Posted on 01/19/2013 7:48:04 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I'm intrigued and oddly impressed at how obviously Rand Paul's maneuvering for 2016. First the trip to Israel, then the bill to nullify any executive actions taken by Obama on guns, now this double-barreled shot at grassroots conservatives' new bete noire. One of the things about the elder Paul that some people loved and others found off-putting was that he never seemed terribly interested in ingratiating himself with mainstream conservatives. If you're a fan, maybe you took that as proof of principle, that he was above gladhanding political nonsense towards people foolish enough not to embrace libertarianism wholeheartedly. If you aren't, you took it as evidence that he disdained the rank-and-file Republicans whose votes he'd need to win and wasn't willing to bend towards some of their concerns. It’s an open question how similar Ron and Rand are on policy, but from a pure retail standpoint, Rand seems way more willing to play to the wider GOP base. The clearest example to date was him endorsing Romney last year while Ron predictably refused. But dumping on a guy who’s irritated everyone to the right of “Morning Joe” lately is another small yet effective way to do it:
Paul claimed that Christie had “backed down” on gun rights: “You have some Republicans backing down like Christie backing down and criticizing the NRA, and I think that doesn’t do any good.”
When asked by Ingraham why Christie made the comments, he responded that they were politically calculated. “I think he may be solidifying his support with Democrats in New Jersey and maybe liberal Republicans.”
Paul warned Christie that his criticism of the NRA, as well as his criticism of fellow Republicans over the Sandy relief bill, would come back to haunt him if he made a presidential run in 2016. “I think criticizing the Second Amendment movement and the over-the-top ‘give me my money’ stuff, ‘I want all sixty billion now or I’ll throw a tantrum,’ I don’t think that’s going to play well in the Republican primary.”
“I think people need to think through what their position on these things are.” Paul concluded.
The field will be more crowded, with many heavier hitters, in 2016 than it was in 2012, but I’d bet cash money that Rand will do better than Ron did, especially if Obama continues to fiddle on entitlements. The more dire the fiscal situation gets, the more appealing a harder line libertarian appears vis-a-vis a more traditional conservative Republican pol.
As for Christie, between the post-Sandy Obama photo op, the grandstanding on Sandy relief, and now dumping on the NRA while saying nothing about Obama’s own bit of child exploitation, WaPo’s wondering if he’s already finished for 2016. I doubt it. To repeat a point made recently, the lesson of nominating McCain and Romney is that the national Republican primary electorate is way bigger than the universe of grassroots conservatives. Christie could lose every last tea-party vote and conceivably still squeak through to some sort of Romney-esque victory over a divided conservative field. (Then again, if it were that easy, why didn’t Giuliani win in 2008?) But I still think he’d be better off hooking up with Bloomberg and running a serious third-party campaign. For better or worse, after all the betrayals of conservatives lately, that’s his brand now. If he had a few hundred million from Bloomy to jump-start him and some serious media buzz about being the first credible independent candidate since Perot, who knows what he could do? Republicans’ popularity is at a recent historic low in some polls and Christie’s popularity is sky high. If he ends up with the right opponents — Cuomo, say, if Hillary doesn’t run and maybe Rand Paul on the right — it’s not impossible to imagine him contending seriously. Think of it: The first “No Labels” president. What could go wrong?
Via Newsbusters, here’s Andrea Mitchell marveling at the fact that, notwithstanding Christie’s blue-state pander about their “reprehensible” ad, the NRA is a reasonably popular organization.
“When asked by Ingraham why Christie made the comments, he responded that they were politically calculated. “I think he may be solidifying his support with Democrats in New Jersey and maybe liberal Republicans.”
Thats going to be important when Krispy runs again’st Hillary in the Democratic primary.
Rand Paul sounds like the best 2016 option for the GOP yet. Of course, compared to the likes of Christie that’s not saying very much.
I’m glad Christie criticized the ad. It showed that both HE AND HIS BUDDY, BARRY, are liberal hypocrites. Barry’s kids shouldn’t be used to play politics but Barry can use other people’s kids to play politics. High level hypocrisy. Christie’s tantrum threw the spotlight on it.
If Rand Paul gets the nomination in 2016, he’s going to need a pro-Israeli, social conservative as his VP to bring the party together and be a real force to be reckoned with. A Paul/Cruz ticket is one I’ve been contemplating lately. Cruz/Paul would work nicely too.
I am convinced that we should take what the left calls the “extreme” aspects of the party... and run with them! Cutting spending, pro-life, etc are all called extreme, but they are winning arguments if you can make them. In the time leading up to 2016, the Republican party needs to regroup and rethink its messaging. Using moderates has failed twice now. Time to go all-in conservative.
We can even make a peace deal with the libertarian sect (we all know what most libertarians care about). An offer to turn all regulation of non-class A or B drugs over to the states? Let them experiment and see what works for them. ‘Might help with the young vote.
Then again, am I really trying to suggest trumping the Dem’s homosexuality with the prospect of pot legalization? It really would be a tough choice for our degenerate youth. Maybe they’d all stay home having gay sex and enjoying a toke instead of voting?... ugh...
I’m glad I’m not a political strategist.
Paul should suggest that Mayor Bloomberg regulate what the fat boy can eat....at gunpoint! See how fattie likes totalitarianism when it is pointed at his head.
“But I still think he’d be better off hooking up with Bloomberg and running a serious third-party campaign.”
Christie-Bloomberg, or perhaps a Bloomberg-Christie ticket would be interesting — Bloomberg the obsessive controller, Christie the compulsive eater; Bloomberg the meticulous, caring, concerned Mommy, Christie the big, overbearing, fearsome Daddy. Who knows, they may siphon off some votes from the socialist Democrats.
If Christie or another RINO runs, I’ll not bother to vote.
What on earth kind of PCP-laced ganja is this "AllahPundit" turbo-bonging? He still thinks there are conservatives who like the gun-grabbing, Ubama-hugging New Jersey Governor Pork Porkie?? Porkie had his "15 minutes" long, long ago when a supporter posted a YouTube of him slapping down some moron union teacher somewhere. But good grief, it wasn't a couple of weeks before a little research showed just what a fraud Porkie is.
Oops... Nevermind!
I somehow reversed the meaning of “bete noir” in my head. I’m getting old, I guess...
No kidding. Christie reminds me of 0bama Phone Lady the way he has been whining for his Federal funding.
Cristie seems to be related to Charlie Crist.
If Christie or another RINO runs, I’ll not bother to vote.
-——————————————————————————————Excuse me but in the last election it was reported 4 million conservatives failed to vote. Now look what the country is up against. We gave it to Zero. Romney and McCain are good men, just not perfect.
Cruz is born in Canada, he is not eligible as he is not natural born
The Dems would go to town on a GOP candidate who is not NBC. As much as Obama Supporter PhonyCons deride Obama Eligibility people....the Dems will not go Pro-GOP by giving a non-NBC candidate a pass. The GOP lost votes by attacking Obama Eligibility people....the Dems will not make the same mistake with Cruz Eligibility people on their side
Bush was not perfect, he had some flaws.. Giongrich was not perfect, he had some flaws. Even Pailin was not perfect, she had a couple of flaws. But they were all recognizably Conservative.
Romney's problem was that he was anathema to Conservatism. In that sense he WAS perfect. He was a perfect democrat.
Are you trying to smear Rand with some of his father's libertarian ideologies? I like Rand, and he is more well based than Dad.
I also support Jim DeMint, and hope that he and Rand are front-runners in the 2016 POTUS End of America campaign. Screw you Republican RINO establishment alter worshipers. If you want to go soft, convert to Democrat. If you want a return to our Founding Principles, we need a big change in the Republican platform. Boehner, Jeb Bush and Christie ain't going to cut it anymore. Don't even try to run another Romney/McCain/Dole POS and stop trying to lecture us into going compassionate conservative anymore. We are living through the End of America, or a New Beginning! By 2016 there will be only scraps left of our republic after you RINO worshipers are done with it!
I actually like Rand Paul(so far, anyway). However, I do NOT care for Christie. Hence, anybody looks good next to the country club GOP governor of NJ IMHO.
Romney’s problem was that he was anathema to Conservatism. In that sense he WAS perfect. He was a perfect democrat.
Christie is a weasel.
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.