The Rand Paul sideshow

[El Guapo]

Yeah, I think the most serious contenders for the GOP nomination at this point are Bush, Walker, and Paul, in roughly that order (and I could be convinced to switch Walker and Paul). Cruz is the most likely of the second tier of candidates.

[LordMortis]

I think Bush and then Paul. I doubt Walker will do more than make himself an influence on the winner. Paul scares me though.

Bush vs Clinton. America will love that.

[Holman]

It will be interesting. He's going to look attractive because he seems fresh, and he's going to sell himself to the GOP as the route to Millennials. But the primary process will be brutal, and he'll have to say a lot of vile things to win the base. Walker has the head start there, and if Paul gains ground then Walker will have a much easier time saying a few Paul-like things than Paul will have winning the reactionaries.

Paul won't win the nomination this time, but I could see him getting it in 2020. He'll have had more time to massage his brand by then.

[LordMortis]

he'll have to say a lot of vile things to win the base.

I don't think so. While his track record is quiet, it speaks for itself to the base.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/ ... bertarian/

[Holman]

Right. But what I mean is that he'll have to wave those social-conservative flags proudly for the next year or more, and the kids he wants to charm won't like that.

[Rip]

Right. But what I mean is that he'll have to wave those social-conservative flags proudly for the next year or more, and the kids he wants to charm won't like that.

I don't think so. I certainly don't need to hear him say it. He has my vote. Now go out and talk to the left a little in the same way the Democrat candidates will says thing more to the right than anyone with a brain thinks they will actually be. The hat is flipped this year and the Republicans can have the fresh energetic and optimistic outlook for a better future and let the Democrats run the tired old rich politician to the core candidate.

My fear is Bush getting the nomination. I refuse to use my vote to endorse the lesser of two evils.

[El Guapo]

Yeah I don't think Paul's route to victory is as a social conservative. There's just no way he's going to out-social conservative Cruz, and he'll probably sound too fake if he tries. I expect he'll have to say a few general platitudes to make him minimally acceptable to the base on social issues, and then try to win on economic and political liberties.

[Zarathud]

Social Conservative v. Tea Party/Libertarian Voters v. Establishment

Paul is manufactured for Rip and Alt Rip voters as the "blend" of Tea Party/Libertarian candidate. If Paul can undermine/co-opt the other two groups, he wins. Walker is his competition in this strategy, but going to immolate leaving Paul alone. I expect Cruz and Bush to really go after and damage Paul in the primaries.

[hepcat]

I predict an especially vicious primary.

[Enough]

Paul isn't necessarily popular with the hawks or Christian conservatives agreed, so I just don't see a nomination as the Republican POTUS candidate in his future. He has already sheared off too much of the base and any moves to get back into their good graces is likely to piss off his most fervent supporters. The best he can hope for is to turn running for president into a cash cow like his father did.

[Kraken]

He can force the establishment candidate to co-opt the more popular bits of the libertarian agenda when the primaries are over. It will be a regular laff riot if the R candidate pushes for marijuana legalization while Mrs I-Didnt-Inhale takes the cautious position, as she's likely to do across the board.

[Fireball]

Paul is not a libertarian. His positions are revanchist right-wing pablum and isolationism. He's a terrible Senator, would be a worse President. He's not the raving racist lunatic that his father is, but perhaps only due to a lack of raving.

[Zarathud]

Agreed that Paul is not a libertarian but he knows how to play on those issues to make you think he might be.

As my wife put it last night: "Rand Paul wants government small enough for my vagina."

[hepcat]

How is your wife's trucking career going? She still pulling 3 day shifts hauling loads between Chicago and Texarkana?

[Moliere]

Paul is not a libertarian. His positions are revanchist right-wing pablum and isolationism. He's a terrible Senator, would be a worse President. He's not the raving racist lunatic that his father is, but perhaps only due to a lack of raving.

Pretentious much?

[hepcat]

For having an opinion and expressing it?

[Moliere]

For having an opinion and expressing it?

Do you consider "revanchist" and "pablum" common vernacular? How about calling him a racist, the only evidence being that he hasn't "raved" enough like his father?

[El Guapo]

Paul is not a libertarian. His positions are revanchist right-wing pablum and isolationism. He's a terrible Senator, would be a worse President. He's not the raving racist lunatic that his father is, but perhaps only due to a lack of raving.

Pretentious much?

In case it's not clear Fireball's not insulting libertarianism, he's insulting Paul (and comparing him unfavorably to libertarians).

Unless..... come to think of it, I've never seen Rand Paul and Moliere in a room at the same time.

[El Guapo]

For having an opinion and expressing it?

Do you consider "revanchist" and "pablum" common vernacular? How about calling him a racist, the only evidence being that he hasn't "raved" enough like his father?

So the complaint is that Fireball used too fancy words?

[Rip]

For having an opinion and expressing it?

Do you consider "revanchist" and "pablum" common vernacular? How about calling him a racist, the only evidence being that he hasn't "raved" enough like his father?

So the complaint is that Fireball used too fancy words?

I think it is more that he was being trite, naive, and rather simplistic.

[El Guapo]

For having an opinion and expressing it?

Do you consider "revanchist" and "pablum" common vernacular? How about calling him a racist, the only evidence being that he hasn't "raved" enough like his father?

So the complaint is that Fireball used too fancy words?

I think it is more that he was being trite, naive, and rather simplistic.

He probably should have complained about those things then rather than pretentiousness.

[hepcat]

Okay, just for the record, which Rip are we talking with right now?

[Zarathud]

If you can't win on content, attack the presenter or presentation. Very old (and tired) method of rhetoric. :sigh:

[Rip]

Okay, just for the record, which Rip are we talking with right now?

The pretentious one.

[Moliere]

Democrats look to tarnish Rand Paul’s reformer image early

Is Rand Paul a “bizarre and even dangerous” candidate filled with kooky ideas? Or is he “the same as any other Republican presidential hopeful” while only masquerading as the fresh new thing?

Democrats deployed both of these attacks on Tuesday. The former quote came from opposition research group American Bridge, the latter from a statement by Democratic Party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Taken together, they point to a broader question of how to tear down Paul given his unique role in the GOP field, where his libertarian views on foreign policy and civil liberties often clash with other party hopefuls.

The “wacky” side and the “same old” sides aren’t necessarily contradictory. Both the DNC and Bridge prominently feature Paul’s record on social issues, for example, which they hope can counter his potential appeal with young voters. But there are challenges to hitting both messages at once: Too much time portraying Paul as an oddball could reinforce his message that he’s an iconoclast; too much time portraying him as more of the same could undermine attacks on his libertarian views as uniquely extreme. And too many attacks in general could mean none of them quite stick.

Sounds like throwing mud at a candidate and seeing what sticks. Whether the mud is dressed up in fancy words or slanderous, it's still mud.

[Moliere]

Keep Rand Paul Weird

Libertarians are quick to note why he is libertarian leaning and not an actual libertarian. Like any serious candidate he has been adjusting his views to please more people which in turn has annoyed those on the fringes. For example, calling him an isolationist is to not keep up on his recent statements.

Paul has become notably more open to foreign intervention, endorsing war with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) on the very same day that he wondered aloud whether the terrorist organization posed "a threat to our national security." To his credit, Paul still insists that military action must be approved by Congress, and he still opposes U.S. involvement in Syria's civil war (which makes you wonder how he proposes to "destroy" ISIS).

The Rand Paul of 2015 would benefit from a conversation with the Rand Paul of 2012, who declared that "we are in too many places, too often, and we don't seem to even know the reason—or where we will end up when we're done." Instead of learning from foreign fiascos, Paul said in a CNN.com essay, "both parties rush headlong into more places they don't understand."

[El Guapo]

For example, calling him an isolationist is to not keep up on his recent statements.

Well, it's either not keeping up or (more likely) it's discounting his recent statements. Both you and the article you link say that as a "serious candidate" he is adjusting his views to please more people, which would suggest that his pre-presidential ambition statements are probably more indicative of what he actually believes, right? Which would suggest that he is something of an isolationist in terms of his disposition?

[Moliere]

For example, calling him an isolationist is to not keep up on his recent statements.

Well, it's either not keeping up or (more likely) it's discounting his recent statements. Both you and the article you link say that as a "serious candidate" he is adjusting his views to please more people, which would suggest that his pre-presidential ambition statements are probably more indicative of what he actually believes, right? Which would suggest that he is something of an isolationist in terms of his disposition?

President Obama was happy to turn 180 from Candidate Obama on a number of issues. I tend to discount everything said on the campaign trail since everyone seems to change their views once in office. But then I am a cynical non-voter.

[Fireball]

The use of the term "revanchist" to refer to modern day "Conservatives," who, far from the traditional conservatism that sought to slow or stall the rate of societal change, are actually attempting to *reverse* previous societal changes and take us back to the bad old days, may not be common in discussions you participate in, but it's common in discussions I participate in. If that makes me pretentious, so be it.

[El Guapo]

For example, calling him an isolationist is to not keep up on his recent statements.

Well, it's either not keeping up or (more likely) it's discounting his recent statements. Both you and the article you link say that as a "serious candidate" he is adjusting his views to please more people, which would suggest that his pre-presidential ambition statements are probably more indicative of what he actually believes, right? Which would suggest that he is something of an isolationist in terms of his disposition?

President Obama was happy to turn 180 from Candidate Obama on a number of issues. I tend to discount everything said on the campaign trail since everyone seems to change their views once in office. But then I am a cynical non-voter.

So to sum up, we agree that Rand Paul is probably an isolationist since we can fairly discount his recent statements to the contrary in the lead up to his presidential campaign?

[Rip]

The use of the term "revanchist" to refer to modern day "Conservatives," who, far from the traditional conservatism that sought to slow or stall the rate of societal change, are actually attempting to *reverse* previous societal changes and take us back to the bad old days, may not be common in discussions you participate in, but it's common in discussions I participate in. If that makes me pretentious, so be it.

But none of that says squat about Rand Paul. Are you suggesting he would like to reverse societal changes? Is that just sideways talk for calling him a racist or a homophobe? Of all the potential Republican candidates I would think he is the furthest from being a racist or homophobe not to mention the last one who would want to "return to the old days"

[Enough]

For having an opinion and expressing it?

Do you consider "revanchist" and "pablum" common vernacular? How about calling him a racist, the only evidence being that he hasn't "raved" enough like his father?

I hope you agree dad is a racist, if you publish a journal named after yourself, then the opinions expressed within on your broiler plate you get to own. Besides daddy Ron Paul was the one who claims the only reason the congressional black caucus is anti-war is they want the defense money for food stamps. What a sweetie the neo-Confederate secessionist RP is.

His son hopefully doesn't follow that line of thinking but there have been some troubling signs,

Earlier on Tuesday, The Washington Free Beacon published some surprising details about what Paul's social media director, Jack Hunter -- who also co-wrote a book with Paul in 2011 -- used to do in his spare time:

From 1999 to 2012, Hunter was a South Carolina radio shock jock known as the “Southern Avenger.” He has weighed in on issues such as racial pride and Hispanic immigration, and stated his support for the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.

Yet Rand's editorial on Ferguson was much more nuanced and more supportive of minorities than other Republican reactions. I don't know if people rage hate on Bill Moyers around these parts, but he goes over Rand's suite of race issues here.

And you know what I think should make Rand Paul an automatic nonstarter for the smart libertarian posters we have here, he supports anti-vaxxers, or maybe is even one himself on some levels (he did vaccinate his children). The fact he gives nice talk to the gold standard and doesn't seem to understand the Fed all that well also frightens me and I've already chronicled his messed up views on gay marriage elsewhere here on OO (views that should also disqualify him from being considered a libertarian). He barks about pork, but yet being from Kentucky of course he supports tobacco crop insurance premium subsidies.

Rand is for requiring the consent of the governor of a state in which a species is present for listing status under the endangered species act (never mind what the science says). His remarks at CPAC about selling off our "socialist" national parks and other public lands clearly show what a radical he is, as does his early strong support for Cliven Bundy to steal public lands (until Bundy let out what a racist he is). Basically, if you are a sportsman or wildlife and natural areas lover you have absolutely no business supporting Rand. Though I do give Rand props for some of his NSA and civil forfeiture stances.

[Enough]

. I tend to discount everything said on the campaign trail since everyone seems to change their views once in office. But then I am a cynical non-voter.

And there is yet another reason why I believe RP has virtually no chance for the Republican POTUS nomination.

[Alefroth]

For having an opinion and expressing it?

Do you consider "revanchist" and "pablum" common vernacular? How about calling him a racist, the only evidence being that he hasn't "raved" enough like his father?

So the complaint is that Fireball used too fancy words?

I think it is more that he was being trite, naive, and rather simplistic.

I think Moliere can choose his words better than that.

[Alefroth]

Sounds like throwing mud at a candidate and seeing what sticks. Whether the mud is dressed up in fancy words or slanderous, it's still mud.

Hey, they're just asking questions.

[Isgrimnur]

His anger issues aren't going to help him.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), already in the spotlight for a televised fight with "Today" Show host Savannah Guthrie, got into a heated exchange over abortion on Wednesday with an Associated Press reporter.

AP reporter Philip Elliott's interview with Paul became heated after Elliott pressed the presidential candidate to say whether victims of rape should be able to get abortions.

"I gave you about a five-minute answer. Put in my five-minute answer," Paul told Elliot.
...
He accused Guthrie of editorializing after she raised a question about whether he had "mellowed" as a senator given different statements he's made on a range of issues.

"Why don't we let me explain instead of talking over me, OK?" Paul told Guthrie when pressed about his previous statements.

"Before we go through a litany of things you say I've changed on, why don't you ask me a question, 'Have I changed my opinion?' That would be sort of a better way to approach an interview."

[Holman]

I'll bet the RNC is wondering if they might be able to get through this thing with no debates at all.

[Fireball]

The use of the term "revanchist" to refer to modern day "Conservatives," who, far from the traditional conservatism that sought to slow or stall the rate of societal change, are actually attempting to *reverse* previous societal changes and take us back to the bad old days, may not be common in discussions you participate in, but it's common in discussions I participate in. If that makes me pretentious, so be it.

But none of that says squat about Rand Paul. Are you suggesting he would like to reverse societal changes?

Yes, he would. Like his father, he is a gay-hater and wants to undo a woman's right to make her own health decisions. Like his father, he also ascribes to nonsense like the "good old days" of the gold standard, and wants to undermine the Federal Reserve system. He opposes the Civil Rights Act, one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history, would slash Medicare and Social Security (undoing two generations of security for elder Americans) in order to lavish tax cuts on the filthy rich.

[Moliere]

he is a gay-hater and wants to undo a woman's right to make her own health decisions. Like his father, he also ascribes to nonsense like the "good old days"

You sound like the Catholic Church. Is it hating gays to say that States should determine same sex marriage instead of the federal government or that he is in favor of legal contracts between 2 adults?

In other words, it's not equal legal treatment of gay and straight couples that offends Paul; it's calling the arrangement "marriage." That suggests he'd be OK with laws that gave a homosexual couple all the rights and privileges a heterosexual couple enjoys and even used the same term in both cases, provided that term was not marriage. This legal status could be called a "civil union" or a "domestic partnership," while marriage would be reserved for unions (including gay ones) blessed by particular religious organizations.

It may seem silly to be so hung up on terminology, but much of the opposition to gay marriage comes from conflating the civil arrangement with "the institution of marriage," which existed long before the government started doling out marriage licenses. That conflation supposedly was what stopped Barack Obama from publicly endorsing gay marriage until May 2012. I don't know if Paul's religious objections are any more sincere than Obama's were, but it sounds like he is open to a policy that would be defensible on libertarian grounds.

[Fireball]

he is a gay-hater and wants to undo a woman's right to make her own health decisions. Like his father, he also ascribes to nonsense like the "good old days"

You sound like the Catholic Church. Is it hating gays to say that States should determine same sex marriage instead of the federal government or that he is in favor of legal contracts between 2 adults?

Okay, that was a lot angrier than I intended, and I way overshot what I actually think. Reeling it back in to reality:

Yes, to support anything other than nationwide, full marriage equality is unacceptable at this point. There is no gray area. No room for debate. Religion did not create the concept of marriage, or coin the word marriage. Marriage is a state institution, and the notion that my relationship is underserving of the *EXACT* same legal protections and institutions as a heterosexual relationship is beneath contempt.