Maybe Rand should sit this one out

[Badger Paul]

http://thursdaysblog1.blogspot.com/2...s-one-out.html

Rand Paul is getting ready to run for President. He apparently has hired a campaign manager. This would be the third bid for the White House in a row from the Paul family (if we count Ron Paul's runs in 2008 and 2012).

Timing is everything in politics (as it is of so much of life) and as this time, eight years ago, it was the right time and the perfect time for Ron Paul to run for President. The country and especially the Republican Party needed a new voice and a new way of looking at questions that in wake of Gulf War II and the Panic of '08 needed to be asked. The timing was also good for Ron to run again in 2012 after a movement coalesced around his first campaign which sparked the election of his son Rand to the U.S. Senate.

However, I believe the opposite to be true for 2016. I think Rand would best serve his interests and the interests of the movement he wishes to inherit by staying out of the ring and waiting until 2020.

The war in Iraq and the economic problems it was causing that eventually led to the Great Recession, were the perfect background for Ron Paul's first campaign. Instead of beeing seen as gadfly or an old crank, these events and his reaction to them were so different than what other Republicans, or for that matter many other politicians of all stripes, were saying gave him an audience that wouldn't have listened to him otherwise.

Such conditions don't exist right now as we speak and while there are events still waiting to take place, right now is the context such campaigns have to be organized. And right now, gas prices are falling, unemployment is dropping, while the economy may not be improving quick enough for some, it certainly is not on the decline as was in 2007 when the recession really began. Yes, there is trouble in world, but when hasn't there been? Yes, there are U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but hardly in the numbers there were in 2007. Besides, Rand supports the U.S. mission against ISIS.

Without the sense of crisis that existed in the background of 2007, Rand is not going to find it easy to gain an audience to listen to him, especially when so many candidates are planning on jumping in. Some of them have lots of money and will have lots of political support like Romney and Bush III, others lay claim to various factions of the party like Huckabee and Cruz, others are potential "unity" candidates to rally around like Walker and Perry. And they're all candidates who could plausibly co-opt a portion of Rand's message for their own.

Not only that, but eight years after Ron Paul's first run, the band which rallied around his cause of non-interventionism and opposition to the military-industrial complex, is still quite small. Yes there have been a few politicians elected here and there and yes the non-interventionist argument can be made and find some support within the party. But if all it takes is one terrorist attack to drive rank n'file GOP voters into the neocons demanding "secruity", then the larger goal of Paul movement (or "Liberty" movement or the "Revolution" whatever you want to call it) has not succeeded and is a long way off from doing so. Such persons have not been convinced that cutting the defense/national security/intelligence budgets and apparatuses is the way to small government more adherent and faithful to the Constitution and until they are Rand will never win the Republican Party nomination. And forget Mitch McConnell's endorsement. It's not a bad thing to have but since Mitch is running the Senate, he'll have little time to give Rand any help.

No matter who the Republican nominee they will start off at a disadvantage to Hillary Clinton, especially when Clinton will waltz her way to the Democrats' nomination while the Republican Party engages in another 16-car demolition derby to determine its nominee. This doesn't mean Clinton is unbeatable, but if the economy continues to improve and there are no major usage of U.S. troops anywhere in the world, she will be favored to win the election.

So having established the difficulty of winning both the Republican Party nomination and the general election for 2016, Rand would be better off running for re-election to the U.S. Senate, which he is favored to win and bide his time until the opportunity arises where party, especially if it loses the White House in 2016, will turn to him out of sheer desperation. That's a very advantageous position to be in. Also advantageous is the fact that Clinton and those surrounding her are more than likely to get the U.S. involved in another senseless war/nation building project which could very well wreck the economic recovery and perhaps split the Democratic Party by 2020. Plus, 2020 will be an important election for it will determine who controls redistricting after the next Census which will shape politics for the new '20s. Rand will be in far better position to run for President as a two-term Senator, running against an unpopular incumbent with a divided party and having the support of Republican Party willing to give his brand of politics a chance because they're tired of losing Presidential elections.

If successful generals win battles because they fight on ground of their choosing, then Rand Paul will find the terrain for his Presidential campaign more to his suiting by waiting it out than wasting his time and money in another losing effort for the family and for movement itself. And a losing effort would not only find him out of the Senate but the movement's political prospects damaged as well. Thus, not only will the stakes be high in 2020 to run, they'll be even higher to avoid failure in 2016. The best way for Paul to do that is to stay far away from Presidential politics for now.

[Matt Collins]

Running against an incumbent means you're much less likely to get elected.

[Kotin]

Running against an incumbent means you're much less likely to get elected.

staying out of the ring and waiting until 2020.

yeah if we get a republican thats not rand in 2016 if he were to wait we would be potentially screwed for 8 more years at best... NO

[Tywysog Cymru]

Running against an incumbent means you're much less likely to get elected.

But if the incumbent is unpopular, that would be different.

[GunnyFreedom]

It's something like 75% that a Republican wins the 2016 General due to Obama Fatigue. "They" will try to put up a scumbag knowing they have a massive tailwind. They will use the victory of the scumbag to proclaim their philosophy as dominant.

2020 is not an option due to incumbency and by 2024 it'll basically be game over for either the GOP or our movement.

So while I see your point, we simply don't have the luxury of waiting another 8 years.

[GunnyFreedom]

But if the incumbent is unpopular, that would be different.

I truly wish that were so, but it's not. Primarying an incumbent president is just about unheard of, and winning is basically impossible. Has a sitting President EVER been successfully Primaried? I know we have had some dreadfully unpopular presidents. If it were possible to do, wouldn't it have happened before?

[GunnyFreedom]

Also, when you primary an incumbent president, you become persona non grata within the party. I don't know that we can afford for Rand Paul to become persona non grata within the Republican Party.

[r3volution 3.0]

The war in Iraq and the economic problems it was causing that eventually led to the Great Recession, were the perfect background for Ron Paul's first campaign. Instead of beeing seen as gadfly or an old crank, these events and his reaction to them were so different than what other Republicans, or for that matter many other politicians of all stripes, were saying gave him an audience that wouldn't have listened to him otherwise.

Such conditions don't exist right now as we speak and while there are events still waiting to take place, right now is the context such campaigns have to be organized. And right now, gas prices are falling, unemployment is dropping, while the economy may not be improving quick enough for some, it certainly is not on the decline as was in 2007 when the recession really began. Yes, there is trouble in world, but when hasn't there been? Yes, there are U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but hardly in the numbers there were in 2007.

The idea that the libertarian-conservative movement can only succeed in 2008-like conditions is disproved by the fact that Ron performed much better in 2012 than 2008. A big crisis that clearly highlights how right we are is helpful, but it's not essential.

and is not going to find it easy to gain an audience to listen to him, especially when so many candidates are planning on jumping in. Some of them have lots of money and will have lots of political support like Romney and Bush III, others lay claim to various factions of the party like Huckabee and Cruz, others are potential "unity" candidates to rally around like Walker and Perry. And they're all candidates who could plausibly co-opt a portion of Rand's message for their own.

Whenever Rand runs, he'll face least one well-funded establishment opponent and a plethora of "conservatives" trying to cut into his constituency.

Not only that, but eight years after Ron Paul's first run, the band which rallied around his cause of non-interventionism and opposition to the military-industrial complex, is still quite small.

It's going to get bigger if Rand doesn't run?

Such persons have not been convinced that cutting the defense/national security/intelligence budgets and apparatuses is the way to small government more adherent and faithful to the Constitution and until they are Rand will never win the Republican Party nomination.

Rand would definitely lose if he made his campaign all about foreign policy, but he's not going to do that. He's going to focus on other issues (such as economic issues). If voters like him enough on those other issues, they'll hold their nose and swallow his (watered down) non-interventionism (which is why he's been watering it down).

No matter who the Republican nominee they will start off at a disadvantage to Hillary Clinton, especially when Clinton will waltz her way to the Democrats' nomination while the Republican Party engages in another 16-car demolition derby to determine its nominee. This doesn't mean Clinton is unbeatable, but if the economy continues to improve and there are no major usage of U.S. troops anywhere in the world, she will be favored to win the election.

The idea that the GOP loses general elections because it has highly competitive primaries is an excuse generated by the party bosses, IMO. The establishment nominees lose because they suck. Rand will win because he doesn't (no matter how bruising the primary) .

So having established the difficulty of winning both the Republican Party nomination and the general election for 2016, Rand would be better off running for re-election to the U.S. Senate, which he is favored to win and bide his time until the opportunity arises where party, especially if it loses the White House in 2016, will turn to him out of sheer desperation. That's a very advantageous position to be in. Also advantageous is the fact that Clinton and those surrounding her are more than likely to get the U.S. involved in another senseless war/nation building project which could very well wreck the economic recovery and perhaps split the Democratic Party by 2020. Plus, 2020 will be an important election for it will determine who controls redistricting after the next Census which will shape politics for the new '20s. Rand will be in far better position to run for President as a two-term Senator, running against an unpopular incumbent with a divided party and having the support of Republican Party willing to give his brand of politics a chance because they're tired of losing Presidential elections.

First, there's no guarantee that Hillary would win, and if a GOPer won Rand would have to wait till 2024. Second, a Hillary Presidency would be a trainwreck, and that would help a challenger, but you have to balance that against the inherent advantage of the incumbent.

[William Tell]

I truly wish that were so, but it's not. Primarying an incumbent president is just about unheard of, and winning is basically impossible. Has a sitting President EVER been successfully Primaried? I know we have had some dreadfully unpopular presidents. If it were possible to do, wouldn't it have happened before?

I think he meant a President Hillary.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I think he meant a President Hillary.

Yes, I meant this.

[Ronin Truth]

Rand has said that if he decides that he can't win, then he won't run. That seems pretty unambiguous, clear and final.

[Tod]

Does Rand really want to be at the reins when the roosters of reckless policies are so likely to be coming home to roost? We can rest assured that the boob-tube populace will be unable to discern that it was not his doing. Could well set libertarianism back a hundred years.

[Working Poor]

I wish Rand would run a 3rd party campaign. I think he would do very well and maybe win. As it is I don't think the establishment republicans will let him win the nomination. Come on you remember how they did Ron last time. The establishment will put their guy up by hook or by crook I think every single person here knows that.

[Southron]

This is the time to run if you are in the Republican party. It's too hard to beat an incumbent President, and probably impossible to primary one. Whether he is the right man for the job (maybe no one is), I'm not so sure.

[CaptUSA]

Even given the author's premise, he still has to run this time.

If Rand runs and the GOP establishment pulls their stunts (which we all fully expect them to do) then it will all but secure a Democratic victory. It will cause a bigger division in the GOP than it did in 2012. And the 2012 division was big enough to help Obama. When the "Tea Party"-type voters stay home, the Democrats will win easily. Which means there will be an ever bigger push in 2020 to get someone like Rand. "Hindsight is 20/20" "An eye doctor with 20/20 vision"... these will be the slogans in the GOP for a country in crisis.

If Rand doesn't run, then there would be no guarantee that the Democrat would win. The Republican candidate could win just on Obama fatigue. And the country-in-crisis meme would benefit the democrats - even if Rand were able to defeat the detested incumbent in the primary.

In both circumstances, it is better for Rand to run this time. Of course, should they allow Rand to actually win the nomination, then the Presidency will be his. And of course, the establishment will throw him under the bus when the policies of the past come back to bite us during his term. It will be a lot to overcome for a 2020 re-election, but given all 3 options, I still think this is the best one.

[Todd]

Does Rand really want to be at the reins when the roosters of reckless policies are so likely to be coming home to roost? We can rest assured that the boob-tube populace will be unable to discern that it was not his doing. Could well set libertarianism back a hundred years.

Yep. If the economy collapsed or whatever calamity occurs, it will be the media spin machine job to make sure that it's the guy holding office fault. Just like some of the junk Obama deals with should be W's legacy......every sitting president has had to deal with things set in motion long before he ever came to be.

[willwash]

I truly wish that were so, but it's not. Primarying an incumbent president is just about unheard of, and winning is basically impossible. Has a sitting President EVER been successfully Primaried? I know we have had some dreadfully unpopular presidents. If it were possible to do, wouldn't it have happened before?

I think Robert Kennedy was mounting a successful primary challenge when they had him offed.

[fisharmor]

especially when Clinton will waltz her way to the Democrats' nomination while the Republican Party engages in another 16-car demolition derby to determine its nominee.

My father is well into the age where he tells me stories he's already told me several times. One in particular is of an advertising exec he knew at one point, who came up with a clever and different campaign for a larger small business, which resulted in that business getting a 25% gain in sales.
The executives at that business responded by saying it was now time to really sell it to the public, and go back to their old screaming through the TV antics.

If you have a good brand, and more importantly you actually believe in your brand, and you're open to new ideas for how to sell it, then you don't need to force the issue.

That 16-car demolition derby was good for liberty. It showed that the Republican ideas are not monolithic. It showed that the nominee is, in fact, not preordained. It also showed that the media is complicit in attempting to make it preordained. It laid bare the fact that the process is intended to be fair, and that most of the participants intend to make it unfair whatever manner they can - including shutting down conventions and breaking old mens hips.

The type of person who recoils from that is the type of person who is open to the ideas of liberty. There are lots of rank-and-file Republicans who are ready to wake up. It was all right there on national TV, ad nauseum, and why anyone who professes to love liberty would want to do away with that is quite beyond me.

[Peace&Freedom]

...eight years after Ron Paul's first run, the band which rallied around his cause of non-interventionism and opposition to the military-industrial complex, is still quite small. Yes there have been a few politicians elected here and there and yes the non-interventionist argument can be made and find some support within the party. But if all it takes is one terrorist attack to drive rank n'file GOP voters into the neocons demanding "security", then the larger goal of Paul movement (or "Liberty" movement or the "Revolution" whatever you want to call it) has not succeeded and is a long way off from doing so. Such persons have not been convinced that cutting the defense/national security/intelligence budgets and apparatuses is the way to small government more adherent and faithful to the Constitution and until they are Rand will never win the Republican Party nomination.

It's exactly because of these factors pointing to a three-peat defeat of the Pauls in 2016, that Rand needs to run in 2016. The truth is, as the only relative non-interventionists in the race, the Pauls have served, through their campaigns, as a deep barrier to the neo-cons launching or expanding intervention. The war whoopers have had to stop and cool it for two year intervals ('07-'08, '11-'12, and now '15-'16) to forestall voters from revolting by turning to Paul as the anti-war alternative, or the Democrat in the election posing as such. The entire reason Obarry beat out Hillary in '08 may be he was perceived as antiwar, while she was pro-war.

The war establishment has been clamped down and hemmed in during the Presidential campaign seasons by the Pauls, and contained the rest of the time by the Truth movement, which has kept a spotlight on how false flags/covert ops have been used to manipulate public opinion and enacted policy in favor of intervention. Keeping these two elements in play, or unifying them is the key to continuing to contain the drumbeat for intervention, whether the liberty candidate wins or loses in each primary effort.

This is where the OP is most correct---the Pauls, by distancing themselves from exposing or attacking false flags, have not been able to shake the emotional pro-war framework those false flags have created and sustained a pretext for. This framework has to be confronted by a "we've been lied to" meme of righteous anger, to counter and displace the fear meme. We've seen across two election cycles that simple reason or rhetoric about blowback is not able to overcome the fear and revenge driven reaction to each "terrorist incident" drummed up to keep the momentum going for more invasions, bombings, or surveillance. This is a main factor behind the larger liberty movement stalling, along with the "reform GOP" effort that shut down active outreach to reachable Democratic supporters of the Pauls altogether.

[Matt Collins]

Devil's advocate... if Rand doesn't run, they will all be begging him for his support and endorsement in the primary process. That could make him one of the most powerful Republicans in the Senate and he would be free to continue to be a bit more "pure" in rhetoric. Maybe being king maker is better than being king?


My words here are only speculation BTW, don't read anything into it.

[Natural Citizen]

Devil's advocate... if Rand doesn't run, they will all be begging him for his support and endorsement in the primary process. That could make him one of the most powerful Republicans in the Senate and he would be free to continue to be a bit more "pure" in rhetoric. Maybe being king maker is better than being king?


My words here are only speculation BTW, don't read anything into it.

Meh. Nothing that hasn't been said before. I always assumed that was the plan anyhow.

[CaptUSA]

Devil's advocate... if Rand doesn't run, they will all be begging him for his support and endorsement in the primary process. That could make him one of the most powerful Republicans in the Senate and he would be free to continue to be a bit more "pure" in rhetoric. Maybe being king maker is better than being king?


My words here are only speculation BTW, don't read anything into it.

But Matt, they will still be doing that even if he drops out after a few primaries. Plus, he will have built more capital.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

You can see why he might be reconsidering. He could easily be in the Senate for 20 more years, another five Presidential elections. He can probably only credibly run in two of them without just becoming a retread/joke. Is 2016 necessarily the best year to run? Maybe, but maybe not.

[Badger Paul]

Remember, Rand can't just jump back into the Senate race if he loses Iowa and New Hampshire. The Kentucky legislature and governor won't let him do both unlike other states. So if he loses, he really does lose everything. Then what? Is it worth taking an all or nothing gamble when stakes may not quite be as high and the risk too great? Not every Presidential election IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN THE HISTORY OF MAN! No, they're not. In fact some have been quite downright inconsequential. I'm getting the feeling 2016 is just that.

My hope is both parties will nominate war-statists/nationalists in 2016 and Democrats are well on their way to doing so. If the GOP does the same, then 2016 can be the year LP finally is able to gain a foothold as a player in national politics with the right Presidential candidate. In fact, the LP nomination would be a great prize to have. That would make 2016 worth it, not just a charge into the windmills. Remember this too, you're not going to be able to pull off the same elect the delegates separately from the primaries and caucus strategy anymore, the national party has eliminated it. The delegates will be allocated accordingly to every straw poll taken, every primary vote. You just can't win these later on in a state convention anymore. Rand's got to win, not just show up. I'll think he'll have a better chance in 2020 than 2016.

[CaptUSA]

Remember, Rand can't just jump back into the Senate race if he loses Iowa and New Hampshire.

Sure he can. This isn't even a question.

All he has to do is not appear on Kentucky's primary ballot for the GOP Presidential nomination - only for Senate. There is plenty of time to let the nomination process play out before deciding if he wants to appear on the Kentucky ballot in a Senate or Presidential general election. Now, if he were to win the GOP nomination, he'd have a pretty big choice to make - provided KY doesn't change anything prior.

[specsaregood]

Sure he can. This isn't even a question.

All he has to do is not appear on Kentucky's primary ballot for the GOP Presidential nomination - only for Senate. There is plenty of time to let the nomination process play out before deciding if he wants to appear on the Kentucky ballot in a Senate or Presidential general election. Now, if he were to win the GOP nomination, he'd have a pretty big choice to make - provided KY doesn't change anything prior.

Not to mention that if he actually took the issue to court he would win.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Also remember that Rand Paul not appearing on Kentucky's ballot shouldn't harm him. KY's primary is in May anyway, the nominee should already have been chosen by that point.

[YesI'mALiberal]

I truly wish that were so, but it's not. Primarying an incumbent president is just about unheard of, and winning is basically impossible. Has a sitting President EVER been successfully Primaried? I know we have had some dreadfully unpopular presidents. If it were possible to do, wouldn't it have happened before?

I knew of Franklin Pierce, but also: "Four incumbent presidents have been denied a nomination to run by their own party. Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson (sort of), and Chester A. Arthur; but only Pierce had actually been elected president. The rest were vice presidents who who ascended to the presidency after assassinations or deaths in office."

I think Robert Kennedy was mounting a successful primary challenge when they had him offed.

Johnson had already dropped out before then.

[69360]

I think he should give it a go in IA and NH for sure and see how it goes. If he catches on stay with it, if not drop out graciously, endorse the nominee and get anointed one status next time around.

But I'm just an armchair quarterback.

[acptulsa]

I knew of Franklin Pierce, but also: "Four incumbent presidents have been denied a nomination to run by their own party. Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson (sort of), and Chester A. Arthur; but only Pierce had actually been elected president. The rest were vice presidents who who ascended to the presidency after assassinations or deaths in office."



Johnson had already dropped out before then.

You're right about Lyndon Johnson. But he was talking about people failing to get the nomination through the primary process. Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Fillmore and Arthur all predated presidential primaries. Their careers were dependent upon 'smoke-filled rooms'.

I think he should give it a go in IA and NH for sure and see how it goes. If he catches on stay with it, if not drop out graciously, endorse the nominee and get anointed one status next time around.

Nothing in the Constitution or the by-laws of either party guaranteed anyone anointment, no matter what they do. You get anointed primarily by convincing power mongers that you'll happily 'play ball' with them. And the degree to which Rand Paul is becoming 'Son of He Who Must Not Be Named' strongly indicates that anointment will never, ever grease up his curly hair.