Daft Punk

I agree he is not ready now, but by 2016 I think he’ll have had enough experience. At a minimum I think its important to at least get his name out there so people know who he is. Who knows, maybe well’ ll see a Paul/ Amash 2016 ticket.

TV ads, website ads, some kind of “John Stewart-ish” youth oriented entertainer but rooted in “constitutional first principles” instead of Marxism. Make “hip and trendy” the individual desire for freedom instead of bondage, self-reliance instead of dependency and entitlement, subtly preaching smaller federal government. less taxes and regulation as a path to personal prosperity.

Sprinkle with historical bits to prove that these principles work well (and must not be polluted or diluted), and to also point out the massive failure that big government and a command-and-control economy is every time it is tried.

It will be a long, tough road since the reds have had a 50-year head start sowing and fertilizing their filthy concepts.

E-R

You should check out Justin Amash. All of his votes are guided by Constitution; and only the Constitution.

http://amash.house.gov/

dom89031 on November 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Rep. Amash is indeed a great patriot and has a bright future as a leader of the liberty movement within the GOP. That said, he has only been in the US Congress for two years, and is still quite young (32 years old). Give him a few years and he’ll definitely be a player. But for now, let him work his magic in the House and build up his reputation.

As for Rand Paul, I’m all in (already have a Rand for President sticker on my car). 2016 can’t get here soon enough.

Paul emphasizes that border security is still his top priority but adds that he wouldn’t “rule out” a conditional path to citizenship for those who have been living in the United States illegally for an extended period of time.

I like Rush Limbaugh’s suggested proviso: If the illegals are instantly made citizens, they won’t be permitted to vote for [number] years.

Rush suggested [number]= 25.

The democrats would howl like a pack of wolves under a full moon if this were included in any legislation.

E-R

E-R

I’d support Rand Paul. After 8 years of Obama we are going to desperately need someone who will have no problem taking a chainsaw to the bloated federal budget. And of anyone out there, Rand Paul would most likely be the one to actually do it.

JohnInCA on November 20, 2012 at 2:31 PM

We needed that this time around… and the goodie-craving populace voted for Santa Claus instead of Romney. They will want to vote for an even more generous Santa when our economy is really screwed up 4 years from now.

The next GOP prez candidate in 2016 had better be charismatic, be able to convince the “I just want free stuff” crowd that the entire nation would be better off returning to more freedom, free markets, less regulation, smaller federal government, etc. That means the candidate will need to be a great communicator about freedom, first principles, etc. AND be made of pure PTFE (aka Teflon).

But this will all be moot if half the nation is out of work and if Obama is in office for a 3rd term… (Heard about this site in a radio ad today; and yeah, they’re selling you something, so beware.)

E-R

Ron’s son has “it.” It’s a very rare quality that can’t be taught.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhd9yoEgc6w

Pitchforker on November 20, 2012 at 4:37 PM

He has a decent chunk of “it”. Unfortunately, he’s also rather vertically challenged. And that, too, is something you just can’t fake.

Can conservatives and libertarians co-exist in the same party? I don’t know. I know that there is no room for the pot smoking, Isreal hating types. Is that the majority of libertarians? I know those I describe are a vocal lot.
Rockshine on November 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM
Well, I’m mostly libertarian (few exceptions, abortion is one) so I’ll try and explain how I feel.
Yes, they can coexist in the same party and they’ll need to if Santa Claus is to be defeated in future elections. I support legalizing marijuana but I don’t care for smoking pot or tobacco, nor do I drink alcohol. It should be a states’ rights decision with little to no involvement from the Feds. Rand Paul (and Ron) merely want to get rid of federal intervention and save the taxpayers hundreds of qbillions of dollars.
As for Israel, if they want to blow Iran to smithereens, it’s fine with me so long as American taxpayer dollars aren’t going to them (OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD). The reason I’m highly supportive of Rand Paul as a candidate in 2016 because he actually seems serious about cutting spending, which is not something you can say about any Democrat and most Republicans.
Aizen on November 20, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Thanks. I appreciate the insight. I am all for states rights and against foreign aid to 99% of countries. Curting spending is top of my list as well. So, your type I libertarianism I can accept. Perhaps I have only heard from the fringe or extreme elements

There are legendary tales about Rand Paul’s third leg.

Seriously, he is MUCH more conservative than any other Senator currently serving, near as I can tell.

joeeddie on November 20, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Occasionally I get pro-life emails from Rand Paul. That’s a plus in my ledger.

He didn’t say anything about amnesty, and I seriously doubt Rand Paul of all people would be in favor of public entitlements going to illegals.

Daemonocracy

Yes he did, he’s just to big a coward to call it what it is. And by the way, once they’re legal, they’re no longer illegal, and will be eligible for the same public entitlements as everyone else. Besides, I’m pretty sure it would be racist to not allow them access to public entitlements, and would cost us votes because of it. At least that’s the excuse Republicans would come up with next.

I don’t think that Paul will have enough of a following by 2016 to make a serious run for the Presidency, but his talents might be better used in the Senate to build a conservative wing along with Jim DeMint that can stop the excesses of Washington and fight for fiscal sanity.

DeMint is retiring after 2016.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhd9yoEgc6w

annoyinglittletwerp on November 20, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Are you suggesting Ron Paul does not know about the Constitution? Do you believe Bobby Jindal knows more about the Constitution than Ron Paul?

Police state? War with Iran/Syria? Eroding individual rights? Show me the big differences that were between Obama and Romney. There were not any, sadly. Sure, we informed conservatives/libertarians clearly saw the slight advantage of Romney’s big-govt’ conservatism vs. Obama’s outright Marxist class war, but the general public saw little substantive difference. The last debate summed it up for the general public. When there are no major distinctions, why NOT elect the more “likable” guy, and that’s what just happened.

We need to be bold enough to be the party of freedom. A more libertarian party. Social issues MUST BE LEFT AT THE STATE LEVEL. It’s not that we abandon them, it’s that they should be hashed out at the level closest to the people. And regarding issues on the federal or national level, we should come down on the side of individual liberty, the constitution and rule of law. Every time.
It’s not just the right thing to do, it’s the way to win LONG TERM. Whatever you think of Ron/Rand on any given issue, they are CONSISTENTLY and reliably on the side of maximum freedom. If we can re-brand and re-focus in that direction, we may become worthy of being “cool” in the eyes of young and new voters.

Go Rand Paul!

You’re an effing Ronbot. What the hell do you know about the Constitution? Not much.

rockmom on November 20, 2012 at 3:43 PM

My mistake. I meant Reagan was fighting against the establishment in ’76 whereas the establishment pick almost always triumphs.

Still, the point is that GOP party hacks (RNC, Congress) and even some of its voters love to push losers on us. (Ann Coulter, anyone?)

I wasn’t a huge fan of Santorum’s run-but he’s an undeniably good man.
How about you quit mocking his name.
Leave that crap to the leftists.