Politico
Rand Paul: A libertarian Republican candidate could bring voters back to the GOP
Paul added that there are major areas of concern for the party, noting “we are not popular and we have not been competitive out in California, on the West Coast, or in New England.”
And his particular brand of conservatism could play well in those regions and with other voters who may not currently identify with the Republican Party, Paul said.
“So we think a little more of a libertarian Republican, someone who is a strict Constitutionalist, but also believes in a strong, defensive military but not necessarily in an overly aggressive or bellicose lets get involved in everybody’s civil war military, I think that has more appeal to independents and some people who have given up in the Republican Party,” Paul said.
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 Next »
I am liking this guy more and more.
VegasRick on January 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM
I have never understood this idea of selling Conservatism. It is a world view; a belief system. You either agree with it or you don’t. You don’t need to say, “Vote for us because we’ll take care of you.” That’s the Democrat/Liberal bullcrap. We care about Conservative values including a small federal government that leaves citizens alone, self-reliance, personal responsibility, and citizens taking care of each other without bloated government bureaucracies getting in the way.
The only thing we need is a politician who ACTUALLY BELIEVES THESE THINGS. It’s not about failing to “articulate” them properly, it’s about actually running a candidate who knows them frontwards and backwards because they live them everyday.
Living4Him5534 on January 21, 2013 at 10:12 AM
Go git ‘em, Senator!
JohnGalt23 on January 21, 2013 at 10:14 AM
He’ll sound a little too cute for his own good if he tries to finesse his way into the White House. But I suppose he’ll have to figure that out by himself.
Seth Halpern on January 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Yep!
ButterflyDragon on January 21, 2013 at 10:17 AM
yes he can, a happy compromise where social conservatives are left alone and respected while at the same time a combative approach to the corrupt political machine Obama and the left are creating is the future for the GOP.
rob verdi on January 21, 2013 at 10:21 AM
Yes. But speaking as a (small ‘L’)libertarian I know that would only lose more Social Cons to the Constitution Party.
Browncoatone on January 21, 2013 at 10:33 AM
2016 will be the year of the third-party conservative candidate.
Trying to bring voters back to the GOP is an exercise in futility, and wastes valuable time. The GOP is not interested in winning – so let them continue push their libs and progressives, like Christie, Rubio and Jeb Bush.
Any libertarian or conservative who is interested in making a 2016 presidential run, must break away from the GOP and give voters a clearly different choice.
There is no time to waste – the campaigns must start now.
Pork-Chop on January 21, 2013 at 10:37 AM
Thing is, what’s the “strict constitutionalist” presidential candidate going to say when he’s pressed on the Federal Reserve, or the IRS, or entitlements, or the debt ceiling, or if we have a string of terrorist attacks here? Reagan and Dubya both tried to blend libertarianism with social conservatism, but neither touched the alleged corporate/welfare state; and it’s a touchstone of libertarian thinking that a strong military inevitably erodes domestic liberties.
Anyway I guess the weed growers will have something extra to cheer about.
Seth Halpern on January 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM
Mmmhmm.
Jeddite on January 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM
Missing from his analysis: that actual libertarian party candidates in these area do even worse than the GOP ones.
A better approach: traditional conservative values, with candidates who actually believe and can articulate them, would fair far better than trying to compete with democrats either fiscally or socially.
Rebar on January 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Constitution Party? Lol.
Far more likely to stay at home.
MetaThought on January 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM
There are still quite a few “LOFOS” out there who still believe Obama is a small-government feller. Agree with Pork-Chop, the message needs to be clear and the messenger ought start riding around the country right now.
ahlaphus on January 21, 2013 at 10:47 AM
You’re kidding right? I don’t care much for Senator Paul but he is at least going through the GOP and trying to change it. That’s how you win. Any “third party” candidate would splinter the movement and divide votes up between the GOP candidate and any other consersative candidate. The Dem loser (look at their upcoming bench, they have no one spectacular) will have an easy victory.
thebrokenrattle on January 21, 2013 at 10:48 AM
One thing a libertarian R candidate would HAVE to do is push legalizing weed to the back burner, or at the very least say leave it to states. Make it front & center and the vast majority of conservatives will be turned off, attitude shift on HotAir notwithstanding.
As for foreign policy? Openly admit that the Bush Wars have accomplished all they are going to and the troops have suffered under Obama, and have the guts to end them. And end the NEW occupations Obama started up, every darn one.
End foreign aid to everywhere but Israel. Stow the bleeding heart BS, we’re broke. Aid to Israel a necessary sop to the unpaid Zionists who’ll instantly try to frame the candidate as another “Not-zee j00 h8r”. There, I said it.
CP is a bunch of dittoheads with the tactical sense of a lobotomized badger. Libertarians can legitimately say they’ve accomplished more.
MelonCollie on January 21, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Senator Paul is the only one worth voting for right now. He is showing leadership in an inspired way. Like what I see so far.
Panther on January 21, 2013 at 10:50 AM
As much as I would LIKE to agree with you I can’t. We have utterly lost the battle on messaging; liberals have made ‘free stuff’ more attractive than freedom and we’ve yet to really push back on that message.
If we can’t make it plain to John Q. Simpleton why freedom is a better way, the Democrats will win simply because their d@mn fool utopia sounds better to enough voters.
MelonCollie on January 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM
A one term senator?
I’d rather he did a term or two as a Governor, and see how that goes, before giving him the top job.
Rebar on January 21, 2013 at 11:01 AM
I like Rand Paul, but, Rand’s own father said basically the same thing – Ron Paul ran for the GOP nomination last year because he said that he was “trying to save the Republican Party” – it was one of the dumbest things Ron Paul ever said, and it is just as dumb coming from Rand Paul.
The GOP keeps veering to the left, in hopes of winning over liberals and dems and re-igniting the interest of conservative minded voters – it is not going to work. Rubio is a perfect example of the path to failure that the Republican Party has chosen for itself – conservatives and libertarians have a lot more to offer America than the GOP will ever allow.
If third party conservative and/or liberatarians start running now, and run 24/7, 4-year campaigns against democrats and Republicans, responding real-time to every move made by both parties – they will be able to distinguish themselves and give voters a clear, viable choice – but they have to start now.
Pork-Chop on January 21, 2013 at 11:02 AM
California is gone forever. It will never again be carried by a Republican presidential candidate.
xblade on January 21, 2013 at 11:03 AM
I agree with Rand. The poll showing 80% of voters believe government spending is out of control shows he is right. Individual liberty is the key because it takes social issues out of the discussion. Abortion is evil and gay marriage is Biblically wrong, but nothing we do is going to save those wretches anyway. Let the churches minister to them outside of government.
Jaibones on January 21, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Add to that abortion was made by the SCOTUS and will either only be undone by the SCOTUS or governors outright declaring it unlawful in their state, which would (IIRC) be flat-out treason and a declaration of you-know-what.
Gay marriage is also a product of our long-rotten culture, not some recent round of stupidity, and it will not be defeated with a few repealed laws. The closest we can come to ending its depraved power in one fell swoop would be to get the gov’t out of marriage, which it should be anyway, thereby defanging the perverts’ biggest weapon.
MelonCollie on January 21, 2013 at 11:08 AM
Bullshiite. Large parts of this state are solidly GOP, and suburban LA and SFO voters are are primed to vote for fiscally responsible legislators. What they don’t want to hear in Manhattan Beach or Lamorinda is that rape is part of God’s plan, or that queers getting married is somehow a threat to heterosexual marriage.
It’s called salesmanship. And it’s something the GOP clearly needs to work on…
JohnGalt23 on January 21, 2013 at 11:09 AM
So would I, frankly, but we’ve got who we’ve got.
MelonCollie on January 21, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Once again, third party candidates do not win.
xblade on January 21, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Keep telling yourself that. I don’t blame you by the way. I’d lie to myself too if I lived in that state.
xblade on January 21, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Headline should read
Rand Paul, stealth paultard, finally outs himself.
Forward to full on stupidity! Post haste!
astonerii on January 21, 2013 at 11:14 AM
Not making idiotic comments about rape is not salesmanship, it’s basic speech skills. Something which neither side does well on but the Democrats have their media flunkies to cover.
As for gay marriage, what people like you want to pretend is that things will stop at gay ‘marriage’. But there is ample evidence that you will be coming after churches, individuals, and businesses for refusing to acknowledge/sponsor/host a demented pervert whose lifestyle goes against their faith.
MelonCollie on January 21, 2013 at 11:15 AM
Fixed.
MelonCollie on January 21, 2013 at 11:16 AM
They don’t win because nobody’s willing to try them. Instead you insist on trying to fix a party that is as fixable as a glass vase dropped from the top of the Empire State Building.
MelonCollie on January 21, 2013 at 11:17 AM
As I said a while back, Rand Paul has two legitimate directions he can take.
One, Ron Paul.
Two, full progressive as he lashes out against the conservatives.
It looks to me he is going full on paultard, but there is still the likelihood he will go progressive and drop the only thing he has in common with quality conservative, fiscal responsibility.
He promotes every social idea that ensures there will be legions of voters needing a hand out from government and fails to see how that works against fiscal responsibility.
Same problem with every libertarian I have ever met. Always just a matter of time before they out themselves.
astonerii on January 21, 2013 at 11:19 AM
Nah, he is no neo con, far far worse than one of those…
astonerii on January 21, 2013 at 11:19 AM
Your denial and demented ultra-right sorea$$ wingnut ‘analysis’ is not fooling anyone but yourself.
MelonCollie on January 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM
Could do. Isn’t Rand Paul pro-life and against gay marriage? He seems much more conservative than libertarian.
sauldalinsky on January 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM
\
astonerii’s whackery notwithstanding, you’re absolutely right. He’s figured out that the libertarians have degenerated too far into pot-love and isolation, and is reaching out to the beleaguered conservatives.
MelonCollie on January 21, 2013 at 11:25 AM
So, instead, you choose to speak on matters that you clearly are not qualified to speak on?
Explains a lot…
JohnGalt23 on January 21, 2013 at 11:30 AM
Not really concerned about him being a one term senator. Beats the heck out of those who have made it a career. If you want someone who has made the beltway their home, go for it but I wouldn’t think you would get more than just status quo.
Panther on January 21, 2013 at 11:32 AM
What’s his views on illegals? From what I recall he supports amnesty. My community has been destroyed by illegals and there is no way I can support someone who just wants to give citizenship away.
moonsbreath on January 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM
I can’t say for sure, but I’m wondering if he’s trying not to be pigeonholed with a crowd that hasn’t been able to even get existing laws enforced let alone a fence built…
Or in other words, I think he’s going to give lip service to avoid leftist fire when conservatives can’t even put up a fight on the issue.
MelonCollie on January 21, 2013 at 11:48 AM
All agreed. Point being none of that matters if we continue down this road of National Suicide and go bankrupt. Libertarian ideals have great value in many cases. Libertarians themselves … not so much.
Jaibones on January 21, 2013 at 11:56 AM
Don’t I know it. A handful of brilliant debaters and philosophers surrounded by a gaggle of wannabe-hippies who’ve fried half their brain cells before they turn 30.
MelonCollie on January 21, 2013 at 12:05 PM
Evidence indicates that he is doing precisely what I indicated previously he would. Headed straight for paultard land.
astonerii on January 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM
Fiscal conservatism makes sense. But, some are hypocritical about it. They supposedly want the govt held to a tight budget, but they want to hand blank checks to the Pentagon with no questions asked.
Then, the socons have to show up with their 1950 attitude, and want to use the govt to shove that down everyone’s throat. Live that way if you want, but mind your own business.
Moesart on January 21, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Spoken like a true blue loon.
The military is the ONE aspect of government that is spelled out in the Constitution…
Then there is your non conservative argument about 1950′s. Conservatism as an ideology works for all times.
Here is what your argument sounds like to me.
Fiscal conservatism, or just simply, modesty in spending is a good thing. We do not need to ensure our way of life through our military, if someone wants to set us back decades at a time with attacks, it is far better than spending a nominal 5% of GDP on defense. Then there is this matter of social issues. We should let people self destruct with the assurances that the government has their back financially with the welfare state.
As an intelligent argument, it fails utterly. You want to restrain spending by the government, while increasing the risk to our markets through reduced military budgets and desire to increase the number of leeches who will vote more and more and more for the welfare state because they have destroyed their opportunities to make a great life for themselves, a modest life living off other people’s labors is a better choice for them.
Sorry charlie, the only people you are preaching to are the paultard crowds who will have you enslaved in no time if they had their way.
astonerii on January 21, 2013 at 12:41 PM
FTFY, you SocLib anarchist.
Don’t like a nation with traditional morals and standards? Leave. Don’t try to turn the USA into a replica of Sodom and Gamorrah that our families have to endure just because you want your perverted fantasies made ‘normal’.
MelonCollie on January 21, 2013 at 12:55 PM
The “paultard crowds”, you drooling wingnut, have absolutely no interest in enslaving people who have all the self-control of an 8th-grade boy locked in a room full of back issues of Playboy.
We would be quite happy in simply making Moesart and others like him keep his demented fantasies in his bedroom and not be able to hold pride parades down Main Street.
MelonCollie on January 21, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Of course they have no interest in enslaving people. They are just too freaking stupid to not ACCOMPLISH IT.
I agree with you totally about social issues. Leave us the power to keep the perverts in the closet and I am happy to let them live their lives out of sight and mind of my children.
astonerii on January 21, 2013 at 1:05 PM
We agree then. Third parties do not win. Thank you for proving my point.
xblade on January 21, 2013 at 1:06 PM
Ah, good. Another politician telling us that the only way for the Republican Party to be successful is to abandon conservatism. Oh, sure, he’s coming from the libertarian side rather than the liberal side. But, ultimately, it’s the same BS: “conservatism won’t sell, so if you want the GOP in power, you need to sell something else.”
Which is patently, demonstrably false. I can’t believe that we actually have run candidates like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney and then want to argue that our problem is that conservatism has failed. Conservatism has succeeded every time it has been tried. Whether you want to talk about Reagan, or the 1994 Congressional elections, or the 2010 Congressional elections, or any of many others… when the GOP runs conservative, we win.
The GOP has abandoned conservatism. That’s the problem. The problem is not to move into a totally different philosophy from what the GOP was founded on, be it liberalism or libertarianism. The solution is to return to conservatism.
Shump on January 21, 2013 at 1:17 PM
Well, clearly I know more about the state than you if you think there’s a secret population of Republican voters just waiting in the wings to vote for the right candidate, lol. What red herring excuse will you throw up 4 years, 8 years, 50 years from now when the republican candidate loses California by 25 points again?
On second thought, you’re probably right….if only we can come up with a Republican candidate who rejects everything the party stands for, he might have a chance. Until then, the state will continue to settle for the party that already does that for them…the democrat party.
Your state is gone….forever. No amount of wish casting is going to change that.
xblade on January 21, 2013 at 1:20 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »