Skip to comments.Rand Paul: The most intriguing man in today’s Republican Party
Posted on 03/26/2014 5:37:47 PM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
Rand Paul is the most intriguing and for Democrats, perhaps the most frightening figure in todays Republican Party. The Kentucky senator, who is more than flirting with a 2016 presidential run, is making a smart play for the millennial generation that was key to President Obamas twin victories and that his own party has convincingly repelled.
Pauls unlikely pilgrimage to the progressive precincts of the University of California at Berkeley offered the most convincing evidence so far that he is serious about carving out this (sorry, President Clinton) third way space and a demonstration of his potential appeal to this lost demographic, more attuned to personality than party.
Watch the video of Paul at Berkeley the other day, and you think: This guy doesnt even look like a Republican, with his jeans and cowboy boots, his tie-but-no-jacket look, his mop-in-need-of-cutting coiffure. Mitt Romney tried to rock those jeans, but no 20-something no 30-something, actually looked at his Brylcreemed hair and thought: I want to hang out with this guy.
More important, listen to the substance, and it is difficult to detect much Republican in Pauls remarks. Indeed, his cross-brand pitch was explicit, and exquisitely attuned to the youre-not-the-boss-of-me ethos of the younger generation. Now you may be a Republican or a Democrat or a Libertarian, Paul began his speech. Im not here to tell you what to be.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtonpost.com ...
Washington Post, enough said.
They do not want a republican that can win like Ted or Sarah.
Intriguing to the WaPo?
Looks like Paul got into the race too soon. THey’ll be setting him up for a takedown after the primary. By that time they’d have figured out every weakness and every mistake he ever made.
He is so unwise.
IMHO, Paul is the most ‘viable’ GOP candidate. And besides, he’s the only candidate that would sign laws to neuter future presidents.
“This guy doesnt even look like a Republican....”
That is because he is neither a Republican or true conservative. Rand Paul is a Libertarian that has infiltrated the GOP like a parasitic worm. He needs to go away. IF he wants to run for POTUS...he should do it as a Libertarian and stop messing up the GOP.
I thought Romney was the most frightening for the democrats. That was what the media told us... or was that just 2011.
He’s no better than his father.
The man’s politics are becoming more defined as he calls on us to move the party platform left, wins the approval of the GOPe, and the favor of the media.
All those people can’t be wrong.
Romney never received standing ovation at UCBerkeley or any
other liberal venue.
Actually no republican or democrat since Eisenhower received standing ovations from a very conservative crowd like CPAC and a very liberal crowd like at UC Berkeley.
So indeed Rand Paul is a unique, and politically astute dude.
The liberal MSM will have the hardest time vilifying this dude. He has made no stupid statements to be exploited by the MSM.
My finger is down my throat.
Cruz attended high school at Faith West Academy in Katy, Texas, and later graduated from Second Baptist High School in Houston as valedictorian in 1988. During high school, Cruz participated in a Houston-based group called the Free Market Education Foundation where Cruz learned about free-market economic philosophers such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat and Ludwig von Mises. The program was run by Rolland Storey and Cruz entered the program at the age of 13.
Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1992. While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society’s Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship. In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year and Team of the Year (with his debate partner, David Panton). Cruz was also a semi-finalist at the 1995 World Universities Debating Championship, making him Princetons highest-ranked debater at the championship. Princeton’s debate team later named their annual novice championship after Cruz.
Cruz’s senior thesis on the separation of powers, titled “Clipping the Wings of Angels,” draws its inspiration from a passage attributed to President James Madison: “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Cruz argued that the drafters of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of their constituents, and the last two items in the Bill of Rights offered an explicit stop against an all-powerful state. Cruz wrote: “They simply do so from different directions. The Tenth stops new powers, and the Ninth fortifies all other rights, or non-powers.”
After graduating from Princeton, Cruz attended Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1995 with a Juris Doctor. While at Harvard Law, Cruz was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review. Referring to Cruz’s time as a student at Harvard Law, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, “Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant.” At Harvard Law, Cruz was a John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics.
Cruz currently serves on the Board of Advisors of the Texas Review of Law and Politics.
Cruz served as a law clerk to J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 1995 and William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States in 1996. Cruz was the first Hispanic ever to clerk for a Chief Justice of the United States.
After Cruz finished his clerkships, he took a position with Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, which is now known as Cooper & Kirk, LLC, from 1997 to 1998.
In 1998, Cruz served as private counsel for Congressman John Boehner during Boehner’s lawsuit against Congressman Jim McDermott for releasing a tape recording of a Boehner telephone conversation.
Cruz joined the George W. Bush presidential campaign in 1999 as a domestic policy adviser, advising then-Governor George W. Bush on a wide range of policy and legal matters, including civil justice, criminal justice, constitutional law, immigration, and government reform.
Cruz assisted in assembling the Bush legal team, devise strategy, and draft pleadings for filing with the Supreme Court of Florida and U.S. Supreme Court, the specific case being Bush v. Gore, during the 2000 Florida presidential recounts, leading to two successful decisions for the Bush team.
After President Bush took office, Cruz served as an associate deputy attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department and as the director of policy planning at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
Texas Solicitor General
Appointed to the office of Solicitor General of Texas by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, Cruz served in that position from 2003 to 2008.
Cruz has authored more than 80 United States Supreme Court briefs and presented 43 oral arguments, including nine before the United States Supreme Court. Cruz’s record of having argued before the Supreme Court nine times is more than any practicing lawyer in Texas or any current member of Congress. Cruz has commented on his nine cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court: “We ended up year after year arguing some of the biggest cases in the country. There was a degree of serendipity in that, but there was also a concerted effort to seek out and lead conservative fights.”
In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Cruz drafted the amicus brief signed by attorneys general of 31 states, which said that the D.C. handgun ban should be struck down as infringing upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Cruz also presented oral argument for the amici states in the companion case to Heller before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In addition to his success in Heller, Cruz has successfully defended the constitutionality of Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds before the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, winning 5-4 in Van Orden v. Perry.
In 2004, Cruz was involved in another high-profile case, which was Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. In Newdow, Cruz wrote a U.S. Supreme Court brief on behalf of all 50 states which argued that a non-custodial parent does not have standing in court to sue to stop a public school from requiring its students to recite of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court upheld the position of Cruzs brief in a 9-0 decision.
Cruz served as lead counsel for the state and successfully defended the multiple litigation challenges to the 2003 Texas congressional redistricting plan in state and federal district courts and before the U.S. Supreme Court, winning 5-4 in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry.
Cruz also successfully defended, in Medellin v. Texas, the State of Texas against an attempt by the International Court of Justice to re-open the criminal convictions of 51 murderers on death row throughout the United States.
Cruz has been named by American Lawyer magazine as one of the 50 Best Litigators under 45 in America, by The National Law Journal as one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America, and by Texas Lawyer as one of the 25 Greatest Texas Lawyers of the Past Quarter Century.
After leaving the Solicitor General position in 2008, he worked in a private law firm in Houston, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, often representing corporate clients, until he was sworn in a U.S. Senator from Texas in 2013. At Morgan, Lewis, he led the firms U.S. Supreme Court and national appellate litigation practice.
In 2009, while working for Morgan, Lewis, Cruz formed and then abandoned a bid for state attorney general when the incumbent Attorney General Greg Abbott, who hired Cruz as Solicitor General, decided to run for re-election.
Isn't it interesting how concerned the MSM pretends to be over the future of the Republican Party? Truth is, it is all about controlling future election results. Early on they will set up a Republican candidate they are most comfortable doing background work on and then they will knock that candidate down during the election campaign with all manner of salacious reporting.
Could be a "Kiss of Death" moment.
Actually, I'm glad he is laying down his markers early, it makes it easier to identify early whether he belongs on any potential candidate list.
CBS-"Mitt Romney made an unannounced stop at the Colorado Conservative Political Action Conference and received a standing ovation"
Townhall.com-"Romney Receives Standing Ovation for Straight Talk at NAACP Convention"
I’ve said it and I’ll say it again:
TED CRUZ IS REAGAN X 100.
He is indeed off-the-charts brilliant. We couldn’t ask for a better conservative messenger and leader for our time.
Now where’s that poster of him in the biker garb with a cig on his lips?
Maybe for some, not so much for me.
” IF he wants to run for POTUS...he should do it as a Libertarian and stop messing up the GOP.”
I think the primary marketplace can sort through the candidates just fine.
Uh oh. I can’t see myself getting behind anyone who is being lauded by WaPo.
Push the social liberal, same old same old
I recall watching his NAACP event. It was a polite response from the audience, more or less a thank you for your appearance. The UC Berkeley ovation was much longer and much more enthusiastic. Rand genuinely won over that audience.
Much more important...I don’t think you will ever catch Rand talking about the 47%. Or that rape does not result in pregnancy. Or not knowing about the Bush doctrine. Rand will not lose votes of anti-mormon bigots.
I do not agree with all his positions and proposals. As a legal immigrant, I am especially opposed to placing illegals ahead of those waiting in line legally. But I usually favor smart, politically astute, thoughtful, candidates who look good on TV and can get votes from many spectrums of voters. I favor those who IMO have best chance to win.
...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
Rand Paul On Shutdown: “Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea”
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
I get it, Paul’s standing ovation from some college kids was better than Romney’s standing ovation from the national NAACP which represent a huge swath of our nation, it’s blacks.
You didn’t even take a moment to apologize for making such a false claim as you did, you just went straight into your next argument.
Rand has already come out for gay marriage and changing the GOP party platform to drop the social issues.
Here it is only March of 2014 and you have already decided that our only hope is the increasingly anti-conservative, Rand Paul in late 2016.
He supports the H.R.1091 - Life at Conception Act
Romney may have received a polite standing ovation for showing up. But he never won the black vote. That NAACP ovation was hollow and meaningless. I am willing to bet as 2016 nominee Rand will receive 100% more black votes than nominee Romney received in 2012.
Ditto with youth vote.
Ditto with Hispanic votes.
Romney is a great businessman, but not an astute politician.
Like I have posted before I would love to see Cruz or Palin elected president. But they will be vilified mercilessly by MSM. Because the left is genuinely afraid of them. I don’t think Palin has shown any signs she will run in 2016. Cruz is a distant maybe. But if he runs and wins the nomination, I will support him. But my brain tells me he will not win many crossover votes ala Reagan and lose in general to Hillary.
Right now I see Rand Paul winning the most crossover votes.
Right now Paul is declaring war on the conservative base, once one becomes a liberal and anti-conservative, we don’t want them to win do we?
Why would we prefer a candidate who is running against us, long before the campaign even starts?
Because WINNING must come first.
Rand Paul has never said “I am for gay marriage”
What he really said is to stay away from divisive social issues such as gay marriage before the election.
Rand Paul never said “Let us give 100% immediate amnesty to illegals just like Ronald Reagan signed on to”.
What he really said is we must deal with the illegal immigrants in a rational method.
Rand Paul is pro-life, for smaller government, a strong military, against foreign nation building, against getting involved in foreign wars when US security is not threatened,
for balanced budget amendment, which do not sound like liberal agenda.
Most important, from what I have observed, he is least likely to make political blunders or look uninformed on any important issue. You betcha he knows about the Bush doctrine, and he has never talked about the 47% or pregnancy being impossible during a rape.
Correct, the translation is "Hillary can beat him".
It’s Ran Paul’s campaign, and it was him who just came out for gay marriage by accepting it and to change the GOP into a social liberal party, to quit opposing the left on social issues.
You keep wanting to insult Palin with a fake insult to boost your man, another sign of how he appeals to liberals.
Who knows why you keep bringing up a Senate candidate named Aiken, but you seem to think it is important.
Paul has bad judgement, is uninformed, and is making a huge blunder, in making moving the GOP left, his political goal.
“I think the primary marketplace can sort through the candidates just fine.”
No it cannot. That is why we keep getting bad candidates that are not conservatives. Wackadoodles like the Pauls help mess up the primaries. Paul IS NOT a Republican, he is a Libertarian. He should stay out of the GOP primary and run as an independent Libertarian in the general election.
“No it cannot. That is why we keep getting bad candidates that are not conservatives. Wackadoodles like the Pauls help mess up the primaries. Paul IS NOT a Republican, he is a Libertarian. He should stay out of the GOP primary and run as an independent Libertarian in the general election.”
No, FRiend. As Mittens said in his interview, the mainstream RINOs told him they basically had to “steal the primary”. They did.
“Paul IS NOT a Republican, he is a Libertarian.”
A distinction with no practical effect. Are RINOs republicans? Are tea party members republicans? are conservatives republicans? are some pro abortion voters republican? are some prolife voters republicans? What is a republican? We’ve had candidates who won the republican primary who were RINOs and did not support the “republican platform”. That Rand disagrees on some points seems normal. However, he is a step up from Dole, McCain, RINOmney.
I welcome him to the primary season. He has a chance to make his case in the marketplace of ideas. Hopefully, it will challenge all to quit mouthing the words and actually stand for something. The last thing we need is another mynah bird primary with Reagan imitators, who stand for nothing.
Full Disclosure: I was a registered republican for more than 25 years. After McLame, I switched to independent. I am now a Free Range Conservative. I’m off the plantation and they have to work for my vote.