Rand Paul leaves open 2016

[Uriah]

Rand playing politics to pass legislation led to 10 votes in his favor to cut a measly few billion dollars in foreign aid to a few countries. It's also bleeding support from Ron's core base. You'll forgive me if I'm not exactly excited by those prospects.

You are referencing one vote, out of many, over the past two years. Can you show any evidence that Ron's core base is bleeding support? From my perspective in Iowa and here at RPF I do not see any real hard evidence of this. What I see is quite the contrary.

There are many folks I know that are still active across the state as evidenced here. Paul supporters hold just under half of our county's GOP central committee positions. We aren't bleeding support in my opinion. We are strengthening our support and finding new supporters for liberty.

Also of note, at my local GOP meeting two months ago there was an argument between a Paul national delegate and our county co-chair. They argued about what the Paul supporters were doing at the convention. Some harsh words were exchanged and they couldn't see eye to eye. Somewhere in the mix Rand Paul was brought up. Our Paul delegate said to the co-chair that Rand and Ron are virtually identical in philosophy and end goals. The co-chair shook his head and said 'no they aren't'. To be clear, my county co-chair is vehemently and adamantly against Ron Paul and his policies.(except the federal reserve ) But somehow is favorable towards Rand Paul.

 

[Shane Harris]

Rand playing politics to pass legislation led to 10 votes in his favor to cut a measly few billion dollars in foreign aid to a few countries. It's also bleeding support from Ron's core base. You'll forgive me if I'm not exactly excited by those prospects.

This is the recent obsession of Rands that he keeps harping. This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. He spends all this time harping on something that is NOT the real issue. http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/s...azi-where-in-the-hell-were-the-marines-audio/

From his facebook :

"While our diplomats were being attacked in Libya, we had 10 Marines stationed in Paris. Where were the Marines in Benghazi? We've spent $100,000 making our embassy in Vienna more "green." Who thought we couldn't commit resources to protect our ambassador in Libya? Most importantly: Who will answer for this?"

Instead of talking about blowback, interventionism and the reasons WHY they attacked our embassy, he spends all this time attacking the President's leadership and every little decision about these things that, while true, are not the major issues.

 

[69360]

I'm all in for Rand '16. I'm not nearly as picky as some here, I think he is just as good as Ron.

 

[Matt Collins]

Rand playing politics to pass legislation led to 10 votes in his favor to cut a measly few billion dollars in foreign aid to a few countries. It's also bleeding support from Ron's core base. You'll forgive me if I'm not exactly excited by those prospects.

That's because you don't understand politics or the political process at all.

Rand was getting these guys on record voting for more foreign aid. That is VERY useful when it comes to primarying these politicians; especially the Republicans.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

That's because you don't understand politics or the political process at all.

Rand was getting these guys on record voting for more foreign aid. That is VERY useful when it comes to primarying these politicians; especially the Republicans.

Mitch McConnell voted to keep the aid going, and Rand is already on record as supporting his reelection. Plus he's fundraising for him. Are you certain you know how the political process works?

This is the recent obsession of Rands that he keeps harping. This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. He spends all this time harping on something that is NOT the real issue. http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/s...azi-where-in-the-hell-were-the-marines-audio/

From his facebook :

"While our diplomats were being attacked in Libya, we had 10 Marines stationed in Paris. Where were the Marines in Benghazi? We've spent $100,000 making our embassy in Vienna more "green." Who thought we couldn't commit resources to protect our ambassador in Libya? Most importantly: Who will answer for this?"

Instead of talking about blowback, interventionism and the reasons WHY they attacked our embassy, he spends all this time attacking the President's leadership and every little decision about these things that, while true, are not the major issues.

I agree, the Marines shouldn't even be in Libya at all, and his rhetoric on this issue is abysmal.

 

[Matt Collins]

Mitch McConnell voted to keep the aid going, and Rand is already on record as supporting his reelection.

That's because Mitch isn't vulnerable, plus, having him on our side in 2016 is helpful.

 

[Dick Chaney]

Good for him, not voting for him.

 

[mz10]

Good for him, not voting for him.

Because he endorsed someone? Good god, I am so sick of all this crap, you really don't think liberty would be massively better off in this country with Rand Paul as president? I really think this has just become a self-indulgent thing for a lot of people.

 

[radiofriendly]

Because he endorsed someone? Good god, I am so sick of all this crap, you really don't think liberty would be massively better off in this country with Rand Paul as president? I really think this has just become a self-indulgent thing for a lot of people.

Most of these people are anarchists and don't vote anyway.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

Unless someone better comes up to the plate in 2016 and has a chance, I'd probably vote for Rand... Probably better than whatever the democrats or republicans will get in 2016.

 

[Michigan11]

I'm 100% for Rand Paul running for President when the time is right. Hopefully 2016.

 

[SneakyFrenchSpy]

Look at the Demographics and the timing of Rand's popularity:

Compare it with Ron's page:

Rand is getting the old farts in droves. Sure he's losing some of Ron's die-hard younger core support among us, but it's being dwarfed by the converts he's getting in return: The Old Vote. The ones that actually VOTE. ALL THE TIME.

 

[Shane Harris]

I'm 100% for Rand Paul running for President when the time is right. Hopefully 2016.

me too

 

[Rede]

I'm 100% for Rand Paul running for President when the time is right. Hopefully 2016.

I'd hazard a guess that this is the majority opinion amongst most Ron Paul supporters but there is a vocal minority who won't accept anyone other than a duplicate of Ron Paul. I can understand that - I loved that Ron didn't play their game - but I also like seeing an advocate for Liberty playing their game and actually beating the establishment at it.

I think Rand has taken some more traditional Republican positions ... some of which, admittedly, likely have to do with political expediency and playing their game... and that has probably turned off some of Ron's supporters (both the positions and the expediency). I don't love that he does that, but understand why he has to. On balance, though I think Rand will be the best advocate for liberty in the Senate or the House come next year... and he is laying some solid groundwork for 2016 if Mitt doesn't pull off an upset. Unfortunately, this is what it takes to win and I'm glad someone in the liberty movement is both prepared to and in a position to have a serious shot at doing that.

We've got to be the educational and philosophical arm of this movement - a role I'm sure Ron will also continue to fulfill. Rand is part of the political arm, so he has to play the political game.

 

[itshappening]

I have no doubt Rand can win Iowa if he tailors the message correctly, this would make him a top tier candidate in 2016.

The only question is if he can put the right campaign and people in place to pull it off, im talking building bridges with evangelicals who are very powerful there and building lists of voters who can be turned out at the polls i.e organizing coach loads of voters throughout the state in a massive turnout operation along with robocalls, door to door voter contact and being on tv and radio constantly with ads, which isnt cheap so would need our backing ofcourse.

We should have a decent infrastructure in Iowa and half the GOP state committee are Ron Paul people including Drew Ivers. They know the state party, voters, county's, precincts etc. This would give us a big advantage if used correctly.

New Hampshire has the FSP people and we have lots of state rep's and local people who support(ed) Ron Paul to help build the infrastructure to deliver the state plus momentum from Iowa would propel Rand and make him a valid choice for all those McCain/Romney voters.

I dont see why we would not have a big advantage in IA and NH which other candidates will find it hard to compete with as long as it's done properly and we have the funds.

 

[AuH20]

Look at the Demographics and the timing of Rand's popularity:

Compare it with Ron's page:

Rand is getting the old farts in droves. Sure he's losing some of Ron's die-hard younger core support among us, but it's being dwarfed by the converts he's getting in return: The Old Vote. The ones that actually VOTE. ALL THE TIME.

I really lose sleep about losing the Los Angeles 25-34 Ron Paul demographic. ROFL

 

[Shane Harris]

I have no doubt Rand can win Iowa if he tailors the message correctly, this would make him a top tier candidate in 2016.

The only question is if he can put the right campaign and people in place to pull it off, im talking building bridges with evangelicals who are very powerful there and building lists of voters who can be turned out at the polls i.e organizing coach loads of voters throughout the state in a massive turnout operation along with robocalls, door to door voter contact and being on tv and radio constantly with ads, which isnt cheap so would need our backing ofcourse.

We should have a decent infrastructure in Iowa and half the GOP state committee are Ron Paul people including Drew Ivers. They know the state party, voters, county's, precincts etc. This would give us a big advantage if used correctly.

New Hampshire has the FSP people and we have lots of state rep's and local people who support(ed) Ron Paul to help build the infrastructure to deliver the state plus momentum from Iowa would propel Rand and make him a valid choice for all those McCain/Romney voters.

I dont see why we would not have a big advantage in IA and NH which other candidates will find it hard to compete with as long as it's done properly and we have the funds.

Agreed. Iowa looks great, New Hampshire looks great, and South Carolina is shaping up to potentially look pretty decent by 2016 as well. A Davis endorsement (hopefully a Senator by that time), and probably a Demint endorsement will hold lots of water. Our best hope for Florida is that it falls in line if Rand wins the first three. It really is fortunate that perhaps two of our strongest state organizations and demographics are the first two primaries. Its exciting to think about. Here's to praying for an Obama win tomorrow (without voting for him of course)!

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

You are referencing one vote, out of many, over the past two years. Can you show any evidence that Ron's core base is bleeding support? From my perspective in Iowa and here at RPF I do not see any real hard evidence of this. What I see is quite the contrary.

There are many folks I know that are still active across the state as evidenced here. Paul supporters hold just under half of our county's GOP central committee positions. We aren't bleeding support in my opinion. We are strengthening our support and finding new supporters for liberty.

Also of note, at my local GOP meeting two months ago there was an argument between a Paul national delegate and our county co-chair. They argued about what the Paul supporters were doing at the convention. Some harsh words were exchanged and they couldn't see eye to eye. Somewhere in the mix Rand Paul was brought up. Our Paul delegate said to the co-chair that Rand and Ron are virtually identical in philosophy and end goals. The co-chair shook his head and said 'no they aren't'. To be clear, my county co-chair is vehemently and adamantly against Ron Paul and his policies.(except the federal reserve ) But somehow is favorable towards Rand Paul.

Rand is a political master. He's the Liberty movements Bill Clinton in that regard. What he's doing is working brilliant like you pointed out above. I've seen it with my own eyes as well, the people who vehemently oppose to Ron, actually really like Rand, and it has all to do with how you phrase things. For whatever reason it seemed to really pain Ron to talk about how he would defend this country. When Charles Krauthammer asked him about he gave a very succinct, yet strong answer on it and shut Krauthammer down. That should've been rinse, repeat from day one, from Ron's mouth at every campaign stop to quell the pacifistic notion that circulated for years, but alas, it came on the eve of the Iowa caucus.

Rand avoids that trap with ease and with the crowd disarmed, can then move forward to educate them on the issues and sell himself as the guy to get things done.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

That's because Mitch isn't vulnerable, plus, having him on our side in 2016 is helpful.

Correct. Why pick a fight with the big guy at the end of the bar, when he'll actually help your cause when the real brawl starts? Besides, this gives the Liberty-minded farm team candidates in Kentucky time to get some experience under their belt. This will likely be McConnell's last term. Allowing him to go out graciously will put Rand even more in line to inherit the McConnell political machine and their tremendous fund raising ability.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I have no doubt Rand can win Iowa if he tailors the message correctly, this would make him a top tier candidate in 2016.

The only question is if he can put the right campaign and people in place to pull it off, im talking building bridges with evangelicals who are very powerful there and building lists of voters who can be turned out at the polls i.e organizing coach loads of voters throughout the state in a massive turnout operation along with robocalls, door to door voter contact and being on tv and radio constantly with ads, which isnt cheap so would need our backing ofcourse.

We should have a decent infrastructure in Iowa and half the GOP state committee are Ron Paul people including Drew Ivers. They know the state party, voters, county's, precincts etc. This would give us a big advantage if used correctly.

New Hampshire has the FSP people and we have lots of state rep's and local people who support(ed) Ron Paul to help build the infrastructure to deliver the state plus momentum from Iowa would propel Rand and make him a valid choice for all those McCain/Romney voters.

I dont see why we would not have a big advantage in IA and NH which other candidates will find it hard to compete with as long as it's done properly and we have the funds.

Don't forget we should have a strong grassroots movement going into SC too, given that Tom Davis has his sites set on Graham in 2014. Rand could pull a trifecta right out the gate!