Article: Rand Would Be Wise To Embrace His Libertarian Roots

Sola_Fide

Banned
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
31,482
http://theiowarepublican.com/2015/rand-would-be-wise-to-embrace-his-libertarian-roots/

randcp.jpg


As Kentucky Senator Rand Paul launches his presidential campaign, the immediate question that will be on everybody’s mind is, can he do something his father couldn’t do in two attempts – win the Iowa Caucuses ?

There are obvious benefits he will receive from Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. Rand Paul will inherit a national fundraising base and grassroots network in a number of early states, but he will also benefit from a seasoned national staff in addition to a handful of Iowans that include former Iowa GOP Chairman A.J. Spiker and former Iowa GOP Co-Chairman David Fischer. Spiker and Fischer proved in 2012 that they know what they are doing when it comes to an Iowa caucus campaign.

A number of recent national news articles have commented on the “balancing act” that Paul is attempting in his presidential campaign as he tries to keep the libertarian leaning Republicans his father energized while also reaching out to more mainstream Republicans. As the Republican Party has become more hawkish over the past six months in regards to Iran and the Middle East, Paul’s balancing act has become more difficult.

Bloomberg reported on Monday that a conservative group called The Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America is already launching a campaign that essentially says that when it comes to dealing with Iran, Senator Paul is no different than Obama. If you think this will be some short-term effort just to cause Paul some grief as he announces his presidential campaign, think again. There will be plenty of money poured into the effort, and it’s likely that it will be around throughout the campaign.

Running a campaign that broadens one’s reach is always a good endeavor. Candidates do it all the time. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum want to appeal to more people than just social conservatives. Jeb Bush wants to appeal to conservative Republicans as much as he appeals to the moderate wing of the Republican Party. However, just because it’s a well-intentioned endeavor doesn’t necessarily mean that it will work.

At the end of the day, a candidate’s true colors will always show through. No matter how hard a guy like Santorum tries to focus on manufacturing and rebuilding the middle class in America, he will always be known as one of the more staunch social conservatives in the race. It might not be fair, but it is reality.

In this case, Senator Paul will either have to distance himself from his father’s libertarian views or embrace them. Sure, it would be nice to appeal to both segments of the Republican Party, but at the end of the day, or in this case, in the final months before the caucuses, Paul will have to make a choice.

First and foremost, Senator Paul needs to be true to himself. In my opinion, Paul’s best play for his presidential aspirations is to embrace his libertarian roots. Instead of giving you one good reason, how about we start with 26,036 reasons. That is the number of votes that Ron Paul received in Iowa in 2012. In a crowded GOP field that features multiple establishment candidates and scads of social conservatives, instead of 26,036 votes being good for third place in 2012, it may be enough to win the Iowa Caucuses outright in 2016.

What Ron Paul accomplished in 2012 is still impressive. The 26,036 votes account for nearly 22 percent of the entire caucuses vote. Ron Paul also won 16 counties in 2012, but finished a strong second in some of the states more populated counties like Dubuque, Johnson, Linn, Polk, and Story.

I also don’t think that Senator Paul has to shy away from his father’s libertarian brand of politics to increase his vote share. One of the main reasons why Ron Paul was able to grow his support in Iowa wasn’t just because he ran a better campaign, but because the issues that he was touting became more main-stream with Republican voters. Many of those same issues remain popular.

Another reason why Paul will naturally attract more voters than his father is his age. At 52, Senator Paul isn’t viewed as some crazy old man running for president, like his father unfortunately was often categorized as being. Essentially, what Senator Paul needs to try to accomplish is to be the same as his father on the issues but with more appealing packaging.

The way for Rand Paul to expand his network isn’t to run away for his father, it’s to embrace his father. Be the libertarian in the race. Not only will it provide Senator Paul with a big base of support, but it will also allow him to better message to younger voters while also appealing to the more contrarian voter who is always looking for a good fight.

Survey the recent headlines. There are signs of weakness from Paul as he tries to be all things to all people. Doing so not only generates negative news articles, but also allows his opponents to easily attack him. However, if Paul were to embrace his libertarian roots, there are not many candidates in the field that have what it takes to win that kind of argument or wage the type of campaign it would take to beat him.

The more libertarian-leaning Senator Paul becomes, the better his odds of winning Iowa.
 
While many say he should avoid embracing them for now so he can win over those voters who otherwise wouldn't vote for him. After all, are more of them than there are liberty folks, I believe.
 
While many say he should avoid embracing them for now so he can win over those voters who otherwise wouldn't vote for him. After all, are more of them than there are liberty folks, I believe.

Agree.

First and foremost, Senator Paul needs to be true to himself. In my opinion, Paul’s best play for his presidential aspirations is to embrace his libertarian roots. Instead of giving you one good reason, how about we start with 26,036 reasons. That is the number of votes that Ron Paul received in Iowa in 2012. In a crowded GOP field that features multiple establishment candidates and scads of social conservatives, instead of 26,036 votes being good for third place in 2012, it may be enough to win the Iowa Caucuses outright in 2016.

What Ron Paul accomplished in 2012 is still impressive. The 26,036 votes account for nearly 22 percent of the entire caucuses vote. Ron Paul also won 16 counties in 2012, but finished a strong second in some of the states more populated counties like Dubuque, Johnson, Linn, Polk, and Story.

I also don’t think that Senator Paul has to shy away from his father’s libertarian brand of politics to increase his vote share. One of the main reasons why Ron Paul was able to grow his support in Iowa wasn’t just because he ran a better campaign, but because the issues that he was touting became more main-stream with Republican voters. Many of those same issues remain popular.
 
I think the main thing is he just needs to be authentic. "Balancing acts" can come off as inauthentic and get you labeled as a "flip flopper."
 
I think the main thing is he just needs to be authentic. "Balancing acts" can come off as inauthentic and get you labeled as a "flip flopper."

I've been saying this for over a year. Rand is trying to be all things to all people. He's 'courting' different segments and he DOES come off as inauthentic. Say what you want about Ron Paul, NO ONE, left or right, can accuse Ron Paul of being anything but 100% authentic and real. Rand is playing WAY TOO MUCH POLITICS, and not enough principle.

I'll wait for Collins to come spin this thread with "But But.... electability!!!!!"

Not interested.

The thing this article misses, is that it's TOO LATE to embrace his Libertarian Roots. He's already staked out ground in the "please everyone" camp. This will lead to less fundraising, less enthusiasm, less inspiration, and ultimately, less votes.

I'll still campaign for him and vote for him, but it's becoming harder and harder to reconcile true liberty-based principles with some of Rand's shennanigans...
 
I think the main thing is he just needs to be authentic. "Balancing acts" can come off as inauthentic and get you labeled as a "flip flopper."

Unfortunately Rand is already well known for his balancing act and flip flopper status. The good news is that Mitt Romney was that guy and he still made it to the end and was the undisputed front runner of 2012.
 
I don't really think he's flip flopped anywhere. I think that label comes from a few issues. One, his father was well known for being rock solid and steady with his principles and his ideological purity was well noted. People expected exactly the same thing from his son.

Secondly, Rand came out on fire in 2011 and talked a really big game. Where this hurts him is on the foreign aid and Defense spending issues. He came out hard wanting to slash and burn everywhere but then at some point I think he realized that could be counterproductive. "All or nothing" rarely flies in Washington. So I think he decided that rather than throw bombs from outside that he could work from the inside to bring about smaller changes that get us on the right track. Cutting foreign aid to Israel and cutting hundreds of billions from the defense budget are both dogs that won't hunt. So he proposes cuts in foreign aid that have wide appeal or plays parliamentary tricks with the defense budget to expose Cruz and Rubio as fakes. That leaves room for misinterpretation and confusion.

And part of it is just him playing the game. It's dirty but it's life. Sometimes you have to play the game to win. President Rand Paul is objectively good for the country but you can't clean house sometimes without getting your hands dirty. All in and all there are a lot more nefarious things that Rand could've done in his life to attain the presidency than pander a bit to hawks and change the emphasis on some of his foreign policy talking points.
 
correct me if im wrong, but ron won the last iowa caucus iirc. it took about 3 months for the recount to show it.

iirc first it was romney, then they said it was santorum who really won, but then a few months later the official winner was ron in another recount. yes?
 
correct me if im wrong, but ron won the last iowa caucus iirc. it took about 3 months for the recount to show it.

iirc first it was romney, then they said it was santorum who really won, but then a few months later the official winner was ron in another recount. yes?

Officially Santorum won the popular vote, Ron won the delegates. Ron didn't win the one that he needed to go into NH strong.
 
correct me if im wrong, but ron won the last iowa caucus iirc. it took about 3 months for the recount to show it.

iirc first it was romney, then they said it was santorum who really won, but then a few months later the official winner was ron in another recount. yes?

I still believe Ron won it. Our ground game was unparalleled.
 
I'm getting email from the campaign with titles such as, "Concerned" and "The numbers aren't adding up" and "bad news."

When I started a thread with 'concerned' in the title, it was moved to some obscure sub forum which isn't even listed in the sub forum section where it died.

If you will recall, Ron made national headlines for gigantic money bombs and fund raising records in the early stages of his campaign. Ron didn't attempt to appeal to the establishment that he was trying to defeat, and he was rewarded with support that got him to the finals.

It may be over before it starts for Rand because it would now be hard to explain a flip-flop on Iran, but Rand's foreign policy with regards to Iran is hurting him badly.

One thing is for certain. If the subject titles of his email aren't improved, the perception of his campaign among his core constituency will lead to early fatigue and diminished expectations.

The campaign needs an early timeout. Rand's campaign staff needs to step back and reassess the perception its deploying in marketing. Rand needs to step back and reassess his message and stated principles with regards to foreign policy. We will have a boat load of choices in both parties pushing the neocon (pnac) / imperialist / interventionist foreign entanglement policy. Who will be bold and proclaim the different message of Ron Paul that so many were drawn to and hunger for still?
 
I'm getting email from the campaign with titles such as, "Concerned" and "The numbers aren't adding up" and "bad news."

When I started a thread with 'concerned' in the title, it was moved to some obscure sub forum which isn't even listed in the sub forum section where it died.

If you will recall, Ron made national headlines for gigantic money bombs and fund raising records in the early stages of his campaign. Ron didn't attempt to appeal to the establishment that he was trying to defeat, and he was rewarded with support that got him to the finals.

It may be over before it starts for Rand because it would now be hard to explain a flip-flop on Iran, but Rand's foreign policy with regards to Iran is hurting him badly.

One thing is for certain. If the subject titles of his email aren't improved, the perception of his campaign among his core constituency will lead to early fatigue and diminished expectations.

The campaign needs an early timeout. Rand's campaign staff needs to step back and reassess the perception its deploying in marketing. Rand needs to step back and reassess his message and stated principles with regards to foreign policy. We will have a boat load of choices in both parties pushing the neocon (pnac) / imperialist / interventionist foreign entanglement policy. Who will be bold and proclaim the different message of Ron Paul that so many were drawn to and hunger for still?

You've been watching too much Faux News. Relax, (mod edit)
 
You've been watching too much Faux News. Relax, (mod edit).

Yeah, this^^ I've noticed that Rand has developed a knack for rhetoric, though not quite as good as RP's. The advantage Rand seems to have is average republicans seem to like his disposition and language-it's generally libertarian in nature but delivered in right-winger friendly style/delivery.
 
Fivethirtyeight seems to agree, this is worth a read imo.

click the link for more in depth analysis.

Rand Paul is losing his father's base
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rand-paul-is-losing-his-fathers-base/

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s presidential campaign is less than a day old but already suffers from an identity crisis. Paul wants to win, but he can only do so if he is seen as more mainstream than his father, Ron Paul, who ran for president in 2008 and 2012. At the same time, Paul can’t completely jettison the far-left and far-right positions that have made him a hero to the substantial number of Republican libertarians who made up his father’s base.

In Paul’s dream world, he’ll satisfy everyone. In the most likely real world, he’ll end up satisfying no one.

The most obvious path for Paul to win the GOP nomination is to build on the 21 percent of the vote his father earned in Iowa in 2012, and the 23 percent Paul Sr. picked up in New Hampshire that year. In a divided primary field, that might not seem so difficult; 25 percent might be enough to win both states. And with wins in the first two contests, Paul might be able to ride the Big Mo’ to the nomination.

But right now, Paul isn’t anywhere close to where his father ended up in either state in 2012. Paul is polling at a little less than 9 percent in Iowa and nearly 11 percent in New Hampshire. That’s far closer to the percentage of the vote earned by Paul Sr. in both states during his 2008 bid for the presidency, which was far less relevant than his 2012 run.

In fact, Paul is losing support across the board. While he was initially able to outpace his father’s 2012 success, his national numbers have been dropping over the last year.
 
Last edited:
Truth is nothing YOU believe matters. Took me awhile to understand this myself. And I debated positives or minus's before the announcement like hell. For better or worse Rand is gonna run this campaign the way he and his team believe it should be run. It's fact. There is NOTHING you can say or do to change that. So hop on board or don't. Support as you will or won't. Moving ahead may not incorporate all your beliefs.
 
Back
Top