Frank Luntz: RAND has MOST LIKEABILITY of ANY candidate he's EVER polled the audience on

[anaconda]

Ron and Rand 2012.

2016 will be too late, in fact it may be too late already

This has been my opinion for a while. I had imagined Rand running now for POTUS, with Ron quietly threatening/implying that he would run third party if a "true conservative" were not the GOP nominee in 2012. Which would put a lot of pressure on the party leadership to back Rand. I am also worried that 2016 will be too late. But it may not be. If there is not pervasive martial law I don't think it will be too late.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Rand won't get the chance in 2016 if a RINO wins the White House in 2012. We need an Obama second term. Unless Ron wants to pass the torch to Rand in the next few weeks.

I agree. It's Paul or nothing.

 

[AuH20]

Bullshit. Rand sounds like a stereotypical Washington politician, there's nothing logical or persuasive that I've ever heard him say. It's just a watered down version of the liberty message, with a bunch of red-meat thrown in for the tea-ocons and Sarah Palin type Republicans. It doesn't surprise me one bit that he hasn't came out hardcore campaigning for his father.

It also doesn't surprise that Fuck You Frank, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity are all huge Rand supporters but absolutely loathe Ron. Ron and Rand do not have interchangeable beliefs and values no matter what people on this board say. I would NOT vote for Rand Paul for president, until he comes out against the foreign wars, comes out for ABOLISHING the FEd, and against the war on drugs. But I am not holding my breath.

Somebody in this thread said Rand is Ron without the heroin and prostitutes, I would go further and say that Rand is Ron without the track record, the integrity, and the intellectualism.

Rand while disagreeing with his opponents does not inadvertently alienate them like Ron. That's why he curries favor with them. He doesn't go around squawking about blowback in the confusing light of 911 and insulting military families without explaining to them the error of their ways. That's is Rand's genius. He's assiduously leading them down the constitutional path of non-interventionism instead of chastising them. I view Ron as a the high priest of the movement and Rand as the pied piper. The abrasiveness of the high priest can only take the liberty message so far. There are other methods of influence and enlightenment which can be utilized by a more diplomatic Rand Paul. And as we've seen in the past, this method certainly didn't work out badly for the Neocons, who owned the party lock, stock and barrel.

You have to understand something about Rand Paul. He's been at his father's side all his life and is keenly aware of messaging & how it can be turned on it's head in an instant if it isn't properly framed. I have my doubts Ron Paul could ever be the senator in a state given his propensity for gaffes in such a hostile media environment.

 

[ThePursuitOfLiberty]

Bullshit. Rand sounds like a stereotypical Washington politician, there's nothing logical or persuasive that I've ever heard him say. It's just a watered down version of the liberty message, with a bunch of red-meat thrown in for the tea-ocons and Sarah Palin type Republicans. It doesn't surprise me one bit that he hasn't came out hardcore campaigning for his father.

It also doesn't surprise that Fuck You Frank, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity are all huge Rand supporters but absolutely loathe Ron. Ron and Rand do not have interchangeable beliefs and values no matter what people on this board say. I would NOT vote for Rand Paul for president, until he comes out against the foreign wars, comes out for ABOLISHING the FEd, and against the war on drugs. But I am not holding my breath.

Somebody in this thread said Rand is Ron without the heroin and prostitutes, I would go further and say that Rand is Ron without the track record, the integrity, and the intellectualism.

Unfortunate that this is your view from the outside.

I can assure you from the 'inside' this is not the case.

It's unfortunate - but true - Rand has more 'electability' than Ron. Ron has set the stage, lit the fire of this revolution, knowing perfectly well that he has paved the way for his son (or SONS) to follow in his footsteps. Rand is the SON of Ron Paul - the man every single person on these forums have been impacted by - and you're trying to make an assumption that he does not have a similar moral, ethical, or belief system like the man who has been his #1 influencer in his life? Come on now, son.

How about this for a scenario: MAYBE Rand understands how the game needs to be played, MAYBE Rand is observing that the tides are changing, MAYBE Rand understands that instead of alienating himself from the quasi-conservative Republican base that "DUMBING DOWN" the message of Liberty actually impacts them more, and MAYBE Ron's entire premise of his campaigns in 2008 and 2012 are to set up Rand's run in 2016 and/or beyond.

Rather than assuming things because you feel like you're "in the know" and then concluding with asinine observations, take a step back and look at the big picture. We as a movement have not done NEARLY enough - there are millions and millions still left to impact. That's why this needs to be looked at as a business.

We have a message - we need to market this message. Ron has opened the flood gates for those who "truly undestand" to be the first movers, the innovators. Now, Rand can come in and get the Early Adapters, Late Adapters, and Stragglers to follow the message by phrasing it a different way. The wider our net becomes, the larger the opportunity we have to catch more people with the ideas of freedom and liberty. This is not going to happen overnight, it will take time.

But cut me a break with trying to make any sort of assumption that you truly believe Rand and Ron are that different. Ideologically, Rand falls not far from the tree.. His message resonates with many and he still holds true to his values and beliefs that us "Paulites" should be able to follow.

Not everything is some elaborate, master conspiracy.... The world is evil, but be optimistic, for the love of christ.

 

[Sola_Fide]

One of the reasons I was really pissed at antiwar.com and Raimondo was this same dismissive attitude. But of course they finally ate some crow and eventually came to admit that they were wrong and they misled people.

I have no respect for people who still say the same things even after all of the ways Rand has come through on important votes. I don't agree with Rand on everything. I don't agree with him on a BBA. I don't agree on him trying to "save" the entitlement programs. But I do think that he is going in the right direction, and Ron has said a compromise in the direction of liberty is the only good compromise.

But his positions on foreign policy since he's been in office have been pretty close to perfect if you believe that non-interventionism is a good thing. He deserves respect for being so principled on foreign policy.

 

[Ethek]

There is an important task at hand for traditional Republicans. That task is to come to terms with their own closed mindedness and re-activity in time for them to make the right choices for liberty when they are most stressed and most anxious. This will coincide with a time when resources and the economy are most troubled. Rand will have a place and a time to be that philosophical anchor for the less alert traditional republicans in the coming fourth turning if anyone is familiar with that concept.

Our challenge as Ron supporters is two pointed

Ron is doing wonderfully, challenging people like Luntz and audience to come to terms with their core beliefs without Rand's likability to help them smooth over the glaring hypocrisy. We still need to help Ron get that message out in a politically digestible way. IE.. with a minimum of FreeState protest type tactics.

Second Ron supports have to recognize that they have all of the right ideas but a lot of the time we aren't able to tolerate it well those ideas are not articulated in just the right way. Take Justinjj1's post up above. Its not just disagreeing with Rand, its emotional reactivity on full display. We have to deal with our core issues of why liberty is so important to us individually (our deep apprecciation for liberty) but why liberty households are often so hypocritical with that philosophy. For example clinging to tradition and authoritarianism when we are challenged by children (young libertarians in training) or the Ive got mine mentality of 'Capitalism' without any of the neighborliness or responsibility. I see it time and time again.

As activists we need to be fit to fight. Excersize, good nutrition, good information organization tools to cut down on anxiety, get our frustration tolerance levels up enough to be an asset for Ron while he is still the philosphical support... but we better do it quick because Rand is the next one to carry the torch. He is absolutely ideologically on the same basis as Ron but he may not always come to the exact same conclusions and he certainly is not going to be as pure in his articulation of those principles. Its not going to be for our benefit, but for the benefit of bringing the general population along.

I saw this crap when I was working on Rand's campaign in Kentucky. A friend go to write a book that I was able to introduce Check out my forward in the search inside feature.

We have to get over our own demons of being the political outcasts for so long and be in place to be the examples to look to for other republicans when Rand is stepping up to challenge them... not completely flying off the handle.

 

[AuH20]

The Rand detractors need to read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671723650

Financial success, Carnegie believed, is due 15 percent to professional knowledge and 85 percent to "the ability to express ideas, to assume leadership, and to arouse enthusiasm among people." He teaches these skills through underlying principles of dealing with people so that they feel important and appreciated. He also emphasizes fundamental techniques for handling people without making them feel manipulated. Carnegie says you can make someone want to do what you want them to by seeing the situation from the other person's point of view and "arousing in the other person an eager want." You learn how to make people like you, win people over to your way of thinking, and change people without causing offense or arousing resentment. For instance, "let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers," and "talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person." Carnegie illustrates his points with anecdotes of historical figures, leaders of the business world, and everyday folks.

 

[Cdn_for_liberty]

I'm glad that many people here are speaking out on Ron's way of articulating issues is just not as influencial as Rand's way while both of them think the say. Most people here tend to think that if you think like a pragmatic libertarian, you're a sellout and that is not true. When I see Rand getting a positive reaction by the same people who despise Ron even though Ron and Rand think alike, it just goes to show that Ron is just articulating his views in a way that either bores the hell out of people or just not relating to the audience he wants to influence.

Sure, it sounds awesome whenever Ron says "let's follow the Constitution" whether it is in response to taxes, foreign policy or whatever. To us that sounds good but at the end of the day, the average voter want something more specific. Less talk about philosophy and more talk on policy; policy that is detailed and realistic.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

Uh. What vote of Rand's can you point to that was counter to a vote of Ron's?

Also, what Senator can you think of in recent memory who has proposed the elimination of federal departments?

Also, Rand is able to unify large segments of the Republican base--establishment, grass roots, and independent. The forces working against Ron in the Republican party are not working against Rand. But the fact still remains that they are both looking toward the same goal.

He's one of those anti-Rand naysayers from back in the Republican primary

Don't waste your breath

 

[BlackTerrel]

If the Rand-doubters are honest, they will admit that Rand has exceeded expectations.

Honestly I don't fucking buy it. If you like Ron but don't like Rand there is something fishy going on.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I think he would be a solid 2012 vp...i mean why wait, what would be the downside? If we continue at the current rate 2016 is too late

+1

I agree, Rand should be VP for Ron in 2012, Ron's numbers aren't going anywhere & his poll-numbers aren't likely to shoot up from 8-10% to 30-40% in the next few months so he NEEDS Rand to get him the mainstream GOP votes otherwise 2012 will likely end up like 2008 where he hoped & hoped that numbers would magically shoot but obviously never did; as it is Ron has very little REALISTIC chance so getting Rand on-board as VP will at worse bring us a chunk of mainstream GOP which isn't bad at all.

Better scenario: establishment sees the writing on the wall, realizing that they won't get a victory over Obama without the RP republicans, conceding the nomination to Ron Paul and positioning Rand Paul as the running mate to bring the establishment GOPers alongside the RP republicans. Total victory.

+1

I agree, this is the reason I feel Ron MUST get Rand as VP because even GOP knows that they're NOT going to beat Obama without the RonPaul-bloc & that's precisely why mainstream GOP candidates are sounding more like Ron this season so if Ron declares Rand as his VP (hopefully after we win Iowa) then too much of GOP-vote will've been diluted & a victory without Ron & Rand would impossible & that might get more mainstream GOP voters to stand behind them just to avoid an Obama-presidency, not to mention such ticket would also appeal to Dems & Indies.

Many mainstream Repubs including MSM interviewers have asked Rand if he'd run for presidency which shows the stature of the man in the mainstream GOP so any criticisms of nepotism would drop dead right there. Further, we could also sell it like a "historic event" like "first black president", "first lady president" are sold where first time we've a father-son ticket, this is the sort of stuff that mainstream voters fall for anyway.

In my opinion, this is just an attempt to give Rand overwhelming support so that people go "you know what.. i'll just hold off this election - voting for the one running most similar to Rand (obviously Ron) and just vote Rand in 2016 because I bet he will be running" This is an attempt by the establishment to get people to basically to give up this election cycle and pray for a good 2016, but in reality, this country won't make it to 2016, and they know that. By 2016, we'll be in the most horrendous, policed country in the world. That's why they're trying to divert the energy and give it to somebody who isn't currently running because they don't pose as big of a threat.

Although I'm not that much into conspiracy theories but it's a possibility but the overall point should be that us thinking about Rand2016 is pointless, we don't even know what might happen by that time; Ron's numbers are too low to have any REALISTIC chance at the moment & it seems like another Obama-presidency so if we go into hyperinflation &/or a depression, we might see a socialist-fascist police-state with price-controls & wage-controls & in such a situation people vote for even more socialism, just like people kept voting for FDR even though he was killing the country so Rand with libertarian-leaning message wouldn't even be palatable because people'd in such a bad situation that they'd expecting government to help them, etc.

So 2012 is our time, we must throw in all we've got including Rand as a VP candidate to suffocate & takeover the GOP like I've said & stop pipe-dreaming that Ron would win by running a conventional campaign & then we'd've Rand in 2016. Reality might be telling us something different.

 

[UK4Paul]

Honestly I don't fucking buy it. If you like Ron but don't like Rand there is something fishy going on.

Not necessarily. I just think Rand Paul is better able to communicate ideas that resonate with people. As someone else pointed out, he doesn't talk over people's heads... i.e. "liquidate the malinvestment" is fine if you understand Austrian economics, but most people don't.

I think Ron and Rand are a perfect combination. Ron gets the deeper ideas out there, while Rand "dumbs it down" so to speak, so the average Jo on the street can actually understand it without needing a shelf full of Austrian economic text books.

Edit: I just realized, I assumed you were talking about liking Rand, but not liking Ron. Ah well, I think the post is essentially the same, they have two different complementary styles of communicating their message.

 

[Justinjj1]

He's one of those anti-Rand naysayers from back in the Republican primary

Don't waste your breath

Hey, I apologize, Rand has been so fucking great on so many issues. I mean, there's just so much pro-liberty stuff he's been behind since he's been elected......like that half-hearted statement against the Libyan War,....man that really motivates the shit out of me.....and that rant against low-flow toilets......breathtaking.. Please forgive me for doubting his greatness because he sure has proven me wrong.

:egg all over face:

 

[AuH20]

Hey, I apologize, Rand has been so fucking great on so many issues. I mean, there's just so much pro-liberty stuff he's been behind since he's been elected......like that half-hearted statement against the Libyan War,....man that really motivates the shit out of me.....and that rant against low-flow toilets......breathtaking.. Please forgive me for doubting his greatness because he sure has proved me wrong.

:egg all over face:

You forgot the Patriot Act.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Hey, I apologize, Rand has been so fucking great on so many issues. I mean, there's just so much pro-liberty stuff he's been behind since he's been elected......like that half-hearted statement against the Libyan War,....man that really motivates the shit out of me.....and that rant against low-flow toilets......breathtaking.. Please forgive me for doubting his greatness because he sure has proven me wrong.

:egg all over face:

That was pathetic dude.

 

[Justinjj1]

That was pathetic dude.

edit: delete

I'm probably going to be banned now for retaliating like last time. Oh well, enjoy your extremely mediocre senator, please feel free to rub it in my face when he actually does something note-worthy. Again, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[BlackTerrel]

edit: delete

I'm probably going to be banned now for retaliating like last time. Oh well, enjoy your extremely mediocre senator, please feel free to rub it in my face when he actually does something note-worthy. Again, I'm not holding my breath.

Ok. We'll enjoy. Bye.

 

[matt0611]

I don't mean to say I'm giving up on Ron for 2012, I'll fight 100% to the bitter end to get him to the White House, but I think we can all agree that Rand is our "plan B" so to speak

Lets just hope 2016 won't be too late...

 

[TheDrakeMan]

Hey, I apologize, Rand has been so fucking great on so many issues. I mean, there's just so much pro-liberty stuff he's been behind since he's been elected......like that half-hearted statement against the Libyan War,....man that really motivates the shit out of me.....and that rant against low-flow toilets......breathtaking.. Please forgive me for doubting his greatness because he sure has proven me wrong.

:egg all over face:

I don't understand people like you. You want to turn this country into a 100% pure Libertarian hell hole within the next five years. The reality of the situation is that Libertarianism isn't perfect, and we need to slowly implement our ideas and see that they work and if the general population agrees with us. If Rand Paul started pushing a hard-core retarded Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy or purist Libertarian viewpoint (for whatever reason) then he would just become a fringe Senator.

 

[AlexAmore]

I've been thinking Goldwater or Jim DeMint. I still think they would be fine. However, after reading till the end I think Rand might be the best choice.

1. Rand will get even more publicity. Good for his eventual run for presidency.
2. The Paul/Paul ticket will get a lot of publicity for being a father son ticket.
3. Rand knows how to speak Conservative AND Independent.

It wasn't until just 20 min ago did it hit me there was a Paul family conspiracy to create a dynasty of freedom in America
It's like Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. except without the criminal element.