Rand Paul

Rand Paul 2016, More and More Obvious


For anyone who doubted what was happening before their very eyes, the reality of Rand Paul 2016 becomes more and more clear, as per today's National Review:

Rand Paul's chief strategist is leaving his Senate post to run the Kentucky Republican's political shop.

Doug Stafford, who is widely seen as Paul's closest adviser, will soon resign as chief of staff to manage Paul's national political operation. Today's news is the clearest sign yet that Paul, a potential 2016 contender, is building a presidential campaign…..

Stafford will be focused on directing the senator's organization in early-primary states, his calendar, and his communications. He will also run Paul's political-action committees, which are expected to grow. Those groups — RAND PAC and Rand Paul for U.S. Senate — are the financial and political foundation for Paul's likely presidential campaign….

Paul has two upcoming trips to Iowa, a speech in New Hampshire on May 20, and a lecture at the Ronald Reagan presidential library on May 31. He's also planning events in South Carolina, among other states.

According to Capitol Hill insiders, Stafford, a 41-year-old New York native, told his staff today about his transition….

Managing Paul's post-filibuster fame–and widening out his appeal from the narrowly libertarian in a party still distressingly quick to run from libertarian ideas about foreign policy, civil liberties, the drug war, and even spending–will be an interesting more than full-time job for Stafford, to be sure.

I wrote in the New York Times in February about Rand Paul and the future of the GOP.

NEXT: Hagel: U.S. Again Considers Arming Syrian Rebels

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. The media is going to go into full pants-shitting hysteria mode if Rand declares a run for the presidency. It’s going to make the shit about his father seem like the slowest news day imaginable.

    1. But Epi, how can the media possibly be worried? Rand can’t hope to match the folksy gumption of Hillary Clinton or the smoldering charisma of “Uncle” Joe Biden.

      1. No, of course not, but after the 22nd Amendment is repealed, he can run against Obama’s third term instead!

        1. I think they’ll run Michelle instead.

          1. Can Wookies be President?

            1. well, i know it’s best to let them win. so yes.

      2. If it’s RP against HRC or Biden, it will be fascinating to watch the media explain that RP is too inexperienced to be presidential material.

        1. Fascinating? I would have gone with “all to predictable”.

          1. Well, yeah. I meant fascinating in how they explain RP’s inexperience being bad while BHO’s was not a factor.

            Although I wouldn’t be surprised if at least one columnist writes that 2009-2016 shows us what happens with an inexperienced president so we can’t do it again.

            1. The scribes are in the tank for Obama. Maybe the Journal goes there though.

    2. Yeah, this is going to be fun.

    3. I agree with the first point, but have qualms with the second.

      The media just simply ignored that Ron Paul existed.

      The media will go in to full panic mode about how Rand and his libertarian ideas will ensure that old people will be forced to feed off of the dead lying in the clogged gutters of our crumbling streets, that young women will be forced to have monthly vaginal probes to test for pregnancy and that, in the event of a positive result, they be shipped off to camps and forced to give birth against their will, and that blacks will be re-chained and forced to call all white people “massa” because he’s going to make it his number one priority to repeal the Civil Rights Act.

    4. I heard they just dug up the bones of some girl he killed and ate in Virginia. She was a gay, black Indian who he killed because she wanted to abort a baby.

      1. Oh, and afterwards, he wrote a newsletter about the experience while worshiping some watery bint.

  2. Rand will never be president, but it’ll be fun to watch the show.

    1. Never ever underestimate the power of the Low Flow Toilets issue with the public.

  3. Just becoming the GOP nominee would be a breakthrough of historic proportions. It would expose millions of people to new ideas, which can only help the goal of liberty.

    1. I want to see this happen so badly, just so I can see what justification Reason comes up with to not support him.

      1. Rand hasn’t attached his name to a racist publication so I don’t think that’s an issue.

  4. After the obligatory trip to Israel his announcement is just a formality.

    Although he will be a big underdog to Christie and Santorum since they represent the two big GOP factions.

    1. Christie would be the worst possible candidate for the GOP to nominate. He would be worse than Santorum. The GOP would have no hope for winning because none of their base would show up.

      1. Christie has about as much of a shot as Giuliani did.

        He’ll come out and be named a front runner early, but once the voting starts he will absolutely fall flat on his face.

        This assumes he’s stupid enough to run.

    2. Christie and Santorum are running well behind Paul, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan in polls.

      1. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who is playing a leading but risky role in shaping a comprehensive immigration reform overhaul, has 18 percent of the Republican primary vote, according to a Fairleigh Dickinson University poll out Tuesday. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, whose occasional praise of the Obama administration has alienated the right, is in second with 16 percent. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who Republicans worry will be dragged down by his famous name, is in third with 14 percent.

        Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum gets a mere 9 percent. Twenty-one percent of Republicans would pick another candidate and another 21 percent are undecided.

        Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/…..z2SAbE5Mn9

        1. Pretty sure that’s an outlier. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N….._primaries

          I’d like to see how that “other” 21% breaks down too.

    3. Against Christie and Santorum he might actually have a shot at winning.

  5. Christie would be the worst possible candidate for the GOP to nominate.

    That makes him the early favorite.

    1. How would Christie possibly win the nomination? The people who show up to primary elections are the hardcore Republicans. Do you think they’re going to nominate Christie?

      Obviously people will say ‘well they nominated Romney!’ but Christie is much less popular among base Republicans than Romney was. Romney won the nomination by default in a weak field. A field with Paul, Rubio and Ryan is much stronger than the one Romney won, and Christie is less popular among staunch, grass roots Republicans than Romney.

      1. Christie will win the non-Southern states much like Romney did.

        Romney split the field. Pawlenty could have done that as well.

        1. Christie is going to get absolutely obliterated once he gets asked questions about any of his policies or about his pro-Obama stances.

          He won’t be able to win the Midwest. He won’t win anything in the South. His only hope is to win the entire Northeast, California, Washington and Oregon AND have the south get split. Highly unlikely once he gets pounded in the debates.

      2. Romney also spent four years building an operation, a donor network, keeping himself in the media eye without having to also govern, and being able to outlast the others.

        The only difference between Romney and Christie is that the latter is a Catholic, which to Fox, is more than enough to pretend that he’s Reagan, Goldwater, and Jefferson rolled into one.

        1. Maybe to O’Reilly. Most on Fox aren’t that obsessed with religion.

    2. Christie won’t win because (a) too fat and (b) too moderate.

      Santorum can’t win because if he could, he would have already.

      Rand Paul might have a chance if the R establishment doesn’t piss it’s pants over fear of the CRA issue.

      I’m betting some other candidate comes out of the woodwork.

      Scott Walker or whoever the governor of Michigan is maybe. Possibly Paul Ryan.

      1. “Rand Paul might have a chance if the R establishment doesn’t piss it’s pants over fear of the CRA issue.”

        Why would they be concerned? The black vote is a lost cause for them regardless.

        1. Non-black moderate voters may nonetheless be turned off by it enough to not vote for him

  6. Rubio’s immigration push isn’t doing him any favors, Jeb Bush still has the last name Bush, Christie is busy tonguing POTUS’ asshole, and I haven’t heard anything from Santorum recently (where’s he been?)… please don’t fuck this up Rand!

    1. Yeah, Rubio is a likely candidate. Hispanic, not too socially liberal, completely in the pocket of the establishment. Sounds like a winner.

  7. WTF guyz, gimme mah Lynx!

    1. Second!


  9. I’ve been assured by several here that Rand isn’t really a libertarian, so why should I care about this?

    1. There are also several who say he is. Why do you choose to believe the ones who say he isn’t? Do you or do you not think his positions are libertarian?

  10. I’ve been assured by several here that Rand isn’t really a libertarian, so why should I care about this?

  11. I wish Rand well but I don’t see him happening. There are still far too many people in the Republican base who want to blow up half the planet, kick out all the illegals, and amend the Constitution into a theocratic document where abortions and gay marriages are performed in back alleys. All in the name of small government of course.

    Paul will do one of two things. Sell out some and try to win the narrow minded neo-cons or he’ll say something off the wall and be torn to shreds by his opponents. Let’s face it, libertarians always set themselves up for the fall.

    But I like Rand Paul. He’s smoother than his old man. Not quite as fringe but still a fresh libertarian leaning voice. Part of me wonders if he should just stay where he is and sway the Senate Republicans in his direction.

    1. +1.

      Rand is much slicker than Ron. He won’t obsess on the Federal Reserve – guaranteed. It scares us pro-business types to death.

      1. It scares us pro-business types to death.

        We know. Your ‘business’ can’t survive without sponging off a parasitic currency system. BTW I guarantee Rand is no friend of central banking.

        1. Rand’s like Friedman that way. In a perfect world, he’d abolish the Fed but because that will never happen he’ll operate it in a way that won’t fuck anything up anymore.

          1. Friedman’s other problems were of course relate to Monetarism and his bizarre belief that you could control the “quantity of money.”

  12. Sometimes man you jsut have to smack it good!


  13. Ever since the filibuster, I’ve forgiven Rand for endorsing Romney. I supported his senate bid, and I plan to support him if he runs for president.

    My dream lineup for a Rand Paul administration would be:

    VP: Justin Amash
    Treasury Secretary: Peter Schiff
    Attorney General (then nominated to the Supreme Court): Andrew Napolitano
    Secretary of State: Ron Paul
    Secretary of the Interior: Tisha Casida
    Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs: Jesse Ventura
    Secretary of Education: John Taylor Gatto
    Secretary of Agriculture: John Mackey
    Commerce Secretary: Gary North
    Secretary of Labor: Thomas Sowell
    Secretary of Defense: Bruce Schneier


    1. I’d also like to see Mike Lee as the Senate majority leader.


      1. I’d like to see you stop signing your posts.

        Your name is attached at the top.

        1. Request denied. Try to work it out in therapy.


  14. Honestly, I’m hardly excited about RP’s presidency. There’s a lot to be answered for in his voting record. But at least he has a decent track record on government spending and taxes.

  15. I really have a hard time understanding Reasons love fest with Rand Paul. Twice in the past two months I have received in the mail fundraising letters from Paul urging me to donate so he can over turn Row V Wade. Last week he said he was OK with drones in the USA for LE. He has voted for sanctions and been a bit cozy with the neocon wing of the GOP. Is the possibility of a electoral “victory” so enticing that Reason is willing to just gloss over all the really rightwing, horrible and oh so typical stuff that Rand Paul does and says? Rand is no Ron.

    1. I’m sure Reason was fooled by Reagan, so it’s not surprising they would be fooled by Rand Paul.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.