Rand Paul

Rand Paul Will Not Endorse Another Candidate in Primaries, His Staff Says

He will, though, endorse the eventual GOP nominee. Which may be symbolic of why he didn't seem to catch all the Ron Paul fire. Trump, Bernie, ISIS also might bear some of the blame.

|

While Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has dropped out of the Republican presidential race, he will not be endorsing any other particular candidate as the primaries crawl on, said Paul's campaign strategist Doug Stafford in a telephone press conference with Paul's top campaign staff this morning.

Paul does, though, intend to endorse whoever the Republican Party eventually settles on.

That's something his father Ron didn't do, and to at least a small extent that difference in political styles and attitudes may have kept big portions of Ron's support from surrounding Rand, in either giving or polling. I asked Stafford what the Rand campaign thought might have gone wrong with sustaining the perceived "Ron Paul movement."

Stafford was sure that the "Ron Paul movement does exist" but couldn't say precisely why Rand didn't seem to fully re-ignite it. "Voters shift from time time and what's most important to them is hard to capture" but he did see that there were many hundreds of kids still volunteering eagerly for Rand.

Most importantly, Stafford is sure that the issues Rand brought to the fore are still those that should energize anyone who was really into the Ron Paul thing. While "there are many issues that decide how people are going to vote, some within a candidate's control and some not" he reiterated what Rand has said: that the liberty movement is "definitely alive, marching on, and Rand will continue to be its voice in the Senate." 

Stafford admits even Bernie Sanders might have had some appeal to the old Ron Paul coalition, especially if they were only/mostly in it for the foreign policy, and that "we saw for ourselves, sometimes [students] seem to be attracted to a candidate who spoke their minds directly, who seemed not quite the normal politician."

But he admits, when asked if Cruz might have captured some of the elusive "Ron Paul vote," that "I don't know if anyone knows where people went. It's hard to tell. Someone might have voted for Ron and went somewhere else, to others in the Republican Party or even to another party if they were purely foreign policy supporters." That said, Stafford is confident that "as we talked to liberty voters across Iowa, it is clear to us Rand was standing up for their issues."

Asked about their prediction of 10,000 student caucusers for Rand in Iowa after fewer than 9,000 total votes went to him, well, "we came short in the number of folks who came out, which is not unheard of in trying to do things with organizing students" and other campaigns were fighting for same votes so "we were not operating in a vacuum" but still think the student efforts there "lit a fire of ideas" in thousands of kids and was good preparation for "a future fight for liberty."

Chip Englander, Paul's campaign manager, thinks that even their 5th place showing proves their organization paid off, beating "every single governor" in the race including ones who spent millions of tens of millions in advertising. But "macro messaging things" that he did not specify were "beyond their control, and that happens in political campaigns. 

Why did Rand Paul quit? Mostly, he realized there was little chance of winning. "We think he finished well for Iowa…but not well enough to seem like he had a chance at the nomination." Stafford stressed the good the campaign did for the ideas of liberty in general, how especially in the debates Paul was a passionate and forceful voice for his issues, from foreign policy to the Fourth Amendment to criminal justice reform. If not for Paul, in no case would his unique perspectives on those matters have been aired.  

Paul wants to return to concentrating on being a "leader of an ideological movement and a leader in the Senate" and the trajectory of the race post-Iowa seemed beyond his ability to shape. 

Even in immediately forthcoming New Hampshire, which most people assumed Paul would try to fight through, while the campaign believed their ground game was solid, the media attention and money that the leading candidates had, plus the blow of being blocked from the debate prior to the primary, made them decide that "ground game couldn't overcome numerous obstacles in our path a little larger than that." Chip Englander also alluded as above to not-precisely-specified "macro message" issues, which might mean, though no one said it this bluntly, that Paul's message just isn't what a lot of Republican voters want to hear right now.

Of course, Trump changed everything, and as Stafford said "took all the oxygen out of the room" and commanded the discussion. He admitted it was "very difficult to have what you believe is a stronger message and a stronger candidate but you can't break through because celebrity became the largest thing." Paul faced a "brand new environment, for most involved in presidential politics we've never seen anything like it" and it hobbled Paul's ability to take flight "in a critical time of the race."

Stafford also acknowledged that the seeming rise of ISIS and the California terror attacks may have at least for a while shifted any possible GOP attraction to Paul's more measured foreign policy. While Stafford believes that hawkishness is "not an issue the Republican Party is fully on one side of or the other," that it is likely current events affected the ebb of public opinion in this "time of extreme events" that might have made Paul's calmer approach less appealing.

In a separate email, Steve Grubbs, who ran the Iowa operation for the campaign, said that "Senator Paul is very practical. With limited financial resources and the unlikely potential of making the debate stage this week, he chose to make the decision to refocus his time and efforts on his senate campaign. He believes in doing his job as senator which also limited his opportunity to campaign in New Hampshire this week."

Stafford in today's call also stressed that Paul was in D.C., on the Senate floor, doing his job, and had maintained a 95 percent voting record while running for president. This is something his people hope and assume will help ensure that his Kentucky voters have no interest in firing him from that job, the race for which will take up Paul's campaigning time for the rest of 2016.

Chris LaCivita with the campaign insists that Paul will keep his presidential issues alive in the Senate race and that Kentucky's Democrats are on the ropes this year and worried more about their state positioning than able to meaningfully challenge Rand for the Senate seat. The Paul campaign continues to insist the shift from primary to caucus for Kentucky, which the campaign helped finance and was intended to allow Rand to be on ballot for both president and Senate, is still a good idea for the state as it moves them further up in time when their vote might still matter to the outcome. 

From the SuperPAC world supporting Paul, Edward Crane, co-founder of the Cato Institute and chief of PurplePAC (which ran a TV ad for Rand in Iowa in the week prior), is disappointed by the whole thing. "Rand dropping out is a blow to the GOP and to the nation," Crane wrote in an email this morning.  

"A plurality of Americans support market (not crony) capitalism, are socially tolerant and skeptical of the efficacy of the U.S. trying to be the world's policeman," Crane believes. "Rand should have been the candidate of that plurality but he failed to mobilize it."

How did he fail? "The summer downplaying of his libertarianism when he should have been escalating it was huge mistake.  A huge lost opportunity.  I have tremendous respect for what Rand tried to do—the psychological, physical and financial stress are substantial—but he is not a natural leader.  He came across as someone who would rather not be there.  And who can blame him?"

Ultimately, Crane is "glad to have him in the Senate." While PurplePAC still has what Crane calls "some" money, he sees it as in effect held like a bank for his donors' and supporters' needs, and later "we may play in some congressional races."

NEXT: Brown University Renames Columbus Day "Indigenous People's Day"

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. Somebody let Doherty and The Jacket know, There Never Was a ‘Libertarian Moment’

    1. Thanks we’ll pass on NR’s bullshit.

  2. Good, none of them should receive an endorsement. Though I don’t think he should say he’ll support the eventual nominee, what happens if/when it is an authoritarian?

    1. Christie doesn’t stand a chance in Hell.

      1. The only people left in the race are authoritarians.

        1. And all tautologies are tautological.

          1. i never thought of that!

        2. Not true. How does one judge “-ists” & “-ians”? By comparison. Compared to the avg. American, are they more authoritarian? I don’t think so. I don’t think this contest has selected for authoritarianism. You’re just looking thru the lens of someone at one extreme pole; everyone is to 1 side of you. But you can’t judge by the direction someone has to go to get there from where you are, you have to judge it relative to the center of mass.

          In fact if you look at the voter matches at Project Vote Smart or the other one whose name I forgot, you see these candidates are closer to your views on the issues than you think, when judged objectively.

          1. Speak for yourself.

            I agree with Christie that it’s pleasurable to eat food (though nearly as much of it) and I agree with Trump that it’s fun to have sex with hot women.

            That’s about it for me. On everything else, the candidates are about as far from my views as it’s possible to be.

            If Rand has lick of sense, he will abstain from endorsing anyone.

  3. I just asked him to not do it. Finally, you’ve started listening to me, Rand! You could be president one day if you keep it up!

  4. Part of me wants Rand Paul to endorse the libertarian nominee as a big middle finger to the Republicans, but I’m worried that word hurt his re-electability to the Senate.

    Then again, nothing’s more libertarian than futile gestures of defiance that hurt your cause in the long run.

    1. He won’t of course. And I understand why.

    2. Paul isn’t going to endorse a nutjob pro-choice Fair-Taxer with a colloidal silver-dependency

      1. Just imagine all the free press he would get if he turned blue.

        1. I feel like no-one has given you enough recognition for this comment.

          *Standing ovation*

    3. More importantly, it would make it more difficult for him to get buy-in from other Senators for the things he wants done.

      Rand is playing this smart. His dad did nothing of note; Rand is already miles ahead and will hopefully be able to get even more done on the liberty front as Senator.

      1. Ron Paul will be remembered in history long after most of the other candidates have faded away from human memory.

        1. And for all the wrong reasons.

          1. Yeah:

            Something something… racist noozletterz… argle bargle…

    4. As long as libertarians are waiting for Rand Paul to endorse someone, they are sheep and will lose.

    5. “nothing’s more libertarian than futile gestures of defiance that hurt your cause in the long run.'”

      Yeah. this is sort of what i was getting at below.

  5. God. Is the best Republican candidate who might actually win Marco Rubio? Or Ted Cruz?

    Either way, the Republican nominee will be terrible and I might have to vote for them anyway if the competition is Hillary.

    1. It sure as hell is not Rubio. The only candidate left that is worse than him is Hillary. Because Hillary is worse than Hitler+Pol Pot+Satan.

    2. Rubio is a horrible candidate.

      1. I don’t think it will be Rubio because there isn’t enough establishment support.

        1. Rubio! Rubio! What’s that? Sorry it’s Rufio. I’m pulling for Marco, it would give me leg tingles to vote for a sunshine American. Also Palin’s plug would lose another $20 to the reason foundation.

          1. And he’s totally a man of his word.

            1. If you can’t trust an internet troll, who can you trust?

                1. Mailboxes don’t stuff themselves with fish you know. Not yet anyways.
                  /goes back to self fish stuffing mailbox prototype

    3. The operative language is “who might actually win.” That’s Rubio. Certainly far from anything resembling a libertarian heart on a lot of things but if your objective is to keep Shrill out of office, he’s your guy.

    4. Rubio will be the nominee, and will destroy Hillary in the election. I have no use for either of them. But between Hillary’s negatives, the economy sliding, and her not being black, I just don’t see how this shakes out in her favor. The only thing she’s got going for her at this point is her lack of a penis and the fact she is running against the Stupid Team.

      1. Never underestimate Team Stupid. If anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the Republican National Committee can. It’s like watching a bunch of enthusiastic brain injured people trying to do high energy physics.

    5. the Republican nominee will be terrible and I might have to vote for them anyway if the competition is Hillary.

      Nah. You could stay home, or vote for the LP nominee. If Hillary ends up winning your state by a single vote, and your state’s electoral college votes are what puts her over the top, then you can apologize for not voting for TEAM STUPID. Otherwise, vote (or not) your conscience, secure in the knowledge that it probably won’t matter anyway.

  6. Stafford admits even Bernie Sanders might have had some appeal to the old Ron Paul coalition

    I admit I doubt this admission.

    1. Bernie’s not too bad on social issues. Better than all the other remaining candidates anyway.

      1. From his website:

        AS PRESIDENT, I WILL:
        Only appoint Supreme Court justices who will make it a priority to overturn Citizens United

        Sign into law the Equality Act, the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, and any other bill that prohibits discrimination against LGBT people

        ensure the United States helps protect the rights of LGBT people around the world

        Work with HHS to ensure LGBT Americans have access to comprehensive health insurance which provides appropriate coverage and do not have to fear discrimination or mistreatment from providers

        Advance policies to ensure students can attend school without fear of bullying

        Veto any legislation that purports to “protect” religious liberty at the expense of others’ rights

        pass federal legislation to ensure pay equity for women

        …yeah, not seeing it.

        Side note: “How Bernie Pays For His Proposals” is one of the most unintentionally funny pages on a political campaign site ever.

        1. Plus increase federal spending by 50 percent per year.

        2. he wants to take care of energy workers while they learn the skills necessary to build solar panels and turbines. you can tell that’s a good idea cuz of how expensive it is.

      2. Personally I’d prefer my “not to bad on social issues” candidate to not think women fantasize about being gang raped.

        http://www.inquisitr.com/21270…..gang-rape/

    2. I remember the old Ron Paul coalition, and it wasn’t entirely libertarian. There was a healthy mix of paleo-cons along with a smattering of black helicopter and Illuminati haters. I actually PREFER Rand Paul to his dad.

      1. I prefer Rand Paul quite a bit. Ironically, the reason Ron had more supporters was because he attracted a huge number of outright lunatics. Rand’s comparative sanity actually hurts him in presidential polling, though it helps him actually get things done in the Senate, at least compared to his dad.

        1. I would have thought you’d love Ron, what with those newsletters. And snap.

          Obligatory ‘IRISH IS RACITS’ meme aside, Ron Paul’s farewell address to Congress was awesome. How often does a congressman come out as an anarchist right there on the floor of the House, while calling out all of his coworkers as the psychopaths they most certainly are?

          1. My google-fu is failing me at the moment, but I seem to recall Davy Crockett’s farewell to Congress being pretty epic. He pretty much called out his colleagues over the Indian Removal Act, and closed his speech with “you can all go to hell, I’m going to Texas,” or something along those lines.

            And then there’s also his famous “not yours to give” speech.

        2. I think a number of those outright lunatics have found a nice warm hearth to huddle around in the Trump Tower.

          Okay, maybe a it’s the boiler room in the basement.

      2. Paleocons are wrong on trade and immigration but they are absolutely correct on foreign policy.

        1. No not really.

    3. Oh, very well. *Some* appeal.

    4. I listened to about 20 minutes of a podcast called “Punk Rock Libertarian”. After about 20 minutes of banter which inaccurately related the history of some early ’90’s punk bands, the punk rock libertarian declared that he supported Ron Paul in the last go round, but this time he was supporting Bernie Sanders. I turned it off. Not a libertarian! And the punk was questionable, too.

      1. “”Punk Rock Libertarian””

        Why would you listen to a podcast called “punk rock” anything? Someone calling themselves punk rock is a great indication that they’re the lamest kind of white hipster in existence.

        1. This is true.

          There is an unwritten rule in the record-collecting world that any record with the word “Funk” on it is highly unlikely to actually be funky. (with some very notable exceptions)

          I presume the same applies to Punk. If you need to use the word, its probably because you aren’t demonstrating it.

          1. record with the word “Funk” on it is highly unlikely to actually be funky

            The only Clinton that matters has a bone to pick with that.

            1. Funkadelic is its own separate word and obviously exempt.

      2. What’s more punk rock than supporting the opposite of who your peers say you should support, bro?

        1. cutting your nipples off?

    5. I don’t doubt it. Sanders is much more willing to identify cronies and the rigged game more than any other candidate – including Rand. Sanders solutions are crap – but it is always true that candidates who have the courage to identify the problem get a better reception on that issue than candidates who don’t. Libertarians campaigning on either social issues or foreign policy are wasting their time on irrelevant/secondary stuff

      1. Then the old Ron Paul coalition is worthless. Libertarians do not support socialists, period.

        1. Libertarians don’t effectively offer an alternative to actual socialists either. And that’s the biggest problem. Because libertarians simply can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the legitimate anger out there at the rigged economic game – and prioritize a libertarian solution to resolve it. For all the problems of Trump – he does GET it. He (and Sanders) acknowledges the anger – and because of that people listen to their ‘solution’.

          Hell – Reason even had their article a few weeks ago that basically denied that economic anger could even exist since ‘the middle class is actually getting richer not stagnating’. Golly – wotta surprise that libertarian economic ideas are deemed irrelevant by most people. Denial ain’t a river that leads to relevance.

          1. Quite true.

            It seems more and more ordinary folks are complaining about “capitalism” when they clearly mean the crony capitalism of a government/corporate symbiosis. Ironically, they can’t get their heads around a solution that doesn’t involve doubling down the existing government cronyism — just with the “right” person at the top.

            A true libertarian solution would be to point out that the free market is not the problem, and is quite probably the solution, because the market is FAR from free in its current form.

  7. plus the blow of being blocked from the debate prior to the primary

    I didn’t know that. So, who is qualified to participate in the debate on February 6? According to Wikipedia,

    To participate in the debate, a candidate must either place among the top 3 candidates in the popular vote of the Iowa caucus, or place among the top 6 candidates in an average of New Hampshire or national polls recognized by ABC News. Only polls conducted no earlier than January 1 and released by February 4 will be included in the averages.

    1. It’ll probably be Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Bush, Christie, and Kasich.

  8. Rand will be president right after Lou Reed.

    1. Maybe we can amend the Constitution prior to the next presidential election:

      Paul/Lemmy 2020!

    2. With Lou’s public history of drug abuse, I doubt the average voter would pull the lever for him. Besides, he’s been in the studio, working on his next album. Can’t wait.

  9. The best move right now (IMO) is to pull for Sanders and gridlock. Clearly Sanders has many issues on the economic front but on the war and civil liberties side he appears to be a far better choice than any of the rest. And on the econ side, at least he gets the plus of trying to hammer at corporatism, even if inconsistently.

    1. Define “corporatism”, please.

      1. In the true German sense: allowing corporations to manage their own affairs without the guiding hand of the Reichsfuhrer leading them to socially acceptable ends.

        1. Gotterd?mmerung

    2. In that case, it seems like “the best move” is not to play. The best move shouldn’t hinge on so many contingencies. And as described above, the “civil liberties” that Sanders is good on are pretty narrow and often resort back to state power.

    3. In Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman argued that economic liberty is most important pre-condition for any and all “civil” liberties. In fact, our civil liberties come into being mainly as an extension of our belief to rights of “ownership”, including self-ownership.

      You will never have “more civil liberty” via “less economic freedom”. Not only are they not mutually exclusive – friedman pointed out that they are joined at the hip.

      Progressives routinely argue “money isn’t speech”.

      Because they so desperately need to pretend that controlling the former has no effect on the latter.

      1. Neat. Made this argument yesterday in a different thread. Not sure how well it was received.

  10. “Clearly Sanders has many issues on the economic front but on the war and civil liberties side”

    I don’t see how you compartmentalize “econ” and “civil liberties”. Does that mean he lets us gripe when he steals our money?
    Oh, wait! Not him! He *hates* free speech…

    1. How about … Patriot Act? Will there be more or less privacy invasions wtih one of the remaining R’s (including Hillary!) or Sanders? Which candidate is more likely to at least try to address criminal justice and similar issues?

      Look don’t get me wrong – Sanders has serious problems with the whole social dem economics stuff. But do you really want a Rubio/Cruz/Trump in charge of a R controlled congress? Do you think spending will be controlled? Or just redirected? Which companies will get the treats? I find the idea of stasis with Sanders being blocked by Rs or using veto against them more palatable.

      1. You still haven’t defined “coporatism” yet.

      2. I find the idea of stasis with Sanders being blocked by Rs or using veto against them more palatable.

        I guess you find his 2-3 supreme Court appointments that will make the court decidedly socialist and his power over the administrative state palatable, too.

  11. I saw Bernie at Starbucks this morning.
    Feel the Bern!

    1. “I’m *not* mentally ill! I’ve got *issues*!”

  12. “No way! Why should I endorse him? He’s the one who sucks.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADgS_vMGgzY

  13. Rand Paul should endorse Gary Johnson

  14. If people want to ever see a national candidate who has at least some strongly-libertarian core views, they’re going to have to stop demanding they be perfect on everything.

    Hell, at best you’ll get “imperfect on everything”, but ‘moving in better direction’

    I think Rand mostly screwed himself this go-round – despite there being a range of external things that presented problems for him. The fact is that no candidate was ever going to win a GOP nomination without at least talking super-tough on things like national security and immigration.

    His problem wasn’t any of his actual policy views, but the vacillating way he tried to communicate them, which varied between principled / pragmatic / opportunistic… and ended up seeming overly-complex or indecisive.

    His abortion view is an example of something that he apparently has sincere convictions about… but he fucked it all up by failing to present a simple “one side or the other” message about it. He probably failed to get any “pro-life” support despite his convictions… because the way he presented it was mixed up with some technical/legal ideas about Federalism. No one cares how ‘honest’ that view is. Its just bad politics that satisfies no one.

    in short = the only real way we’ll get a libertarian candidate is if they’re “stealth libertarian” to some degree. at least enough so that the “MARs” people Jesse referenced the other day are willing to accept them.

    1. Is there something wrong with Libertarian-ism if ‘the only real way to get a libertarian candidate is if they’re steal’ ?

      Scott Walker did a pretty good job at it. And after office, he was able to hold on.

      So perhaps you are right.

      It’s like spinach for kids. You got to fool them into believing it’s candy at first.

      1. Libertarians are terrible salespeople

      2. Libertarian policy is complicated and needs an charismatic speaker to explain it. Big government thought is easy, just say you want to solve something and that you will with power.

  15. The reason he didn’t catch the ‘Ron Paul fire’ was because there never was any. Those people for the most part had no real love of freedom.

  16. I think he just wanted to stick around long enough to put Bush and Christie in their place.

    Time to switch support to Cruz.

  17. A good article on Ted Cruz by a local journalist who has followed him for many years.
    Texas Monthly: The Field Guide to Ted Cruz – Ten tips for figuring out the “wacko bird.”

    1. Great article, but the author forgot to mention the part where Cruz turned water into wine and cured a leper.

      1. Texas Monthly isn’t really known for hiring conservative reporters.

    2. Obviously this won’t work for Rachel Maddow. There’s no WAY he’s smarter than she is. And all three of her viewers know it!

    3. Good article. Thanks.

    4. That was a good article. Clearly the reporter was kind of surprised by Cruz’s competence and intelligence.

      1. I mean, when you spent 15 years covering Bush, Perry, Sheila Jackson Lee and the even less intellectually rigorous members of Texas politics, it probably is shocking to find a person of actual intelligence who had both read widely and thought hard about issues.

  18. Paul does, though, intend to endorse whoever the Republican Party eventually settles on.

    That’s something his father Ron didn’t do, and to at least a small extent that difference in political styles and attitudes may have kept big portions of Ron’s support from surrounding Rand…

    This is one of the things that drives me nuts about my fellow libertarians. They’ll take a piddly-assed thing like Rand endorsing someone in the general election as “proof” that that he’s insufficiently pure for them to vote for. An endorsement doesn’t mean jack shit, so why the hell would that effect someone’s willingness to support any politician, not just Rand? I can understand someone not wanting to support Rand because of specific policy issues that are important to them, even if they agree on other issues, but for fuck’s sake, an endorsement?! Really?!

  19. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://qr.net/bvXsV

  20. Asked about their prediction of 10,000 student caucusers for Rand in Iowa after fewer than 9,000 total votes went to him, well, “we came short in the number of folks who came out, which is not unheard of in trying to do things with organizing students”

    ..after all they do have short attention spans, and it’s possible that a lot of them just sort of got high and wondered off.

    1. *wandered off.*

  21. How did he fail? “The summer downplaying of his libertarianism when he should have been escalating it was huge mistake. A huge lost opportunity. I have tremendous respect for what Rand tried to do — the psychological, physical and financial stress are substantial — but he is not a natural leader. He came across as someone who would rather not be there. And who can blame him?”

    This is all you need to know. Totally nailed it.

  22. I’m kind of curious if the fact that Paul’s not running unopposed for his Senate seat might have had something to do with it as well? I know the article says his campaign is claiming he’ll win re-election easily, but these are also the same people who thought he’d do a lot better in IA than he did, too.

  23. How did he fail? “The summer downplaying of his libertarianism when he should have been escalating it was huge mistake. A huge lost opportunity. I have tremendous respect for what Rand tried to do — the psychological, physical and financial stress are substantial — but he is not a natural leader. He came across as someone who would rather not be there. And who can blame him?”

    Rand is lukewarm. He’s an intelligent speaker and debater, but he has no gift for oratory and often comes across as canned, sarcastic, or insincere. In a profession that rewards particular personality types–the blowhard, the preacher, the huckster–Rand is the optometrist.

    His dad inspired love because he was an outsider and in many ways a Polyanna completely out of his depth in DC. When he was ridiculed as Dr. No, we loved him all the more for it, and we could forgive the lapses of judgment or weird generational differences. There’s not going to be another Ron Paul for a long time.

    Rand does try to play the game–he has to if he’s to be in the Senate–but he lacks the sort of gross huckster tools of an Obama or Cruz or Trump, and as such he will top out in the Senate. That’s not bad, as we could always use another Taft, but there’s not a lot about him that indicates he has what it takes to inspire either us Paultards to support him enthusiastically or to garner any support among the MARS people who are apparently entirely Republican at this point.

  24. just before I saw the bank draft 4 $9950 , I didn’t believe that…my… brothers friend had been actualey bringing home money in their spare time on their apple labtop. . there friend brother has been doing this 4 only about and recently cleared the dept on there place and bourt a new Jaguar XJ . linked here

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??….

    ????????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  25. I really think ISIS was his main problem. It is simply evil to the western civilization. way of thinking. It needs destruction. We don’t need to stay there, but it needs to go down. It is completely opposite to freedom of the individual.

    1. I hope that wasn’t it, because that would really underscore the gullibility of the public. Sure, ISIS is evil, but they are “over there” and pretty powerless to do much outside of their home ground. What is equally evil is us westerners having to give up more and more of our liberties to “keep us safe from that nasty ISIS.”

      ISIS is like that Kony freak in the jungle or the Charles Taylor guy who had an army of drug-addicted kids chopping of villagers’ limbs: utterly horrible but also totally not our problem, especially when we’re already $20 trillion in debt.

  26. I don’t know whether to be happy that Rand will not be in the hot seat when the economy melts down again (for fear of it being blamed on libertarianism and capitalism) or worried that some asshole like Sanders will be in the driver’s seat and we’ll be full bore Venezuala and death squads because “Capitalism is what is to blame!”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.