Posted on 01/29/2014 2:02:08 PM PST by RKBA Democrat
The United States is having a libertarian moment. And Rand Paul is getting ready to capture it by himself.
The Kentucky Republican delivered his own response to President Obama's State of the Union on Tuesday night via YouTube. But the rebuttal wasn't so much about what Obama said Tuesday as much as it was an opening salvo for a possible 2016 presidential campaign, the bulk of it coming as a directed argument against big government.
"Government doesn't create jobs very well," Paul said. "Government is inherently bad at picking winners and losers ... if government is to send money to certain people to create businesses, they will more often than not pick the wrong people, and no jobs will be created." He pointed specifically to the old big government bogeyman, Solyndra.
"It's not that government's inherently stupid, although it's a debatable point," Paul said. "It's that government doesn't get the same signals."
Paul's Tuesday speech wasn't sponsored by the GOP (that honor went to Cathy McMorris Rogers) or the tea party (that was Sen. Mike Lee's job). The personalized setup provided for a much more visually appealing delivery, complete with controlled lighting and a lectern. A year after giving the official tea-party response, Paul has struck out on his own.
The move makes sense. A Tuesday NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that twice as many Americans feel negatively about the Republican Party than feel positively. As a politician, why tie yourself to that standard when you can use your own, already-mobilized base to go it alone, at least before primary season really kicks up?
And there's plenty reason to think Paul is perfectly placed to capture a slice of the current American agita. Consider this: What's the greatest, most existential threat to the United States—big business, big labor, or big government? In December, a record 72 percent said big government in a Gallup Poll, blowing past business (21 percent) and labor (5 percent). The majorities hold despite politics, but 92 percent of self-identified Republicans cite big government as the biggest threat to the future of America.
Think of Rand Paul as the anti-Bill de Blasio. In his Tuesday speech, Paul slammed the "politics of envy" and suggested that if you "punish" the successful, their companies will flee overseas. He pushed a somewhat anti-welfare message, highlighting the story of the antigay, fringey Star Parker, who says she once used her welfare money on drugs before turning her life around. While New Yorkers are highly optimistic about de Blasio just a few weeks into his liberal mayoralty, Paul's taking the bet that what flies in New York won't fly in the country overall. Again, there's a political logic here: While 67 percent of Democrats say government should do "a lot" to reduce poverty, only 27 percent of Republicans agree.
By all accounts, Paul is gunning for the top spot. In his Tuesday night response, Paul made policy proposals of his own, including those for economic freedom aones that would be set up around the U.S. and have, among other things, a flat 5 percent income and business tax. "I believe in an America where people are free to make their own decisions," he said.
And earlier in the day, he took digs at the possible competition. At Tuesday's State of the Net conference in D.C., Paul bashed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a "big proponent of the surveillance state," and suggested that a libertarian-leaning Republican candidate in 2016 could "completely transform where people think they are and what party people think they have allegiance for."
It's an early 2016 campaign shot, and it's not off base, either. Government was mentioned as the most important problem in the U.S. across all party IDs in a recent Gallup Poll, cited by 18 percent of Democrats. A whopping 65 percent of Americans say they're dissatisfied with the U.S. system of government and its effectiveness. However, many of the people who are upset over current government effectiveness are also surely no fans of the filibustering Paul.
Paul's speech was broadcast online instead of aired on national television, and it's not the sort of thing that's going to change the senator's fate on its own. But this independently run, radically small-government message is just another stake Paul is laying on a seemingly inevitable path toward a presidential campaign. Combine this with his impressive on-the-ground infrastructure and organization, and he's quickly becoming a major force for 2016.
Link to the speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E6YMdgGUY4&feature=youtu.be
Paul has an appeal to younger voters that Cruz simply does not have, and his issue of privacy/snooping really resonates with them.
If he’s the nominee I’ll vote for him, but I would prefer Cruz.
Ideology aside, the very astute Rand Paul is too twerpy-looking to make it out of the primaries....so everyone shouldn't agonize too much one way or the other about his presidential prospects.
Leni
Rand and Rubio flip flopped on the Arizona law during the campaign.
*******************************
Imho, thinking that other people have the same way of reasoning that you do is dangerous.
I'm wary of the R's.
he is manuvering for the “runner up post” ala mccain/dole to run against clinton and lose.
Any normal person who supports amnesty knows it harms this country.
Pretty much where I am. I'm done with party labels benig used to divide the electorate, but also I believe the nominee from the right of the spectrum has to run on something. Just running against the left isn't going to win. Cruz and Rand both have a message to run on. IMO.
“...I would be happy with Ted Cruz or Rand Paul...”
Same here.
“...But I happen to think that Rand Paul is better positioned to win should he choose to run...”
He needs to start doing major face-time and getting his words out at every opportunity. Shadow every Dem that gets in front of a microphone and camera and make them explain their votes, remarks, positions, etc., so he can present an immediate contrast.
Mega dittos.
I think both of them on the same ticket would be near unbeatable.
:)
Go Rand Go!
“why should downtown LA get better treatment than a place that is not a hell hole?”
Why shouldn’t it? The government offers all sorts of tax incentives for various behavior. This is relatively innocuous and easy to take advantage of if you’re so inclined: live and work in a domestic hellhole and you get a better tax rate. It’s not a tax break limited solely to the politician’s cronies.
Reminds me of how combat pay is not taxed. Or how there is a credit for overseas earned income.
While I personally disagree with the income tax hard stop, this is a step in the right direction. And frankly would show how America could prosper with a much lower income tax or so much regulation.
Again, the perfect should not be the enemy of the very good. We aren’t going to get all we want or even a majority of what we want at one time. The statists have used incrementalism over time to screw us over. Time to put the shoe on the other foot.
It is Statism. Is that not “nannyism” people are always complaining about?
Lower taxes and regulations everywhere or nowhere. period.
Paul would be a perfect compliment as a VP selection.
I don’t see anything “very good” about Paul
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.