timschochet
Footballguy
Seems horrific to me, but...
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=47EB2F30-4E11-4343-B154-2B36E8A04230
No, wait -- could Rand Paul actually win?
By: James Hohmann
March 20, 2013 04:31 AM EDT
A few weeks ago, Rand Paul was far down the list of 2016 GOP presidential prospects — a freshman senator with a devoted but mostly marginal following of young libertarians.
Now he’s being mentioned in the same breath as Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush.
With his filibuster against the Obama administration’s drone policy, a first-place finish in the Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll — and on Tuesday, a speech pressing for immigration reform — the Kentuckian is on a roll. The Iowa Republican Party announced Tuesday that Paul will headline their Lincoln Day Dinner on May 10, a coveted invitation for any GOP presidential hopeful.
But is Paul the Republican flavor of the month or someone who could realistically contend for the nomination? Party elites scoff at the idea that Ron Paul’s son would ever become the GOP standard-bearer. Yet the ophthalmologist is a better politician than his father, and he continues to defy expectations.
Here are five reasons why Paul will be a force to be reckoned with ahead of 2016, even if the odds of him winning the nomination are long.
He has a stronger organization than any other Republican
Paul starts with a built-in base of libertarians that comprises at least 10 percent of the GOP electorate, and his boosters have made tremendous inroads in state parties around the country.
They may be a minority, but they are a devoted one. Paul supporters will drive farther and work harder than any other 2016 contender’s core backers. They also tend to be younger and engaged on social media and the blogosphere in ways that people who support someone of the older generation like, say, Jeb Bush are not.
His challenge is to cultivate those loyal to his father while at the same time broadening his appeal beyond libertarians. Inside the so-called liberty movement, there’s some frustration with the younger Paul for endorsing Mitt Romney last year during the Texas Republican convention — which critics believe cost the elder Paul delegates. Some also worry about nepotism in a movement that prizes merit.
But the drone filibuster shored up most of the Paul loyalists, who had gone a bit wobbly lately.
He’s perceived as principled
Grass-roots conservatives in the early states loathe career politicians as much as ever. There’s a real appetite for someone who doesn’t always do the politically prudent thing.
The filibuster was a seminal moment not because it changed the conversation on drones but because it showed that Paul cared so deeply about something that he was willing to not urinate for 13 hours. Even liberal critics, from Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison to Bill Maher, praised him for fighting to support what he believes in.
Civil libertarian issues seem closest to Paul’s heart, but Paul’s staunch fiscal conservatism is deeply appealing to many who never backed the elder Paul. In 1994, a year after completing his residency, he founded Kentucky Taxpayers United. Polls consistently show the debt and the economy are top concerns for voters.
His dad’s nickname was Dr. No, and the younger Paul has a similar voting record. Paul consistently opposes spending bills, which means that he cannot be attacked in 2016 like Rick Santorum was in the 2012 debates for supporting earmarks. Paul backs a balanced budget amendment, term limits and even returned money to the treasury that he did not spend from his office budget.
He’s more cautious than voters realize
Paul often speaks carefully and gives nuanced answers. It’s an acknowledgment of sorts that if he wants to be a mainstream leader of the party, he needs to be careful about offending large swaths of Republicans.
His immigration speech is a case in point. An early draft obtained by The Associated Press prompted the wire to report that he would endorse a “path to citizenship,” but when Paul delivered his speech, he avoided that term. Afterward, he and his team offered conflicting explanations but stressed he doesn’t support “amnesty.”
The episode showed how careful Paul is not to offend activists in places like Iowa.
On other issues, Paul takes a states-rights federalist approach. He thinks states should decide whether to allow medicinal marijuana, for example.
On CNN Tuesday, he talked up his support for “life” but dodged when pressed by Wolf Blitzer on what specific exceptions he supports for abortion. (He introduced a bill last week that would say life begins at conception.) At the same time, Paul has rankled some social conservatives with his position on gay marriage.
“I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he told National Review last week. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the Tax Code more neutral so it doesn’t mention marriage.”
He appears to have fewer skeletons than his father
Ron Paul faced attacks from the right over racist statements decades earlier in newsletters that bore his name, his criticism of Ronald Reagan in the ’80s and suggesting that the CIA under President George H.W. Bush was involved in drug trafficking.
Barring a surprise, opponents have nowhere near the volume of material on Rand Paul, a benefit of spending most of his adult life on the periphery of politics. He did come under fire during his 2010 campaign for questioning the constitutionality of a section of the Civil Right Act of 1964. And there was also the “Aqua Buddha” incident, in which an anonymous woman accused Paul and a friend of blindfolding her in a college stunt.
But neither did lasting damage to Paul. Indeed, Paul denied the “Aqua Buddha” claim, and an ad by his opponent invoking it ended up backfiring.
He can play the inside game in a way his dad never could
After introducing several bills during his first two years in the Senate that went nowhere, Paul has become a more savvy legislator.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the alliance he has formed with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who backed Paul’s GOP primary opponent in 2010. Paul’s campaign manager that year, Jesse Benton, is now running McConnell’s 2014 reelection effort.
After a rough start during his campaign, Paul has become adept with the media. He kept the buzz around his filibuster going for days with a series of interviews and events.
And he has taken pains to brand his foreign policy ideas as within the GOP mainstream. In a recent speech, he described himself as an heir to Ronald Reagan when it comes to national security — “a realist,” Paul said, “not a neoconservative, nor an isolationist.”
That didn’t go over so well with the neoconservatives, who believe he is trying to put a gentle face on a vision for U.S. withdrawal from the world.
“If Rand Paul wants to run to the left of the Obama administration, he’s free to try that in the Republican primary, and maybe there is more support for that than I think,” Weekly Standard editor William Kristol said on Fox News Sunday, “but I’m pretty doubtful that there really is.”
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=47EB2F30-4E11-4343-B154-2B36E8A04230
No, wait -- could Rand Paul actually win?
By: James Hohmann
March 20, 2013 04:31 AM EDT
A few weeks ago, Rand Paul was far down the list of 2016 GOP presidential prospects — a freshman senator with a devoted but mostly marginal following of young libertarians.
Now he’s being mentioned in the same breath as Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush.
With his filibuster against the Obama administration’s drone policy, a first-place finish in the Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll — and on Tuesday, a speech pressing for immigration reform — the Kentuckian is on a roll. The Iowa Republican Party announced Tuesday that Paul will headline their Lincoln Day Dinner on May 10, a coveted invitation for any GOP presidential hopeful.
But is Paul the Republican flavor of the month or someone who could realistically contend for the nomination? Party elites scoff at the idea that Ron Paul’s son would ever become the GOP standard-bearer. Yet the ophthalmologist is a better politician than his father, and he continues to defy expectations.
Here are five reasons why Paul will be a force to be reckoned with ahead of 2016, even if the odds of him winning the nomination are long.
He has a stronger organization than any other Republican
Paul starts with a built-in base of libertarians that comprises at least 10 percent of the GOP electorate, and his boosters have made tremendous inroads in state parties around the country.
They may be a minority, but they are a devoted one. Paul supporters will drive farther and work harder than any other 2016 contender’s core backers. They also tend to be younger and engaged on social media and the blogosphere in ways that people who support someone of the older generation like, say, Jeb Bush are not.
His challenge is to cultivate those loyal to his father while at the same time broadening his appeal beyond libertarians. Inside the so-called liberty movement, there’s some frustration with the younger Paul for endorsing Mitt Romney last year during the Texas Republican convention — which critics believe cost the elder Paul delegates. Some also worry about nepotism in a movement that prizes merit.
But the drone filibuster shored up most of the Paul loyalists, who had gone a bit wobbly lately.
He’s perceived as principled
Grass-roots conservatives in the early states loathe career politicians as much as ever. There’s a real appetite for someone who doesn’t always do the politically prudent thing.
The filibuster was a seminal moment not because it changed the conversation on drones but because it showed that Paul cared so deeply about something that he was willing to not urinate for 13 hours. Even liberal critics, from Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison to Bill Maher, praised him for fighting to support what he believes in.
Civil libertarian issues seem closest to Paul’s heart, but Paul’s staunch fiscal conservatism is deeply appealing to many who never backed the elder Paul. In 1994, a year after completing his residency, he founded Kentucky Taxpayers United. Polls consistently show the debt and the economy are top concerns for voters.
His dad’s nickname was Dr. No, and the younger Paul has a similar voting record. Paul consistently opposes spending bills, which means that he cannot be attacked in 2016 like Rick Santorum was in the 2012 debates for supporting earmarks. Paul backs a balanced budget amendment, term limits and even returned money to the treasury that he did not spend from his office budget.
He’s more cautious than voters realize
Paul often speaks carefully and gives nuanced answers. It’s an acknowledgment of sorts that if he wants to be a mainstream leader of the party, he needs to be careful about offending large swaths of Republicans.
His immigration speech is a case in point. An early draft obtained by The Associated Press prompted the wire to report that he would endorse a “path to citizenship,” but when Paul delivered his speech, he avoided that term. Afterward, he and his team offered conflicting explanations but stressed he doesn’t support “amnesty.”
The episode showed how careful Paul is not to offend activists in places like Iowa.
On other issues, Paul takes a states-rights federalist approach. He thinks states should decide whether to allow medicinal marijuana, for example.
On CNN Tuesday, he talked up his support for “life” but dodged when pressed by Wolf Blitzer on what specific exceptions he supports for abortion. (He introduced a bill last week that would say life begins at conception.) At the same time, Paul has rankled some social conservatives with his position on gay marriage.
“I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he told National Review last week. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the Tax Code more neutral so it doesn’t mention marriage.”
He appears to have fewer skeletons than his father
Ron Paul faced attacks from the right over racist statements decades earlier in newsletters that bore his name, his criticism of Ronald Reagan in the ’80s and suggesting that the CIA under President George H.W. Bush was involved in drug trafficking.
Barring a surprise, opponents have nowhere near the volume of material on Rand Paul, a benefit of spending most of his adult life on the periphery of politics. He did come under fire during his 2010 campaign for questioning the constitutionality of a section of the Civil Right Act of 1964. And there was also the “Aqua Buddha” incident, in which an anonymous woman accused Paul and a friend of blindfolding her in a college stunt.
But neither did lasting damage to Paul. Indeed, Paul denied the “Aqua Buddha” claim, and an ad by his opponent invoking it ended up backfiring.
He can play the inside game in a way his dad never could
After introducing several bills during his first two years in the Senate that went nowhere, Paul has become a more savvy legislator.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the alliance he has formed with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who backed Paul’s GOP primary opponent in 2010. Paul’s campaign manager that year, Jesse Benton, is now running McConnell’s 2014 reelection effort.
After a rough start during his campaign, Paul has become adept with the media. He kept the buzz around his filibuster going for days with a series of interviews and events.
And he has taken pains to brand his foreign policy ideas as within the GOP mainstream. In a recent speech, he described himself as an heir to Ronald Reagan when it comes to national security — “a realist,” Paul said, “not a neoconservative, nor an isolationist.”
That didn’t go over so well with the neoconservatives, who believe he is trying to put a gentle face on a vision for U.S. withdrawal from the world.
“If Rand Paul wants to run to the left of the Obama administration, he’s free to try that in the Republican primary, and maybe there is more support for that than I think,” Weekly Standard editor William Kristol said on Fox News Sunday, “but I’m pretty doubtful that there really is.”
I can rail against him at any time. I actually started this thread for a different reason- to discuss the political consequences of his sudden popularity. Could Rand Paul seriously win the nomination of the Republicans? Could he be our next President? Or is this a flash in the pan?
stay golden!!
Once the general public gets wind of the some of the positions he has held in the past, (particularly his criticism of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race 
onald Trump
