3 Reasons the Rand Paul Campaign Failed

[69360]

I'm already bored with reading and discussing these.

It failed because his ideas are not popular and probably never will be.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm already bored with reading and discussing these.

It failed because his ideas are not popular and probably never will be.

That's not true. Not at all. But, you do need to address what the people are the most concerned about now.

He could have talked about the horrible trade deals, Glass-Steagall, the debt, are trashing the economy... People are really worried about that. He could have brought up the tpp/tpa, the traitorous stuff in them and how some on that stage voted for it.

 

[69360]

That's not true. Not at all. But, you do need to address what the people are the most concerned about now.

He could have talked about the horrible trade deals, Glass-Steagall, the debt, are trashing the economy... People are really worried about that. He could have brought up the tpp/tpa, the traitorous stuff in them and how some on that stage voted for it.

Honestly only maybe 5% of voters care about that or even know what any of that is. The rest see that the Donald made fun of somebody on twitter and vote for him.

It's a lost cause until it all falls apart. Which could be next week or never.

 

[Luieburger]

You know who else campaigned on no nation building? George W. Bush.

I'm aware of that, and he handed the congress and senate to the democrats.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Lengthy analysis may point to multiple reasons.. but the short answer will have only one reason.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, his Dad only endorsed Lamar Smith, a Repub. POS from Texas. Say, how many times has that video been posted over the years where Ron was asked about this and he said this is something YOU HAVE TO DO. ie. endorse sitting Republicans.

His own father was not running against Lamar Smith.

You want three reasons?

Most people hate freedom.

They want three things:

To be fed.

To be entertained.

To boss around their fellow man.

That's most people.

The "dregs" that are left are so disparate and diverse, that unless you have a record and persona and the "gravitas" of a Ron Paul, you will never draw them out.

Especially if you make it clear early on that you don't want any "kooks" hanging around.

 

[Anti Federalist]

It failed because his ideas are not popular and probably never will be.

Yes, this.

Perhaps with a modification:

Freedom (his ideas) are not popular with the people he was courting for votes.

 

[jmdrake]

The rise of ISIS is as perfect an example of the consequences of interventionism as could be asked for.

Rand should have capitalized on it by presenting ISIS as Exhibit A in the case against an interventionist foreign policy.



Pacifism is the rejection of the use of force, even in self-defense.

Non-interventionism is the rejection of the use of force, except in self-defense.

Since the distinction between pacifism and non-interventionism in this context rests upon the issue of self-defense, and since ISIS has not attacked us (its brutal and barbaric murder of some few American citizens notwithstanding), I do not understand what "a clear plan on what to actually do about ISIS from a non-interventionist, but non-pacifist, point of view" [underline emphasis added] is supposed to mean.

You have a very bizarre definition of the word "attack." Hello? San Bernardino? That was an attack on U.S. soil the same as 9/11 was an attack on U.S. soil. An attack doesn't have to have a 4 figure body count to be an attack. An attack doesn't have to ultimately be successful to be an attack. And when Thomas Jefferson took on the barbary pirates they hadn't attacked the U.S. homeland. They had "only" attacked U.S. shipping, capturing ships and holding American sailors for ransom or selling them into slavery. And before you say "Well Thomas Jefferson was an interventionist" let me cut you off at the pass. Jefferson insisted on a strict neutrality regarding the war between Britain and France so much so that he barred all foreign trade lest we get caught up in the middle of it. He actually deserved the "isolationist" label stuck on Ron Paul. James Madison, thankfully, relaxed the policy to only affect nations at war.

So, it's hard to answer your question when you are basing it on the false premise that "we weren't attacked." We were and more than once. ISIS is a real threat (well was a real threat. Russia is taking them out.) It warranted real attention and a clear plan of action. Does ISIS warrant U.S. boots on the ground? Hell know. And neither the legitimate government in Syria nor the legitimate government in Iraq, that we helped come to power, wants U.S. troops on the ground. They prefer Iranian troops which further goes to show what a disaster "regime change" in Iraq was. We basically created another Shiite Islamic Republic. That doesn't mean action can't be taken. When Jefferson took on the Barbary pirates he used naval forces and marines operating in a special operations capacity. Just 8 marines led hundreds of Muslim mercenaries in the assault. We've got a lot more options now, some that Rand ultimately named but never in a coherent soundbite fashion. Rand talked about army the Kurds and eventually agreed to expanded airstrikes. That's the formula Putin is using. Find local or regional allies on the ground and give them air cover. Pick and actual side (Assad) and don't worry about whether everybody else is supposedly "moderate" or not. Go after their money supply and that means cutting off their oil trade.

Going to war to overthrow a toothless dictator who's never attacked the U.S. in any way shape or form? Interventionism. Going to war against a country that's harboring terrorists who've blown up two embassies and who is deemed responsible for an attack on U.S. soil that kills 3,000 people? Not so much interventionism. You are doing regime change but for a good reason. Taking out some criminal thugs who aren't even an actual country but who have brutally murdered Americans and gleefully broadcast the video, are the spawn of the same criminal thugs you attacked post 9/11, and ultimately found a way to bring the fight to the U.S. homeland? Not interventionist by any stretch of the imagination especially when you consider the fact that this should be done with the cooperation of the legitimate governments of Iraq and Syria! Interventionism is what we have been doing since before the Syrian civil war started. Paying "peaceful" protest groups to undermine the Assad regime was interventionism. Helping the Assad regime and the regime in Iraq take out ISIS is not interventionism.

Seriously, I want Kenny Rogers to run for president. Sometimes you have to fight when you're a man or a country run by real men.

 

[TheNewYorker]

Reason 4:

The media intentionally censors Rand Paul

 

[jmdrake]

Okay. Before going any further let's define what the hell we are talking about.

noun
1.
the policy or doctrine of intervening, especially government interference in the affairs of another state or in domestic economic affairs.

ISIS is not a state. So taking out ISIS is not interventionism. Now you might say "Well ISIS is inside Iraq and Syria and they are states." Yep. And if Iraq and Syria don't want our help taking out ISIS and if they show a willingness and ability to contain the problem themselves and/or with the help of their allies then sending in troops and/or airstrikes is interventionist. What Vladimir Putin is doing is not interventionism. He's coordinating his attacks with the legitimate governments of Iraq and Syria. Americans complain that he's going after the enemies of Assad? Well he should be and so should we. The "moderate" rebels are just as brutal as ISIS and have been killing civilians and using civilian women and children as human shields in metal cages on top of important buildings to prevent Russian airstrikes. They share the same goal as ISIS which is a Sunni Islamic state in Syria. They cooperate with ISIS at times and coordinate attacks against Assad.

Rand should have proposed the Putin plan before Putin. Yes use the ISIS crisis as "exhibit A" against interventionism. But then declare that we needed an absolute reversal of the policy of regime change in Syria to supporting, at least for now, the regime in Syria and Iraq. At the beginning of the ISIS crisis the Obama administration was also putting pressure o our Iraq "allies" to "be more inclusive of the Sunnis". Translation? "We're worried about you becoming too close to yhour Shia brothers in Iran."

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The rise of ISIS is as perfect an example of the consequences of interventionism as could be asked for.

Rand should have capitalized on it by presenting ISIS as Exhibit A in the case against an interventionist foreign policy.



Pacifism is the rejection of the use of force, even in self-defense.

Non-interventionism is the rejection of the use of force, except in self-defense.

Since the distinction between pacifism and non-interventionism in this context rests upon the issue of self-defense, and since ISIS has not attacked us (its brutal and barbaric murder of some few American citizens notwithstanding), I do not understand what "a clear plan on what to actually do about ISIS from a non-interventionist, but non-pacifist, point of view" [underline emphasis added] is supposed to mean.

Excellent breakdown. The true path to a real non-interventionist approach in the modern world consists of calling out the covert intervention at work to create the "threat" pretexts for overt military intervention, and advocating actions that do not require military intervention to address actual threats. To repeat, one does not have to conduct intervention in order to "take action" on a situation, or accept that something is a "threat" in the first place, just because there are dead bodies, as those bodies are too frequently the result of a black op. Those false flags and bodies have in turn been used to justify military actions (either against states, or non-state actors), which once started, continue indefinitely or are escalated so that the Empire ends up dominating states anyway, thereby obliterating the difference between the classes of intervention.

ISIS was not, and is not a threat to the US. They are mercenaries, funded, trained, and documented to be materially supported by US and Western intelligence past and present, hired to portray themselves as extremists as per central casting (as radical fighters abroad, or controlled patsies at home). The US knows who they are selling the oil to finance their ops, but won't squeeze or shut down those parties or their banks. The US knows any actual political motives behind many of them could be resolved by conceding their territorial claims and withdrawing the Empire from that region, but it won't do either. These alternative actions do not involve military or covert operations, which have only invited blowback.

You have a very bizarre definition of the word "attack." Hello? San Bernardino? That was an attack on U.S. soil the same as 9/11 was an attack on U.S. soil. An attack doesn't have to have a 4 figure body count to be an attack. An attack doesn't have to ultimately be successful to be an attack.

San Bernadino was a false flag, to sell the threat narrative. Where's the outside security video showing the patsy Muslim couple entering the local government building with weapons, or inside video showing them shooting up the place? Have the multiple witnesses recanted their accounts that it was three big white guys in black professional gear doing the shooting? How come no one seems to remember seeing a 90 pound woman packing serious heat? Just because there was a obligatory weird Muslim couple nearby ready to be patsied over it, doesn't mean they did it.

 

[AuH20]

1. Refusing to tap into the anger while the country is literally fall apart brick by brick.

You have to make your message engaging. Do you think people care about phone records when they are losing their homes and jobs? Who was advising Rand Paul? He fell into the same illusion that the GOPe has succumbed to, with this assumption that everything is hunky dory.

 

[Joeinmo]

How about somebody getting 25 times more media time than all the other candidates combined, and btw Rand was last in media attention, it makes all the difference. In addition, the Paul folks were burned out, 3 Presidential elections cycles..I heard from many..I just don't have the time now, I have kids now, I'm not making the money I once was... Etc etc....

A 4 year break could make a huge difference, Rand not needing to worry about Senate re-election.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

How about somebody getting 25 times more media time than all the other candidates combined, and btw Rand was last in media attention, it makes all the difference. In addition, the Paul folks were burned out, 3 Presidential elections cycles..I heard from many..I just don't have the time now, I have kids now, I'm not making the money I once was... Etc etc....

A 4 year break could make a huge difference, Rand not needing to worry about Senate re-election.

Trump brought immediate value to the media in terms of ratings and publication sales, which Rand and the others simply did not. Trump's brand had 25+ years of burned-in name recognition and popularity to draw from, to earn the 25X 'free' publicity he got.

4 year break? Exactly what happened to the sense of urgency, the "there may not be an election four years from now," that used to animate our desire to get a liberty guy elected President? Perhaps we just need a new, non-Paul national candidate, who is more energizing than Rand was.

 

[AuH20]

Trump brought immediate value to the media in terms of ratings and publication sales, which Rand and the others simply did not. Trump's brand had 25+ years of burned-in name recognition and popularity to draw from, to earn the 25X 'free' publicity he got.

4 year break? Exactly what happened to the sense of urgency, the "there may not be an election four years from now," that used to animate our desire to get a liberty guy elected President? Perhaps we just need a new, non-Paul national candidate, who is more energizing than Rand was.

Very true. We're dealing with a master manipulator of the media while Rand was naturally introverted.

 

[RonPaulMall]

1. Refusing to tap into the anger while the country is literally fall apart brick by brick.

You have to make your message engaging. Do you think people care about phone records when they are losing their homes and jobs? Who was advising Rand Paul? He fell into the same illusion that the GOPe has succumbed to, with this assumption that every is hunky dory.

I think Paul's problem was that he spent too much time in the Washington bubble and socializing with the out of touch loons who write for Reason Magazine. Nothing about Paul's campaign suggested he understood the suffering or depth of anger among the American middle class. It was like Rand thought the country was still in the middle of the dot com boom or something. He chose to run as the "happy warrior" at a time the American electorate was angrier than any time in modern history.

 

[CPUd]

1. Refusing to tap into the anger while the country is literally fall apart brick by brick.

You have to make your message engaging. Do you think people care about phone records when they are losing their homes and jobs? Who was advising Rand Paul? He fell into the same illusion that the GOPe has succumbed to, with this assumption that everything is hunky dory.

Rand wouldn't run on a message of hate. Whenever you read somewhere "tapped into that anger", that is PC code for hatemongering.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

1. You will not win the nomination going after the "student vote" only which accounts for maybe 5% of the voters. In a Republican caucus/primary, the vaster majority will be 45 and up and for the most part religious. But I am sure many of you will be back here in 4 years screaming "it's all about the youth vote."

2. You will not win the nomination when making your top issues about problems in which the Republican electoral does not care about no matter how right you are i.e. criminal justice reform, nsa spying, etc. Those are barely on the Republican voter's radar.

Agree.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I think Paul's problem was that he spent too much time in the Washington bubble and socializing with the out of touch loons who write for Reason Magazine. Nothing about Paul's campaign suggested he understood the suffering or depth of anger among the American middle class. It was like Rand thought the country was still in the middle of the dot com boom or something. He chose to run as the "happy warrior" at a time the American electorate was angrier than any time in modern history.

Trump and Sanders understood it well, and have taken advantage of it. The anti-establishment, pro-everyday American sentiment is probably the single most important factor in this race.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If your winning the presidency depends on events that you cannot control then you are not ready to be president because being president depends on dealing with events that you cannot control.

You can't control the fact that a loud-mouthed, celebrity billionaire entered the race.

Paul's former assistant and co-author Jack Hunter lays the blame pretty solidly on the presence of Trump.