Why Hasn't Rand Paul Inherited His Father's Success?

National Public Radio ^ | December 1, 2015 | Sarah McCammon

[orthodoxjew]

simple answer. Rand does not carry his fathers policies.

[faithhopecharity]

we had great hopes for Rand but he sounds just about as naive or dangerous about defense and foreign policy matters... as his Daddy did

these fellows can make some very good sense on a number of other issues, but we cannot afford to turn our defense over to their weird POV, imho

[bigbob]

I like a lot of what both of them say but they whore out to the GOP to get elected. Rand should drop the R, and if he can’t win as a libertarian (which is what he is) then go back to eye-doctoring.

[ronnietherocket3]

He wants to go from nobody to president in 6 years; he is unwilling to sit in the Senate and constantly fight. He is like my generation, constantly thinks everything will go his way if he just gets this one last promotion.

I really wish people were willing to stick in the Senate/House for a couple of decades rather than jockey for the presidency.

[Fungi]

His father is a wako and so is he ... ‘nuff said.
Ditto with an apostrophe added. :)

[FerociousRabbit]

I like Rand. I like anyone that actually tries to constrain government. He and Cruz are the only two running that have actually done something in that regard. Of the two, I like Cruz more. Quite a bit more, actually.

But Rand... he goes off the reservation once in a while (which is a big reason he is going nowhere with his father’s base). I don’t agree with him all the time but all in all he is okay.

Carson is a flake. Trump is right on one issue and is liberal on most everything else. Rubio is open borders and wants big brother spying on us for our own good (as do most of the candidates).

Cruz and Paul are close on most issues and are the only two that know what the Constitution is. Cruz is electable. Paul is not.

[This_far]

Why has national public radio (comparable perhaps to a fireside chat at one time), been replaced with the equivalent of a communist/socialist Zune.

[goodnesswins]

Huh.
.WHAT success?

[X-spurt]

Four years ago, libertarians were an important force in the Republican presidential race.

Like to admit it or not, not unlike Ross Perot, RonPaul and the libertarians helped give us nobama2 on steroids and the shock of reality may have actually woke them up to the reality of anarchy.

[zeestephen]

As I recall, Rand's fall from grace began when he expressed carefully worded support for some of William Snowden’s political goals.

Cruz briefly followed Rand's lead on that issue, but Cruz then immediately walked away from it when he realized that many Conservatives were enraged by Snowden’s actions.

A year ago I would have voted for Rand Paul if he was the GOP nominee.

But today, no.

Rand is “soft” on almost every issue I care about the most - crime, national defense, intelligence gathering, the defense of Israel, and massive legal and illegal immigration.

[marktwain]

Because Liberterians are only celebrated by the media when they can be used as a tool to defeat Conservatives.

[Yosemitest]

He supported AMNESTY !

[Gaffer]

Actually this is the kind of thinking one could expect to get from NPR. Inherit success? Really?

[rrrod]

This is satire right?

[trebb]

Rand fell too close to the tree.

He occasionally talked a bit more conservative and sane, but I respect his father more than I do him - at least his father didn't go all over the spectrum - you knew exactly who and what you were dealing with...

[9YearLurker]

Bernie’s giving the college kids their grandpa fix.

[Hawthorn]

>> He wants to go from nobody to president in 6 years; he is unwilling to sit in the Senate and constantly fight. He is like my generation, constantly thinks everything will go his way if he just gets this one last promotion <<

Who are you talking about? Obama? Cruz? Rubio?

[Hawthorn]

>> Rand fell too close to the tree <<

Or maybe he fell OUT of a tree and whacked his head on a hard object.

[BillyBoy]

>> I'd also point out that the workings of the U.S. Senate are very different than the House. It's much easier to be a principled conservative in the House because gerrymandered districts are easier to defend as a candidate. This is how you end up with some of the most conservative House members representing districts in some very "blue" states. <<

Shhhh... a major talking point of anti-17thers on FR is to claim that there's "no difference" between the House and the Senate since the 17th amendment passed, and "we might as well abolish the Senate" if they don't get their way and change it back to politicians appointing Senators for us.

Shame on you for using facts to demonstrate otherwise. ;-)

[sickoflibs]

RE:” I'd also point out that the workings of the U.S. Senate are very different than the House. It's much easier to be a principled conservative in the House because gerrymandered districts are easier to defend as a candidate. This is how you end up with some of the most conservative House members representing districts in some very “blue” states. <<
........
Shhhh... a major talking point of anti-17thers on FR is to claim that there's “no difference” between the House and the Senate since the 17th amendment passed, and “we might as well abolish the Senate” if they don't get their way and change it back to politicians appointing Senators for us.
Shame on you for using facts to demonstrate otherwise. ;-)”

There are way more differences than that, but that is a relevant one.

Its also easier to be a left-wing nut-ball in the house with the smaller districts.

The governor picking Senator's idea might look attractive to Republicans because the GOP has been doing well recently in state governor's elections, but not was well in Senate elections.