Rand Paul: Not Running for President Except to Win, America Ready for Libertarian Republican

Another Paul campaign in 2016?

Fox News

Senator Rand Paul talked about his potential presidential aspirations on Fox News Sunday today, saying he won't make an actual decision until next year. Via Politico:

"I would absolutely not run unless it were to win," the Kentucky Republican said on "Fox News Sunday." "Points have been made, and we we will continue to make points. But I think the country is really ready for the narrative coming -- the Libertarian Republican narrative."

Voters want a "different face," he said.

In order to expand the party's reach, Paul believes the GOP should embrace candidates who are willing to push a less aggressive foreign policy, comprehensive immigration reform and less punitive measures on first offenders of non-violent drug possession.

"We're doing fine in congressional seats, but we're becoming less and less of a national party," Paul said.

Paul garnered 10 percent in a recent PPP poll on 2016 (pdf), just below Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee, almost four years out from the election.

Comments

[Brian from Texas]

I'll be amongst the first to cheer when Sen. Paul announces his candidacy.

[crashland]

Agreed, but he is going to need more than our cheers. He'll need our money and our sweat.

[Heroic Mulatto]

And my axe!

[Professional Target]

And my bow!

[Professional Target]

As in "from the waist."

[Xenocles]

One does not simply walk into the White House...

Usually a ticket is required in advance, or some scheduled appointment.

[Sudden]

He does look a little bit like a Frodo.

The question on my mind is if he gets the nomination, who will be his Samwise Gamgee?

[AlmightyJB]

Don't be creepy.

[heller]

Gary Johnson

[Mike M.]

I bet then when the day comes, Reason will torpedo him if it looks like he actually has a chance to win.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

I hope you're talking about Romney, not Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's torpedoing was his own doing. I don't remember David Nott or Victoria Postrel telling RP to lend his name to racist newsletter publishers.

[robc]

That was old news in 1998. Bringing it back with more than one article, in more than one election, qualifies as torpedoeing.

[robc]

I stand entirely behind the comments I made in spring of 2008 about the newsletters.

[Free Society]

oddly no one remembers to give a fuck.

[Sudden]

I believe Rand's CRA critique on Maddow may be his "newsletter".

[Mike M.]

Yep. And Rand is not only a republican, but he appears to be somewhat more conservative his father.

When the rubber really meets the road, Reason is going to come up with a reason to not support him if the need arises. Remember that you heard it ftom me first.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Well, Rand is a lot more libertarian than Romney. So I don't think they'd beat him up as much.

I don't think I'll ever get over Suderman repeating over and over again that MassCare led to Obamacare, or referring to "the Ryan/Akin position" on abortion to link the prez ticket to that moron in Missouri.

[Mike M.]

I never expected Reason to endorse Romney; the guy hardly has a libertarian bone in his body.

I continue to be dismayed by the soft coverage Obama and his administration get around here. Obama has said things that are far worse than anything Ron Paul or his surrogates ever wrote, and yet Obama's past history was, and is, completely ignored here.

[Redmanfms]

I continue to be dismayed by the soft coverage Obama and his administration get around here.

Uh, what now?

[RBS]

I see you've met Mike M. Now you can ignore him like the rest of us.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Uh, what now?

I wouldn't call it soft coverage, but the intensity of criticism certainly skyrocketed after the election now that it's meaningless. During the summer they were about equally criticizing MR and BO, which was suspicious.

[darius404]

You mean they covered other politicians running for President more during election season? I am shocked, SHOCKED that Reason would be influenced by such a thing. Please tell me you have a newsletter so I can subscribe to it.

[mad libertarian guy]

I continue to be dismayed by the soft coverage Obama and his administration get around here.

The fuck you been readin' here, son?

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

It's not old news when 0.1% of the population knows about it. And if you don't think Reason's coverage of RP was positive on the balance you're smoking heroin.

[Free Society]

Brian Doherty and maybe Gillespie came out for Mr Paul. Horsanyi and several other columnists ranged from ambivalence to antipathy.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Hi Mary!

[robc]

if you don't think Reason's coverage of RP was positive on the balance you're smoking heroin.

Did you not read my posts in 2008?

Of course, I think they were positive on balance. I even thought running an article on the newsletter thing was fair.

I didnt see a reason for every single reason writer to run a separate article on a decade old story. One, to bring people up to date was fine. Beyond that was piling on.

And while 0.1% of the population may have been unaware, reason doesnt target the entire population. Many of us were aware from the kerfuffle over it in his House race back in the 90s. IIRC, Liberty magazine scooped Reason by about a decade. But that was nothing new.

RIP R.W. Bradford

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

I don't catalogue people's posts from 5 years ago, no. But your comments today seem to indicate you were part of the "reason sucks" brigade.

[robc]

If I thought reason sucked, would I be here?

I thought they overplayed that issue insanely. It was a minor deal from the early 90s that had fuck all to do with the election.

[Professional Target]

you're smoking heroin.

Shows what I know about drugs. I didn't know you could smoke heroin.

[heller]

It's called chasing the dragon. You smoke the crappy stuff.

[heller]

This from the guy who is still butthurt about Reason not kissing Romney's ass.

[Marie487897]

my co-worker's aunt makes $85/hour on the internet. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income was $21852 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more here... http://www.snag4.com

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

You forgot to mention that he's in the bottom half of that poll:

GOP

22 Rubio
15 Ryan
13 J. Bush
13 Christie
11 Huckabee
10 Paul
04 Jindal
03 Perry
01 Martinez

Dems

58 H. Clinton
19 Biden
08 Warren
03 Cuomo

[VG Zaytsev]

The D's are in deep shit trouble based on that list.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Well, it looked like they were in deep trouble going into 2012 too, yet they held on to the WH despite losing the independent vote, gained in the Senate despite having to defend way more seats. They're playing a very different game from us.

[John]

He won because most voters pay little attention to politics beyond what the media tells them and thus thought the economy was doing well and he was a moderate nice guy dealt a bad hand. The question is can the media maintained that lie as it grows more and more at odds with reality.

[John C. Randolph]

He won because the Republican nominee was a complete waste of space.

-jcr

[AlmightyJB]

Never, ever doubt the republicans ability to find a way to lose.

[Brandon]

HE WON BECAUSE REASON TORPEDOED THE FLAWLESS MITT ROMNEY!!!!

-Tulpa

[Brandybuck]

Obama won because he didn't have a record and spoke in vague generalities. For the same reason I suspect Warren will get the nomination.

[Sudden]

Six of the Dem Senate seats that are up in 2014 are in states Romney carried. They may lose control of both houses in the midterms (also keep in mind that the most mindless voters usually sit out midterms).

As for that list, I suspect Cuomo will be the Dem frontrunner a few years hence. Hillary's got too much baggage and too easy a soundbite to parade given Benghazi. Biden wants it, and he may get some of the Obama machine behind him, but I think the party apparatchiks know what a loose cannon he is. He may have a Howard Dean moment during the primaries that destroys him. Cuomo is reasonably successful, easily portrayed as a moderate, and has a youthful appeal relative to the rest of that field.

The same can be said on the GOP side. Obviously, many things can change in the intervening years, but I think it's between Rubio and Paul at this point, with maybe a dark horse somewhere. Huckabee is yesterdays news and he'll be the Santorum of this coming POTUS cycle. But the party knows he's unelectable on a national scale. Christie will be blamed for the re-election of Obama and treated within the GOP the way Nader was considered by Dems in 2001. Plus he's fat.

[RightNut]

As for that list, I suspect Cuomo will be the Dem frontrunner a few years hence.

All the GOP has to do to neuter Cuomo is to take clips of his gun control speech and make it into a bunch of 15s attack ads. Gun owners in red and purple states would turn out in droves to make sure he never got near the white house.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0lfi_ZQiU

he sounds like fucking Hitler in that speech if you ask me.

[General Butt Naked]

Yeah, Cuomo is dead in the fucking water. First of all he a rat-faced NYer, that shit ain't gonna fly in purple America. Secondly his anti-2nd stance will cause mass mobilization of the opposition. Why do you think Obama never mentioned gun control until he was safely into his 2nd term?

[Sudden]

You might be underestimating the media-led narrative in the wake of Sandy Hook.

[mad libertarian guy]

Except that the crusade for Gun Control on the part of the media has, by and large, failed.

They can get a terrible president re-elected, but they can't get gun control passed.

[General Butt Naked]

They can get a terrible president re-elected, but they can't get gun control passed.

Hell, I think Romney could of easily won that campaign had he grown a pair and stopped trying to nice-guy his way into the whitehouse.

[Chris Mallory]

Romney's giant "Fuck You" to the blue collar white working class is what cost him the election. The Reagan Democrats stayed home rather than vote for either of the two major party candidates who both expressed open hatred towards them.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Romney's giant "Fuck You" to the blue collar white working class

When did he do that?

[Kreel Sarloo]

He presumably didn't propose high enough protective tariffs or a sufficiently restrictive immigration policy.

[SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)]

Oh dear God, its ChrisMallory. He's a paid DNC troll that trolls the DailyCaller just to name ONE site.

[General Butt Naked]

Dude, Cuomo's numbers went down in New York after his gun grab, do you really think the media is gonna be able to help him in Iowa. Some rat-faced New Yorker screaming at a bunch of farmers about guns?

You guys think the "MEDIA" has way more power than they actually do.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

You know who I think is planning to run for the Dem nomination in 2016? The guy whose seat used to have Santorum in it, our old pal Bob Casey the Lesser.

[Enyap]

Casey's anti abortion, no way he gets it after the Dem's went full retard with the WAR ON WIMMEN.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

He used to be anti-gun control, too. Since he doesn't have to face us bitter clingers in PA until 2018, I'm sure there are a few other positions that he can swap if it means being a player on the national party scene.

[The Sherriff of Fistingham?]

"You guys think the "MEDIA" has way more power than they actually do."

^This^

I think more people watch the MSM only to keep an eye on them and witness their asinine spectacles nowadays. Pols see these incidental ratings spikes, and assume (and insist) that their message is on track and generally accepted. The MSM have sold out all of their credibility to the fringes within their respective parties, and the public at large knows this. The only fools that trust the MSM anymore are the pundit groupies, and those with vested interests in the messages broadcast within their echo chambers and bubbles. Witness them continuing to push gun control/AGW/war on soda & sugars/etc, as it slips through their fingers (people don't tune in because they care, but merely to watch the train wrecks). I relish the day that the pols realize that they are not getting any rate of return when trying to force their pet causes through the MSM and down our throats, because nobody listens any more, and the pols have nowhere else to turn. Maybe I'm just dreaming.....

[gaoxiaen]

The Republicans are driving by looking in the rearview mirror. They have no future without a libertarian tilt.

[wareagle]

yes, he is; and in '92, Clinton came into the election as a punchline for his '88 never-ending convention speech. In '08, Obama was nothing more than a convention speech in a primary that seemed a coronation for Hillary.

[robc]

Exactly.

10 percent when no one knows who you are at this point is pretty good. The people above him have reasons to have better name rec.

Im not saying it makes him a lock or anything, but its a decent launching position.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

He has a bloc of people who would crawl through broken glass to vote for him, yes.

His dad had a much larger bloc of Republicans who would crawl through broken glass to vote against him, even in the general election; let's hope he doesn't inherit that problem.

[robc]

That is why he has been triangulating all his issues. Working WITH McConnell on things, etc, etc.

[robc]

Romney had the same problem, as it turned out.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

I think some GOP stayed home, some for religious bigotry reasons, but nothing compared to what Ron Paul would have had to deal with.

[robc]

I think the religious bigotry angle was way, way overblown. When South Carolina voted for a Mormon and two Catholics over a Southern Baptist in the primary, we knew that angle was dead and buried.

[mad libertarian guy]

Only if you treat religious bigotry as a form of name association rather than ideological.

Ron Paul refused to support national measures for banning abortion (short of a constitutional amendment which will NEVER have a chance in hell at passing). He's for a state by state approach.

Ass foam and Gingrich went full bore for national abortion controls which is what the religious identified with.

In the GOP you MUST openly support abortion being illegal on a national level by any means necessary in order to have a shot at office.

Until they get rid of that unofficial qualification, as well as others that the religious right demand in a national candidate, the GOP will continue to become less and less relevant on a national level.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Ass foam and Gingrich went full bore for national abortion controls which is what the religious identified with

and they didn't get the nomination. The guy who did was squishy on abortion and was pro-choice 5 years beforehand. McCain wasn't a strong pro-lifer either, neither was Dole or Bush 1.

[Chris Mallory]

The Reagan Democrats stayed home. That is what cost Romeny the election.

[Kreel Sarloo]

Yep, not enuff "dey tuk ahr jerbs."

[Brian from Texas]

I don't put much faith in those. Four years ago Michelle Bachmann was at the top of such a poll.

[AlmightyJB]

Yeah it's way too early to tell. Neither Bill Clinton nor George Bush showed up in the early polls their first term campaigns. Hell, I don't think most people even knew who they were until they announce their campaigns relatively late in the game. Of course now that the president is our king these things kick off earlier and earlier.

[Some call me Tim?]

huh? GWB was a big name after getting reelected gov. of TX in 1998. Nothing about the campaign was "late to the game."

[wareagle]

Paul's biggest advantage is that none of the people ahead of him represents anything new. Rubio looks different, but that's about it and makes the GOP seem just like the Dems in pushing him.

Ryan and Bush will go nowhere; the former did nothing in this campaign to elevate himself above the rest and the latter is named Bush. Christie is the one Repub who manages to hurt himself among likely supporters and the Huckabee wing is not going to win a national election.

The top five are stasis, finding fiscal religion only when their party is in the minority. Rand at least has been consistent in what he says.

[John]

Don't under estimate Tubbs. A lot of low information voters love him.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

How any Republican can take him seriously after he campaigned for BO three days before the election is beyond me. A couple of days later Dennis Miller said on his show that Christie probably would run for prez in 2016, but as a Dem. I laughed, but now I'm not so sure.

[John]

Only people paying attention know that. And few people pay attention.

[Sudden]

Primary voters pay attention. Christie would have to win primaries to secure the nomination. The GOP primary base ain't putting fatty in after the Blowbama spectacle from Sandy.

[General Butt Naked]

If they don't know that, he'll still get hammered in the primaries for not fighting the gun-grabbers in NJ. Romney had the same problem, but that was pre-newtown; it's a different game now.

[Lady Bertrum]

Christies' embrace of O was more about local Jersey politics and less about national. He needed to shore up support in Jersey to get a second term. And this is why blue state republicans cannot win nationally.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

It's not like Dole, McCain, or Romney ever distinguished themselves in the primaries either. Plus the libertarian wing is going to have a very tough time winning in the general with the majority of Americans paying no income tax, as will certainly be the case in 2016.

If I had to bet I'd say the nom will go to Huckabee. Social conservatives are the 800 lb bonobo in the GOP and are getting itchy to have one of their own nominated.

[John]

They really are not. Reagan wasn't a so on. Neither Bush was one nor were McCain or Romney. Funny how they are so powerful but they have never once gotten their guy nominated. Social issues are less important today than they were even four years ago. The SOCONs rule the GOP is just a lie people tell themselves to feel smug

[robc]

nor Dole.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Bush 2 wasn't a sociocon? Please. In an age of terrorism, porn and drugs were the primary enforcement priorities for his DOJ.

Reagan talked a very good sociocon game, too. Remember the Mexico City policy and his revival of the War on Drugs (thx Nancy!)

[robc]

Reagan talked a very good sociocon game

Yes he did, to get their vote. But he wasnt a socon. Look at his political career pre-1980 and tell me what was soconish about it.

Bush2 is more reasonable. The whole compassionate conservative thing. Im willing to call him a socon.

[juris imprudent]

Reagan wasn't a so on.

No he wasn't, but he sure played them - a lot like Obama has played the left.

[mad libertarian guy]

Until voters who are supposedly TP voters start choosing the likes of Santorum over Ron Paul.

[juris imprudent]

Plus the libertarian wing is going to have a very tough time winning in the general with the majority of Americans paying no income tax

Are you saying that they get free shit from the govt and therefore they couldn't possibly have a principled interest in liberty?

[Teaching Student]

Yes

[entropy]

The libertarian wing has plenty of populist policy and rhetoric to sell to those voters. The problem is, if anyone tries to sell them that shit half the right will shriek and launch jihad.

See, for instance, Ron Paul.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Is that a trick question?

[gaoxiaen]

One third of the social conservatives will be dead before the next election.

[Gene]

Merely because they are getting a little long in the tooth? Or are you planning something?

[Raven Nation]

One wonders how a Rubio-Paul ticket would fare.

On the other side, there's a good chance Hilary is the Dem nominee. And then you will have the media on a full-court press to get her elected. And regardless of who the Rs nominate, the mantra will be "it's time we elect a woman president."

[AlmightyJB]

Yeah Hillary will have the full support of the "establishment" behind her. And that is a daunting task to defeat.

[AlmightyJB]

Yeah Hillary will have the full support of the "establishment" behind her. And that is a daunting task to defeat.

[AlmightyJB]

Media including the foreign press, Academia, Unions, Hollywood, Musicians, Minorities, Women, College Kids, Comedy Central and other pop culture entertainment. Who else?

[C. Anacreon]

Of course, if you have Rubio on the other side, that can be countered with "it's time we elected a Latino president". And Latino women might be suspicious of Hillary, since she only had one child.

[AlmightyJB]

Ryan was not running for president. I don't think you can discount him so easily. I agree about Bush though. I can't see how that could happen but then again predicting how the electorate will react to the various spin storylines is like predicting what a bunch of drunken monkeys in a mall will do next.

[John]

You will know that Paul is a threat the moment the media immediately talks in unison how stupid and or crazy he is. Right now they think no white Republican can win so they are reserving the full Palin treatment for minorities. But the moment Paul becomes a threat they will immediately go insane and start eating the furniture screaming about how stupid and or crazy he is. Too bad that Reason cheered them on when they did that to Palin. Did reason honestly think that the media wouldn't then do the same thing to any other candidate or politician they perceived as a threat to the current order?

[grey]

The liberal medias amazing synchronicity of movement against conservative candidates is dangerous. It needs a better response than Romney could muster, frankly every conservative candidate needs to become Gingrich style hostile in all liberal media interviews. EVERY INTERVIEW! The liberal media is a political apparatus and every conservative politician must stop treating it like a frenemy. It is not a friend-enemy, it is just an enemy. They must learn to recognize strawmen, biased questions, false premise, and all the liberal media's grade school debate techniques and call the interviewers out first on their questions then reply in substance. But no reply, ever, on substance until the techniques are called to carpet. Every candidate, every interview.

[kbolino]

While that might endear Rand to the conservative voter (and even that's debatable), treating the media in a hostile fashion is likely to result in two things:

1. The popular image of Rand will be of someone who feels too superior to play ball with the media;
2. After a while, the media will gladly oblige his clear desire to not be covered by them.

If he complements your approach with giving "conservative" media (talk radio, Fox News, etc.) lots of favorable play, then it might be an effective strategy for winning the primary. But he will have to change his tune and quick when/if it's time to win the general.

[entropy]

This is true, but not every bozo is the whole media is going to be venomously hostile. You have to play the media game.

You call all the ones who do nothing but try to undermine you, you also cut off access and work with the ones who just want some good TV and a ratings boost. Carrot and stick. You can drop bombs on idiots like Piers Morgan, but try to make teh funneh and be personable with Jon Stewart.

Gingrich can be opportunistically hostile to the media at times, punching them just for applause, but he can also turn around and act best buddies with the guy 2 seconds later (if he likes the question).

That's something to do with this Obama effect. Part of it is partisan bias, but it also doesn't hurt that Obama is really a master of media manipulation. These journalists are all Tina Turner, Obama knows how to smack them around and buy flowers.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Gingrich would have lost by Mondale-type margins in the general election, he was so unpopular with indies. He's not someone to emulate.

The GOP needs someone sophisticated and nuanced at dealing with the media, which is going to be very hard because the base hates sophisticated and nuanced people. I mean, they thought Gingrich was the best debater. Come on.

[robc]

Gingrich would have lost by Mondale-type margins in the general election

No he wouldnt have. He would have carried all of the same states that Romney won in a landslide.

KY was 60-38 for Romney, you think Gingrich would have managed to blow that? To get to Mondale levels, he would have had to.

Im trying to figure out which state Gingrich loses, maybe Arizona, Montana, North Carolina? Those would be the only real options.

And Im not convinced he wouldnt have carried Virginia or Florida over Obama.

[grey]

Gingrich is only important insofar as a small example of confronting the liberal media. How he would have done against Obama is moot. And only the occasional individual confronting the liberal media techniques is also, as noted above, likely to make a politician appear angry. Key to what I'm proposing is a strategy of consistently opposing the premise and technique used on conservative candidates in liberal run interviews. The liberal media will soon find itself the topic of the debate, it's biases, it's strawmen, and its false premises need exposed. But it has to be a broad technique that is seen universally, on every network, everytime they go after a conservative.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

He almost certainly would lose IN, maybe WV, MO, KS, NB too.

Mondale-type is an exaggeration I guess, but he would have lost worse. He wouldn't even have been able to make it interesting.

[grey]

Romney didn't make it interesting either. This is why we need Rand: someone with an ethical and reasoned 180 degree opposite view to the next Statist Democrat.

But Rand is going to face all the same coordinated, broad spectrum, and biased attacks as every other conservative. To me, that is one of the most relevant issues that need tackled by conservatives of every stripe next presidential election cycle.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Romney was ahead at some points in the race. He made it as interesting as it was going to get for the GOP unless they nominated a more dovish person on inimigration like Rick Perry.

[mad libertarian guy]

Romney was ahead at some points in the race. He made it as interesting as it was going to get for the GOP unless they nominated a more dovish person on inimigration like Rick Perry.

The only way that any race has a chance of being interesting is if Team RED nominates someone who isn't someone who can be mistaken for someone on Team BLUE. The results have been so close the last 4 elections because there has been very little substantive difference between the candidates. It's a toss up and voters knows it.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

You have to have a chance of winning to make the race interesting. Gary Johnson's existence on the ballot didn't help with the interest.

[Sudden]

The GOP needs someone sophisticated and nuanced at dealing with the media, which is going to be very hard because the base hates sophisticated and nuanced people. I mean, they thought Gingrich was the best debater. Come on.

And therein lies Rand's appeal. He has proven himself fairly adept at managing media relations, outside a few early hurdles in learning the game. And even if he seems cozier with the media than the base likes, his cred on fiscal conservatism is unrivaled by any of his opponents. Rand has a Reagan-esque quality.

[grey]

^^This^^

[juris imprudent]

Every candidate needs to record every interview and release the unedited version. I would also challenge any aggressive questioning from Steve Kroft with "where are my softball questions" while playing his Obama/Hillary interview back to him.

[Lyle]

Right now I think they see him as someone who can cause a schism so they will let him be.

... but you're right, when push comes to shove and he's close to winning, they'll bring up his college days and his dad's stupid ramblings.

[Fatty Bolger]

Sadly true. Democratic racial identity politics must be upheld at all costs.

At the moment the media doesn't really take libertarians seriously. But if an actual libertarian comes even remotely close to the nomination, they will go total fucking batshit crazy on his ass.

[mad libertarian guy]

They already have their excuse ready-built: he is the voice of the Tea Party.

That is all the excuse they need to completely dismiss him and paint him as fringe and n9t worthy of consideration.

But as Balko said after the SOTU - The next time someone starts scoffing at Paul as a fringe candidate, remind them which speech was the only one to condemn murder by executive fiat.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Except supporting murder by executive fiat is the mainstream position.

[mad libertarian guy]

I'm not sure that it really is. It is being portrayed that way by the MSM, but the number of people I know who actually support the murder droning campaign are few.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Rigorously performed polls indicate otherwise. I wish I knew the people you know; nearly everyone I know (mostly Dems) has learned to love the drones.

[juris imprudent]

Paul's biggest flaw within TEAM RED is that he isn't Christian enough. You can't be a Republican president without all the Jesus talk.

[mad libertarian guy]

That and his war boner isn't nearly large enough for their tastes.

[juris imprudent]

The socon/neocon alliance is truly amazing - you gotta love Jeeeeeeeeesus with all of your heart and blow to hell all those who threaten our pals the Israelis.

That is almost left-wing cognitive dissonance there.

[AlmightyJB]

I'm not sure I would call it an alliance. I think the neocons wish the socons aould shut the hell up because they know how much that kills them in the elections. The neocons have no allegiance to anyone but themselves.

[AlmightyJB]

Would

[Hyperion]

^THIS^

The wretched old NeoCons are still firmly in control of the GOP. The only way Paul can get the nomination is to start beating the war drums, and he won't do that. Rubio would be the nominee today, but who knows by 2016. But whoever it is, must have the support of the war mongers.

[AlmightyJB]

"his war boner isn't nearly large enough for their tastes."

That is what does him in with fod news more so than the socon thing I think.

[HazelMeade]

The Democrats don't mind a war boner either. It just looks a LOT better if you war boner is cloaked in religious tolerance and cultural inclusiveness. If you insist on being rabidly Christian AND warmongery you're going to scare the shit out of people.

[John]

Totally. That is why a Mormon will never win the nomination.

[robc]

Good one John. I noticed they didnt respond.

[juris imprudent]

Mormons talk about Jeeeeeeesus, but it comes out funny.

The religious right didn't exactly turn out in force for MR in the general election, did they John?

And I would dare say that MR didn't exhibit a big enough war boner for the neocons or whatever it is you call yourself.

[HazelMeade]

That's the problem. The Jesus talk alienates more people that it appeals to.

And it's fucking scary when combined with a war boner.

[Chris Mallory]

Didn't seem to be an issue in Kentucky, especially after Dobson came out and supported him

[OldMexican]

Re: John,

But the moment Paul becomes a threat they will immediately go insane and start eating the furniture screaming about how stupid and or crazy he is. Too bad that Reason cheered them on when they did that to Palin.

John, Paul is not Palin. He was able to weather the Aqua Buddha thing easily despite the best efforts from the Democratic propaganda machine. The only thing they may cling to is his views on the CRA but he can brush this away by pointing out that one can have a philosophical discussion about the CRA without it meaning ispo facto he wants to repeal it.

[Fatty Bolger]

He's never been attacked at anywhere close to a Palin-like level, and won't be unless he becomes a real threat to win the nomination. At least he'll know it's coming and has a lot more experience in dealing with the spotlight than Palin did.

The only thing they may cling to is

I wish, but no. Romney was as squeaky clean as politicians come, but that did nothing to stop the over the top attacks.

[Chris Mallory]

Paul's "Smalltown Surgeon" persona will play a whole lot better than Romney's "Evil Job Destroying New England Rich Asshole" persona.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

The latter persona was a caricature created out of whole cloth by the Dems and the MSM. They'll be able to create a similar strawman for Rand Paul.

[robc]

New England Rich Asshole wasnt a caricature.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

He was born in Detroit, lives in San Diego, and gives ridiculous amounts of money to charity.

He is rich though; didn't realize libertarians were into the whole class warfare thing now.

[entropy]

Screaming "that's class warfare!" is not itself an effective response to class warfare. They basically just scoff it off as if it isn't real. But that doesn't make it go away.

He had that problem in his dynastic background, in his Gordon Gecko career, his Northeastern geography, in his focus grouped stiff oatmeal personality, in his lack of engagement with so many issues, and to make it all worse he played right into it with shit like this. He actually said these things:

"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."
"I'm not concerned about the very poor."
"Corporations are people"
"my job is not to worry about those people."

"My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected"

Best Mittens in a nutshell quote:

"I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love."

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

You're taking every one of those one-line quotes completely out of context, of course.

"I want individuals to have their own insurance," he said. "That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

....and so on. You could assassinate the character of any candidate who doesn't shut up and never say anything if you're willing to snip out sentences.

One thing I noticed is that few here who insist that Romney was terrible are willing to offer an alternative candidate who would have done better with a mainstream media crosshairs on his every utterance. The few who do generally offer Ron Paul (are you serious? The gotcha quoters would have creamed their pants over the newsletters and other material he's written and said) or Newt Gingrich (who independents despised).

[entropy]

"You're taking every one of those one-line quotes completely out of context, of course."

Because they can be, so easily.

It feeds the perception that he already had a problem with.

Face it dude, the exit polls show the LIV's felt Romney couldn't relate. You can debate whether these perceptions are true, but that's really missing the whole fucking point. There is still the connection issue, the guy was poison to large sections of the electorate.

Again, you can argue why it shouldn't be so but it doesn't really change anything. You can fight to frame the right context on all his quotes but the election is already over.

[entropy]

I'm looking for a link, but even in the GOP primary this was the case.

Half of the fricken GOP that bounced from Cane, to Bachmann, to Perry, to Cane, to Gingrich just to get away from him.

There were numerous stories about the differences between the Romney rally crowds and the Gingrich crowds. The Gingrich crowds were way more blue collar and LIV packed. He always always had a problem with those voters, just like people told you 6 months before you nominated him. He could not possibly portray himself as a regular guy you'd like to have a beer with, he didn't have it in him. I don't even think he drinks beer.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Half of the fricken GOP that bounced from Cane, to Bachmann, to Perry, to Cane, to Gingrich just to get away from him.

And they ran away from each of those people too once they found out their weaknesses. Cain's harassment troubles and vapid plans, Bachmann's penchant for saying stupid things, Perry's horrible debate performance and vulnerability on immigration, Paul's extremism and refusal to compromise (before we even get to the newsletters), Gingrich's penchant for making enemies and massively high negatives among nonrepublicans, Santorum's conspiracy theorizing at the drop of a hat and similarly high negatives, etc.

Everyone has a weakness; I don't see how any of those people makes it through the MSM-BO alliance's campaign buzzsaw any better than Romney did.

[entropy]

Bull. Shit.

Half the right was trying to warn you assholes when you were nominating him. Gingrich and someone else actually tried a bit of a preview on him.

From 173,000 paces away people could see this if they opened their eyes. Guy had a real 'out of touch' problem some conservatives still won't admit.

[VG Zaytsev]

Yeah,

Romney was a fucking horrible politician, a joke the whole time he was running.

[Fatty Bolger]

Thank you, Chris, for proving my point.

[grey]

Polling has little value except as a ticket into a crowded theater. I'm pleased with the name recognition he's getting and hope he keeps getting mentions and airtime, I no longer send money to parties and have moved to direct candidate support. Not sure what took me so long, regardless l'll be supporting Rand with all my political donations that year.

[Lyle]

I don't think Ed Krayewski can handle Rand Paul trying to win. There is just too much truth to handle when it comes to winning.

[PS]

I've been assured by Top Men on both Teams that Rubio is the only chance the Rs have of recapturing the key Hispanic voters who are all secret conservatives and dying to vote for a conservative as long as he or she is not white. This is not due to any tribal affiliation, of course, because we live in a post-racial society.

[iggy]

There's no reason Paul can't have Rubio as a running mate. That would actually be a pretty solid ticket since the Democrat ticket will end up being something absurd, like Clinton-Cuomo or something.

[mad libertarian guy]

Clinton-Pocahontas

[PS]

Oh you naive fool and your belief in a viable future for 22A.

[grey]

Can Rand do black face or is that still considered racially insensitive to those who don't have a pigment disability?

[Hyperion]

There is only one effective path for him to become POTUS in 2016.

First, during the primaries, he beats the war drums louder than any other candidate. Primary Win.

During the general, he has a sex change and then promises free shit for everyone, regardless of a desire to work, or not. POTUS Win.

Outside of that, he has zero chance.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Even in our post-racial society, no one likes to be told that their parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, in-laws, etc. are parasitic alien invaders bent on consuming all our resources and sullying American womanhood with their vile seed.

I refer, of course, to our Lizard People minority.

[PS]

Some of my best friends are Sleestacks. Sure they are annoying as hell with all that hissing but they don't eat much at dinner parties thanks to their slow metabolism.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Listen, just because you gave your Sleestack fungal gardener a can of slime mold on a hot day doesn't make him your friend.

[juris imprudent]

Yet we have a token Mole-man in Congress.

[Hyperion]

We have the half-pig man, from CA.

[Hyperion]

Most the of the Hispanics here are Mexican. Rubio is Cuban and I am hearing that they do not like Rubio, as they don't consider him one of them, at all.

[PS]

A lot of Cubans I've met think Mexicans are scum. In fact they were some of the biggest snobs I've encountered.

[Hyperion]

And this is how the majority of Hispanics here think. Rubio is a white elitist, most of the Hispanics here came from poor Mexican families. The only common ground they might share is speaking some form of Spanish.

[Slid3r]

You can't assume Rubio will get all Hispanics just because he's Cuban. Most Hispanics I know here in FL actually seem to be split on Rubio. A lot of them liked Bush in 2000, though, because of his faith and pro-life stance.

[Hyperion]

You can't assume Rubio will get all Hispanics just because he's Cuban.

I assume just the opposite.

[Slid3r]

I know, I meant it more generally. As in, the GOP assumes his ethnicity will draw all Hispanics to vote for him.

[mad libertarian guy]

It's not just the GOP, it's everyone who insists that there is a homogenous "hispanic vote." There is no such thing.

Hispanics come from a vast swath of the globe and have various different cultures and socio-political viewpoints.

An Argentinian has very little in common with a Guatemalan.

[Hyperion]

If the GOP primaries were held today, Rubio would be the nominee. the GOP want the Hispanic vote, but it won't work.

Lots can change in 4 years, so it's far too early to predict who will be the GOP candidate.

But it's a moot point. Whoever the Dems run, will win. And I mean whoever. They could spring a mass murder off of death row, and that will be our next president. All they have to do is promise more free stuff. That is what it has come down to, and it's not any more complicated than that.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Yeah, if I were Hispanic, I would be insulted to hear that the GOP wants to run a Hispanic to get my vote.

What would help is if they nominated someone who emphasized fixing the legal immigration system and broadening the guest worker programs with Mexico, along with stepping up border enforcement. Regardless of whether they have Hispanic blood or not. Which is why I think someone like Rick Perry, or even Herman Cain (tho I don't think he has a shot) would be a much better choice than Rubio.

[The Sherriff of Fistingham?]

"But it's a moot point. Whoever the Dems run, will win. And I mean whoever."

I don't know, you put a lot of faith in the dem's slow motion train wreck that will be the next 4 years. By 2008, I think most independents, and quite a few (R)'s were glad to see Boooosh go, and anybody tainted by him. I'm thinking (hoping) that 8 years of Obama and the progs will be quite enough of that shit as well. What we assumed was peak retard just a few years ago barely registers any more, as this administration, its pundits and fringes, strive to reach previously unimaginable heights of uber-peak super retardation?. I suspect that the economy will still be in the shitter, sovereign debt will be truly beyond staggering and unavoidable, and the scandals will keep rolling 24/7, all coupled with the disillusionment (yummm?tasty) of the bases who waited 8 years, and got nothing they were promised by this almost neo-con like huckster. That's why I'm not all that that worried about Clinton/Biden, they have both rolled in Obama's shit long enough to thoroughly stink of it.

[Slid3r]

We're screwed if it's Rubio, even if he wins. He'll be another Obama - absolutely no influence in Washington or Congress who's only elected because he's a pretty face that could be made into a celebrity by the media and has an ability to turn his ethnicity into votes. Then we'll have another 4-8 years of blaming Congress because the other side of the duopoly decides to reject every single thing proposed by the president due to ideological differences.

[Hyperion]

Don't worry, all of this will start to change around 2020 when the economy finally starts going into a death spiral. Who knows how all of that will play out, but there will be major shifts in political power, for the good or the bad.

[Slid3r]

I'd rather avoid the death spiral altogether. I'm not a big fan of Hillary, but I think she would've at least attempted to address the debt had she been elected. Rand takes a lot of heat for his coalitions, but those will pay off if he can get elected because that's how things get done in Washington. Rubio has never attempted anything while in the Senate, just like Obama. He has no influence at all. The reason LBJ was able to pull off everything he did back when he was President was because nearly all of Congress owed him some sort of favor.

[Hyperion]

Sorry Slid, but I have to tell you, there is no way to avoid it now, it's too late. None of our elected so called 'representatives' are going to do anything more than token gestures to cut spending. IOW, spending will increase and the debt will spiral out of control. By 2020 we will probably be around 40 trillion dollars in debt.

A lot of young people will just give up on working, as there is no longer any incentive for it. They will see people living on government existence, who are living better than they can working 40 hrs and more, a week. Then the revenue for continuing our massively expanded welfare state will run out, and the shit will hit the fan. We will have millions of people, 10s of millions, who have no way to support themselves, no skills, and they will suddenly be destitute.

How much longer can a society function like that? Until around 2020, then it's going down in flames.

[RightNut]

If history is any guide, someone will come along and guarantee to fix everything if they are just given temporary emergency powers. Probably go something like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clZ5pdrc_X8

[Hyperion]

No doubt we are heading towards something equally fucked up. I mean it could turn out better in the end, but probably lots of people will die before it gets better.

[AlmightyJB]

Loved that movie. Comments are predictably retarded.

[Slid3r]

Sadly, we really are moving in that direction.

[RG]

I see a currency crisis within a decade.

[Ken Shultz]

Our politicians aren't the problem.

The problem is the stupid shit in our friends' and families' heads.

Get that sorted out, and the politicians will right themselves.

[RightNut]

I agree, in a Democratic system like the US, our politicians are a reflection of the voters. The fact that the guy who promises the most free shit to the most people generally wins is not a problem with the politician, who is only trying to get elected. Its a problem with the voters themselves.

[Hyperion]

"When the public discovers they can vote themselves money from the public treasury, the [American] experiment will be over"-Tocqueville 1838

Never have more prophetic words been spoken.

[HazelMeade]

That wasn't DeToquville.
I think it originated with Plato or something.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

DeTocqueville did write that, but it was either Plato or Aristotle (I think Aristotle, as he wrote more about practical politics) who first pointed to this flaw in direct democracy.

The US system of course was not designed as direct democracy, and the treasury wasn't supposed to have much money in it anyway.

[BigT]

The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced. If the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.

? Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 BC

[darius404]

Quote's not from Cicero. It appears to originally be from a book called A Pillar of Iron, a fictional biography of Cicero by Taylor Caldwell. The actual quote is

"The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome fall."

[RightNut]

Oh it goes back much further than the 1800s. The "free" grain given to the poor during the late Roman Republic started out as simply being slightly subsidized by the state. As the decades passed and politicians realized they could win political power via pleasing the mob, the subsidy for grain increased, until finally being made "free". Of course, after Caesar came to power the amount of "free" grain was scaled back, as he had no need for the mob after taking complete control of the army.

[Archduke Pantsfan]

Some of you are under the impression Obama won't name himself Emperor for life before 2016.

[Slid3r]

Good point. The silence on the Democrat side on potential 2016 candidates may suggests they'd support that.

[Hyperion]

Progressives don't want elections, or a constitution. They want an emperor who can do as he pleases. Because they project their will onto their messiah, who has finally come to do justice for them. Only for them, of course.

They really believe this tripe.

When they themselves become victims of such a tyrannical system, it will be a total shock to them.

[Hyperion]

He might try. It would result in violence, on a national scale, marial law, and millions would die. It would effectively be the end of the USA, as we know it. It's pretty much over anyway.

[crashland]

Millions dead is a feature not a bug to these people. Martial law would fulfill their fantasies.

[Hyperion]

Until they wind up dead themselves.

[Mike M.]

This could be why the civilian government agencies are buying ammunition rounds in the hundreds of millions. They are clearly preparing for something very big. The question is: what?

[Heroic Mulatto]

The question is: what?

The Department of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan/

[Redmanfms]

This derpitude again?

It's a purchase order that covers several years of ammunition acquisition up to a certain quantity at a fixed price. It's not even that much ammunition. I can't remember the exact numbers offhand, but it amounts to some paltry amount (like 20 rounds a month) over the contract duration.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

The Clintons would not allow that to happen.

[HazelMeade]

I do think America is ready for a libertarian Republican.
Or at least a socially tolerant Republican.

They need to lose the culture war bullshit. The culture war is over, they lost. And the cultural conservatives increasingly are regarded as retrograde bigots by the majority of Americans.

Everything else is tangential. Ditch the culture war, embrace modern attitudes towards sexuality, and be religiously inclusive. Those three things alone will go a long, long, way.

Instead of talking about God, talk about 'the divine' or something instead. Turn unitarian. Or just don't talk about God so much. And get the evalgelicals to stop trying to convert people to Christianity. At least not within 500 ft of a Republican event.

[RightNut]

he culture war is over, they lost.

Eh, they lost on gays certainly, and on trying to contain the sexual revolution in general. But on guns and to a more limited extent, abortion, I would say the Right won/is winning.

[HazelMeade]

Guns aren't really part of the culture war.

Abortion is a stalemate where time is on the pro-choice side.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Guns aren't really part of the culture war.

That must be some good shit you're smoking.

[RightNut]

Guns aren't really part of the culture war

Liberals would disagree, "guns, god, and gays", "cling to guns and religion".

Abortion is a stalemate where time is on the pro-choice side.

I don't really care enough to find the links to polling showing the opposite, but that is a dubious statement either way.

[HazelMeade]

you seriously think there's a chance that Christian conservatives are going to take over and overturn Roe v. Wade. Or amend the constitution? Or ban it at the federal level?

Every day that passes the Christian right is becoming more and more marginalized. The days when people prayed in school are long gone and are never coming back. And the more we move away from that time, the wierder and kookier the Christian right looks. And the pro-life position with it.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Except the pro-choice position was in its heyday when the Stoics and Thomas Aquinas were considered legitimate authorities on embryology. (read the Roe v Wade majority opinion if you doubt me on this -- both are referenced as authorities)

As the science has progressed since 1973, we've found more and more human-looking characteristics earlier and earlier in pregnancy... and pro-choicers have grown more and more desperate to cover up the reality of the "medical procedure" they're championing. When's the last time you saw a picture of an aborted fetus on a bus stop?

[Kreel Sarloo]

The GOP needs to rake the Ron Paul position that abortion is simply not a federal matter and that they are not going to propose any new federal legislation.

The Pro-Lifers have already pretty much given up on the federal government and have taken the battle for new restrictive legislation to the states.

Some of the new state laws, like parental notification and more restrictions on late term abortions are not that controversial*, while others, like mandatory ultrasounds, are a slightly harder battle.

*as in they are generally only opposed by the most extreme abortion advocates. I use "abortion advocate" here because these are people who, in fact, are pro-abortion in the sense that they believe abortion is OK for any reason at any time during a pregnancy.

**People who might possibly accept that there is a legitimate state interest in restricting late term abortion or regulating whether minors can get them without parental consent might consider requiring an ultrasound for which there is no legitimate medical purpose to be an unwarranted imposition on the woman involved.

[Kreel Sarloo]

Para 1: "take" not "rake".

[mad libertarian guy]

Guns aren't really part of the culture war.

Guns are ALL ABOUT the culture war. It has nothing to do with violence or mass shootings. It has to do with removing a large portion of what they consider uncouth, redneck culture.

[HazelMeade]

I know a lot of social liberals who are pro-gay, pro-abortion, neo-pagan hippies that also love guns, and the one issue they agree with Republicans on is the right to bear arms. Mainly because as people who who smoke weed and also do heavier drugs, they flirt with law enforcement and the criminal culture surrounding the drug trade. So they very much want to keep their right to own guns.

So my experience doesn't really bear that out. The anti-gun crowd is made up more of centrist Democrats of the public-health law-and-order nanny state. (There is a huge crossover between public health and law-and-order types, philosophically.)

The counter-culture is (IMO) neutral to pro-gun.

[Eduard van Haalen]

I don't think this supports the claim that "guns aren't part of the culture war."

You could just as well say that abortion isn't part of the culture war because of groups like Feminists for Life and Pro Life Pagans, yet you don't seem to be taking that particular position.

[Hyperion]

Well, no doubt the GOP should do the smart thing and get a LOT more Libertarian.

The problem for now, is that any Libertarian candidate will have to vow cutting the size of the federal government and the massive welfare state. So for now it will not be a winning strategy. The economy has to collapse first. Then when the smoke clears, a Libertarian candidate may have a chance, if there is anything left of the nation worth saving and if/when we have free elections again.

[juris imprudent]

The problem is a Libertarian post-apocalypse candidate will be talking about how to gradually rebuild a system so that it doesn't fall to its own excesses again.

The "take charge" demagogue will promise guns and butter and the masses will eat that shit up.

[Gladstone]

Or at least a socially tolerant Republican.
"Social tolerance" is in fact quite intolerant.

modern attitudes towards sexuality
Government funding of abortion and contraception?

Also I'm pretty sure libertarians have lost the war against Big Gov.

[Hyperion]

Also I'm pretty sure libertarians have lost the war against Big Gov.

Until they run out of other peoples money.

[Gladstone]

Once that happens either the libertarians will take advantage of it or some totalitarians will. If the latter then libertarians better hope that when that collapses it will lead to something better.

[Hyperion]

Yep. But I have a feeling that it won't be quite that simple. I think we will see the US split up into different factions. Hopefully there won't be too much violence, but I really don't have much hope for the US remaining one undivided country. I am not sure that's for the best anyway. Splitting up would probably bring an end to our global meddling.

Of course the progs will be very warlike in their want to take whatever anyone else has, so we will have to deal with that.

[AlmightyJB]

The problem is that once the union and welfare thugs start rioting in the streets, the royal class is not going to differinciate the rest of us from them.

[juris imprudent]

Of course the royal class will differentiate. Anyone contesting with their client class will be put up against the wall.

[mad libertarian guy]

Government funding of abortion and contraception?

No. But not condemning gays to underclass status would be a good start.

[HazelMeade]

Government funding of abortion and contraception?

having members of the party going around spouting retrograde Christian dogma about contraception, rape, and abortion, only helps the D's convince people that Republicans want to ban contraception.

If you want to have a rational debate about the contraception mandate, you can't have you own side randomly handing buckets of ammo to the Democrats by uttering retarded crap about rape, or the proper role of women in the family, and converying the impression to the general public that medieval lunatics are running the party.

You have to at least sound sane, and not scary, if you don't want people jumping to insane conclusions about what your motives are.

[juris imprudent]

The socons are going to go about as quietly as the neocons.

The only way the libertarians become the ascendant wing of the Republican Party is through votes.

I hope you aren't holding your breath.

[OldMexican]

Re: HazelMeade,

They need to lose the culture war bullshit. The culture war is over, they lost.

H, the right will never let go of the culture war because it is part of their socialist plan. The left's plan is based on economic slavery, the right has cultural slavery. That is what we're facing, that is a set of competing socialist scripts. It will never stop because both want the same thing: A paradise on Earth with fallen Man finally on the same level as the gods. You can't expect either of them to relent on their worldview and their goals because those are the only things they have.

[AlmightyJB]

I don't think the war against big government is lost. It's not something that will be turned around overnight. You have take a long view and take an incremental approach. If Rand were to come out and say he was going to cut the budget by 40% his first year (something that most of us would consider more than reaonable) he's not going to get elected because he would be setting up the fearmongers to defeat him. People fear change. That being siad people will accespt change over time. Twenty years ago the gay marraige thing was going nowhere, now it looks to be inevatible. Of course it helps to have pop culture on your side. If he would promise a 5% reduction the fear mongers will still make that out to be something draconian but he can turn that argument around because I think most people can see that 5% should not be hard to do. The facts speak for themselves. You do 5% a year for 4 years and that's as Joe Biden would say a big fucking deal. Not enough for sure but a good start.

[RightNut]

Consider the absolute conniption Dems had about something as tame as means testing social security, or the Ryan budget plan, 5% a year will never happen. More likely the only thing Dems to agree to is a slight reduction in the baseline budget increase. So we'll go from +5% increased spending every year to +4.5% increased spending, and the Dems will then claim we've cut billions of dollars and the spending problem is not solved.

[RightNut]

solved* bah reason why do you hate edits.

[AlmightyJB]

I think that a 5% reduction could be sold to the american people. The biggest attack on Ryan's budget was not on the budget but on Ryans relationship with Todd Aiken. If you an associate Ryan with a caveman like Aiken than obviously anything Ryan says or does can't be listened to. Typical polital tactic. You just have to find a way to focus on the goal and keep drilling the facts home.

[RightNut]

The Democratic attacks on the Ryan budget far predate Todd Akin. Hell Obama pretty much gave a speech in front of Paul Ryan calling him a callous grandma killer, this was well over a year before anyone had heard of Todd Akin.

[AlmightyJB]

Yeah, well it's not going to be easy but it's gotta happen. Maybe it will have to all come crashing down first. I hope that's not the case. I'm not sure other side of that will look any better than know and it might might look worse.

[AlmightyJB]

This incrementalist approach also means Rand will have to play politics much to our chagrin. Any candidate who publically passes the libertarian purity litmus test is not making it to the white house. When the destination is so far away you can't expect that we'll get there overnight. That's not to say you abandon your ideals or that you agree to something that you strongly morally oppose. So you may not bring every soldier stationed overseas home immediately but you also don't go bomb more brown people because Charles Krauthammer thinks they're threat to Israel.

[RightNut]

ut you also don't go bomb more brown people because Charles Krauthammer thinks they're threat to Israel.

When exactly has this ever happened?

[AlmightyJB]

Well we haven't bombed Iran yet but I think if we had a President Santorum there's a pretty good chance we would have.

[Isaac Bartram]

There was a pretty good chance we would have bombed Iran in a second BO term with a Secretary of State Clinton too.

What will happen with Secretary of State Swift Boat is anyone's guess but he sure became a much more enthusiastic warmonger between the 1970s and the 1990s.

[Hyperion]

There are other reasons besides Israel and terrorists, to terrorize and kill poor brown folks all over the planet. There is dangerous drugs. Drugs are bad, Mmkay? We have to kill brown people, to save the children.

In the most perfect libertarian state, if any elected official even mutters the words 'for the children', it should result in them being immediately taken outside, tarred and feathered, and then hung from the nearest lamp post.

[Hyperion]

There are other reasons besides Israel and terrorists, to terrorize and kill poor brown folks all over the planet. There is dangerous drugs. Drugs are bad, Mmkay? We have to kill brown people, to save the children.

In the most perfect libertarian state, if any elected official even mutters the words 'for the children', it should result in them being immediately taken outside, tarred and feathered, and then hung from the nearest lamp post.

[Hyperion]

Damnit, double post. How the fuck did that happen?

[AlmightyJB]

I had that happen to me earlier. Didn't even hit submit twice. Squirrels are bored I guess.

[Hyperion]

I didn't hit submit twice either, that's why I don't know what is up with that.

[Isaac Bartram]

I wouldn't worry, what you said really can't be said too many times.

[crashland]

Fuck that, tar, feathering hanging, far to much work, double tap to the forehead.

Adding to the list of phrases resulting in death should be "common-sense."

[The Sherriff of Fistingham?]

"to terrorize and kill poor brown folks all over the planet."

Isn't this horseshit even a little played out? Our nation slaughtered white people almost exclusively until ~50 or 60 years ago, and quite a few of them, until we embraced multi-culturalism and inclusiveness and started killing Koreans and Japanese. I grow tired of the lefty "brown people" claptrap, Uncle Sam will kill you regardless of your skin color, and brown people don't make it anything special....

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

Native Americans, Mexicans, and Filipinos are brown.

[The Sherriff of Fistingham?]

Germans, Russians, Brits, French, Italians, and many Americans in the U.S were often white, as if it matters, because,...they are just as dead.

[robc]

Incrementalism only works in one directon. To reverse the course, you have to go in big chunks.

See New Zealand in the 1980s for an example (it was short term, but it made a huge difference for a few years).

[Hyperion]

People fear change

What the voting bloc that now decides POTUS elections, fears, is having to work for a living.

[AlmightyJB]

So what you're saying is that I should abandon all hope and go ahead and start drinking now:)

[Hyperion]

I have to take some boxes to the storage shed and fix a shelf in the kitchen for wifey.

But right after that I will gladly join you in giving up hope and start drinking.

[AlmightyJB]

Sound like a plan:)

[josh]

the gop situation is too fluid right now to predict a nominee and you always have to remember that both rubio and paul are up for reelection in 2016. That means more to paul than i think rubio, because rubio would likely run for president, and if he fails, come back to florida and run for governor in 2018. i don't think ryan runs for president, ever. unless rubio really screws up, he's got too much going for him to probably not be the nominee, and i'm thinking paul is the only one who could really screw that up.

on the democratic side, if hilliary learned anything from 2008, it's hers. she'll get some resistence from a further left candidate, but only a repeat of her 2008 incompetence would cause her not to be the nominee. if she doesn't run, i think the dems, are likely to run harder to the left, and they blow any chance at the general by doing so.

2016 is almost certainly going to pull our politics back closer to the middle rather than what were doing now, which is tacking left ward.

[MSimon]

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Reagan

[RyanXXX]

"Herp derp"
Ronald Reagan

[juris imprudent]

Reagan was pure genius at telling people things they wanted to hear (see also: abortion).

[eyeroller]

"As I sign this bill for a zillion dollars in military spending, and this other bill for a zillion dollars in social spending, let me say that government is the problem."

Ronald Reagan