Is Rand Paul Missing His Giuliani Moment?

[hells_unicorn]

Ron was booed for his "Giuliani moment." Rand won't take that chance.

Ron also lost, I don't think Rand wants to have that happen either.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Isn't that what Romney and McCain tried to do, be moderates? I liked where the article said 2016 wasn't the right time to run, I agree with that 100%, right now many Repubs have gone back Hawkish, I think there are just too many other candidates that can easily outdo him in the key areas as the article pointed out.

Plus I think a lot of people just want to do the whole "first woman" thing and even if Rand gets the nod I doubt he would beat Hillary. In 2020 12yrs of Dems will have people more eager for a Repub, the first woman thing will have faded, and hopefully Hillary's warmongering will have put people back in a more non-interventionist mood, not to mention 4yrs will have gone by and people will see Iran did not blow up the world.

Being moderate is what Rand is currently doing (assuming Rand is in stealth mode and doesn't actually believe the positions he's held in the public sphere). The author is calling for him to be more radical.

 

[Todd]

Being moderate is what Rand is currently doing (assuming Rand is in stealth mode and doesn't actually believe the positions he's held in the public sphere). The author is calling for him to be more radical.

And at the same time hes saying "and no radical can win in 2016".

We've heard it all before.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Isn't that what Romney and McCain tried to do, be moderates? I liked where the article said 2016 wasn't the right time to run, I agree with that 100%, right now many Repubs have gone back Hawkish, I think there are just too many other candidates that can easily outdo him in the key areas as the article pointed out.

Plus I think a lot of people just want to do the whole "first woman" thing and even if Rand gets the nod I doubt he would beat Hillary. In 2020 12yrs of Dems will have people more eager for a Repub, the first woman thing will have faded, and hopefully Hillary's warmongering will have put people back in a more non-interventionist mood, not to mention 4yrs will have gone by and people will see Iran did not blow up the world.

Technically it's also what Obama did, at least when he was running in the general election, and he outflanked McCain and Romney in the nuance department. Whenever talk radio was talking about Obama or somebody he associated with being a radical, the first thing Obama did was either try to hide it or throw the other person under the bus, he did not double down on anything until after the 2012 election when his health care experiment began to implode.

For as long as I've been alive, I've watched principled candidates get chewed up and spit out before making it through the primary process, including twice in a row with Pat Buchanan before he left the Republican Party. It may or may not be Rand's time to be president, but he positively won't ever be elected if he conducts a campaign like the one his father and Buchanan ran, there's just not enough people here wired that way, and I doubt there ever was or will be.

And at the same time hes saying "and no radical can win in 2016".

We've heard it all before.

No radical has ever won openly in as long as I can remember. Reagan did not run as a radical, he was simply branded as one by his enemies. Obama ran as a black man, all of his policy ideas were treated as purely incidental by most of the people who voted for him both times. People who espouse openly radical viewpoints either get trounced during the primaries, or they run 3rd party and get somewhere between 1-5% of the vote. (P.S. - Perot was not a radical, he was simply an independent and self-financed fiscal conservative)

 

[Jan2017]

Ron was booed for his "Giuliani moment." Rand won't take that chance.

and Dr. Ron Paul was vilified as correct, and the money bombs had Guiliani dropping out BEFORE Florida -
what was supposed to be his big state with the NY connection and snowbirds.

Guiliani could not face the embarrassment of finishing last in Florida . . . bye bye Rudy.

Rand can have a near Guiliani moment . . . if the opportunity comes up -
Dr. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) should go all out and take the game winning shot a la Michael Jordan.

. . .

.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

No, it's not the point. Everybody is literally Monday morning quarterbacking and it isn't even freaking Sunday yet. And how is he being a milquetoast? He's been at odds with just about everybody he's running against. Are you looking for him to make out with Bernie Sanders or something?

Jeez, cut down on the crazy, get a girlfriend and relax. We haven't even had a single debate yet.

His momentum has waned. His poll numbers are low. His fundraising is poor. And it's not improving. It's headed in the wrong direction. Perhaps you're just a blind supporter of the campaign and have your head in the clouds so much that you can't see what is happening. But your denial of the obvious problems certainly isn't helping matters.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The title of the article is "Is Rand Paul missing his Giuliani moment?"

What does that have to do with anything? It's just an article title, the purpose of which is to tersely convey some sense or aspect of the entitled content - not to convey that content itself.

Again, you asked: "How can Rand have a Giuliani moment when there hasn't even been a damned debate yet?" I did nothing more than point out that, in the very opening sentences of his article, McCarthy explicitly sets that very question within the context up the upcoming debate. Unless you are suggesting that any discussions or considerations of Rand's strategy with respect to an upcoming debate are not to be tolerated prior to that debate, then I am still honestly and genuinely baffled at your criticism of McCarthy on the basis that he has asserted that Rand can or should try to have a "Giuliani moment" prior to any of the debates - since he did not make any such assertion.

On a related note, David Weigel has become notorious for pulling this crap [...]

What crap? What has Weigel got to do with it? He was merely cited by McCarthy as the elicitor of the "[rivals who] want to blow up the world" quote from Rand. Beyond that, Weigel hasn't got anything to do with anything McCarthy said or addressed. McCarthy was just identifying the source of the relevant quote.

[...] and the response I just got from sgt150 about Rand being a "milquetoast" after the filibusters and controversial bills he's plugged underscores this.

This is even further afield of anything to do with my reply to your earlier remark ...

If you guys spent half as much time considering the intent of Rand's strategy rather than the intent of questionable media sources, this place wouldn't be as depressing as the death scene in Old Yeller every time I log on.

Who are "you guys?" What "intent" of what "questionable media source" have I considered at the expense of having considered the "intent" of Rand's strategy ... ?

And how is the generally anti-establishment The American Conservative a "questionable media source?" It's an opinion magazine. (Or are you suggesting that the particular Rand quote pulled from Weigel is incorrect or fabricated?) And nearly the whole of McCarthy's article is an attempt to "consider the intent of Rand's strategy." If you disagree with or don't like the analysis McCarthy has offered, that's fine. That's your prerogative. But suggesting that McCarthy has some kind of insidiously nefarious "intent" merely because you disagree with or don't like that analysis is egregious. (And in any case, your disagreement with or dislike of McCarthy's article still doesn't serve to make any sense of your accusation that McCarthy has asserted that Rand should go for a "Giuliani moment" prior to the debate ...)

 

[hells_unicorn]

His momentum has waned. His poll numbers are low. His fundraising is poor. And it's not improving. It's headed in the wrong direction. Perhaps you're just a blind supporter of the campaign and have your head in the clouds so much that you can't see what is happening. But your denial of the obvious problems certainly isn't helping matters.

And your incessant whining is helping matters? Furthermore, Ron Paul went the tough guy, anti-establishment route and what office does he hold now?

Who are "you guys?"?

Read the defeatist words of the post quoted above and multiply it by at least a dozen other posters on this site. This is entirely shaped by MSM disinformation, and my critique of this article is not that it's an MSM outlet, so much as the headline is extremely bad and the suggestion itself rests on a faulty premise, namely that Ron Paul won the election by having a Giuliani moment, that obviously did not happen. What did having Giuliani drop out of the race accomplish exactly? We ended up with McInsane who was equally as bad, and Ron taking out both Santorum and Gingrich (who were terrible, make no mistake) also didn't win him the nomination.

I have a very short list of people in the media who's opinions I would actually trust, even among the Paleo-conservatives in Buchanan's fold. They've been repeatedly outmaneuvered by the Neo-cons for several decades now and it's obvious that their tactics are not effective.

 

[Jan2017]

And your incessant whining is helping matters? Furthermore,
Ron Paul went the tough guy, anti-establishment route and what office does he hold now?

Ghouliani-Buster . . .

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

And your incessant whining is helping matters? Furthermore, Ron Paul went the tough guy, anti-establishment route and what office does he hold now?

It's called telling it like it is, not putting your fingers in your ears and denying reality like you are.

 

[hells_unicorn]

It's called telling it like it is, not putting your fingers in your ears and denying reality like you are.

No, it's called being so utterly affected by media spin that you can't even tell which reality you are living in. Were you even paying attention to the last couple elections and how fast pre-debate surges by fake anti-establishment candidates fell apart?

I'll make you a deal, when Rand drops out, then you can muse over jumping off a building. Until then, you're in dreamland as much as anybody else.

Ghouliani-Buster . . .

And who got the nomination in 2008? Ron busted the Ghoul, but Gozer the Gozerian and Zuul ended up fighting it out for the presidency.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

No, it's called being so utterly affected by media spin that you can't even tell which reality you are living in. Were you even paying attention to the last couple elections and how fast pre-debate surges by fake anti-establishment candidates fell apart?

I'll make you a deal, when Rand drops out, then you can muse over jumping off a building. Until then, you're in dreamland as much as anybody else.

I guess you can blame the media or whoever else for the failures of Rand's campaign if that makes you feel better.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

And your incessant whining is helping matters? Furthermore, Ron Paul went the tough guy, anti-establishment route and what office does he hold now?

Rand Paul would still be at his ophthalmology practice had Ron not been who he was/is.

Which wasn't/isn't a tough guy, but he was anti-establishment and radical. Many in the liberty movement who have moved away from Rand were actually extremely excited by his presence in Ron's first campaign, as he was echoing Ron's positions and talking points. The thought of having a Ron Paul figure in the Senate was a thrilling proposition, and would have been a huge boon for libertarianism.

For what it's worth, Rand's approach has brought about the same amount of passed bills as Ron's approach. Even his wishy-washy budget proposals, including increasing defense spending and restoring sequestration cuts, received less than a dozen votes. For all of the hand-wringing over purists opposing Rand's measures, with defenders of the pragmatist approach castigating hardliners for wanting to lose votes 99-1, this bally-hooed new way has effectively seen the same amount of political success.

Furthermore, Rand's trojan horse strategy (assuming he is using that strategy, and doesn't actually hold the beliefs he's publicly stated) can and will only work if extremists and hardcore libertarians hold the line. Instead, many in the movement have fallen behind Rand and adopted his positions. As the acceptable range of political discussion narrows, the workers in the margin have to move towards the establishment in order to be effective. The best and most recent example of this same phenomenon is the Goldwater movement. Within a decade or so, the Goldwater movement had been brought entirely into the GOP fold and was neutered. The fruits of the Goldwater movement ended up being the Reagan presidency, which was a complete disaster.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Rand Paul would still be at his ophthalmology practice had Ron not been who he was/is.

True, but that wasn't the question. The question was whether or not Ron Paul's approach wins the presidency, which is a far wider range of people that those that vote in a Kentucky election on an off-year. And it isn't just Paul, show me ANY candidate that didn't adopt some type of fusion of several subsets of either conservativism or progressivism and actually won the presidency. You can't because there aren't any.

The first mistake everyone makes is equating the entire country with Justin Amash's or Thomas Massie's voting districts.

 

[Jan2017]

No, it's called being so utterly affected by media spin that you can't even tell which reality you are living in. Were you even paying attention to the last couple elections and how fast pre-debate surges by fake anti-establishment candidates fell apart?

I'll make you a deal, when Rand drops out, then you can muse over jumping off a building. Until then, you're in dreamland as much as anybody else.



And who got the nomination in 2008? Ron busted the Ghoul, but Gozer the Gozerian and Zuul ended up fighting it out for the presidency.

and Ron Paul finished second in 2012 to Mittens

Rand will be in the United States Senate from the State of Kentucky, so no worries here.

You Old Testament advocates can learn the apocryphal texts - in fact abolish the first 5 books of the Torah - they are useless . . .
then you won't sound so utterly retarded. Not sure how you defend Israeli stockpile of over 200 nuclear bombs -
and how the Asst. Secretary of State is in Israel to try to see if they can sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It IS afterr all, the only way down the peace highway. Israel renounce your nuclear weapons, before you Jews get turned into statutes of salt . . . again.

You have been warned now kikes.

 

[hells_unicorn]

and Ron Paul finished second in 2012 to Mittens

Rand will be in the United States Senate from the State of Kentucky, so no worries here.

You Old Testament advocates can learn the apocryphal texts - in fact abolish the first 5 books of the Torah - they are useless . . .
then you won't sound so utterly retarded. Not sure how you defend Israeli stockpile of over 200 nuclear bombs -
and how the Asst. Secretary of State is in Israel to try to see if they can sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It IS afterr all, the only way down the peace highway. Israel renounce your nuclear weapons, before you Jews get turned into statutes of salt . . . again.

You have been warned now kikes.

3 things:

1. What office does 2nd place get you?
2. You just went way off-topic. If you want to pass off your Papist idolatry as truth, keep it in the appropriate forum.
3. I'm a Presbyterian you moron, ergo the same denomination as Rand Paul. I am not a Zionist or a Dispensationalist. I have ZERO stake in Israel unless they suddenly adopt Christ as their savior, and unless being primarily of Irish ancestry makes me ethnically Jewish, you can kindly save that Kike talk for Bernie Sanders' crowd, who you ironically sound a lot like with this rubbish.

P.S. - Say hello to the Man of Sin for me the next time you're in Rome, and let him know that God has numbered the days of his cult.

 

[Smitty]

someone who will risk his neck to ensure there are more Thomas Massies and fewer Tom Cottons sent to Washington in the future.

One doesn't do that by signing Tom Cotton's mean ass letter to Iran.

 

[Jan2017]

I'm a Presbyterian

You believe in the Old Testament too much . . . sola scriptura advocate.

Game On!



.

 

[acptulsa]

This Giuliani moment is a test of Rand Paul’s courage. If he fights for realistic diplomatic initiatives like the Iran deal, he may yet lose the nomination, but he’ll make political success for those with his principles—including himself—more likely in the future. Conversely, it will prove to be a mistake as well as a disgrace if Rand Paul is running for president to be someone rather than to do something—all the more so if who he’s trying to be is not who he is but who the other Republicans are.

He makes a point and says what many here want to hear. But the way the author talks about Rand losing the nomination he seems to want it so much he can taste it.

I think Rand should do something to stand out on the debate stage. But all the so-called American Conservative is doing here is hoping they can influence Rand Paul to pick a hill to die on rather than a hill he can win--and from the top of which he can win it all.

on the work of crappy negotiators. I think if Trump's success demonstrates anything it is that supporting a bunch of Washington goofballs isn't popular even if the goal is something worthwhile (avoiding war). People can tell Trump is thinking things through and isn't being a pushover.

When Bush was pushing for war against Iraq, he considered Hussein's rhetoric as a justification for war, ignoring the fact that Hussein had to passify people inside his government by talking tough to the U.S. In the case of Iran, it should be expected now that they will say some things to their own people that make it sound like they are being tough with the U.S. but in the case of this deal, it really does sound like the worst negotiators the world has ever seen are working out the deal.

This idea that an agreement is made and is hidden from Congress and then Congress is supposed to just approve it is garbage.

This. This is why this is clearly the wrong thing for him to fight for, or at least is one of the reasons.

Trump is proving Rand's stragety is a failure. Maybe it would have worked in 2008 or 2012 but Ron woke too many people up. He should have carried the torch unabashed and stuck to what he knows is right instead of playing games.

Trump is appealing precisely because he's so much different than everyone else. So long as Rand sticks around for awhile I think he'll be a contender but unless he finds a way to regain the rebel image from Trump he will not win.

Trump is appealing to less than fifteen percent of the population, and there's no sign that he will attract one voter more.

Therefore, Trump is appealing because there is a certain portion of the GOP which is totally self-destructive, and wants desperately to lose. Again.

And you, as always, are proud to help them do it.

I'd suggest that you change your user name to NoOneButTrump in order to be honest, but he's not the only opponent you've shilled for before, and I'm sure when the novelty rubs off you'll be shilling for the Official Fox Candidate of the Month--whoever that may be.

 

[hells_unicorn]

You believe in the Old Testament too much . . . sola scriptura advocate.

Game On!

Take it to the appropriate forum please, if I have to have a back and forth with an amateur Roman apologist, I'm not going to participate in further derailing this thread. And you may want to send this message to Ron Paul, since his Baptist Church advocates sola scriptura as well, actually most of the Paul family is Lutheran. Come to think of it, most of the upper echelon of the Democratic Party is Jesuit, so you might want to ask yourself why you are backing Paul when Biden and Pelosi are more your kind.

If you want to respond, take it to the "Freedom Through Religion" thread, or PM me. I see one more post out of you on this thread citing anything religious, you'll have the pleasure of being the first one on my ignore list.