Paul: Romney run 'definition of insanity' (Bush, Dole, McCain, Romney)

thehill.com ^ | 1/14/15 | Jesse Byrnes

[cotton1706]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a likely 2016 presidential contender, took a shot Wednesday at a possible rival, saying it was "the definition of insanity" for Mitt Romney to launch a third White House bid.

"It’s sort of what Einstein said, that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result,” Paul told the New Hampshire Journal.

“A couple of months ago he said that he’d had his chance and it was time for somebody new. He was probably right when he said that," Paul added. "I think we do need somebody and something new."

Paul made the comments while on a trip to the early voting state of New Hampshire to talk with local leaders.

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and the 2012 GOP nominee, is telling Republicans he is serious about another White House bid. According to reports, he is working the phones with potential donors, past aides and lawmakers.

GOP lawmakers, though, have shown little enthusiasm for a third Romney run.

Earlier this week, Paul said that while he liked Romney personally, "that's yesterday's news, he's tried twice."

Paul, who announced his pick of a campaign manager on Tuesday, has said he will officially decide on a presidential bid by March or April.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) has also said he is weighing a run.

Paul told the Journal on Wednesday that Romney and Bush “occupy the same space and are competing somewhat for the same voters — people who want something that is safe, something that is sort of historical."

"But even people who are looking for ‘safe’ realize that ‘safe’ hasn’t won in the past," Paul said.

[Verginius Rufus]

Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush all were elected on their second try.

In the modern era it's rare for a defeated candidate to be nominated again--Thomas Dewey, Adlai Stevenson and Richard Nixon are the only cases that come to mind.

[2ndDivisionVet]

[ansel12]

“Rand Paul To Campaign for Romney”
The younger Paul said he is working out the logistics of appearing at campaign events for Romney between now and November.

“Rand Paul to steer clear of Mississippi runoff”

“Rand Paul: It’s a ‘misnomer’ to say McConnell isn’t conservative”

“Rand Paul To Campaign for Romney”

March, 2013—”Rand Paul endorses Mitch McConnell in 2014 Senate race, won’t back tea party challenge”

[ansel12]

In 1988, Rand Paul was campaigning for the libertarians.

[Sans-Culotte]

Romney wants to eclipse Humphrey and Stevenson as the losingest presidential candidate of all time.

[GeronL]

lol

[x]

Did Rand not know many times Ron Paul ran for president?

Or is this really some not-so-subtle Oedipal dig at dad's mental condition?

And is Romney really going to run for president?

He sets up an exploratory commission, talks to donors, gives speeches long enough to convince Chris Christie that the big contribution money is tied up by Bush and Romney.

Then he lets the campaign sputter out, endorses Bush, has a lot of money to spread around to other candidates, and, if Bush wins, he's in the cabinet. Sounds like the sort of prank Mitt would enjoy.

[TBP]

Yes, but we want Etch A Sketch to run to split up Jebbie’s vote.

[TBP]

What about Harold Stassen and Eugene V. Debs?

[Mastador1]

I guess that applied to his daddy too when he ran

[Verginius Rufus]

I just saw a map of the 1912 election, county by county. Debs actually carried several counties.

[Verginius Rufus]

Rand’s daddy or Mitt’s daddy?

[Finny]

i.e. the problem is the electorate.

You were right the first time: the problem is the "moderate" left candidates will lose based on their beliefs. The electorate will snub them.

i.e., the solution is the electorate.

That is, given elections where photo ID is required, legal citizen status is required, and dead votes, vote ginning, harvesting votes from old folks homes and living facilities for the mentally challenged, and other fraudulent or ginned fake "electorate" factors are weeded out. Then I do believe indeed, the electorate would vote in the solution.

In fact, it's almost certainly true, otherwise the left wouldn't have to cheat.

[Finny]

Forgot to add -- the solution is the electorate, providing they have a candidate to vote for who has the right beliefs. As you noted, the problem is that candidates like Romney, Bush, Dole, McCain, will lose based on their beliefs.

We need a candidate that will win based on his beliefs -- a candidate that the electorate will endorse.

[trebb]

And between himself and his Dad, he knows insanity...

[cuban leaf]

I’m with you, except under the current rules, the problem is the electorate. Some analyst said, after Obama won in 2012, that if we had had the demographics back in the day that we had in 2012, Dukakis would have won.

This epiphany I had regarding the electorate is why I bought my property in central KY two weeks before the 2008 election and moved there from my 45 year home of Seattle in 2011.

It’s only a matter of time...and it’s more obvious than ever. Hence my tag line.

[Finny]

Some analyst said, after Obama won in 2012, that if we had had the demographics back in the day that we had in 2012, Dukakis would have won.

Carl Rove spoke a lie when he said: "Demography is destiny." Human nature and history prove him wrong. Regardless of the race, sophistication, or income of a group of people, if they are merciful and moral, if they honor their parents and honor life, their destiny looks good. If they are amoral or immoral, if they are cruel and murdering and envious, if they hold their parents and human life cheap, then their destiny is quite settled: they will eventually destroy themselves. Look at America today: to blame its decay on demography is wrong; it is happening because of bad morality.

Demography is pretense. Demography is pretense that politicians use to lump individuals into groups and then manipulate them. MORALITY is destiny.

cubanleaf, I read fast and I read a lot. I have read literally tens of thousands of comments by average apolitical Americans who take the time to spout their opinion anonymously on the comment boards at MSM news sites such as the LA Times, Salon magazine, Yahoo, etc. etc. etc. I know for a certain fact that THEIR numbers speak loudly and clearly: very nearly two to one, real on-the-ground Americans resent and loathe in this order: what they call "liberals," (that is the word most commonly used), Obama, and the bias of the mainstream media.

People have been assuring me that the US or the state of California "will not survive" this or that leftist president or governor since Jimmy Carter. Well, so far, California has survived Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown twice! {^)

My own eyes assure me that the MSM speaks only for itself and a minority of real Americans; my logic tells me that the left (even the Republican left ala Mississippi and Cochran) has to CHEAT for a reason. It has to cheat to put leftists in political power because most Americans despise "liberals." The MSM makes it look like there are enough Americans who support liberalism, but the reality is that liberals have to cheat because in fact, only a minority of actual Americans support liberalism.

God bless you and keep you and yours safe and well in Kentucky -- I've heard that it's beautiful country! As for Seattle ... meh!! {^)

[cuban leaf]

I used to be a commercial real estate agent. We would often offer demographic reports to buyers or potential lessees. I see demographics as including culture and “morals”.

That’s the problem with the US.

And I finally saw a perfect analogy for a point I’ve been trying to succinctly make for decades: Liberals saying that this or that cultural change (18 year olds voting, homosexual marriage, etc.) aying, “see, everything’s fine. It won’t hurt us.”:

It’s like a 24 year old smoker saying, “see, I’ve been smoking 10 years and I didn’t get lung cancer. I have nothing to worry about.”

[Finny]

I see demographics as including culture and “morals”.

Yep, most people do, including Rove. But the truth is that morality is entirely dependent on the individual. Every demographic has moral folks, amoral folks, and immoral folks. It's always has been that way and always will be that way. It's the way God works.

My tagline is a quote from the Bible. The Good Book doesn't say "our" feet or "our" path. Morality is one on one.

Liberals saying that this or that cultural change (18 year olds voting, homosexual marriage, etc.) aying, “see, everything’s fine. It won’t hurt us.”:

I look at it this way: God says envy, pride, sloth, lust, lying, homosexuality, and adultery are bad things. People say, "I disagree and look, I cheated on my wife but she doesn't even know and everything is fine; my daughter is envious of her neighbor and it inspired her to get a job where she makes more money, so everything is fine, breaking those arbitrary rules set by God won't hurt us."

But God's laws are like gravity: there and in operation whether we like it or not. The guy who cheats on his wife, the girl who is jealous of another girl because that other girl has more -- they create their own strife and ugliness. Ignoring God's laws is a bad idea. Demography has zero to do with it.

It's like a grown-up telling a little kid she can't have candy for breakfast. The little kid thinks the grownup is just being arbitrary or mean, just like people today think God is being arbitrary or mean when he says shun homosexuality and shun envy, they're bad for you. But God knows what He's doing and history proves that societies that defy God's simple moral laws, SUFFER and cause STRIVE. History proves that societies that strive to honor God's simple moral laws, prosper and thrive. Western Civilization is slave-free solely because of Christian morality. Morality is destiny. Demography is ... pretense. I stand by that truth.