Campaigns/Elections

Will Rand Run?

|

Jim Antle at American Spectator mentions Rand Paul for president rumors, and quotes the Kentucky senator as saying merely that "he won't run against my dad," Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.).

As I've heard many a rumor that the Ron Paul 2012 campaign is gearing up and could be very close to an official announcement, this sounds to me like a denial.

Antle thinks that isn't necessarily the best news for the cause of limited government in national politics:

The case for Paul running is that he's simply a better politician than his father and would move the ball farther than either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson could. As a senator, he'd have the luxury of four years to mend fences with Kentucky voters. Paul could bring the constitutionalist message to the forefront of the Republican primary debates without getting sidetracked into theoretical discussions of libertarianism.

I disagree with the above. Ron Paul, as one of the few people ever to win election to Congress as a nonincumbent three different times (I don't know of any others but haven't checked every congressman ever's record on that), is obviously a very good politician indeed. He has gotten very far since 2007 in creating a national movement of donors and activists, skewing young on at least the latter, for a very outre brand of politics. I see no evidence whatever, despite him perhaps looking more conventionally like a "slick professional politician," that Rand is a better politician than his dad. (And I think Ron's stumbling earnestness and lack of polish makes him a more successful politician for those very reasons.)

In my experience, Ron inspires far more wide-ranging actual admiration and affection from people who don't agree with his whole message than does his son. (See center-left-leaning men's mag Esquire on how "it's impossible to not like Ron Paul" and Paul as a top-10 congressman.) Ron's ability to stress that military spending should be first on the budget chopping block before government spending that fills the pockets of the less well off should also help him escape the "evil Republican" trap if he's reaching out beyond GOP faithful for support. Rand, for whatever reason, has not shown any crossover appeal that I've seen.

Also, I'm sure the son would be just as apt to get "sidetracked into theoretical discussions of libertarianism" as the father if he became a more prominent public figure. (Remember the Rand Paul campaign civil rights controversy.) I say: Ron Paul 2012, Rand Paul 2016 (if necessary).

NEXT: The Rosy Scenario System

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.

  1. Only if he promises to go third party after losing the primary.

  2. i agree, Rand 2016, let Ron build the movement for a few more years, let Rand build credibility as a Senator, let our national and international situations approach the point of catastrophe just a bit closer

    and maybe, just maybe we’ll get someone in office with some principles for the first time since Jefferson.

    1. I was going to say near the same thing. Rand has only been in the senate for 3 months. It’s way too early to say “Yes. This is the man I want to run for president.”

      Although, he is off to a pretty good start.

      1. How long was Obama a Senator before his campaign started?

        1. 2 years, then ran for two more. Elected 2004. Kirk won his seat in 2010.

    2. Why would anyone with principles want the office in the first place. Half the country is full of Tonys fronted by their Pelosi like political lackeys.

      There is no fixing this.

      Better to give O another term if for no other reason than seeing people trying to defend him.

      Rest assured by the time that this is over Obama will make W, dunderhead that he is, look like Cicero.

      1. Better to give O another term if for no other reason than seeing people trying to defend him. Rest assured by the time that this is over Obama will make W, dunderhead that he is, look like Cicero.

        Not sure the country can stand that much entertainment. Better cancel American Idol.

        1. Nahh! Just change the name…American IDull.

      2. Yeah. A principled president in office will be the effect, not the cause, of a nation that isn’t going down in flames. First the population has to want, and know what it means, to take care of themselves, then they might vote for someone who wants to give them back that responsibility. Until then there wouldn’t even be any point in having someone like Rand Paul in office. He would be impeached as soon as he actually did what he talks about.

    3. “build credibility as a Senator”

      What are you talking about?

    4. “just maybe we’ll get someone in office with some principles for the first time since Jefferson.”

      Hey, I’d take a Grover Cleveland or a Calvin Coolidge

      1. Coolidge was the last great American President. Don’t disparage a man who understood that the Constitution was best served by not passing new laws to infringe upon the public liberty, who understood that he did not have the right do as he pleased just because he was President.

        1. Example of an insane, yet unfortunatley common response I encountered among liberal arts majors: “Well, Britt, Coolidge was probably a racist, so anything he said and did (even if it was a simple truth like the sky is blue) should be discounted outright, and his name should never be mentioned again in any positive capacity.”

          Extrapolating their logic, any president, leader, philospher, or politcal figure before JFK was on par with Hitler and/or slave-whipping boogeymen.

      2. I would be cool with just a succession of William Henry Harrison’s for eternity.

        *bell ring* “NEXT!”

        1. You could leave an honorary empty chair.

    5. The problem with Rand Paul running for President in 2016 is that he is up for re-election to his Senate seat in 2016.

      Barry Goldwater ran into the same problem, and was out of the Senate for 4 years.

  3. No one could be elected after serving not even one term in the US Senate! Don’t be silly…

    1. Even if he is well spoken?

      1. And clean!

  4. Ron is a fine politician but it’s pretty clear he isn’t running for president to actually win. Rand, if he wants to remain a “serious candidate” in the future unlike his father should probably table a run for now. Throwing his hat in the ring now just makes him another gadfly.

    Ron will never be president, but is doing a great job of getting the message out. Rand could be president, but not if he jumps into a debate with discussions of blow-back or bringing all troops home from everywhere. That would make him unelectable.

    Rand should wait until 2016.

    1. it’s pretty clear [Ron] isn’t running for president to actually win.

      Why do you think that?

      1. Because of what happened last time Ron ran for president.

      2. His campaign efforts in New Hampshire last time around were pretty paltry. He didn’t show up to a number of events. He didn’t spend a lot of money there because he was trying to spend it nationally instead of worrying about actually winning a state.

        This makes perfect sense since being President wasn’t his actual goal.

        1. Part of his problem was the selecton of a campaign manager who didn’t “get” the rEVOLution.

  5. Ron Paul 2012, Rand Paul 2016 (if necessary)

    “I’ll take ‘Slim to None’ for 100 Alex.”

  6. “Better politician” is code for not an overt racist.

    Although, I do recall Rand Paul telling an aghast Rachel Maddow that he wanted to repeal the Civil Rights Act. (One can only assume because he hates black people.)

    1. I may be mis-remembering, but I think that Rand said that he would have objected to the part of the CRA that applied to private businesses, but would probably have voted for it anyway.

      1. But we agree it’s probably because he hates black people, right?

        1. No question about it. Anybody that dares point out the intrusion in people’s private decisions in the CRA ’64 is clearly a racist. At least, that is what Rachel Maddow told me… Oh, and Tony.

            1. Re: Tony,
              Oh, you think I am lying?

              1. I don’t think Rand Paul is a racist, and I don’t think Rachel Maddow ever called him one either. He’s just a goofball whose worldview never graduated from freshman level college.

                1. No, the majority of our annointed “graduated from freshman level college” and that is a problem. How can these fucks spend 4000% more on education (let alone everything else), and only achieve the same results at best. What a bunch of cunts.

                  1. Exactly. These douche bags spend 6 years in college layering on 15 flavors of Keynesian bullshit to basically derive at the brilliant conclusion that the solution to all problems is inflation, higher taxes, and some sort of regulation. Then everyone else is supposed to be a retard when they point out it doesn’t work.

              2. Re: Tony,
                You know? You’re right – it wasn’t you, it was Max, the pet yorkie.

                My apologies, Tony.

        2. Actually, it’s because he’s pro-gay and supports the rights of gay bar owners to discriminate based on gender, marital status, and sexual orientation.

          1. I don’t think Maddow saw it that way.

  7. actual admiration and affection from people who don’t agree with his whole message than does his son

    Wait until he runs against Obama. The media will be all over him. Remember how much they loved the Maverick until he ran against a saint.

    Also, Ron Paul is a good politician. In Texas. Not in Florida.

    1. Or in New Hampshire. His staff there in 2008 couldn’t find their asses in a dark room.

      1. Yeah that pissed me off. I dived head first into campus activism for that campaign only to see that they were pretty damn incompetent. The anger has faded now that a I realize that there were important gains from the run but damn was I disgruntled for a while. Needless to say I will probably vote for him again if he runs but that is all I am willing to do for him (or any other future politician).

  8. We need someone with a real foreign policy that makes sense and that is more likely to be Rand Paul.

  9. “The case for Paul running is that he’s simply a better politician than his father and would move the ball farther than either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson could.”

    One wonders what is required to be a “good politician” in Jim Antle’s mind…

    “I’m sure the son would be just as apt to get ‘sidetracked into theoretical discussions of libertarianism’ as the father if he became a more prominent public figure. (Remember the Rand Paul campaign civil rights controversy.)”

    Yes, I remember that one where Rand Paul correctly pointed out the CRA ’64 intruded in people’s private property only because they dared open a business, and all the statist fucks going ape about it.

    1. “…Rand Paul correctly pointed out the CRA ’64 intruded in people’s private property only because they dared open a business, and all the statist fucks going ape about it.”

      I know what you MEANT to say is that the CRA ’64 intruded on the “right” of a nation of jerks to keep “nigras” like me out of their lily-white restaurants, hotels, bars, workplaces, etc. It’s good to know that you’re willing to countenance the state-sanctioned oppression of an entire race for an interpretation of the Constitution that ignores the 14th Amendment!

      And I’m not a leftist troll–I’m a libertarian who doesn’t think you have the right to open a business with a policy of “no Irish/blacks/women/gays/Catholics need apply.”

      1. Re: Randy,

        I know what you MEANT to say is that the CRA ’64 intruded on the “right” of a nation of jerks to keep “nigras” like me out of their lily-white restaurants, hotels, bars, workplaces, etc.

        Just like it intruded in the right of “nigras” (like you) to keep crackers (like others) and spicks (like me) out of their jazzed-up Blues night clubs.

        I’m a libertarian who doesn’t think you have the right to open a business with a policy of “no Irish/blacks/women/gays/Catholics need apply.”

        Which tells me you’re no libertarian at all.

        It’s good to know that you’re willing to countenance the state-sanctioned oppression of an entire race for an interpretation of the Constitution that ignores the 14th Amendment!

        Ah, I see – you construe a specific criticism of a specific part of the CRA ’64 as total and absolute approval of Jim Crow laws. At least I know NOW where you are coming from, Randy.

      2. “I’m a libertarian”

        You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

        1. I believe 10 years ago it became policy that Princess Bride references call for immediate public execution with no trial… just so you know.

          1. I do not mean to pry, but you don’t by any chance happen to have six fingers on your right hand?

            1. Nah, he’s too stupid to be the six fingered man and at least he had decent taste. Tony doesn’t even like Princess Bride.

              1. Oh I love it… I don’t make the rules.

      3. Why not? if them idiots don’t want to hire me (a black guy) then i can open my own business…people should be free to be racist, and watch their businesses fail when they aren’t pulling from all available tallent.

        1. +42

          Moreover, in the current cultural climate, where we have been saturated and inundated with the evils and stupidities of racism, especially state-sanctioned bullshit like Jim Crow, how could an overt racist survive the media shitstorm that would ensue if he blatantly trotted out his racism, and like a retard, made it his business policy. Black people make up 12 % of the population in the U.S., let alone all the other minorities a card-carrying racist would be obliged to discriminate against, so that could be a serious hit to a business owner, let alone fatal depending on the local demographics. Thanks to people like Rachel Maddow (despicable as she is when it comes to conflating emotion with reality), such morons would be screwed in the high-pressure high-failure world of restaurants, at the least.

  10. Why not Paul/Paul 2012?

    1. Do they only hang out with each other? It’s kind of creepy how much they both believe the same crackpot bullshit.

      1. They currently live in the same condo near D.C.

      2. What…that we should mind our own business….and tend to business at home? Not spend money we don’t have?

        Yeah real creepy.

        1. Fish, you’re obviously a racist crackpot who doesn’t like killing brown people or spending the next generation’s money.

          What is wrong with you?

          1. Whats wrong with me? Where to begin…..

      3. Crackpot bullshit. Ha! You’re a dry cunt, Tony. A dry cunt.

  11. Libtards are still mad at Rand Paul because he is more of a civil libertarian and peacenik than the Black Jesus they put so much faith in.

  12. “[insert] is a fine politician”

    That isn’t a complement.

    1. Some guy said he could think of no greater insult than “He’s a good committee man.”

  13. No crossover appeal? Why don’t they take a look at the congressional rollcalls for the last few weeks. Rand has been one of the lonely republican votes for civil liberties on several items already.

    1. How does rightwing civil libertarianism “crossover” to collectivist, authoritarian fascists?

  14. Rand looks like Joel Osteen. That gives me the heeby-jeebies.

    1. Re: goob,

      Rand looks like Joel Osteen.

      Even for me, for whom white people all look alike, can’t see the resemblance. Maybe you should lay off the hooch a bit.

  15. I think Gary Johnson, on paper anyway, is far more electable than Ron Paul. Former governors often do very well, ie. Reagan, Clinton, Bush etc. I’m not sure why he has not garnered much notice. Between Ron Paul and Johnson in a primary, I’d be hard pressed to choose.

    1. At this point, I think either Paul would be better off as a vice president candidate with Johnson.

      1. Splat.

        1. Right in your mouth bitch.

    2. Johnson is relatively good, but the mouth-breathing masses of this publically “educated” country would probably find him boring. And once they comprehended, after several years of fevered foot-sucking contemplation, that he would like to send less sadistic foot soldiers to extract less money from the “rich”(read as anybody with savings) to give back to their collective mass, the torrential accusations of racism, hatred for the poor, probable anti-semitism, not enough scorn for foreign brown and yellow people, and homosexuality will be so defeaning, that generations born in the year 3000 will still have stunted IQs because of it.

    3. Johnson/Paul would be a good ticket. If Paul passed the baton Johnson and lead his legion of supporters to support Gary, then it would probably work fairly well.

  16. I think a Rand Paul ’16 campaign would have a much better chance, since he’d have 6 years of Senatorial experience. He’s vulnerable to charges of lack thereof until (at least) he surpasses Obama’s senatorial tenure milestone.

  17. The unstoppable father and son dynamic-duo tag-team! Rand for President and Ron for VP 2012!

  18. Ron should step back and endorse Gary Johnson. Ron had a good run but he is unelectable. He would help someone else tremendously however. Rand should server in the Senate where he can do a lot of good. Perhaps 2016 run if they don’t run him out of town by then.

  19. What? That’s ridiculous. Who in their right mind is going to elect a one-term Senator with no track record and no executive experience to the highest office in the land? You libertarians need to stop living in fantasy land and get back into the reality-based community, even if it means you might have to drop your uncompromising extremist ideology and start thinking about how to help us pull this country out of the ditch.

    1. A one-term Senator with no tack record, like Obama? (If you’re going to toss that softball out, I’ll launch it into the upper deck for ya.)

  20. However you want to spin the CRA-Maddow (personally, I thought Rand explained well that certain aspects of the CRA were in fact in violation of the constitution, but that he would have voted for it anyways) the bottom line is that there is no chance in hell that he will be ever portrayed as anything other than a virulent racist by the media during a presidential campaign.

    He could have a love child with Oprah and this still wouldn’t change.

    OK, maybe the love child. But THAT’S IT.

    1. So if we vote for a racist after voting for a half black guy, that just cancels out, right?

  21. Ron Paul is the fucking Libertarian Teflon Don. Did he ever explain those racist newsletters to anybody’s satisfaction–anybody except brain-dead libertoid true believers? Maybe it’s just that he so marginal (not to say fucking soporific) that he’s not on anybody’s radar. God, I hope the idiot son runs.

    1. Since he never says anything racist or advances any racist ideas in his campaigns, it seems pretty obvious to most people that he doesn’t have anything to explain.

  22. “he won’t run against my dad”

    Jim Antle’s dad is running for President?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.