Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Jumping Right In


So, in the comments of the last post Haverwilde wrote:

"Rand Paul, hmm, 90% "right on!" and 10% "WTF?!"

And that is the perfect jumping off point I think.

What do we know about him. What are the things we really like. What are the things that give us pause, but most important what will the MSM exploit to discredit him when he starts to gain traction?

I haven't been excited about a candidate since Fred Thompson let me down hard. I feel like I could get excited about Rand. Curly hair and all.

Figured if I gave him a little Google, I'd find out pretty quick if the Left felt as if he were a contender/threat:

First off, they all seem to use this terrible picture of him:


(Though, I use terrible pictures of my political undesirables too, so I won't be hypocritical and call them out about that....)

But, there really wasn't that much. A lot about him being against Voter IDs. A few about Rick Santorum "not being on the Rand Paul bandwagon," but that's okay with me. And a few insinuating he doesn't have the pull some think he does as a candidate he backed didn't win.

(Lead picture is from a Vogue pictorial & profile on Senator Paul and his family)


31 comments:

jim marquis said...

I almost certainly wouldn't vote for him, but do appreciate how he's at least trying to reach out to students and minorities. And he at least pointed out that the GOP is pissing off people with their voter restriction efforts.

Proof said...

He lost points with me and some others with a recent comment of his.

"Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing,” Paul said, noting that the debates over the law had a racial element to them. “I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people."

Hard to "go crazy" over eliminating voter fraud.

Haverwilde said...

Jim, of course, missed the point, that it has nothing to do with voter restriction, it is about voter fraud!

But then, where would the democrats be if they couldn't lie, cheat, and steal elections.

Frankly, I would love to eliminate several federal departments, just as Rand Paul advocates, but pragmatically, it will take time to do that. It is a mistake to take them all on at once.
He is a Tea Party member, as such, he is among the least racist groups in America; but Jim and his slimy cohorts will say they are the most racist. (That Black is White thing that the left has.)
He is pro-life, which I respect but have a differing view.
He is against gay marriage, which I understand, but have a differing view.
I could support his candidacy for President, but not whole-heartedly.


T. Paine said...

I like much of what I have seen thus far about Rand Paul, but I will withold support from any candidate for the time being. We will see what Rand does when the media starts focusing on him and denigrating him.

Will he stay true to his values, or will he moderate on them to appeal to the left? I think he will stay true, but time will tell.

jim marquis said...

Oh, yeah. The voter fraud is such a huge problem.

Bram said...

I sure like him - but I liked Gary Johnson.

Rand has the logic and intellectual honesty of a Libertarian, without the habit of shoving his foot down his throat like his father.

He and others like Justin Amash are the future of the GOP if there is a future. Drop most of the "Social Conservative" BS which is really Christian Socialism. Concentrate on getting the federal government back under control.

Bram said...

On another note, I like the potential First Lady.

Haverwilde said...

Jim,
Oh my god, your rhetorical skills are just amazing.

free0352 said...

I'm with him 100%. All for him. I'm signed up. He's the future of the GOP for me, and if he isn't that future, I'm out of the GOP. I've been working on getting the guy in the zone for two years now. I gave money to his 2010 Senate campaign. I fought against the Romney campaign jo we could run Rand in 2016.

So in the full interest of honesty, just know free0352 is in the tank for Rand.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Rand Paul has a long way to go to get my support because my biggest concerns are sound national security and economic policies, and whoever is going to bring those about needs to have a majority of the country behind them.
In the full interest of honesty, I still consider the idea that I fought against the Romney campaign so we could run Rand in 2016 preposterous at best. To believe otherwise, one has to think that we were better off having Jug Ears rather than Romney for the following four years. You also have to believe that it necessarily follows there could be no other 2016 winning alternatives to the Chicagocrats. Finally, you have to forget about giving the Disciples time to make themselves even more difficult to defeat.

free0352 said...

Crabby,

When you were told to vote for Romney, you ran right out and voted for him. You'll do the same in 2016 for whoever is the GOP nominee.

So it doesn't matter if you support Rand, we all know how you feel about not voting, so I know I can count on you in 2016 after we get Rand nominated.

You've shown your a reliable GOP vote. So I'm not too worried about your support.

Zelda said...

I'm never going to agree with every candidate 100%. That's fine. I'll settle for honest and not utterly depraved. The things I agree with Rand Paul on, I agree very strongly.

And I would enjoy seeing a contest between him and whichever of the demented seniors the Democrats nominate.

CrabbyOldMan said...

I told myself to vote for Romney because I thought he was far better than the Messiah.
I will vote for Rand Paul if the alternative to him is worse.
It is possible that the Republicans will nominate Paul. It is possible they will nominate someone else.
I'd say it is a little early to be counting the chickens.
If Paul does not get the nomination, will your feelings be so badly hurt that you won't vote and thereby help Hillary?

free0352 said...

I think Romney would have been worse than Obama, because at least with Obama Congress opposes him where it would have lock stepped with Romney on issues from gun control to socialized medicine out of party loyalty.

As for getting Paul nominated, we're on track. The only competition he has right now, now that Christie is pretty much out is Jeb fucking Bush. If the GOP runs that I'm out 100%. We proved last time we can cost the GOP an election if we choose, so the party establishment might as well give in and give the Libertarian wing of the party what we want.

Or you can enjoy President Clinton the sequel. Either the GOP has learned its lesson or it hasn't. Of course if another good candidate comes along, I'm open minded.

But Romney again or Jeb? Get ready to hear four years of shrill ass speeches from an old ass hag. Like us or not, you have to work with us or the GOP can't win in 2016.



CrabbyOldMan said...

We proved last time we can cost the GOP an election if we choose, so the party establishment might as well give in and give the Libertarian wing of the party what we want tells me that the Chicagocrats have a PERFECT strategy.
The country is center-right. Split off enough usefull fools (who cannot win alone) and you guarantee continued Chicagocrat control. The Chicagocrats have demonstrated that they know better than to fall into that trap themselves.
George Custer was a Michigan native. Have you considered making him an honerary member?
Does anyone else wonder how much Soros money finds round about ways into conservative splinter group coffers?

Bram said...

If Rand Paul wins the nomination, there won't be much conservative splintering unless it's from a Christian Socialist like that idiot Santorum. The Libertarian Party might not even nominate a candidate of that was the case.

If the GOP nominates a Rino like Christie or Jeb Bush, I'll be voting for one of those splinter candidates.

free0352 said...

Well then crwbby it would behoove you to work towards someone who can unite the party rather than someone who will splinter it like Jeb Bush. Otherwise your right... Dems will win.

CrabbyOldMan said...


Free0352 is correct that we need someone who can unite the party. An extreme Libertarian would not be that person.
FYI, I would only very reluctantly support Jeb Bush. I doubt he can win.
I don't think Rand Paul can win either mostly because of his national security views.
As always, I will follow Bill Buckley's advice and support the most conservative electable candidate.
(Yup, no difference between Comrade Hussein and Romney. No difference at all. Romney would have handled our national security exactly the way Jug Ears has. Ditto the economy, and ditto the judicial appointments.)

Zelda said...

I will not vote for Jeb Bush in the general election. I will splinter the party and give all the power to the Democrats.

free0352 said...

Me too.

And about 40,000,000 other people.

The Romney's and Bush's aren't so electable are they?

CrabbyOldManh said...

Were you two in the habit of holding your breath to get your way when you were toddlers?

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

I like Paul. I'm holding my vote on the basis that the GOP is really good at voting for the least qualified person for nomination.

That said, Johnson is running again - so at least I have someone worth my vote.

Zelda said...

Were you two in the habit of holding your breath to get your way when you were toddlers?

No. I was saving it up for elections. :-)

You ain't changing my mind, Crabby. I will not vote for Jeb Bush but you will vote for Paul. It seems the choice is obvious.

CrabbyOldMan said...

I have never thought that I would change either Zelda's or Free's minds. My intention is to show that they are being childish in this matter and thereby prevent them from convincing anyone else.
CORRECTION:
I will vote for the most conservative electable candidate. That candidate could be either Bush or Paul, though I hope it is neither.

Zelda said...

I'm tired of voting for bad candidates. I want the moral high ground on Democrats and liberals and progressives who have no problem voting for a skin color or a vagina regardless of their competence.

Foxy Wizard said...

I will not vote for Jeb Bush. I will not vote for Christie. I will vote for Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. I will vote for Rubio if he is nominated. I will vote for Scott Walker. There are others I might vote for.

And Crabby, you are the childish one.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Surprise, surprise Foxy Wizard. Scott Walker is my own personal favorite (at this point). The next is Cruz, followed closely by Rubio, even though I have suspicions about what Rubio would really do about immigration. I don't like Christie or Bush either. However, I like Shrillary or whatever other charlatan the Chicagocrats would run a whole lot less.
I can make a list of the positions I would like to see in a candidate. Unfortunately, I can't believe my ideal candidate would have any chance of being nominated, let alone winning the election. You simply seem unwilling to come to grips with the fact that when a politician moves in one direction to pick up support, they inevitably loses supporters at the other end, making compromise inevitable to win. Even in countries with a parliamentary form of government, with a multitude of parties who have a narrow enough focus so as to enjoy near unanimity among their members, GUESS WHAT? They almost never have enough clout to govern without forming a collation of several parties. We form coalitions too, but within the two parties.
It just does not seem to sink in that the only way to the conservative landslide that we would both like to see is convincing more than half the electorate (keeping in mind 40% still like Jug Ears). Throwing the election to the other side because you decide lay down and kick your feet rather than vote makes what we want to happen progressively less likely. The idea that you are ever going to eventually “make the Republicans do what we want” by causing them to loose is childish fantasy. What will happen is that the country will suffer lots of irreparable damage due to lefty excess before the Chicagocrats finally poison their own well. Then a left-center coalition will gain control, replacing the right-center coalition we have now. Guess who will be further from their goals than they are now?

Freemom said...

I had the opportunity to meet with Rand Paul in person last September and hear him speak. He is strong on national defense - and big on minding our own business. After having the chance to meet with him in person, hear him speak and chat for a few minutes...I'll stand with Rand. As for the voter ID thing...he is correct. This is not a National Issue it is a STATE issue. The Secretary of State in each state sets the election rules. I like the way Rand understands that just because something needs to be done...that does NOT mean it is the FEDERAL government that should do it. BTW, this is Freemom, but I seem to be signed in as Free. Hi everybody!

Freemom said...

I also had the opportunity to meet Scott Walker and I really really like him as well, but Rand Paul has it all over him on organization and in bringing in new faces by going in to the belly of the beast. Most Republicans think they are going to win elections by preaching to the choir. Not so....we need to educate and engage.

Freemom said...

I have one or two deal breakers, but will take 80%.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Republicans think they are going to win elections by preaching to the choir. Not so....we need to educate and engage.
My loudest "AMEN!