FURP!
I like Rand. I’m in!
Provided we have an identifiable America by then).
His legacy, fittingly, is one of failure.
Ron Paul betrayed his supporters by not endorsing Mitt Romney more enthusiastically as the GOP nominee.
These young mushy-headed yoots will be burdened most by the Obama legacy.
I’d prefer a son of Paul to run than a son (or a brother) of Bush!
>>>>”Youth voters will be critical to our future and I think trying to embrace Ron Paul’s legacy will help the Republicans stay relevant with the young voters. “
What legacy is that?
And here on FR, too.
I’m ready to listen to him. From what I’ve heard of him he makes a lot of sense.
I’m ready to listen to him. From what I’ve heard of him he makes a lot of sense.
provided he can keep from making inane comments that damage him politically, I might be game for Rand to run.
However, it is way too soon to throw him out there. The more time the MSM has to write about him, the more likely he is to become damaged goods.
The GOP-e has failed miserabley in the last two election cycles since they kicked the Libertarians off the bus. Gone are hundreds of thousands of mostly young voters that would be for small government and more personal responsibility.
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is".
RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975
NO, and NEVER.
Libertarians have always had two problems: marketing and cohesive leadership. They like to squabble about what brand of libertarian they are instead of finding common ground. They don’t market themselves well because since everything is so logical to them, they think it should be the same with everyone else. Your average dingbat voter things Libertarians espouse anarchy for example.
There are alot of very intelligent, effective libertarians in the world (Richard Epstein, Sowell, Gilespie, etc.) as well as libertarian organizations who need to seriously organize themselves and work together. Work out a platform they can all agree with. Market the hell out of it and get a *palatable* leader, like Rand Paul.
Ron Paul had absolutely nothing to do with Guiliani's collapse -- you can thank the much-maligned Fred Thompson for that. When Thompson joined the race, he slowly but steadily ate up the polling gap to Guiliani, which shattered the "unbeatable" myth and eventually led to a far more critical evaluation, and then discarding, of Guiliani as a serious candidate.
That fact that the author takes the correlation of Guiliani's poor performances and Paul's decent, but by no means threatening to actually win anything of consequence, showing is yet more Paulbot desperation to appear relevant.
as long as he doesn’t run as a republican.
Ron Paul finds too much common ground with “progressives.” He would join them in cutting out what progressives hate (the military) and get nothing in return. He’d pull the rug from under Isarel, but that will be accomplished in Obama’s second term. Ron Paul is easily manipulated by amoral and ravishing radical libertarians.
Rand seems more on top of things and more anti-police state/anti-left. Obama’s building a militarized KGB that will have to be ditiched the next election. We’ll have to see.