Rand Paul leaves open 2016

[radiofriendly]

He seemed quite willing to leave open the possibility of his own run for the White House in 2016.

(The question on running for president in 2016 is at 2:22.)

You can view the complete 30+ minute interview here.

Would you support a Rand Paul presidential run in 2016?
Poll: http://iroots.org/2012/10/28/will-rand-paul-run-in-2016/

Extra: This is also cross posted over at Daily Paul for those interested:
http://www.dailypaul.com/260904/rand-paul-open-to-2016-presidential-run
(They love to hate on Rand Paul over at the DailyLoveWeAreChangeourDiapers.com)

 

[Matt Collins]

This isn't news anymore

 

[PatriotOne]

Too early for Rand Paul 2016 yard signs and bumper stickers or shall we at least wait until after we see if Mitt loses in a couple weeks ?

 

[Suzu]

You can view the complete 30+ minute interview here.

Where's "here" please?

 

[AlexAmore]

Too early for Rand Paul 2016 yard signs and bumper stickers or shall we at least wait until after we see if Mitt loses in a couple weeks ?

For me it's not too early for a Rand Paul tattoo on our foreheads! People will be like "WTF" at first but give it 4-8 years and they'll get it.

 

[radiofriendly]

Here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/309092-1

What I meant was the link to the full video is in the post:
http://iroots.org/2012/10/28/will-rand-paul-run-in-2016/

 

[Aratus]

we have about 8 or 9 days and then 2016 almost officially starts

 

[jeremiahj13]

Guys!!! Rand Sounded very much to me like if Mitt Romney wins this election, he will not run. Why would he care what happens on election?
Unless Mitt really screws up in office, I have my doubts about Rand running in 2016

Maybe Ron Paul will run in 2016???

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Guys!!! Rand Sounded very much to me like if Mitt Romney wins this election, he will not run. Why would he care what happens on election? Unless Mitt really screws up in office, I have my doubts about Rand running in 2016

Maybe Ron Paul will run in 2016???

Rand has known for a long time that Mitt will not win. He has to say he wants Mitt to win or commit political suicide. I guarantee you he is quietly counting on an Obama victory.

 

[jbauer]

I already emailed his office asking where to get 2016 materials. They emailed me back and said they were honored by me thinking he had it.

 

[jbauer]

Guys!!! Rand Sounded very much to me like if Mitt Romney wins this election, he will not run. Why would he care what happens on election?
Unless Mitt really screws up in office, I have my doubts about Rand running in 2016

Maybe Ron Paul will run in 2016???

Um.....because you're not going to primary a sitting Republican president

 

[kathy88]

Um.....because you're not going to primary a sitting Republican president

Um yeah, this.

 

[supermario21]

Why not, Pat Buchanan did and I'd argue that he got a lot what he wanted out of his insurgency. Keep in mind Rand was talking about shaping the party and leading it into a different direction more than actually running the country. I'd argue that if he really made Republicans think about the direction of the party, causing it to shift towards a more small government, libertarian position, he'd consider even a primary loss a success. Then he would go back to the Senate and serve as a counterweight to the Rubio's of the world, and maybe run again in 2020 if Romney were to win this year.

 

[Shane Harris]

Well he will definitely need to change his pragmatic rhetoric to a more idea based rhetoric if he wants to gain traction in the primaries. However this is what he did in 2010 so I trust him to know what to say and when to say it. His current rhetoric seems like he wants to tinker at the budget relentlessly. He will need to paint with bold colors and broad strokes based on the central unifying idea of liberty and freedom like his father if he wants to win the primaries. He's talented in ways Ron isn't, he just needs to channel Ron more often. He can do the compromising and the political speaking, he just needs to do the educating and idea spreading.

 

[RickyJ]

You got me excited for a second, then I saw it was Rand Paul, and not Ron Paul.

 

[radiofriendly]

It's pretty difficult to get any love for Rand Paul over at the Daily Paul (or P AU L or whatever?), but here's an article over there w/ the same video and question about 2016. Some of those folks don't even know his voting record, so any help would be appreciated:

http://www.dailypaul.com/260904/rand-paul-open-to-2016-presidential-run

 

[Shane Harris]

It's pretty difficult to get any love for Rand Paul over at the Daily Paul (or P AU L or whatever?), but here's an article over there w/ the same video and question about 2016. Some of those folks don't even know his voting record, so any help would be appreciated:

http://www.dailypaul.com/260904/rand-paul-open-to-2016-presidential-run

Tangent. Why on earth is "LOVE" any part of this revolution. Where in libertarian theory or property rights or Ron Pauls message is there anything about love? Love is great for sure, but I know a lot of Republicans who are turned off by the ridiculous rEVOLution signage because they think it means we're hippies for free love or something. When in reality love has absolutely nothing to do with our message. Yes, its a peaceful revolution (so far), but not a love revolution like the 60s. It's also not a love revolution like the one Jesus intended in the form of loving your enemies. I don't understand and its really annoying.

Ron Paul has never advocated that we all love each other or love our enemies. I haven't heard him say the word love that many times (if at all) on the campaign trail. I hear him talk a lot about liberty, property rights, natural rights, peace, civil liberties, prosperity, freedom, free-markets. Not really love. Don't see love pop up too much in Rothbard, Friedman, Hayek, Nock, Spooner, Woods, Rockwell, etc. either. Seems out of place, and misleading to those we need to convert, who already think we are idealistic pussies and pacifists.

 

[July]

Tangent. Why on earth is "LOVE" any part of this revolution. Where in libertarian theory or property rights or Ron Pauls message is there anything about love? Love is great for sure, but I know a lot of Republicans who are turned off by the ridiculous rEVOLution signage because they think it means we're hippies for free love or something. When in reality love has absolutely nothing to do with our message. Yes, its a peaceful revolution (so far), but not a love revolution like the 60s. It's also not a love revolution like the one Jesus intended in the form of loving your enemies. I don't understand and its really annoying.

Ron Paul has never advocated that we all love each other or love our enemies. I haven't heard him say the word love that many times (if at all) on the campaign trail. I hear him talk a lot about liberty, property rights, natural rights, peace, civil liberties, prosperity, freedom, free-markets. Not really love. Don't see love pop up too much in Rothbard, Friedman, Hayek, Nock, Spooner, Woods, Rockwell, etc. either. Seems out of place, and misleading to those we need to convert, who already think we are idealistic pussies and pacifists.

Well, Ron Paul is a Christian, so "love" comes into the mix when he talks about faith, and following the golden rule, and that type of thing.

But thankfully for you, now we also have the RepubliCAN logo... Which, unfortunately, I can't look at without thinking "Are you a RepubliCAN, or RepubliCAN'T?"

Anyway I don't think it was the word "love" that bothered some people, but the word "revolution." Of course it was just meant in an intellectual sense, as in an intellectual revolution, but it can be a strong word.

 

[Keith and stuff]

I agree with Rand Paul about the Republican Party. I would like to see the party more competitive in ME, CT, WA and OR.

 

[Shane Harris]

Well, Ron Paul is a Christian, so "love" comes into the mix when he talks about faith, and following the golden rule, and that type of thing.

But thankfully for you, now we also have the RepubliCAN logo... Which, unfortunately, I can't look at without thinking "Are you a RepubliCAN, or RepubliCAN'T?"

Anyway I don't think it was the word "love" that bothered some people, but the word "revolution." Of course it was just meant in an intellectual sense, as in an intellectual revolution, but it can be a strong word.

What makes you think I like the RepubliCAN logo? I think all that word inside a word crap is cheesy. I am not against love, but his faith is not the cornerstone of the movement. I just think its poor advertising and misleading to people we are trying to convert. Confusing at the least. I am not just guessing either. I've had people say this to me. Design and image are very important.