Posted on 01/20/2013 2:01:28 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
Sen. Rand Paul said on Sunday that he will make a decision on a 2016 presidential run within two years and plans to be a force in the refashioning the Republican party regardless of whether he seeks the Oval Office.
“We will continue to pursue and, you know, try to make that decision over the next two years or so,” the Kentucky Republican told WABC Radio’s Aaron Klein when asked about a potential White House bid.
In the meantime, Paul said, he will “try to be part of the national debate” and added that he hopes to play a major role in directing the future of the Republican Party.
Paul added that there are major areas of concern for the party, noting “we are not popular and we have not been competitive out in California, on the West Coast, or in New England.”
And his particular brand of conservatism could play well in those regions and with other voters who may not currently identify with the Republican Party, Paul said.
“So we think a little more of a libertarian Republican, someone who is a strict Constitutionalist, but also believes in a strong, defensive military but not necessarily in an overly aggressive or bellicose lets get involved in everybody’s civil war military, I think that has more appeal to independents and some people who have given up in the Republican Party,” Paul said.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Hi Ron, Thanks ;)
To me it’s much of a muchness. (Scuze me while I whip this out...
Example:
“WE” elect people. WE spent decades compromising and sending candidates to DC who are less than principled.
So by what right do we the electorate claim to be midffed when they do what decades of history PROVE we sent them there to do? Compromise everything.
On this very thread there are people advocating the GOP comp on social issues to ‘win’. Sometimes the disconnect is stunning. What do they win? They ‘win’ more compromise.
That is a historically documented fact. So where am I going with this? Simple.
If we want people to do X, then it stands to reason we have to want X. And when you have people straying as far off the raZ as they are and claiming the position to be conservative, I do not see how coexistence is possible.
We have to be unified. I totally agree. But the concept of what is and is not conservative isn’t some nebulous thing. It’s very simple. But people are determined to redefine it and bend it to their wants.
I do not see how we can compromise with people wanting the polar opposite of ‘conservative’ and still with a straight face call ourselves such. As Ronaldus Magnus said, a party can’t be all things to all people. Neither can a political philosophy.
Lot's of un answered questions on this case as far as I am concerned....and it doesn't help when you have to question the veracity of every new "fact" that gets released. I don't trust them as far as I can spit.
This is your proof????
More....
The bottom line is that is all we have here, is what the media says so we're left to pick and choose exactly what to believe. At this point, it's all hearsay, most of which is conflicting, and no hard evidence.
Do you also belive obama when he say unemplyment is low and we're in a recovery?
Please explain how asking for clear and truthful facts are PROMOTING a conspiracy.
So if I don't swallow everthing dear leader feeds me, I'm a nut.
Holdren, is that you?
You must not have been around here for very long to post that tripe. If you have, you don't read well.
“There will probably not be a presidential run in 2016. King Obama will probably be America’s first dictator by then. Don’t see anything stopping him now, including the GOP. Wake up America.”
My sentiments exactly.
The bottom line is that is all we have here, is what the media says so we're left to pick and choose exactly what to believe. At this point, it's all hearsay, most of which is conflicting, and no hard evidence.
This is just not true. It's BS. What you are saying here is absolute nonsense. You are not stuck trying to pick and chose what to believe. You are not left relying on only media reports. There are police reports, coroner reports, etc. Initial media coverage is always sketchy, but the facts become pretty clear over time. We know who the shooter is, we know what weapons he used, we know how many people he killed, etc.
Please explain how asking for clear and truthful facts are PROMOTING a conspiracy.
The facts are already out there. There is no confusion here. We know what happened in Sandy Hook. What are you having trouble understanding? You're questioning of the "official" story is no different than 9-11 truthers doing the same. And when called on it, the typical 9-11 truther replies the same as you do.
So by what right do we the electorate claim to be midffed when they do what decades of history PROVE we sent them there to do? Compromise everything.
I believe it was Ayn Rand who said the existence of the Republican party was only to slow the inevitable slide to the left...she was wholly correct in that view.
World history has shown that man has been slave to Government or men in power, this Country, once an exception, is merely sliding back to what has been normal.
People like you and I will not go peacefully, we will die free men.
May God Bless us all.
Screw your self, I do hope FReepers here do take the time to read my history....I'll be waiting.
Couldn't resist tossing in some Alinsky, could ya!
“we will die free men.”
In the end, that’s the best we can hope for.
I would encourage you to study the ten principles of conservatism.
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/ It does require a thinking cap...................
So you don’t care that California would be issuing gay spousal visas for the US? I do. It’s a huge issue and its one of the reasons why this issue cannot be left to the states.
“You must not have been around here for very long to post that tripe. If you have, you don’t read well.”
And still batting 1.000.
“I’m afraid running on social issues is weak at best and a loser at worst”
Hello Mitt Romney! Glad to have you on Free Republic!
““I’m afraid running on social issues is weak at best and a loser at worst””
I want anyone on this thread to explain to me two things.
1: How that is reconcilable with ‘conservatism”
2: How implementation of it is not closer to leftism than conservative thought.
It is the very essence of why we are fractured. It is 50 shades of wrong.
A good read for us all indeed.
I don’t either. And this is the problem. We’ve got too many ‘conservatives’, who simply aren’t so.
Haha! Good luck with that buddy. In case you havent noticed, the country just re-elected a Marxist President, so I’m actually glad it’s a state issue so he can’t impose California Marxism on everyone.
*sigh*
100 percent clueless. No, it’s not a state issue. It’s a federal issue.
And you're a n00b who is here to define what a Conservative is?
What is YOUR definition?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.