Posted on 03/26/2014 5:37:47 PM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
Rand Paul is the most intriguing — and for Democrats, perhaps the most frightening — figure in today’s Republican Party. The Kentucky senator, who is more than flirting with a 2016 presidential run, is making a smart play for the millennial generation that was key to President Obama’s twin victories and that his own party has convincingly repelled.
Paul’s unlikely pilgrimage to the progressive precincts of the University of California at Berkeley offered the most convincing evidence so far that he is serious about carving out this (sorry, President Clinton) third way space — and a demonstration of his potential appeal to this lost demographic, more attuned to personality than party.
Watch the video of Paul at Berkeley the other day, and you think: This guy doesn’t even look like a Republican, with his jeans and cowboy boots, his tie-but-no-jacket look, his mop-in-need-of-cutting coiffure. Mitt Romney tried to rock those jeans, but no 20-something — no 30-something, actually — looked at his Brylcreemed hair and thought: I want to hang out with this guy.
More important, listen to the substance, and it is difficult to detect much Republican in Paul’s remarks. Indeed, his cross-brand pitch was explicit, and exquisitely attuned to the you’re-not-the-boss-of-me ethos of the younger generation. “Now you may be a Republican or a Democrat or a Libertarian,” Paul began his speech. “I’m not here to tell you what to be.”
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtonpost.com ...
” IF he wants to run for POTUS...he should do it as a Libertarian and stop messing up the GOP.”
I think the primary marketplace can sort through the candidates just fine.
Uh oh. I can’t see myself getting behind anyone who is being lauded by WaPo.
Push the social liberal, same old same old
I recall watching his NAACP event. It was a polite response from the audience, more or less a thank you for your appearance. The UC Berkeley ovation was much longer and much more enthusiastic. Rand genuinely won over that audience.
Much more important...I don’t think you will ever catch Rand talking about the 47%. Or that rape does not result in pregnancy. Or not knowing about the Bush doctrine. Rand will not lose votes of anti-mormon bigots.
I do not agree with all his positions and proposals. As a legal immigrant, I am especially opposed to placing illegals ahead of those waiting in line legally. But I usually favor smart, politically astute, thoughtful, candidates who look good on TV and can get votes from many spectrums of voters. I favor those who IMO have best chance to win.
...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
Rand Paul On Shutdown: “Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3093108/posts
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
I get it, Paul’s standing ovation from some college kids was better than Romney’s standing ovation from the national NAACP which represent a huge swath of our nation, it’s blacks.
You didn’t even take a moment to apologize for making such a false claim as you did, you just went straight into your next argument.
Rand has already come out for gay marriage and changing the GOP party platform to drop the social issues.
Here it is only March of 2014 and you have already decided that our only hope is the increasingly anti-conservative, Rand Paul in late 2016.
He supports the H.R.1091 - Life at Conception Act
Also...
Sen. Rand Paul: President Obama should explain to the Pope why he’s pushing HHS mandate
Romney may have received a polite standing ovation for showing up. But he never won the black vote. That NAACP ovation was hollow and meaningless. I am willing to bet as 2016 nominee Rand will receive 100% more black votes than nominee Romney received in 2012.
Ditto with youth vote.
Ditto with Hispanic votes.
Romney is a great businessman, but not an astute politician.
Like I have posted before I would love to see Cruz or Palin elected president. But they will be vilified mercilessly by MSM. Because the left is genuinely afraid of them. I don’t think Palin has shown any signs she will run in 2016. Cruz is a distant maybe. But if he runs and wins the nomination, I will support him. But my brain tells me he will not win many crossover votes ala Reagan and lose in general to Hillary.
Right now I see Rand Paul winning the most crossover votes.
Right now Paul is declaring war on the conservative base, once one becomes a liberal and anti-conservative, we don’t want them to win do we?
Why would we prefer a candidate who is running against us, long before the campaign even starts?
Because WINNING must come first.
Rand Paul has never said “I am for gay marriage”
What he really said is to stay away from divisive social issues such as gay marriage before the election.
Rand Paul never said “Let us give 100% immediate amnesty to illegals just like Ronald Reagan signed on to”.
What he really said is we must deal with the illegal immigrants in a rational method.
Rand Paul is pro-life, for smaller government, a strong military, against foreign nation building, against getting involved in foreign wars when US security is not threatened,
for balanced budget amendment, which do not sound like liberal agenda.
Most important, from what I have observed, he is least likely to make political blunders or look uninformed on any important issue. You betcha he knows about the Bush doctrine, and he has never talked about the 47% or pregnancy being impossible during a rape.
Correct, the translation is "Hillary can beat him".
It’s Ran Paul’s campaign, and it was him who just came out for gay marriage by accepting it and to change the GOP into a social liberal party, to quit opposing the left on social issues.
You keep wanting to insult Palin with a fake insult to boost your man, another sign of how he appeals to liberals.
Who knows why you keep bringing up a Senate candidate named Aiken, but you seem to think it is important.
Paul has bad judgement, is uninformed, and is making a huge blunder, in making moving the GOP left, his political goal.
“I think the primary marketplace can sort through the candidates just fine.”
No it cannot. That is why we keep getting bad candidates that are not conservatives. Wackadoodles like the Pauls help mess up the primaries. Paul IS NOT a Republican, he is a Libertarian. He should stay out of the GOP primary and run as an independent Libertarian in the general election.
“No it cannot. That is why we keep getting bad candidates that are not conservatives. Wackadoodles like the Pauls help mess up the primaries. Paul IS NOT a Republican, he is a Libertarian. He should stay out of the GOP primary and run as an independent Libertarian in the general election.”
No, FRiend. As Mittens said in his interview, the mainstream RINOs told him they basically had to “steal the primary”. They did.
“Paul IS NOT a Republican, he is a Libertarian.”
A distinction with no practical effect. Are RINOs republicans? Are tea party members republicans? are conservatives republicans? are some pro abortion voters republican? are some prolife voters republicans? What is a republican? We’ve had candidates who won the republican primary who were RINOs and did not support the “republican platform”. That Rand disagrees on some points seems normal. However, he is a step up from Dole, McCain, RINOmney.
I welcome him to the primary season. He has a chance to make his case in the marketplace of ideas. Hopefully, it will challenge all to quit mouthing the words and actually stand for something. The last thing we need is another mynah bird primary with Reagan imitators, who stand for nothing.
Full Disclosure: I was a registered republican for more than 25 years. After McLame, I switched to independent. I am now a Free Range Conservative. I’m off the plantation and they have to work for my vote.
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.