Posted on 01/20/2013 2:01:28 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
Sen. Rand Paul said on Sunday that he will make a decision on a 2016 presidential run within two years and plans to be a force in the refashioning the Republican party regardless of whether he seeks the Oval Office.
“We will continue to pursue and, you know, try to make that decision over the next two years or so,” the Kentucky Republican told WABC Radio’s Aaron Klein when asked about a potential White House bid.
In the meantime, Paul said, he will “try to be part of the national debate” and added that he hopes to play a major role in directing the future of the Republican Party.
Paul added that there are major areas of concern for the party, noting “we are not popular and we have not been competitive out in California, on the West Coast, or in New England.”
And his particular brand of conservatism could play well in those regions and with other voters who may not currently identify with the Republican Party, Paul said.
“So we think a little more of a libertarian Republican, someone who is a strict Constitutionalist, but also believes in a strong, defensive military but not necessarily in an overly aggressive or bellicose lets get involved in everybody’s civil war military, I think that has more appeal to independents and some people who have given up in the Republican Party,” Paul said.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Her little cargo cult still would like to know which of her positions offends the PDSers so...
Or are we back to just parroting the MSNBC party line?
Let me guess, dope supporter, gay marriage supporter, abortion supporter.
How is support for abortion ‘libertarian?’ You’re killing people who would otherwise exist.
I have no problem with any of her positions except for foreign wars. Its not her policy, but her unelectability at the national level. She might make a great Alaska Senator one day. Nothing more.
Exactly so - the assumption is that by being full on pro-abort, pro-gay marriage and pro-dope that this will lead to the salvation of the Republican party.
Seen it. I also don’t believe that ‘libertarians’ are even interested in passing spending cuts either. If you’re willing to compromise on social issues, then what’s stopping you from compromising on spending issues too?
Let me guess ‘cargo cult’, eh? Kerry/Obama/Obama?
All state and local issues. Those are all under the purview of the FedGov now. How’s that working out for ya?
Now reduce your statement to it’s core and give this serious thought.... You largely agree with her positions. Not all, but no pol is perfect. Her included.
So why is she unelectable? The throngs of people that show up every time she makes a public appearance is a bit more than a cargo cult. In fact, she dwarfs the oh so popular Obama in people showing up to her events.
That indicates the MSM polls and spin are just that. Spin.
Is she REALLY unpopular? If people agree with/share her views/policies, are they all really so shallow as to dismiss her as a candidate?
If that’s true then we are a bunch of morons that deserve whatever the GOP throws out there.
No, defending sanity. Conservatives do not need to be associated with a bunch of unhinged silliness and stupid conspiracy theories (like the ones you push about Sandy Hook).
Politico aren’t completely a left-wing propaganda rag, at least not openly.
I agree they’re very left leaning but it’s not Daily Kos is it? they’re a legitimate news source.
Although I have emailed their “journalists” repeatedly because of them parroting the Democrat Party line on the debt “default”. I asked them to explain how default is possible when interest on the debt is 30bn a month and revenues are 200bn. They blocked my email lol and now when I email some of their journalists it bounces back... but they did run an article where Republicans pointed this out.
So I do find them left leaning but somewhat fair.
Hmm. A President still has significant power as we can see with Obama so if you elect a president who is principled and committed to using that power in a “good way” you can make a difference.
For example, as president Rand could propose a budget that cuts funding for lots of departments. As president he can do an awful lot to get things moving and depending on how the congress co-operates. He could re-write the tax code which would be a big help.
But I agree with you, unless the congress complies a president cannot do much but the president can push his agenda through or at least try to. Someone like Rand is likely to find even the GOP members of congress force him to spend silly amounts of money, isn’t that what they did to Nixon and said if he didn’t spend the money they would impeach him?
I don't see how it's Constitutional to support things that are clearly outside of the enumerated powers. I don't recall reading my thing about plants, narcotics, and hallucinogens in Article 1 Section 8.
Called it. I rest my case.
You’re ok with California handing out US spousal visas to gay couples?
You believe that whether baby butchery is ok or not, depends on which state line you live on?
See, you're on to something there. You just need to connect the dots.
I'll help you. Drawing a crowd and drawing 70 million votes are two completely unrelated things.
Thanks for that info.
Let me guess; you support Washington regulating what plants people grow and smoke. See, easy!
Oh sure! Completely. Because people just put effort into going to political rallies when they hate the candidate.
That’s some pretty strange logic you work with there GR. Help me understand why your universe is so different than the rest of ours.
Did any of you actually read what he said?
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.