Posted on 04/08/2015 9:23:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Yesterday was Rand Paul’s big day as the Kentucky senator announcement his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. Like any baseball team on opening day, in theory his chances are as good as any other candidate, and given the expected crowded field competing for the nod, that’s still true. But though his Louisville announcement bash went smoothly, what followed hasn’t gone quite as well. Some of that is due to Paul’s personality turning media appearances sour. But just as important is the way the basic contradiction in his campaign strategy is undermining his chances almost from the start. Though Paul has money, an ardent cadre of supporters, and a rationale for his quest, it’s hard to imagine a path to victory for him. While his rival Ted Cruz’s launch seems to have validated the notion that he is being underestimated by pundits, Paul’s start may be proof that those who see him as a lock to be a first-tier primary candidate next winter and spring are the ones who are making a mistake.
What’s fascinating about these two launches is the way both candidates have gone against the stereotype about their personalities and styles. Cruz is viewed as a bomb-throwing, extremist agitator, yet he came off in the usual round of interviews on the news and broadcast channels as being thoughtful and soft-spoken even as he remained unyielding about his conservative views. By contrast Paul, whose reputation is of being a low-key intellectual, showed a brittle nature as he responded to questions about flip-flopping with anger and condescension toward media figures. Granted, nobody on the right will blame Paul for tearing into Today’s Savannah Guthrie, but it struck a contrast to the supposedly off-balance Cruz’s patience when subjected to similar sorts of questions.
Though GOP voters tend to sympathize with their leaders when they are under attack from the media, voters tend not to like presidential candidates who can’t keep their cool. For Paul to unravel so quickly with the glow of his announcement still on him doesn’t bode well for how he will hold up in the long haul through primary season.
But the problem with the flip-flopping charge goes deeper than Paul’s thin skin.
The reason he’s upset about being questioned about the way he has gradually drifted a bit to the center on foreign policy and security issues is that he knows that his formerly rigid libertarian views are out of step with his party and the general public. Paul’s instinctive antagonism toward security measures and a robust U.S. defense seemed to reflect the post-Iraq/Afghanistan wars mood of the country in early 2013 when he gained attention with a well executed Senate filibuster about the use of drone attacks. But with ISIS on the march and the key issue of the day being President Obama’s appeasement of Iran, his attempt to square the circle on these points falls flat.
The contradictions were evident even in his announcement speech, as at one point he pledged to “do whatever it takes” to defeat terrorism but then returned to more familiar rhetoric a few moments later as he lambasted some of the security measures that give law enforcement the ability to stop the terrorists.
Just as important, the looming problem for Paul is that his basic foreign-policy approach still has its roots in the extremism of his father, former Rep. Ron Paul. It is true that, as the candidate says, he shouldn’t be held accountable for his father’s views (a good thing since it is hard to imagine the elder Paul staying silent during the campaign) and that he disagrees with him on some issues. But try as he might to demonstrate distance from the White House on all issues, it’s still obvious that he is running for a Republican nomination while espousing views that are actually largely to the left of those of President Obama on foreign policy.
That was always true of Ron Paul, but a vignette on MSNBC yesterday demonstrated just how comfortable the denizens of that left-wing cul de sac are with the Kentucky senator’s approach to foreign policy. Paul’s announcement and the attacks that are being launched against him by conservative opponents of his foreign-policy views prompted the channel’s Chris Matthews to launch into an impressive rant about how the candidate is more reflective of the views of most of the country than his GOP opponents. But instead of leaving it at that, Matthews insisted that the attempt by “neocons and piggish money” that want to fight more wars for Israel to oppose Paul speaks well for the candidate. Matthews stopped just short of overt anti-Semitism, though his line about “cloth coat Republicans” (a nod to Richard Nixon’s “checkers speech”?) that send their kids to war while the neocons don’t seemed an obvious and inaccurate shot at supporters of Israel.
Paul isn’t responsible for what crackpots on the ultra-left MSNBC say about him, but what is significant is that a candidate that can draw sympathy from that sector is poorly placed to win mainstream support among Republicans. Considering that some of his father’s hard-core backers are becoming disillusioned with Rand’s apostasies about foreign aid and defense spending, there just aren’t enough libertarians to help Paul win. Tea Partiers have other choices with Cruz and Scott Walker. Nor is he well placed to compete for conservative Christian voters.
That adds up to a steep hill for him to climb. Though no one with this much name recognition and the ability to raise money can be written off on day one of his candidacy, the limitations to his appeal are actually greater than those of the supposedly more extreme Cruz. MSNBC’s favorite Republican may not be as much of a lock to be a first-tier primary candidate as some pundits think.
Rand could run as a Democrat. Sharpton can be his VP. El Jebbie could run as one, too.
Rand is a loose cannon. Cruz is the real deal.
Paul is not presidential material.
He is exploiting the fame of his father.
That’s why he should run as a Democrat. They love loose cannons.
SPOT ON !
Don’t care for Rand Paul as a candidate, but I have no problem with him giving it back to Savannah Guthrie and the smarmy MSM. Republicans got to stop being on the defensive and shove it back into the faces of these Democratic lapdog media types.
I thought their favorite “Republican” was Jeb Bush.
Agreed, but as loony and out there as Rand Paul may be, he’s still far better than Hillary Rodham-Nixon, Fauxahontas, Uncle Joe, Algore, Martin O’Clueless, or any other fill in the blank lefty on the Democratic side. It’s good the GOP has a diverse group of candidates. It’s a strong bench compared to the Democrats.
If Rand is the nominee, I would gladly vote for him because if nothing else, he will definitely shake things up. Not that I would agree with a lot of what he does, but then I again, with the exception of Cruz, I wouldn’t agree with much of the rest of them, neither.
Stumbling right out of the gate is no way to win the Tripple Crown.
Rand Paul losing his cool today on national TV ( his supporters saying while cheering him on, supposedly sticking it to the media , but ? He is really thinned skinned and condensending ) and losing support of some of his supporters does not bode him well...
In contrast Ted Cruz is cool headed and patient.
LoL my brother says that Rand Paul reminds him of a white Obama in his arrogance, thin skinned, condensending.
I think I heard Meygn Kelly say that Rand Paul is not ready for prime time.
That’s the way I look at it too. The only Republican I can honestly say I wouldn’t vote for is Jeb or is it Jose Bush? Tired of that family and their politics.
A Nappy headed condensending pimp.
You right, gave back to the media what they trow at Republicans, and Ted Cruz will do it with class and a smile on his face.
Rand Paul came off like a spoiled rotten child stompping his feet....
Whatever. I’m no Rand Paul supporter but I’m glad he didn’t take any crap from Savannah Guthrie. The Republicans have to decide one of two things. They either don’t appear on any of these cable or network talk shows, or if they do they shouldn’t let themselves be on the defensive, and hit back. I guarantee there are a good many Americans who want to see the MSM get smacked around too.
/johnny
No doubt. Ted will do it with class. I’m just tired of our side appearing blindsided when they appear on these shows. They know it’s coming but they generally seem flustered and doing the media’s bidding. I still like what Rand did. I agree with you. He’s a loose cannon but he didn’t take their crap. That should be a lesson to all of these candidates, but you’re right it has to be done with class and not with anger.
Megyn Kelly thought she would pile on tonight also. I can’t stand the sight of her but we had the TV on and she was talking at Rand Paul. She is so full of herself I could vomit.
We need our guys to get in the MSM face a bit. Otherwise its just the same old ambush everytime. Newt never played their game. I admired him for it. Trey Gowdy does not suffer fools either.
He wouldn't be the first to do that, but Rand tries to play the game. Ron did not.
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.