Rand Paul ≠ Ron Paul. Is that good thing or a bad thing?

TomtheTinker

TomtheTinker

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
1,830
2016_Presidential_Checklist_Topics_Paul-0fea0.jpg



Dave Fahrenthold wrote a big piece in today's Post on Rand Paul's evolution (to be nice) or flip-floppery (to be not so nice) on a variety of issues -- from how to deal with the Islamic State to what to do with Medicare -- in advance of his near certain 2016 presidential bid. It's a great piece and contains two absolutely critical sentences when it comes to understanding what makes Rand different from his father, Ron, who ran for president in 2008 and 2012. Here they are:

"As the prospect of a 2016 presidential bid looms larger, Paul is making it clear that he did not come to Washington to be a purist like his father, former congressman Ron Paul. He came to be a politician, like everybody else."
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...≠-ron-paul-is-that-good-thing-or-a-bad-thing/
 
"As the prospect of a 2016 presidential bid looms larger, Paul is making it clear that he did not come to Washington to be a purist like his father, former congressman Ron Paul. He came to be a politician, like everybody else.
Click to expand...

Not like everybody else.. he's being a politician for the freedoms.
 
As long as Rand remains the neocons worst nightmare, that's good enough for me. But I'm getting to the point where I'd prefer if he stayed in the Senate. Seeing him have to twist himself into rhetorical knots is getting hard to watch. These last few months have also taught me that chasing these big federal races usually aren't worth it.

Rand has a shot at the presidency but I don't think it will be worth it even if he's nominated and elected. I think he would be more effective building a presence in the Senate for a few more years and helping local and state people get elected. I hope I'm wrong!
 
EBounding said:
Rand has a shot at the presidency but I don't think it will be worth it even if he's nominated and elected... I hope I'm wrong!
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, you are wrong. If he is nominated and elected that would mean the current two-party system would be fractured and a major re-alignment would have taken place. It also means that the news would have to cover stories in a different way. It also means we'd prevent someone else from putting new judges on the bench. It means we'd have the bully pulpit. It means Americans would have to start considering a third way (you know, instead of "which regulations are best", they have to ask, "is this something we should even be regulating".

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Even if the political changes are slow, the culture changes would be huge. It matters.
 
CaptUSA said:
Oh yeah, you are wrong. If he is nominated and elected that would mean the current two-party system would be fractured and a major re-alignment would have taken place. It also means that the news would have to cover stories in a different way. It also means we'd prevent someone else from putting new judges on the bench. It means we'd have the bully pulpit. It means Americans would have to start considering a third way (you know, instead of "which regulations are best", they have to ask, "is this something we should even be regulating".

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Even if the political changes are slow, the culture changes would be huge. It matters.
Click to expand...

Why can't I give reputation to the same post twice?!

Exceptional posts like this deserve to be an exception to that.
 
Dunno, looks very similar to Ron to me:

paul.jpg


The major difference is Rand uses the Left and Ron uses the Right...
 
It's a "good thing" to become President of the United States, but it's a not so "good thing" once he becomes President.
 
CaptUSA said:
Oh yeah, you are wrong. If he is nominated and elected that would mean the current two-party system would be fractured and a major re-alignment would have taken place. It also means that the news would have to cover stories in a different way. It also means we'd prevent someone else from putting new judges on the bench. It means we'd have the bully pulpit. It means Americans would have to start considering a third way (you know, instead of "which regulations are best", they have to ask, "is this something we should even be regulating".

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Even if the political changes are slow, the culture changes would be huge. It matters.
Click to expand...

I think you're overestimating some of these effects. The most important thing is what he can do in commander in chief for foreign policy. What he can realistically achieve legally as a president.
 
""As the prospect of a 2016 presidential bid looms larger, Paul is making it clear that he did not come to Washington to be a purist like his father, former congressman Ron Paul. He came to be a politician, like everybody else." "
This has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read
 
specsaregood said:
Of course he isn't Ron. He's got about 50% of Carol in him and that's a good thing.
Click to expand...

Rand should bring out Carol during the campaign. She is likeable and reminds people of their own mother or grandmother. It is good for emotions and creating connection. It makes him look human.

Rand will need all the help he can get.
 
I don't think there's a single issue that Rand has actually flip flopped on. The media just misses the nuance in his statements.
 
Traditional Conservative said:
I don't think there's a single issue that Rand has actually flip flopped on. The media just misses the nuance in his statements.
Click to expand...

No, the media keeps trying to define Rand Paul by assigning him all of Ron Paul's positions, even if he (Rand Paul) never took said stances. Then they have the gall to say he 'flip-flopped' after he "changed" a position he never had.
 
I'm hoping I'm wrong, but he does remind me of Obama in a way. In 2004 Obama was a nobody running for the Illinois Senate. He read platitudes off a teleprompter that others had written for him in a very expressive manor at the DNC and the media thrust this untested man into the presidency 4 years later.

In 2008 Ron Paul had a very consistent record that spanned back to the 70s. Heck, I disagreed with Kucinich a lot but even he had a heck of a consistent record.

Rand is not his father IMO, more due to his record is pretty much only a few years in the Senate. Hannity and Beck regularly praise him which raise that skeptical red flag with me. However, I also don't want to dismiss a potentially great hero for the liberty movement. He has my cautious support.
 
RJB said:
Hannity and Beck regularly praise him which raise that skeptical red flag with me.
Click to expand...

Beck just a couple of days ago said Cruz should be the GOP's #1 choice in 2016. Not sure how much credibility Beck has with conservatives anymore, after that recent shameless pandering to illegal aliens.
 
alucard13mm said:
Rand should bring out Carol during the campaign. She is likeable and reminds people of their own mother or grandmother. It is good for emotions and creating connection. It makes him look human.

Rand will need all the help he can get.
Click to expand...

She had heart surgery during Ron's 2012 campaign, and will be 4 years older when Rand's comes around. She should stay home and not subject herself to the stress of campaigning.
 
EBounding said:
I'm getting to the point where I'd prefer if he stayed in the Senate. Seeing him have to twist himself into rhetorical knots is getting hard to watch.
Click to expand...

"Rand: Intervention causes problems. We can fix them with more intervention. Brilliant!"

https://twitter.com/n1ghtstr1k3/status/512696911388635137
Click to expand...

Rand's damage to the honest consistent principles that Ron promoted would be lessened significantly if we had somebody good to run against him for President. I was happy when Gary Johnson ran against Ron, but disappointed that Johnson was worse than Rand--let alone worse than Ron--rather than as good or even better than Ron.

Ron's runs for President turned Marshal McLuhan's ideas upside down and proved that the MESSAGE CAN BE THE MEDIA.

There are a bunch of good retired government mafia "made men" that could carry on Ron's consistent and honest legacy by running for the republican nomination. Until one of them announces, the Love-o-lution will remain kaput.
 
Wolfgang Bohringer said:
Rand's damage to the honest consistent principles that Ron promoted would be lessened significantly if we had somebody good to run against him for President. I was happy when Gary Johnson ran against Ron, but disappointed that Johnson was worse than Rand--let alone worse than Ron--rather than as good or even better than Ron.

Ron's runs for President turned Marshal McLuhan's ideas upside down and proved that the MESSAGE CAN BE THE MEDIA.

There are a bunch of good retired government mafia "made men" that could carry on Ron's consistent and honest legacy by running for the republican nomination. Until one of them announces, the Love-o-lution will remain kaput.
Click to expand...

In fairness to Johnson, its really hard to be better than Ron Paul. That said, it wouldn't have been all that hard for Gary Johnson to be better than he was.

But, I'm not really sure how to be better than Ron on actual positions unless you want to openly start talking about anarcho-capitalism in a political campaign. Which would probably turn out awful, because it would be turned into a soundbyte, and ancap sounds awful in soundbites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top