The New and Improved Republican Candidate?

Sorry. It's still too soon.

Randy's quirky ways separate him from the party's constipated fossils and goes far beyond his honestly acknowledging that the Dub's Iraq War was a monumental disaster, and demolishing the craven Cheney's feeble attempt to transfer the blame.

When an unarmed, young Black man was shot to death by police in Fergison, Missouri, Paul readily sympathized that “If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But I wouldn’t have expected to be shot. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.”

And he spoke directly to the party's Angry White Guys when he confronted their chronic denial:

“Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention.”

​

The fuddy duddies that run the GOP like his fellow Kentuckian Turtle McConnell and the high rollers such as Carrot Top Adelson that bankrolls his political minions to satisfy his acquisitive agenda and foreign interests are not about to let Paul become their 2016 Willard, but by 2020, the party may have almost caught up to him and the American people.

Despite their both being about 5'8" tall, he may not see eye to eye with Punk McCain's bellicose little buddy in matters such as wholesale spying on Americans and mindlessly resorting to expensive military aggression as the centrepiece of US international relations, but they obviously agree on one thing:

 

Paul is staying in contention which is a bit of a surprise to me so far.

He is definitely painting himself as a different breed of republican yet not so far out of the mainstream that he will discourage a large number of voters. That was something his father had a problem with.

Paul seems to have become a better politician than his dad was.

This election seems to have more solid candidate than we saw in 2012.

 

Paul could win if 10 people stay in the race since he's the only libertarian-minded candidate running, but that won't happen. He definitely has a ceiling since the GOP is a lot more hawkish than him as a whole. His biggest problem is that ISIS is running around wild in the Middle East and the other candidates will use that problem to compare his foreign policy to the Obama/Clinton foreign policy. With the economy improving I believe foreign policy will play a much bigger role in this election. If he had a more moderate foreign policy, like Ted Cruz's, I think he would do much better. I don't think the GOP base differs from the American public very much in terms of foreign policy. They want to kill the enemy, using troops where necessary, but don't want to engage in nation building. It appears that Paul is too hesitant to use troops while Bush and Rubio are too willing to get involved in nation building.

 

Were it not for Rand being plastered all over for years in my state and thus being in the limelight for years, which has allowed many here to see him in action and wish he would simply go away....I might have voted for him. As it is I consider him to be a different shade of obstruction and stupidity.

If that is the best Republicans have to offer..I'm staying home and prepping for the HillBill nightmare we will end up with.

Sad thing is, he probably is our best right now...the other guys are nutjobs and pathetic clones.

 

I'm just curious, but what positions did he support, bills author etc that you found obstructionist and stupid?

 

For some reason, conservative donors LOVE the Bush family. The conservative donors dictate the candidate.

Not sure why the extreme conservatives loved GWB so much...he spent more than most liberals.

 

They don't, just the war hawks.

 

Old money*

 

The stupidity of filibuster for drones would be one.
His position on Coal and Kentucky another.
Abortion while pretending to be an M.D....civil rights, economics, the Fed.....pick a few.

 

So you're ok with drone stikes against US citizens?

We have lots of coal. You actually like skyrocketing energy costs?

His views on all of these are actually better than most. Are you saying you'd rather have someone like Hillary as President?
If so, that's incredibly sad for America if anyone else feels as you do.

 

Are you trying to say that the US government is ruled by idiots?

They live better than you, their children don't go to war like yours do, they enjoy a recognition and you still living in complete indifference by the rest, and you still suggesting that these men are stupid or something similar?

I think that if they are currently in those positions, that surely they are smarter than you... even when appearances might show different or the contrary... surely they are smarter than you...

 

This outsider of both political parties thought your candidates in 2012 was rather weak to include Romney. At the beginning I thought Pawlenty would be your strongest candidate, but I am not in the know of the inner workings of the Republican Party. Pawlenty left rather quickly. It seemed to me that Romney had the money which lead to his victory in the primaries.

 

I've always expected him to do well. It's a somewhat unfortunate thing, but in the primaries the first few states by far matter the most. And people don't realize it, but Ron Paul was a very, very close contender in the first few states. Paul was within a few points of winning IA, NH, and SC. Now this time around the early primary states have remained very friendly to Paul, and (last I heard) CO was moving up in the primaries, and Rand Paul does very well in CO. So apart from FL, we can expect Rand Paul to do much better in the first states than he does nationally, and if he can win them that'll boost his standing a great deal.

 

Are we talking US Citizens on American soil, or ones that went to Syria to join ISIS? I don't think anyone in our country wants drones flying over suburbs bombing people as they sleep.

 

We're doomed. Hitlery Clintard has all her ducks in a row; and the GOP is a bunch of RINO's trying to do whatever Nobama orders them to do. Rand Paul is views as a fringe loon; like his dad was. May the gods help us all when Hitlery gets control of the wheel in 2016. Even Thor can't stop her now. ;-(

 

That's an easy one: they love pork, and lots of it, and the combo of lowering their taxes to nil combined with massive amounts of pork is the Holy Grail for the financial insiders and shareholder classes. Throw in the continued low taxes on foreign profits, importing cheap labor for those jobs that haven't bee outsourced, more 'free trade' scams, what is there not to love about Bush? Or Hillary?

Not that Rand is opposed to any of that himself, it's just easier to go with a proven track record and experience, and come from a insider family with solid connections to all kinds of other rich, like the Davos Set. When you see all this stuff about 'free trade' and the like you're really just talking about pouring money into a few families who control those economies, not the entire country; these elites around the world all go to the same schools, hang out together, etc.

Rand Paul isn't going to be any different than his Dad; he will lobby for for pork just like Dad did, while pretending to be 'all conservative n libertarian n stuff'. Dad was always in the top 5 porksters when he was in office, after all. They're con artists. The safer the House district is, the more pork you can get. Pretending to be an 'outsider' is just a marketing gimmick.

 

Since I did not opine concerning the intellectual prowess of anyone, nor whether the wealth and/or the influence it buys in politics is its measure, as you seem to believe, I don't perceive the relevance of your post.

Incidentally, it is not surprising that, as its subsidiary, the GOP is ceding more control to FoxNews. It serves as the designated hit man for the Republican bosses in offing the annoying Benny "Bones" Carsons and other fringe characters without directly upsetting their fans whilst promoting the Establishment Yes-Men - many of whom have been on the Fox payroll, been featured by Fox's GOP cheerleaders, and will feel right at home in such a cozy, self-serving venue.

If Republicans could ever retake the White House - despite the American People having a say in the matter - Fox would become the virtual "state-run media" for a "media-run state."

Yep, that ol' Rupert is one savvy dude!

.

 

That's why they love him. Transferring government money to large corporations is exactly what the big donors want.

 

Early states do not matter at all.

As you pointed out, Paul usually had the lead coming out of them but ended up near the back of the pack.

There really is no trend in the nomination process which we can reliably track. Not until the national election are their signs that we can point to in order to see who is taking the lead or falling behind. Believe it or not, the nomination process is rarely won by the guy with the most money to spend.

 

Well since 1976 every single eventual nominee won IA or NH, with only exception. That's from both parties in nearly four decades. They matter dude. It's an odd psychological effect. Remember how Huckabee didn't matter a lick - until he won Iowa? Then he became a big deal?

Well, they matter. And like I said, Ron Paul came close to winning the first few primaries - he didn't win any of them. But he came close, he was 2nd in NH and a very close 3rd in IA (3pts from winning), and my point was that it gives Rand Paul a strong start in the early states (which is verified by the state by state polling), and if Rand Paul can win one or more of the early states, he'll be in good shape. And from what I've seen so far, he has the best chances of winning at least one of NH or IA. And, like I said, since 1976 only one person in either party won without one of those states.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/ja...-iowa-and-new-hampshire-still-matter-20120105

 

It is abject nonsense to suggest that because someone achieves a certain political position they are necessarily "Smart".

It is even greater nonsense and abject fallacy to suggest that by having such title that they are necessarily "smarter" than anyone who does not.

 

Excellent , I couldn't agree more that the republican party is getting weaker and more "Politically correct" than ever before, we have one person we can count on and that is Senator Ted Cruz, finally a guy with the tenacity to put people in their place all while being a gentlemen, reminiscent of some of the great sound bites produced by President Reagan..gotta love a man who can be precise and carry it with dignity

 

Plenty of doctors are pro life. Plenty more will suck a fetus out 3rd term no qualms about it. Others will perform an abortion only at the 1st term. What's your point?
What civil rights does he not support?

 

Let's keep our skeptical hats on though. Anyone who can win the Presidency isn't a good candidate, period.

We won't magically see libertarian/that side of conservative policy spring up across the nation. The best we can hope for is a Tyler presidency, where he is completely opposed to everything Congress wants.

Gridlock is the best outcome.

 

Not when our financial system is in shambles and there's terrorists knocking at our door.

Plus, the next prez might get to nominate four Supreme Court Justices.