Yep, Rand Paul’s already building a 50-state presidential organization

posted at 4:01 pm on March 27, 2014 by Allahpundit

You knew that, though, even if you didn’t formally “know” it. No American politician, Hillary included, has been clearer about his intentions in 2016 than Paul. CNN remembers him talking about running for president as far back as November 2012, just weeks after the last election. That reminds me of something a friend who works in Democratic politics once told me, that Obama had someone in Iowa quietly sniffing around about 2008 from virtually the day he was elected to the Senate in 2004. I didn’t peg Rand initially as someone who had his heart set on the presidency, but maybe I misjudged. Maybe, after watching his dad catch fire with libertarians in ’08 and fizzle with the rest of the party, he sensed an opportunity for a truer libertarian/conservative hybrid candidate. Paul père bequeathed him a network in Iowa and New Hampshire; if, Rand may have thought, he could build on that by reaching further towards the mainstream than his old man was willing to, he could be a legit contender in the early states and then for the nomination. It could be that his Senate run, a la Obama’s, was always just a stepping stone in taking his ideological vision to a bigger stage.

The only thing that could dissuade him, I think, is if he ends up having a legal problem in Kentucky that bars him from running for president and reelection to the Senate simultaneously. The state senate just passed a bill that would let him run for both but the Democratic-controlled house could block it, leaving the prohibition in effect. Paul has grounds for a legal challenge, but who knows what a judge will do. If he’s forced to choose between running for president and Senate, I suppose he might pass on the former in the name of building a bigger resume as a legislator. In that case, though, he’ll have problems running in 2020 — he’d face either a Democratic incumbent or be blocked by a Republican president — and he may worry that the “libertarian moment” the country’s having right now will have passed by then. Probably he’d run for president and forget the Senate in 2016 if made to pick.

Rand Paul’s nationwide organization, which counts more than 200 people, includes new backers who have previously funded more traditional Republicans, along with longtime libertarian activists. Paul, of Kentucky, has also been courting Wall Street titans and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who donated to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, attending elite conclaves in Utah and elsewhere along with other GOP hopefuls…

At the Romney retreat last year in Park City, Utah, Paul gained some fans among the GOP elite. Though few pledged to back him should he run for president, they did warm up to him.

“Going in, people weren’t sure. Most of them didn’t know him,” recalled Ron Kaufman, a Romney confidant. “But they had these one-on-one meetings with him and came away saying he’s a sharp guy. They were still in the grieving stage, not ready to think about 2016, but their opinion of him increased rather dramatically.”…

The decision to swiftly expand and announce Paul’s national political infrastructure — which will be fully unveiled this spring — comes after reports describing Paul’s operation as unready to compete nationally

[Nate] Morris, previously a fundraiser for George W. Bush, has served as Paul’s guide as the freshman senator has navigated steakhouse dinners and tony receptions with Wall Street and Silicon Valley leaders.

That bit in boldface helps explain why this is being leaked now. Paul, more so than other candidates because of his pedigree, wants to show the GOP establishment that he’s serious about the nomination, not just running a vanity candidacy to ventilate the libertarian viewpoint a la Ron. That’s why he endorsed Mitch McConnell, the tea party’s public enemy number one, and has refused to budge despite grumbles from conservatives. His top priority is getting Republicans with deep pockets to take him seriously and one way to do that is by helping out an establishment guy they trust. Likewise, Paul has special reasons to start gladhanding GOP movers and shakers early, when the primary campaign is still more than a year away. With the possible exception of Ted Cruz, he’s the only guy in the field who’s running three different primary races. Everyone else is running the first two — the “invisible primary,” where candidates try to recruit millionaire donors and campaign talent, and then of course the early-state primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. If Paul wins those, though, and suddenly looks to be a heavy favorite to take the nomination, he’ll face one last “primary” — i.e., convincing the GOP establishment not to coalesce behind some alternative candidate like Rubio or Scott Walker in the name of stopping the kooky libertarian. The more millionaire hands he shakes now, the more likely it is that they’ll find him acceptable enough not to try to block him if he jumps out to a big lead in February 2016. He’d like their support, but if he can’t have it, he’ll settle for their indifference. It’s no coincidence, needless to say, that backslapping with donors is happening at the same time Paul’s hawkish side is suddenly emerging in high-profile op-eds. It’s all about reassurance.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

And you go ahead and make me bump it back to 20 years…

JohnGalt23 on March 27, 2014 at 5:45 PM

Okay. Iran-Iraq War: September 1980 to August 1988. The entire length of the war the UN Security Cousel knew chemical weapons were being used. They didn’t really lay chief blame on Iraq until after the war but half a million dead in a WW1 Style conflict where soldiers and civilians were killed by chemical weapons.

But I guess we can imagine he used them all or lost his taste more deploying them after that?

No at the end of the war he retaliates against civilians in Halabja because he suspects they aided the Iranians.

From wiki: The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians. Thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack. The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq, was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.

During the entire Desert Shield/Desert Storm conflict, every Coalition member was required to be prepared for chemical attacks because of shared intelligence that Hussein had WMDs/Chemical Weapons. BTW, he invaded a sovereign star which also required the UN resolutions forming the North and South no-fly areas he immediately started violating.

So, it’s closer to a decade John since he was know to have them and prepared to use them by your metrics. Again, every US leader is on record stating their fears he still had the, He threatened that he had them. He didn’t cooperate with UN inspectors. He violated UN Resolutions.

You argue this point to where you, like Ron Paul, accuse the then CinC and most of us who fought there to be war criminals.

hawkdriver on March 27, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Ignore the typos if you can. Too many to fix.

hawkdriver on March 27, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Gee Another Libertarian, how many people were killed in WWII? Or the Holocaust? We have a pretty good guess, & we have a pretty good guess in Iraq…. just own it, you’re a Raymond-phile who opposed the Iraq War. The number of dead, per se, has NOTHING to do with the morality or justice of any war….

JFKY on March 27, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Comparing World War II to Iraq doesn’t really make much sense does it?

What troubles me is the casual acceptance of the mass murder of strangers for reasons unknown, the results of which are dubious, and no questions really asked even to this day. The idea that people are just fine with massive amounts of human death, because they are foreigners and not like you and me, sounds like we are devolving to an animal state en masse. US vs THEM is a timeless technique for a master class to divide and conquer.

The idea that my fellow Americans are this easy to turn into a bloodthirsty horde bothers me, I suppose. We are supposed to be more skeptical of our betters than the Europeans are.

I’m not afraid of the world, I have no fear of people just because they are different. I’m not afraid of 19 goat herders with box cutters crashing planes into buildings.

The idea that a few people could bring this country to its knees and embarrass us like that, turning our this once great nation into a meek little mouse scared of its own shadow is humiliating. The idea that we need mommy and daddy to keep secrets from us and go off and fight our battles for us is even more so.

We are supposed to be adults, informed and tough. We are not supposed to be deferential to “our betters”, these self-appointed (and unelected) experts in the technocracy that keep secrets from us for our own good. We aren’t children, and we need to stop acting that way.

Americans do not tolerate aristocracy. This worship of authority that has overtaken the so-called Right in the last 10-15 years is a disaster that has left us without an effective opposition to Progressivism.

Another Libertarian on March 27, 2014 at 6:15 PM

But you’re right. We’ll never know for sure one way or the other — though you sound pretty sure yourself.

gryphon202 on March 27, 2014 at 5:46 PM

I allowed myself a bit of skepticism until I saw GWB cracking jokes about it.

Saddam Hussein Said WMD Talk Helped Him Look Strong to Iran

Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran

I’m sorry, but the two top dogs on either side of this war seem to be acknowledging they didn’t exist. I’m willing to believe them.

And no, I don’t think GWB lied about this. I don’t think anyone in the administration lied about this in the run up to war. I think someone, probably with some sort of ties to the INC, spun a fairy tale for Doug Feith or one of his friends in the DoD, it made it up the chain via people all too eager to believe the fairy tale, up to GWB, who, by his own admission, had “foreign policy” as a resume weakness…

JohnGalt23 on March 27, 2014 at 6:17 PM

“OK, guys, rent me the biggest water fountain in the state and get me one of those big head-shop Buddhas to prop up a ‘Paul for President’ poster next to it.”

Knott Buyinit on March 27, 2014 at 5:57 PM

Don’t forget the blimp!!..:)

Dire Straits on March 27, 2014 at 6:18 PM

I’m sorry, but the two top dogs on either side of this war seem to be acknowledging they didn’t exist. I’m willing to believe them.

I’m not. George W. Bush has far too much history ingratiating himself with progressives.

And no, I don’t think GWB lied about this. I don’t think anyone in the administration lied about this in the run up to war. I think someone, probably with some sort of ties to the INC, spun a fairy tale for Doug Feith or one of his friends in the DoD, it made it up the chain via people all too eager to believe the fairy tale, up to GWB, who, by his own admission, had “foreign policy” as a resume weakness…

JohnGalt23 on March 27, 2014 at 6:17 PM

So all the talk about how practically everyone in the world was sure there were WMD’s, everyone was sooo horrified when Saddam used them against the Kurds and earlier the Iranians, none of that matters because after some nine months of dicking around, they didn’t find any after invading for a host of other reasons as well. All that matters to you is the “whoops.” Okay. Whatever. I still think Ron Paul is a hypocritical opportunistic slimeball. Broken clock and all.

gryphon202 on March 27, 2014 at 6:20 PM

He’s running, no matter what they say about his Senate seat. He is running and he is the frontrunner. I think there is a strong chance he wins Iowa and New Hampshire to kick of primary season. Iowa because his team will own the caucus format. New Hampshire because libertarianism will appeal there far more than any more socially conservative candidates.

Can any candidates put up a fight if he wins both of those two?

eski502 on March 27, 2014 at 6:20 PM

We have a very deep bench for the GOP nomination in 2016..We have plenty of Governors with great records..:)

Dire Straits on March 27, 2014 at 6:21 PM

We have a very deep bench for the GOP nomination in 2016..We have plenty of Governors with great records..:)

Dire Straits on March 27, 2014 at 6:21 PM

I see Pence, Walker and Martinez. Martinez is not going to run. Pence and Walker may, but they will be splitting votes with a lot of people (Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, maybe Huckabee, and Carson). Paul sort of has his own unique constituency, as will Christie with “Moderates.”

I think Rand picks off the most people though.

eski502 on March 27, 2014 at 6:24 PM

eski502 on March 27, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Those are some good mentions..You can add Perry Jindal and Daniels to your list also..:)

Dire Straits on March 27, 2014 at 6:28 PM

I think Killery’s team fears Rand most of all because they will never be able to paint him as a “bully” being mean to the little damsel in distress, like they’d do with Christie. Rand just comes across as a gentle, nice guy. That’s gotta be putting the mega-shrill in Killery’s voice backstage. Next to him, she’ll seem harsh and vicious, which pretty much does away with their war on women nonsense.

Rational Thought on March 27, 2014 at 6:29 PM

aqua buddha?

no way jose!

renalin on March 27, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Don’t forget the blimp!!..:)

Dire Straits on March 27, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Love the blimp!! Miss the blimp…

JohnGalt23 on March 27, 2014 at 6:32 PM

JohnGalt23 on March 27, 2014 at 6:32 PM

I’m sure it will be back..:)

Dire Straits on March 27, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Not until Ron is dead and buried and Rand has some experience running an executive branch. He’s just another con artist.

flataffect on March 27, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Another Libertarian on March 27, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Did you just say we mass murdered civilians?

hawkdriver on March 27, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Get to work FUDpuppies!

Murphy9 on March 27, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Scott walker yes, but Sarah Palin’s successes as governor????

Tater Salad on March 27, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Just for you. Palin

News2Use on March 27, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Another Libertarian on March 27, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Did you just say we mass murdered civilians?

hawkdriver on March 27, 2014 at 6:38 PM

More than once on this thread. Funny how many people give me blank stares when I mention that we carpet bombed the shit out of Berlin in WWII, and might have had to do the same to the Japanese mainland had we not dropped the A-bomb on them.

gryphon202 on March 27, 2014 at 7:03 PM

gryphon202 on March 27, 2014 at 7:03 PM

This is where they lose me. Rarely, does another one of the unhinged variety of the libertarians ever call them on their more outrageous comments.

hawkdriver on March 27, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Rand is too radical. If the GOP picks him to run for President, he will fall in the gutter along with McLame and Romney.

Christie for President!!

timberline on March 27, 2014 at 4:20 PM

We are trying to have a serious discussion here.

Use the snarc “/s” next time, othewise people will think you are nuts.

KirknBurker on March 27, 2014 at 8:04 PM

I would take Cruz or Palin before Rand.

Don’t trust Rand Paul on illegal alien amnesty. Also don’t like his foreign policy.

bluegill on March 27, 2014 at 8:07 PM

I think Killery’s team fears Rand most of all because they will never be able to paint him as a “bully” being mean to the little damsel in distress, like they’d do with Christie. Rand just comes across as a gentle, nice guy. That’s gotta be putting the mega-shrill in Killery’s voice backstage. Next to him, she’ll seem harsh and vicious, which pretty much does away with their war on women nonsense.

Rational Thought on March 27, 2014 at 6:29 PM

Great comment! I hadn’t thought of that; I agree with you. And
you know their mantra will be “first female president…its Hillary’s turn!” We had the first black president (actually Bill
Clinton was the first and Obama is only 6% African descent from
what I read), now it will be the “first female”, then comes
“first Hispanic” and/or “first illegal Hispanic” and on and on.

I think Rand Paul can handle anything that is thrown at him in
a calm and decisive manner. I have been following him for over a year and like most everything I see. He sure has a command on
many subjects and if he is asked a question he doesn’t have the
answer to he will say that he doesn’t know much or anything about it instead of stammering around.

Amjean on March 27, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Paul doesn’t get it on illegal immigration, he seems to be in hte pocket of the chamber of commerce on this, and after Obama, the world thinks America is weak. America needs someone strong on foreign policy and we need to secure the border.

searcher on March 27, 2014 at 8:15 PM

I think Killery’s team fears Rand most of all because they will never be able to paint him as a “bully” being mean to the little damsel in distress, like they’d do with Christie. Rand just comes across as a gentle, nice guy. That’s gotta be putting the mega-shrill in Killery’s voice backstage. Next to him, she’ll seem harsh and vicious, which pretty much does away with their war on women nonsense.
Rational Thought on March 27, 2014 at 6:29 PM

I have to disagree with you. I think Rand Paul sometimes comes across peevish and not-ready-for-primetime, especially when he is challenged strongly.

Christie, whom I absolutely detest, is, admittedly, an excellent communicator who exudes great confidence. Ted Cruz is also someone who exudes great confidence and who is unflappable at all times, and can counterpunch very effectively.

bluegill on March 27, 2014 at 8:24 PM

Paul doesn’t get it on illegal immigration, he seems to be in hte pocket of the chamber of commerce on this, and after Obama, the world thinks America is weak. America needs someone strong on foreign policy and we need to secure the border.
searcher on March 27, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Searcher, I with you 100%! I wish more people like you would vote.

VIDEO: Watch Rand Paul try to claim that the GOP can still win after granting illegal alien amnesty:
http://youtu.be/yp6SFRAQVUw

Rand Paul is wrong, wrong, wrong. Not only will mass illegal alien amnesty encourage more illegal immigration, but it will also eventually ensure that we are never again would be never again able to elect a conservative president.

VIDEO: And here watch Rand Paul show his utter contempt for conservatives who support immigration law enforcement and oppose amnesty:
http://youtu.be/pxQjlS7JwMo

Rand Paul says that Texas is turning purple anyway, and that Republicans should stop trying to stop amnesty. And this is a candidate conservatives are supposed to enthusiastically support and work to try to get elected? I don’t think so.

bluegill on March 27, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Hillary/Paul 2016. You saw it here first.

kcewa on March 27, 2014 at 8:46 PM

As long as his illegal immigration stance isn’t as weak as it seems now. Amnesty is a deal breaker for me, period.

hollygolightly on March 27, 2014 at 8:54 PM

If Rand Paul doesn’t realize he has zero-point-zero chance of winning the general election due to his unfortunate choice of parentage, he’s a moron.

If he does realize it, and is running anyway, he’s much worse than a moron: a narcissist.

Splashman on March 27, 2014 at 8:55 PM

To win in the primaries and in the general election Rand will have to spend a lot of time and effort convincing people his foreign policies will not be hopelessly and dangerously unrealistic and idealistic. He must convince people he knows how the real world really works.

If he is anywhere near as unrealistically idealistic as his old man he won’t make the cut. If by chance he does he will lose the general election.

farsighted on March 27, 2014 at 9:14 PM

If Rand Paul doesn’t realize he has zero-point-zero chance of winning the general election due to his unfortunate choice of parentage, he’s a moron.

If he does realize it, and is running anyway, he’s much worse than a moron: a narcissist.

Splashman on March 27, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Rand can simply disavow his father like Obama did for Rev Wright.

Then, he can write a book, Delusions of My Father.

faraway on March 27, 2014 at 9:15 PM

Scott walker yes, but Sarah Palin’s successes as governor????

Tater Salad on March 27, 2014 at 4:28 PM

HA RINOs can be incredibly uninformed.

bw222 on March 27, 2014 at 9:18 PM

HA RINOs can be incredibly uninformed.

bw222 on March 27, 2014 at 9:18 PM

While bashing the Obama administration is fun, you don’t build a movement or presidential campaign on it. How has she converted a single person to the conservative POV?

Tater Salad on March 27, 2014 at 10:06 PM

News2Use on March 27, 2014 at 7:02 PM
bw222 on March 27, 2014 at 9:18 PM

I see the Palinista’s are ou tin force tonight.

Tater Salad on March 27, 2014 at 10:08 PM

Rand Paul will never be President.

Both parties cannot be saved.

We’re going to get a Progressive in the White House just like we’ve had since 1989. It is institutionalized now.

The parties just change the brand they sell us but it’s the same product in a different box.

I tune out this crap more and more everyday.

I busy just trying to figure out how to flourish in this economic famine.

Possum Holler out.

PappyD61 on March 27, 2014 at 10:27 PM

Rand vs the Huckster?

lexhamfox on March 27, 2014 at 10:43 PM

So all the talk about how practically everyone in the world was sure there were WMD’s, everyone was sooo horrified when Saddam used them against the Kurds and earlier the Iranians, none of that matters because after some nine months of dicking around, they didn’t find any after invading for a host of other reasons as well. All that matters to you is the “whoops.” Okay. Whatever. I still think Ron Paul is a hypocritical opportunistic slimeball. Broken clock and all.

gryphon202 on March 27, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Of course, I would note that the rest of the world gets the benefit of the doubt by the virtue of not having participated in the invasion and occupation. And for some of our NATO allies, I think their reasoning (and there may even be public record of it, if I took the time to look) was the evidence wasn’t strong enough.

Well, according to a man who was certain that these would be amongst his last recorded words, there was a reason for it: it was all a smokescreen against Iran. And yeah, if you come down on the wrong side of that one, even in victory, “Whoops” doesn’t quite cut it.

And here’s why “Whoops” doesn’t cut it. Most of us here, and most of the GOP, including Rand Paul, recognize Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a threat that, at some point, will need to be dealt with, either diplomatically, or through war. The problem, especially with the second option, is we blew a whole lot of our credibility over the WMD claims. If at some point we feel the need to move on Iran, i guarantee you are going to hear the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” analogy, and you won’t just hear it once. And that one, we can’t do on our own. It will require some help, and the Saudis and the Israelis likely won’t be enough…

JohnGalt23 on March 27, 2014 at 11:02 PM

Rand Paul says that Texas is turning purple anyway, and that Republicans should stop trying to stop amnesty.

bluegill on March 27, 2014 at 8:38 PM

It’s a tough situation, because the horses have already left the barn, and half the nation (Democrats) won’t cooperate in enforcement. A deal should be made once Republicans gain the Senate, and hopefully the presidency, so that it will be as conservative as possible;
(1) lower legal immigration numbers and orient it towards more European immigrants;
(2) deport as many illegals as you can based on criminal and other technical offenses;
(3) issue the well behaved illegals work visas; finish the fortified fence; no citizenship, no voting. Simply opposing “amnesty” with no solution is a loser in the long run.

cimbri on March 28, 2014 at 12:43 AM

And here’s why “Whoops” doesn’t cut it. Most of us here, and most of the GOP, including Rand Paul, recognize Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a threat that, at some point, will need to be dealt with, either diplomatically, or through war. The problem, especially with the second option, is we blew a whole lot of our credibility over the WMD claims. If at some point we feel the need to move on Iran, i guarantee you are going to hear the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” analogy, and you won’t just hear it once. And that one, we can’t do on our own. It will require some help, and the Saudis and the Israelis likely won’t be enough…

JohnGalt23 on March 27, 2014 at 11:02 PM

Shee-it, son. You’re gonna need a better reason for people to vote for Rand Paul outside of the soundness of his dad’s foreign policy. That dog won’t hunt.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 12:44 AM

It’s a tough situation, because the horses have already left the barn, and half the nation (Democrats) won’t cooperate in enforcement. A deal should be made once Republicans gain the Senate, and hopefully the presidency, so that it will be as conservative as possible;
(1) lower legal immigration numbers and orient it towards more European immigrants;
(2) deport as many illegals as you can based on criminal and other technical offenses;
(3) issue the well behaved illegals work visas; finish the fortified fence; no citizenship, no voting. Simply opposing “amnesty” with no solution is a loser in the long run.

cimbri on March 28, 2014 at 12:43 AM

How about this for a solution? Enforce the damn law before you talk about changing it. I take acception to points two and three of your plan on account of:

A) They’re here illegally. That’s all the reason we need to deport them. Their first “criminal [or] other technical offense” is that they immigrated here illegally.

B) When we can barely put our own citizenry to work, work visas for “well-behaved illegals,” an oxymoron if I ever heard one, shouldn’t even be on the radar. If we can get statistically full employment, 95% or higher, I could at least in-theory be convinced to start thinking about the possibility of bringing in more help from beyond our shores. Until then, it’s a non-starter.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 12:47 AM

While bashing the Obama administration is fun, you don’t build a movement or presidential campaign on it. How has she converted a single person to the conservative POV?

Tater Salad on March 27, 2014 at 10:06 PM

Why don’t you ask Ted Cruz and the class of ’10 that? Palin’s not the problem. She was never the problem. The problem is a ruling class that refuses to heed her advice.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 12:49 AM

Executive experience is a plus, but I don’t think it should be a prerequisite for the Republican nominee. Lack of executive experience isn’t the reason Obama is a failed president, it’s his ideology.

I think Rand Paul can handle anything that is thrown at him in
a calm and decisive manner. I have been following him for over a year and like most everything I see. He sure has a command on
many subjects and if he is asked a question he doesn’t have the
answer to he will say that he doesn’t know much or anything about it instead of stammering around.

Amjean on March 27, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Paul has shown himself to be a smart and savvy politician thus far. Opponents (and the media) haven’t been as successful at defining and demonizing Rand Paul as they have with Ted Cruz. Of course the primary season is an entirely different ballgame.

midgeorgian on March 28, 2014 at 1:11 AM

If he can make it through the Republican primary season with his libertarian credentials mostly intact, he would be a formidable candidate against whoever the Democrats throw up in the general election. Doing so, however, will require some very agile footwork.

Progressive Heretic on March 28, 2014 at 1:14 AM

B) When we can barely put our own citizenry to work, work visas for “well-behaved illegals,” an oxymoron if I ever heard one, shouldn’t even be on the radar. If we can get statistically full employment, 95% or higher, I could at least in-theory be convinced to start thinking about the possibility of bringing in more help from beyond our shores. Until then, it’s a non-starter.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 12:47 AM

Almost all the good jobs are being taken by legal immigrants, H1B, etc. The illegals are mostly doing the bottom rung jobs. They aren’t really the cause of the unemployment problem in America. That’s a structural problem caused by a combination of over regulation, too much legal immigration and free trade that favors cheap labor. You guys really need to focus on the over 1 million legal immigrants per year, instead of 99% of all conservative analysis focused on illegals.

cimbri on March 28, 2014 at 1:48 AM

I’m no Paul fan, but it is absurd to think his immigration position has been “bought off by the Chamber of Commerce.”

Open borders was original Libertarian policy, a core belief which Ron Paul embraced and ran on in his 1988 bid on the LP ticket. He only abandoned it later in the ’90s when it was becoming unpopular in his district after it became evident the 1986 reforms had not worked.

That change was for pure political benefit. I suspect Rand still subscribes to the original LP plank, and the current amnesty proposals are as close as he can safely get to open borders in today’s environment.

Adjoran on March 28, 2014 at 2:58 AM

@cimbri:

I want our immigration policy based on skills, no need to make it based on race.

uatu1878 on March 28, 2014 at 3:12 AM

Almost all the good jobs are being taken by legal immigrants, H1B, etc. The illegals are mostly doing the bottom rung jobs. They aren’t really the cause of the unemployment problem in America. That’s a structural problem caused by a combination of over regulation, too much legal immigration and free trade that favors cheap labor. You guys really need to focus on the over 1 million legal immigrants per year, instead of 99% of all conservative analysis focused on illegals.
cimbri on March 28, 2014 at 1:48 AM

You’re wrong.

I don’t know what part of the country you live in, but illegal aliens are absolutely taking Americans’ jobs in manufacturing, construction, janitorial, etc. So what if they are lower-skill jobs?

Not only that, but in states like California a staggering number of inmates are illegal aliens, and the illegal population results in huge costs to the tax payers:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/09/16/undocumented-la-county-parents-projected-to-receive-650m-in-welfare-benefits/

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with what mass, uncontrolled illegal immigration is doing to public schools in southwestern states.

Democrats may love the promise of tens of millions of new future Democrat voters, and big business may love the cheap labor, but it is dragging us down, costing states like Calif well over $10B a year.

If you want to see many of our cities further resemble second world countries, and if you want to see Mexico continue to dump a significant portion of its poor, unskilled population into our country, then, by all means, vote for a pro-amnesty candidate like Rand Paul.

Mass illegal alien amnesty would be nothing short of national suicide, and would be the gift that keeps on giving for decades to liberals.

bluegill on March 28, 2014 at 3:16 AM

A) They’re here illegally. That’s all the reason we need to deport them. Their first “criminal [or] other technical offense” is that they immigrated here illegally.
B) When we can barely put our own citizenry to work, work visas for “well-behaved illegals,” an oxymoron if I ever heard one, shouldn’t even be on the radar. If we can get statistically full employment, 95% or higher, I could at least in-theory be convinced to start thinking about the possibility of bringing in more help from beyond our shores. Until then, it’s a non-starter.
gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 12:47 AM

Absolutely.

Most Americans oppose illegal alien amnesty. We shouldn’t let anyone tell us that there is a strong desire out there among voters for amnesty or that immigration law enforcement is merely a concern of the conservative “base.”

That’s why pro-amnesty supporters have to lie to voters, hide their true intentions and pay for ads like this:
VIDEO: http://youtu.be/ecrUDjMlf5s. (Gives impression Graham and Rubio are for getting “tough” on illegal aliens)

And here’s a Zuckerberg-funded, fake “conservative” ad that tries to trick voters into thinking the Republican sellout amnesty proposal was what was needed to “get tough” on illegals:
VIDEO: http://youtu.be/l9XRF_kqIN4

The Chamber of Commerce and others are putting a lot of money towards trying to convince conservatives that these amnesty programs are the opposite of what they are.

This is the last issue conservatives should EVER cave on.

bluegill on March 28, 2014 at 3:24 AM

Mass illegal alien amnesty would be nothing short of national suicide, and would be the gift that keeps on giving for decades to liberals.

bluegill on March 28, 2014 at 3:16 AM

Fine, so when are we cranking up the vans and buses to take them back home.
-crickets-

cimbri on March 28, 2014 at 3:53 AM

Looks like Hillary will get to finish things off. Sorry founding fathers, it became inconvenient to be free.

V7_Sport on March 28, 2014 at 4:31 AM

Move to the middle, the right, the left, libertarian-conservative hybrids? When will all the game playing end? Haven’t we had enough with faux candidates, foam pillared and haloed liars, whose values are mere cloning of focus group-speak, who pretend to be what they are not, in order to win a popular election? Aren’t we really sick and tired of candidates that speak of border security, dumping Obamacare, balanced budgets, stopping abortion, and vote the opposite? Do we really think compromising our freedom and our economy away is a virtue?

Where are the men and women with sufficient integrity to run on what they believe, and let the chips fall where they man. If we argue that, being honest and spelling out the reasons why you believe, won’t win an election, then we are also arguing that our system of government is a flop, that can only be left to the best actors, the best image makers, the best liars. If we accept phony leaders merely because we want to win, then we only have ourselves to blame for the mess that we’ve made of this once great nation.

Don L on March 28, 2014 at 6:25 AM

Almost all the good jobs are being taken by legal immigrants, H1B, etc. The illegals are mostly doing the bottom rung jobs. They aren’t really the cause of the unemployment problem in America. That’s a structural problem caused by a combination of over regulation, too much legal immigration and free trade that favors cheap labor. You guys really need to focus on the over 1 million legal immigrants per year, instead of 99% of all conservative analysis focused on illegals.

cimbri on March 28, 2014 at 1:48 AM

I don’t care if they’re the cause of the problem or not. I owe non-citizens nothing, and congress is supposed to represent me. They take care of me and my fellow citizens first. If that means dialing back on the legal immigration for a period of time, then so be it. But don’t even talk to me about legal immigration while we’re not enforcing the laws on our books. There is absolutely an element of the chattering class that wants open borders, and if they can’t get that, they’ll encourage illegal immigration from behind a veil.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 6:57 AM

I didn’t peg Rand initially as someone who had his heart set on the presidency, but maybe I misjudged.

Maybe his motivation is from the heart and not self-serving like most of them.

And maybe that’s why it seemed unlikely that he would run.

Tsar of Earth on March 28, 2014 at 8:02 AM

Maybe his motivation is from the heart and not self-serving like most of them.

And maybe that’s why it seemed unlikely that he would run.

Tsar of Earth on March 28, 2014 at 8:02 AM

Or maybe he’s just another self-serving politician who learned a thing or two from his dad. (cf. Prescott Bush, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush)

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 8:10 AM

I was impressed with his recent speech at Berkeley, though. He targeted young voters with his anti-NSA surveillance message and it resonated. Shrewd.

MichaelGabriel on March 27, 2014 at 4:45 PM

I’m not sure it was required shrewdness. Just a matter of opportunity meeting preparedness (of his true beliefs).

If he reaches critical-mass, it will be built mainly on a perception of trustworthiness. That both trumps and indicates a lot of other qualities for me.

Tsar of Earth on March 28, 2014 at 8:15 AM

If he reaches critical-mass, it will be built mainly on a perception of trustworthiness. That both trumps and indicates a lot of other qualities for me.

Tsar of Earth on March 28, 2014 at 8:15 AM

And if he doesn’t, I’m sure you’ll find a cadre of anonymous voters to blame it on.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 8:16 AM

Or maybe he’s just another self-serving politician who learned a thing or two from his dad. (cf. Prescott Bush, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush)

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 8:10 AM

That’s not my impression from listening to him – a lot.

But, you could be correct… I’ve certainly been fooled before. Twice even.

Tsar of Earth on March 28, 2014 at 8:18 AM

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 8:16 AM

Wow. Sorry I’ve disturbed your Friday.

Tsar of Earth on March 28, 2014 at 8:19 AM

That’s not my impression from listening to him – a lot.

But, you could be correct… I’ve certainly been fooled before. Twice even.

Tsar of Earth on March 28, 2014 at 8:18 AM

You wouldn’t be alone in eagerness to be fooled again. I’ve had about enough.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 8:20 AM

I’ve had about enough.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 8:20 AM

That’s apparent.

Your being particularly nasty with people that may agree with you more than you think. Such as using phrases like “I’m sure” and “You wouldn’t be alone in eagerness” when you presume my behavior.

If your looking for a team that agrees with you 100%, and you lash out when they don’t, then good luck.

Tsar of Earth on March 28, 2014 at 8:29 AM

If your looking for a team that agrees with you 100%, and you lash out when they don’t, then good luck.

Tsar of Earth on March 28, 2014 at 8:29 AM

I’m looking for a team of individuals who believes that following the constitution is more important than looking for the next round of politicians to screw us over. Haven’t found many of those yet.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 8:35 AM

Shee-it, son. You’re gonna need a better reason for people to vote for Rand Paul outside of the soundness of his dad’s foreign policy. That dog won’t hunt.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 12:44 AM

Pardon me, but just where, in Ron’s foreign policy does “Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a threat that, at some point, will need to be dealt with, either diplomatically, or through war” fall? I mean I worked for the man, and I’m pretty sure he had taken war with Oran over nuclear weapons off of the table…

JohnGalt23 on March 28, 2014 at 9:18 AM

JohnGalt23 on March 28, 2014 at 9:18 AM

War with Iran. Jeez.

Does Oran even still exist…?

JohnGalt23 on March 28, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Being in my Dapper Depends mode this morning a few thoughts from the outside looking in.

The last election showed that Republicans can get a majority of the independent, college educated, and moderate voters with a RINO, who was successfully painted as being a severe conservative right winger. Romney was not that, but that is how he was perceived by the voting public and he still won the above mentioned groups of voters. No reason that this should change in 2016. Target your base, white voters, conservatives (I know they are part of the base, but I would make a special effort to get them on board early), and evangelicals with a POSITIVE conservative message and you will be pushing around 46% if you keep the independent, college educated, and moderate voters.

Then continue with a conservative push for minorities, young folks, blue collar voters, and high school educated voters and let the chips fall where they may. Don’t get sucked into running as a conservative in the primaries and then tracking to the center for the general. Stay on message the whole time. You guys just might be surprised and forget about the MSM as they will always be your enemy and print whatever will hurt your guy the most, no matter how you frame your political message. The sticky wicket is how to handle social issues and I would devise a clear and concise message, stay on point, define your positions early and ignore the MSM.

Liberals would love to pander to your base they just can’t figure out how to do that and not turn off their base. Stop running against each other; against Liberals; against the media and so on………run for the American folks with a positive conservative message. What is there to lose as the precipice has already been passed and time to swing for the fence.

Now I am not saying to play nice. It is just fine to run with a positive and honest conservative platform while destroying the others sides policies and pointing out their character flaws. ‘Cause they sure as heck are going to do that against your candidate. You guys can’t stop the lying, vote buying, and fraud….just dig deeper and work harder to win.

What do I know……..I like Mitt on a personal basis. Oh, did I mention wimmen voters and the need for new consultants who know how to win!

HonestLib on March 28, 2014 at 9:33 AM

After reading this former libertarian’s tale of why he fled libertarianism and became a liberal, I couldn’t help but wonder how many other Ron Paul supporters are now admitted liberals (see link). As I pointed out before, many of the Ron Paul supporters wanted Obama to win and I proved that by referencing a quote from a Ron Paul supporter who clearly stated that he was hoping for an Obama victory. This guy just wasn’t any Ron Paul supporter but was a major contributor to the campaign. Why should anyone really be surprised since libertarianism, as described by one commenter, is “a sort of training wheels for being liberal.” Still not convinced? Read what the former libertarian-turned-liberal felt when Obama took the oath of office in 2009.

“Through all the turmoil, the presidential election went ahead. Although I didn’t vote for him, I wept when Barack Obama took the oath of office in early 2009. They were tears of bewilderment, joy, pride and hope, despite the fact that I did everything within my own limited power to keep the moment from ever happening.

From the ashes of the election rose the movement that pushed me from convinced libertarian into bunny-hugging liberal. The Tea Party monster forever tainted the words freedom and libertarian for me. The rise of the Tea Party made me want to puke, and my nausea is now a chronic condition” (see link).

Link: Why I fled libertarianism and became a liberal

Bob Davis on March 28, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Tsar of Earth on March 28, 2014 at 8:29 AM

Read the thread. You have people alluding to and outright calling the US Military and Bush Administration war criminals.

hawkdriver on March 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM

I’m looking for a team of individuals who believes that following the constitution is more important than looking for the next round of politicians to screw us over. Haven’t found many of those yet.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 8:35 AM

BTW, by definition a libertarian IS one that believes in the Constitution and Liberty; even when it isn’t convenient to their own point of view on a subject.

Tater Salad on March 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Unless Palin snags another elected office, I don’t see her succeeding in a presidential run. The MSM would be screaming “QUITTER” and “COWARD” 24 hours a day, no matter how much or how loudly she and her media campaign would explain herself. (And before you accuse me of being a hater, I think she’s a great lady with great potential, but I just believe she shot herself in the foot by resigning from the governorship.)

This could go one of many ways: Rand gets the nomination and has a fighting chance with getting elected (even more of a chance with tapping a female for VP – let’s face it, that would be a factor with today’s electorate); a solidly conservative gets nominated despite the establishment’s efforts to get their anointed one to win, and we hope that the conservative voters in the swing states come out of the woodwork as predicted; or the establishment’s anointed one is nominated, we lose badly again, and the GOP is relegated to hasbeen status for decades. And at that point I hope we’re not demonstrating Einstein’s definition of insanity, again. It’s been way past time to clean house.

TMOverbeck on March 28, 2014 at 10:45 AM

BTW, by definition a libertarian IS one that believes in the Constitution and Liberty; even when it isn’t convenient to their own point of view on a subject.

Tater Salad on March 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Then there are a lot of libertarians that are ignorant of what the constitution is and does.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Then there are a lot of libertarians that are ignorant of what the constitution is and does.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Just as there are a lot of conservatives who don’t know what a conservative approach to government is. The labels everyone tries to use here are becoming ridiculous; a conservative should be a libertarian by definition and a libertarian a conservative.

Tater Salad on March 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Tsar of Earth on March 28, 2014 at 8:29 AM

Read the thread. You have people alluding to and outright calling the US Military and Bush Administration war criminals.

hawkdriver on March 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM

I did. And, as I asserted, on the list of things I agree with gryphon202 (just in this thread) are MSM, Walker, Palin, and WMD (more were found under the Tigris later, correct?).

But I’m not prepared to trash Rand Paul (yet?). One thing I know: He’s out there fighting the fight and he seems real. Motivation? I’m not sure yet but I have some time…

Tsar of Earth on March 28, 2014 at 11:03 AM

But I’m not prepared to trash Rand Paul (yet?). One thing I know: He’s out there fighting the fight and he seems real. Motivation? I’m not sure yet but I have some time…

Tsar of Earth on March 28, 2014 at 11:03 AM

I’m not either. Sounded like you were busting on gryphon for being “nasty” to people when his more animated comments were directed at Another Liberal who called the Bush Administration and the US Military war criminals.

hawkdriver on March 28, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Wait a minute…

hawkdriver on March 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Just as there are a lot of conservatives who don’t know what a conservative approach to government is. The labels everyone tries to use here are becoming ridiculous; a conservative should be a libertarian by definition and a libertarian a conservative.

Tater Salad on March 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM

And while you dither over labels, our constitution goes ignored by the masses and flaunted by the elites in power.

But yeah. Keep up that fight to get elected, Rand!/

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 11:34 AM

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Can you name a candidate you would support?

Buttercup on March 28, 2014 at 11:54 AM

I was especially impressed by Rand Paul’s speech at Howard, no matter how misguided it was. He did another event at another black college during which he met with students to learn more about black issues, but I can’t recall the college.

The Republican party is going to have to win more significant shares of blacks and Latinos, and I give him credit for a least making some small preliminary moves towards that goal. This alone might make him THE candidate to beat in 2016.

Recent history: W won two elections by the narrowest of margins. McCain was toast against History in 2008. Romney was a fine candidate (there are no perfect candidates) and pretty much performed as well as any of the candidates listed here in this forum will, if given the nom, in 2016.

The only exception might be Dr. Carson, simply because you’d have a black Republican against a white Democrat. Whether or not its fair, he’d get a large chunk of the black vote based just on that.

The Bringer on March 28, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Can you name a candidate you would support?

Buttercup on March 28, 2014 at 11:54 AM

President Nullification and Article V for his running mate.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 3:22 PM

It is amazing the difference in a rand Paul thread vs a Ted Cruz thread. Ted Cruz has a tread about a video he made yes we can. Not one supporter from other candidates going there to trash him. A rand Paul thread and we have ted Cruz supporters coming out of the wood to tell us all the ways they think rand Paul is not as good as Ted Cruz. Lol

I am writing this comment here because I have a don’t write on Ted Cruz thread policy on hotair. I am classy like that.

coolrepublica on March 28, 2014 at 4:52 PM

My distaste for Rand Paul is the same as my distaste for all politicians and politics. I think it’s stupid to expect politicians to fix what politicians broke.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 6:17 PM

I am writing this comment here because I have a don’t write on Ted Cruz thread policy on hotair. I am classy like that.

coolrepublica on March 28, 2014 at 4:52 PM

sockpuppet

hawkdriver on March 28, 2014 at 7:04 PM

We have a very deep bench for the GOP nomination in 2016..We have plenty of Governors with great records..:)
Dire Straits on March 27, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Are we talking about a Woodrow Wikson type of Governor, or a Jimmy Carter type of Governor

Brock Robamney on March 28, 2014 at 8:06 PM

If he can make it through the Republican primary season with his libertarian credentials mostly intact, he would be a formidable candidate against whoever the Democrats throw up in the general election. Doing so, however, will require some very agile footwork.
Progressive Heretic on March 28, 2014 at 1:14 AM

He will have to handle his neoconfederate and amnesty issues first

Brock Robamney on March 28, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Can you name a candidate you would support?
Buttercup on March 28, 2014 at 11:54 AM

Does it really matter? You think you have a choice? Guys like Sheldon Adelson and Karl Rove don’t leave those decisions to little people like us. The candidate will be Governor Bridgetender or Governor Dynasty

Brock Robamney on March 28, 2014 at 8:14 PM

I am writing this comment here because I have a don’t write on Ted Cruz thread policy on hotair. I am classy like that.
coolrepublica on March 28, 2014 at 4:52 PM

What’s more interesting is that guys like you give Rand Paul a pass on Amnesty but as for Marco Rubio, he is disqualified. I wonder why that is? Hmmmm?

Brock Robamney on March 28, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Neoconfederate? lol such Proglodyte buzzword these days.

Another Libertarian on March 29, 2014 at 8:31 AM

“Did you just say we mass murdered civilians?”

hawkdriver

I just said that US Soldiers went into a foreign country and murdered people there. The psychopaths who engineer these situations want you to create these kinds of distinctions as to just which people are acceptable to murder, and which are merely collateral damage.

Murder is the issue. The only question is how much went on. The fact it occurred is undeniable.

Another Libertarian on March 29, 2014 at 8:33 AM

Almost all the good jobs are being taken by legal immigrants, H1B, etc. The illegals are mostly doing the bottom rung jobs. They aren’t really the cause of the unemployment problem in America.

Absolutely. The Big-Government Progressive So Cons are being told to worry about unwashed masses flooding the border, in order to paint anyone with an R after their name as a racist. And the “base” never questions this tactic, which makes it easy for the media types to accomplish the smear campaign.

The real trouble is the economy has been destroyed by elites and the government they own. There are no jobs. Half the country has left the overt economy, and more are joining them every day just to survive. How is this going to end?

And still, people who are able to cling to their jobs by their fingernails, barely hanging on and hoping for a return of the old days of the 80′s and 90′s, want to talk about unimportant things. Things like which politician is going to solve the problems that politicians create for their masters.

I like Rand. He’s not a nutjob like most most of these politicians, who think “foreign policy” means starting as many wars as possible. He’s not a bought-and-paid-for crony capitalist (crony socialist) who does the bidding of the socialist corporations that feed at the government teat, destroying business and ruining the economy in the process. He’s not a jack-booted thug like most of the Socialist Conservatives who want to seize the government for whatever reasons they have. But I don’t think it’s going to make a bit of difference in the end.

No politician is going to be able to alter the collapse that’s coming, it’s just time for history to move forward. This is how society evolves- in fits and starts, messily. The old institutions need to change, and the only way vested interest change is by collapse.

That’s the reason the furious money printing, the passage of special laws for special interests, and the mass distraction of foreign policy issues; to keep the entrenched interests entrenched, at the expense of everyone else. That’s why the middle class is dying.

It’s simply the cycle of history, and nobody knows how it is going to come out.

Another Libertarian on March 29, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Murder is the issue. The only question is how much went on. The fact it occurred is undeniable.

Another Libertarian on March 29, 2014 at 8:33 AM

I bet the way we carpet bombed Berlin in WWII really chaps your ass, doesn’t it, Paulbot? And the way we went after those Barbary Pirates 200 years ago must really piss you off, huh? Or is your outrage selective?

gryphon202 on March 29, 2014 at 11:42 AM

As promised. Cruz has moved into the stronger position over Rand.

Bmore on March 29, 2014 at 1:10 PM

“Did you just say we mass murdered civilians?”

hawkdriver

I just said that US Soldiers went into a foreign country and murdered people there. The psychopaths who engineer these situations want you to create these kinds of distinctions as to just which people are acceptable to murder, and which are merely collateral damage.

Murder is the issue. The only question is how much went on. The fact it occurred is undeniable.

Another Libertarian on March 29, 2014 at 8:33 AM

You were there then? You saw this?

hawkdriver on March 29, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Can you name a candidate you would support?

Buttercup on March 28, 2014 at 11:54 AM

President Nullification and Article V for his running mate.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Does it really matter? You think you have a choice? Guys like Sheldon Adelson and Karl Rove don’t leave those decisions to little people like us. The candidate will be Governor Bridgetender or Governor Dynasty

Brock Robamney on March 28, 2014 at 8:14 PM

I can only hope Captain McUnicorn runs so you two will be inspired to take part in our Banana Republic once again.

Buttercup on March 29, 2014 at 3:11 PM

hawkdriver on March 29, 2014 at 1:30 PM

That ones comments seem very leftist to me.

Bmore on March 29, 2014 at 3:29 PM

I can only hope Captain McUnicorn runs so you two will be inspired to take part in our Banana Republic once again.

Buttercup on March 29, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Cause all those people voting have done such a damn fine job of making us more free, haven’t they?/

Seriously, you participate. Are you more free or less free for your trouble now than when you turned 18?

gryphon202 on March 29, 2014 at 5:02 PM

hawkdriver on March 29, 2014 at 1:30 PM

That ones comments seem very leftist to me.

Bmore on March 29, 2014 at 3:29 PM

He’s commented under a different name before.

hawkdriver on March 30, 2014 at 6:14 AM

hawkdriver on March 30, 2014 at 6:14 AM

; )

Bmore on March 30, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3