3 Reasons the Rand Paul Campaign Failed

[LibertyEagle]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), seen by many as the political heir to a libertarian Republican revolution started by his father Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 presidential runs, has suspended his campaign after just one state voted: an Iowa caucus in which Rand pulled less than half of what Ron did in 2008 in percentage terms, and less than a quarter of what Ron Paul pulled in 2012.

What went wrong, and why? Insiders and outsiders, libertarians and conservatives, journalists and social networking thread commenters, have set theories a-flying. Based on wide reading and talking with people from the Paul world, throughout the campaign and since it collapsed, here are the dominant theories (though many observers think more than one was likely at play).

read more here..
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/05/3-reasons-the-rand-paul-campaign-failed

 

[Brian4Liberty]

IMHO, 1 and 3 are the kind of minor things that insiders obsess over. Minor tweeks.

Number 2 is right on the head. It was the biggest factor, and it was completely out of the control of Rand and his campaign. A loudmouthed billionaire celebrity entering the race is uncontrollable. ISIS attacks in Paris were another uncontrollable event.

2) Rand Paul Didn't Get to Campaign in the Political Environment He Wanted and Expected

 

[Dianne]

I think it was number 1. Rand decided to play ball with the establishment; i.e., endorse Mitch McConnell, endorse Mitt Romney, something his Dad would have never done. Also, Rand did not include his Dad in the campaign until the very end, which was too late. I don't know why he didn't embrace his Dad and use Ron to campaign. That would have given him 22% in Iowa plus the extras he would pick up for being younger than his Dad and some of the good legislation he has proposed in the Congress.

 

[jmdrake]

IMHO, 1 and 3 are the kind of minor things that insiders obsess over. Minor tweeks.

Number 2 is right on the head. It was the biggest factor, and it was completely out of the control of Rand and his campaign. A loudmouthed billionaire celebrity entering the race is uncontrollable. ISIS attacks in Paris were another uncontrollable event.

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. The rise of ISIS should have helped Rand Paul because he predicted it and the two top GOP candidates for president have adopted the same position with regards to Syria and not putting boots on the ground nor going along with a crazy "no fly zone" that most of the rest of the GOP field endorsed. But Rand has been hamstrung by a lack of understanding by people within and without the liberty movement of the difference between non-interventionism and pacifism. He should have early on, after saying "I told you so" with regards to ISIS, put out a clear plan on what to actually do about ISIS from a non-interventionist, but non-pacifist, point of view.

People kept saying "Rand is playing chess and not checkers." But politics is not checkers. It's high stakes poker. And in poker there is skill interleaved with chance. Or as Kenny Rogers put it in the song "The Gambler".


Every gambler knows
That the secret to surviving
Is knowing what to throw away
And knowing what to keep

Cause every hands a winner
And every hands a loser
And the best you can hope for
Is to die in your sleep.
......
You've got to know when to hold em.
Know when to fold in.
Know when to walk away.
And no when to run.
You never count your money.
When you're sitting at the table.
There'll be time enough for counting.
When the dealings done.

 

[cocrehamster]

I think it was number 1. Rand decided to play ball with the establishment; i.e., endorse Mitch McConnell, endorse Mitt Romney, something his Dad would have never done. Also, Rand did not include his Dad in the campaign until the very end, which was too late. I don't know why he didn't embrace his Dad and use Ron to campaign. That would have given him 22% in Iowa plus the extras he would pick up for being younger than his Dad and some of the good legislation he has proposed in the Congress.

Including Ron Paul in the campaign would not come anywhere close to guaranteeing him a repeat of Ron Paul's performance four years ago. This was against a different, larger and stronger field; in an entirely different environment. It's different this time. Always.

 

[jmdrake]

Edit: It is clear that "Reason" was a big part of the problem rather than the solution. Look at this crap linked from their OP article.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/04/what-happened-on-friday-afternoon-that-b

On Tuesday I asked, "Does Rand Paul think the beheading of American journalists justifies war against ISIS?" The answer, it seems, is yes. Since American journalists, students, businessmen, and diplomats live and work in nearly every country on Earth, this strikes me as a dangerously open-ended rationale for military intervention. Furthermore, the certainty that Paul now expresses about the threat posed by ISIS was not at all apparent at a Q&A session in Dallas last Friday. Here is what he said at that event, which was sponsored by the Republican Liberty Caucus:

What the hell? He morons at Reason magazine. Most "governments" around the world do not wantonly behead Americans living abroad precisely because they know that there likely would be hell to pay. ISIS is not a "government." At attacking ISIS, in coordination with the Iraqi government and the Syrian government, is not "interventionism" by any reasonable definition. Vladimir Putin isn't engaged in wanton interventionism by helping Assad defeat ISIS and other Syrian rebel groups. Don't forget. Ron Paul voted to give a blank check to Bush to go after Al Qaeda post 9/11. While I think the AUMF was overbroad and Bush abused the power, that doesn't mean that going after non state actors who kill Americans in coordination with the countries that are playing host to these non state actors against their will is interventionism.

But here's more crap from "reason."

To his credit, Paul insists that any military action against ISIS must be authorized by Congress, and he continues to highlight the unintended consequences of U.S. intervention in Libya and Syria (as he did on Hannity). Furthermore, his endorsement of war against ISIS may provoke an illuminating debate among libertarians and others who tend to be skeptical of foreign intervention about what counts as a threat to national security. But given his sudden conversion and the weakness of the reasons he has offered, it is hard to take Paul seriously on the subject.

Addendum: In a Time essay posted today, Paul cites, in addition to the safety of the American embassy in Iraq, "the plight of massacred Christians and Muslim minorities" as a justification for war against ISIS, which he describes as "a global threat." Now he is getting even further afield from something that could legitimately be described as a threat to U.S. national security. In Dallas last week, Paul ridiculed President Obama's justification for war in Libya, which hinged on the threat that Muammar al-Qaddafi's forces posed to the residents of Benghazi. Why is "the plight of massacred Christians and Muslim minorities" a more valid argument for attacking ISIS in Iraq? "A more realistic foreign policy," Paul wrote in The Wall Street Journal last week, "would recognize that there are evil people and tyrannical regimes in this world, but also that America cannot police or solve every problem across the globe." Paul still has not explained why the problem of ISIS is one the U.S. has to solve.

Earth to stupid people at Reason. Overthrowing a legitimate government and causing chaos in Libya has absolutely no relation to going after terrorists like ISIS. None whatsoever. These people are so stupid, I guess they think that when the U.S. freed Americans held by Somali pirates somehow that was an act of war against Somalia.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Edit: It is clear that "Reason" was a big part of the problem rather than the solution. Look at this crap linked from their OP article.

There's no doubt that Reason has always been subtly or not so subtly against the Pauls. My point is that the vast majority of voters don't read Reason, and could care less what Reason says. Other factors are far more important.

 

[jmdrake]

There's no doubt that Reason has always been subtly or not so subtly against the Pauls. My point is that the vast majority of voters don't read Reason, and could care less what Reason says. Other factors are far more important.

If the reason Rand had a problem early on articulating a clear anti-ISIS strategy is because he was worried about people who think like the idiots at Reason, then that's a part of the problem. Indeed early on I got attacked here at RPF for saying Rand should say "bomb ISIS controlled oil fields" since oil is (was?) of ISIS funding. Some people simply do not realize that non-interventionism is not the same as pacifism. Rand failed to clarify that distinction. At times Ron fails to clarify that distinction as well. Michael Scheurer is a non-interventionist and he came up with the CIA rendition and torture program.

 

[Matt Collins]

#1 is pretty much spot on... also, lack of fundraising effort. The depth of Rand's loss was not due to external factors.

 

[Luieburger]

I'd like to add a 4th item to that list. Ron Paul's message resonated so greatly in 2008 and 2012 that very few candidates this year are in favor of nation building anymore. Isn't it refreshing? We might not have won the elections, but we won ideologically. The GOP is no longer the democracy spreader it once was.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I'd like to add a 4th item to that list. Ron Paul's message resonated so greatly in 2008 and 2012 that very few candidates this year are in favor of nation building anymore. Isn't it refreshing? We might not have won the elections, but we won ideologically. The GOP is no longer the democracy spreader it once was.

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

 

[idiom]

Hunter raises the question (that has also been haunting me as author of Ron Paul's Revolution, a history of Paul's political career and presidential campaigns) of whether the Ron Paul movement might have been less about libertarian ideas, and more about scorched-earth anti-establishment outsiderism, than we'd thought or hoped.

This is very true I think. A lot of people didn't like RP's platform so much as the sheer number of times he was the only "no" vote.

I think it has been less of a liberty movement and more of a pure rage movement which is why people so easily swing from the Tea Party, to Obama, to OWS, to Trump and to Sanders.

They don't actually give a shit about the policy, they just want to stop being fucking lied to for once. That is the thing Rand couldn't deliver. You couldn't be sure Rand would flick the bird to the establishment when elected. You know Ron would.

People really wanted Obama to do that, they are really blindly hoping Trump will.

 

[jmdrake]

#1 is pretty much spot on... also, lack of fundraising effort. The depth of Rand's loss was not due to external factors.

Welcome back! I agree with #1 in part but vehemently disagree with this part.

Thus, things like Rand's seeming to repeat anti-Iranian talking points or seeming willingness to wage war against ISIS deflated their desire to give money, time, or talk him up everywhere on the Internet as so many did for Ron. This is an idea that you were likely most exposed to not from the mainstream media either print or digital but from following old Ron Paul fans on social networking.

Ron voted for the AUMF for war against Afghanistan. Which made perfect sense at the time and still looks like the correct vote despite the FUBAR that the Afghan was has become. It only looks wrong if you are a total pacifist or you don't believe Al Qaeda was in anyway involved in 9/11. So being "willing to wage war against ISIS" doesn't make Rand different from Ron. At least not Ron of 2003. The more recent Ron seems incoherent on the issue of ISIS.

 

[jmdrake]

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

True. But that was pre-9/11. The significant thing about Trump and Cruz is that post 9/11 and post San Diego, the top two GOP contenders are still pushing a non-interventionist foreign policy. And bombing the hell out of ISIS is NOT interventionism. I will keep hammering that point home until people here get it. Interventionism in the interference in the internal affairs of a state that has not attacked you. Trying to overthrow Assad is classic interventionism. Trying to take out ISIS, a "state" that's not a legitimate state and that has attacked us, is not interventionism.

Rand was slow in articulating a clear plan to isolate and destroy ISIS. And looking back, I think that's because some peaceniks in the liberty movement kept blurring the lines between non-interventionism and pacifism. You can be non-interventionist and not pacifist but you can't be pacifist and interventionist. And you can't be pacifist in the face of a clear and present threat to America like ISIS and expect to get elected POTUS.

 

[CPUd]

True. But that was pre-9/11. The significant thing about Trump and Cruz is that post 9/11 and post San Diego, the top two GOP contenders are still pushing a non-interventionist foreign policy. And bombing the hell out of ISIS is NOT interventionism. I will keep hammering that point home until people here get it. Interventionism in the interference in the internal affairs of a state that has not attacked you. Trying to overthrow Assad is classic interventionism. Trying to take out ISIS, a "state" that's not a legitimate state and that has attacked us, is not interventionism.

Rand was slow in articulating a clear plan to isolate and destroy ISIS. And looking back, I think that's because some peaceniks in the liberty movement kept blurring the lines between non-interventionism and pacifism. You can be non-interventionist and not pacifist but you can't be pacifist and interventionist. And you can't be pacifist in the face of a clear and present threat to America like ISIS and expect to get elected POTUS.

I think Rand (like many on this forum) considered ISIS to be a manufactured threat, and since he was winning the anti-war arguments at that time, he could get the GOP rank-and-file to follow suit. It worked when they tried the WMD thing against Assad and wanted to start a new war in Syria.

 

[jmdrake]

I think Rand (like many on this forum) considered ISIS to be a manufactured threat, and since he was winning the anti-war arguments at that time, he could get the GOP rank-and-file to follow suit. It worked when they tried the WMD thing against Assad and wanted to start a new war in Syria.

Oh sure ISIS is a manufactured threat. It's still a threat. What's wrong will killing some CIA payroll thugs? The reason Rand was able to make the case that war against Assad was a bad idea is from a national security standpoint. "If we do that while have to fight terrorists armed with our weapons." Very compelling argument in the wake of Benghazi. And Obama continued sending weapons to the Islamic militants in Syria and guess what? ISIS is using our weapons against us. (Well...indirectly us as we aren't actually there..but kinda sorta.)

I mean really. What the morons at Reason did was say "Okay. Our guy told you that cigarettes cause cancer. And now you have cancer. So just suck it up America!" Yes the first thing the cancer patient needed to do was to stop smoking (quit trying to overthrow Assad). And Rand needed to hammer that point home over and over again. He did do that somewhat. But the next thing is to give the patient something to inspire hope, a sugar pill if nothing else. (Though there is a clear way to actually defeat ISIS that nobody is talking about.) But instead, at first Rand kept talking about the diagnosis over and over again. "Yep. You smoked and now you have cancer." And when he finally started to at least prescribe a sugar pill Reason was like "What are you doing? That's interventionism! Just let the cancer grow. It's not so bad." Seriously. Reason really was like "Okay. So ISIS beheaded some Americans. Is that really a justification for war against ISIS? I mean there are Americans all over the world that could be beheaded." Yeah. But the Reason retards didn't factor in that one of the things that keeps those Americans safe is that is that most groups don't want to needlessly bring down the wrath of uncle Sam.

Edit: And here's something else wrong with the "It's a manufactured threat so let's just ignore it and hope it goes away" argument. Did it not cross people's minds that the powers that manufacture threats always ramp them up when they aren't getting their way? That's what happened with 9/11. So an attack inside the U.S. from ISIS was coming. Nobody at all should have been surprised by that. Rand should have been counting on it during his entire run for POTUS.

 

[Liberty74]

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.

3. You will not win the nomination by being the great statesmen that both Paul's are. The sheep and cattle do not want to be educated. They want to be LEAD.

Rand's campaign message was muddled. Not sure if this was Rand's fault or Chip's fault. Rand should have stuck to the original idea that he is a "different kind of Republican." He could have ran multiple important issues around the philosophy of nonviolence. That people also have a right to live their life as they see fit. Nonviolent ---> anti-abortion. Get those older religious voters. Attack Planned Parenthood. Nonviolent ---> bring home the troops. That would have been a great rallying cry to us who believe in peace, no nation building, saving money overseas while saying we are going to DEFEND America and our borders. Say America comes first! Nonviolent ---> end of the war on drugs. About 30% of Americans smoke the Mary Jane. Sub issue would be criminal justice reform if you wanted to go there which is more of a general election issue. Hell, Rand could have even gone after the hemp voters and used that example how government meddles in the market place which stifles competition.

A different kind of Republican on the size of government and how government meddles in your life and business way too much i.e. you have a right to keep your income, you have a right to choose your child's education, you have a right to privacy, you have a right to defend yourself - guns, etc. etc. etc. Rand is a different kind of Republican on these issues because HE FREAKING MEANS it. Rand isn't giving lip service like Cruz, Rubio, Bush, etc. He had a great opportunity to pound away that he was the real deal and the rest were fakes.

Rand might need to work on his deliverance of these issues especially on TV which your time is very limited. Again, be less like a philosopher and talk in general terms how Rand will fight for the people. Use articles, speeches and rallies for the details.

I think Judge NAP would be an excellent choice in 2020. If anyone has ever seen his speeches, you get wowed!

 

[LibertyEagle]

I think it was number 1. Rand decided to play ball with the establishment; i.e., endorse Mitch McConnell, endorse Mitt Romney, something his Dad would have never done. Also, Rand did not include his Dad in the campaign until the very end, which was too late. I don't know why he didn't embrace his Dad and use Ron to campaign. That would have given him 22% in Iowa plus the extras he would pick up for being younger than his Dad and some of the good legislation he has proposed in the Congress.

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.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I think perhaps, at least in Iowa, that thing with Kent Sorenson might have impacted Rand. That would have been a big deal within the state I would think. This was running in the Des Moines Register just a few short months ago. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...-verdict-ron-paul-endorsement-trial/74252782/

 

[Occam's Banana]

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. The rise of ISIS should have helped Rand Paul because he predicted it [...]

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.

[...] and the two top GOP candidates for president have adopted the same position with regards to Syria and not putting boots on the ground nor going along with a crazy "no fly zone" that most of the rest of the GOP field endorsed. But Rand has been hamstrung by a lack of understanding by people within and without the liberty movement of the difference between non-interventionism and pacifism. He should have early on, after saying "I told you so" with regards to ISIS, put out a clear plan on what to actually do about ISIS from a non-interventionist, but non-pacifist, point of view.

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.