Correct. It would not be close.

 

I tend to agree, and it's another example of how our country is becoming more and more idiotic with every passing year.

Either of you care to actually explain why he won't win?

 

The media will paint him as some whacko tea party guy, and the majority of Americans, being as idiotic as they are, will believe them.

Rand Paul has the luxury of being able to take his absolutist positions because all he can do is talk. If he was in a position to do anything he would either move off of his absolutist positions or he would be a disaster. Congress passed the war powers act as an means to reign in Presidential war making power. When a CIC takes action in keeping with the war powers act he is not outside the constitution. Much like his father (though far less likable), Rand Paul can sit out there as a gadfly and make interesting arguments, but in the end, he is just playing with himself, with the same results.

 

So, all the non-intervention talk back in the early 2000s, the anti-war protests, the talk of not wanting to police the world, not wanting to nation build..... The left and those that vilified Bush for being a war criminal, taking us to war with a country who didn't attack us, capturing the leader, installing a democracy, and keeping us over there...the left was simply afforded a luxury? So Bush was in the right?

The media will paint him as some whacko tea party guy, and the majority of Americans, being as idiotic as they are, will believe them.

 

I expect them to paint him as that, but it won't hold him back. His ideas have huge support from young people. Paul is one of the few Republicans popular in the New England area, and gets an array of support from the libertarian, anti-war wing of the party, which is growing. He'll fare well with independents, just like his father. Two years is a long time. To dismiss him altogether is ignorant, as a few have.

Either of you care to actually explain why he won't win?

 

Public perception. You are trying to IMPROVE your image as a party, to do so you don't trot out the tea partier.

Public perception. You are trying to IMPROVE your image as a party, to do so you don't trot out the tea partier.

 

If you wouldn't mind, tell me what it means to be a tea partier?

 

I couldn't agree with you more about improving the party and making the public perception of the party more appealing. What do you want? You want to put up another candidate like John McCain? Mitt Romney? Our pary has tried the moderate route. It failed. Twice. And in the midst of it all they have abandoned most of their small government principles.

 

What people love the most about Republicans is their 'committment' to fiscal conservatism. Small government starts with the monetary policy -- the less they can spend, the smaller they will have to be. Ronald Reagan said "...the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism," Karl Rove even admits libertarianism “has always been the most attractive gateway” for Republicans to seduce young voters. “My sense is that economic libertarianism is the most durable part of the GOP platform,”

 

So in order to make your party better and improve the image, you need to capitalize on what makes you so popular, and you need to stick to your guns. People like Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush didn't do this. They would ''sacrifice free market principles, to save the free market system." Whatever the hell that means. Regular people don't want their tax money to go save Goldman Sachs, Chase, AIG, ect. They don't like the 20 trillion dollar debt we are in. They hate the fact that our government spends way above its means, and have no accountibility when it expects the citizens that fund them to pay their bills or face legal action. The only way to ensure that it doesn't is strict fiscal policy. There is a select few Senators that has been dedicated to this endeavor. Rand Paul is one of them. He has voted against his own party on the fiscal deal, voted against sending foreign aid to pakistan, voted against pork that was in the 'emergency funding for sandy relief," voted agaisnt every appropiations bill that has not been balanced. That isn't appealing to fiscal conservatives?

 

 

Lets talk about foreign policy. The GOP's foreign policy could arguably be the single biggest detriment to our party. For the entire first part of the century, and now for most of my life, we have been in war. There is no debate that the biggest factor to haunt President Bush's presidency was him getting us involved in two wars. It was his greatest enemy, and since the GOP went along, it was theirs as well. Its what allowed Nancy Pelosi to become the first women speaker. During Bush's presidency, the left and independents were dying for a republican who would budge a little on foreign policy, on cutting military, and one who did not want to be the police man of the world. If one had did this ten years ago, he would of been called a compromiser and not a 'tea party extremeist.' Rand Paul has went against his party, including hawks like McCain, Lindsay Graham, Rubio, McConnell, and so on. I fail to see where he isn't appealing?

 

Rand Paul offers new ideas, as well as getting back to the ideas of jeffersonian republicans. All of them center around a small government that lives within its means, and ensures every individuals natural rights are protected. You can't expect us to keep doing what we're doing, not sticking to principles, and expect us to win. You have to accept new ideas to appeal to the West Coast, to appeal to New England, to appeal to the bigger cities, you have to appeal to women voters, you have to appeal to blacks, to hispanics, to the youth.

 

In the 2012 GOP race, there was one candidate who did well among these groups that the GOP doesn't do so well with. That would be Ron Paul. I don't care what you think of him, his ideas and message of liberty,fiscal sanity, end to the wars, registered with a lot of people. Rand has the same ideas, for the most part. If you want to improve your image, you should listen and watch the people who actually are.

Correct. It would not be close.

 

Still waiting.

McCain lost because of Palin and Romney lost because of his mouth and his inability to appeal to women. To me, it's really that cut and dry. I assure many others probably do not see it that way. I didn't have time to sit around all day/night and read media outlet after media outlet, or scrutinize ever story or detail about each candidate that came up this past election.

 

I feel that if Rand Paul runs for President the Republican party is doing nothing to better themselves or their image. The tea party is accusing McConnell of being too moderate for crying out loud! If the Republicans want a realistic shot come 2016 they need either Rubio or Christie out there. Are you THAT out of touch with reality that you think becoming MORE conservative will help you next election when its readily apparent that the nation is becoming more liberal? If so then I personally fear for the republican party.

 

IMO a Republican NEEDS to win this next election to offset some far left policies that are coming with Obama's tenure. It will forever be a push and pull for power, but right now the Democrats are pushing there way through and the Republicans are not offering much resistance.

I think that Rand Paul is far too extreme to appeal to the majority in a national election. His appeal is to the fringes, and Kentucky has a lot of people on the fringe, apparently. Bobby Jindal has a lot of really great comments from today's Republican Winter meeting in Charlotte about not giving up the principles of the Republican platform, but how to go about choosing candidates to run that will appeal to the majority. As an Independent, there's no way in hell I'd vote for Rand Paul. His committment to the Tea Party agenda is too firm and too complete. Ron Paul had, if not more moderate views, a way of presenting his views far more moderately, which is why I feel Independents may have been drawn to him. Rand Paul is not his daddy

McCain lost because of Palin and Romney lost because of his mouth and his inability to appeal to women. To me, it's really that cut and dry. I assure many others probably do not see it that way. I didn't have time to sit around all day/night and read media outlet after media outlet, or scrutinize ever story or detail about each candidate that came up this past election.

 

I feel that if Rand Paul runs for President the Republican party is doing nothing to better themselves or their image. The tea party is accusing McConnell of being too moderate for crying out loud! If the Republicans want a realistic shot come 2016 they need either Rubio or Christie out there. Are you THAT out of touch with reality that you think becoming MORE conservative will help you next election when its readily apparent that the nation is becoming more liberal? If so then I personally fear for the republican party.

 

IMO a Republican NEEDS to win this next election to offset some far left policies that are coming with Obama's tenure. It will forever be a push and pull for power, but right now the Democrats are pushing there way through and the Republicans are not offering much resistance.

 

Pretty sure there wasn't a record number tunrout in 2008 because of Sarah Palin. McCain lost because he was the Republican candidate after we endured 8 years of Bush. People were sick and tired of the Bush admin and his policies. The wars, the spending, the economic downturn. The fact that you don't see that insinuates I'm not the one out of touch. "Change we can believe in!" and "Hope" were the slogans for a reason.

 

Mitt Romney didn't appeal to the conservative wing. Mitt Romney beat Obama with the independent vote. It didn't matter. He was seen as too moderate, not appealing, black and white, salesman, and not a good alternative to Obama. Plain and simple.

 

You just named two republicans that represent what we've already had in the past. Rubio argues for more military involvement around the world (he told Kerry yesterday we ''didn't do enough,'' in regards to Libya. Christie is a Rhino Republican who is basically Mitt Romney with a more upfront perosonality.

 

Rand Paul conservative is different than a Bush conservative. One is a big government conservative, the other is a libertarian, constitutional conservative. One appeals to the groups (young, black, hispanic, female voters) I just said in the former post, the other doesn't amd is responsible to the hatred of the GOP we have seen.

 

Is Rand Paul's foreign policy views not mainstream republican and do they not resemble what we've seen from the anti-war liberals?

I think that Rand Paul is far too extreme to appeal to the majority in a national election. His appeal is to the fringes, and Kentucky has a lot of people on the fringe, apparently. Bobby Jindal has a lot of really great comments from today's Republican Winter meeting in Charlotte about not giving up the principles of the Republican platform, but how to go about choosing candidates to run that will appeal to the majority. As an Independent, there's no way in hell I'd vote for Rand Paul. His committment to the Tea Party agenda is too firm and too complete. Ron Paul had, if not more moderate views, a way of presenting his views far more moderately, which is why I feel Independents may have been drawn to him. Rand Paul is not his daddy

 

Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign is the reason the tea party even exists. Why do you think the people in charge, who train and mobilize the tea party activists are all about Rand Paul?

 

Ron Paul making his platform more moderate doesn't make any sense. He was the most extreme, small government minded candidate on the stage (which is why I love him and his message appeals to so many). He openly talked about ending the department of education, labor, EPA, Fema, and just about every other government bureaucracy, and the biggest of all, the Federal Reserve! I didn't realize that was moderate. Rand Paul is toned way down compared to his father.

I will add that what got Ron Paul the start to his uprising in 2008 and lead to the tea party was his comments to Rudy Guiliani (sp?) when he said we invited the attacks of 9/11 by our interventionist forein policy. The federal reserve and war is Dr. Paul's two biggest issues he campaigned on. Both solutions were smaller government.

 

Rand Paul preaches the same.