Hard Hitting commentary on Rand Paul (R) by Bill Schneider, formerly from CNN

[Statistikhengst]

he's an offbeat guy that seems to stick to his guns instead of evolving (lying) his views.

and if he pisses off leftist, which he does, he's alright in my book

Oh, I find it refreshing that he sticks to his views and have no problem with that in the world. Whether on not he pisses off "leftists" is, however, irrelevant. He won't need votes from "leftists" to win the GOP nomination. He will need votes from within your party to win the nomination.

See how that works?

 

[Statistikhengst]

As was expected O'Reilly started to ridicule Paul. It was subtle but the tone and phrasing indicated what was coming from this "unbiased and fair" commentator. He said: "Rand Paul wants to be president" with a tone of sarcasm. Watch when he will announce his more favorable candidates. I expect him to say: "So and so announced that s/he is running for president."

Actually, you could see it from the FOX news website presentation already. Ted Cruz's announcement was not only front-paged many hours before, he also got top billing at the time of the announcement. Rand Paul's announcement was NOT front-paged hours before and he did NOT get top billing at all. FOX has already decided that it doesn't want Rand Paul to be the GOP standard-bearer.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Political world scenery changes and stances on issues have to be fluid to deal with them. He was originally for the Monroe Doctrine. Now, hypothetically: if we kept to the Monroe Doctrine, do you think Muslim countries would still hate the USA?

I don't disagree with you about this, but will support TyroneSlothrop 's proof that Rand Paul has indeed shifted positions on at least this one issue. It's not a sin, in spite of the fact that the Right makes it out to be a sin when the current president "evolves".

BTW, just out of curiousity, I wonder how many members of USMB actually know what the Monroe Doctrine stands for.... wanna wager a guess?

I think it is excellent that you mentioned that, btw. Outstanding.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The establishment GOP had a brief fling with the sort of paleo-conservatism that the Pauls were in the forefront of;

that's gone. The neocons are back in all their idiotic splendor and Rand Paul is desperately compromising his principles to avoid becoming the permanent ten percenter his father was.

I am pretty sure he will be way above that 10% mark, but also have my doubts as to whether Sen. Paul can build a coalition big enough to get to the magic number of delegates needed. I suspect that extreme Right Christians are going to be upset that he never mentioned G-d in his speech, which is almost downright heresy in the GOP these days.

I stick by my argument from the Rand Paul speech thread that what he definitely can do, alongside Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and likely either Mike Huckabee and or Chris Christie, will be to amass enough delegates so as to ensure that NO candidate goes into the convention with a majority, resulting in a convention that will be decided sometime AFTER the 1st ballot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rand Paul flip flopped on the Civil Rights Act in the course of 24 hours a few years ago when Rachel Maddow got him to first say he opposed it. The next day he was for it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I would be curious to know how many other members have been pondering what I have been pondering and wrote in posting no. 24....

 

[NYcarbineer]

The establishment GOP had a brief fling with the sort of paleo-conservatism that the Pauls were in the forefront of;

that's gone. The neocons are back in all their idiotic splendor and Rand Paul is desperately compromising his principles to avoid becoming the permanent ten percenter his father was.

I am pretty sure he will be way above that 10% mark, but also have my doubts as to whether Sen. Paul can build a coalition big enough to get to the magic number of delegates needed. I suspect that extreme Right Christians are going to be upset that he never mentioned G-d in his speech, which is almost downright heresy in the GOP these days.

I stick by my argument from the Rand Paul speech thread that what he definitely can do, alongside Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and likely either Mike Huckabee and or Chris Christie, will be to amass enough delegates so as to ensure that NO candidate goes into the convention with a majority, resulting in a convention that will be decided sometime AFTER the 1st ballot.

They drop out when they run out of money.

 

[defcon4]

he's an offbeat guy that seems to stick to his guns instead of evolving (lying) his views.

and if he pisses off leftist, which he does, he's alright in my book

Oh, I find it refreshing that he sticks to his views and have no problem with that in the world. Whether on not he pisses off "leftists" is, however, irrelevant. He won't need votes from "leftists" to win the GOP nomination. He will need votes from within your party to win the nomination.

See how that works?

 

[Statistikhengst]

The establishment GOP had a brief fling with the sort of paleo-conservatism that the Pauls were in the forefront of;

that's gone. The neocons are back in all their idiotic splendor and Rand Paul is desperately compromising his principles to avoid becoming the permanent ten percenter his father was.

I am pretty sure he will be way above that 10% mark, but also have my doubts as to whether Sen. Paul can build a coalition big enough to get to the magic number of delegates needed. I suspect that extreme Right Christians are going to be upset that he never mentioned G-d in his speech, which is almost downright heresy in the GOP these days.

I stick by my argument from the Rand Paul speech thread that what he definitely can do, alongside Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and likely either Mike Huckabee and or Chris Christie, will be to amass enough delegates so as to ensure that NO candidate goes into the convention with a majority, resulting in a convention that will be decided sometime AFTER the 1st ballot.

They drop out when they run out of money.

I have no doubt that Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Ted Cruz will be able to find enough money to stay in the running until the Convention. And since more and more GOP states are moving away from WTA in many of the primaries and toward proportional delegation, Rand or Ted don't even have to place first in a number of contests in order to stay heavily in the running. This means that the states that ARE going to be WTA contests are going to be heavily fought for. Plus, I expect that Rand Paul will do well in a number of caucus states, including MT and the Dakotas. It's pretty sure that he will do very well in Kentucky and that could bleed over some into Ohio as well. The three New England states (ME, NH and VT) all have a more Libertarian tilt on the Republican side of things. Where I expect him to suffer will be in deep, deep, deep bible belt states aside from Kentucky, where a Ted Cruz or a Mike Huckabee will have the upper hand. Missouri has been a WTA contest and I bet it will stay that way.

My political gut, which sometimes can be wrong, but more often than not, is dead-on, tells me that Rand Paul has better chances than the establishment wants to admit and at the very least, he can lead to a hung convention.

The days of a GOP essentially locking this thing up after SC are pretty much over with.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

One thing he didn't point out in the section concerning Paul trying to run as an outsider is the irony inherent in the fact he is the son of a career politician seeking to extend a political dynasty.

That strikes me much as it would were Miley Cyrus to complain about the music industry star-making machine.

 

[defcon4]

I am pretty sure he will be way above that 10% mark, but also have my doubts as to whether Sen. Paul can build a coalition big enough to get to the magic number of delegates needed. I suspect that extreme Right Christians are going to be upset that he never mentioned G-d in his speech, which is almost downright heresy in the GOP these days.

I am quite sure he will not have the coalition necessary for the nomination. For the primaries we can expect what, maybe 9 or so candidates?
Bush has the establishment behind him with Rove's network already well established. You are quite right that he wouldn't have the "evangelicals" wooed either. Where does that leave him? As he said on Hannity last night he will have to reach out and build a new base but if the "new base" is not registered - in states where the primaries are exclusive to registered party constituents - he has a very slim chance to move toward nomination.

 

[defcon4]

could bleed over some into Ohio as well.

I suspect that Ohio would be Kasich-land.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The establishment GOP had a brief fling with the sort of paleo-conservatism that the Pauls were in the forefront of;

that's gone. The neocons are back in all their idiotic splendor and Rand Paul is desperately compromising his principles to avoid becoming the permanent ten percenter his father was.

I am pretty sure he will be way above that 10% mark, but also have my doubts as to whether Sen. Paul can build a coalition big enough to get to the magic number of delegates needed. I suspect that extreme Right Christians are going to be upset that he never mentioned G-d in his speech, which is almost downright heresy in the GOP these days.

I stick by my argument from the Rand Paul speech thread that what he definitely can do, alongside Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and likely either Mike Huckabee and or Chris Christie, will be to amass enough delegates so as to ensure that NO candidate goes into the convention with a majority, resulting in a convention that will be decided sometime AFTER the 1st ballot.

They drop out when they run out of money.

I have no doubt that Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Ted Cruz will be able to find enough money to stay in the running until the Convention. And since more and more GOP states are moving away from WTA in many of the primaries and toward proportional delegation, Rand or Ted don't even have to place first in a number of contests in order to stay heavily in the running. This means that the states that ARE going to be WTA contests are going to be heavily fought for. Plus, I expect that Rand Paul will do well in a number of caucus states, including MT and the Dakotas. It's pretty sure that he will do very well in Kentucky and that could bleed over some into Ohio as well. The three New England states (ME, NH and VT) all have a more Libertarian tilt on the Republican side of things. Where I expect him to suffer will be in deep, deep, deep bible belt states aside from Kentucky, where a Ted Cruz or a Mike Huckabee will have the upper hand. Missouri has been a WTA contest and I bet it will stay that way.

My political gut, which sometimes can be wrong, but more often than not, is dead-on, tells me that Rand Paul has better chances than the establishment wants to admit and at the very least, he can lead to a hung convention.

One thing he didn't point out in the section concerning Paul trying to run as an outsider is the irony inherent in the fact he is the son of a career politician seeking to extend a political dynasty.

That strikes me much as it would were Miley Cyrus to complain about the music industry star-making machine.

I was hoping that someone would bring this up.

It's not as if Rand Paul's rise on the national stage has happened in a vaccuum...

 

[defcon4]

One thing he didn't point out in the section concerning Paul trying to run as an outsider is the irony inherent in the fact he is the son of a career politician seeking to extend a political dynasty.

I do not think his reason is to seek establishing a political dynasty. He seems more sincere than that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

could bleed over some into Ohio as well.

I suspect that Ohio would be Kasich-land.

My gut tells me that Kasich is not going to run.

 

[Statistikhengst]

One thing he didn't point out in the section concerning Paul trying to run as an outsider is the irony inherent in the fact he is the son of a career politician seeking to extend a political dynasty.

I do not think his reason is to seek establishing a political dynasty. He seems more sincere than that.

I do agree with you about that. Rand is definitely different that his father.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I do agree with you about that. Rand is definitely different that his father.

.......yet he wouldn't even register on the political radar were it not for him.

 

[defcon4]

I do agree with you about that. Rand is definitely different that his father.

.......yet he wouldn't even register on the political radar were it not for him.

His father looked like a mumbling fool on previous presidential debates even if he has made a few valid arguments. Definitely not something what puts one on the radar unless we use a fool-detecting-radar.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Ron Paul is an extreme antisemite. Since Rand grew up steeped in such hatred, I can only hope that he is truly different than his father, but I suspect he is simply more adept at polishing his image.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Ron Paul is an extreme antisemite. Since Rand grew up steeped in such hatred, I can only hope that he is truly different than his father, but I suspect he is simply more adept at polishing his image.

Can't argue with you on the Ron Paul part. But I don't blame children for the screw-ups of their parents.