Skip to comments.Rand Paul is the 2016 candidate Republicans need. Too bad they won't admit it.
Posted on 04/07/2015 8:49:00 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
en. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was first out of the gate in the 2016 presidential horse race, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is the underdog everyone suddenly seems to be rooting for. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) is still probably the odds-on favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination, with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker not too far behind.
But this is the only prediction I'm comfortable making: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is announcing his candidacy in Louisville today, won't be America's next president.
That's not because the 52-year-old freshman senator from Kentucky wouldn't make a formidable candidate; it's because he won't get the chance. Republicans won't nominate him as their 2016 standard-bearer luckily for Democrats.
Paul isn't necessarily a natural candidate he can be a little unflatteringly churlish with the news media, a candidate's gateway to voters but he doesn't come across as phony, and campaigning is a skill candidates can and do acquire on the trail. His campaign theme will be the aggressively populist couplet "Defeat the Washington machine. Unleash the American Dream":
Dr. Rand Paul
Join with us to defeat the Washington machine & unleash the American dream>> http://randpaul.com
7:28 AM - 6 Apr 2015
Paul's teaser video gets a little messianic near the end, but the quotes he includes from various pundits seem pretty accurate: He is the most interesting candidate in the race, he is a "different kind of Republican," he does take some unpopular and principled stands, and he would appeal to more young and minority voters than the typical Republican candidate.
In his pre-announcement buildup, Paul touts himself as someone who "can beat Hillary Clinton" and "will broaden the reach of the Republican Party." That second part may be true. Paul ventures out of the GOP comfort zone to address black audiences, hipsters, the technorati, and other demographics not traditionally associated with the Republican Party, and he addresses substantive issues like prison sentencing reform, voting rights for felons, and curbing drone warfare that won't win him any Tea Party straw polls.
Perhaps most appealingly, Paul is a relative dove in a party that is increasingly returning to its hawkish posture after a brief flirtation with military restraint. On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) dropped a superfluous dig at Paul in a critique of the Obama administration's framework nuclear deal with Iran: "I think everybody on our side except maybe Rand Paul could do better." But here's the thing: A sizable majority of Americans support an Iran deal, as The Week's William Falk points out.
Paul isn't anywhere close to being a Democrat, and he throws out his share of red meat, but he seems to understand that the issues that Republican activists and conservative media outlets fixate on don't resonate outside of the roughly third of the country having those conversations. He backs President Obama's Cuba rapprochement, for example, and he uses a Teleprompter, because it is a useful tool for reading speeches in public and not one Obama was the first to make use of.
The same things that make Paul potentially attractive to independents and certain left-leaning constituencies, though, make him suspect to the only voters that can make him the GOP presidential candidate.
As hard as he's worked to build bridges to the GOP establishment he all but has the endorsement of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for instance lots of Republicans still associate Paul with the more heterodox views of his father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). On the other hand, Paul's concessions to his party's establishment and base don't sit well with the motivated group of libertarian conservatives who made Ron Paul a force to be reckoned with in the 2008 and 2012 GOP primaries.
Then there's the political culture of the Republican Party, which hasn't shown much appetite to put new or untested faces on the top of its presidential tickets: Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon. The only outlier there is Ford, a congressman who happened into being the incumbent in 1976. The last real risk the GOP took was Barry Goldwater in 1964, and he lost in a landslide.
Rand Paul will have money to compete, and he will have a grassroots network to tap into, but he won't win the 2016 Republican nomination. Hillary Clinton, or the Democrats' Candidate X, should count her blessings.
If the media love him then he is no different than McShamey.
I stand with Ted
As much as I like Cruz, I prefer Rand. The other GOP candidates don’t understand that US is bankrupt and they all still want to maintain a large military force. US can not afford it. Military need to be cut 50%, across the board cuts everywhere is needed
When I see this it brings the hackles up on my neck ... fear that which the left praises.
The priority should be to eliminate federal spending on poor people and education - not cutting the military.
There is no 4 or 5 for me yet.
“Military” spending is anything but spending on the actual fighting force.
The amount of your tax dollars that go to fund the mansions in Northern VA for contractors..
Good idea, what with Russia, China, Iran, ISIS, Boko Haram, al Qaeda, Yemen, Libya, Iraq and everything else going ballistic and all. Can we cut programs, waste and more? Sure. But hasn’t Mr. Obama weakened us enough?
I still think we need to cut military. e.g Cut 90-100% other spending, but military still need to be cut 50%
The greatest threat to US are not those countries but the debt.
Randy just screams winner.
Paul is a loose cannon who needs to be jetisoned.
3. Stay home.
Personally I just don’t see why the Republican Party needs a loosertarian as a candidate, they have their own damn party, but for some reason the Republicans are supposed to let democrats and libertarians run on their ticket.
Lets cut the unconstitutional crap first. The military should be last to be cut.
Republicans don’t go for immaculation like the Democrats do - Rand will have the opportunity to make his case to the voters.
I don’t need him.
Cruz or Lose!
The isolationism of Rand Paul would leave first Israel then us at the mercy of a nuclear Iran, who has vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and chants, "Death to America!"
I'm of the same line of thinking as Bibi Netanyahu, "When your enemy tells you they are going to kill you, believe them!"
If you think a nuclear attack from one of those countries/groups or a super 9/11 isn’t going to happen, I don’t know what to tell you.
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.