Rand Paul Has Something to Bring to 2016, But Be Wary

Senator Rand Paul is the second Republican to announce his official run for the 2016 presidential nomination. He brings some strengths to the race, and some glaring weaknesses.

On the positive side of the ledger, he has emphasized outreach to members of minority groups, especially black Americans. Paul can be an appealing politician with a knack for political theater, so he has had some success in front of unfavorable audiences. Such efforts are necessary to broaden the party’s appeal, and other candidates would do well to emulate Paul’s work (if not his chummy pow-wow with racial provocateur Al Sharpton).

The Kentucky senator has also shown some appetite for policy entrepreneurship. His efforts on criminal-justice issues — reforming mandatory-minimum sentencing, for instance, and reconsidering capricious civil-asset-forfeiture policies — have been mostly admirable. Republicans, including a likely 2016 contender, Rick Perry, have been working on these issues on the state level for some time, but Paul deserves credit for leading on federal policy.

That said, it is unlikely, to say the least, that black and Latino voters aren’t Republican because the party is insufficiently libertarian. The same could be said of the electorate as a whole. Paul’s attempt to win new Republican voters by appealing to libertarians is inherently limited. There simply are not many libertarian voters, and that is not about to change any time soon.

What should concern voters most about a Paul candidacy are his foreign-policy views. Even as he has scrambled to assure Americans that he cares about a muscular defense, his history of conspiratorial statements, his associations with his father’s extremism, and his own unwise votes betray more-irresponsible views. He repeatedly distorts the nature of the NSA surveillance program, and is to President Obama’s left on it.

I am so sick of this "outreach" BS.

First, it IS true that basic common sense campaigning will net Republicans SOME votes in any community. The disgraced Aaron Shock may have spent too much money, but as a state legislator he ran in a 55% Dem district with 40% blacks and won reelection in a landslide. How did he do it? He went to every union hall and black church and said, "I know you may not agree with me on a lot of issues, but here is where I stand, and I will so whatever I can to improve our community for all of us."

2) There are millions of "blue-dog/black-dog/brown-dog" Democrats who are, yes, appalled at Zero. But they need to be shown clearly BY THE CANDIDATE what Zero is doing wrong, and then---most important of all---know that the candidate is rock solid and unwavering. That was Reagan's secret. Dennis Miller, a liberal at the time, in a comedy show in the 1980s said "I may not agree with his policies, but I know exactly where he stands, and I couldn't say that of Jimmy Carter."

3) Conditions will force many Dems to accept reality. Not most, but plenty enough to win. But those conditions MUST be tied specifically to ZEro and generally to Dems. Romney refused to do that. McCain refused to do that. It is a winning position. So far, Cruz has done that. Paul has done a little of that, but as soon as you say---as Paul did---that "both parties are responsible for the growth of government", even if true, you have totally lost the message. Everyone knows that an "outsider" conservative has no chance in functioning as president, and even people here on FR know that to repeal Obamacare we need a House and Senate as well as a President. All comments like "both sides do it" results in is giving Dems ammo.

I think it's possible to criticize GOP incumbents for not doing enough to stop Obamacare, as Cruz has, without getting into the "both parties do it" stuff, which is death for us.

who the same Paul who said this on his I’m going to run speech.

” I see an America where criminal justice is applied equally and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.”

The same Paul who was asked by Hannity on immigration, abortion, homosexuality, religious freedom and never gave a straight answer, but infact tried to appease both sides.

Paul you are done and while the media yesterday asked you questions which they would not ask Dems you came across as uncomfortable and rude because they stated the truth to you and you don’t want the voters to hear it.

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.