Rand Paul

Rand Paul Roundup: Winning Back Ron Fans, Fighting for Female Ones, Keeping the Nevada Caucus, Speaking His Unrestrained Mind

|

Rand Paul, since he announced he was running for president, has largely dodged whatever potential bullet the radical reputation of his father Ron Paul might represent. But some believe he risks simultaneously losing the love of his dad's fans and voters—a considerable over 2 million folks in the 2012 primaries.

The New York Times thinks the jazzy and staunchly pro-liberty Rand Paul who helped scuttle the renewal of the Patriot Act's Section 215 provisions is independently earning Ron Paul fan love:

Steve Grubbs, who is leading Mr. Paul's efforts in Iowa, said Mr. Paul's supporters have been heartened as they watched the N.S.A. debate unfold. Those votes are the bedrock of the senator's strategy to break out in a large field of Republican candidates…

It was no accident that on the night Mr. Paul railed against the N.S.A. for 11 hours on the Senate floor, his campaign sent out a picture on Twitter of Ron and Carol Paul, Rand's mother, standing in front of a television tuned to C-Span's coverage of the event. "You might recognize these liberty lovers," it teased.

The Times also gets unnamed advisers to say they can even now imagine Ron campaigning in person for Rand in states like Iowa, which is not something I would have predicted back in April (and still will believe when I see).

Old Ron Paul Nevada hand Carl Bunce has the last word in the Times article:

Carl Bunce….said that many in the libertarian movement believed that the Patriot Act's expiration was "something they thought would never happen." But he said they still needed more assurances from Mr. Paul, something that will take time.

"Actions mean more than words to most of the liberty base," Mr. Bunce said. "But I am confident they will get on board soon. Kind of a once-bitten, twice-shy feeling among them."

• In other recent Rand Paul and Nevada news, I reported in late April that Party powers-that-be were trying to change the Nevada caucus into a primary, a move thought to hobble relative outsiders who can punch above their weight with enthusiasm of support over raw numbers.

Now Slate reports that that won't be happening and that fringier candidates such as Paul and, the Slate reporter thinks, Huckabee and Cruz, might have a better chance of doing well. However, new GOP rules hobble the caucus process in general—for one example, now Party rules will allocate delegates based on raw-vote-total winners.

This rule change will make it impossible for dedicated followers to game the delegate selection process as Ron Paul did, for example, in Iowa to get more delegates pledged to him in the end than the raw straw poll vote would have indicated. Thus, the whole caucus vs. primary matter is less important when it comes to actual delegate votes at the GOP convention in summer 2016 this time around.

• Can Rand Paul attract the ladies? To vote for him, that is. Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist wonders. She quotes a CNN poll showing Paul has "the largest gender gap on the GOP side, drawing 13% and tying for first among men while garnering just 2% support among women."

After offering the overriding idea that perhaps women lean toward more emotional, less bloodlessly rational, approaches to politics and policy and that we already have some polling and observational data indicating that for whatever reason libertarian ideas tend to skew more male, Hemingway concludes:

it's undoubtedly true that libertarians themselves—perhaps due to reasons mentioned in the research discussed above—present issues of concern a bit too analytically at the expense of emotional engagement and a hearty focus on community and other institutions. A bit more focus on how the message is conveyed could help Paul improve with GOP women to match gains he's made with GOP men.

• Politico has an interesting take on the general question of how a sometimes prickly politician who often speaks off the cuff and perhaps mildly regrets it can handle the heat of running for president, starting with three recent Paul supposed sorta-gaffes:

After Rand Paul said GOP defense hawks had "created" ISIS, he told Sean Hannity: "I think I could have stated it better." When he claimed some of his adversaries were "secretly" hoping for a terrorist attack so they could blame him for shutting down the PATRIOT Act, the next day he admitted that "hyperbole" got the better of him "in the heat of battle."

And when Paul quipped that he was "glad" his train didn't stop in Baltimore in the wake of riots there, he later offered "regret" that his comments were "misinterpreted."

The piece notes the quality that leads Paul to offer more interesting color to the press than the likes of a Hillary Clinton who avoids any possibility of unscripted interaction:

Unlike some candidates who tend to hew closer to their scripts, Paul, at times, grows weary of giving the same defense of a policy position. So he is prone to veer off topic and offer a new argument publicly. Doing that, however, has its risks. His advisers have tried to impress upon Paul the need to hash out his line of thinking privately before speaking publicly about it for the first time.

Paul's quoted reactions/explanations of the above gaffes in the Politico piece, in which he gives himself some blame for perhaps using the wrong word or emphasis or failed attempts at levity, show a candidate who is less prickly and defensive than the pre-running-for-president Paul could often be.

Advertisement

NEXT: Government Snoops Who Want Your Data Hand 4 Million Personnel Records to Hackers

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. But some believe he risks simultaneously lost the love of his dad’s fans and voters?a considerable over 2 million folks in the 2012 primaries.

    Um, try again?

    1. Jeb Bush paid politico to write it.

  2. Fun fact: Rand Paul does laser eye surgery, but he doesn’t need lasers. His manly gaze gets the job done.

  3. If its between Rand and Hillary, even the ancient viewers of CNN will come around. Right now they think he’s a hippie who is going to steal their social security.

  4. Fun fact: Rand Paul can tell if you memorized the eye chart.

  5. “After offering the overriding idea that perhaps women lean toward more emotional, less bloodlessly rational, approaches to politics and policy and that we already have some polling and observational data indicating that for whatever reason libertarian ideas tend to skew more male, Hemingway concludes:”

    Perhaps?

    The US constitution was a dead letter less than 20 years after women got the vote.

    1. You’re not allowed to say that. Women and men are identical in all ways, and unfettered democracy where everyone gets a vote (especially the least educated, least informed citizens) always leads to good outcomes as opposed to ad hoc, elitist systems made by Anglo intellectuals that protect individual liberty rather than a positive right to scribble on a ballot.

      Also, Prohibition saved women and children from their slothful, intoxicated husbands and fathers, so early feminists did us all a huge favor there and set a wonderful precedent for future bans on dangerous mind-altering chemicals.

      1. Women and men are nearly identical in their shitty voting habits, 99% of those who vote do so for team be ruled.

        1. Team BRuled includes the Reagan/Clinton faction as well as the Wilson/FDR one.

          Like tumors, there are huge gradations of badness among the mainline etatists.

    2. Correlation =/= causation. The progressive movement was revving up before that.

      1. That being said, universal suffrage is bad. I think far fewer women are qualified to vote than men but it’s low numbers in both categories.

        1. This is why there are no female libertarians and I’m not joking.

          1. Oh, c’mon, you know when we were talking all that stuff about non-aggression and freedom of association and letting people do their own thing, what we MEANT was so long as they were male, over eighteen, reasonably sane, free from criminal convictions and possessing of a certain quality of life and breeding.

            Anything less would be fucking anarchy.

          2. Still not as bad as his approval of infanticide though, imo

            1. They are both perfectly reasoned positions.

          3. No it’s not. It’s because there are fewer women that choose logic over emotion than men.

          4. Then, you’re just fucking retarded.

            This message brought to you by, ahem – a female libertarian.

        2. And most incompetent politicians are men, so I guess women are more qualified to run, right?

          1. DERP. Think about that statement first.

            1. You’re so dumb you don’t recognize your own logic

              1. Oh of course I am going to have to spoon feed this to you.

                If you want to reach the conclusion that ‘women are more qualified to run’, you have to compare what proportion of women pols suck vs the portion of male pols that suck. Not the percent of sucky pols that are men. No need to thank me, checking the logic people use here is like a second job for me.

                1. Dude seriously I say this with the upmost respect go fuck yourself.

                  1. Another well-reasoned argument from the Stop Saying Things I Don’t Like Brigade. You should call me a poopy-head next. You could also try thanking me for schooling you in basic logic.

                2. Now apply that level of analysis to voter demographics. Oh right you won’t.

                  1. I did….right off the bat. More women vote for statism than men.

        3. I have no problem with women voting. I would restore the property requirement. And yes, that disenfranchises me. Which is fine since voting is political masturbation.

          1. Okay.

            voting is political masturbation.

            But it’s masturbation that matters I know when I vote, I hold the fate of my province/city/country in my hands.

            1. And if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge for sale. Also a bunch of Arizona beach-front building lots.

            2. But it’s masturbation that matters I know when I vote, I hold 0.000001% of the fate of my province/city/country in my hands.

              FTFY

  6. Fun fact: Rand Paul once stabbed a man in the eye. The village in Honduras where he did it named a feast day after Se?or Paul. A lesser saint was kicked off the calendar, much to to the Vatican’s dismay.

  7. Any truth to the rumor Mitch McConnell played along to let the Patriot Act expire for a little while so Rand could take credit? Seems plausible considering he owes Rand big time for getting him reelected.

  8. However, given the way new GOP rules hobble the caucus process in general?for one example, now Party rules will allocate delegates based on raw-vote-total winners.

    Doesn’t this make the whole process more transparent? Sure, Ron gamed the system in some states (and there’s no problem with that, hate the game not the player) but in other states they used the byzantine system to screw him.

  9. “Politico has an interesting take on the general question of how a sometimes prickly politician who often speaks off the cuff and perhaps mildly regrets it can handle the heat of running for president, starting with three recent Paul supposed sorta-gaffes”

    Stop regretting it. Instead, note that there are those who say that speaking candidly about the dangers of the world justify stripping folks of their liberty or sending folks in uniforms to die in foreign lands in pointless wars. Then note that you’re not one of those people, and say a few words about compassionate conservatism, liberty, and all the people suffering under the yoke of economic oppression. When pressed, ad lib, but never apologize. You’re likable enough, after all.

    Next stop, 1600 Pennsylvania.

    1. Indeed. Paul has no need to be mealy-mouthed. It’s not like Graham and company are ever going to stop their misinformation campaign against him and play nicely, so why not go balls to the wall?

    2. Agreed. Problem is, a 5-second not-really-at-all gaffe gets a lot more airplay than a 30-second “fuck you.”

      Aside: My twitterstream (heavily liberal) is trending Bernie Sanders. I think Hillary’s not too far from having tire tracks on her backside. *sad trombone* Nobody wants that cunt, not even her side.

      1. Eh Bernie still seems to be pretty much a flash in the pan.

        1. Nature abhors a vacuum, and Hillary is one ginormous vacuum.

          1. I seen no evidence that Hillary sucked or swallowed. Munching carpet, maybe.

      2. I’ve send before on here that the day Warren gets the nomination is the day I hole up in my prepper shack up north.

        But fucking Bernie? I’m not even wasting time. It’s on like Donkey Kong.

        1. I have zero interest in fucking Bernie.

          1. That’s the thing with socialists….they don’t care.

          2. You may not have an interest in fucking Bernie, but Bernie has an interest in fucking you.

      3. I don’t think it will be Bernie, but agree the death rattle for Cankles gets louder every day. She (and Billyboy) are so blatantly corrupt that she won’t survive. C’mon, when Wapo and the NYT are on your case and you are on their team they are pretty sure they can’t hide your corruption.

        I have to admit a team Red congress and pres is a scary scenario. Nothing good happens with one party in power. The only thing could be less retarded Supreme appointees. Team Red may nominate dolts, but coming up with something better than Kagen or Sotomayor seems like a low bar to hurdle. Then again, Team Red is reliably unreliable.

        OK, I admit it, we’re fucked no matter what happens.

        1. death rattle for Cankles

          Band name!

  10. What nonsense. I am a female. I support Rand Paul. I just put the Rand Paul sticker on my car bumper. And I never supported Ron Paul.
    So take that, bitches!
    (p.s. – apparently, someone didn’t listen to the C-Span callers on Saturday. Many female Rand Paul supporters called in to the show.- and no, not the SAME woman, over and over, you wise-asses)

    1. I have a “Who is John Galt?” sticker on my car, but I don’t think my neighbors get the reference…

      Two professors at my alma mater stopped me to say, “Well? Who is John Galt?” I laughed, thinking they were making any number of jokes a state u prof would make, but they were serious. They didn’t know. I said, “It’s an existential question, like ‘Who knows?’ You know Ayn Rand?” Nope. Sure didn’t.

      What was the topic? Oh, Rand Paul. Right. Bumper sticker coming right up. I doubt my neighbors will know who that is.

      1. Where do you live? You must have really dumb neighbors.

        My neighbors are really dumb and I am not ashamed to say it. She has a “Ready for Hillary” above the “UCSD parent ” sticker

        Frankly, I think I got my REASON and RAND PAUL stickers just to piss her off . . .

        But passive-aggressively. Because, well – that’s what we women do . . .

        1. I live in a very nice middle-class 1960s ranch suburb. My neighbors are either old goats who made their pensions on the Ford or GM lines or people a lot younger than I whose kids are older than mine (because I got started late). There’s a lawyer and her techie husband up the street but that’s about as erudite as it gets in this neighborhood. I suspect the old ones didn’t read much in their leisure time and the ones younger than I read a lot, but aren’t well read.

          I’ll get a Rand sticker at some point. The husband’s a little jealous of my gushing.

    2. Well if women were more like you we’d be better off and letting women vote wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

      1. “Well if women were more like you we’d be better off and letting women vote wouldn’t be such a bad idea.”

        Your ideas are consistently brilliant. Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because collectivism. Also, we must destroy the terrorists everywhere and always but should have limitless immigration because there’s no possibility those same terrorists might cross our totally open borders.

        I’d like to subscribe to any newsletter you produce and how it’s delivered and how much it costs is no object.

        1. Well women could earn the vote by passing some kind of test. Hell we can apply that to men and Caitlyn Brenner too. Letting the masses vote by default has not worked out for freedom and the female vote has been even worse.

          Also, we must destroy the terrorists everywhere and always but should have limitless immigration because there’s no possibility those same terrorists might cross our totally open borders.

          Actually we’d screen people coming in to keep out terrorists and other criminals as best as we can. With us not focused on keeping out everyone, resources can be focused on that goal. Also, even if they don’t come in by immigration there’s this thing called ‘tourism’ which kind of sticks a fork in the Fortress America defense.

          But thanks. I am nothing if not consistently brilliant. It’s high time that was acknowledged.

          1. Do people not enfranchised to vote still have to pay taxes?

            1. Poll tax?

              1. Well, if you’re going to do that, then why not just go the ancient Greek city-state route and just open the franchise to anyone who is willing to pay for it?

                1. I’m worried it gets circular, with people voting for who gives them the money to pay for the poll tax. I want some kind of psychological test to screen citizens so that a small pool can vote or be randomly chosen for a citizen’s jury kind of deal.

                  1. “I want some kind of psychological test”
                    Good. Acceptance is the first step to recovery

                    1. Being logical is nothing to recover from.

                  2. or be randomly chosen for a citizen’s jury kind of deal.

                    Well, yes. That’s how it worked in ancient Athens. Athenians didn’t hold elections for public office, officials were randomly selected from a pool of interested candidates.

                    1. Didn’t the Athenians end up being a bunch of dicks and the Spartans had to put them in their place? Hmm. *Pondering intensifies*

                    2. I like that idea, except for the “pool of interested candidates.” To my way of thinking, anyone who wants the job should be automatically disqualified.

                  3. Robert Heinlein proposed solving a simple quadratic equation in the polling booth. That should weed out most of the idiocracy.

            1. Fine. Call it ‘The Filter’ if you like.

          2. No, you let anyone in and when they fuck up you shoot them. That was the idea behind “a rifle behind every blade of grass”.

            1. No, you let anyone in and when they fuck up you shoot them. That was the idea behind “a rifle behind every blade of grass”.

              Most people, left and right, want to believe it’s the government’s job to protect them. From criminals, foreigners, bad choices, uncouth thoughts, whatever. The notion is comforting; it helps you sleep at night and provides a shared belief to bond with other people over. It’s also patently false, as numerous counterexamples amply prove, but so many people are committed to maintaining the pretense of this fiction at the expense of any and all principles.

        2. Dude has to be a troll, the only question is who’s behind him. Conspiracy theory, anyone?

      2. NOTE TO LURKERS AND NEW COMERS: Cytotoxic is not representative of the commeteriat. Most of us are not sexist, chickenhawk, Canuckistani assholes.

        We are generally nice to women. Except for nicole. She’s the worst.

        1. I’m not ‘sexist’ and ‘chickenhawk’ is a buzzword with no meaning beyond ‘peacenazi who can’t come up with a real idea’.

          1. Er, I meant that ‘chickenhawk’ is a buzzword used by peacenazis when they can’t come up with any real ideas or points.

        2. Cytotoxic is not representative of the commeteriat.

          Sadly, no…not yet. But you can aspire, and someday, the whole commentariat will have my immaculate spelling.

          1. Everyone will be an Objectivst* in the future (just as soon as more than a third of Americans can name the three branches of the fedgov)!

            *or student of Objectivism, if you’re an old timer who has survived the nth purge

          2. Impossible. There ain’t no such thing as a Canuckistani with immaculate spelling.

            Not even in French.

      3. I was born in Wyoming. The Equality State. Why is it called the Equality State? Women have been voting since Wyoming was a territory.

        Don’t believe the progressive lie that their hard work garnered women “the right to vote”. It just isn’t so.

        It was the Oregon Trail and covered wagons.

    3. With your handle, you could have left out the big reveal. We already knew.

      Contrary to the chatter, which leaves one thinking these fellows all huff acid and testosterone on their work breaks, I’ve yet to see anyone fuck with a gal just because she was a gal. Except AmSoc, and he almost wet himself over how BAD he was being.

      1. Pics?

        1. The rumors that I have wired a video feed from the commentariat’s workplace bathrooms to my PC are completely groundless.

          1. Let’s be friends.

          2. Why would you need a video feed of my bathroom when I’ve been slipping pictures of my junk into your mailbox every Saturday anyways?

            I mean, I’m not positive it’s you since mostly it’s just random women, but I put so many pictures of my junk out there that probability says you’ve seen one.

            1. Guys fail to understand the power of the dick pic. Whatever you do, whatever you say, from that moment on… she now has a photo of your penis and the ability to deploy that photo at will.

              Send me pictures of your dicks. You know I’m trustworthy, right guys?

              1. Ha! That is fun. And so right.

                That being said, if one was to have such pictures, where would one send them?

                1. Not sure if serious…

                  1. Don’t listen to them! I am never serious. Mostly.

            2. Irish, for shame.

              We all know that jesse gets first crack at man-junk photos, as is his ancient right.

      2. You don’t huff acid and testosterone? You haven’t really had an ol number 6 till you’ve done it on testosteracid.

        1. I am so masculine I do not need the extra testosterone. I scoff at such malarkey! SCOFF!

          1. So that’s why you’re down for pretty much any chick?

            1. Some people say that cucumbers taste better pickled.

              1. How do you know you don’t like it, if you haven’t tried it?

                /Mom

                1. “How do you know you don’t like it, if you haven’t tried it?

                  /Mom”

                  My response that got my ass beat once as a kid: Have you ever eaten a turd?

    4. Are you sure it wasn’t the same woman?

      Maybe she’s just goof at voices.

      Voice Actresses for Rand- you can thank me later Mr. Paul

      1. Yes, I am absolutely sure it is not the “same woman”.

        They screen for that.

  11. Here, have some neo-prohibitionist bullshit wherein the author handwrings over “this important health issue” based on the “newly defined” Alcohol Use Disorder. Under this new definition you merely need to met 2 out 11 criteria within a twelve month period including the following:

    Had times when you ended up drinking more, or longer than you intended?

    Spent a lot of time drinking? Or being sick or getting over the aftereffects?

    Those two are pretty much always going to go together aren’t they? I mean, if you drank longer than you intended you probably spend a lot of time drinking, right?

    Then this one:

    More than once gotten into situations while or after drinking that increased your chances of getting hurt (such as driving, swimming, using machinery, walking in a dangerous area, or having unsafe sex)?

    I guess I’ll get a twofer next weekend when I go tubing since I’ll be spending a lot time drinking and swimming in the river.

  12. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????????? http://www.workweb40.com

  13. Re: conservation above about the franchise. It is of utmost importance to exclude parents of non-adult children from voting.

  14. Brian, you should write a book about a Paul.

    1. How about a travelogue of BD and Paul hanging out together at Burning Man 2015?

      I would kick in some kickstarter money if they’d convince Tom Woods (or Brook/Kelley/Reisman if you want to get really crazy) to join them. I would kick in a lot of kickstarter money, actually.

  15. Goddamn! Yes please! http://technabob.com/blog/2015…..e-control/

    1. Cool. It is hard for me to make out words in conversation with lots of background talk. This would be helpful.

  16. Mattress girl recreated her rape as an art project. W.T.F.

    1. Bit of a one-hit wonder there, isn’t she?

      1. “Emma, you ignorant slut”. SNL

  17. All I can say is that when adherence to the Constitution, supposedly the supreme law of the land, is seen as “radical”, the great experiment known as the United States of America is over.

  18. I can’t say I understand Rand Paul. Like many people his ideas are all over the place. Why should Snowden go to jail. He saw a wrong and he spoke out. If he had not taken proof he would have just been labeled another nut and mysteriously died. What most people don’t seem to understand is that FREEDOM like TRUTH is not an absolute. They are both beliefs that others may or may not agree with. John McCain probably believes we live in an absolutely free country whose manifest destiny is to rule the world; where as I believe we live in country smothered by laws, rules and regulations created by a ruling elite and that we should get our own house in order before preaching to the world. I think Rand wants to be elected so bad that he says what he thinks other want to hear. Although I hate everything Bernie Sanders believes at least he is consistant and therefore more likely to get my vote.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.