Posted on 03/23/2015 7:21:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., on Monday is expected to announce he's running for president. However well he ends up doing in the Republican primaries, one thing is for sure — the development is terrible news for Sen. Rand Paul's presidential ambitions.
Whatever small chance Paul had in the 2016 presidential race was premised on his ability to reach beyond the core supporters of his father's, by articulating a message that appealed to a broader coalition of Republicans. The biggest opportunity Paul had for growth was with Tea Party voters who would be drawn to his limited government message. The biggest obstacle he had was foreign policy views that are also out of step with many of those voters.
In an ideal world for Paul, he'd try to find a way to assuage the concerns of national security-oriented conservative voters without totally alienating his core supporters. And one way to do that was attack the other candidates for being insufficiently committed to limited government principles. That already difficult task becomes effectively impossible with Cruz in the race.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...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]
Rand Paul's immigration speech...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.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, 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]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]
Rand had little chance anyway...
As it should be.
The Paulbots will find a way to keep Rand in as a 3rd party candidate and ensure a Democrat victory.
Rand Paul decided some time ago that he would rather be friends with Mitch and pals than represent the citizens. He jumped on board the Cheap Labor Express and wants to accomodatepeople who broke into the country and abandon the rule of law.
Not voting for any more cheap labor importers. Period.
The more conservatives who jump in, the better for Jeb IMHO.
No matter HOW this falls out, Rand Paul AIN’T the guy!
The minute he sold out to McConnell told us all we need to know about Rand Paul. George W. Bush with quirkiness. No thanks!
I’ll be glad when the Paulinistas are no longer a factor in national politics.
Or, if by some unlikely chance Paul does win the nomination, the anti Paul bots will stay home and ensure another democrat victory.
The only way I’d ever vote for Rand Paul is if he ran third party.
It is bad news for Rand Paul, but perhaps not terminal. I’m not a Rand Paul supporter, but I expect that he will remain in the race longer than most think. There are some stumbling blocks for Cruz in trying to draw votes from both the social conservative wing and the libertarian wing. There are some issues that are simply mutually exclusive.
How Cruz finesses that will be interesting. If he plays down or abandons his social values, he will lose votes from the social conservatives. If he plays them up too much, he will lose votes from the libertarians.
I suspect that Cruz is more of a social conservative than a libertarian and that will show in the primaries. The result will be a continuing niche for Rand Paul. Just my opinion.
He’s only there to bleed off votes and discourage turnout.
If it came down to Jeb vs Hillary or Rand Paul as a third party candidate, I might consider him as the lesser of evils.
Maybe he should change his name to RINO Paul
I agree, and this election is going to be a test of maturity for both wings. They came together to support Ronald Reagan, back when everyone realized that reining in government was the only issue that mattered. Now that out-of-control government is an even bigger problem than in 1980, it is imperative that both wings get behind the candidate best able to tackle it.
The Romney/McConnell, supporting Rand Paul doesn’t stand a chance, so your scenario will never arise.
Actually the best election results the libertarians have ever had in history, was when they tried to defeat Reagan in 1980.
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.