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: 1 2 Next »
I’m no big Rand Paul fan but this article by Lewis is dumb. Why doesn’t he just come out and state who he is supporting instead of playing games?
Blake on January 24, 2013 at 8:57 AM
Rand Paul should skip this advice.
crrr6 on January 24, 2013 at 8:57 AM
GOP is one moderate away from obscurity…
mjbrooks3 on January 24, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Won’t be any better in 2020 or 2024.
The Dems have seen that the “Kill Romney” playbook works. It will be character assassination, class warfare, war on wimmins, etc., Smear ‘n Fear from here on out. And not just in presidential campaigns.
Hillary will be old (late sixties), fat (unless she hales off to a fat farm in the near future), and unattractive (unless she gets another lift – and yes, if you compare pictures from 2007 to 2012, she did get a firm-up, which the fat is beginning to pull down).
She won’t have Obama’s personality cult, either.
Wethal on January 24, 2013 at 9:01 AM
Hillary will have a personality cult — you just described ‘em. I go to church with a flock of them every day, and facts are secondary to how they feel about who they’re voting for. It’s like the Pick-a-little/Talk-a-little ladies from The Music Man, I tell ya.
BritCarGuy on January 24, 2013 at 9:05 AM
Isn’t this the guy who was pushing Rubio?
idesign on January 24, 2013 at 9:06 AM
Paul is making people nervous already?
Too funny.
gophergirl on January 24, 2013 at 9:11 AM
Just 10 weeks after the 2012 Presidential Election and we see evidence of both Rubio and Jindal imploding into Amnesty Squish….they are done.
Paul, because of his principles, is emergent and will be a giant on the right by mid 2015.
Shaughnessy on January 24, 2013 at 9:13 AM
Isn’t it a bit early for the media to be picking the GOP candidate?
Mr. Arkadin on January 24, 2013 at 9:15 AM
“Because it’s not his turn”
“Because he’s too polarizing”
“Because he’s unelectable”
“Because, fair or not, the media will demonize him”
I know! Let’s nominate another moderate Republican who ignores and insults a large portion of his base. It’s just GOTTA work this time.
DrAllecon on January 24, 2013 at 9:16 AM
You’re probably right. Funny how we’re poised to have the exact opposite problem of 2016 as 2012, from picking out the least bad candidate in a bad field to picking out the best candidate in an excellent field, while they seem perfectly happy to select Hillary because the rest of their field is a joke. Hopefully, that dope Biden makes some noise.
I’m not totally convinced she’ll run, but she probably will. Even if the country is a further wreck than it is now (a practical certainty under this madman), I have no confidence in the electorate to hold Democrats accountable through the media whitewashing.
crrr6 on January 24, 2013 at 9:18 AM
It will be interesting to see if and how the Dems do the “it’s the next in line’s turn,” because if Biden is actually serious, whose turn is it next?
And does Obama really want the Clinton circus back in town? Does he want another “The era of big government is over” Clinton?
Will Hillary want to run on Obama’s economic and foreign policy record (Ok, he “ended” the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Will Obamacare be collapsing into a disorganized mess by then?
Wethal on January 24, 2013 at 9:19 AM
in the span of a couple of days matt writes a column first touting rubio for 2016 and now attempting to discredit rand paul.
the gope is too predictable.
LiB
renalin on January 24, 2013 at 9:21 AM
Heh.
Patrick Ishmael on January 24, 2013 at 9:22 AM
Paul should not sit out in ’16. Although he’ll end up losing at the primaries, he should contest. That’ll give him a dependable chance of winning in ’20 or ’24.
tommy71 on January 24, 2013 at 9:22 AM
I assume she’ll keep the buzz alive just to stay in the spotlight. This is the first time in years that a Clinton has not been in a public office or been a public official. It’s just Big Dawg and his foundation now. Obama got what he needed out of Bubba for the campaign.
Once Hillary is out, why shouldn’t he look for someone who will carry on the Obama, rather than Clinton, legacy. If Slow Joe doesn’t want to run, watch for a “health issue,” so he he has to resign and Obama can have a new VP in place.
Wethal on January 24, 2013 at 9:22 AM
If you insist on No More Bushes, it makes sense to insist on No More Pauls.
thebrokenrattle on January 24, 2013 at 9:23 AM
IT’S A CONSPIRACY!
Rand/Ron 2016
“We’ll get kentucky!”
Woohooo
Flapjackmaka on January 24, 2013 at 9:23 AM
Execrable.
steebo77 on January 24, 2013 at 9:25 AM
When will we stop cowering, running from the fight, allowing them to tell us what we can and cannot say because we’re so afraid they’ll attack us. Instead of strategizing how to avoid the fight, we should be focusing on how to win it. Our default position should be offense, not defense. Instead of cowering and groveling, we should welcome the fight to advance our positions. They play small-ball; we play large-ball. Bring it.
petefrt on January 24, 2013 at 9:28 AM
Looks like someone is nervous that Paul is positioning himself well to the right of boyfriend Rubio.
Kataklysmic on January 24, 2013 at 9:31 AM
I didn’t think Paul was all that strong on the illegal crackdown himself:
http://www.therightscoop.com/rand-paul-wants-eventual-path-to-citizenship-for-illegal-immigrants/
KickandSwimMom on January 24, 2013 at 9:34 AM
In other words, nominate another big government statist like Romney, McCain or dole. Maybe nominate one that is brown, like say Rubio. He’s brown and is a pawn to the neocons and statist.
MoreLiberty on January 24, 2013 at 9:35 AM
Blake on January 24, 2013 at 8:57 AM
What, you didn’t know? It’s f**king Rubio. You heard it here first if Rubio runs in 2016, Matt Lewis will be that year’s (2016) version of Jen Rubin.
HerneTheHunter on January 24, 2013 at 9:35 AM
Cram it up your poop chute Lewis. Rand will be dealing with people trying to frame him as a clone of his father probably for his entire life, just for STARTERS.
If he doesn’t run because he’s afraid of Neocons and the leftist base calling him names, may he end his career a friendless coward.
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 9:37 AM
A Paul didn’t give us Obama, so there goes that comparison.
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 9:38 AM
It’s Jeb’s “turn, at least one assumes the RINOs, Bushies, Rockefeller Republicans think so. So if Jeb decides not to run, watch him give Rubio his “place in line.”
Wethal on January 24, 2013 at 9:39 AM
Rand Paul is a new character for the cult of personality types. THe really funny thing is that the same people arguing that he should not be tarnished with the sins of the father like him because of his father (unearned reputation) and when ever he moves more towards his father’s known positions they come out to talk about how much more they like the man…
Are they the same people who were attacking everyone that was against the Romney candidacy? Someone should do some research… Perhaps it is a 5th column group meant to destroy the party.
astonerii on January 24, 2013 at 9:43 AM
Yes, we here in KY are much happier with our other Senator, Mitch the Bitch….(extreme sarcasm)
Clink on January 24, 2013 at 9:44 AM
What was America like during this President Paul administration?
Jeddite on January 24, 2013 at 9:44 AM
Obviously, because the GOP thinks they can win by pandering to amnesty seekers and non-tax-paying liberals by pushing Marco “It’s My Turn, So America Be Damned” Rubio to the front of the pack.
Pork-Chop on January 24, 2013 at 9:45 AM
Yes, we here in KY are much happier with our other Senator, Mitch the Snitch…(extreme sarcasm)
My original moniker for Mitch rhymed with snitch but Hot Air disallowed the post. PC…even here?
Clink on January 24, 2013 at 9:46 AM
I thought it was
Jeb Bush’sChris Christie’s turn. I get so confused.DRayRaven on January 24, 2013 at 9:48 AM
What was America like during this President Paul administration?
Jeddite on January 24, 2013 at 9:44 AM
So the no dynasties rule only applies to the presidency? Papa Paul shouldn’t have been elected dogcatcher.
thebrokenrattle on January 24, 2013 at 9:49 AM
Seriously? We’re still acting like there’s some elusive candidate out there who won’t be targeted for destruction by the Democrat/media complex? Let me make it simple for those who apparently still don’t get it after the last 2 Presidential elections. No matter who the GOP nominates in 2016, that individual will be labeled racist, sexist, and homophobic. They’ll be accused of being a warmongerer, a puppet of big business, a destroyer of the environment, and a murderer of senior citizens. Don’t be surprised BTW to see the deaths of young children thrown into the mix since the 2016 Republican nominee will presumably be strong on gun rights.
So all that being the case, who would you rather have as your candidate? Someone who “brutalizes Hillary Clinton” on national TV or a squish who prefaces nearly every criticism of their opponent by emphasizing what a nice guy he is or how we have nothing to fear if he were elected President instead? Because we tried the latter and got our asses handed to us both times. Personally, I want someone who’s not only a genuine fiscal conservative, but also a person who can articulate those beliefs and isn’t afraid to confront the Democrats head-on. Right now, I have serious doubts about Rubio and Jindal meeting those standards. Ryan I’m wavering on based on his voting record. Rand Paul has only been in the Senate for 2 years, but I like what I’ve seen and heard thus far. If our nominee is gonna come from Congress, he’d be my top choice right now.
Doughboy on January 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM
Rubio = Jeb by Proxy.
steebo77 on January 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM
As opposed to what, brokenrecord, all the dynasties in the useless GOP?
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM
Stupid. Get out of the way, Rand. Don’t you know it’s Jeb’s turn? Mixed with a little of, “but we can’t nominate anybody that actually stands for something because the media will tear him to shreds.”
Time to get with reality here: the media is a propaganda machine Goebbels would envy. They’re going to tear apart anybody and everybody we support because it works. We nominated the most electable centrist, and he was called everything from a dog abuser to a murderer by a Communist press corps that somehow still manages to look themselves in the mirror each morning. I’m far from a Palinista (I just don’t see how some can consider a self-described feminist as the epitome of all that is conservative) but we need to wake up and realize that what was done to her isn’t a failing in her own personality, but a template for taking down any Republican candidate. Rubio will receive it just as well as Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, Bob McDonnell or even Barry’s butt-buddy Chris Christie.
So, if we work from the understanding that the media is going to trash anybody and everybody, then time to start nominating those who are going to fight the vast statist organization that is facing them. I don’t know what candidate I will be supporting in 4 years time, or even if we will be in anything even remotely resembling our current Constitutional Republic by then. I do know though that in that spectacle yesterday, Rand Paul turned out to be the only one even remotely worth watching.
Gingotts on January 24, 2013 at 9:57 AM
Y’know, if Rand Paul was running for the 14th Congressional District in Texas, I think I would agree with you. However, as Rand serves in both a different office and in a different state, and Ron was never President, I dont think the “dynasty” rule really applies here.
Of course, I’m not a fan of the Udalls in Colorado and New Mexico… so there’s that.
Jeddite on January 24, 2013 at 9:58 AM
Email today from Rand Paul:
petefrt on January 24, 2013 at 10:12 AM
Rand could use a term or two as a Governor.
But this idea that he’s somehow more vulnerable to the media is ludicrous. Anyone who runs on the GOP ticket will be made to look like a monstrous far right wing fanatic by the lickspittal
mediademocrat propaganda machine.Rebar on January 24, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Yes, we are so fixated on national politics we forget there are over 30 Republican governors out there fighting the good fight right now. We shouldn’t skip over them when choosing a nominee.
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 10:17 AM
If that goes through, that would be teh awesome
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 10:18 AM
Daaaaaayum! Go Rand Paul!
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 10:21 AM
The progressives are going demonize whoever we pick.
The Progressives are going to this…they are going to do that…they are going to kick our ass again. I am sick of hearing that. We need to go on the offensive. We need to start to think about what we are going to do to progressives and stop worrying about what they are going to do to us. Sort of a play off Gen. Grant’s great line about Gen. Lee at the Wilderness.
Now we need to find our General Grant…or better yet our version of Sherman! (No offense intended to Southern folk…I am just saying our side could use someone like him now).
William Eaton on January 24, 2013 at 10:22 AM
I would prefer a governor, but we need to be given some quality choices unlike what happened in 2012. Daniels sat it out. Perry jumped in pretty late and was unprepared. Huntsman….nuff said. Romney was a governor, but it was in a deep blue state and his signature piece of legislation spawned Obamacare. So if anything, his gubernatorial record was a weakness and not a strength with the conservative base.
I hope Scott Walker considers running in 2016. His record is outstanding. He’s obviously shown his willingness to stand up to the left. And he hails from a bluish state which means he’s able to appeal to conservatives, independents, and disaffected Democrats. There are other solid governors out there, but he’d be my #1 choice from that field.
Doughboy on January 24, 2013 at 10:30 AM
No Paul, pere or fils, voted for NCLB or Medicare Part D, either…
JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2013 at 10:42 AM
JohnGalt23, what is your feeling about how the Ron Paul supporters feel about Rand? Open to the possibility? He is just like anyone else not affiliated with Ron? Ready to shift their support and enthusiasm to him?
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 10:45 AM
So… no Duncan Hunter Jr? No Barry Goldwater Jr? I guess the Taft family is right out…
JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2013 at 10:48 AM
I’ll be honest, I really don’t care about “dynasties”, I don’t care if someone’s father or brother or whatever was in congress or the White House. The Adams family (heh) had two fine presidents early in the republic’s history. Im just tired of seeing the same people who yell for No More Bushes! pimping Rand, Son of Ron for the Big Job.
thebrokenrattle on January 24, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »