HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Rand Paul: The next and l...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu May 2, 2013, 10:28 AM

Rand Paul: The next and last GOP nominee?

If the Kentucky senator is the Republican Party's standard bearer in 2016, it is not inconceivable that he could destroy the party.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is for real. He currently leads the Republican field in the 2016 New Hampshire presidential primary, and places a close second among Republican voters nationally. It's still very, very early to be making 2016 predictions, but it's undeniable that Paul is a real contender.

And yet... there's no getting around the fact that Paul holds views that are anathema to many other Republicans, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

For instance, in a major foreign policy address to the Heritage Foundation, Paul touted "a foreign policy that is reluctant" and "restrained by Constitutional checks and balances." He claimed that "Western occupation fans the flames of radical Islam," a view derided as "blaming America" by some conservatives. In July 2011, Paul wrote a New York Times op-ed with two Democratic senators calling for full withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2012. He has even characterized aid to Israel as "welfare."

http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-next-last-gop-nominee-074500728.html

Sounds like a plan to me.

6 replies, 960 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rand Paul: The next and last GOP nominee? (Original post)
Zorro May 2013 OP
KennedyBrothers May 2013 #1
Fortinbras Armstrong May 2013 #6
Cosmocat May 2013 #2
Rosa Luxemburg May 2013 #5
struggle4progress May 2013 #3
DFW May 2013 #4

Response to Zorro (Original post)

Fri May 3, 2013, 01:15 AM

1. Rand Paul might bolt...

... to the Libertarian Party if his star has fallen by 2015. Even if he doesn't run for president, he has to face Kentucky voters again in 2016. If it looks like he's going to lose, he might pull a Gary Johnson and go all-out Libertarian in 2016. Methinks he would do at least a little better than Johnson did. But it probably won't matter...Hillary Clinton will likely be the next POTUS if she stays healthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KennedyBrothers (Reply #1)

Sat May 4, 2013, 01:53 PM

6. His father left the Libertarian Party

Because he realized that he had zero chance of being elected as the Libertarian candidate. He said as much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Fri May 3, 2013, 07:49 AM

2. He will make a course correction

on the foreign policy issues as it approaches.

He knows the game ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmocat (Reply #2)

Sat May 4, 2013, 12:29 PM

5. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Fri May 3, 2013, 04:09 PM

3. I can't imagine Paul becoming the GOP nominee. The party prefers people with

solid establishment credentials and ability to draw big donations

Eisenhower, of course, was the nominee in 1952 because, after a long military career, he had been Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe, a position that required real political skill and that gave him instant name recognition; moreover, he was a genuine Republican by the standards of the time. Eisenhower's vice-president Nixon had been in politics for a decade and a half by 1960, having gained name recognition by red-baiting during the McCarthy era; and Nixon knew how to use whatever political powers he had to help his financial backers; so he was a natural choice for the party in 1960. The 1964 nominee Goldwater had similarly been in politics for a decade and a half by 1964, including over a decade in the Senate; he had a solid business background, and he was willing to change position for political gain, as in the case of his sudden opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where he unexpected discovered that states rights were more important than interracial equality. The party nominated Nixon again in 1968 and 1972. Ford, the 1972 GOP choice after Nixon's fall, had been in Congress more than 25 years before replacing Agnew as vice-president. Reagan, the nominee in 1980 and 1984, had a career as an actor and then a career as GE spokesman, and had impeccable conservative credentials after two terms as California governor. Reagan's vice-president Bush I had been a two term Representative, UN ambassador, RNC chair, and CIA director before becoming the 1988 and 1992 nominee. Dole, the party's choice in 1996, had served in the Senate nearly thirty years. Bush II, the 2000 and 2004 nominee, had served two terms as governor of Texas and (more importantly) had all the advantages of Bush I's wealth and political connections. McCain, the 2008 candidate, had gained political attention after his release by the Vietnamese in 1973; by 2008, he had served in Congress for a quarter of a century. The GOP's 2012 choice Romney had an enormously successful business career, leading to other successes, such as leadership positions in the LDS and in the 2002 Winter Olympics, followed by a term as Utah governor

Paul is a libertarian anti-tax ideologue, who was first elected to public office in 2010. Conservatives will like his anti-tax stance, but conservative big business folk will greatly dislike the fact that he is a libertarian ideologue: they really want a President who will dance "with them that brung him to the party" -- a rule that Nixon and Reagan (say) understood very well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Sat May 4, 2013, 06:52 AM

4. There will never be a "last" GOP nominee, nor an end to the GOP

As long as there is big money that thinks the way to hold on to their money is by absolute power, there will be a GOP. As long as they are willing to abide by a voting process to attain that power, they will buy big media to preach the reasons why they need to be in power. As long as there are elections that are not complete shams, this means big fear and big God, and THAT means a big GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread