Posted on 04/26/2014 4:48:16 AM PDT by Diogenesis
Rand Paul calls for Republican shakeup
- ‘Evolve, adapt or die’
(after meeting Team Romney yesterday)
"National Republicans — still smarting from Democratic
drubbings in the last two presidential contests
— face a stark scenario of “evolve, adapt or die”
as they plot their next campaign to take back
the Oval Office in 2016, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky
told the Herald yesterday in an exclusive interview.
Paul ... said the Republican Party has to rewrite
its standard platform to woo minorities
into a broad coalition that can win national races.
A Tea Party favorite and a former ophthalmologist,
Paul hasn’t been entirely welcomed by his colleagues,
who have blasted him for what they see
as an isolationist stance on national security
and a hands-off approach to the war on drugs.
Added Paul with a smile, “I think debate is healthy.
I prefer it if they don’t call me names.
I hate to be called names.”
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
That's it, huh? 'Winning' over principles and sovereignty.
Frankly, his idea of 'winning' is the same as Charlie Sheen's 'winning.'
That whole nebulous expression is just code for 'Amnesty'.
Sounds like Paul wants a mini-Democrat party. You can’t out-promise the Socialists, you silly man.
Good-bye, Rand.
They still think they can get liberals to like them if they just act more like them. In reality, the only thing they see is the (R).
All true.
On the other hand...
Rand Paul is the least insane politician that the Libertarian Party (by virtue of its goals) is capable of producing.
Effe Ru Paul. Another nut from the insanity tree.
Dear Rand Paul,
If you try to stand for everything, you stand for nothing.
Bryan24
(Note - I am a conservative voter who will NOT vote for any more non-conservative candidates. You recent statements on winning elections by winning broad coalitions tells me that you are not conservative.)
This is SO MUCH like 2012 it’s scary.
In 2012 you had a precession of kooks that popped up, made fools of themselves, and then went away, until only one person was standing - Romney - who then figured he could COAST TO VICTORY on the basis of his first debate with Obama.
It sucked. I LOVED Cain, but it was obvious to me that he not only did he not follow the necessary issues to become presidential material, he didn’t even following current events. Sorry, but you don’t win by doing that.
Then Perry, who figured he could say “Texas Miracle” until he was blue in the face, and then coast into office. I hated him (being here in Texas) because he sabotaged just about every conservative goal (with help from suck-ups in our legislature), including Voter ID, securing the border, etc. Eventually he couldn’t hide it either - national politics was of NO INTEREST to him for his entire life up til then, and one doesn’t learn national politics from scratch in 6 months. Cannot be done - as once you scratch the surface, it was clear that he was clueless.
So now Rand pops up, TOTALLY CONNECTS with “the youth” on drones and privacy, manages to vote against Amnesty in the Senate (but he did waiver, big time), and looked more sane than his father. All that was left was to pull in the Republican base and he had a CLEAR SHOT right into the oval office.
...BUT NO, not good enough for him. He has to TRANSFORM the Republican Party first. Get us off of our pedestal of thinking that sex with animals is NOT ok, or that abortion is something other than a beautiful event, or that a STONED society is a productive one ready to take on China and Russia. No, we have to come around to his SICK libertarian views these issues.
So we’ll end up with Jeb or some other loser - he will get the usual business money, and he will, again, lose “the good fight”. And if we’re lucky, we’ll still have some power in Congress so that Hillary can kick us around like a battered wife.
When the GOP won 5 of 7 election cycles from 1980 through 2004 did we see the Democrats panic with dire warnings that they have to “evolve, adapt or die”?
When the Rats lose an election, they never, ever give up one iota of their leftist principals. The GOP “leaders” on the other hand, trip all over themselves, compromising ALL of their principals, and never get any credit for it by the lap dog media.
So is the gop going to “evolve” a method for matching Democrat vote fraud with vote fraud of its own?
Rand sounds more like an Obama spokesman...
Good point. If the dems continue to cheat in elections it will make no difference about what the GOP might stand for.
“Rand sounds more like an Obama spokesman...”
Apologist - no different.
“So now Rand pops up, TOTALLY CONNECTS with “the youth” on drones and privacy, manages to vote against Amnesty in the Senate (but he did waiver, big time), and looked more sane than his father. All that was left was to pull in the Republican base and he had a CLEAR SHOT right into the oval office.”
Why doesn’t Ted Cruz take up that mantle? Today, minorities need to be in the tent. A candidate can no longer win as a “white bread” candidate.
I would LOVE a broad coalition of supporters. . .AND, because conservative principles, by their very nature, apply to ALL humanity. . .a broad-base coalition should emerge in of itself.
Rather than trying to divide people into groups and then attempt to out-pander the Dums, we should, with TRUTH, appeal to all. All humans, no matter how corrupted, still possess a moral conscience and a rational mind. All humans have the potential, when confronted with the light, to be persuaded and change. That should be our single objective. That is the power of Conservatism. . .we should use it!
“If the dems continue to cheat in elections it will make no difference about what the GOP might stand for.”
Once the knuckle-dragging morons in the GOPe help bring in an additional 20 million or so Leftist voters through Amnesty there will no longer be a need for Democrats to cheat in national elections.
Should we be praising pro-Amnesty Republicans for their bold initiative to eliminate voter fraud?
Any possibility “evolving” might include returning to conservative values?
Probably not.
Any possibility “evolving” might include returning to conservative values?
Probably not.
*******************************************************************
Rand’s “evolve” is equal to the DimocRATs’ (and RINOS’) “progress”-—meaning move away from the principles of our Constitutional Republic.
Paul meets with Romney....
Paul wants to shake up GOP after meeting with Romney......
Romney wants conservatives out of GOP.....
Paul it is becoming clear needs.....well - good bye
Go “lecture” somebody else, Rand. Your condescension is disgusting. You’re an arrogant man who set out to lead the world from the get-go. I’ll never vote for you. You do not speak for me.
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.