Badger Paul
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,718
http://thursdaysblog1.blogspot.com/2015/01/why-rand-should-sit-this-one-out.html
Rand Paul is getting ready to run for President. He apparently has hired a campaign manager. This would be the third bid for the White House in a row from the Paul family (if we count Ron Paul's runs in 2008 and 2012).
Timing is everything in politics (as it is of so much of life) and as this time, eight years ago, it was the right time and the perfect time for Ron Paul to run for President. The country and especially the Republican Party needed a new voice and a new way of looking at questions that in wake of Gulf War II and the Panic of '08 needed to be asked. The timing was also good for Ron to run again in 2012 after a movement coalesced around his first campaign which sparked the election of his son Rand to the U.S. Senate.
However, I believe the opposite to be true for 2016. I think Rand would best serve his interests and the interests of the movement he wishes to inherit by staying out of the ring and waiting until 2020.
The war in Iraq and the economic problems it was causing that eventually led to the Great Recession, were the perfect background for Ron Paul's first campaign. Instead of beeing seen as gadfly or an old crank, these events and his reaction to them were so different than what other Republicans, or for that matter many other politicians of all stripes, were saying gave him an audience that wouldn't have listened to him otherwise.
Such conditions don't exist right now as we speak and while there are events still waiting to take place, right now is the context such campaigns have to be organized. And right now, gas prices are falling, unemployment is dropping, while the economy may not be improving quick enough for some, it certainly is not on the decline as was in 2007 when the recession really began. Yes, there is trouble in world, but when hasn't there been? Yes, there are U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but hardly in the numbers there were in 2007. Besides, Rand supports the U.S. mission against ISIS.
Without the sense of crisis that existed in the background of 2007, Rand is not going to find it easy to gain an audience to listen to him, especially when so many candidates are planning on jumping in. Some of them have lots of money and will have lots of political support like Romney and Bush III, others lay claim to various factions of the party like Huckabee and Cruz, others are potential "unity" candidates to rally around like Walker and Perry. And they're all candidates who could plausibly co-opt a portion of Rand's message for their own.
Not only that, but eight years after Ron Paul's first run, the band which rallied around his cause of non-interventionism and opposition to the military-industrial complex, is still quite small. Yes there have been a few politicians elected here and there and yes the non-interventionist argument can be made and find some support within the party. But if all it takes is one terrorist attack to drive rank n'file GOP voters into the neocons demanding "secruity", then the larger goal of Paul movement (or "Liberty" movement or the "Revolution" whatever you want to call it) has not succeeded and is a long way off from doing so. Such persons have not been convinced that cutting the defense/national security/intelligence budgets and apparatuses is the way to small government more adherent and faithful to the Constitution and until they are Rand will never win the Republican Party nomination. And forget Mitch McConnell's endorsement. It's not a bad thing to have but since Mitch is running the Senate, he'll have little time to give Rand any help.
No matter who the Republican nominee they will start off at a disadvantage to Hillary Clinton, especially when Clinton will waltz her way to the Democrats' nomination while the Republican Party engages in another 16-car demolition derby to determine its nominee. This doesn't mean Clinton is unbeatable, but if the economy continues to improve and there are no major usage of U.S. troops anywhere in the world, she will be favored to win the election.
So having established the difficulty of winning both the Republican Party nomination and the general election for 2016, Rand would be better off running for re-election to the U.S. Senate, which he is favored to win and bide his time until the opportunity arises where party, especially if it loses the White House in 2016, will turn to him out of sheer desperation. That's a very advantageous position to be in. Also advantageous is the fact that Clinton and those surrounding her are more than likely to get the U.S. involved in another senseless war/nation building project which could very well wreck the economic recovery and perhaps split the Democratic Party by 2020. Plus, 2020 will be an important election for it will determine who controls redistricting after the next Census which will shape politics for the new '20s. Rand will be in far better position to run for President as a two-term Senator, running against an unpopular incumbent with a divided party and having the support of Republican Party willing to give his brand of politics a chance because they're tired of losing Presidential elections.
If successful generals win battles because they fight on ground of their choosing, then Rand Paul will find the terrain for his Presidential campaign more to his suiting by waiting it out than wasting his time and money in another losing effort for the family and for movement itself. And a losing effort would not only find him out of the Senate but the movement's political prospects damaged as well. Thus, not only will the stakes be high in 2020 to run, they'll be even higher to avoid failure in 2016. The best way for Paul to do that is to stay far away from Presidential politics for now.
Rand Paul is getting ready to run for President. He apparently has hired a campaign manager. This would be the third bid for the White House in a row from the Paul family (if we count Ron Paul's runs in 2008 and 2012).
Timing is everything in politics (as it is of so much of life) and as this time, eight years ago, it was the right time and the perfect time for Ron Paul to run for President. The country and especially the Republican Party needed a new voice and a new way of looking at questions that in wake of Gulf War II and the Panic of '08 needed to be asked. The timing was also good for Ron to run again in 2012 after a movement coalesced around his first campaign which sparked the election of his son Rand to the U.S. Senate.
However, I believe the opposite to be true for 2016. I think Rand would best serve his interests and the interests of the movement he wishes to inherit by staying out of the ring and waiting until 2020.
The war in Iraq and the economic problems it was causing that eventually led to the Great Recession, were the perfect background for Ron Paul's first campaign. Instead of beeing seen as gadfly or an old crank, these events and his reaction to them were so different than what other Republicans, or for that matter many other politicians of all stripes, were saying gave him an audience that wouldn't have listened to him otherwise.
Such conditions don't exist right now as we speak and while there are events still waiting to take place, right now is the context such campaigns have to be organized. And right now, gas prices are falling, unemployment is dropping, while the economy may not be improving quick enough for some, it certainly is not on the decline as was in 2007 when the recession really began. Yes, there is trouble in world, but when hasn't there been? Yes, there are U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but hardly in the numbers there were in 2007. Besides, Rand supports the U.S. mission against ISIS.
Without the sense of crisis that existed in the background of 2007, Rand is not going to find it easy to gain an audience to listen to him, especially when so many candidates are planning on jumping in. Some of them have lots of money and will have lots of political support like Romney and Bush III, others lay claim to various factions of the party like Huckabee and Cruz, others are potential "unity" candidates to rally around like Walker and Perry. And they're all candidates who could plausibly co-opt a portion of Rand's message for their own.
Not only that, but eight years after Ron Paul's first run, the band which rallied around his cause of non-interventionism and opposition to the military-industrial complex, is still quite small. Yes there have been a few politicians elected here and there and yes the non-interventionist argument can be made and find some support within the party. But if all it takes is one terrorist attack to drive rank n'file GOP voters into the neocons demanding "secruity", then the larger goal of Paul movement (or "Liberty" movement or the "Revolution" whatever you want to call it) has not succeeded and is a long way off from doing so. Such persons have not been convinced that cutting the defense/national security/intelligence budgets and apparatuses is the way to small government more adherent and faithful to the Constitution and until they are Rand will never win the Republican Party nomination. And forget Mitch McConnell's endorsement. It's not a bad thing to have but since Mitch is running the Senate, he'll have little time to give Rand any help.
No matter who the Republican nominee they will start off at a disadvantage to Hillary Clinton, especially when Clinton will waltz her way to the Democrats' nomination while the Republican Party engages in another 16-car demolition derby to determine its nominee. This doesn't mean Clinton is unbeatable, but if the economy continues to improve and there are no major usage of U.S. troops anywhere in the world, she will be favored to win the election.
So having established the difficulty of winning both the Republican Party nomination and the general election for 2016, Rand would be better off running for re-election to the U.S. Senate, which he is favored to win and bide his time until the opportunity arises where party, especially if it loses the White House in 2016, will turn to him out of sheer desperation. That's a very advantageous position to be in. Also advantageous is the fact that Clinton and those surrounding her are more than likely to get the U.S. involved in another senseless war/nation building project which could very well wreck the economic recovery and perhaps split the Democratic Party by 2020. Plus, 2020 will be an important election for it will determine who controls redistricting after the next Census which will shape politics for the new '20s. Rand will be in far better position to run for President as a two-term Senator, running against an unpopular incumbent with a divided party and having the support of Republican Party willing to give his brand of politics a chance because they're tired of losing Presidential elections.
If successful generals win battles because they fight on ground of their choosing, then Rand Paul will find the terrain for his Presidential campaign more to his suiting by waiting it out than wasting his time and money in another losing effort for the family and for movement itself. And a losing effort would not only find him out of the Senate but the movement's political prospects damaged as well. Thus, not only will the stakes be high in 2020 to run, they'll be even higher to avoid failure in 2016. The best way for Paul to do that is to stay far away from Presidential politics for now.
.
