Rand Paul for President!

E-mail/Randall Terry ^ | 5-19-10 | Randall Terry

[mlizzy]

Rand Paul for President! The People's Hero, the GOP Establishment's Nightmare; What Will Republican Leaders Do?

"If Obama can go from a Senate victory in 2006 to the Presidency in 2008, why can't Rand Paul pull off a similar miracle? The first goal is victory in November; the second is the White House."

By Randall Terry

Dr. Rand Paul's primary victory over the GOP machine pick (and Kentucky Secretary of State) Trey Grayson is a stunning victory for grass roots Americans, and a stunning blow to the Republican establishment.

Dr. Paul's triumph is a political nightmare for the GOP. They want the momentum, money, manpower and votes of the "Tea Party" activists and other angry voters. But they tremble over candidates like Dr. Paul who are actually principled when it comes to fiscal liberty, ending socialism in America, defending Christian Marriage, and outlawing all child killing by abortion from conception until birth.

This is a huge quagmire for Republican Leaders. If old-line party hacks like Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey - who are trying to co-opt the Tea Party for run of the mill GOP candidates - speak against Paul, they will face an angry mob, and their influence in the Tea Party movement will be over.

If the national party "distances itself" from Paul, they will further enrage a base that is quickly becoming unruly and uncontrollable by party leaders. It will cause the base to withhold funds and man-hours from the party apparatus.

If the GOP embraces Dr. Paul, his economic policies and true commitment to life and liberty show that the GOP is primarily made of big government socialists, child-killers (who use "pro-life" words to seduce pro-life voters), slaves to corporate interests and foreign regimes, etc.

The GOP would be delighted to have Scott Brown of Massachusetts as their prototype for a political superhero. He is pro-abortion, a man without an ethical compass, who will happily put Party ahead of Principle when told to by party bosses.

They will even tolerate someone like Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, who talked political smack – saying he would filibuster an Obama Supreme Court nominee if the person is too ideological – who then tucked his tail and ran from the actual battle now that ultra left winger Elana Kagan is the nominee. His words seduce; his actions produce…nothing.

Rand Paul, by contrast, is the real article; a man guided by principle, not party; a man loyal to ethics, not party bosses. His pro-life position is flawless, and he will act on it, not run from it.

Simply put, he will not betray his ethical core for the sake of the Republican Party. That makes him a hero to us “common folk;” it makes him a danger to the elite.

Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts was a vote against Washington DC Democrats; Dr. Paul’s victory was a vote against the GOP establishment.

Herein lies the crisis brewing for GOP leaders: If Paul becomes the poster boy of Republican foot soldiers, those who rule the ivory tower will look as foolish as the naked emperor. They will be seen as phonies craving power, using empty rhetoric to reach their goals.

What will the GOP do? Something Machiavellian, no doubt. And it will be ugly.

But their teeth gnashing and secret machinations will not matter. Kentucky is the perfect state for Paul’s victory in November. Obama is very unpopular; life and liberty election activists are energized, and willing to sacrifice their time and money; and the Democrats have neither the message or the man to stop the Paul Juggernaut.

Paul will win in November, with or without the GOP machinery and its blessing.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if he inherited the Ronald Reagan populist mantle, and went on to win the White House? Let us remember that Ronald Reagan was a man of principle who was strongly disliked by the GOP establishment...yet he became the most popular president of the last 60 years.

Run, Rand, Run!

[screaminsunshine]

I second that nomination from the great state of Floriduh.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

This is pure hyperbole. Let’s hope he wins his Senate race.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Will he make his good buddy Adam Kokesh Secretary of State ?

[pissant]

Uh, no.

[svcw]

Winning a primary is not winning the seat.

[Ingtar]

... and that he sets his sights no higher?

[BelegStrongbow]

That’s a little over the top, IMHO. Let him win a few races and season before he goes for the top spot. Are we really that thin that this comes up every time someone wins who looks remotely acceptable?

[humblegunner]

He’s a kook like his dad.

He can be the president of the Kook Opthamologist Society on his block.

Otherwise.. not so much.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Will he make his dad Secretary of Defense like JFK made RFK attorney general?

[fieldmarshaldj]

Post #4.

[Kimberly GG]

LOL...I suspect the Palin fans will have more than one or two objections ;)

[Ingtar]

Not necessarily a Palin fan. Definitely not a Paul fan, either the original or the mini-me version.

[KDD]

A Paul/Palin ticket would cause a few heads around here to explode. She liked his dad too.

[Ingtar]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2517799/posts

Dims already have a video of him condemning the Civil Rights Act. His chances of getting elected depend upon how close to his daddy’s lunacy he is - on the record.

[TitansAFC]

Ron Paul, besides not winning the nomination, would not pick a Sarah Palin or any other kind of Conservative. He would pick a Libertarian. He has no interest in Conservatism as a Conservative understands it, just ask him.

Maybe you guys can have a Paul/Paul ticket! Maybe another Paul for Secretary of State, one for Secretary of the Interior........

I support Rand Paul in KY, but if it's just going to lead to another 36 years of “Paul for President,” maybe we can afford to lose a seat. I was hoping to maybe have a righty in the Senate seat from KY for a while. Perhaps that was too much to hope for after all......

[Crim]

Norfolk & Wiegh.

[KDD]

I would be curious to know if your definition of conservative would at all resemble the definitions given by the conservative movements founders Russell Kirk and William Buckley. A good reading of either would suggest not.

Neo conservatism has been exposed...people are not happy at being fooled by the quasi liberal GOP. The status quo will change...with or without your help.

[TitansAFC]

So you agree he would never pick a modern Conservative like Palin, right? Because that was my point - he would pick another Libertarian type.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

What I love about the Paul’s (both on Sr and Jr) is that they so expose how liberal some really are on FR. Look at how apoplectic the liberals are going because Paul the Younger believes private business should have the right on who to serve!

[KDD]

Rand Paul and Ron Paul are both conservatives.

So was Russell Kirk.

Third Generation conservatives, in their thirties or their twenties — or even in their teens. Pass we then to these ladies and gentlemen of the Third Generations.

Few of the Third Generation folk retain personal memories of the Disaster of 1964 — that is, the defeat of Barry Goldwater’s presidential candidacy, the centralizing follies of President Johnson’s “Great Society,” the foretaste of ruin in Vietnam, the loathsome and destructive antics of the crazy black militants and the crazier young white radicals. The present members of the Third Generation were reared when the hearts of our great American cities already were dismal and rotten; when addiction to narcotics plagued every social class; when public schools, with few honorable exceptions, offered next to nothing for mind and conscience; when Demon TV offered something for every taste but good taste; when promiscuity and sexual perversity demanded recognition as normality; when it was unwise to walk the streets o’nights; when shrieking mobs dominated what had been the grove and halls of Academe; when altercations in Washington made it almost impossible to conduct the regular business of government; when American life seemed confusion worse confounded; when one came to appreciate the mordant aphorism of Albert Jay Nock: “American society is like German beer; dregs at the bottom, scum at the top.”

In short, the conservative Third Generation have not known a tranquil and pleasant and confident America. They scarcely can imagine a time, not many decades past, when it was the happy evening diversion of families or couples to stroll in New York’s Central Park of Detroit’s Belle Isle Park. They have little knowledge even of the neighborhood grocery or butcher-shop, the corner drug-store with its soda-fountain; for them is the leviathan shopping-mall, commercial collectivism. They have experienced little of continuity; the expectation of change has been greater far. Yet, they know that much remains to conserve, and that much ought to be restored.

In one respect, but in that respect only, the task of the conservative of 1991 looms less oppressive than was the task of the conservative of 1951, when my first book was published. I mean that the grim menace of the Soviet Union no longer hangs over us. Seventy years were required for the Communist ideology to work its own ruin, so that it fell to pieces at a good-natured push, quite bloodless, from Mr. Ronald Reagan. Always will there be wars and rumors of war; yet from the Soviet terror we have been saved, so that the Third Generation conservatives may address their energies to something more fundamental than resisting the armed doctrine called Marxism.

What, then, is the mission of Third Generation conservatives, young men and women who seek to preserve the Permanent Things, those elements in human existence that were not born yesterday? It is not to promulgate a “conservative ideology”: for conservatism is the negation of ideology. Ideology is an attempt to govern all life by political slogans; while American conservatives believe that no mere political formulas can make a people content. Conservatives take for their guide in politics what Edmund Burke called “the wisdom of the species”: that is, the experience of human beings in community, extending over many centuries. Thus, American conservatism is a cast of mind and character, not a neat body of political abstractions. Ideology is political fanaticism, an endeavor to rule the world by rigorous abstract dogmata. The dogmata of an abstract “democratic capitalism” may be mischievous as the dogmata of Marx.

It is possible to describe certain attitudes that make up America’s conservative mentality, even though not all Americans could express coherently their belief in such general principles, and although some conservatives would dissent from one or more of the general assumptions or principles I now mention.

First, belief in some transcendent order in the universe, some law that is more than human: a religious understanding of the human condition, if you will; a belief in enduring moral norms. As the national pledge of allegiance puts it, “One nation under God.... “

Second, opposition to totalist ideology and the totalist political order. The American conservative rejects the notion of a future earthly paradise — which the ideologue promises to attain.

Third, confidence in the American Constitution — both the written national Constitution and the intricate fabric of custom, belief, and habit that makes up the underlying “unwritten” constitution of a nation-state. Many decisions of the Supreme Court in recent decades are bitterly resented; nevertheless, attachment to the Constitution itself remains strong.

Fourth, maintenance of the rights of private property and of a free or competitive economy, as contrasted with a directed or socialist economy. This healthy prejudice persists despite the increasing consolidation of business and industry into large conglomerations or oligopolies.

Fifth, suspicion of central political direction, and preference for state and local powers: insistence upon private rights.

Sixth, a deep-rooted patriotism, joined to uneasiness at “entangling alliances”; this latter attitude, nevertheless, modified by determination to resist totalist powers that menace the American national interest.

Seventh, an awareness that change is not identical with healthy improvement; a relish for the American past; a genuine preference for the old and tried.

Such is the consensus of that very large body of Americans who choose to call themselves conservative in their politics. Within this crowd of conservative citizens exist various factions, each emphasizing some aspect or another of the general conservative attitude. There exists no “party line” to which conservatives of one persuasion or another are compelled to conform.

Libertarians are conservatives. Though perhaps not to a dogmatic Republican. And many die hard Republicans have a long streak of libertarian in them anyway.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Poeple are silly & stupid. I remember all the calls of “Scott Brown for President”, even while we were trying to convince people that he had to be a fat RINO.

[tet68]

Let’s not get carried away.

[rrrod]

LOL

[dhuynh73]

Let not jump the gun. He first needd to be elected as a senator then talk about higher office. It too soon right now.