Posted on 04/03/2015 5:24:03 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
U.S. Senator Rand Paul is running for president … in fact, he announces his candidacy next week in Louisville, Kentucky. From there he travels to early voting Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina – including a big fundraiser in the Palmetto State the day after he announces.
As we write this, money is being collected. Speeches are being vetted.
He’s 100 percent in … and not only that, Paul is one of the few candidates in the race with (we believe) a path to victory. And one of the few candidates (we believe) to be worthy of real consideration.
Is he perfect? No. In fact we’ve blistered him in the past for being too cozy with the establishment at times. But when it comes down to the bread and butter issues that pro-freedom, pro-free market voters want to see addressed, Paul and fellow U.S. Senator Ted Cruz are head and shoulders above the rest of the “Republican” field.
In fact it’s not even close …
Anyway … why are we writing a story about Rand Paul being “in?” Doesn’t everybody already know that?
Yes … well … sort of.
You have to remember, though, we write from a home base in South Carolina – a banana republic known for its thick drawls and thicker skulls. Down here things have a tendency to get, um, “mixed up” pretty easily.
Wanna see what we mean? Check out this recent exchange between a presidential candidate and a South Carolina voter (one who actually used to be a school teacher, believe it or not).
Yeah …
Anyway, exploiting this confederacy of ding-battedness is a perpetual stream of misinformation – particularly political misinformation. It’s all geared toward the whole “you can fool some of the people some of the time” construct … and in South Carolina, the pool of fools is deeper than it is anywhere else in America.
For real …
Enter the “Rand Paul isn’t running” social media campaign … which has been blowing up our Facebook and Twitter feed for the past week. It’s also been blowing up our email and text message “matrixes,” which were flooded with messages from political activists (and a few elected officials) seeking clarification as to Paul’s 2016 status.
The buzz reached a level earlier this week where we felt compelled to reach out to Paul’s people … who confirmed his imminent presidential announcement was a “go.” In fact one Paul supporter told FITS the “Rand isn’t running” chatter was being deliberately ginned up by Cruz supporters.
“It’s a suppression effort,” the source said, referring to the campaign as a “weak and transparent bid to pick up commitments.”
In addition to definitively stating that Paul was not running, these posts often included links back to prior news stories in which Paul offered qualified statements regarding his political future.
One of these stories? A four-month old post by Politico reporter Katie Glueck in which Paul said he wouldn’t run for president – unless he thought he could win.
“It’s ingenious, really,” one digital operative familiar with such campaigns told FITS. “Anyone with half a brain who clicks on the article (will see) what he said – and (will see) when he said it. But the context they are given before they click – if they even click – is what sets the table. That and a lot of people just forward the false narrative around without bothering to click.”
Indeed …
Over the weekend, FITS had two prominent Upstate, South Carolina political activists contact us asking if Paul was running. The next day – March 31 – a pair of Upstate lawmakers reached out to us asking if the rumor was true.
The misinformation worked, in other words … at least to a limited degree.
Obviously Paul will announce next week – putting the matter to bed. But did the “Rand isn’t running” rumor cost him a local endorsement or two? Or cause a fundraiser to hold off on stroking a check? Or get certain activists lined up behind another candidate?
If so … it worked.
Yes, and your point being?
Huh? I posted the point.
Cruz is a rebel and a conservative, Paul is establishment and libertarian.
Paul was big for Romney and McDonnell, and left Cochran alone, and is trying to move the party base to the left.
That’s not much of a point, then. Paul is a loser, a horse’s ass, and is not electable. We (most of us anyway) know this.
The point is that perhaps he can prove useful to another candidate as a stalking horse.
Why think “strategically”?
Why not think what feels good?
Are’nt we now living in a feel good era?
As for Rand Paul, he may be able to bring some starry eyed youngsters in, but for that to happen he has to be on the ticket. And chances of that happening are smaller than me beating Tiger Woods in Golf.
Ted Cruz. Accept no substitute.
If he could bring the voters he appeals to and successfully hand them off to someone without his negatives, it’s all good.
That is my point.
Thank you.
I don’t want to see Paul on the Republican ticket in any capacity and I certainly don’t want to see him split the republican ticket.
I view Rand Paul, not as a Republican even though that is the party his is affiliated with, but as a pure Libertarian and this allows him to connect with Democrats. He is in fact someone that can bridge the gap between the socialist zombies and my candidate, Ted Cruz.
As I stated before, Paul can go into the gutter and move an enormous number of voters away from ever voting for a democrat again. He can deconstruct the democrat voters mindset and basically wake them up, and then endorse Cruz.
It is my contention that in order for Cruz to win the general election we need to win over a huge number of former 0bama voters. Rand Paul can do this without being on the ticket.
Therefore, politically, I see Paul as being very useful.
You sound like a troll if you like to antagonize, you need to avoid doing that, and please don’t lie about me like you just did.
You are a libertarian and so my conservatism sets you off, in this case you have gotten very nasty about my opposing Paul, a man who I supported for the Senate, and still do, but not his running for president and moving the party left, as you desire.
Let’s see, you have accused me of supporting gay marriage, gays in the military, abortion etc...
You’ve accused my of being a Libertarian.
Called me a troll.
Accused me of being a Rand Paul supporter.
All of which are completely untrue.
My attempt to advance the concept of how Conservatives can win over democrat zombies and actually win the next election by using Rand Paul as a bridge between the two extremes in ideology seems something that you are unable to understand.
Your attempt to advance Rand Paul is what we are in disagreement about.
I oppose Rand Paul, and I oppose his libertarian efforts to move the party left, and I oppose your supporting his efforts, and I am displeased that you get on threads to antagonize people as you admit, which is trolling.
You are a libertarian, and here you are, defending Rand Paul’s candidacy.
“I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues,” Paul advised. “The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.”
You seem to have a mental block somewhere.
That is why I only attempt to antagonize you. Which seems to be working.
I am not promoting Rand Paul for anything other than his ability to breakdown democrats.
He doesn’t need to be on the republican ticket to do this.
Do you realize that is trolling, and that it is against FR guidelines?
Anyone who is interested on how you do the libertarian scam of Cruz! Cruz!, but work for Paul, can just look through this thread linked below.
Zeneta ""I would vote for Ted Cruz in a heartbeat, but I think Rand Paul has a better chance at winning.""
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3150072/posts?q=1&;page=51
Listen, if you have the time to go “Quote mining” for the opportunity to take things out of context from a year ago, then have at it.
I’ll let the Admins and my fellow Freepers decide if I’m a troll.
Best of luck.
You openly admitted that you post to antagonize people, which all forums condemn, and which is the definition of trolling.
Here is another Paul thread people can look at to see you at work for Paul, and in this case attacking Ronald Reagan as “” responsible for much of what has become of the entire abortion industry.””
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3149352/posts?page=40#40
Here is yet another Paul thread with you going after Reagan. “BTW, as much as I love Reagan, he had a lot to do with advancing the Abortion business while Governor of CA.” while telling us -—”Rand Paul actually connects with people.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3135865/posts?page=59#59
So, if I use Reagan’s own words that HE used to express HIS regrets on abortion, that is somehow an attack on Reagan?
Sadly, you display absolutely no capacity to understand things in there proper context.
You haven’t done that, you didn’t quote Reagan regretting signing a bill in 1967, and the context when you bring up Reagan is in promoting Paul.
What you HAVE done is push Rand Paul by trying to tear down Reagan and repeatedly attempt to turn him into a creator of the abortion industry.
Ronald Reagan as “” responsible for much of what has become of the entire abortion industry.””
“BTW, as much as I love Reagan, he had a lot to do with advancing the Abortion business while Governor of CA.” while telling us -—”Rand Paul actually connects with people.”
You are literally Clueless.
Best of Luck.
I won’t even mention anything about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Nope, won’t even mention that.
As a furriner, I don’t have a vote; and I certainly don’t know as much about the candidates as most of the political junkies that haunt this forum. However, those of us in TROTW (the rest of the world) have a big stake in who sits in the Oval Office. Given the record of the current occupant; I’m not sure TROTW can survive another Democrat in the throne room. Do what you must — but, please consider the alternatives. I can’t imagine any Republican being worse than just about any Democrat choice.
I work hard to politically destroy liberal republicans and will NEVER vote for one. I won't vote for a liberal. It sounds like you would have no problem voting for a liberal, as long as it was a liberal republican.
You be concerned and try to torpedo real conservatives. Everyone sees that for what it is these days. People that vote are very angry with liberal republicans.
/johnny
B.S. Cruz need only to not lose the conservative base. And the best way to do that is not use 'conventional wisdom' that has failed so badly in the last few elections.
/johnny
If a liberal Republican is left of a conservative Democrat — then I take your point. However, if a liberal Republican is running against a liberal Democrat — then, which is the lesser of two evils?
Your specious argument that there are shades of evil is meaningless except to other cowards.
If you vote for a liberal you are a liberal. Even if the liberal is a republican.
Trying to convince conservatives to vote for a liberal republican is evil. And liberal. Now is the time to rally around the conservative that is actually running, instead of trying to sell lesser evils.
/johnny
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.