I'm not the one who doesn't get it. You are comparing Ron's run which was in an entirely different political environment to Rand's. Let me point out a few things.
I get it. But your analysis of the difference is flat wrong. I don't think you will understand this but I will try.
First, when Ron ran the political climate was far more anti-war than it is today.
Wrong.
The Republican party is far more anti war today than it was in 2008 or 2012! In 2008 70% of Republicans still supported the Iraq war. Today a solid majority of Republicans think that was a mistake. Why do you think Donald Trump is able to get away with saying that he was against the war in Afghanistan?
Sure, Trump says the Iraq war was a mistake but then he turns around and says we need to go over to the middle east, murder the families of "terrorists", steal the oil, and bomb the fuck out of them. Trump is not anti war and did not get any support for being anti war.
You clearly don't understand Trumpspeak nor do you have a clue of how to connect with the average voter. Rand should have come out and said early on bomb the "fuck" out of ISIS. That's not a pro war position. ISIS brutally killed Americans. Ron Paul voted to "bomb the fuck" out of Al Qaeda. Or have you forgotten that? The AUMF that Ron Paul voted for back in 2001 was a blank check to "bomb the fuck" out of Al Qaeda wherever they may be. And guess what? When you give a blank check to the U.S. Federal government to "bomb the fuck" out of a group of people, any family or friends who happen to be nearby are likely to get killed.
Now. Here's the meat of what Trump said.
1) No boots on the ground.
2) Let Russia, and by extension Iran, take care of ISIS in Syria.
3) Bomb the oil fields to cut off their money supply. (The opposite of "stealing" the oil).
That's about it. He hasn't actually proposed
doing anything. It's total fluff. But he get's away with it by throwing in some gratuitous "let's bomb the fuck out of them" rhetoric. And as for "stealing the oil" what he actually said was, had we actually gotten oil out of Iraq then maybe the war would have been worth it but since we didn't it wasn't. It's a pragmatic antiwar stance. Nothing noble or honorable about that. It's a point that wars that don't serve an economic benefit aren't worth fighting. Now I would say that wars that aren't purely about self defense aren't worth fighting. But at least the pragmatic stance is better than the "Let's go to war to spread truth, justice and the American way!" mentality that we have been doing.
More on the antiwar climate that we have
in the Republican party in 2016. I've heard talk show host after talk show host say that the wars in Libya and Syria are wrong. That's a big reason why Rubio, Bush, Christie and others
cannot get traction. Libya and Syria are purely Obama's wars. So to be "antiwar" when it comes to Libya and Syria makes you anti Obama. These same talk show host attempt (very clumsily) to defend the Iraq war while attacking the Libya and Syria wars. The exception to this is Michael Savage (huge Trump supporter now) who came out against the Iraq war sometime after the 2012 election....when such a stance could no longer do Ron Paul any good.
So...you think Ron Paul would have been hurt by an "antiwar" climate? Which actual war that Ron Paul would be against would hurt him this time? Iraq? Nope. Syria? Nope. Libya? Nope. The "war on terror?" He voted to approve it. He might not agree with how it's being fought, but he absolutely voted for its initiation.
Going on the Alex Jones show would have accomplished absolutely zilch, aside from removing one criticism you have today of his campaign. Going on that show does not get you more voters in Iowa.
That swoshing sound you hear
is my point going right over your head! I'm not saying that Trump was helped by going on the Alex Jones show.
I'm saying that he wasn't hurt by it! Everybody was all panties in a wad in 2008 and 2012 about how the "twofers" were supposedly hurting the Ron Paul campaign. Well...Rand Paul without the "twofers" hasn't been doing all that well. And Donald Trump embracing the "twofers" has been kicking ass. I'm not saying it's because of "twofer" support, but it certainly hasn't hurt Trump. That said, when Ron Paul used to go on the Alex Jones show he often said "I run into your listeners all the time and they tell me they're supporting me and donating money." Every little bit helps. Donald Trump has found a way to build a broad coalition without taking any heat from it. With his bombastic rhetoric talking about "Mexican rapist and murderers" and "keep out the Muslims" he's probably got a lot of racist/Stormfront support. Ron was so worried about that (for good reason) that he gave back a donation from the founder of Stormfront. Donald Trump probably could have kept the money and not been hurt. His "go to hell media" attitude has thrown everything off kilter. And that would have helped Ron Paul. Ron Paul had to deal with the media running against him. But the media is so preoccupied with Donald Trump that they wouldn't have had time for their typical anti Ron Paul attacks.
Trump pledged to support the nominee and not to run third party as well.
After he was badgered into it by Rand Paul and others. The point, against that you seem to be missing, is that Rand pushing Trump to pledge not to run third party made Rand look like an establishment stooge.
Yes, Rand's campaign did make some mistakes as do all campaigns. But to try to sit here and say Ron's actual campaign was run better than Rand's is absolutely ridiculous and your reasoning behind it is even worse. Your primary mistake is thinking that the same rules apply to Rand as they do Trump or Cruz. That has always been where you have gone wrong in your criticism of Rand's campaign this entire cycle.
Wrong!
What's absolutely ridiculous is the mental gymnastics you and others are going through to defend a position that is now provably false!
Yes 2016 is different than 2008 and 2012.
But it's different in ways that would HELP Ron Paul, not HURT him! It's the year of the quintessential anti establishment candidate. And in the year of the quintessential anti establishment candidate Rand Paul got the endorsement of one of the most hated figures in the establishment, Mitch McConnell. Rubio is doing worse than he should be. (I'm glad he's doing bad. I'm just saying by conventional wisdom he's doing worse.) Jeb Bush is sucking air. Rick Santorum should have done better than he's done. So should have Mike Huckabee. And Ted Cruz? His claim to fame is calling Mitch McConnell a liar. And what did Rand Paul do?
He attacked Ted Cruz for attacking the establishment! Ron Paul would not have done that. At the very least Ron would have said "Well I don't use that kind of language myself but I understand the frustration with the GOP leadership." He certainly wouldn't have taken the "Well Ted Cruz can't get anything done because people don't like him for saying stuff like that" position Rand took. And before you say "Well Trump took that position in his attacks against Cruz", I will say you're right. And that was Trump's first real mistake this campaign season and it cost him Iowa.
Keep in mind Ron lost all his attempts at running for president and never even came close. Rand's first attempt is not going great as of now, yet you are advocating for Rand to run a campaign modeled after a failed candidate.
Bullshit. I'm not advocating Rand to run a campaign modeled after a failed candidate. Donald Trump is not a failed candidate at this point and he has modeled much of his campaign after Ron Paul. He's been unapologetically against the Iraq, Libyan and Syrian wars. He's not been afraid to challenge the establishment. He's not been afraid to embrace those considered strange or kooky. (Alex Jones). And his first setback came after getting off his anti establishment playbook and attacking Ted Cruz for being too establishment. The big difference between Trump and Paul on campaign style is that Trump has thrown in some gratuitously bombastic language to cover over the fact that he really hasn't proposed any military solution to the ISIS problem. That's because he's smart enough to know that their isn't a military solution but also smart enough to know that the average voter is to ignorant of the facts to realize this. So "bomb the hell out of ISIS! Keep out the Muslims! Shut off the ISIS Internet! Iraq was bad because we didn't take the oil!" That's enough to keep the average teocon on board without actually thinking through his "proposals." I was the one person here early on that said Rand should have said bomb the oil fields before Trump did. It would have been a meaningless gesture that would have convinced some teocons that Rand actually was prepared to do something about ISIS. That's all the average voter wants to hear. That you recognize there is a problem and you are prepared to "do something."
When in reality, Paul's initial strategy would have been very successful in 9 out of 10 election cycles.
Maybe. Maybe not. But we don't live in 9 out of 10 election cycles. We live in
this election cycle. And Ron Paul's strategy would have been better in
this election cycle and that's provable. Ron would have pulled more of the Bernie Sanders voters than Rand did. And Ron would have done it without the childish "Socialists have killed millions of people" strategy that Rand has tried. Sanders voters point to France and Great Britain and Canada and say "That's the socialism we want. Not Cambodia or the USSR." Rand should been instead be pointing to Greece as the example of socialism wrong. That's the likely result of Sanders economic policies, an economy permanently in the toilet rather than the killing fields.
You are also making the huge mistake of assuming that either Cruz/Trump is going to win the nomination, thus making the incorrect assumption that even if Rand ran the exact campaign as these two he would ultimately win.
I haven't ASSumed anything. You are ASSuming I have. It's still anybody's game and I'm hoping Rand will ultimately win. That said, if Rand doesn't win, I
hope we get Trump or Cruz rather than Rubio or Jeb or Christie or Kasic. Really, everybody else just pretty much totally sucks. I would take Carson over the rest of the field as well but his campaign is about dead. And ultimately neither Cruz nor Trump can beat Bernie Sanders. The most recent republican versus democratic candidate polls show Cruz and Trump possibly beating Hillary, but losing to Sanders. The only person that can beat Bernie Sanders is Rand Paul. He'd have to be on his A game to do it though.
That said, at the moment Cruz and Trump are so far out front that it's hard to see a path for anyone else to catch up. It's like watching a marathon where there is a breakaway pack and right now their it. That's reality. It's not an ASSumption. How does Rubio overcome his vote for the "gang of 8" immigration bill? How does Kasic overcome his continuing lack of name recognition? How does Christie overcome seeming too much like Obama? How does Jed overcome seeming like the runt of the family when it comes to politics and at a time when his family's political star seems to be fading? His dad's most recent book blamed Dick Cheney and others for screwing up his son's presidency. That's a tacit admission that his son's presidency sucked. Ben Carson's candidacy has been given CPR for the last time and it's time to pull the plug and call in the coroner. Huckabee and Santorum are dropping out from what I hear. So while it's always "anybody's race", everybody but Trump and Cruz is in a really bad position right now. Rand will hang in until the end and, like 2008 and 2012, Rand will keep his 5% until the end and as the other candidates drop out that 5% will grow as the only viable alternative to Trump and Cruz. The good news is that this time, unlike 2008 and 2012, there is a real chance for a brokered convention regardless of how well or poorly Rand does. That's because if Trump and Cruz keep doing near even splits and with Rand and other candidates grabbing at least some delegates here and there, both Trump and Cruz will have a hard time getting that "magic number" that would stave off a brokered convention. But if either Trump or Cruz takes a nosedive, one of the other will most likely be the nominee based on what's currently going on.
