Skip to comments."Who Killed Rudy Giuliani?" (article about Ron Paul's legacy - anyone game for Rand Paul 2016?)
Posted on 11/08/2012 10:21:50 AM PST by oneprolifewoman
In January, Paul will retire from Congress. A decade ago, this would have signaled the effective end of antiwar conservatism as a meaningful political force. Today Paul leaves behind an entire wing of the Republican Party sympathetic to his views, some of whom identify explicitly as Ron Paul Republicans, while some do not.
Justin Amash, a freshman Republican from Michigan, has already emerged as a Paul successor of sorts in the House. Like Paul, he is a constitutional stickler, refusing to vote for bills that contradict his oath to uphold the Constitution. He has pressed for an end to Bushs wars and opposed Obamas new one in Libya.
Pauls son Rand has become the leading Tea Party senator, more widely admired by the broader conservative movement than his father. Reason editor Matt Welch has called him the most interesting man in the Senate. He has also become the most vocal conservative Republican opponent of excessive foreign adventurism in that chamber since Robert Taft.
Thats not to say the GOP is Ron Pauls party. Paul supporters were mistreated by party bosses in primaries and caucuses from Maine to Louisiana. Convention planners in Tampa were short-sighted and brutish in their handling of Paul delegates. But Ron Paul supporters hold important party leadership positions at the state level in Iowa, Maine, Alaska, Nevada, and elsewhere. They have won seats on the Republican National Committee. Pauls campaign chairman will be running Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnells 2014 reelection campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanconservative.com ...
I like Rand. I’m in!
Provided we have an identifiable America by then).
His legacy, fittingly, is one of failure.
Ron Paul betrayed his supporters by not endorsing Mitt Romney more enthusiastically as the GOP nominee.
These young mushy-headed yoots will be burdened most by the Obama legacy.
Rand is definitely more likely to make a mark nationally than his father.
How could he be a leader??
NO support here for him...
I’d prefer a son of Paul to run than a son (or a brother) of Bush!
>>>>”Youth voters will be critical to our future and I think trying to embrace Ron Paul’s legacy will help the Republicans stay relevant with the young voters. “
What legacy is that?
Rand Paul is my number one choice for the GOP presidential candidate in 2016. No more RINO’s it does not work. We need to shake it up and roll the dice.
And here on FR, too.
I’m ready to listen to him. From what I’ve heard of him he makes a lot of sense.
Rand Paul actually impresses me as a solid mainstream Conservative that a lot of people could support. He appears to lack his father’s Dr. Strangelove factor.
I’m ready to listen to him. From what I’ve heard of him he makes a lot of sense.
provided he can keep from making inane comments that damage him politically, I might be game for Rand to run.
However, it is way too soon to throw him out there. The more time the MSM has to write about him, the more likely he is to become damaged goods.
Being unabashedly pro-life, favoring a constructionist view of the Constitution, and rejecting Keynesian economics both in rhetoric and in action.
I like Rand. He is NOT his father when it comes to policy (foreign policy included). Rand actually has common sense.
Loyalty to his father? I am okay with that. I wish Obama showed a little loyalty to a few brave men in Libya a few months ago.
Unfortunately, Rand has the charisma of a turnip and will not get far on the American Idol season we call the general election. He is a great U.S. Senator. I wish we had 51 Rand Pauls there.
I would, however, support Rand in a presidential run if he got that far.
Ron Paul is anything but a fraud. Paul is a fervent supporter of the Constitution and one of the very few prominent politicians to openly oppose the entity that enables Big Government and robs us blind: The Federal Reserve. It’s no coincidence that The Fed, the Income Tax, direct election of senators (effectively ending Federalism) all happened at about the same time.
I recognize that Libertarianism is not embraced on FR, or by the Republican Establishment, or by Talk Radio for that matter. All claim to be supporters of Liberty, but are essentially statists - supporting Medicare, Social Security, military interventions, the War on Drugs (...and, No, I am not and have never been a drug user), and, above all - Israel.
Still, I am very disappointed that Romney lost.
The GOP-e has failed miserabley in the last two election cycles since they kicked the Libertarians off the bus. Gone are hundreds of thousands of mostly young voters that would be for small government and more personal responsibility.
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is".
RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975
Aw, poor little Paulestinians, so mistreated by the big bad GOP. You losers will never be taken seriously.
As of this past Tuesday, it appears you're every bit as much a loser as I am.
Is that the same Reagan that wRong Paul called a “miserable failure”?
NO, and NEVER.
“You losers will never be taken seriously.”
Ad hominem attacks are not good for the soul.
Libertarians have always had two problems: marketing and cohesive leadership. They like to squabble about what brand of libertarian they are instead of finding common ground. They don’t market themselves well because since everything is so logical to them, they think it should be the same with everyone else. Your average dingbat voter things Libertarians espouse anarchy for example.
There are alot of very intelligent, effective libertarians in the world (Richard Epstein, Sowell, Gilespie, etc.) as well as libertarian organizations who need to seriously organize themselves and work together. Work out a platform they can all agree with. Market the hell out of it and get a *palatable* leader, like Rand Paul.
I love Reagan! He rivals Coolidge as the greatest President of the 20th Century.
That being said, he also gave us the Bushes.
As an aside, I would vote the heck out of a Paul Ryan/Sarah Palin ticket. In a New York minute.
“Stay out da Bushes!”
That is priceless...Romney is smoked in the GE and you think that Paul supporters are not taken seriously. Wake up, sweetheart.
“Being unabashedly pro-life, favoring a constructionist view of the Constitution, and rejecting Keynesian economics both in rhetoric and in action.”
How does that line up with Paul Ryan’s stance?
He was blaming us for 9/11 and does not seem to understand the evil in the world. If everyone in the world were libertarian then their principles would work, but that is not reality. His stances on fiscal issues I mostly agree with. We are broke and printing money is not the answer.
Incorrect. That is all he is.
Paul is a fervent supporter of the Constitution
Also incorrect. He is an advocate of the views of Lysander Spooner, who advocated the scrapping of the US Constitution.
Moreover he is an advocate of the positions of the Anti-Federalists, who opposed the ratification and adoption of our Constitution in the first place.
one of the very few prominent politicians to openly oppose the entity that enables Big Government and robs us blind: The Federal Reserve
The entity that actually enables Big Government is the entity to which he has long belonged (despite his fraudulent advocacy of term limits) - the US Congress.
Its appropriations are the source of bloated government and the most dangerous potential source of tyranny in our system - as described in The Federalist.
Its no coincidence that The Fed, the Income Tax, direct election of senators (effectively ending Federalism) all happened at about the same time.
These were all elements of the Populist and Progressive Parties' agenda at the turn of the 20th century. They were an effective sop to those movements, neutralizing them.
I recognize that Libertarianism is not embraced on FR, or by the Republican Establishment, or by Talk Radio for that matter.
The objection to Ron Paul is not his supposed libertarianism.
All claim to be supporters of Liberty, but are essentially statists - supporting Medicare, Social Security, military interventions, the War on Drugs (...and, No, I am not and have never been a drug user)
Conservatives in the GOP have certainly advocated radical reforms that would end Medicare and Social Security and replace them with market solutions. Paul Ryan is one such worthy.
Ron Paul's ineffective but lucrative (for him) war on the Fed has been accompanied by his complete lack of action against Social Security or Medicare.
Which stands to reason, since Medicare paid his bills for years.
Military interventions are completely constitutional. The Constitution does not endorse pacifism. Nor does it endorse Ron Paul's treasonous attitudes, either.
The Constitution gives Congress full authority to regulate interstate commerce - in pharmaceuticals and other goods - as well as commerce between the US and foreign nations and groups.
above all - Israel.
And there it is. The unhealthy fixation that Paul supporters have with Israel is interesting.
If we spent not one cent on aid to Israel, what impact would it have on the federal budget? Statiscally close to zero. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security represent trillions - but Ron Paul has done more to try to pry a rounding error's worth of aid from Israel than do anything to address those 800 pound gorillas.
Is there any other explanation besides anti-Semitism for this bizarre obsession with .0006% of the federal budget?
All of this points to why Ron Paul is a fraud, but I'll give you the two main reasons why he is a fraud.
(1) He is famous for always voting "no" to appropriations bills, and to plenty of other legislation. yet he gets reelected term after term. Is this because his constituents get no pork from Congress and just like him?
It is because he puts appropriations requests for his constituents into bills that he knows will have so many votes for passage that it does not matter whether he votes for the bill he put the appropriations request into or not.
It comes up for a vote, it easily passes, and he cyncially votes "no" as soon as the pork is guaranteed for delivery.
This makes him not just as bad as any other Congressman, but actually worse.
(2) He is a fraud in his perennial candidacy for President because he knows that he has zero chance of winning - but also a 100% chance of collecting millions in contributions from suckers. Millions he does not spend on a Presidential campaign, but which he spends on his reelection campaigns and on friendly foundations for favors.
>>>>Being unabashedly pro-life,
He’s unabashedly for states’ rights and “local control” of abortion. He ranks right-to-life below states’ rights. Not exactly “unabashed.”
>>>>favoring a constructionist view of the Constitution
When it favors him. He’ll slide around it when it doesn’t. He objects to funding a Rosa Parks medal but favors funding art contests. Not exactly an impressive record of consistency.
>>>>and rejecting Keynesian economics both in rhetoric and in action.
Lots of conservatives have also done so.
He criticized Newt’s “dirty money”, yet had no problem profiting from his newsletter sprinkled with racist comments (the knowledge of which he later denied).
Paul will retire never having followed through on his cry to “audit the Fed.” Like most politicians, he’s simply an opportunist. He had no interest in auditing the Fed; he was simply trying to draw attention to himself with that exhortation so that he could make another failed bid for the Presidency.
He’s a crank on border issues, and a complete naif on foreign policy.
No wonder Rachel Maddow likes him.
I am definitely not arguing that Ron Paul is perfect. I am just concerned about how we draw in young voters, and I think this article’s point about Ron Paul’s appeal with the young is something we need to use as a lesson for next time. As the article states:
“What began as an academic exercise became a real movement. Pauls is the only flavor of conservatism that currently appeals to millennials and other young voters. In Iowa, he finished 35 points ahead of Romney among voters aged 17 to 29. In New Hampshire, Paul won more voters between the ages of 18 and 24 than Romney, Rick Santorum, New Gingrich, and Rick Perry combined.
Even in Alabama, a rare state where Paul took just 5 percent of the vote, he did twice as well with voters between the ages of 18 and 29. His worst states were the places where the Republican electorate was old. Pauls boisterous campaign rallies were filled with young people, as are the conservative and libertarian organizationssuch as Young Americans for Libertyhis efforts spawned.”
How do we draw those young people in next time?
It's been Republican rhetoric for years that they want to cut taxes and reduce the size of government, but the party hasn't done anything serious to pursue that agenda, even during the days when they held the White House.
It's not the man we like. We're not chauvinists for Ron Paul. His political career is over anyhow; he's going to retire soon. What we responded to in Paul was the agenda, not the personality.
Give us a candidate who will do things to cut the Federal budget and shore up individual liberties... not talk, but do... and he'll get my vote. He'll get lots of other peoples' votes too.
Ron Paul had absolutely nothing to do with Guiliani's collapse -- you can thank the much-maligned Fred Thompson for that. When Thompson joined the race, he slowly but steadily ate up the polling gap to Guiliani, which shattered the "unbeatable" myth and eventually led to a far more critical evaluation, and then discarding, of Guiliani as a serious candidate.
That fact that the author takes the correlation of Guiliani's poor performances and Paul's decent, but by no means threatening to actually win anything of consequence, showing is yet more Paulbot desperation to appear relevant.
as long as he doesn’t run as a republican.
But Ron Paul has never proposed a serious reform to reduce our enormous spending on entitlements.
This is why it always perplexes me that people say they agree with him on fiscal issues.
He focuses on window dressing. The Fed would not need to screw with our money if entitlements were not so destructively expensive.
My heart bleeds! You should have been a “Perrywinkle” if you think you got mistreated on FR.Not a lot of respect for differing opinions on FR. Ran a lot of old FReepers away, never to return.
Everything I like is in the Republican Party platform. If the party would run a candidate who would actually pursue the platform, I'd be completely on board. Because they don't, I'm not.
I don’t like Rand or his father, I certainly hope we can do better in 2016, but I don’t believe it will ever matter again.
Ron Paul finds too much common ground with “progressives.” He would join them in cutting out what progressives hate (the military) and get nothing in return. He’d pull the rug from under Isarel, but that will be accomplished in Obama’s second term. Ron Paul is easily manipulated by amoral and ravishing radical libertarians.
Rand seems more on top of things and more anti-police state/anti-left. Obama’s building a militarized KGB that will have to be ditiched the next election. We’ll have to see.
I don’t think you’re the enemy. In fact, I haven’t I haven’t thought much of you.
Good; that’s just as well. Thank you.
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.