Rand Paul Says He is Considering a Presidential Run in 2016

ReasonReasonSen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said this morning that he is considering a run for president in 2016, but will not make a decision before 2014. Paul’s filibuster on the American drone program, his speeches at the Heritage Foundation and Howard University have propelled Paul into the American political mainstream and allowed him to try to establish himself as a mainstream conservative and as a Republican interested in reaching out to African-Americans. 

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky says he is considering a presidential campaign in 2016 but will not make a decision before next year.

Paul says at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor that he wants to be part of the national debate and being considered a potential candidate gives him a "larger microphone" on issues.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Question of Auban||

    Have the Establishment GOP Rinos learned their lesson? Or will they once again nominate a clone of the Democratic Party's nominee?

  • Blogimi Dei||

    Aqua Buddah for Prez! Aww yeah!

  • phandaal||

    I remember the Aqua Buddha thing happening when I lived in the Louisville area. Republicans didn't care, because Paul was running as a Republican. Democrats looked like a bunch of hypocrites, since half of their base thought it was clever to bash religion before they learned that Paul might have done it first.

  • robc||

    I drove from Owensboro to Bowling Green (from a funeral to the burial) during primary season. Literally 100% of the signs were for Paul as opposed to Grayson.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Paul will get my vote, unless things change mightily in the next few years.

  • ||

    Same here. I hope I get to vote for him three times.

  • Jordan||

    You live in Chicago?

  • ||

    I don't; that's the whole point.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Like you realizing that your vote is a pointless exercise in social signaling, not a meaningful political exercise?

  • ||

    Do you think it's more beneficial for statists that most people have no real understanding of statistics, or that most of what all of us do are pointless exercises in social signaling?

  • Hugh Akston||

    I'm...nicole I don't really know how to parse that question. Could you please rephrase it in the form of a TS Eliot poem?

  • ||

    Pfft.

    You know, as Stacy taught us, that math is hard
    To add, subtract, divide bring only tears
    To most. You ask for more, but they are scarred.
    Expect them to internalize? Poor dears.

    And more fool you, same lesson wasting years.
    To send a signal, though, they understand.
    What else do they e'er do, but hiding fears,
    Maligning "other," whoring for own band

    Or tribe? So pointlessness is out of hand
    (In existential terms, of course). But pause.
    Is that what keeps the state from smashed or banned?
    More dangerous, the signals work, because

    A social animal is man, briefly, a fool
    Who cares for neighbor's thoughts more than for moral rule.

  • ||

    If this is an original composition, then my hat is way the hell off to you, m'lady. (does using "hell" take away from the politeness of "m'lady"?)

  • ||

    It is, and thank you, and it doesn't.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Yeah, holy cow. That was really good. I'd edit the "poor dears" bit but other than that I'm impressed.

  • db||

    Wow, bravo!

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Thats right, just bend over and take the beating. Don't resist!

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's my vote, and it means what I want it to mean.

  • Jordan||

    Self-fulfilling prophecy is self-fulfilling.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Sometimes, though money is more important.

  • deified||

    Remember to vote for Gary Johnson in the general.

    He's for an Independent Tampa and clemency for the Hakkens with full repatriation of their tippie-ties.

    Until Johnson takes back Amerikkka from our current crop of Tyrant-Usurpers, I expect to be governed by wave upon wave of bandits, learning-disabled monkey-men, and lesbian pyromanics.

  • sarcasmic||

    No true libertarian may vote for him because he does not favor using force of government to change the definition of marriage. He has failed the purity test and must be burned at the stake.

    Death to Rand Paul!

    Death!

    Die in a fire you traitor!

  • Randian||

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  • sarcasmic||

    Even stupid people know the difference between a clip and a magazine. What does that make you? Doopid?

  • Randian||

    *yawn*

    You bore me.

  • Randian||

    And please link to the thread where you can definitively demonstrate I don't know the difference.

    Of course, I do. The problem is that you can't read very well.

  • sarcasmic||

    It was the one where you promised to ignore me because I helped you make yourself look like an ass. Then you went and broke your promise.

    *sniff*

  • Randian||

    You are a pathetic attention whore. I am actually really sorry that you're this lonely.

  • sarcasmic||

    I appreciate your concern, troll.

  • Question of Auban||

    Sarcasmic,

    Are you upset at Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Elkanah, Ashur, Abijah, Jehoiada, Ahab, Ahasuerus, Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, Eliphaz, Ezra, Jehoiachin, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Nahor, Simeon, and Zedekiah for redefining marriage to include marriages with more than one wife?

  • sarcasmic||

    The only ones who should be upset are the true libertarians. I mean, this Rand Paul guy is out there parading like he's some sort of libertarian, yet he believes marriage to be a union between a husband and a wife! I mean, that's blasphemy against true libertarianism! How can someone believe that and be a true libertarian? They can't. Not only that, but he opposes using government force to redefine marriage! Fuck! True libertarians want to use government force to redefine marriage and then use force through the courts against anyone who commits the thoughtcrime of believing marriage to be between a husband and a wife! Can you believe that guy's nerve! Fuck! Kill him now while there's still a chance to save true libertarianism from his ilk! Kill him now!

  • Question of Auban||

    Sarcasmic,

    I notice you did not answer my question.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't answer stupid questions from stupid people.

  • Question of Auban||

    Sarcasmic, I think recess is over it is time for your art class. Hurry! Your teacher will give you a demerit if you are late!

  • Fluffy||

    What's stupid about the question?

    I'd also like to know why Lot can fuck his daughters but Mormons can't.

    What's up with that?

  • Fluffy||

    Nah. I think he's lying about his true opinion.

    See, that's the difference between Rand and his dad. His dad was TOO damn honest. That meant that if Ron said something I didn't like, I had to say, "Oh, shucks. I guess he fails my purity test on that issue."

    But Rand is just slightly less honest than his dad. That's already apparent. But that creates some wiggle room, allowing me to say to myself, "I bet he doesn't give a tinker's damn about gay marriage, but he's trying to keep one foot in the fundie camp. Clever Rand! Wow, I gotta vote for this guy, he's clever enough to actually win!"

    Sort of the way liberals tell themselves Obama was secretly in favor of gay marriage even when he claimed to be agin' it.

  • sarcasmic||

    You mean Rand is just another politician willing to pander to the perceived interests of his constituency?

    Say it isn't so!

  • Randian||

    yap yap pay attention to me yap yap

  • sarcasmic||

    I see the concern troll is still concerned.

  • Randian||

    You are reaching Tony-levels of repetition. Your "point" has been discussed and refuted repeatedly, particularly when some of us urged you to notice that there is a difference between the legal use of the word "marriage" and the social use of the word "marriage". No one is asking you to change your social terminology or use of the word. All we are asking is government not discriminate in its legal application of the word.

    So stop mashing the keyboard with this same attention-whoring nonsense over and over and over.

  • robc||

    All we are asking is government not discriminate in its legal application of the word.

    The only way that is possible is to separate state and marriage.

  • sarcasmic||

    All we are asking is government not discriminate in its legal application of the word.

    If the word means "husband and wife" there is no discrimination against same sex couples because they don't fit the definition of the word.

    Equivalent legal protections under a different word would end the "discrimination" if legal protections were the issue.

    Since that isn't good enough, then it's not about legal protections. It's about the word.

    All I've ever asked is that the SSM people be honest.

    I guess that's asking too much.

  • ||

    Wait, how is it there was an article on gay marriage this morning and a Rand Paul article got threadjacked by sarcasmic's crusade for "intellectual honesty"?

  • ||

    "All I've ever asked is that the SSM people be honest. I guess that's asking too much."

    When will you start being honest that the preservation of your preferred definition of the word marriage is more important than equal legal protections in the eyes of the law for all citizens? That there is little relevant difference between what you are propping up in the interim until you get your "perfect solution" and the "Separate But Equal" logic of Plessy v. Ferguson?

  • ||

    You are reaching Tony-levels of repetition.

    THIS

    Really sarc, I agree with you 98% of the time, but you are really off the reservation on this issue. And the fact that you are being an ass about it is befuddling.

  • robc||

    Sarc is 100% right.

    Everyone who supports any state licensing of marriage is wrong: gay, straight, intraracial, interracial, polygamous, monogamous, whatever.

  • Question of Auban||

    Robc,

    I support getting government out of marriage (and everything else). But I am not likely to see that in my lifetime, in the meanwhile, at the same time I advocate getting government out of our lives, I support government at least not discriminating on the basis of internal plumbing.

  • robc||

    I support government at least not discriminating on the basis of internal plumbing.

    The only way that can happen is to get them out of marriage.

  • Question of Auban||

    Robc,

    Perhaps I can use a strong parallel from history. During the time of legal chattel slavery in the United States there were different groups who were concerned about the welfare of slaves. Some sought an end to slavery altogether, others did not necessarily want it ended but wanted at least better treatment and sought legal protections for slaves but not an end to slavery itself. There were still others who advocated BOTH better treatment under the law AND an end to slavery itself. These were not inconsistent positions if you saw as your goal the wellbeing of the actual human beings held under the yoke.

    I advocate BOTH an end to government in the institution AND an end to discrimination.

  • robc||

    My name is spelled robc.

    Please get it right, fucktard.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't know why it is so difficult to mentally separate the legal protections from the word.

    My objection is to those like Randian who accuse anyone who does not want to redefine marriage of opposing legal protections for same sex couples.

    Yes there are some religious zealots who oppose that, but I believe that most people who do not support redefining marriage have no issue with legal protections for same sex couples.

    Their objection is the means of accomplishing the goal.

  • robc||

    opposing legal protections for same sex couples.

    I oppose legal protection of same sex couples.

    I also oppose legal protection of opposite sex couples.

    I dont think state-licensed marriages or state-licensed civil unions are necessary. Nor proper.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    So do you support government roadz? But do you drive on them in the meantime?

  • ||

    I dont think state-licensed marriages or state-licensed civil unions are necessary. Nor proper.

    Who the fuck here does? That is the principled response.

    At this point, getting that changed is a bridge too far. Discriminating against homosexuals in the meantime is deplorable.

    You never answered my question from the last time we debated this sarc.

    Would you be okay with it if the legal definition of marriage was between a white man and a white woman?

    That okay, or would you petition to change it?

  • robc||

    Who the fuck here does? That is the principled response.

    Lots of people here seem to support state marriage and state civil unions.

  • ||

    I haven't seen ANYONE here saying they want government involved in marriage.

    What they are saying is, since government is already involved, gays should have the same opportunities as whites.

  • ||

    Er straights.

    RACIST!

  • robc||

    The more state marriage is expanded the harder it will be to get rid of it.

    You dont kill leviathan by feeding it.

  • ||

    a. Doesn't "expand" anything. It simply ensures equal protection under the law.

    b. I'll eat the elephant one bite at a time.

    c. I'm happy when liberty is expanded for anyone, provided it's not at the expense of another.

  • Question of Auban||

    Sarcasmic, again no one is forcing you to change how you use the word. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize marriages between divorced people unless those marriages have been annulled for a very limited number of severe reasons. If you don't want to call Rush Limbaugh's 18th marriage a real marriage no one is forcing you to do so. This is about treatment under the law and nothing else.

  • robc||

    MARRIAGE IS A RELIGOUS ISSUE AND SHOULDNT BE TREATED UNDER THE LAW AT ALL.

    DOING SO IS A VIOLATION OF AMENDMENT ONE.

  • ||

    No fucking shit.

  • robc||

    No fucking shit.

    Then stand up and say so. Then sit the fuck down and shut up.

    That is the only issue that matters on marriage.

  • sarcasmic||

    This is about treatment under the law and nothing else.

    If that was true, then a compromise that gave same sex couples equal treatment under the law without redefining marriage would be acceptable.

    Since no such compromise is acceptable, logic dictates that it is a lie to say it is only about equal treatment under the law.

  • ||

    If that was true, then a compromise that gave same sex couples equal treatment under the law without redefining marriage would be acceptable.

    Why was it not a redefinition of marriage to bring marriage under the state umbrella at all? I.e., why was there no redefinition involved when the state decided to create a legal definition of marriage? And how does that work when different states have different definitions of marriage, pre-SSM? Since there was clearly not a single, unified definition of marriage pre-SSM, how do you know which one was the original and which were redefinitions? And if your point is that marriage has a "social" definition, then I still think any emergence of a legal definition would be a "redefinition" under those terms.

    Honestly, I have always found this issue of "redefining" a silly one, and it has nothing to do with you or your arguments here and everything to do with the fact that the meaning of words is fluid over time and space--especially over the vast amounts of time and space through which "marriage" in some form has existed. But even so, I don't see how your argument stands.

  • sarcasmic||

    All I'm asking for is honesty.

    Because, as I have pointed out, it is a lie to say this is only about legal protections, just as it is a lie to accuse all who oppose redefining marriage of opposing legal protections for same sex couples.

    Why do you ally yourself with liars who levy false accusations?

  • ||

    I especially love when we get to this part of it sarc. You accuse you collectivize those you are arguing against, make a pat assertions about all of our motivations and then demand honesty.

  • ||

    ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION SARCASMIC

    If the legal definition of marriage was between a white man and a white woman, would you be for or against changing it?

  • ||

    If the legal definition of marriage was between a white man and a white woman, would you be for or against changing it?

    I'm not sarcasmic, but I am wondering why there is a legal definition of marriage that states such, and I would probably work to remove such definition from the legal realm altogether, as it has no place there.

  • ||

    With whom am I allied? I seriously just think this is the lamest of the lame arguments. Sorry, but that is the truth. I spent too long studying linguistics and working with words not to roll my eyes at the idea of "redefining" anything--especially a legal concept that, as such, exists only and exactly as it happens to be defined in a given time and place, which is highly variable. I cannot comprehend why it is a compelling idea for some people. I don't actually know whether it is compelling for you or that is just the line you are taking here, but I don't get it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Do you deny that the goal of legal protections for same sex couples could be accomplished by a different means?

    Do you deny that it's about more than just legal protections?

    False accusations bother me. Especially when the accuser knows their accusation is false. I'm not saying that all the accusers know it's false, but if they keep it up after it being pointed out that it is false, I have to wonder.

  • ||

    I do not deny that the goal of legal protections could be accomplished by other means, and have stated such before, to you, and you have acknowledged such. The only practical way in our current and near future political climate that you could wedge in some of the key ones (specifically 5th amendment spousal privelege) is to either say that gays can have civil unions and civil unions are identical in every way to marriage under federal law, but do not have the name. The courts would shit a brick and immediately roll civil unions forward to marriage, or you could state that the federal government sees all marriages, domestic partnerships and civil unions as marriages, but we're calling all marriages civil unions now. Because the definition of the word marriage in the US is currently the legal union of one man and one woman with a possible religious tie in, I'm sure that you'll be very angry about the redefinition of marriage there too, no?

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sure that you'll be very angry about the redefinition of marriage there too

    Who is angry? All I'm doing is pointing out the logical flaw and the false accusation. I'm being rational here. It's the ones who levy false accusations who are the emotional ones.

  • ||

    Way to nitpick the snark at the end to avoid addressing the substance of my comment sarc. Keep it up with the intellectual high ground.

  • ||

    Do you deny that the goal of legal protections for same sex couples could be accomplished by a different means?

    No, but I also think what jesse points out is absolutely true: if you call gay marriages civil unions and straight marriages marriages, and they are legally the same otherwise, the courts will destroy that shit in a heartbeat.

    Do you deny that it's about more than just legal protections?

    What is "it"? There are many people who support SSM for reasons other than gaining basic legal protections for gay couples, if that is what you are asking.

  • ||

    I assume, Nicole, that last was for me.

    Sarc has repeatedly argued that his issue was that "these people" don't have any interest in being married. They just want to "force" everyone else to recognize their right to do it by redefining what marriage is.

    My point is, a change in the legal definition (which shouldn't exist to begin with, I might add) does not FORCE him to recognize anything. All it does is provide equal "protection" under the law for gays.

  • sarcasmic||

    does not FORCE him to recognize anything

    Unless I own a business.

  • ||

    So you are not against gay marriage, you are against the Civil Rights Act.

  • ||

    So you are not against gay marriage, you are against the Civil Rights Act.

    Yeah, we've been trying to point that out for a while.

    (And my earlier comment was to sarc, not you)

  • sarcasmic||

    So you are not against gay marriage, you are against the Civil Rights Act.

    I'm not a fan of it, no. Nor do I think the government should have anything to do with marriage. That should be up to the churches. I agree with robc that any legal definition of marriage violates the 1A.

  • ||

    I'm not a fan of it, no. Nor do I think the government should have anything to do with marriage. That should be up to the churches. I agree with robc that any legal definition of marriage violates the 1A.

    Great, then we are all agreed.

    SO the only sticking point is that you think gays SHOULDN'T be afforded the same rights and privileges as straights, until we fix all of the above transgressions and I say, in the meantime, they SHOULD. Is that about right?

  • sarcasmic||

    Wrong again. My sticking point is that since no compromise that does not include redefining marriage is considered to be acceptable, logic tells me that rights and privileges are not the goal.

    The stated end is not the goal. The means is the goal.

    Quite honestly the legal definition of marriage doesn't matter to me personally that much. Sticking it to a bunch of liars on the other hand. That would give me great pleasure.

  • ||

    I'm being rational here. It's the ones who levy false accusations who are the emotional ones.

    "Sticking it to a bunch of liars on the other hand. That would give me great pleasure."

    You're totally not emotionally involved in the issue at all.

    Also you haven't actually addressed anyone's responses to you defining everyone in favor of gay marriage as "liars" or allies of liars.

  • sarcasmic||

    I didn't say everyone. You did.

  • ||

    You're right, you didn't say the word everyone.

    You defined the terms of debate that arguing for marriage instead of civil unions was about the word and not about legal protections, then you said that people who advocated for this were being either disingenuous or were supporting activists who were disingenuous. I'm not sure how I could interpret that in any way other than that all gay marriage advocates are either liars or allies of liars in your conception of the debate.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm not sure how I could interpret that in any way other than that all gay marriage advocates are either liars or allies of liars in your conception of the debate.

    Some are well intentioned dupes. Some are anti-religionists who just want to stick it to Christians. Some are indeed disingenuous. Some just don't care that the people they support are disingenuous because they're emotionally involved.

    Like I've said before, I once supported SSM when I thought it was all about legal protections for same sex couples. Until I realized that it wasn't.

    Kinda like how the gun grabbers say it's about "common sense regulation" when the real goal confiscation, or the Obamacare supporters who think it's about lowering the cost of health care when the real goal is single payer.

    Progressives are very clever when it comes to getting people to support their stated intentions when their stated intentions are not their actual goal.

  • ||

    Like I've said before, I once supported SSM when I thought it was all about legal protections for same sex couples. Until I realized that it wasn't.

    That's very benevolent of you. Maybe we can get you a nobel peace prize or something.

    I'm failing to see how your list amounts to anything other than liars and allies of liars though. Anti-religionists, progressives with secret motivations, and the disingenuous all qualify as liars, and well intentioned dupes and those who support the disingenuous would be allies of liars.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    The only ones who should be upset are the true libertarians.

    Thanks for leading with that sentence. It saved me from bothering to read the rest.

  • robc||

    That is redefining marriage.

    Those are many one man, one woman marriages.

  • robc||

    ISNT

  • Cytotoxic||

    ITT robc and sarcasmic act like whiny mendacious assholes who can't for the life of them do anything except rape strawmen. They also refuse to answer highly trenchant questions.

  • sarcasmic||

    Cytotoxic - when I want your opinion I'll go take a shit and then breathe deep. Thank you for your cooperation.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    I agree with robc and sarcasmic.

  • ||

    Shhhh, supporting an unpopular opinion will just get you in trouble.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Not supporting the right opinion will get you in more trouble!

  • sarcasmic||

    Funny how so many logical libertarian individualists turn into emotional collectivists on this issue.

  • Question of Auban||

    I think you set your straw man on fire long ago.

  • Randian||

    It's almost like it's...flaming!

    ho ho ho. I are clever.

  • Question of Auban||

    If you are so clever, tell me. Are you upset at Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Elkanah, Ashur, Abijah, Jehoiada, Ahab, Ahasuerus, Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, Eliphaz, Ezra, Jehoiachin, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Nahor, Simeon, and Zedekiah for redefining marriage to include marriages with more than one wife?

  • robc||

    Each of those was a one man, one woman contact..

    Just some men entered multiple contracts.

  • Question of Auban||

    So isn't that bigamy then?

  • robc||

    So isn't that bigamy then?

    Yes. And?

    Are you assuming either I or sarcasmic have a problem with bigamy?

  • Question of Auban||

    Perhaps not, however I would bet a paycheck that the vast majority of those in the USA who oppose same-sex marriage DO have a problem with it.

  • robc||

    I dont get a flying fuck about the majority.

    I only care about myself.

  • Question of Auban||

    Sorry, that was aimed at Sarcasmic

  • Juice||

    using force of government to change the definition of marriage

    Ooh, nice logic.

  • robc||

    If we separate marriage and state, then the word can have its meaning drift due to society and culture naturally.

  • sarcasmic||

    But then you can't initiate force through the courts against people who believe differently than you. True libertarians throw the NAP out the window when it comes to marriage.

  • robc||

    As I said on some other thread some other week. The only libertarian position on marriage is separation of state and marriage.

  • sarcasmic||

    I agree.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    So opposing miscegenation laws would not be "libertarian". Got it.

  • robc||

    Miscegeration is sex between members of different sexes. Has nothing (well, it also deals with marriage, but effectively nothing) to do with marriage.

    Lovings, for example, were convicted of having interracial sex (also of traveling outside the state to get a marriage license to avoid VA law, but that wasnt the felony).

    No libertarian is saying that interracial couples or gay couples cant have sex.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    R-i-i-i-i-i-ght.

  • robc||

    Yes, it is right.

    Which do you disagree with?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    it also deals with marriage, but


    traveling outside the state to get a marriage license to avoid VA law, but


    Pedaling as fast as you can, aren't you, robc?

  • robc||

    VA did not consider the marriage valid, hence convicted them under a felony miscegenation for having sex.

    They also convicted them of a misdemeanor for traveling outside the state to avoid VA law UNDER A DIFFERENT STATUTE that had nothing to do with miscegenation.

    No backpedaling at all.

    The first part you quoted is because there are at least two definitions of miscegenation, one dealing with marriage one dealing with sex. As VA didnt acknowledge that the Lovings were married, they nailed them under the 2nd definition.

    Re: the second. Already covered, as that isnt under the miscegenation statute.

    Also, miscegenation is a hard word to spell. And is a stupid word to begin with.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    And is a stupid word to begin with.


    You're trying to change the traditional definition of miscegenation!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Don't you know that real libertarians are wholly fixated on archaic definitions-when it suits them?

  • ||

    "No libertarian is saying that interracial couples or gay couples cant have sex."

    But if there were still laws on the books banning interracial marriage, you'd prefer keeping those on the books untilall marriage is eliminated, because letting interracial couples marry is an expansion of government?

  • Calidissident||

    "But then you can't initiate force through the courts against people who believe differently than you. True libertarians throw the NAP out the window when it comes to marriage."

    Says the guy who's perfectly ok with government enforcing his preferred definition of marriage on everyone else

  • AuH20||

    Dude, seriously, I get that your last boyfriend really hurt you, and now you just don't believe in love, but sarc, let me give you some advice: You have to get under somebody to get over somebody.

    So, put on your sexiest outfit, drive to the nearest gay bar, and go pick up a guy for some nice anonymous sex.

    Seriously, it will help you a lot to get over that jerk.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Incrementalism.

  • Agammamon||

    What would be funny is for the Dems to say that he doesn't have enough experience for the presidential slot.

  • Question of Auban||

    Well has Rand ever been a Community Organizer? Hmmmm? I think that is now a requirement to be President.

  • gaoxiaen||

    A random pick from the man walking down the street would have more common sense.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Rabid teabagger versus Shrillary. That would be interesting. The news media will have him for dinner.

  • albo||

    Hillary is the media's home girl.

    They think Rand is the creepy dude at the health club who glances at their ass while they're on the treadmill.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Good, that means my cover is still intact.

  • Virginian||

    Except Rand is actually the doctor they all wish would notice them.

  • Fluffy||

    So in other words he's every straight guy in the building?

  • Brandon||

    Shrillary? Or Biden?

  • albo||

    I think the DNC's poobahs would like Joe Biden to be their candidate as much as they'd like a cancerous tumor on their nuts.

  • Rich||

    No problemo -- that's covered by DemocratCare.

  • DJF||

    The Republicans should nominate Michelle Obama. They will still be called racists but it will be fun to watch the Clinton and Obama camps fighting against each other.

  • Rich||

    That would be great.

    "After much soul-searching, we have decided to do what is best for the country."

  • Fatty Bolger||

    "Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen, not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love me and despair!" - Michelle Obama

  • albo||

    Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath

  • BakedPenguin||

    ...but beautiful and terrible...

    Hitting about 50% there.

  • phandaal||

    News media will have anybody who isn't part of the progressive agenda for dinner. It's always amusing to see a confused R on CBS, wondering why his interview isn't going so well.

    The sooner the other candidates learn that lesson and return the favor, the better.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    They'll try. But Rand has impressed me with his political cleverness, including the way he is easing into the race and possibly even setting himself up as the nominal front runner. He's probably watched his father's career carefully and given a lot of thought to how he would do things differently to avoid some of the pitfalls.

  • Brandon||

    So no newsletters?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    No newsletters.

  • Drake||

    No sleeping in his cheap suit the night before a speech?

    What about the temporary bouts of insanity where he attempts to run off anyone new?

  • gaoxiaen||

    Every $1 at the beginning is $10 on election day. Remember that.

  • Jerry on the boat||

    I think being scorned by the NYT will be a boost to the Rand Paul campaign. People go for the underdog if there is one.

  • John||

    Can he appeal to the white working class? The Democrats have basically told the white working class to go fuck themselves they will never have their interests represented in this country again. Someone who actually bothered to talk to them and try to win their votes could lock up the white working class in the same way the Dems have locked up the black vote.

  • fried wylie||

    Can he appeal to the white working class?

    "Welfare extensions for all!"

  • albo||

    Food stamps will be called "NASCAR stamps"

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Put Jesus on one side and Stonewall Jackson on the other and you have a winner.

  • deified||

    They're not actual stamps anymore, butt-plug.

  • albo||

    So the EBT card will now be short for Eatin' Big-ole Taters.

  • robc||

    Can he appeal to the white working class?

    He won in KY didnt he?

    Have you seen our demographics?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Can he appeal to the white working class?

    I bet he can in WV, ND, SD, MT, TX, eastern PA, and anywhere else there are potentially high paying energy sector jobs.

  • db||

    I think you mean all of PA west of Eastern PA except Allegheny and Centre Counties.

  • gaoxiaen||

    His father has a greater influence than is commonly believed. Thank God.

  • Juice||

    Rand Paul would never make it near the presidency. All the media has to do is repeat, "Rand Paul, who supports the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964..."

  • Rich||

    Probably.

    Of course, I would hope he'd respond at every opportunity with "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

  • lap83||

    Or maybe, "You know that Civil Rights Act of 1964? You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

  • ||

    (Associated Press) Civil rights-hating libertarian Senator Rand Paul announced today he is running to replace our first black president in 2016. Rand is the son of Ron Paul, who, if you'll recall, wrote some nasty racist newsletters calling blacks "animals" and once called the Civil War against slavery "unnecessary."

    Amongst Sen. Paul's top priorities as President are kicking blacks off food stamps, defunding inner city schools and letting private companies arrest unwanted people simply for being black.

    He supports the expanded use of drugs through legalization, which will likely cripple the black community, already racked with widespread addiction problems today. He also supports maximizing access to guns in society, which will likely lead to more inner city violence.

    "President Paul would make George W. Bush look like Martin Luther King," civil rights expert Kanye West told Associated Press.

  • ||

    Please tell me that's from The Onion.

  • gaoxiaen||

    From the Daily Worker.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The GOP will never nominate Rand. His threshold is about 20% - like Ron's is.

  • John||

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/tre.....tudy_.html

    Shut up and go back to your slate blog. Retard.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Updated 1/25/2013
    Candidate Odds
    Chris Christie 7/1
    Marco Rubio 8/1
    Sarah Palin 10/1
    Paul Ryan 12/1
    Rand Paul 15/1
    Jeb Bush 18/1
    Mike Huckabee 18/1
    Eric Cantor 20/1
    Mike Pence 20/1
    Bob McDonnell 25/1
    John Kasich 28/1
    John Thune 30/1
    Jon Huntsman 30/1
    Bobby Jindal 30/1
    Luis Fortuño 35/1
    Jim Demint 35/1
    Scott Walker 35/1
    Scott Brown 35/1
    Ken Cuccinelli 40/1
    Rob Portman 40/1
    Rick Santorum 40/1
    Tim Pawlenty 40/1
    Nikki Haley 40/1

    http://www.2016election.com/20.....tion-odds/

  • AuH20||

    Yes, because if there's one thing Republicans in Iowa and South Carolina love, its Republicans from New England. Like that nice Rockefeller fellow!

  • db||

    What does Intrade say?

  • lap83||

    The first comment on wsj regarding this news was something to the effect of, "I hope Rand Paul doesn't win the nomination. The Republican party needs a moderate, otherwise they don't have a chance." Apparently from someone who was asleep for every election since Reagan.

  • AuH20||

    They just need to moderate harder! Compassionate conservatism!

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Or that was masterful sarcasm.

  • NoVAHockey||

    i'll go with that.

  • lap83||

    My brevity probably made it seem sarcastic, but this person sounded genuinely concerned for the Republican party that they need a moderate.

    What I don't get is if all you care about is getting your team elected, what the hell's the point? Why is an acronym the only thing that matters? Furthermore, a "moderate" conservative will always be a Democrate lite. I'm convinced there's no such thing as a slightly conservative person because government always wants to veer towards the left. It's much harder to be conservative than progressive.

  • lap83||

    Basically, if you're not willing to be hated by a lot of people, you're not a true conservative.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I think the government always wants to "veer" toward more government. It's as hard to be a principled (true) liberal as it is to be conservative.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I don't care who or what dismantles Leviathan, only that it gets dismantled.

  • wheelock||

    I'm guessing they go for Rubio. The dems will run Hillary so it will be a vie for who can be the next "historical" candidate to win.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Rubio will be portrayed as a white Hispanic, like Zimmerman, except the coverage will be harsher.

  • ||

    In my opinion, the "first doctor-president" would be at least as worthy a historical distinction as demographic firsts.

  • Briggie||

    Wasn't President William Harrison a doctor?

  • Crimson Alliance||

    I said I would never vote for the republican party again. I guess Rand is determined to make a liar out of me yet. Is Rand the ideal republican or the libertarian version of a RINO? Either way, he's got my vote.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Yep.

  • gaoxiaen||

    My money too.

  • AAnderson||

    Sadly, since he is not his father, I believe Rand will emphasize his socially conservative values in order to get the numbers. It would be promising to see Gary Johnson run with him, however.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement