Rand Paul, as a presidential candidate, has a few advantages over his father. Being a senator is a better credential than being a member of the House of Representatives. He’s also younger than his father was when he ran, so age isn’t such a big issue. Finally, he’s not as doctrinaire, so he has the advantage of being able to show a little flexibility. He can pander a little bit, here and there, which is helpful as long as it isn’t overdone. Much of Ron Paul’s appeal came from his near-absolute refusal to pander, but that also put a strict cap on the level of support he could attract.
However, despite these advantages, Rand Paul is not having a good run on the campaign trail. He’s gaining a reputation for inauthenticity. That’s hardly surprising in a serial plagiarist, but it’s beginning to bite him in the ass. It was always going to be inevitable that he would disappoint his father’s impassioned followers whenever he deviated from the libertarian line, but he’s not convincing the social conservatives he’s trying to woo with his flip-flopping on aid to Israel and his ambivalence about gay marriage.
He has a tendency to contradict himself in ways that are easily disprovable in this age of digital information. This is important because his task was always going to be exceedingly difficult to pull off. How to remain largely true to his principles without making himself unelectable because of the opposition within the Republican base to his ideas on foreign policy and social issues? To make something like that work, you have to be very slick and have an ability to really think on your feet. You have to make people like you and trust you to a point that they’re willing to overlook some of their disagreements with you on policy. Ronald Reagan was excellent at this kind of task. So far, Rand Paul is pretty horrible at it.
Personally, I think character has something to do with it. Truthfulness just isn’t part of his make-up. It’s not that he’s willing to be a little loose with the truth in the way politicians so often are; it’s that he doesn’t have a filter that tells him when he’s lying. I think he is sometimes genuinely surprised to discover that something he has just said is plainly and demonstrably false. Reagan seemed to suffer from the same fault from time to time, as when he told stories that weren’t real but had derived from some movie script Reagan had worked on or read. But Reagan’s gaffes (Iran-Contra aside) were generally affable mistakes rather than complete contradictions of his previous policy positions. Rand Paul will tell you he never opposed foreign aid to Israel with a straight face and then act surprised when he discovers that he needs to retract the statement.
In any case, he’s bombing in Iowa. He should probably just move on to New Hampshire and start over.
That this mop-topped fop is a flop, isn’t surprising to me.
If it wasn’t for the OK Senate contingent, this assclown would be the dimmest light in the already pretty dim Senate chandelier!
To quote that great American philosopher, Foghorn Leghorn – “The boy’s about as sharp a pound of wet liver.”
Texas and Kansas might give them a run for the money. Mississippi and Alabama would be as well, if their Senators spoke more often.
he’s a plagarizing, grifter.
period.
OT: you gonna post about the Black unarmed teenager just gunned down by the police in Missouri?
OT: you gonna post on the elections in Hawaii?
Abercrombie has been a solid liberal politician for so long that it’s sad he didn’t earn a second term. OTOH, David Ige appears to be a good guy and perhaps it’s time for him to move up before he joins the senior citizen ranks. Not that I think that’s the full story in this election.
The saddest aspect of this primary is that after a lifetime of honorable public service, Inouye chose to inject race into the equation for his successor. Hanabusa is a DINO. Schatz is a good guy at a time when there are far too few young Senators like him (and Inouye during his long tenure).
Rand has two disadvantages relative to his father.
First, Ron Paul had already established his white supremacist and Xtianist bona fides decades earlier. So, he could stick to libertarian issues like being anti-war and gold standard, etc., without offending his the racist/Xtianist true believers. This is similar to the way Dubya could talk about “compassionate conservatism” to appeal to the centrists, and avoid throwing red meat to the base, because the base already knew Dubya was “one of us”. Rand doesn’t have that history so he has try to prove he’s a bona fide wingnut at the same time as trying to appeal to centrists. By the way, this is why I think Jeb Bush is still the GOP’s best bet for the 2016 nomination – like Dubya and Tebow the Xtianist/Racist base will trust him without him ever having to say anything overtly Xtianist or Racist.
Second, let’s face it, Ron Paul was never more than a protest candidate and deep down even he knew it. Not only didn’t he have the backing of the party elders they actively fought him. Therefore, he never really needed the broad support that Rand, who does believe he’s a serious candidate, needs to get. That meant Ron didn’t have to say contradictory things to appeal to the broader population.
It always amazes me how unaware people are that “compassionate conservatism” was a dogwhistle to the Christian right. It was associated with Christian author Marvin Olasky, who was well known to be an advisor to Dubya Bush.
Rand Paul’s LQ (likeability quotient) is inherently low. All others things being close enough, LQ tips the balance in favor of one. And there’s a limit to how much the campaign of a very well managed candidate can push up inherent LQ. (It’s why Rove etal. had to work hard to also drive down Gore’s LQ.)
I’m sorry to appear superficial, but Sen. Rand’s voice is so very un-presidential…my ears cannot tolerate listening to his white boy whine. Doesn’t matter what he is saying it all sounds the same.
We already lived through Bush’s voice and dumb speech.
Well the Dem “nominee” sure is “bombing” in more ways than one in my eyes.
Anyone but Clinton
Oh u mean this:
Hillary Clinton blames rise of ISIS on Obama “failure” to intervene in Syria civil war
The likely future presidential candidate also argues criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza stem from anti-Semitism
http://tinyurl.com/puefbml
Or this:
“@politicalwire: Hillary slams Obama: “‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”
http://t.co/eGhX0jZ3pP“
I’ve always thought, Hillary plan will be to take Obama coalition for granted, while holding onto “Clinton Democrats” (a supporter of Grimes in KY during the rally with Bill Clinton made that distinction) and attracting that “Reagan Dem” voter who didn’t vote for Obama cause you know….
It’s why you won’t see me giving any money to her nominee or not. Sure she’ll get my vote, I’m a loyal Dem voter, but you won’t see my money or boots on the ground for her. But like someone said I doubt she miss my money.
Get your facts straght, Booman.
Obama is “bombing.”
U.S. Launches Strikes Against Militants in Iraq Aug. 8, 2014
Rand Paul is simply trying to get elected in order to stop the bombing.
There is a big difference.
Just ask the targets.
Now…about this “The Hill” piece you reference.
All large media is owned by corporate interests. Thus all large media is based on advertising that supports the positions of those corporate interests. Advertising is stylish lying. Therefore all large media are based on promoting lies. Well-targeted lies. Those are facts, Booman. Facts of life in the Corporate-owned Empire of the United States of America. Given those facts, the only way to get an accurate idea of what is going on behind any reporting whatsoever is to ask the following magic question:
Cui bono?“
Who profits?
This can be very hard to do. Massive centrist-controlled interests…like The Hill, the medium upon which you based this post…can seem quite “neutral.” That is, they appear to report the news…political news, in the case of Politico…evenhandedly.
But…this is not always the case. In fact it is rarely the case, to be perfectly accurate. Every medium has some hustle to promote, or else it would not be funded. How to find out what that hustle is? There’s the question!
My own approach is to take a good look at the editorial pages.
Here are two screen shots of The Hill’s editorial page. I am sure that the other pages in their archives would be very similar.
This covers over 1.5 years of editorials.
Notice who and what has not been covered?
The Paulist movement and Elizabeth Warren have not been covered.
No editorials for, and none against.
Hmmmm…
Ask this question of yourself:
Which national politicians most seriously threaten the corporate center’s grip on the political system of this country?
HMMMMMmmmm….
This is media non-personing in full bloom.
That old movie line?
“Call me anything but spell my name right!”
All publicity is good publicity.
And…for the centrists…no mention of their worst enemies is usually the way to go. It worked with Perot and Ron Paul, why not try it again.
Only…apparently it’s not working anymore. Not with Rand.
Why an anti-Rand Paul article now?
Because his threat is growing, that’s why.
Less than a month ago we got this:
Now a hit piece that purports to show Rand Paul “running away” from confrontation. A subtle hit piece, but a hit piece nonetheless.
Some selected quotes:
Rand Paul is now important enough that he cannot be ignored. they must fight him.
The next phase?
Who knows?
“Styles make fights,” boxers say.
His father’s style didn’t work. That is…it didn’t win.
Rand Paul is still learning. He is still developing a style.
We’ll see.
Sooner or later…we’ll see.
Watch.
AG
P.S. Any Obama supporters who at this point want to start doing the anti-Rand Paul flipflop dance may as well just shut up. Supporters of a man who ran as “Peace President” and then consistently over 6+ years supported the rise of the security state, the rise of the drone state, the rise of the targeted killing state, the continuation of the pro-Israeli murder state, the rise of the Nazi regime in Kiev state and now the Iraq War II state…bet on it, it’s just a matter of time before we are allowed to wail over the fact that American boots are once again Afghanististaning in Iraq…those supporters don’t have shit to say about Rand Paul’s political maneuverings.
P.P.S. I am also posting this as a standalone article.
It’s Obama who is doing the bombing, not Rand Paul.
Go there if you wish to scream at me.
Thanks for letting us know what the rules are. Please write all of your rules for us on a letter size sheet of paper, fold it into a small square and shove it all the way up…
Speaking of Rand Paul, and since you know everything, I have a question for you. If we were to repeal the 14th Amendment, would black people still be citizens?
I guess it all depends on how you define the word “citizen,” S.S.
Does it mean “equal rights under the law?” It should.
Here’s a little graph for you to chew on.
The percentages climb even higher if you only include males between the ages of 18 and say 50…the prime criminal grouping in all races.
Much higher.
The same kinds of percentages can easily be accessed economically, educationally, in terms of housing, etc.
So unless you are willing to make the argument that white Americans are simply smarter and more talented than are minority Americans…an argument that my whole life experience as a musician playing primarily American idioms completely refutes…then I guess you might say that minority people are not full citizens now.
What was your point, again?
Oh.
Oh.
OK.
Nevermind.
Your freind…
Emily Litella
Nice gyrations, but you’re no better at reconciling His Awesomeness’s blatant contradictions than he is. Even if you want to talk about blowing up Muslims, did you not see his bloodthirsty editorial about Israel in the National Review? Are you will to defend even this shit? Seriously?
Arthur, we notice that you failed to respond to the very substantive point that Rand Paul wants to alter the 14th Amendment. Given that you provide no real response to BooMan’s original post other than “OBAMA AND MSM BAD”, we are unsurprised by your consistent tendency to change the subject. Since your goal here appears to be to empower the radical right-wing movement, this has come to be expected of you.
It was recently pointed out in response to your evasive point here that total incarceration in the U.S. has gone down under the Obama Administration. But keep on with your propagandistic Barack-hating, facts be damned.
Aside from issues of character and understanding of issues, the main contradiction in the Paul family’s strategy has been their alignment with the Republican Party. That is what engenders the flip-flops, the attempt to appeal to a broad range of libertarians and to the protectors of the corporate privileges that large government generates and do it at the same time.
Most GOP candidates running in 2016 have already rhetorically flanked Paul on his libertarian side, which divides the right half of his base among several other GOP candidates and himself.
His appeal to folks like AG has been sporadic and inconstant enough that only highly committed Rand Paul and anti-duopoly folks will actually vote for him, given the chance. The screening process of the early primaries is set up not to give them that chance. And like his father he doesn’t have sufficient following to run as an independent.
His best move would be as Senator to declare himself the Libertarian Party caucus and run as their candidate; unlike the Greens, the Libertarians can get on ballots in over half of the states.
He’s bombing because he fundamentally both is and is not committed to the Republican Party. As best, he is committed to the Paul family’s libertarian vision. And Republicans sense that ambivalence.
Baby Paul will NEVER be president, no matter how much brain diarrhea AG spews through his keyboard while genuflecting to the paul family dishonest grift.
😉