Vogue: Could Republican Senator Rand Paul Win the White House?

[nextJin]

http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/republican-senator-rand-paul-for-president/#1

The pursuit of power requires compromises, especially for a political scion raised in the royal court of libertarian ideals. This issue touches a nerve with Paul, who, when I ask about how his approach differs from that of his father, snaps that he’ll leave it to others to decide. “You know, I just have to go out and say what I believe in; I think I could be judged on that.”

Vogue has a terrible history with their Political predictions but I thought this was a fairly interesting read. Undoubtedly this thread will get hammered by people who see the name "Paul", yet the devil is in the details and without question Rand is not Ron. He knows politics and is playing the game pretty well.

While his father was content to remain a dissenting voice from the margins—or from one end of countless presidential-debate stages—Rand clearly wants to win. His stunningly swift rise in the GOP also amounts to one of the most fascinating tightrope walks in national politics. On the one side is his raucous Tea Party base. On the other is his courting of donors, establishment Republicans, and traditional Democratic constituencies.

From a conservative standpoint I think he is making headway because of his current views of the party as a whole one, which the nation itself likely agrees with.

Paul tells me he wants to remake the GOP into an electorally viable party that looks more like America and less like an Elks Lodge meeting. That means luring Democrats and winning over skeptical minorities and young voters. He’ll do this by championing issues like privacy rights and civil liberties—such as his opposition to Guantanamo-style indefinite detainment—that he believes will form a new center of political gravity, and perhaps a winning coalition in 2016.

“I want the Republican Party to grow and to be strong and for our ideas to win in Washington,” he says. “And the way they win, I think, is adding a little bit of a libertarian infusion, a little bit of a constitutional Bill of Rights type of approach to issues and instill that into the Republican Party.”

The project has taken Paul to unexpected places for a potential Republican nominee. Earlier this year he addressed an audience of African-American students at Howard University, spoke of a more welcoming stance toward immigration at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and stood next to New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand in a Washington press conference to call for the removal of the chain of command from determining whether military sexual-assault cases should go to trial.

“I could see Rand’s sincerity and thoughtfulness in our first conversation about this crisis,” Gillibrand says. “And I knew we could work together.”

There are very few Republicans who believe this, and that is one of the main reasons why they are doing poorly.

 

[Jimzz]

He will have the same problem Jon Huntsman did when he ran, he was not lock stock in line with republicans and the national leadership did not want him.

Rand Paul was not the pick the national republicans wanted for Kentucky either. They had picked someone else in the primary but Rand Paul beat him.

The national republican leadership does not want him. Only time they are ok is when he votes as the leadership wants all republicans to vote in congress. Any other time they want someone else.

 

[Anarchist420]

I hope we don't have another President.

But yes, I'm expecting Rand Paul to be our next President because he is such a great politician and because if he's an Austrian he's a closet one.

On economics, he toes the GOP's Milton Friedmanite Chicago School line. He's okay on civil liberties and good on foreign policy but I don't like how he thinks privacy is a right. He should just say the govt is illegitimate, that privacy is determined by the market, and that everyone should follow the NAP.

 

[nextJin]

He will have the same problem Jon Huntsman did when he ran, he was not lock stock in line with republicans and the national leadership did not want him.

Rand Paul was not the pick the national republicans wanted for Kentucky either. They had picked someone else in the primary but Rand Paul beat him.

The national republican leadership does not want him. Only time they are ok is when he votes as the leadership wants all republicans to vote in congress. Any other time they want someone else.

I wouldn't be so quick on that one, Huntsman had no name recognition prior to the primaries and literally had no ground game. Ron had two very damning flaws; News Letters and total opposition to the party. Rand has done a very good job at not alienating himself from the party an example being supporting Israel (somewhat) and agreeing with sanctions on foriegn nations.

It also does not hurt that he does not continue on about a dollar collapse, gold standards and inflation.

 

[nextJin]

I'm expecting Rand Paul to be our next President.

Well there goes any hope of a Paul Presidency, Anarchist supports him lol /facepalm

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Well there goes any hope of a Paul Presidency, Anarchist supports him lol /facepalm

Could be worse... Could have been spidey predicting it.

 

[soundforbjt]

Could Republican Senator Rand Paul Win the White House?

No! For starters he flip-flopped way too much on Syria. And the National repubs do not want him.

 

[Anarchist420]

Ron had two very damning flaws; News Letters and total opposition to the party.

Total opposition to the party includes the news letters.

I doubt you feel the same, but the thing that pissed me off so much about that was the fact that neocons were the only ones who used it against him. He won Bobby Scott's district, black people liked him.

Maybe Rothbard was trying to protect him and it was a blessing in disguise. I'm a black nordic arab and I thought that the newsletters were good just like everything Rothbard wrote. Rothbard's IQ must have been 250.

It also does not hurt that he does not continue on about a dollar collapse, gold standards and inflation.

He should. The high deficits couldn't happen without fiat money. Public debt would have to be decentralized if the central govt was constitutionally limited to borrowing gold.

Well there goes any hope of a Paul Presidency, Anarchist supports him lol /facepalm

Very reluctantly if at all and I'm not even going to vote for him (or anyone else) unless he's running against Christie and/or Hillary Clinton.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Not only No but Never!!!

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

He will have the same problem Jon Huntsman did when he ran...

Rand Paul will never have the same anything as Jon Huntsman.

 

[monovillage]

I'd be happy to vote for him in any race where he's running against a Democrat.

 

[AlienCraft]

Only if the New World Order activates the microwave implants and the world goes bat-shit crazy. So yeah.

 

[yllus]

Vogue. Not Vouge.

And no, he can't.

 

[88keys]

Hillary Clinton will be the next president if she runs. Paul doesn't stand a chance in hell as a presidential candidate.

2016 will most likely be

Clinton/O'Malley vs. Christie/Rubio

Feel free to sig that if you like

 

[Anarchist420]

Hillary Clinton will be the next president if she runs. Paul doesn't stand a chance in hell as a presidential candidate.

I don't know that Hillary Clinton can win the DNC nomination. Do the Democrats really want to put someone so elitist up after the Republicans put mitt romney up? Romney at least cared about America (he ran against a very selfish ideologue), whereas Clinton has always been out for her own gain and especially for control (i.e., having it her way). Look at how unhappy and phony she was after Obama won the nomination in '08. Hillary Clinton just isn't very good with people (neither am I) and she simply sucks at campaigning.

I guess they could nominate Hillary Clinton (look at McAwful), but I hope they have more sense than that.

And neither of us know what it will be like 3 years from now, a lot could change. I think Rand Paul has a very good chance.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

With a little luck the rocket scientists in the Republican base will nominate a Rand Paul-Bachman (aka "The Moron") or Rand Paul-Palin (aka "The Dingbat") or Rand Paul-Santorum (aka "Senator Butt-Goo") ticket and then I'll laugh my ass off when they lose the 2016 election.

 

[hans030390]

Rand Paul does not come across as a particularly intelligent man to me. His speech at Howard University was pretty bad/awkward. When he came on the Daily Show recently (Jon Stewart and the audience were quite accepting, including cheers, and polite), he could barely string a coherent idea together to make a point. For example, he discussed US governmental regulation (mostly ACA) on the health industry and wanted to make a point about how that caused problems with medical/health care costs by equating it to the Soviet Union controlling the price of bread and thus causing it to disappear from stores. I believe I understood the point he was trying to make, but he botched it so badly and looked so confident about what he was saying that it was clear to me he had no idea what he was truly talking about.

I respect a lot of Libertarian principles in regards to personal civil liberties and freedoms, but corporations, industries, economies, and societies as a whole are not "personal" in the sense I'm talking about. But I would not even think about voting Rand Paul into any sort of political position.

 

[nextJin]

Vogue. Not Vouge.

And no, he can't.

Thanks edited.

 

[nextJin]

Liberal responses are fairly irrelevant in saying "No he won't" which is the exact same thing any Conservative would say in a "Would this Democrat win" thread. What I am interested in is how many Conservatives actually like what he is doing with adopting a more modern approach with the party.

The GOP needs to either change or go DIAF, there are only a select handful of people trying to lead that effort and Paul is leading the charge. Can Rand be the next President? It depends on the GOP and Conservatives on their willingness to accept a new direction otherwise they can not win. It does not have to be Rand Paul by any stretch, but it has to be someone that brings core principles to the table that does not bitch slap the majority of modern America.

 

[nextJin]

His speech at Howard University was pretty bad/awkward.

That's not really fair, you could just as easily say that an Obama speech at a NRA meeting would be incredibly awkward or even bad. The difference is that Paul is willing to do that, Obama is not. (or likely anyone else for that matter)

I do agree with his finese though, he still needs work and he lacks the ability to be a strong motivational speaker (Obama).

With a little luck the rocket scientists in the Republican base will nominate a Rand Paul-Bachman (aka "The Moron") or Rand Paul-Palin (aka "The Dingbat") or Rand Paul-Santorum (aka "Senator Butt-Goo") ticket and then I'll laugh my ass off when they lose the 2016 election.

Let's be honest, Paul would not touch any of those candidates for a plethora of reasons; Old Guard, Neoconservatives, No Base

If Christie and Paul keep fucking around, I would not be surprised to see a Christie/Paul ticket or Paul/Christie pick your poison.

 

[Doppel]

His wife looks hot and there hasn't been a hot first lady in (forever?), so hopefully.

Rand Paul does not come across as a particularly intelligent man to me. His speech at Howard University was pretty bad/awkward. When he came on the Daily Show recently (Jon Stewart and the audience were quite accepting, including cheers, and polite), he could barely string a coherent idea together to make a point. For example, he discussed US governmental regulation (mostly ACA) on the health industry and wanted to make a point about how that caused problems with medical/health care costs by equating it to the Soviet Union controlling the price of bread and thus causing it to disappear from stores. I believe I understood the point he was trying to make, but he botched it so badly and looked so confident about what he was saying that it was clear to me he had no idea what he was truly talking about.

I respect a lot of Libertarian principles in regards to personal civil liberties and freedoms, but corporations, industries, economies, and societies as a whole are not "personal" in the sense I'm talking about. But I would not even think about voting Rand Paul into any sort of political position.

Bush has shown that intelligence isn't really necessary to win. If Rand can memorize all the talking points and continually hammer about the man and the old guard and the way it's always been done and you're being let down by your representatives etc. the 'murican public will love him for it.

 

[nextJin]

Rand Paul Tries to Transform a Moment Into a Movement

This older article highlights well with the OP and how he is trying to bridge the gap;

Sen. Paul next delivered a foreign-policy speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation, designed in part, said an adviser, to distinguish himself from his father, who wants no U.S. bases overseas. "I am a realist," the speech began. "Not a neoconservative, nor an isolationist." He laid out a course of limited intervention, particularly in confronting radical Islam.

After the Republican Party's poor performance in November's presidential election, Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus visited Sen. Paul for ideas. The senator saw an opening for his brand of politics.

In December, he gathered advisers, including top strategist Jesse Benton, in a friend's Capitol Hill living room. Over pizza and beer, Sen. Paul said he was "very interested" in considering a run for president in 2016. He would need to "break the mold" to reach nontraditional GOP voters—as well as Democrats and independents—without losing support from his base of libertarians, tea-party followers and social and fiscal conservatives.

A day earlier, he had performed cataract surgery on Peggy Clark, 48, of Benton, Ky., who couldn't afford the $2,000 operation. "He's a wonderful eye doctor," she said. "But I can't vouch for him as a politician. Besides, I'm a lifelong Democrat."

I got a kick out of the comment his wife made in the article discussing him cutting his own hair over the sink. If there is one thing about the man he really does not give a damn what other people think of him. Personally I wouldn't want to look like I had a wet carpet on my head but to each his own

 

[nextJin]

His wife looks hot and there hasn't been a hot first lady in (forever?), so hopefully.

Kelly Paul at the Time 100 Gala

I'd say she would be one of the better looking ones but still nothing special, I'd say Jackie was the last one this past century iirc, the current one is not bad either.

 

[yllus]

Bush has shown that intelligence isn't really necessary to win. If Rand can memorize all the talking points and continually hammer about the man and the old guard and the way it's always been done and you're being let down by your representatives etc. the 'murican public will love him for it.

Neither Bush nor Paul are unintelligent - but they are ideologically driven to the point where they're not especially intellectually curious. The intellectually curious still have an ego and hate to admit they may be wrong, but they'll at least make an effort to bone up on contrary opinions.

I think the one great lie that politicians never betray is that save for the rare Bachmann type, politicians are first and foremost pragmatists. They really don't have much of a care for leftist or rightist causes beyond fulfilling the minimal amount of promises needed to keep their supporters happy and them in power. Otherwise they'll compromise, compromise and compromise some more all day long in order to pragmatically move the needle just a bit. That ends up displeasing the public who wants revolutionary change every five years, but that's because the public is simpleminded and expects the unrealistic.

Paul is not a pragmatist. Anyone who would claim to want to repeal the Civil Rights Act is an ideologue through and through, a person who literally places more importance on ideas than on practical solutions. Occasionally I feel like a pure ideologue is a useful person to have around - wouldn't we all love to be have a ideologue obsessed with the privacy of private citizens in charge right now - but they're mostly a disaster to everything they touch. Or in the best case, neutered and useless like Senator Paul's father.

So no, Paul cannot win the White House, and neither do you want him to.

 

[Anarchist420]

I'd say she would be one of the better looking ones but still nothing special, I'd say Jackie was the last one this past century iirc, the current one is not bad either.

The best looking first ladies were in the 19th century no doubt.

Neither Bush nor Paul are unintelligent - but they are ideologically driven to the point where they're not especially intellectually curious.

Bush and Clinton were much, much less ideological than Obama; Bush changed his mind on nearly everything other than marginal income tax rates and a shit load of spending. He was even against nation building when he was Governor.

Paul is not a pragmatist.

Yes he is.

Anyone who would claim to want to repeal the Civil Rights Act is an ideologue through and through, a person who literally places more importance on ideas than on practical solutions.

He said he would not make it his priority and that he favored most of it.