Posted on 03/16/2014 1:55:55 PM PDT by PaulCruz2016
Washington (CNN) - Rand Paul has done something his father never did - top the list of potential Republican presidential candidates in a national poll.
According to a new CNN/ORC International survey, 16% of Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP say they would be likely to support the senator from Kentucky for the 2016 nomination.
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee, garnered 15%, with longtime Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who's considering another bid for the White House, at 11%.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a 2008 GOP presidential candidate, is the only other Republican tested in the survey to crack double digits.
The poll's sampling error means that statistically it's not a win for Paul, but his finish is a breakthrough for his family.
A national Quinnipiac poll found Paul tied with Ryan in January for the top spot. That appears to be as close as either Rand Paul or his father, Ron Paul, has ever come to nabbing first place all by himself in any national poll.
Among the other potential presidential hopefuls in the new CNN survey, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is at 9%, with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas each at 8%.
Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida registered 5% and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who battled eventual GOP nominee Mitt Romney deep into the 2012 GOP primary and caucus calendar, polled 3%.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
Ted Cruz has made him look more moderate?
I’m open to what he has to say. I’ll listen.
Rand Paul was never on my top tier list, but he was on my “uncertain” list until his recent comments about social issues. Now he is on my “I have work to do in the garden that day” list.
Actually I always vote. But I don’t always vote for the candidate that the Republican establishment places before me. (Hence, votes for Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, and Tom Hoefling.)
As a social conservative, it is doubtful that you will find me voting for Rand Paul. You don’t have to like it. That’s just the way it is.
Rand Paul is no Dr Ron Paul!
>>As a social conservative, it is doubtful that you will find me voting for Rand Paul. You don’t have to like it. That’s just the way it is.<<
Why is that? If Senator Paul stands for a federal government that follows the Constitution, what part of the Constitution needs to be overridden to accommodate your social conservatism?
Do we need to ban abortion at the federal level? Or can that be left to the states?
Do we need to define marriage at the federal level, or can tax laws simply be revised to accommodate partners, i.e, beneficiaries?
What religion does the federal government have to endorse? Christianity? Or is it sufficient that we revert to the Constitution and quit driving Christianity out of the public square (seemingly to substitute Islam, lately)?
Senator Paul isn’t running for governor; he’s running for President (or at least it sure appears that way). What specific social issue does he have to take with him to the Presidency, and seek to incorporate in federal law to meet your needs?
Isn’t Constitutional government (finally) sufficient to let you pursue whatever social contract you desire at the state level?
Aren’t we better off with the federal government reined in by the Constitution?
And aren’t social conservatives likely to be far better off if a President Paul gets to appoint the next 2 or 3 members of the Supreme Court instead of a President Clinton?
Isn’t it sufficient that he’s both pro-life and pro-2nd-Amendment, even if it turns out that he considers only the latter to be a federal issue? Or that he thinks a marriage should be between a man and a woman, but is willing to let the states decide individually how to treat the issue? (I don’t know his position on this issue, by the way.)
16 % ???
That is the top?
How about we wait until we have the off year elections before we crown any victors in the Presidential election...........
There is a culture war going on. Being a non-combatant will not stop the downward spiral.
The President, with his bully pulpit, is a man of influence. He can influence public opinion. For an example of how public opinion has changed, over the last 15 years homosexuality has gone from being illegal to the point that one in many cases cannot simply express one’s view, even politely, that it is sinful, without being fired, fined, not allowed to graduate from college, or even jailed.
The Constitution allows us to choose this path. We don’t need a leader who is OK with that, as long as it is Constitutional. We need a leader to influence public opinion to halt the handbasket that is headed toward the cesspool at the bottom of the slippery slope. Rand Paul will not be that man. He might alter the speed of the handbasket, but not the direction.
Now, I’m headed to church this evening. Perhaps that in itself is becoming a novel concept. Like I said, you don’t have to like it...
So the leading minds right now are Paul, Ryan, Perry and Huckabee?
Good thing we’ve got a couple years to keep looking.
Rand Paul has come out against social conservatism, and the GOP platform, he is obviously not a social conservative.
We won’t end federal abortions, federal gay marriage, and federal acceptance of the gay agenda, without a conservative party platform, a conservative party, conservative candidates, and selling conservatism to the American people in our campaigns, and conservative nominees, and office holders.
Libertarians are libertarian at ALL levels of government.
He learned to avoid making some of his father’s statements in speeches and how to gather more fans.
First, in most states homosexuality was not illegal. There have been open homosexuals around forever.
What’s relatively recent is the viciousness some of them demonstrate whenever someone takes a stance in opposition to one of their goals. As you point out, that approach has worked for them.
So, would Rand Paul support their actions, or condemn them? Not their goals, but the way they’ve acted in attempting to achieve them. Rabid environmentalists often act the in the same manner.
If you are saying (and you might not be—I don’t want to put words in your mouth) that the GOP must nominate someone who will put homosexuals back in the closet, by making overt homosexuality illegal, you must surely realize that such a person would lose even worse than Goldwater did.
I’m not questioning your morals, or your principles, but your strategy for advancing those morals and principles.
Toss in Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Palin and a couple more and I think our bench is in a lot better shape than it was last time around.
It’s also very encouraging to not see Romney or Christie at the top of the heap.
...or he has different opinions than his father and has impressed more people with his thinking.
Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor.
If you think homosexuality was open and free in America before the left/libertarians took over in the 60s, you are wrong.
They existed, and were not much harassed, but their activities were tightly restricted, and were illegal, as described today, they were closeted.
I agree with you. Rand Paul caught my attention for awhile, but his dismissal of social conservatives has alienated me. I am a values voter and believe God will hold each of us responsible for our vote. I want a moral God-fearing individual that is for life and the traditional family. My list has now shrunk to Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and perhaps Rick Perry. This country can continue to vote its way to hell, but I don’t want to be any part of it!
Actually, he might be a social conservative, but not want the federal government messing around with social issues.
The way you get rid of federal abortion is to get rid of Roe vs. Wade and return the issue to the states. That will require appointment of judges who respect the Constitution as written.
The way you get rid of federal gay marriage is to get the federal government out of the marriage business. Or would you prefer a federal law favoring gay marriage, because according to recent polls, that would be the likely result.
And the way you get rid of imposing a gay agenda on the nation via an all-reaching federal government is to reduce that government to its Constitutional limits at which time the gay movement will move its efforts back to individual states where it will matter, and where they will not always win.
I consider myself a social conservative in most respects, but Senator Paul is correct on wanting to expand the GOP base by focusing primarily upon reducing the role of the federal government in our personal lives. Reducing the role of the federal government substantially will accomplish much good for social conservatism and it’s in the realm of the possible with the right leadership.
Colorado has embarked on marijuana legalization. I see both both merits and problems with that, but one thing I’m reasonably sure of is that many states will now wait and watch and learn from Colorado’s experience. A kid’s life shouldn’t be ruined over a single joint, but maybe a kid’s life will be ruined anyway over thousands of joints? Do we really want to take this to the federal level, or is it better dealing with it at the state level? (And yes, I know it’s against federal law now, though not enforced.)
I'd prefer judges that uphold the will of the people and constitutional amendments passed by the people at the state level.
I question whether Paul can be trusted to name judges will do that or overturn Roe.
Given that the Federal government hands Planned Parenthood more than half a billion dollars a year, abortion is an issue can't be avoided.
Well .. as usual the liberal media has decided to pick the candidate for the GOP.
So what else is new.
Anybody who falls for this is minus a brain!!!
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.