Is Rand Paul Missing His Giuliani Moment?

[rich34]

Rand does not need to come out in support of the trade deal with Iran. There's plenty other ways to have his "Julieanie" moment. What he needs to do is come up with a unique answer/history as a means to support his argument as to why this particular deal is no good. Look at Clinton in the 90's and his negotiations with North Korea and how they still ended up with nukes despite all the talks. This issue is far from 9/11 and history is not so much on our side especially when you look at the North Korea model. He just needs to come up with an answer that is different from the rest as to why he opposes it. If not, I can see someone else baiting him into the North Korea argument which there is no way to deny that NK still ended up with nukes and the argument will be Iran will to. Ron held the cards with the 9/11 argument, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and history was on his side. This deal however, is not on Rand's side if he supports it because he will once more be painted as weak on national security (siding with Obama) while the other candidates will point out Clinton's negotiations with NK and how the whole point was to prevent them from having nukes, yet they still ended up with them in the long run. This issue will hurt Rand is he comes out in favor of the deal and someone else will be using history as a means to support their position where as Rand cannot. However, I have yet to hear any of the candidates use the NK negotiations as a reason they are against this deal. Rand could be the first to do so and history will be on his side. That doesn't mean he supports war with Iran, but that he's not accepting negotiations where as it's not a good deal for the U.S. At any rate, this is NOT the issue to try and stand out from the rest, when they're already painting you as weak on defense even to the left of Obama. This is not an educational campaign, and Rand is trying to win the nomination. Not saying that Ron wasn't, but history and simply being right was on Ron's side in that particular exchange, this issue is not so clear cut and should be avoided.

 

[Jan2017]

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.

amateur what . . . ? I do not know what that means.
I only know that the evangelicals would never have had a Bible to misquote and misuse so much without
Roman Catholic monks having translated the Latin Vulgate first fer y'all - for ultimately now to a language (English) that didn't exist
until after St. Theresa of Avila walked the earth.

English speaking Bible Belters and the sola scriptura advocates like Huckabee preach from a translated text
as if it were the exact words of Christ - LOL Huckabee drops out, then without a preacher on the stage I'll be able to move a conversation to the other forum.

How many times will Huckabee invoke "the Word of God" tomorrow night (?) - draped in the flag and carrying a cross is HIM - not Ron or Rand really.

 

[squirl22]

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

It's the media and pollsters (paid by who?) that have convinced YOU that Rand's campaign is failing. That's the point you are missing.

It only looks like Rand's campaign is failing because of all of the negative press reports, including those Rand has stated are pure fiction (specifically the Politico piece), and the rigged polls.

I really don't believe that Huckabee is in fourth place and whats his name (you, know he's the governor of the state the debate is being held in, why else would he make the debate) in 10th...and Walker that no one knows anything about except he's good at beating up unions..it's rigged..you are being manipulated by the main stream media the whole time you claim to be a freedom loving libertarian. Can you get that?

 

[hells_unicorn]

amateur what . . . ? I do not know what that means.
I only know that the evangelicals would never have had a Bible to misquote and misuse so much without
Roman Catholic monks having translated the Latin Vulgate first fer y'all - for ultimately now to a language (English) that didn't exist
until after St. Theresa of Avila walked the earth.

English speaking Bible Belters and the sola scriptura advocates like Huckabee preach from a translated text
as if it were the exact words of Christ - LOL Huckabee drops out, then without a preacher on the stage I'll be able to move a conversation to the other forum.

How many times will Huckabee invoke "the Word of God" tomorrow night (?) - draped in the flag and carrying a cross is HIM - not Ron or Rand really.

I'm not a Baptist or a Fundamentalist you bonehead, and you've just now officially made my ignore list. Congrats.

 

[Occam's Banana]

[M]y 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.

How can so obviously fatuous a premise as "Ron Paul won the election by having a Giuliani moment" possibly be derived from "Is Rand Paul Missing His Giuliani Moment?"

Not only is the extraction of such a "premise" from the title a bizarre non sequitur, it is in direct contradiction to what McCarthy explicity acknowledged in the text of the article (viz., "[Ron Paul] didn’t change nearly enough [minds] to win a single primary, of course [...]").

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.

Who has suggested that the significance of the so-called "Giuliani moment" had anything to do with Giuliani dropping out of the race?

Except for his role as an incidental catalyst and accidental foil, Giuliani himself is entirely irrelevant to the "Giuliani moment."

The significance of the "Giuliani moment" - and the reason it has become so famous - is that it so stronly galvanized support for Ron Paul, not that it did anything to hurt Giuliani (let alone drive him out of the race). The importance of the "Giuliani moment" does not consist in the trite and obvious fact that it did not win Ron Paul the election (or even the nomination). It consists in the fact that it organically crystallized a very enthusiastic and highly motivated base of support for a movement from which other things followed - such as the elections of Rand Paul, Justin Amash and Thomas Massie to Congress. (Yet apparently, the "Giuliani moment" in particular and Ron's strategy in general are now to be written off as abject failures because they did not provide the instant gratification of an electoral victory "right then and there" ...)

 

[Ronin Truth]

Well Rand COULD go over to Rudy's house and call him out, for a moment.

 

[erowe1]

I only know that the evangelicals would never have had a Bible to misquote and misuse so much without
Roman Catholic monks having translated the Latin Vulgate first fer y'all - for ultimately now to a language (English) that didn't exist
until after St. Theresa of Avila walked the earth..

Where did you get that idea? None of the major English translations, except for distinctly Roman Catholic ones, are translated from the Latin Vulgate.

Also, Jerome translated the Vulgate around AD 400, before anything like what we today call the Roman Catholic Church existed.

 

[erowe1]

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

What do you mean by this? I don't see how it fits this thread, or how believing in sola scriptura means believing in the OT more than Roman Catholics do (or at least are supposed to according to their Church's official dogmas).

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Rand does not need to come out in support of the trade deal with Iran. There's plenty other ways to have his "Julieanie" moment. What he needs to do is come up with a unique answer/history as a means to support his argument as to why this particular deal is no good. Look at Clinton in the 90's and his negotiations with North Korea and how they still ended up with nukes despite all the talks. This issue is far from 9/11 and history is not so much on our side especially when you look at the North Korea model. He just needs to come up with an answer that is different from the rest as to why he opposes it. If not, I can see someone else baiting him into the North Korea argument which there is no way to deny that NK still ended up with nukes and the argument will be Iran will to. Ron held the cards with the 9/11 argument, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and history was on his side. This deal however, is not on Rand's side if he supports it because he will once more be painted as weak on national security (siding with Obama) while the other candidates will point out Clinton's negotiations with NK and how the whole point was to prevent them from having nukes, yet they still ended up with them in the long run. This issue will hurt Rand is he comes out in favor of the deal and someone else will be using history as a means to support their position where as Rand cannot. However, I have yet to hear any of the candidates use the NK negotiations as a reason they are against this deal. Rand could be the first to do so and history will be on his side. That doesn't mean he supports war with Iran, but that he's not accepting negotiations where as it's not a good deal for the U.S. At any rate, this is NOT the issue to try and stand out from the rest, when they're already painting you as weak on defense even to the left of Obama. This is not an educational campaign, and Rand is trying to win the nomination. Not saying that Ron wasn't, but history and simply being right was on Ron's side in that particular exchange, this issue is not so clear cut and should be avoided.

Ahh, Jason Stapleton.

 

[georgiaboy]

Ok, Dan, happy now?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Well, Rand took the advice and went all in looking for a "Giuliani moment"...

 

[jkr]

NOT
ANY
MORE!!!


I mean, sheesh, he could just call him Crispy G00LIanne national "t\/" now!

 

[Sam I am]

I don't think the thing with Christie quite rises to the level as the argument between Ron and Giuliani.

The dispute between Rand and Christie is actually over a difference between ideology and values.

When it was Ron and Giuliani, It was a dispute over the facts, and Ron was straight up right, and Giuliani was straight up wrong.