Why Rand Paul should skip 2016
Fair or not, Paul would be easily cast in that negative light.
Some of it is his fault. His comments to Rachel Maddow about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will be used against him. This, of course, would only confirm the negative narrative his liberal opponents (and their friends in the media) wish to perpetuate. (Note: I get that Rand Paul hates racism — and that his position is a nuanced one. But that won’t matter in our sound bite media culture.)
Some of it’s not his fault. It’s not fair to blame him for the sins of his father, but that won’t stop the media or Paul’s political opponents. It might not be fair for Rep. Ron Paul’s racist newsletters to impact his son’s presidential ambitions — but you know they will.
All of this becomes even more important if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. If that’s the case, you can expect the “war on women” meme to come back in a big way. Already, Mediate is headlining today’s spat as a sort of domestic dispute — “Rand Paul Brutalizes Hillary Clinton.”
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: « Previous 1 2
My guess is that somewhere b/t 50-75 percent of the Ron Paul supporters will be immediately on board with the junior Senator from KY. Of the remainder, the large majority will come on board, once they realize Gary Johnson isn’t going to run again. Maybe 10% are not persuadable. And while those 10% are probably the most likely to give time/money, their efforts will be easily made up for by mainstream conservatives who would have had nothing to do with the old man…
JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Hey whiner – who left the American public so angered at him and so furious at being presented with a “lite” clone that they voted in droves for the worst POTUS in our history? Bush or Paul?
Come up with an original argument already. “Pimping Rand”, sheesh.
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 10:52 AM
Thank for the reply. I can see that being correct.
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 10:53 AM
Some are and some are not. They don’t blindly support someone just because there is an (R) next to their name. Some have shown cation considering Rand’s support for Rombama. It is about actual voting records versus useless rhetoric. Example, Rand actually voted against the fiscal cliff bill while Paul Ryan voted for it. Rand has signaled that he will vote against the debt ceiling increase bill while the “conservative” nominee Paul Ryan voted to increase our debt. Rand actually voted in support of your right to due process while Paul Ryan voted for the NDAA of 2012. You people have look at their actions, not rhetoric.
MoreLiberty on January 24, 2013 at 10:54 AM
How much debt did Bush jr and Bush senior rack up?
Bush Sr racked up $2.5 trillion, Bush Jr racked up just over $5 trillion for a combined total of just under $8 trillion. Bush W also increased the size of our government.
MoreLiberty on January 24, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Republicans can’t go after him on his voting rights act explanation since they would have to say they are against freedom of association. Paul should actually double down on it. Bring the matter up himself where possible instead of letting them wait until there isn’t enough time left before the election. You can have a national debate and set minds right with four years to work with.
Buddahpundit on January 24, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Speaking only for myself, I know he’ll be milder on foreign policy than his father and it doesn’t anger him one single bit. The unpaid NeoCons are nothing to laugh at (at least in terms of voting power), and the military and Jewish lobbies are VERY powerful. Make yourself Public Enemy #1 to all of them and you’re in for a hard time.
The only thing I really don’t like about him is his amnesty position, but to be blunt I don’t see how supporting hard-right immigration policies would do anything at this point but get his career stalled. He cannot let a single issue on which conservatives are basically toothless (no insult intended, that’s just reality) be the one thing that sticks his budding career in the mud forever.
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 10:59 AM
I know this. I was just wanting to see if they will blindly support someone who has Paul in their name
Some have shown cation considering Rand’s support for Rombama. It is about actual voting records versus useless rhetoric. Example, Rand actually voted against the fiscal cliff bill while Paul Ryan voted for it. Rand has signaled that he will vote against the debt ceiling increase bill while the “conservative” nominee Paul Ryan voted to increase our debt. Rand actually voted in support of your right to due process while Paul Ryan voted for the NDAA of 2012. You people have look at their actions, not rhetoric.
MoreLiberty on January 24, 2013 at 10:54 AM
Peace, MoreLiberty. I didn’t ask my question in a spirit of divisiveness, just curiosity. I figured he was more in touch with the Ron Paul supporters than I was. It sounds like you are a cautious supporter, in the 15-30% JohnGault23 was talking about being persuadable.
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 11:02 AM
No predicting anything so far in the future.
Pointless blather.
Whoever secures the borders, upholds existing laws about immigration, and reins in the insane spending by the feds gets my vote.
profitsbeard on January 24, 2013 at 11:03 AM
Good point, and I apologize if I was blunt and/or abrasive. I read many different Pro-Liberty forums that have a substantial amount of RP supporters. Some want nothing to do with Rand, but most support him for the most part. It’s not because of his father, it is because of his actual voting record.
MoreLiberty on January 24, 2013 at 11:05 AM
What do you mean by this?
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 11:06 AM
That he’ll make the necessary motions to placate the perpetual-occupationalists – the coming fiscal cliff is going to do more to pop their balloon than he ever could, anyhow.
He’ll also make sure to play nice with the Israeli lobby, which he’s already started doing.
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 11:10 AM
I suspect that he/she means that Rand Paul is not likely to take to the floor of Congress to berate Israel over issues of how the deal with Gaza.
Which is just fine with me. I kinda like our standard bearer to appreciate the value of smart politics…
JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Exactamundo.
I would be happy as can be if he made a few nice motions to them and then just left the entire Israel/Palestine issue ALONE. Because not only is it the mother of all quagmires, we have more pressing issues than who owns what patch of worthless sand.
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Oh. You mean it doesn’t anger YOU one single bit.
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Ah, concern trolling from establishment Republicans: always good for a laugh.
Run, Rand, run!
Inkblots on January 24, 2013 at 11:31 AM
If you think idesign is an establishment Republican supporter, you are looney.
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM
I was referring to “the guy who was pushing Rubio”, i.e. Lewis, not idesign, whom I wouldn’t know from Adam.
Inkblots on January 24, 2013 at 11:36 AM
It’s fair until Rand Paul openly and definitively rejects his father’s crackpot ideas and supporters.
Knott Buyinit on January 24, 2013 at 11:38 AM
Because his Dad’s a kook??
That’s all I got…..next.
ToddPA on January 24, 2013 at 11:39 AM
At which point you’d whine that he wasn’t doing so often and/or loudly enough.
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 11:39 AM
I know. That whole “government is the problem” and “fiscal responsibility” is just crazy. I mean, does Ron Paul actually think that we should mind our own freaking business? That’s just crazy talk. Oh and how about his belief that countries such as South Korea should be required to secure their own borders – nut job! How dare Ron Paul believe that we shouldn’t redistribute our wealth via foreign aid and military aid. Just crazy, him and that Constitution, not to mention individual liberty, should just go away.
MoreLiberty on January 24, 2013 at 11:54 AM
Rand should contest ’16. But he’ll lose. Thats ok. Hes trying to nuance his statements between the GOP base and the Paulians. Why do I think he’ll lose the primaries in ’16? The second he states any of his pappys foreign policy, the GOP primary opponents will beat him with that stick till he crashes out. By ’20 or ’24, he’ll beef up his resume, and be formidable in his skills. He’ll know when and where to take the nuance between the GOP base and the Paulians, and its limitations. In a word, formidable.
tommy71 on January 24, 2013 at 12:12 PM
Not sure if it was intended, but thanks for the candor. Rand Paul is Ron Paul, but he hides it behind his rhetoric and lies about who he is inside.
He will always be a loser in the presidential realm if what you indicate is true.
astonerii on January 24, 2013 at 12:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2