Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 155

Thread: Rand Paul has this big disadvantage with his core base that no other GOP candidate ever will

  1. #1

    Default Rand Paul has this big disadvantage with his core base that no other GOP candidate ever will


    Rand Paul has this big disadvantage with his core base that no other GOP candidate ever will

    Jack Hunter - July 29, 2015

    Of the major Republican presidential candidates, each has a base.

    Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have the evangelical base. Donald Trump’s base is the conservative grassroots (unfortunately, embarrassingly and hopefully not much longer). That same conservative base is also Ted Cruz and Scott Walker’s. Both Cruz and Walker also share the evangelical base. Jeb Bush’s base is moderates and the Republican establishment. This would also be true for Chris Christie, Marco Rubio and Rick Perry if they are successful. Rubio’s base is also hardcore hawks and neoconservatives, for whom maintaining a hyper-interventionist foreign policy is the top priority. Lindsey Graham shares this hawk base. Perry shares part of the conservative, hawk and establishment bases. So, potentially, could Walker.

    Each of these candidates wants significant parts of each base that make-up the Republican coalition. This is how you become the GOP nominee–holding on to your base while reaching out to other voters. It is the primary purpose of electoral politics.

    It’s how you win.

    Evangelicals might like Huckabee and Santorum more or less depending on what the candidates do, but it is hard to imagine a scenario where evangelicals would completely write off these two Republicans. Huckabee and Santorum are their guys. The conservative base might not always agree with Cruz or Walker, but know these men are their guys. The neocons certainly know Rubio and Graham are their guys. The establishment is completely fine with Jeb Bush–he is definitely their guy–they just hope enough other Republicans will be comfortable enough with him.

    Rand Paul’s core base is libertarians. There are probably fewer libertarians than other Republican coalition group.

    Many libertarians also can’t seem to decide if Rand Paul is their guy or not on a regular basis. Much of this is Paul’s fault.

    It is also libertarianism’s fault.

    Rand Paul takes positions sometimes that are not purely libertarian, primarily because he wants to be a big tent Republican who can appeal to all parts of the GOP constituency. The same evangelical, grassroots conservatives and moderate Republican voters that any GOP candidate needs to attract to win, yes, Paul would like to have too.

    Generally, but not always, Paul attempts to reach out to these different constituencies on issues that correlate with Paul’s libertarian beliefs. Finding common cause where evangelicals, conservatives and even moderates already agree with libertarians.

    For most of Rand’s libertarian supporters he is their guy, even when they disagree with him, because he is by far the most libertarian Republican running for president.

    But other libertarians dismiss Paul if he takes un-libertarian positions on too many things. Other libertarians dismiss Paul if he takes un-libertarian positions on just one or two things.

    Among Republican voters, generally speaking, only libertarians do this.

    The only dissension moderate and establishment types have with Jeb Bush is whether he can pull it off. Evangelicals don’t constantly question whether Huckabee or Santorum are evangelical enough. You won’t find writers at the Washington Free Beacon or Weekly Standard worried about whether Rubio and Graham are true neoconservatives.

    They know these candidates are on their side.

    Too many libertarians don’t even believe in having a side. When I began as editor at Rare Politics, some libertarians accused us of promoting “Rand Paul propaganda.”

    Note, I said libertarians accused us of this.

    Rare Politics does present news and commentary from a libertarian-conservative point of view. Considering that Rand Paul is the most prominent libertarian conservative in America at the moment, we often cover the same issues he does, and him, from the same perspective.

    Like Mother Jones and The Nation do for progressives. Like National Review and Breitbart do for conservatives. Like the Washington Free Beacon and The Weekly Standard do for neoconservatives.

    Do progressives complain that Mother Jones and The Nation put out liberal propaganda? Do conservatives complain that National Review and Breitbart promote conservative propaganda? Has there ever been a neoconservative in the history of that ideology that has ever accused the Free Beacon or Weekly Standard of putting out neocon propaganda?

    No, these news outlets represent their side. Their audiences usually appreciate it.

    Libertarianism is an individualist ideology. Taken to extremes… no one should ever have a side. We are all just individuals. The “truth” stands alone and speaks for itself. I see statements like this from libertarians on social media every day.

    But that’s not how society and human beings actually work.

    It’s certainly not how politics works.

    People who operate within the political realm will inevitably have sides–including libertarians.

    When Rand Paul does things that go against liberty principles, he should always hear about it from his libertarian base. He certainly hears about it from Rare Politics and we’ve been critical of Sen. Paul on a number of issues.

    But the notion that a candidate that has an unparalleled libertarian record should be completely dismissed when he does things to reach out to (or not repel) other voters he needs to win is something that is peculiar to libertarians within Republican politics.

    If Jeb Bush got the nomination there will not be establishment types worried he’s not establishment enough. Mike Huckabee’s evangelical base will not worry he’s not evangelical enough. Marco Rubio’s neoconservative supporters will certainly not worry he’s not neocon enough.

    If Sen. Paul gets close to the nomination–or even the White House–there will unfortunately be too many libertarians worried he’s not libertarian enough.

    That’s a disadvantage Rand Paul has with his core base. It’s a disadvantage no other Republican will have with their core bases or at least to the same problematic degree.

    Libertarians can and should disagree with Sen. Paul. They should also recognize he is by far the most libertarian Republican running for president. When it comes to one day actually shrinking government, protecting civil liberties or preventing the next war, that context matters. Greatly.

    Libertarians don’t always have to be on Rand Paul’s side. But he is the only person running for president on their side.
    ...
    More: http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-has-t...ate-ever-will/
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3

    Default

    I'd respond but I've been told not to post on this part of the forum any longer

  5. #4

    Default

    Evangelicals might like Huckabee and Santorum more or less depending on what the candidates do, but it is hard to imagine a scenario where evangelicals would completely write off these two Republicans
    Is it really that hard to imagine? What if one of them reached out to pro choice groups and tried to compromise? Or even more so, congress was about to overturn Roe V Wade and Huckabee came out against it because there was some minor technicality he didn't like? Still think their base would be there?

    That's a perfectly fair analogy to what Rand Paul has done to his anti-war base. None of the other candidates have the balls/stupidity to go so extremely against the wishes of their base. Is that maybe why it's hard to imagine?
    "christians, take your children out of the synagogues of satan. " - 19/M/Neckbeard

  6. #5

    Default

    Rallying libertarians is like herding cats, which is why I'm often discouraged and contemplate giving up on politics.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brandon View Post
    Is it really that hard to imagine? What if one of them reached out to pro choice groups and tried to compromise? Or even more so, congress was about to overturn Roe V Wade and Huckabee came out against it because there was some minor technicality he didn't like? Still think their base would be there?

    That's a perfectly fair analogy to what Rand Paul has done to his anti-war base. None of the other candidates have the balls/stupidity to go so extremely against the wishes of their base. Is that maybe why it's hard to imagine?
    Considering Santorum just caved on internet porn, unless I see a massive backlash from the bible belt, I'm going to have to call B.S. on this argument. Granted, the notion of American Evangelicals even supporting a dyed-in-the-wool Papist like Santorum would appear bonkers on the surface, but there is definitely a disciplined character to Huckabee's base, and they would definitely look past a compromise on the abortion question, especially considering they already did it with their last champion George W. Bush.

    Jack Hunter does have a point here. I've noted how utterly undisciplined and unreliable several major individuals in the anti-war faction of Ron Paul's base are, especially considering that many of them claim to be so-called market anarchists and yet are musing over voting for Bernie Sanders, the mirror opposite of a free market guy.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomProsperityPeace View Post
    Rallying libertarians is like herding cats, which is why I'm often discouraged and contemplate giving up on politics.
    I don't agree.. I think libertarians are easy to rally. I think we were all expecting Ron Paul in a Rand Paul body. That was probably an unfair expectation placed upon Rand by us. We want RON, but we have Rand. Rand is still the best candidate we have, and we should work for him. He is not his Dad..... I'll give you that; but who do you want? Jeb Bush or Rand Paul?

  9. #8

    Default

    I'm not so sure I agree that libertarians are his core base. (Being Ron Paul's son aside). As you recall it was the Tea Party that helped get him in the Senate.

  10. #9

    Default

    I concur with the article....I dont know how many times Ive seen someone say on here they are dropping rand over ONE position.

    Its ridiculous really. Expecting perfection is quite dumb.

  11. #10

    Default

    Mutiny has gone full effect. "Popcorn tastes good."

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    I'm not so sure I agree that libertarians are his core base. (Being Ron Paul's son aside). As you recall it was the Tea Party that helped get him in the Senate.
    Most of the Tea Party people I know favor Ted Cruz over Rand Paul, but I can't speak for all of the Tea Party peeps when I say that.

    Whether or not libertarians are his "core base", it doesn't change the fact that how libertarians as a whole feel about him may be a huge factor in how he does over the next year, pardoning the scary use of "as a whole" in reference to libertarians. I meant no harm to your individuality.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sister Miriam Godwinson View Post
    We Must Dissent.

  13. #12

    Default

    I again repeat: Start talking about the Federal Reserve!

  14. #13

    Default

    Duplicate post. Haven't had one of these in a while.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sister Miriam Godwinson View Post
    We Must Dissent.

  15. #14

    Default

    it's also an advantage. Rand is the most libertarian of the 17 (Gilmore joined the race today, so there are 17) . But Rand is not as libertarian as Ron, and sons are always compared to their fathers, if both are political.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spikender View Post
    Most of the Tea Party people I know favor Ted Cruz over Rand Paul, but I can't speak for all of the Tea Party peeps when I say that.

    Whether or not libertarians are his "core base", it doesn't change the fact that how libertarians as a whole feel about him may be a huge factor in how he does over the next year, pardoning the scary use of "as a whole" in reference to libertarians. I meant no harm to your individuality.
    The ball is in his court.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brandon View Post

    That's a perfectly fair analogy to what Rand Paul has done to his anti-war base. None of the other candidates have the balls/stupidity to go so extremely against the wishes of their base. Is that maybe why it's hard to imagine?
    No. it is not a fair analogy at all. There is no such thing as agreed on libertarian foreign policy. Murray Rothbard had a very narrow view of foreign affairs that Ron Paul adopted and people hold Rand to that standard. That doesn't mean it is the libertarian standard. Milton Friedman and Ludwig Von Mises were non-interventionists but if you read what they said they would be called neocons by the same people screaming at Rand right now. Ayn Rand was pretty non-interventionist in her views, but her disciples think it is in your rational self interest to be tough on Iran. So the abortion comparison is in no way fair.

  18. #17

    Default

    I see all these threads popping up about "Rand is finished", "losing his base".

    The opinion seems to be that his "core base" is libertarian. I disagree. The main group he's trying to "bring in" is libertarian. His "core" is the remnant. That's what this movement was based on. That's the movement that anointed him, the R3volution.

    Maybe I'm wrong, though. Is there another forum somewhere that has Rand supporters that's more popular than libertyforest.com that supports Rand?

    So in my opinion he isn't losing his core base, he's simply losing the libertarian element like Lew Rockwell, Inc. who were never part of the remnant to begin with.
    What now?

  19. #18

    Default

    I concur with the article....I dont know how many times Ive seen someone say on here they are dropping rand over ONE position.

    Its ridiculous really. Expecting perfection is quite dumb.
    I agree with the article, also. With friends like the people on this site, who needs enemies? Go vote for Bush if you dislike Rand so much...oh, how about Cruz? He's a nice war monger for you all to vote for. Actually, I bet most people here never vote at all.

  20. #19

    Default

    The cohesion of the base of the other candidates doesn't matter, as all those other bases and factions have been mostly or totally co-opted under the umbrellas of the major two parties. The Paul machine and liberty movement stands alone as a cross-party, mostly grassroots-driven coalition not dependent on the infrastructure of the GOP, and not in its pocket. Rand is even developing his mailing and donor list separate from arrangements with the regular Republican databases, to keep this resource from becoming another asset of the establishment parties.

    This is true unity, as it is an alternative to an otherwise completely elite controlled political process, and it keeps the movement its own entity based mainly on principle, not loyalty to a personality or party brand. That latter version of a "cohesive base" is what has doomed all the other previous movements that confronted the establishment, through ending up being either compromised or marginalized. Pro-liberty forces do not operate like lemmings and do not mindlessly conform to whatever the 'leader' says, even for the Pauls. This is our strength, not our weakness.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...the-democrats/

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 65fastback2+2 View Post
    I concur with the article....I dont know how many times Ive seen someone say on here they are dropping rand over ONE position.

    Its ridiculous really. Expecting perfection is quite dumb.
    Well we do have some trolls here.. you have to take that into consideration. Personally, I'm not sending in mega bucks for Rand as I did for Ron. I am not as thrilled by Rand, as I was for Ron... but those days are gone and Rand is the best candidate on the market today so we need to rally around him.

  22. #21

    Default

    Maybe I'm wrong, though. Is there another forum somewhere that has Rand supporters that's more popular than libertyforest.com that supports Rand?
    Do you know of any sites that support Rand Paul? That's what I was looking for when I came here, but I was wrong. I'm looking specifically for a pro-Rand site to hang out on and talk to other supporters. Anybody know of any, please post. Thanks.

    This place is full of grumpy old men.

  23. #22

    Default

    Yeah libertarians suck. They would rather not vote for a guy like Rand because he's not pure. Exactly why a libertarian leaning candidate will NEVER be potus. Exactly why I left the libertarian movement. Because the end game for libertarians in this movement doesn't seem to be electing someone on our side who actually has a chance, but to just stick it to the man.

    I've been here forever and voted twice for Ron, and I'm really appalled at the lack of support for Rand. I'm apalled at how many former Ron Paul supporters are going in the direction of cruz, trump and even sanders. Not just people here, but people I know, who voted for Ron and pushed Ron Paul propaganda on their Facebook and Twitter non stop in 2007 and 2011, now posting non stop praise of cruz, trump and sanders, mostly sanders. I ask them why no mention or support of Rand, Ron's own son... Their answer? Always "hes not a pure libertarian like Ron was" or "hes too hawkish" or "he went to Israel". Really? And trump, sanders, cruz, et all, are better? Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brandon View Post
    Is it really that hard to imagine? What if one of them reached out to pro choice groups and tried to compromise? Or even more so, congress was about to overturn Roe V Wade and Huckabee came out against it because there was some minor technicality he didn't like? Still think their base would be there?

    That's a perfectly fair analogy to what Rand Paul has done to his anti-war base. None of the other candidates have the balls/stupidity to go so extremely against the wishes of their base. Is that maybe why it's hard to imagine?
    I wish I could rep this twice.
    If he wants libertarians to be his core, he should start acting like it. Hunter inadvertently let it slip:

    Considering that Rand Paul is the most prominent libertarian conservative in America at the moment


    See - he's not a libertarian, he's a conservative who is more libertarian than the rest of the conservatives in the race.
    What kind of head injury does Hunter have that he thinks someone who even he admits only leans libertarian has a chance at being the libertarian candidate?

    The absolute most stupefying thing about all of this is all Rand has to do is pick up the phone and talk to the one man on the whole Earth who was able to maintain a libertarian base and talk to him, because he has unrestricted access to him.


    The whole thing smacks of simply not trying.
    You know what - libertarians have been told on this site for three years that we don't understand electoral politics and he's got to play the game, and that translates into an invitation to stay away.
    Well just get it over with - stop being the libertarian candidate. If the hardcore "base" has bailed out, just go do whatever it takes to get elected, since that was the point of all this to begin with. If that means pissing off a lot of libertarians, well, news flash, everyone's really, really late to that party.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squirl22 View Post
    Do you know of any sites that support Rand Paul? That's what I was looking for when I came here, but I was wrong. I'm looking specifically for a pro-Rand site to hang out on and talk to other supporters. Anybody know of any, please post. Thanks.

    This place is full of grumpy old men.
    You are right. I actually did an age poll 10 days ago.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...wer-not-public

    Half the population here is over 40. When the Ron Paul movement started it "seemed" to be much younger. The rallys and stuff were, but then again, "getting out" and doing stuff is more of a kid thing, and now more and more older generations are online.

    As far as "supporters" good luck. It's all gossip and intellectual masturbation outside of actual campaign volunteer work.

    Real grassroots activism is the enemy of the opposition. Those types of people are actively driven out of public spaces.

    There is the rare stubborn ass that refuses to leave.
    What now?

  26. #25

    Default

    Now some of you know how we felt when people on this very site started dissing Ron when he wasn't "Paleo" enough.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squirl22 View Post
    I agree with the article, also. With friends like the people on this site, who needs enemies? Go vote for Bush if you dislike Rand so much...oh, how about Cruz? He's a nice war monger for you all to vote for. Actually, I bet most people here never vote at all.
    Its getting harder and harder to see any difference between Cruz and Paul. Senator Paul with his statement distorting the comments of the Ayatollah of Iran last week proves that he isn't above being dishonest like Ted Cruz or the other warmongers. Its one of the stupidest things he could have done because he gained no support for saying it but he sure as hell lost some.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dianne View Post
    I don't agree.. I think libertarians are easy to rally. I think we were all expecting Ron Paul in a Rand Paul body. That was probably an unfair expectation placed upon Rand by us. We want RON, but we have Rand. Rand is still the best candidate we have, and we should work for him. He is not his Dad..... I'll give you that; but who do you want? Jeb Bush or Rand Paul?
    Wut? Y u think that? It's pretty damn rare we can get a consensus among libertarians even on this forum. Murray Rothbard's old joke has some truth to it: put two libertarians in a room together and they'll be able to come up with at least thee opinions about anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I wish I could rep this twice.
    If he wants libertarians to be his core, he should start acting like it. Hunter inadvertently let it slip:



    See - he's not a libertarian, he's a conservative who is more libertarian than the rest of the conservatives in the race.
    What kind of head injury does Hunter have that he thinks someone who even he admits only leans libertarian has a chance at being the libertarian candidate?

    The absolute most stupefying thing about all of this is all Rand has to do is pick up the phone and talk to the one man on the whole Earth who was able to maintain a libertarian base and talk to him, because he has unrestricted access to him.


    The whole thing smacks of simply not trying.
    You know what - libertarians have been told on this site for three years that we don't understand electoral politics and he's got to play the game, and that translates into an invitation to stay away.
    Well just get it over with - stop being the libertarian candidate. If the hardcore "base" has bailed out, just go do whatever it takes to get elected, since that was the point of all this to begin with. If that means pissing off a lot of libertarians, well, news flash, everyone's really, really late to that party.[/COLOR]
    +rep
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

  30. #29

    Default

    There is no such thing as a "libertarian conservative". There are Right and Left libertarians I grant you but not an ideology which believes in traditional values so long as traditional values are practiced individually. It doesn't work like that.

    A fellow who believes in marijuana legalization only for religious purposes, that's basically what Hunter is trying to concoct.

    Foreign policy goes right to the heart of Revolution and when you start compromising on that then yes, Rand is going to have problems with his base.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Paul View Post
    There is no such thing as a "libertarian conservative". There are Right and Left libertarians I grant you but not an ideology which believes in traditional values so long as traditional values are practiced individually. It doesn't work like that.

    A fellow who believes in marijuana legalization only for religious purposes, that's basically what Hunter is trying to concoct.

    Foreign policy goes right to the heart of Revolution and when you start compromising on that then yes, Rand is going to have problems with his base.
    This^^ Libertarianism and liberty in general are very radical and unconservative.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-03-2014, 08:54 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-19-2012, 12:11 AM
  3. Ron Paul going last, disadvantage
    By nyrgoal99 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 10:30 PM
  4. Candidate Ron Paul taps eclectic, fervent base
    By Bradley in DC in forum News About The Official Campaign
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-06-2007, 08:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •