Rand Paul

Yes, Rand Paul, Running for President Is a Drag. So Have Some Fun, Already!

5 ways that the libertarianish candidate can turn a depressing duty into a liberating opportunity

|

Even Jim Carrey can be a happy warrior. At least on the outside. ||| quickmeme.com
quickmeme.com

Boston journalist Garrett Quinn, a sometime contributor to Reason, has a harsh, impressionistic Daily Beast piece out describing Rand Paul's presidential campaign in New England in the most desultory of terms. "It's hard to tell if he even cares," reads part of the subhed. "Rand Paul's campaign is not dead but he sure is acting like it," goes the first paragraph. Other adjectives that make an appearance in the report include "disappointing," "atrocious," "embarrassing," and "awkward."

I don't know whether the depiction is fair, or whether every neutral gesture just looks miserable through the lens of covering a campaign that has undershot even modest expectations while the gleeful buzzards circle ever-lower overhead. But I trust content from Garrett Quinn, and am familiar enough with the candidate's transparent-for-a-politician emotions to recognize that some off-putting mopeyness and exhaustion have crept in around the edges. To which I would advise the only libertarianish major-party candidate left in the 2016 campaign: Snap out of it!

Cher has never looked better. |||

Yes, the physical and psychological demands of a presidential campaign are grueling, especially if (unlike Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz) you are still taking your Senate job seriously enough to show up for work. So here's a thought: Campaign on that. I know, I know, nobody chooses a president based on attendance records. But there's a bright and important line between Rand Paul-style anti-establishmentarianism and the Ted Cruz variety, and it's even more comportmental than it is ideological. Cruz is forever seeking emotional partisan gestures with zero chance of procedural success so that he can blame Washington (especially the GOP establishment) for "failure theater" (he is nothing if not self-aware) and portray himself as a martyr when the stunt inevitably fails. Paul's best moments, in contrast, are designed at minimum to change public opinion, and at best to change the law. Paul is trying to push through wide-ranging, long-overdue criminal justice reform; Cruz is trying to coach the House of Representatives on how to become more like Ted Cruz.

With the important buyer-beware caveat that the following is advice from a non-partisan, small-l libertarian with zero record of successfully electing anybody, here are four other recommendations for the Rand Paul campaign:

2) Act like you know you're probably going to lose, rather than that you're desperate for a formula that can win.

Q: When did John McCain locate his mojo during his two comparatively successful runs at the GOP nomination?

A: After he had already been pronounced dead by the pundit class.

Part of that was McCain's own inherent back-against-the-wall feistiness, a trait that has gotten him out of scraps from Annapolis to Vietnam to Washington. But especially in the hopelessly underdog 2000 campaign against establishment frontrunner George W. Bush, the prospect of having no real chance was liberating for McCain, allowing him the latitude to blurt out impolitic truths as he saw them, ramble on unguardedly (and refreshingly) in the presence of reporters, and exhibit some tangible fun in tilting at windmills. (He would portray the Bush campaign as the Death Star, and so forth.)

The analogies aren't close to being exact (what with there being 14 GOP candidates and all), but Rand Paul knows what it's like to take on the entire Republican establishment and win, and he is also very capable of what passes in high-level politics for intelligent fun. Since the Republican Party has a long history of having its eventual presidential nominees go through one round of failure before offering the job, Paul could treat this campaign more like a mulligan than a now-or-never Hail Mary pass, and use the available remaining space cheerfully delivering hard truths that Republicans don't have the courage to face. Being hopelessly outnumbered on principles dear to your heart should be an invigorating challenge, not a grim duty.

3) Come at the king, on explicitly Tea Party/limited government grounds.

Two years ago, when both Rand Paul and Chris Christie were considered to be top-tier candidates (fun fact: both led national polls as recently as the summer of 2014), Christie tried to knock Paul's block off with a crack about "dangerous" libertarianism, to which the Kentucky senator effectively counterpunched by calling the New Jersey a "gimme, gimme, gimme" moocher from the federal government on Hurricane Sandy.

Christie does not matter in this campaign anymore (he has received 1 percent support in the four out of the past eight national polls), but Donald Trump certainly does. It is not sufficient to point out that Trump is truly awful on eminent domain; the fact is, he's the Bernie Sanders of the Republican Party, promising to expand rather than reform the entitlement blob that's gobbling up all federal spending, and magically trade-war our way to prosperity. His combination of massive tax cuts, entitlement lock-boxes, and mercantilism would arguably speed the federal government to bankruptcy faster than any other presidential candidate.

Was the Tea Party about cutting government overreach, or was it about venting frustration about Mexicans and the Chinese? As one of the Tea Party's great success stories, Rand Paul is a unique position to argue forcibly for the latter former, and portray Trump as the dangerously big-government ideologue that he is.

More of this, please. ||| Outside the Beltway
Outside the Beltway

4) Get even more personal on the drug war.

The personalized debate exchange on drug policy between Paul, Christie, and Jeb Bush last month was great, but it should only be the beginning. Next week's GOP debate is in Boulder, Colorado, fer chrissakes, and just about every candidate not named Paul on that stage has blood on his hands when it comes to the carceral state.

Republicans—and Democrats, for that matter—should be confronted early and often that their bluster, prejudice, and policy mistakes have created a vicious black market, ensnared millions of citizens into the criminal justice system, set back the cause of medical research, and degraded the constitutional rights of every American, all in the name of attempting to control what individuals choose to put in their bodies. Americans are so far out ahead of politicians on this issue that they've even lapped Rand Paul (speaking of which, there's an easy way for the senator to get back out front)…. The rest of the field should be put on their heels for their role in one of the biggest domestic policy failures in Amercian history.

5) Puncture the Great Man Theory of foreign policy.

Donald Trump and Ben Carson think that despite their inexperience and evident ignorance they can fix America's foreign policy by choosing the right Top Men. This is childish fantasia, but they are leading the field, so it's worth labeling it as such…

…especially when you pivot to an arguably even worse fantasia—that the kind of foreign policy fluency expressed by Marco Rubio, or the we-must-restore-this-exact-number-of-battleships memorization displayed by Carly Fiorina, somehow absolves them and similar hawks for being wrong over and over again about the wisdom of throwing around American might in faraway places. In their opposition to the sitting president, these would-be omniscient hawks resemble the wise liberal internationalists of the Democratic Party circa 2007-08, who, too, thought they could magically fix foreign policy with the right Top Men and an allegedly more listen-y approach to the world.

Here's the flaw in all those ideas: The world stubbornly refuses to be fixed. And America stubbornly refuses to admit that its exertions aren't decisive even if we decide really hard.

A large part of the "conservative realism" Paul seeks to promote should focus like a laser beam on the literal meaning of that second word. In a world where even comparative anti-interventionists like Bernie Sanders support keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan until whenever-the-hell, America needs desperately to face some unhappy facts, like: That city Americans died for now belongs to the bad guys. Billions spent and thousands killed aren't enough to sustain governments of largely fictitious polities. You-broke-it-you-own-it is a recipe for mission creep and inevitable failure; also, breaking it in the first place is often a terrible idea.

So, will any of the themes and postures presented on this list be winning electoral strategies for Rand Paul or anyone else? Quite possibly not! But they have the benefit of fitting squarely with Paul's own deeply held beliefs, and so require little in the way of a new sales pitch aside from him being comfortable with knowing that GOP primary voters this time around might not be maximally receptive. Leave the sugar out, give it to us straight, and see what happens. If nothing else we'll have a better discussion on some life-and-death issues.

Rand Paul isn't and was never going to be his father, nor were his father's supporters ever going to support him in the same way. But one liberating facet about both the elder Paul's and Bernie Sanders's campaigns was that they seem to say exactly what they believe, to hell with the consequences. Rand has always played a different game, more on the inside, more sensitive to how much libertarianism his broader audiences were ready to accept. But if he relaxes the self-imposed pressure to make his core beliefs go down smoothly, and instead lets it rip in a way that is authentic to his own passions, he might find himself more attractive to voters who think "Well, I don't agree with all or even most of what candidate X says, but at least he/she authentically believes it!"

In a campaign that has so far defied most predictions, it is the size of that latter, authenticity-seeking bloc which may be the biggest surprise of all. Those voters are gettable, but not through hedging—or moping.

NEXT: Brazil's Pension Crisis Is Like America's on Steroids

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. Rand should just make sure that Rand is Senator for life.

    1. I cannot support such a proposition, being a proponent of very short term limits for office holders.

      1. I was originally for term limits, but eventually decided that people should be able to elect whomever they want.

        1. I think term limits are one of those ideas that sound superficially appealing, but would probably be terrible in practice. For one thing, I think it would shift even more power to “permanent” staffers and lobbyists, and lead to more backroom deals/less transparency.

          1. Yes, 2nd Lieutenants coming out of OCS often follow the directions of their most senior NCOs until they learn the ropes. I’d hate to see perpetually-new elected officials follow the orders of perpetually-permanent lobbyists any more than they already do.

            1. Correct. In my time in the Army, I never once saw some butterbar pull rank on a Master Seargent or Seargent Major. Though that might have been entertaining.

      2. We have term limits. During every election you may choose to limit the office holder’s tenure.

        1. … sure, and that’s why 90+ % of Congressmonkeys are reelected? Sure…

          I mentioned the nice idea of Term Limits to a fellow investor who’d moved to the US from India, and he laughed…

          “Term Limits?! We have them in India. Single-Term Limits. Did it help? NO! It just meant that all those moochers knew they had ONLY ONE term to get as much graft and theft into their wallets as possible… in their one term.”

          I stopped endorsing the concept of Term Limits after that… Even mandatory retirement age can come back to bite you when the occasional Good Guy (Or Gal) has to leave a position they had really been a positive contributor in…

          Catch 22? Falk’s First Law… “The whole world is a tradeoff.”

  2. Snap into a Slim Jim!

  3. Snap into a Slim Jim!

    1. Snap into a squirrel!

      1. Adam, is that you???

  4. Good stuff! Rand Paul, please hire Matt Welch as an election consultant. Or at least listen to what he’s offering for free. Trick the media into paying attention, or at least not ignoring you. About the only time I see any mention of you is for using that terrible word “dumbass” or during the debates.

    1. The most attention I remember Paul getting in the MSM was when he filibustered. The issue he got the most attention on was civil liberties-anti-WOT programs, and for whatever reason that just fizzled out with the press and public. Part of the problem was that Paul led a lawsuit over the NSA and then that foolish conservative activist Klayman filed one too and Paul’s essentially got put on hold until Klayman’s could be done. However that suit turned out could have been a good moment of spotlight for Paul. Again, disappointing.

      1. John this is not your fault. Tulpa can read.

  5. This should be Paul’s platform.

    1. End the War on Drugs
    2. Bring home the troops
    3. Cut red tape
    4. Develop open source molten salt thorium reactor
    5. End the FED

    1. I dunno, #4 sounds like it deserves the top spot.

      1. Do they pay you to venture into the comments, or are you on “break” or some other socialist construct like that?

        1. I usually learn something useful in the comments.

          1. unpossible!

          2. Wow. You really need to get out moar, dude.

            *smh*

          3. I usually learn something useful in the comments

            You’re welcome.

      2. Well I list them in the order of ease and speed of implementation. The first 3 can be done immediately on his own authority. The MSTR will take a few years I think. Getting rid of the FED will be really hard.

        1. You underestimate the tenacity of red tape once in force.

          1. The way he cuts it is by firing as many government employees as he possibly can. You can’t have red tape if there is no one to generate it.

            1. I like the way you think, sir.

      3. Hey Matt. How bout we spend some intellectual capital and ink getting Gary Johnson into one of these damn debate. I’ve been laboring under the impression that he is an actual Libertarian, and I’d like to see/hear what he has to say – preferable from one of these debate floors.

    2. lets replace “thorium reactor” with “water taffy”

      1. The MSR was proven as a viable concept 50 years ago, by the government no less at ORNL. Adding the thorium breeding cycle shouldn’t be too difficult. I’m talking about bringing together the world’s top scientists in a Manhattan Project style effort.

        1. Yes! Manhattan Projects in every pot and “Wars on…” in every garage!

          1. If you think you’re funny, you’re not.

            1. The point was technology development is not the proper domain of big government. Even your favorite pet project.

              1. There are exceptions to every rule. Getting the entire planet running on thorium is important enough to break the rules. 2 or 3 billion is a pittance compared to the reward.

                1. Then there should be no problem in motivating a private actor to do the heavy lifting….

                  1. I doubt they would do it open source. Plus in order to get it designed as fast as possible we’d want to attract the world’s top scientists. Make it a real prestige thing, know what I mean? Change the world forever. Lift billions out of poverty. Yada, yada, yada.

                    1. Shut up, you socialist pig.

                2. If *only* such a project cost 2 or 3 *billion*.

                  If that were the case it would basically be a $20 bill in the street and someone would have picked it up by now. You know Apple has $200 billion in cash on hand right?

                  No, such a project would likely cost 100 times that, especially if it was run by the government.

                  1. It’s not the designing that costs it’s getting government approval. Doing it as a government project would eliminate that step.

  6. Rand’s campaign not getting off the ground has been even more demoralizing than the year my Braves had.

    I really thought he would be his father plus one, but it certainly hasn’t worked out that way. Deeply, deeply disappointing.

    1. I mean, but the Braves didn’t have much hope out of Spring Training, did they? Or were you suckered in by the 6-0 start?

      1. I hear you, but up until very recently we hadn’t had a losing season in a long time.

        1. Francis can we at least keep them in a zoo, and feed them ? They can’t survive in the wild. They will starve =(

  7. Heer Heer! I say go for broke. If you have to sign another stupid book or take a photo with some New Hampshirian, smile and share some crazy Murray Rothbard or Herbert Spencer quote. Casually mention that the water department should be privatized and the FDA abolished. End your small-gathering speeches with some rabble-rousing about taxes or something; “That’s it. And remember that DC thinks it owns your life and your labor. Goodnight.”

    Fuck with people is what I’m saying. It’s fun.

    1. So, basically – steal all my techniques.

      I approve this message…

      1. Aren’t you running against him?

  8. #4 and #5 won’t be effective. At least not for the primary. He should be focusing on #1-#3. Getting into an adviser discussion during a debate, and people will just flip the channel.

  9. I, myself, a very left-leaning libertarian (practically a liberal) voted for Gary Johnson in 2012.

    That said, Rand Paul is a mega-disappointment. I’ve never been a fan of him or his dad. I feel Gary Johnson and other more left-leaning libertarians are more me.

    I give libertarians one thing though: This country is moving more towards a libertarian mind-set.
    That may not be a “good thing”, however it is definitely a good sign.

    You see, being a conservative or a pure libertarian is a luxury. When things are going A-OK for you, why rock the boat?

    The fact that this country is going more libertarian is either

    A. A bunch of dumb-asses voting against their own interests for some ideologies
    B. More people are prospering

    I think it is (B)…with a lot of (A) sprinkled in :

    1. I think

      [citation needed]

    2. This stupid “voting against their own interests” has to die. It’s in no one’s interests to bankrupt the country. Libs getting free shit are the ones voting “against their own interests.”

      1. Well, at my age, I can reasonably hope to be dead before the bill for that free shit breaks the bank. To me, the question isn’t so much when to eat the marshmallows as whether it’s the job of government to provide the marshmallows. Since Jackson’s coup against the Constitution, the function of the U.S. government has no longer been seen to be to ‘secure [we Americans’] rights’ but to provide goodies for ‘us’ (our faction of the Republicrat oligarchy) at the expense of ‘them’ (the other faction). Since government schools indoctrinate their charges with the notion that ‘Jacksonian democracy’ was a great step forward for the country, most Americans are left with the idea that if you believe that the government has no business engineering ‘fairness’ you believe that government has nothing to do and therefore has no business even existing.

  10. Instead of coming across as a dick, and trying to Randsplain everything, he should stick to the liberty message and let it all out. Challenge these fuckers at the debates. Ask these douchebags at the debates of any of them knows the constitution that they’re supposed to take an oath to defend. Tell them, cite the constitution verbatim on stage. See how squirmy they all get.

    He needs to get tough. Not whiny bitch (like he’s shown) tough, but warrior tough. He should have called Christie out for the liar he is, not have a moderator tell him “we’ll get back to that”. No, fuck off, the time is now.

    He needs to stop using non sequitur. And add some heart and soul. Stop the slowspeak and be more vibrant like his dad. He needs to rile the people up.

    1. He should have beat fanboy to a pulp on live tv. That would have been epic. More so if he made him cry and then called him a little bitch.

      Paul: (twists a Christie’s arm behind his back) “You gonna get a warrant next time, right bitch?”

      Christie (shrieking in pain like a little girl) “Yes! Yes! I’ll get a warrant! Please let me go!”

      Paul: (gives Christie’s arm one last twist before letting him go) “Goddamn right you will!”

      Rand would have shot straight to number one in the polls overnight.

      1. Fatboy, not fanboy. Fucking cunt autocorrect.

        1. Don’t you mean ‘autocorrupt’?

  11. Rand Paul started his campaign wanting to be an effective “running for election politician”. Well, that is how the game is played only the audiences are fed-up with watching the same schematics roll across the screens. And let’s not fool ourselves about the Tea Party, they started because they were racist, bigots infuriated with the aspect of a black man holding the highest office in the land. Of course they would champion Trumpeter and charge full force for deporting every damn person except themselves along with selectively picking and choosing what ” limited” govt. serves their personal needs. They talk shit but, that is all they want to do.

    The world wants to be fixed Matt, they just don’t know how, for how long, and who should fix it.

    Welcome to the real worlds, that most of us live in. We stumble and fall, get back up and try to do it better the next time. We can see the carrot in the distance…one day I know we’ll reach it, but sadly none of us will be here. Utopia is always so darn close you can taste it !

    1. The Tea Party wasn’t started by racists/bigots.

      What makes you think that? Just because practically every idiot in those Tea Party Video holding signs like “Keep the Government out of my Medicare” are white?

      They aren’t really racists/bigots. They are just white people that aren’t happy with a black man holding the highest office. You can be this and not be racist.

      We should stop calling people name.

      1. Obama is black? I consider him 100% pinko on the inside.

      2. The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party was started by small-government activists, not racists/bigots as CNN, MSNBC et al. would have you believe. Unfortunately too many socons jumped on the bandwagon, which only served to validate the MSM’s narrative.

        1. Pretty much this. The Tea Party obviously started as a protest against TARP, which happened at the same time as the election. Over time, it attracted a lot of Republican cranks. It did manage to maintain a focus on purely small-government issues for a rather long time. The anti-immigration issue destroyed it IMO. Now all those people are Trump supporters who don’t give a shit about spending.

          1. Porkbusters was a precursor to the TEA party and was established during W’s presidency.

        2. Pretty much this. The Tea Party obviously started as a protest against TARP, which happened at the same time as the election. Over time, it attracted a lot of Republican cranks. It did manage to maintain a focus on purely small-government issues for a rather long time. The anti-immigration issue destroyed it IMO. Now all those people are Trump supporters who don’t give a shit about spending.

      3. Yeah, it’s not like you can find people with stupid signs at an ows protest.

    2. Nosea, you are absolutely wrong when you say the Tea Party got started by racist bigots. The assertion is just infantile ad hominem. True, some of them have gone to Trump and may be as racist as, say, Bernie Sanders. But their concern wasn’t inspired by a black president, but rather by a socialist government in both the White House and Congress that was fixated on transforming America.

      1. In the eyes of the progtard, ALL dissent against the Marxist Moron’s stupidity/policy is ‘racist’. So by extension, the tea party is a racist organization.

      2. Yes, I know it started with TARP but what unifies them( in my own observation) is bigotry. I personally know a couple of them and the venom they spew towards Obama is frightening. What is surprising to me is that I’ve known them for a very long time and they’ve had this deep rooted bigotry that surfaced when Obama took office. I also know casual acquaintances( friends of friends or friends of family members) I’ve listened to conversations that all sound the same. Yes, they still want small government when it is convenient for them otherwise, they just hate the Muslim who is secretly letting in all the Muslims to take over the US. Sometimes, I just step back and think holy shit it’s like Deliverance meets politics. What backwoods did everybody come from. Yes, they are Republican cranks. Now I feel terrible, all of you are obviously privileged enough to only see them on the news. Lucky you.

        1. I personally know a couple of them and the venom they spew towards Obama is frightening.

          Citation needed.

    3. And let’s not fool ourselves about the Tea Party, they started because they were racist, bigots infuriated with the aspect of a black man holding the highest office in the land.

      Wrong. The “Tea Party” started in September of ’08 as a response to TARP (before Obama was elected). Then it ramped up again after Obama pushed for the Stimulus Bill in early ’09 after being sworn in. It had nothing to do with racism, fuckwit.

      1. Loki., Hazel said we shouldn’t call people names. I know no one does that on this forum.

      2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porkbusters

        2005. Morphed into the Tea Party movement.

  12. He can be the “I warned you didn’t I” candidate in 2016.

    1. I think every election loser can claim that title.

  13. I support this. Rand should just speak his mind. I don’t think Americans want to hear the whole truth: instead, they want government off their backs only where it goes against their special interests. This is just a problem with democracy in general and a government that is not adequately constrained by the constitution. But the laws of economics are inexorable; sooner or later Americans will be forced to pay for their follies. Then maybe they’ll realize the need for government restraint.

  14. Paul should state in his platform that he is for term limits in congress, and a constitutional amendment that would require 2/3 majority of both the house and senate for any law to be passed for the president to sign. Any previous law that was passed with less than 2/3 majority can be repealed with a simply majority.

  15. “Yes, the physical and psychological demands of a presidential campaign are grueling?”
    No kidding! That jump and run drill in Iowa pretty much wasted the guy!
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/…..story.html

  16. 2) Act like you know you’re probably going to lose, rather than that you’re desperate for a formula that can win.

    When you are interviewing for a job, act like you don’t need it.

  17. RP- put down the bong just for a few days. It will snap you out of the fog you are in. Come back to the LP and stop “trying” to get elected by claiming to be part of the GOP because you think it is the only way to get included in the conversation. Hell, don’t claim any party for now and see what happens. Bet you poll higher, no pun intended, because there might be some folks actually thinking you aren’t just following some election by number paint set you got from dear old dad. There must be something you can do to bring a little energy into the effort buddy.

  18. I can’t imagine what it must be like to try and appeal to a nation filled with human beings who:

    A.) Desperately desire Hamiltonian government at Jeffersonian tax rates.

    and

    B.) Collectively (individuals will vary but the bell curve persists) possess the self-awareness of a brick.

    An individual whose existence is unmolested by self-assessment–and the reconciliation of values/beliefs vs behavior therefrom–will be intellectually incapable of choosing between poison and nutrition.

    Just sayin’.

  19. I still think there’s going to be a point where the whole Trump thing falls apart and the Republicans are going to need someone anti-establishment who can win the general election. Paul has that – his libertarianish positions have enough appeal to moderates and swing voters that he could win the general election, whereas Trump, Cruz, and Bush probably could not – negatives are too high. I don’t know about Rubio, but I think Carson and Fiorina are too inexperienced, especially matched up against Hillary Clinton.
    But Paul is the kind of principled outsider that would highlight all of Clinton’s worst features. And Clinton’s corruption and political shenanigans would cast Paul as the principles outsider. In other words, in a Clinton/Paul match up, Paul would look very good to swing voters, and Clinton would look very bad, which is what you want. I just hope Republicans wise up enough to see that in time.

  20. I bought brand new BMW by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived her
    Now i am also making 98$/hr if you want to try just check this out

    ————– http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

  21. I bought brand new BMW by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived her
    Now i am also making 98$/hr if you want to try just check this out

    ————– http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

  22. 6) stop hitting up the same donors time and again after they have asked you to stop calling. They really are tapped out!

    1. Amen.

  23. Rand needs to reenact that scene from “the omega glory.”

  24. Which candidate right now has a seemingly easy path to victory? No one! There is NO front runner! Donald Trump is peaking and if you look at the new CNN Poll, everyone between 4-8% is virtually tied, with Dr. Paul slightly ahead of Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina and slightly behind Bush and Rubio. So, you have Ben Carson and Trump with somewhat of a lead in mid-October. So WHAT?!?. By January, everyone will see Rubio, Bush, Cruz, Carson, Trump and Paul all level out around 10-15%. Huckabee could be in the mix. Possibly Fiorina, Kasich and Christie but not likely. Then it will come down to ground game. 24 hour news and a reality star running and everyone is in a panic in October because of what?!? Here’s what’s happening: expectations were high (maybe too high – ie. The Most Interesting Man in Politics etc). Now, pay attention. This formula is ALWAYS true: Satisfaction is equal to results divided by expectations. Just as this has translated into low satisfaction among those of us Rand Paul supporters today, we have the opportunity to completely turn it around. We now have the added benefit of having low expectations. Imagine how the media will be fumbling for answers when we so far exceed everyone’s expectations, that they simply can’t answer for all the terrible predicting they did leading up to that point. THAT’S the kind of momentum that can propel a campaign all the way to victory.

    1. Those with high expectations today, must meet them or disappoint. We don’t have to worry about that anymore. It’s time to start thinking this way. Great article! Let’s take this! Rand Paul 2016! Get involved.

      1. And yes I know it’s a double edge sword. On one hand, low expectations has to affect fundraising and moral and a whole bunch of other things but they can also be a huge advantage. All we have to do is to keep exceeding them and that has now become a hell of a lot easier.

  25. ‘…he might find himself more attractive to voters who think “Well, I don’t agree with all or even most of what candidate X says, but at least he/she authentically believes it!”‘
    I wonder how much of Herr Drumpf’s appeal has to do with his projecting that attitude. I know some people who say, “He tells it like it is” when what they really seem to mean is “He tells it like he believes it is, and not how the polls say he should tell it”.
    And it doesn’t hurt that he makes sarcastic remarks about the business-as-usual politicians in the field.

  26. They are _all_ scam artists.

    I don’t care which scam artist finally gets elected, or which doesn’t, nor what the Fed does/does not do, nor whether, according to Mr “investment advisor with a claimed “near perfect prediction record” [insert advisor name of choice] , we are supposedly in for recession, depression, deflation, hyper inflation, a stock market boom, or whatever .

    Why? Because whatever happens, my entirely self-managed, fully diversified, once per year adjusted long term savings plan will be safely protected and will , 9 times out of 10, grow at an average of 8% per annum over and above the prevailing inflation [or deflation], rate, year in, year out, as it has since 1986 when I started using it.

    Savings plan results 1972-2011: http://onebornfreesfinancialsa…..gspot.com/

    Regards,onebornfree
    Financial Safety Services

  27. Donald Tea, the Trump Party and Paul Junior are the same thing: desperate attempts to preserve God’s Own Prohibitionists as a major antiabortion party by drawing attention away from The Libertarian Party candidates and platform, now that the internet has loosened the iron grip of Nixon’s Anti-Libertarian law on the purportedly democratic process. The takeaway from all this is that the GOP will promise anything (and deliver nothing) just so long as reversing Roe v. Wade and sending men with guns after doctors who offer an alternative to back-alley abortions is kept as the goal of a “major party,” as defined by Richard Nixon.
    The only puzzling part is why Reason is so desperate to help perpetuate the fraud.

  28. From my experience in RE Development, when a “public comment period” is held, typically it involves the threat of ED. From the article he linked, the family wanting to stop the project on their land doesn’t need to file a lawsuit to do so–unless ED is being used. Otherwise they could just refuse to sell the easement–no legal action needed.

    That said, I don’t know if Fiorina is for / against ED use in the pipeline.

    moschino teddy bear

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.