Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 53

Thread: Is Rand Paul Missing His Giuliani Moment?

  1. #1

    Is Rand Paul Missing His Giuliani Moment?

    A very thought-provoking and even-handed article from the editor of The American Conservative (and very relevant to the discussion here at RPFs about Rand's strategy).

    Is Rand Paul Missing His Giuliani Moment?
    http://www.theamericanconservative.c...uliani-moment/
    Daniel McCarthy (04 August 2015)

    Rand Paul tells the Washington Post‘s Dave Weigel that Thursday’s Republican presidential debate will pit him against rivals who “want to blow up the world.” He has reason to use stark language. After weeks of negative press, single-digit poll numbers, and lackluster fundraising, Senator Paul needs a “Giuliani moment”—something that will do for his campaign what a showdown with “America’s mayor” did for his father’s effort after the first debate of 2007.

    In fact, Rand Paul has the opportunity to do much more than his father ever could. But he’s missing it: Rand’s “Giuliani moment” is the Iran deal, and it calls for action, not words.

    Rand’s support for the deal would transform the politics of the Republican race at a stroke. He would also risk losing rather than gaining support—when the deal was announced, 30 percent of Republicans supported it, and those votes could have been Rand’s. Polls since then have been mixed and most indicate Republicans oppose the diplomatic effort, even overwhelmingly so.

    But that’s where the Giuliani example is relevant: no pollster or campaign professional would have told Ron Paul to stand up to Giuliani like that—on an issue, national security and terrorism, that Giuliani owned and where Republican voters overwhelmingly disagreed with the Texas congressman. But Ron Paul did it anyway, and in so doing he pulled off something political pros usually believe is impossible or irrelevant: he changed voters’ minds.

    He didn’t change nearly enough to win a single primary, of course, either in 2008 or in 2012. But Rand Paul starts from a stronger position and higher profile than his father had before that debate. If Rand dared, instead of being yet another single-term senator vying for the nomination, he could overnight become the most important player in the GOP on the biggest foreign-policy issue of the day. He’d get invited to every talk show as the one Republican with the audacity to side with the president to make a deal for peace. He’d be denounced, too, by every neocon outlet. In other words, he’d get the full-spectrum attention that Donald Trump now commands, knocking him out of the headlines, if not off the top of the polls.

    [... full article at link: http://www.theamericanconservative.c...uliani-moment/ ...]

    Instead, the strategy Rand’s team have devised for him is much more cautious, and its dividend so far has been dwindling support. But it doesn’t matter if a candidate drops into the single digits in the pre-primary season, and even if Rand’s fundraising could be better—Bush, Cruz, and Rubio beat him easily last quarter—he’s still a top-tier candidate. His playbook is to win on bread-and-butter Republican issues, demonstrating his support for tax cuts by literally cutting through the tax code with a chainsaw, courting Christian conservatives by calling for an end to federal funds for Planned Parenthood, keeping his libertarian supporters on board by opposing the NSA’s domestic surveillance, and reaching out to several groups at once—including libertarians, Christians, and some liberals—with criminal-justice reform.

    His approach to two thorny questions—immigration and foreign policy—has been in line with this bread-and-butter strategy. There’s a vocal and somewhat large bloc of voters who say they want to restrict immigration, and while they may not tend not to vote in such a way as to prove their commitment—Tom Tancredo would have been a force in 2008 if they did, and John McCain would not have been the GOP nominee—an appeal to restrict immigration certainly won’t lose Rand many primary votes. By contrast, explicit noninterventionist appeals won’t win many: there aren’t legions of foreign-policy voters to begin with, and what few there are in the Republican Party are mostly hawks.

    The logic of this play-it-safe strategy is impeccable. But it’s a logic that works against Rand Paul: after all, if voters want a bread-and-butter Republican, they have better options. Ted Cruz is a better orator, Marco Rubio is more charismatic, Scott Walker has an executive record. Christian conservatives aren’t going to choose Rand Paul over spiritual kin like Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee just because Rand, like the rest of the field, is antiabortion. (For one thing, the religious right suspects that in his bones Rand Paul is just too libertarian to fight till he bleeds against same-sex marriage.) Paul’s foreign-policy maneuvering, meanwhile, has the curious effect of leaving him the candidate least liked by hawks but no longer much loved by doves. What his campaign team has devised is actually a winning strategy for Scott Walker—or even Jeb Bush.

    The dilemma for Rand is that his core supporters are with him because they believe he really is different from the rest on foreign policy, but to reach beyond that core he has to downplay the difference. Rand can’t do well as just Mr. Small Government because more Republicans seem to want Walker for that role, and Cruz can also compete for it. Rand’s core supporters don’t have a reason to go to another candidate, but there aren’t enough of them to make him the nominee. And there are fewer of them the more he triangulates.

    His most devoted supporters dismiss those who are abandoning ship as “purists.” But there’s a spectrum: at one end are those who won’t settle for less than another Ron Paul, which Rand was never going to be. At the other are those who will stick with Rand no matter where he stands—either out of personal loyalty or out of an undying hope that he doesn’t really mean it when he falls in with GOP orthodoxy. But most of his potential support lies between the extremes, and that middle ground is where he’s failing to make the sale.

    Going into the race Rand Paul could seemingly count on two iron-clad advantages: he would have plenty of funding, whether from Silicon Valley or from an army of small donors like those who backed his father. And he would have a ready-made bloc of activists composed of the more pragmatic of his father’s supporters and additional battalions of grassroots conservatives brought into the liberty movement by the senator’s ecumenical outreach. Paul’s struggle to win support either from the Silicon Valley or from a volume of grassroots supporters comparable to his father’s indicates there’s something about his campaign that fails to persuade the very people who should be most easily persuaded.

    Rand’s strategy, unlike his father’s, is all about winning. But what no campaign professional likes to admit is that not every client has a chance of winning. The way the party’s attitudes presently stand, Republicans are not ready for Rand Paul. He could try to change the party so it’s ready for someone like him in 2020 or 2024. But instead he’s changing himself to be like the party of today. And he’s losing.

    There are no shortcuts when it comes to altering the nation’s political course. If you want a very different foreign policy from what Republicans (and indeed Democrats) are used to, you can’t sneak it in by winning a single presidential election—just as you can’t stop abortion or erase the tax code with one November victory. A great deal of persuasion is necessary before the elections will follow, and the relationship between elections and public persuasion has to be mutually reinforcing: persuade more, then win more, then use your higher profile to persuade still more and win still more. That’s how you build a movement. It’s the only way.

    Rand’s father faced a party that was even less ready for anyone with his principles. But he shook up the GOP and changed the way voters thought about his issues, to the point that his son, without any elected experience, could beat a well-funded establishment candidate in a 2010 Senate primary. There’s no question that without Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign, there would have been no Senator Paul.

    Now Rand is in danger of reversing the momentum not only of his own campaign but of the liberty movement whose leadership he inherited. Ron Paul’s efforts in 2008 and 2012 helped set the stage for liberty Republicans like Justin Amash and Thomas Massie, as well as Rand, to win in 2010 and 2012. No similarly libertarian Republican won in 2014 or has yet to appear in prospect for 2016. This isn’t Rand’s fault: the issues environment has been more difficult for liberty candidates these past two years. But a movement needs leadership most of all when it faces adversity—someone who will risk his neck to ensure there are more Thomas Massies and fewer Tom Cottons sent to Washington in the future.

    This Giuliani moment is a test of Rand Paul’s courage. If he fights for realistic diplomatic initiatives like the Iran deal, he may yet lose the nomination, but he’ll make political success for those with his principles—including himself—more likely in the future. Conversely, it will prove to be a mistake as well as a disgrace if Rand Paul is running for president to be someone rather than to do something—all the more so if who he’s trying to be is not who he is but who the other Republicans are.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 08-05-2015 at 09:27 AM.
    https://i.imgur.com/BwU46s8.png

    Libertarian Party Mises Caucus
    "The libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party."

    Platform Our Actions

    Mises PAC
    (Libertarian Party membership not required)

    #TakeHumanAction Donate Merchandise


    HOME Facebook Twitter YouTube



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

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    This Giuliani moment is a test of Rand Paul’s courage. If he fights for realistic diplomatic initiatives like the Iran deal, he may yet lose the nomination, but he’ll make political success for those with his principles—including himself—more likely in the future. Conversely, it will prove to be a mistake as well as a disgrace if Rand Paul is running for president to be someone rather than to do something—all the more so if who he’s trying to be is not who he is but who the other Republicans are.
    Senator Paul won't win if he continues trying to "blend in" with the rest of the GOP. Conformity is the OPPOSITE of courage. Even a dead fish can "go with the flow."

  5. #4
    Well hopefully Christie says something stupid Rand has to respond to.
    The Voluntary Exchange Podcast

    Twitter

    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain"

    "I want to be President, not because I want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run the world. I want to be President to restore liberty."

    "The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"

    "My name is George. I'm unemployed and live with my parents."

  6. #5

    I don't think he gets anywhere by putting his stamp of approval

    on the work of crappy negotiators. I think if Trump's success demonstrates anything it is that supporting a bunch of Washington goofballs isn't popular even if the goal is something worthwhile (avoiding war). People can tell Trump is thinking things through and isn't being a pushover.

    When Bush was pushing for war against Iraq, he considered Hussein's rhetoric as a justification for war, ignoring the fact that Hussein had to passify people inside his government by talking tough to the U.S. In the case of Iran, it should be expected now that they will say some things to their own people that make it sound like they are being tough with the U.S. but in the case of this deal, it really does sound like the worst negotiators the world has ever seen are working out the deal.

    This idea that an agreement is made and is hidden from Congress and then Congress is supposed to just approve it is garbage.


    QUOTE=twomp;5945129]Senator Paul won't win if he continues trying to "blend in" with the rest of the GOP. Conformity is the OPPOSITE of courage. Even a dead fish can "go with the flow."[/QUOTE]

  7. #6
    I'm going to give Rand the benefit of the doubt until the debate...The Giuliani moment was during a debate, not just a stump speech. Rand is almost assuredly going to be attacked by at least 1 if not multiple candidates. He needs to be firm not squeamish in reply.

  8. #7
    He’d give all voters something to think about, cutting across the left-right divide that has only meant defeat for Republicans in the last two presidential elections.
    Isn't that what Romney and McCain tried to do, be moderates? I liked where the article said 2016 wasn't the right time to run, I agree with that 100%, right now many Repubs have gone back Hawkish, I think there are just too many other candidates that can easily outdo him in the key areas as the article pointed out.

    Plus I think a lot of people just want to do the whole "first woman" thing and even if Rand gets the nod I doubt he would beat Hillary. In 2020 12yrs of Dems will have people more eager for a Repub, the first woman thing will have faded, and hopefully Hillary's warmongering will have put people back in a more non-interventionist mood, not to mention 4yrs will have gone by and people will see Iran did not blow up the world.

  9. #8
    Rand just needs to be more like his dad, period. The pandering needs to end, it is a quality that all voters dislike and will hold against you.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    I generally agree with the article. But I think Rand's message isn't that far off from where it needs to be. The problem in my view is the presentation. When he is attacked he needs to get fired up and indignant, then attack about how Republicans including fellow candidates have lost their way from the Constitutional principles and fiscal responsibility. I really think there is an opportunity to lead the GOP but you can't be afraid of getting behind the steering wheel.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  12. #10
    Trump is proving Rand's stragety is a failure. Maybe it would have worked in 2008 or 2012 but Ron woke too many people up. He should have carried the torch unabashed and stuck to what he knows is right instead of playing games.

    Trump is appealing precisely because he's so much different than everyone else. So long as Rand sticks around for awhile I think he'll be a contender but unless he finds a way to regain the rebel image from Trump he will not win.
    It's just an opinion... man...

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by NoOneButPaul View Post
    Trump is proving Rand's stragety is a failure. Maybe it would have worked in 2008 or 2012 but Ron woke too many people up. He should have carried the torch unabashed and stuck to what he knows is right instead of playing games.

    Trump is appealing precisely because he's so much different than everyone else. So long as Rand sticks around for awhile I think he'll be a contender but unless he finds a way to regain the rebel image from Trump he will not win.
    Someone will regain it from Trump, the question is who. Trump is just a flavor of the month
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by NoOneButPaul View Post
    Trump is proving Rand's stragety is a failure. Maybe it would have worked in 2008 or 2012 but Ron woke too many people up. He should have carried the torch unabashed and stuck to what he knows is right instead of playing games.

    Trump is appealing precisely because he's so much different than everyone else. So long as Rand sticks around for awhile I think he'll be a contender but unless he finds a way to regain the rebel image from Trump he will not win.
    But Trump hasn't won the nomination yet, let alone the presidency. Trump has a following, but he has not yet proved that his style can actually get him the nomination, so taking a snapshot right now, and offering it as proof that Trump is doing a better job than Rand isn't fair at all. Iowa is 6 months away.

  15. #13
    It's also a question of timing though. Ron had the habit of always firing on all cylinders, so anytime he started making a forceful statement, it would be met with eye rolls and "there he goes again...". Rand could still very much have a Giuliani moment. It only takes one time for it to become a media sensation and knock out punch.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  16. #14
    How can Rand have a Giuliani moment when there hasn't even been a damned debate yet? Can we get some articles on this site that aren't running with a bad premise?

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    How can Rand have a Giuliani moment when there hasn't even been a damned debate yet? Can we get some articles on this site that aren't running with a bad premise?
    He won't have a Giuliani movement if he continues being a milquetoast appeaser, that's the whole point.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    How can Rand have a Giuliani moment when there hasn't even been a damned debate yet? Can we get some articles on this site that aren't running with a bad premise?


    What "bad premise?" The whole point of the article is an attempt to answer the question, "How can Rand have a Giuliani moment ... ?"

    As for your qualificaton to that question (namely, "when there hasn't even been a damned debate yet"), the article starts by explicitly setting the context as Thursday's upcoming debate - and then goes on to attempt to answer "how" within that context:
    Rand Paul tells the Washington Post‘s Dave Weigel that Thursday’s Republican presidential debate will pit him against rivals who “want to blow up the world.” He has reason to use stark language. After weeks of negative press, single-digit poll numbers, and lackluster fundraising, Senator Paul needs a “Giuliani moment”—something that will do for his campaign what a showdown with “America’s mayor” did for his father’s effort after the first debate of 2007.
    IOW: McCarthy did not say anything about Rand having a "Giuliani moment" without there having been a debate ...
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 08-05-2015 at 11:44 AM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    "That Rudy Giuliani is quite the idiot huh?"

    I think that would be a great moment.
    The Voluntary Exchange Podcast

    Twitter

    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain"

    "I want to be President, not because I want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run the world. I want to be President to restore liberty."

    "The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"

    "My name is George. I'm unemployed and live with my parents."

  21. #18
    All we talked about after 08 and 12 was the 2016 the world would be primed and ready for someone different. And now this guy is saying 2020?
    The wisdom of Swordy:

    On bringing the troops home
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They are coming home, all the naysayers said they would never leave Syria and then they said they were going to stay in Iraq forever..... just like Trump said.

    On fighting corruption:
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Trump had to donate the "right way" and hang out with the "right people" in order to do business in NYC and Hollyweird and in order to investigate and expose them.
    Fascism Defined

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    He won't have a Giuliani movement if he continues being a milquetoast appeaser, that's the whole point.
    No, it's not the point. Everybody is literally Monday morning quarterbacking and it isn't even freaking Sunday yet. And how is he being a milquetoast? He's been at odds with just about everybody he's running against. Are you looking for him to make out with Bernie Sanders or something?

    Jeez, cut down on the crazy, get a girlfriend and relax. We haven't even had a single debate yet.

    What "bad premise?" The whole point of the article is an attempt to answer the question, "How can Rand have a Giuliani moment ... ?"
    The title of the article is "Is Rand Paul missing his Giuliani moment?". If this is just a troll move for clicks, the result has been a flood of negativity on these very forums. On a related note, David Weigel has become notorious for pulling this crap and the response I just got from sgt150 about Rand being a "milquetoast" after the filibusters and controversial bills he's plugged underscores this.

    If you guys spent half as much time considering the intent of Rand's strategy rather than the intent of questionable media sources, this place wouldn't be as depressing as the death scene in Old Yeller every time I log on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    All we talked about after 08 and 12 was the 2016 the world would be primed and ready for someone different. And now this guy is saying 2020?
    And in 2020 we'll be talking about 2024, and so on as the world continues to burn, and we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves for falling into this fanatical trap of winning by losing.
    Last edited by hells_unicorn; 08-05-2015 at 12:11 PM.

  23. #20
    Ron was booed for his "Giuliani moment." Rand won't take that chance.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    Ron was booed for his "Giuliani moment." Rand won't take that chance.
    Ron also lost, I don't think Rand wants to have that happen either.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    Isn't that what Romney and McCain tried to do, be moderates? I liked where the article said 2016 wasn't the right time to run, I agree with that 100%, right now many Repubs have gone back Hawkish, I think there are just too many other candidates that can easily outdo him in the key areas as the article pointed out.

    Plus I think a lot of people just want to do the whole "first woman" thing and even if Rand gets the nod I doubt he would beat Hillary. In 2020 12yrs of Dems will have people more eager for a Repub, the first woman thing will have faded, and hopefully Hillary's warmongering will have put people back in a more non-interventionist mood, not to mention 4yrs will have gone by and people will see Iran did not blow up the world.
    Being moderate is what Rand is currently doing (assuming Rand is in stealth mode and doesn't actually believe the positions he's held in the public sphere). The author is calling for him to be more radical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Being moderate is what Rand is currently doing (assuming Rand is in stealth mode and doesn't actually believe the positions he's held in the public sphere). The author is calling for him to be more radical.
    And at the same time hes saying "and no radical can win in 2016".

    We've heard it all before.
    The wisdom of Swordy:

    On bringing the troops home
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They are coming home, all the naysayers said they would never leave Syria and then they said they were going to stay in Iraq forever..... just like Trump said.

    On fighting corruption:
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Trump had to donate the "right way" and hang out with the "right people" in order to do business in NYC and Hollyweird and in order to investigate and expose them.
    Fascism Defined

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    Isn't that what Romney and McCain tried to do, be moderates? I liked where the article said 2016 wasn't the right time to run, I agree with that 100%, right now many Repubs have gone back Hawkish, I think there are just too many other candidates that can easily outdo him in the key areas as the article pointed out.

    Plus I think a lot of people just want to do the whole "first woman" thing and even if Rand gets the nod I doubt he would beat Hillary. In 2020 12yrs of Dems will have people more eager for a Repub, the first woman thing will have faded, and hopefully Hillary's warmongering will have put people back in a more non-interventionist mood, not to mention 4yrs will have gone by and people will see Iran did not blow up the world.
    Technically it's also what Obama did, at least when he was running in the general election, and he outflanked McCain and Romney in the nuance department. Whenever talk radio was talking about Obama or somebody he associated with being a radical, the first thing Obama did was either try to hide it or throw the other person under the bus, he did not double down on anything until after the 2012 election when his health care experiment began to implode.

    For as long as I've been alive, I've watched principled candidates get chewed up and spit out before making it through the primary process, including twice in a row with Pat Buchanan before he left the Republican Party. It may or may not be Rand's time to be president, but he positively won't ever be elected if he conducts a campaign like the one his father and Buchanan ran, there's just not enough people here wired that way, and I doubt there ever was or will be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    And at the same time hes saying "and no radical can win in 2016".

    We've heard it all before.
    No radical has ever won openly in as long as I can remember. Reagan did not run as a radical, he was simply branded as one by his enemies. Obama ran as a black man, all of his policy ideas were treated as purely incidental by most of the people who voted for him both times. People who espouse openly radical viewpoints either get trounced during the primaries, or they run 3rd party and get somewhere between 1-5% of the vote. (P.S. - Perot was not a radical, he was simply an independent and self-financed fiscal conservative)
    Last edited by hells_unicorn; 08-05-2015 at 12:40 PM.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Supporting Member
    Colorado



    Posts
    5,429
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    Ron was booed for his "Giuliani moment." Rand won't take that chance.
    and Dr. Ron Paul was vilified as correct, and the money bombs had Guiliani dropping out BEFORE Florida -
    what was supposed to be his big state with the NY connection and snowbirds.

    Guiliani could not face the embarrassment of finishing last in Florida . . . bye bye Rudy.

    Rand can have a near Guiliani moment . . . if the opportunity comes up -
    Dr. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) should go all out and take the game winning shot a la Michael Jordan.

    . . .

    .
    Last edited by Jan2017; 08-05-2015 at 01:18 PM. Reason: added jpg

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    No, it's not the point. Everybody is literally Monday morning quarterbacking and it isn't even freaking Sunday yet. And how is he being a milquetoast? He's been at odds with just about everybody he's running against. Are you looking for him to make out with Bernie Sanders or something?

    Jeez, cut down on the crazy, get a girlfriend and relax. We haven't even had a single debate yet.
    His momentum has waned. His poll numbers are low. His fundraising is poor. And it's not improving. It's headed in the wrong direction. Perhaps you're just a blind supporter of the campaign and have your head in the clouds so much that you can't see what is happening. But your denial of the obvious problems certainly isn't helping matters.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    The title of the article is "Is Rand Paul missing his Giuliani moment?"
    What does that have to do with anything? It's just an article title, the purpose of which is to tersely convey some sense or aspect of the entitled content - not to convey that content itself.

    Again, you asked: "How can Rand have a Giuliani moment when there hasn't even been a damned debate yet?" I did nothing more than point out that, in the very opening sentences of his article, McCarthy explicitly sets that very question within the context up the upcoming debate. Unless you are suggesting that any discussions or considerations of Rand's strategy with respect to an upcoming debate are not to be tolerated prior to that debate, then I am still honestly and genuinely baffled at your criticism of McCarthy on the basis that he has asserted that Rand can or should try to have a "Giuliani moment" prior to any of the debates - since he did not make any such assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    On a related note, David Weigel has become notorious for pulling this crap [...]
    What crap? What has Weigel got to do with it? He was merely cited by McCarthy as the elicitor of the "[rivals who] want to blow up the world" quote from Rand. Beyond that, Weigel hasn't got anything to do with anything McCarthy said or addressed. McCarthy was just identifying the source of the relevant quote.

    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    [...] and the response I just got from sgt150 about Rand being a "milquetoast" after the filibusters and controversial bills he's plugged underscores this.
    This is even further afield of anything to do with my reply to your earlier remark ...

    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    If you guys spent half as much time considering the intent of Rand's strategy rather than the intent of questionable media sources, this place wouldn't be as depressing as the death scene in Old Yeller every time I log on.
    Who are "you guys?" What "intent" of what "questionable media source" have I considered at the expense of having considered the "intent" of Rand's strategy ... ?

    And how is the generally anti-establishment The American Conservative a "questionable media source?" It's an opinion magazine. (Or are you suggesting that the particular Rand quote pulled from Weigel is incorrect or fabricated?) And nearly the whole of McCarthy's article is an attempt to "consider the intent of Rand's strategy." If you disagree with or don't like the analysis McCarthy has offered, that's fine. That's your prerogative. But suggesting that McCarthy has some kind of insidiously nefarious "intent" merely because you disagree with or don't like that analysis is egregious. (And in any case, your disagreement with or dislike of McCarthy's article still doesn't serve to make any sense of your accusation that McCarthy has asserted that Rand should go for a "Giuliani moment" prior to the debate ...)

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    His momentum has waned. His poll numbers are low. His fundraising is poor. And it's not improving. It's headed in the wrong direction. Perhaps you're just a blind supporter of the campaign and have your head in the clouds so much that you can't see what is happening. But your denial of the obvious problems certainly isn't helping matters.
    And your incessant whining is helping matters? Furthermore, Ron Paul went the tough guy, anti-establishment route and what office does he hold now?

    Who are "you guys?"?
    Read the defeatist words of the post quoted above and multiply it by at least a dozen other posters on this site. This is entirely shaped by MSM disinformation, and my critique of this article is not that it's an MSM outlet, so much as the headline is extremely bad and the suggestion itself rests on a faulty premise, namely that Ron Paul won the election by having a Giuliani moment, that obviously did not happen. What did having Giuliani drop out of the race accomplish exactly? We ended up with McInsane who was equally as bad, and Ron taking out both Santorum and Gingrich (who were terrible, make no mistake) also didn't win him the nomination.

    I have a very short list of people in the media who's opinions I would actually trust, even among the Paleo-conservatives in Buchanan's fold. They've been repeatedly outmaneuvered by the Neo-cons for several decades now and it's obvious that their tactics are not effective.

  33. #29
    Supporting Member
    Colorado



    Posts
    5,429
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    And your incessant whining is helping matters? Furthermore,
    Ron Paul went the tough guy, anti-establishment route and what office does he hold now?
    Ghouliani-Buster . . .


  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    And your incessant whining is helping matters? Furthermore, Ron Paul went the tough guy, anti-establishment route and what office does he hold now?
    It's called telling it like it is, not putting your fingers in your ears and denying reality like you are.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 160
    Last Post: 08-06-2015, 01:30 PM
  2. Is Rand Paul Missing His Giuliani Moment?
    By Occam's Banana in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-05-2015, 12:26 PM
  3. The moment Rand Paul has been waiting for
    By Krugminator2 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-30-2015, 07:27 PM
  4. This Is Rand Paul's Moment
    By cajuncocoa in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-29-2014, 11:54 AM
  5. A Teaching Moment for Rand Paul
    By michaelwise in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-21-2010, 12:59 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

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