GOP should stop picking "winners," pick Rand Paul (why aiming for moderates is bi-losing)

[sailingaway]

GOP should stop picking "winners," pick Rand Paul (why aiming for moderates is bi-losing)

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/...op-should-stop-picking-winners-pick-rand-paul

Nice write up (not getting into the Ron/Rand thing -- this applies in principle whichever of them runs.)

In part:

Earlier this month, columnist George Will had a message for the growing field of primary season benchwarmers. "Let us not mince words," he wrote. "There are at most five plausible Republican presidents on the horizon — Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Utah governor and departing ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, former Massachusetts governor Romney, and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty."

Will is absolutely right. Daniels, Barbour, Huntsman, Romney, and Pawlenty are the "plausible" choices. But that's been the Republican problem all along: this mad dash to find that guy who can win over moderates. Well, let me not mince words: stop picking winners!

Let's say Mary Jo Tea Party decides that she'd like a more conservative candidate, but she picks Pawlenty because she thinks he's the only one who can really beat President Barack Obama. Come November, Mary Jo's neighbor asks her who she's voting for. The neighbor has to ask because there's no bumper sticker on Mary Jo's car and no campaign sign in the yard. Mary Jo smiles and says, "Tim Pawlenty. I don't agree with him on such and such, but ..." Not only will that neighbor not be voting for Pawlenty, I don't even think Mary Jo will make it to her polling place.

What he's calling for is another Goldwater type race which might be doomed but presents true competing visions -- and will do better than any other against Obama.