Skip to comments.Could Rand Paul Be The Next Ronald Reagan?
Posted on 05/15/2010 9:36:04 AM PDT by pinochet
Dr. Rand Paul, who is seeking the Republican nomination for the US Senate seat in Kentucky, is causing panic among members of the Republican establishment in Washington DC. The greatest fear that the Republican establishment has, is that an honest conservative may get elected, who actually means it when he talks of small government. The present day conservative politicians are good at rhetoric, but once they get elected, they sell out to the big corporations, banks, and special interest groups, whom they give our tax dollars.
I have not seen this level of fear in the Republican establishment, since Ronald Reagan challenged Gerald Ford for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1976. The Reagan who ran for President in 1976, was more of a hardline small-government conservative, than the Reagan who ran for President in 1980.
What is causing the beltway establishment to panic, is that Rand Paul is close to mainstream Republicans on national security issues, which makes him a more credible national figure than his father, Ron Paul. While Rand Paul supports the war in Afghanistan, he does not believe in nation-building.
What is terrifying the GOP establishment, is that he plans to get rid of the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, and many other federal departments. He is likely to advocate pulling the US out of the UN. He plans to cut the federal budget to the bone, and abandon the policies of bailing out the big banks, and failing corporations such as AIG.
Not in 1 million years.
“The present day conservative politicians are good at rhetoric, but once they get elected, they sell out to the....”
They sold out looooong before they were elected. The campaign consultants spend a bit of time teaching them what to say and how to say it. The candidates learn that what they learned is effective and then go find money to pay for for more campaign consultant work, and on, and on and on.
Yeah, I don't either. Paul, like his father, would say that it's none of our business. So NO, Rand Paul is NOT the next Ronald Reagan.
Meaning he won’t sell out to the free traitors.
Rand Paul is MORE conservative than Ronaldus Maximus..
No. He might be the next Ron Paul though
BTW - The next real conservative elected president, say a Chris Christie, will have a far more profound effect than Ronald Reagan. Is is Rand Paul? Who knows?
Pres. Ronald Reagan was not an anti-Semite and would not associate with nuts such as truthers; etc.
In fairness, Ronald Reagan wasn’t the next Ronald Reagan at this point in his career.
Why not give him the benefit of the doubt?
He’s a step in the right direction from where we are now, and by that I mean, Obama, McCain, Romney, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the “wilting violet” company.
>>>>Do you think Rand Paul would have the courage or the political philosophy to compel him to tell Mr. Gorbachev to “Tear down this wall”?
What I do know, is that Rand Paul will prevent America from ending up a bankrupt country like Greece. When America becomes a broke and bankrupt nation, they will lack the financial ability to threaten anyone, and the Iranians will laugh at any American threats.
I can see the Liberal Globalists in the GOP squealing big time....their Soros-funded liberal globalist new world order would take a severe hit
There are some things I do not agree with the Paul’s on....but their support to pull America out of the UN, WTO, and other Globalist entities would be so beneficial for the country. And, of course, the biggest critics of the Paul’s are supporters of the UN, WTO, NAFTA, etc....which are also supported by people like Gore, Clinton, Boxer, George Soros....
And, with a mushroom cloud rising over NYC or DC, whatever is or isn't left in the nation's treasury becomes quickly irrelevant.
We need leaders who have the intellect and vision to recognize the lethality of America's enemies, and then posses the courage to fight them, with violence and wherever they are. If Rand is anything like his father, you'll have to color me skeptical, very very skeptical.
He can be entirely right on economic matters but when it comes to international relations he’s death - literally.
I must have missed something—so Rand Paul has a tough foregin policy for dealing with worldwide jihad?
Did Ronald Reagan have a lunatic for a father?
No, not at all. That was my point.
Care to take this one ?
First things first, America isn’t an elected dictatorship. In some ways it may look that way, but there are checks and balances on power that keep one person from redefining the nation. It’s a folly to think that electing one strong conservative who ‘owes nothing’ to corporations or special interests will somehow roll back the last seventy years of encroaching statism. This is like trying to counteract Obama with a bizzaro-Obama. Didn’t work for bizzaro superman, didn’t work for bizzaro Kirk, won’t work here either. Rand Paul may be a good candidate for senate, but he won’t be the next Ronald Regan and shouldn’t try to be (and for all his skills and achievements, Regan couldn’t achieve those dramatic cuts in government.)
The lack of a strong central figure to counterbalance the current regime is a strength, but it won’t remain one. A groundswell of citizens who wouldn’t previously be drawn to political action will be the strength of conservatives. They have to elect - at all levels of government from the local offices up to national elections - candidates that are honest, believe in the values of the constitution, and have the courage to stand up for them when they are unpopular.
Most importantly, the groundswell must be able to sustain losses. If the predicted gains in the house in 2010 and 2012 don’t materialize in as dramatic a fashion, the grassroots activism and involvement in politics by the average American must continue. Conservatives don’t lose when they get knocked down, and to take a lesson from Regan’s loss to Ford in the ‘76 presidential primary, conservatives lose when they don’t keep getting up.
>>>>If Rand is anything like his father, you’ll have to color me skeptical, very very skeptical
Rand Paul strongly supports the war in Afghanistan. And he supports tough military action on those nations or terror groups that attack America. But he views nation-building as similar to the social engineering programs that liberals promote in America. His opposition to nation building will save America a lot of money.
Short answer, NO!
Republicans are fools for sitting back waiting for another Ronald Reagan. He was one of a kind and made his mistakes as well.
We should instead focus on good strong conservative candidates and stop looking for a reincarnation of Reagan. We could have someone better than Reagan.
You had a chance in 2008 fo such a man, but too many would not get behind him until others did, once again, waiting for Reagan to be reborn.
Take candidates as they are and support a strong conservative and stop thinking Reagan will return.
Doing so only let the Democrats seize total control.
No. A blame-America-first isolationist or a politician who is pro-choice for states on abortion cannot accurately be compared to Reagan.
But I’m not surprised to see this thread. If Republicans in KY elevate this man the whole country is going to have deal with many more years of the Paul family Libertarian nonsense.
No but he did have a cynical, alcoholic, shoe salesman for a father, that would occasionally pass out in the yard.
What total BS. Why would you even post this kind of crap? What is wrong with you? What is your major malfunction?
Not just NO but HELL NO.
Is this a joke?
Try to get these people to explain why they like Trey Grayson.
Among the voters, only the pro abortion crowd supports him.
One can only hope. And contribute. (I did my part)
Rand ain't no RR, not even close. He's leading in the KY Senate primary only because Trey Grayson is so inept. My only hope is that Rand is not The Next L. Ron Paul
Rand Paul has said that there isn't much difference between his world views and his father's world views. Things like this, are what gives me great pause.
Ronald Reagan would NEVER vote against something like this, ever.
Because this is Paul's first opportunity to cast votes and for those votes to be recorded, no one really has any idea how he'll vote on foreign policy issues. I would much prefer to have Senators elected to office that have at least some definitive record of how that have voted, not just how they'll say they'll vote. This is why we should be VERY cautious of prospective Senators who weren't US Representatives or US Governors.
Rand Paul ping. The only thing that concerns me is that he may make a major gaffe on the campaign trail.
That was my clumsy way of agreeing with you.
Ron Paul's associations with conspiracy theorists including the 'truthers' and extremist personalities such as Alex Jones is well documented. Of course, and as well; there can be NO correlation between Ronald Reagan's commitment to our Military - it's purpose and it's absolute necessity for the our Country's own well being and that of the 'free world' - and the total rejection of such, by Ron Paul.
Much has been written; but Calvin Freiburger does a quick summation; found at David Horowitz's 'NEWS REAL blog.' Just an excerpt below.
Of course, there is 'always' room for disagreement by 'free discourse'; but just not those enclosed in the 'facts therein'. . .and we know even 'facts' can be tricky; but think Calvin Freiburger is 'no trickster'.
The Company the Pauls Keep
2010 May 13/Calvin Freiburger source/link: newsrealbloglink
[Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College. He also writes for the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online.] Excerpt:
While most on the Right do not match the slanderous caricature of conservatism the Left has concocted, the Cult of Paul stands as the sole exception. The Pauls seem to hold themselves to no standards of moral decency or good taste in advancing their careers, welcoming and encouraging (sometimes subtly, sometimes not) hatred and paranoia in their own midst, standing up to it only when it becomes a matter of bad publicityand even then, they can be counted on to go no further than absolutely necessary, for fear of alienating any one part of the coalition of bigots, demagogues, and conspiracy theorists they have assembled.
tags: 9/11 Truthers, Alex Jones, Anti-Semitism, Bigotry, Chris Hightower, Conservatism, Conspiracy Theories, crackpots, David Duke, extremism, Founding Fathers, George Washington, GOP, KKK, neo-Nazis, newsletters, Racism, radical associations, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Stormfront, white supremacists
It's truly disappointing that in a year that should be so attractive to potential candidates, a job as plum as a US Senate seat couldn't attract any other candidates better than these two.
Then again, KY has given us Mitch McConnell for how many decades? Maybe that is the best KY can do. It's disturbing.
>>>>Try to get these people to explain why they like Trey Grayson
Because the Republican establishment has told them that Grayson is a conservative. It is time that conservatives stopped listening to the Republican establishment, and start looking at what each of the candidates stands for. Dr. James Dobson, Sarah Palin, and many tea party activists, chose to think for themselves, instead of allowing the Republican establishment to think for them. That is why they endorsed Rand Paul.
Many supporters of Rand Paul do not agree with him on all issues. But they see him as an honest American patriot, who cannot be bought, and who is looking out for the long-term interests of this country. This matters a great deal to those who do not want their children to inherit a bankrupt America.
Would that be leaders like GWB?
I haven’t followed Rand Paul’s campaign, but I often hear him discussed as if his views are practically identical to his father’s. Does anyone know of any major political differences he has from his father’s views?
Rand Paul will NEVER get a vote from me.
As for him being the next Reagan, get in line Rand. You’re not the next American Idol bud. You’re pitchy, your vocals sound like Karaoki, and your song selection is pitiful about 25% of the time.
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.