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 ...
I can honestly say that at this point, I don’t give a rat’s ass what people in California do. If they were to start imprisoning gun owners in concentration camps tomorrow, I’d shrug and move on with my life. Anyone stupid enough to live there deserves everything that’s coming to them. Eff ‘em.
I’m ready to accept the fact that nothing happens in a vacuum.
I’m also ready to accept the fact that Palin will probably never win a national election because people calling themselves ‘conservative’ make every excuse under the sun as to why voting for someone they agree with and whose issues they support 90% of the time is a bad idea because ‘just cuz’; but voting for a man who supports abortion with is own money and gun control through legislation is a brilliant winning conservative strategy.
I am willing to accept these things because the last election proved both to be true.
Strict constitutionalism.
Any other position I could list goes back to that one issue. Pro life, Pro freedom, Pro capitalism, Pro defense. Pro Gun, all of them.
It solves all ills.
Oh, but maybe she's saving herself for 2016 when the country is REALLY in the toilet, which doesn't exactly speak to her statesmanship.
Obama is PUNISHMENT to America...
America will throw the bums out WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN punished ENOUGH..
But..... Americas masochism is still going strong..
America needs to be hurt really really BADLY..
Lady Liberty is raped daily.. and she still LOVES IT..
Stockholm something or other I think..
Sure. You going to cling to the stories that she wasn’t hamstrung by her own party, silenced and lied about to satanic levels, also by her own party and the MSM?
I’d say she didn’t run because many conservatives proved themselves less trustworthy than the average liberal to stick to conservative beliefs and watch her back. See above for why.
And still do. See this thread for why.
Ron Paul also gets massive crowds. So did Ralph Nader when he was on one of his runs for President. In 1972 McGovern got massive crowds. Romney was probably getting bigger crowds than Obama this election cycle. The list goes on. Crowd size can be a signal of intensity, but not whether a person or movement has broad support.
That indicates the MSM polls and spin are just that. Spin.
No, it doesn't. The polls, particularly at the state level, proved highly accurate this past election. They are only getting better, which is why jerks like Nate Silver turned out to be correct in their predictions.
Is she REALLY unpopular? If people agree with/share her views/policies, are they all really so shallow as to dismiss her as a candidate?
Yes, she isn't very popular. Most conservative analysts know she couldn't win a general election at this point. Palin seems to have opted to be a celebrity analyst making lots of money from Fox News and assorted speaking gigs. Not a thing wrong with that.
If that’s true then we are a bunch of morons that deserve whatever the GOP throws out there.
Palin had a perfect opportunity to run in 2012 and, rather predictably, chose not to. The field will likely be stronger next time out. From the moment she quit her job as governor she's made the kind of choices that are not indicative of someone planning a national run for office.
Which are, specifically ... let's see, abortion. That's one on my list. It should be illegal, and by that, I mean it should go to the states, pre Roe v. Wade. The only reason we have Roe v Wade is because the Federal government presumed a moral role for free people -- in the Fed's eyes, it was immoral to deprive a woman of the opportunity to have an abortion. Social conservatives, please heed: the less government, the more morally people can live, and the less government, the easier and more self-interested it is for each person to live morally. The answer to many social ills lies in DUMPING government policy. So Cons are too tempted to want to replace it with their own version of control and largess in social engineering.
In fact, the Federal government oversteps and fowls things up in amazingly countless ways. Believe it or not, it's why L.A. has so many useless, expensive carpool lanes. And what, pray tell, does the Federal government have to do with sports figures like Lance Armstrong? Yet the Federal government presumes to take a roll in laying down the moral rules for America's sports heroes. Ludicrous presumption.
Not that I think you think it's one of the right's "social issues." Tell me, please, what are they?
Et tu, Brute?
How about the GOP powers-that-be adapt themselves to the conservatives for a change?
Leni
Then explain something for me. If her support is so narrow, why has the GOP and MSM spent years and tens of millions of dollars trying to prove it?
That is a completely asinine thing for people to do. Why marginalize an already unsupported and widely disliked/unelectable person?
Answer that logically.
Whatever chump. You can get all teary eyed over a politician if you want. A lot of us have outgrown that.
More sign that a new party is needed to replace the GOP. Bury it.
LOL....right.
You stated it was on Rand's FB page, yet you chose to quote Politico, Why not Rand him self?
Who is getting teary eyed? Chump?
Why is it that you PDS types always have to resort to this BS when reality doesn’t fit your carefully molded fantasy? Yup. A lot of people outgrew it. They voted for the gun grabbing abortion backer. Good solid conservatism. Yup.
Name one, liar.
Stick to defending obama, you might get away with it, accusing me of pushing conspiracy theories I'll call you out as a liar.
Put up or shut up fool.
Because they can marginalized a whole party by identifying them with an unpopular person; that's the obvious answer. Seems pretty simple, just like how we tried to get Howard Dean nominated in 2004.
Look at the crap I’m getting on this thread stating solid conservative ideas Finny. If that isn’t a sign of the rot in the political right, I don’t know what would be.
So just say it. Winning at any cost is all that matters. Not principle. Not facts. Not truth. Not what we believe. Just winning.
Say it. Don’t hide that fact. Admit what you believe.
So, you didn’t vote for Romney against? Good call there, chump.
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.