and win that election. Also, like the article mentioned, in this sound bite culture, the whole War on Women and Rand Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Bill, whatever your opinion on either, will come back to bite him.

This is why I wonder whether Rand's grilling of Hillary Clinton is going to do more harm than good. Sure, you have people who like him, but the fact is Democrats and liberals in general will just see this as more fuel for the fire when the attacks on him begin. I say when, not if, because you know that this grilling he did will come back on him in the days to follow. It's easy to cast Paul in a negative light: he's a member of a party that suffered a devastating loss, has members like Todd Akin who make outlandish comments, and looking at how liberal people are thinking, come 2016, people may just ignore the GOP altogether. Changing demographics, the fact that the GOP takes such hard stances on immigration, marriage, gun control, all of these things will be lumped onto whoever the 2016 GOP candidates are.

I find it hard to believe that the economy will be any better in 2015 than it is today.

[AuH20]

Who cares what the media will think????? We go through them.

[Mr.NoSmile]

I find it hard to believe that the economy will be any better in 2015 than it is today.

Republicans thought the economy would be one of the main issues that would hurt Obama come 2012 and look how that turned out.

[Rocco]

...the only issue Romney won in exit polling on was the economy.

Republicans thought the economy would be one of the main issues that would hurt Obama come 2012 and look how that turned out.

[Mr.NoSmile]

...the only issue Romney won in exit polling on was the economy.

Once again, and look how that turned out. Besides, by this point, the GOP has pretty much discounted Romney anyway.

[FSP-Rebel]

Republicans thought the economy would be one of the main issues that would hurt Obama come 2012 and look how that turned out.

That's because they sent un-motivating Mitt as their chief agent who couldn't capitalize on that.

[Demigod]

Republicans thought the economy would be one of the main issues that would hurt Obama come 2012 and look how that turned out.

There is no problem with the economy as long as the 50% of USA families who get some kind of check from the government get it on time.When the checks start coming late or they stop coming then you have a problem in the economy.

I really can not understand giving such a large welfare.Welfare is not meant to be lived off.

[radiofriendly]

First thought.

This article means that Rand Paul really is a big threat.

There is some truth to some of the points. I trust that Paul's team know this. We would do best to keep our eyes on more Senate and House seats that are pro-liberty. But a well run presidential campaign--even one that doesn't win--could move the agenda in our direction if the campaign is run well. Head down.

[camp_steveo]

I am not endorsing Rand, but I call bull$#@! anytime someone says, "He can't win".

Who the hell are they to make that claim.

They should just STFU.

[loveableteddybear]

I find it hard to believe that the economy will be any better in 2015 than it is today.

We have really become 1984, with the country in shambles and people's 26 year old kids living at home with no good job, but people think "Obama didn't do that bad a job."

Rand is the perfect 2016 candidate because of the demographic time bomb, unless conservatism does something bold, they will go the way of the dinosaurs and there will be no return. They need to put everything on the table--abortion, gun control, immigration...all the conservative issues. We're pussy footing our way into obscurity.

[Rocco]

Both you and the author are WAY over thinking this. Will the CRA comments hurt? Absolutely, but apart from that I couldn't find one thing in this to agree with. How can they attack Rand Paul as hating women based on what he did today? He grilled the person responsible for the death of several Americans. I don't see how it translates to being anti woman, or how anyone could spin it as such.

As for this article, the idea that the newsletters could be used against Rand is completely laughable.

There's a lot right to this article and more: if unemployment drops by the time Obama's second term is done, and if Hillary Clinton does indeed run again, Republicans can pray and swear to whoever they want- it would be more than an uphill battle to try and win that election. Also, like the article mentioned, in this sound bite culture, the whole War on Women and Rand Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Bill, whatever your opinion on either, will come back to bite him.

This is why I wonder whether Rand's grilling of Hillary Clinton is going to do more harm than good. Sure, you have people who like him, but the fact is Democrats and liberals in general will just see this as more fuel for the fire when the attacks on him begin. I say when, not if, because you know that this grilling he did will come back on him in the days to follow. It's easy to cast Paul in a negative light: he's a member of a party that suffered a devastating loss, has members like Todd Akin who make outlandish comments, and looking at how liberal people are thinking, come 2016, people may just ignore the GOP altogether. Changing demographics, the fact that the GOP takes such hard stances on immigration, marriage, gun control, all of these things will be lumped onto whoever the 2016 GOP candidates are.

[anaconda]

if unemployment drops by the time Obama's second term is done

That's one big if...

[P3ter_Griffin]

That's one big if...

If the C4L mailing is correct the fed is going to print $1.7 Trillion-ish dollars this year. The banks definitely aren't anywhere near the most efficient place to put money to create jobs, but $1.7T is $1.7T.

[Matt Collins]

My comment post:

What kind of moronic drivel is this? Are you a shill for Rubio or the RNC or something? Seriously, who signs your paycheck?

That being said, your premise is ludicrous. Not running for office because your opposition may attack you, try and paint you negatively, box you in a corner, label you as a racist or misogynist, or just outright lie about you is absurd. This happens in many elections and deciding not to
run because one might be attacked is nonsense.

Seriously, you're either unable to think critically, or you are shilling. Why did Tucker and the DC let this waste of electrons waste their bandwidth?

[jmdrake]

My comment post:

I couldn't agree more. The "I won't run for office because I might lose" argument is the cowards way out. The only thing that would give me pause if I was Rand is Kentucky's election laws affecting my senate seat. But by that time he would have either won the Iowa straw poll and be a contender or lost it and not. He shouldn't kid himself. The Iowa Straw Poll is a must win for someone like Rand who has the media gunning to squash him.

[FSP-Rebel]

This belongs in media spin. Furthermore, I'm sure Rand and his team would have an easy rebuttal to the civil rights allegations considering he's the only protecting them this day and age. All that claptrap will backfire on those schmucks and will solidify the base around him. The GOP loses when the base isn't pumped, not because people are thinking more liberally or want more gun control.

[AuH20]

FYI The Rubio people for the record, have been freaking out of late about Rand Paul.

[FSP-Rebel]

FYI The Rubio people for the record, have been freaking out of late about Rand Paul.

please, go on..

[supermario21]

Rubio did awful today, this is why these hit pieces are out.

[georgiaboy]

Rubio did awful today, this is why these hit pieces are out.

What'd he do?

[supermario21]

What'd he do?

Not an action, exactly, but I was following the Hillary hearing mainly on twitter and the conservative columnists/talking heads pretty much said Rubio was soft on Hillary and asking terrible/irrelevant questions. They lit up when it was Rand's turn and many of them said he was the best, along with Ron Johnson from Wisconsin.

[AuH20]

Not an action, exactly, but I was following the Hillary hearing mainly on twitter and the conservative columnists/talking heads pretty much said Rubio was soft on Hillary and asking terrible/irrelevant questions. They lit up when it was Rand's turn and many of them said he was the best, along with Ron Johnson from Wisconsin.

Ron Johnson has so much money that he could care less that it was Hillary Clinton. It was refreshing to see.

[phill4paul]

I don't agree with the premise of the article. We might as well not run anyone. One could equally offer that the economy and general discontent of the nation under Obama would lead us to believe that George W. Bush could run again and win. Neither paint the whole picture and both are nothing but bunk and nonsense.

[July]

I don't agree with the premise of the article. We might as well not run anyone. One could equally offer that the economy and general discontent of the nation under Obama would lead us to believe that George W. Bush could run again and win. Neither paint the whole picture and both are nothing but bunk and nonsense.

I agree. Romney, as moderate as he was, was still smeared as a racist... why the author thinks going with another moderate will somehow eliminate this particular attack from the left is beyond me.

[Mr.NoSmile]

I agree. Romney, as moderate as he was, was still smeared as a racist... why the author thinks going with another moderate will somehow eliminate this particular attack from the left is beyond me.

Romney making comments about the whole birth certificate thing didn't exactly help him. No, that's not directly racist, but he didn't do himself any favors, either.

[Cowlesy]

Lewis voted for Ron Paul in the primary. *shrug*

Disagree with his column, however.

[supermario21]

On the other hand, if Hillary is way out in front in say 2015, do we just decide to stay on the sideline and wait? Let Rubio or Ryan torpedo their ambitions?

[Brian4Liberty]

The left is falsely smearing anyone that is fiscally conservative as a racist. It's that simple.