Could A Rand Paul Candidacy Be The Best Thing Ever For Liberals?

[anaconda]

Could a general election with Mr. Paul as the GOP nominee force the Democrats much farther left?

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/ite...r-for-liberals

President Rand Paul may not sound too catchy, but Rand Paul being the Republican nominee for president in 2016 could be the best thing that's happened to Democrats and our nation in a long time.

Political commentator Peter Beinart has a new piece in The Atlantic, where he writes that now that Chris Christie has been knocked out of the number one spot in the Republican Party, Rand Paul is now the likely front-runner for the Republican presidential nod in 2016.

Beinart writes that, "If Chris Christie was ever the frontrunner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, he isn't anymore...So if Christie is no longer the candidate to beat in the 2016 Republican race, who is? Believe it or not, it's Rand Paul."

He goes on to write that the 2016 election could turn out to be like the election of 1964, when the dark-horse, weird, fringe, ultra-conservative candidate, Barry Goldwater, became the Republican Party's nominee.

As Beinart puts it, "It's just possible that 2016 could be another 1964 or 1980, years when the Republican establishment proved weak and pliable enough to allow a candidate previously considered extreme to come in from the cold."

Beinart says the reason for this, in addition to the fact that Rand Paul has good polling numbers, is that there is an existing infrastructure of Paul support within the Republican Party, thanks to Ron Paul taking big chunks of support from Republicans in 2012.

Those people who were Ron Paul followers in 2012 are now Rand Paul supporters, and they're embedded in the Republican Party.

Basically, Rand Paul has a very good shot at becoming the Republican nominee for president in 2016.

So why is that such a good thing for Democrats and our nation?

He could force Democrats to move way to the left.

Rand Paul hates things like Social Security and Medicare. He thinks both programs should be handed over to Wall Street CEO's and health care executives, so that they can be privatized and made profitable.

He hates long-term unemployment benefits and opposes a minimum wage altogether.

He has even said that companies should be able to discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation.

Economically, he thinks everything should be privatized, with the only exceptions being the military, police forces and the judicial system.

And he is totally opposed to a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.

But most people don't know that these are Paul's positions.

What people do know is that Paul is strongly opposed to the NSA spying on American citizens.

They know that he is incredibly skeptical of our nation's drone program, and that he's in favor of gay marriage.

And people also know that Paul is in favor of decriminalizing all drugs, not just marijuana.

When you look at Rand Paul's position on just these issues, he appears to be way to the left of much of the official Democratic Party.

If he were to run in 2016, and secure the Republican presidential nomination, it's very possible that not only would he pick up Conservative votes, he could also pick up progressive votes as well based on his stance on issues like domestic spying, marriage equality and drug decriminalization.

So, if the Democratic nominee wanted to have any chance at defeating Paul, whether that nominee was Hilary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or Andrew Cuomo, they would have to move way to left of the current mainstream Democratic Party's positions.

If things were to play out just like this, and if Paul did become the Republican nominee in 2016, it's likely that the 2016 election could be the election where things really start getting populist.

Can you imagine if Democrats had to become more progressive to take on a libertarian Republican candidate?

Creating protectionist trade policies and decriminalizing pot could become parts of the official Democratic platform.

Suddenly, pushing for things like healthcare for all and legalizing marijuana would seem mainstream.

Make no mistake about it.

Rand Paul being on the Republican ticket for president in 2016 could be the powerful force needed to move the entire Democratic Party, from presidential nominees to state assembly nominees, to the left.

What a remarkable outcome that would be.

[Mr.NoSmile]

But will Priebus and the higher-ups allow it? Who knows?

[Brett85]

"They know that he is incredibly skeptical of our nation's drone program, and that he's in favor of gay marriage."

Uh, no. The author must be thinking of Gary Johnson.

"And people also know that Paul is in favor of decriminalizing all drugs, not just marijuana."

Rand may believe that, but he's never said anything of the sort publicly.

[eleganz]

But will Priebus and the higher-ups allow it? Who knows?

Priebus wants a win under his belt.

[Aratus]

Interesting article!!! What Gov.Christie and/or his staff just did to his 2016 POTUS run is going to send
lil ole me into lurker/blogger mode here in an opinionated manner as Rand thinks things through carefully.
The "centrist" Bill Clinton calls from Hillary for a party unity may be laughed at by a confident radical left.

[ObiRandKenobi]

rience priebus nancy pelosi and obama will launch a false flag attack to undermine rand paul's candidacy before iowa or maybe they'll wait til about south carolina.

[RabbitMan]

That was a dumb article. Most of the author's assumptions about Rand are wrong or at the very least stretched, and his assumption that it would push Dems left is totally retarded. A safe 'status quo' centrist would be their best bet. Hillary.

[anaconda]

Hillary would probably decide to be "to the right (which is really to the left)" of Rand on monetary policy and foreign policy. Reminds me of when Dick Morris called Ron Paul a left wing radical.

[Occam's Banana]

When you look at Rand Paul's position on just these issues, he appears to be way to the left of much of the official Democratic Party.

Which only goes to show how fundamentally borked the "right vs. left" paradigm is.

If he were to run in 2016, and secure the Republican presidential nomination, it's very possible that not only would he pick up Conservative votes, he could also pick up progressive votes as well based on his stance on issues like domestic spying, marriage equality and drug decriminalization.

For the very same reasons, it is likely that he would pick up a great deal of "independent" votes.

You know - the increasingly large number people who are becoming increasingly skeptical of federal Big Government pie-in-the-sky BS.
("Mmmmmmmm!! Obamacare! Give us some more of that kind of thing!" Yeah - I don't think so ... )

And that's NOT good for liberals. (The author of OP article conveniently ignores this fact - assuming he is even aware of it.)

So, if the Democratic nominee wanted to have any chance at defeating Paul, whether that nominee was Hilary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or Andrew Cuomo, they would have to move way to left of the current mainstream Democratic Party's positions.

If things were to play out just like this, and if Paul did become the Republican nominee in 2016, it's likely that the 2016 election could be the election where things really start getting populist.

Can you imagine if Democrats had to become more progressive to take on a libertarian Republican candidate?

As Obama's presidency has shown, the hard-core Team Blue progressives (like the author of this nonsense) are very useful idiots - but I quite seriously doubt that establishment Democrats are stupid enough to go full progressive retard ... especially not against someone like Rand who has the potential to appeal so powerfully to increasingly skeptical independents (and even principled progressives punch-drunk from previous betrayals at the hands of the Democrats).

[Spikender]

Rand Paul hates things like Social Security and Medicare. He thinks both programs should be handed over to Wall Street CEO's and health care executives, so that they can be privatized and made profitable.

This whole article is extremely stupid, but this takes the cake. What a horrendous misrepresentation of everything Rand Paul stands for.

Liberals are such lying assclowns.

[asurfaholic]

What a horrible article. Weird, fringe, dark horse, ultra conservative... Goldwater?

Not to mention most the crap he wrote about Rand completely mischaracterizes his position.

Horrible horrible, this author has no place in journalism.

[anaconda]

What a horrible article. Weird, fringe, dark horse, ultra conservative... Goldwater?

Not to mention most the crap he wrote about Rand completely mischaracterizes his position.

Horrible horrible, this author has no place in journalism.

But the concept is relevant. 2016 may be the first election in many moons where the Dem may try to play "right" of the Rep candidate on various issues, and/or the far left Dem base may become animated against the Republican's conservative issues and be more represented at the polls. Plus the author got most of Rand's positions essentially correct. While Rand is not "for gay marriage," he will not seek a constitutional amendment recognizing traditional marriage, which is far less draconian than many other Republicans.