65fastback2+2
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2015
- Messages
- 1,396
Rand Paul: Ted Cruz Can’t Get Anything Done Legislatively
- Thread starter LatinsforPaul
- Start date
65fastback2+2
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2015
- Messages
- 1,396
thinking this through further.
Cruz said what he did when he did about mitch on purpose.
His goal WAS this, because it bolsters his claim of "outsider".
Good calculation on his part if thats how it went down which seems plausible.
Cruz said what he did when he did about mitch on purpose.
His goal WAS this, because it bolsters his claim of "outsider".
Good calculation on his part if thats how it went down which seems plausible.
RonPaulMall
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,245
I would be attacking Jeb, Boehner, McCain, Graham, King, ect rather than Cruz and Trump. Don't really see what the endgame is here. First we turn off Trump supporters and now Cruz supporters too. Who exactly is it Rand is hoping will vote for him?
If you attack Trump and Cruz, you look like part of the establishment. Don't you see the brilliance of that strategy?
libertyplz
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 657
This is only somewhat related to Rands comments today, these are more thoughts that I've had the last few weeks. I think Rand currently has a perception problem. He is running as the anti-establishment candidate but I think there is a perception that Rand is trying to play nice with the establishment, so it's kind of hard to buy into that message if he's seen as wanting to play nice. Nothing riles up the grassroots up more than when people go after the establishment. Is there anyone here that dislikes when Rand goes after McCain? I get fired up when Rand calls McCain out, I think it's something Rand should do more often. I was thinking to start reversing the current perception of Rand in conservative circles he should start calling out the leadership (what I think the perception of Rand is anyways as an outside observer). Before Boehner announced his resignation I was thinking Rand should start going after him, and Mitch. I think people would have loved that and it would help Rand to reclaim his position as the anti-establishment candidate in the eyes of those that feel differently.
Now to Rand's point, that doesn't neccessarily have to be in the form of name calling, but I do think Rand should go after the establishment more aggressively. Calling out Cruz for name calling (while may be right on principle) I think only adds to the perception that Rand wants to play nice, which again, makes it a harder sell to the voters that he is the anti-establishment. I know Rand is anti-establishment, but I've been a Rand supporter for awhile now and have been following his moves more closely. I think Rand missed a messaging opportunity when basically the whole system came out against him for blocking the Patriot Act... hell McConell himself went right after Paul, and while Mitch didn't call Rand out by name it was very clear who he was referring to. Rand should have done more to leverage that moment as someone who will buck his leadership and as someone who is fearless. Those of us on the forum are a very small minority, so while many here may know these things, the rest of the public may not (plus generally speaking, people tend to have short term memory so some reminders here and there could do some good), I think Rand/his campaign needs to do a better job with messaging and selling the voting public on him being the anti-establishment candidate. Again, while Rand may be right on principle, calling out Cruz for name calling isn't going to win him over any voters, Rand needs to show people that he is the anti-establishment candidate, if anything, people are going to see his comments and come off with the impression that Cruz is the most anti-establishment
Just my opinion, maybe (hopefully) I'm way wrong here. I'm 100% behind Rand but every now and then he does something that makes me feel like he doesn't entirely understand the disatisfaction people share towards congress
Now to Rand's point, that doesn't neccessarily have to be in the form of name calling, but I do think Rand should go after the establishment more aggressively. Calling out Cruz for name calling (while may be right on principle) I think only adds to the perception that Rand wants to play nice, which again, makes it a harder sell to the voters that he is the anti-establishment. I know Rand is anti-establishment, but I've been a Rand supporter for awhile now and have been following his moves more closely. I think Rand missed a messaging opportunity when basically the whole system came out against him for blocking the Patriot Act... hell McConell himself went right after Paul, and while Mitch didn't call Rand out by name it was very clear who he was referring to. Rand should have done more to leverage that moment as someone who will buck his leadership and as someone who is fearless. Those of us on the forum are a very small minority, so while many here may know these things, the rest of the public may not (plus generally speaking, people tend to have short term memory so some reminders here and there could do some good), I think Rand/his campaign needs to do a better job with messaging and selling the voting public on him being the anti-establishment candidate. Again, while Rand may be right on principle, calling out Cruz for name calling isn't going to win him over any voters, Rand needs to show people that he is the anti-establishment candidate, if anything, people are going to see his comments and come off with the impression that Cruz is the most anti-establishment
Just my opinion, maybe (hopefully) I'm way wrong here. I'm 100% behind Rand but every now and then he does something that makes me feel like he doesn't entirely understand the disatisfaction people share towards congress
All he did was just answer a question he was asked.
The Ted Cruz amendment was just to defund planned parenthood. It didn't do anything else. That's what your friend was referring to on tweeter. He is correct that Rand opposed it, only Mike Lee supported it.
If you want to pretend it didn't happen, I don't think that strategy will work to win the vote of your friend, as he can just check, and already did.
nayjevin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,973
Please report the posts you see. Some mods aren't reading as much at certain times, I haven't lately.
Not sure I've seen a complaint about jj, and I wouldn't act on my own preference. Pretty sure I've banned him before under another name though. I say continue to thoroughly debunk when possible and report guideline violations.
nayjevin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,973
There is a set of people among whom this statement is true. How valuable is it to consider this set of people when making choices?
The implication is that Rand is attacking Cruz. Your position loves the word attack here. You further implicate Rand as having strategy problems, based upon your false assertion that he has attacked in some way.
And yet, the subject matter is that Ted has done so much attacking that he has no allies. Strange contortions.
nayjevin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,973
indeed
Yeah, that's such a strange implication for someone who is polling less than 1% in two polls released today. How could it come across anyone's mind that someone polinng less than 1% in two states, less than Santorum, could have a strategy problem? What a strange thing to think.
Jonderdonk
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2015
- Messages
- 484
nayjevin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,973
The Trump 1 percent line. I will admit that my position must convince with logic and substance rather than emotion, and is therefore at a disadvantage.
You believe polls 1) are accurate 2) are an indicator of strategy 3) have meaning this early.
To the extent you are right about 1, the assumption is that the people polled are the people rand is trying to poll well amongst. To the extent you are right about 2, you advocate chasing the polls up and down and attaching one's actions to the wind. To the extent you are right about 3, it is in the faith that people will not learn the lessons of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Polls are not accurate. Those brave enough to research this claim honestly will find ample evidence to support it. Polls are not an indicator of strategy, unless strategy is to do well in polls. If the right strategy is to do well in polls (rather than educate, unite, or win votes/caucuses/powers/influence), then those who pay off polling companies are engaging in the right strategy. If polls have meaning this early, then history is anomaly.
In three more ways I 'attack' your point.
Who has a better strategy? What treatment are they receiving from media - helping that strategy at every turn? Undermining it?
What credibility can you give yourself as a rational observer of the facts by listing the good points of Rand's strategy you can find?
What say you of some results of Rand's political actions that are commonly under-appreciated:
- Cory Booker's fans probably like him
- Donald Trump has to put out a tax plan that *seems* conservative because of him
- NSA, CIA, FBI Constitutionalists (read: highly educated Constitutionalists) will see him favorably
- so many etceteras
hells_unicorn
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,554
There are times when I have to wonder about who actually would have been worse. Dewhurst would have probably been closer to Orrin Hatch than Rand Paul, but while he may not have been an outright friend of liberty, he wouldn't be destroying it from within like the loose cannon Cruz has been doing for the past couple years. This is one area where I think Ron Paul's anti-establishment tendencies in endorsing candidates may have reached just a bit too far. Cruz has more of an ego than an ideology, and he has no upward mobility as a senator within the senate, regardless of whether he's dealing with other "Tea Party" people, or the various shades of the establishment GOP.
Similar threads
