Ron Paul 2012 vs. Rand Paul 2012

[Fozz]

It's troubling that so many Americans actually believe that money would be saved if earmarks were done away with.

The problem with earmarks is not the amount of spending, but the corruption and bribery that it entails. People shouldn't vote for representatives simply because they bring a lot of goodies with taxpayer dollars. But that is what earmarks encourage.

 

[anaconda]

Ron. Rand in 2016 when the message is more widely spread.

But the public anger might dissipate by 2016 and be channeled into other false prophets. The mood will be ripe in 2012..

 

[anaconda]

Here's an idea...

How about Ron runs (and loses the GOP primary)......but wakes up a bunch of people

Then Rand (who by spring of 2012 will have had 1 year in the Senate)...runs as an independent...

Romney....Rand...Obama


If not, we should get behind Trafficante.....cuz 2012 is America's LAST CHANCE

This is a very serious strategy. I think either Ron or Rand could single handedly spoil the GOP's chance of winning.

 

[KramerDSP]

Goldwater is to Reagan as Ron is to Rand. History always repeats itself. And that's what I'm afraid of (President Reagan wasn't the same guy as the one in 1964 campaigning for Goldwater, and Bush 41 was forced upon on him as VP).

 

[Fozz]

Goldwater is to Reagan as Ron is to Rand. History always repeats itself. And that's what I'm afraid of (President Reagan wasn't the same guy as the one in 1964 campaigning for Goldwater, and Bush 41 was forced upon on him as VP).

That is a scary thought.....

 

[parocks]

In 2012 I prefer Ron. No sense in wasting Rand's chance against an incumbent President. Rand needs time to build a power base anyway.

I wouldn't say "Rand's chance". It's pretty rare for Republicans to get the nomination when they run the first time. Run, do well, then run again and win. Democrats often select first time runners, Republicans less so.

 

[Mini-Me]

The problem with earmarks is not the amount of spending, but the corruption and bribery that it entails. People shouldn't vote for representatives simply because they bring a lot of goodies with taxpayer dollars. But that is what earmarks encourage.

This is a good point. Has anyone ever tried making an "earmark" for returning a district's "fair share" of pork money back to municipal treasuries instead? Any Congressperson who did that would avoid the special interest corruption problem, and their own district couldn't exactly complain about it.

 

[Stop Making Cents]

Ron, because Rand would have to announce his candidacy after a month in office and it'd be absurd. We'd have a far better bet with him in the Senate for a while.

Seemed to work for Barry Soetero

 

[Stop Making Cents]

This is a good point. Has anyone ever tried making an "earmark" for returning a district's "fair share" of pork money back to municipal treasuries instead? Any Congressperson who did that would avoid the special interest corruption problem, and their own district couldn't exactly complain about it.

That's a great idea - how about earmarking money in the form of rebates to people that pay property taxes?

 

[CasualApathy]

Ron, no question about it.

And he will do a hell of a lot better this time around. As will we.

 

[Aratus]

WHY NOT BOTH? we can have TWO or THREE LIBERTY CANDIDATEs run, if all are under
a pact to fold discretely to a standard bearer come the CONVENTION! we all know that
Rand's victory will have the media gushing ALL OVER him and some MIGHT quibble over
the idea of a 70something potus being our commander-in-chief, for this is a tough choise!

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Ron Paul 2012
Rand Paul 2020

-t

 

[Spider-Man]

Rand because he could win.

This.

 

[JaredMcC]

Ron, because Rand would have to announce his candidacy after a month in office and it'd be absurd. We'd have a far better bet with him in the Senate for a while.

Obama did it.

 

[JaredMcC]

WHY NOT BOTH? we can have TWO or THREE LIBERTY CANDIDATEs run, if all are under
a pact to fold discretely to a standard bearer come the CONVENTION! we all know that
Rand's victory will have the media gushing ALL OVER him and some MIGHT quibble over
the idea of a 70something potus being our commander-in-chief, for this is a tough choise!

If both ran it would split the vote. Thats the last thing we need.

 

[Fredom101]

Not a lot of big fans of the unprincipled Rand here.

 

[Ninja Homer]

I'd like to see it flooded with liberty candidates... change the face of the election, the direction of the presidential race, control the issues that are brought to light, and wake some people up. As the race goes on, the lowest polling liberty candidates drop out 1 by 1 and direct their support to the remaining liberty candidates. It's time to take over, and this is how it's done.

 

[SooperDave]

this should be a shutout victory for Ron

 

[Ninja Homer]

If Ron and Rand BOTH run, I believe that'd be the first father and son in history to run against each other. That alone would cause a media explosion resulting in a huge burst of publicity and $millions worth of free air time. I couldn't think of a better way to start a campaign.

Splitting the vote for straw polls wouldn't matter. If anything, it would generate talk among political analysts that you should be looking at the combined polling numbers of Ron and Rand, because eventually one of them would be endorsing the other, and their support would be combined.

Ron alone changed many talking points in the '08 debates. 2 or more like-minded candidates would change the talking points exponentially.

 

[RM918]

Obama did it.

Not at all. Obama was a senator from 2005 onward.