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
“I ain’t voting for pro-amnesty Rand Paul with his libertopian lean under any circumstances.”
Your call of course. I’m currently trying to get over my voting addiction, so I doubt I’ll be voting at all. I think that it’ll come down to piaps or jabba anyway so I’m not going to get my blood pressure up over it.
“His plan is stupid, dividing up the country into zones.”
How is that any different from what we have right now? Why should someone who is living in NH or TN pay 5.75% less in income taxes than I do? We’re already split into 50 zones.
“I believe that laws, taxes and regulations should apply equally to all, the federal government has no business playing favorites.”
Agreed. But that’s also a utopian view that we are unlikely to see in our lifetimes.
Rand is waste of time in any Prez bid.
Libertarian is NOT the answer.
BUT.. We could create a new cabinet position for him.
How about.. the official “disabler”
His sole job would be to disable large sections of the Federal Government.
“Funny thing that. Paul is proclaiming about the same as Reagan did. And yet we have those on here that claim they will not vote for him.”
FReepers are not representative of the electorate as a whole. The electorate is far more liberal and somewhat more libertarian than most FReepers.
The candidate that wins in 2016 is very unlikely to be a social conservative. You might get lucky and get an economic conservative on some issues (like Reagan) but that’s about all you’re going to get.
I like Ted Cruz a lot and all things being equal, he would be my preference after Sarah Palin. I just question his electability in the general election. Electability should not be the primary consideration in looking at a candidate, but it still is a consideration. Rand Paul is not as conservative as I would like, but he crosses my “good enough” threshold and I think is more electable.
“Why leave Ted Cruz out of the mix and leave Rand Paul in the mix?”
Oversight on my part. You might also ask why I forgot to mention Sarah Palin as well who is far and away my first choice.
“I’m from Realville.”
I am as well. And I don’t think that Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz are going to be the nominee. Most likely it’ll be jabba.
“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.”
Me? Agonize? I doubt I’ll even vote. It’ll be a real test, though, if Sarah or Ted should run.
“Imho, thinking that other people have the same way of reasoning that you do is dangerous.”
I hope they don’t. It wouldn’t upset me at all if hordes of people packed into eastern Kentucky or south central or Detroit to start businesses and take advantage of a great tax structure and easy regulatory environment. The idea is that once it’s shown to be successful, it would expand.
It just isn’t for me.
Which country is he now running for president, Mexico or Guatemala?
**
Good point.
I would also hope that would happen, but years of disappointment are not easily allayed.
Since Rand Paul endorsed Mitch McConnell, the GOP-E candidate for Senator in Kentucky over the Tea-Party candidate Matt Bevin, I no longer trust him.
Factor in his own Amnesty plan, and this guy can’t be trusted.
***
Yep, Ramnesty Paul can take a hike.
What do you want? A communist five-year plan?
The government can't "plan" these things. We just need someone who will remove the shackles placed on business and let it decide how to grow.
Screw plans.
Rand Paul brings all his daddy’s voters and grassroots organization. A lot of GOP types don’t like those folks but had they been fully onboard with the last two campaigns we probably would have won. Paul’s libertarianism also resonates with young voters. The GOP has the opportunity to make itself the natural home for the ever growing libertarian plurality in America. We don’t have to give up on gay marriage or abortion because you can make a libertarian argument against these things but we do have to give up on the drug war. If Cruz or Paul take a Federalist/Perry approach to Marijuana it will go a long ways towards busting up the coalition that votes for the left. The Democrats are becoming ever more Nanny-Staters to the bereft of many of their libertarian supporters. We don’t have to become liberal we just need to let people alone and point out the failures of the Left. Paul/Cruz Cruz/Paul may be the last best hope for America. GOPe control of the Congress or the White House will do nothing to stop the collapse.
C'mon Bush removed all the shackles and business created jobs in China. 'Free Trade' was GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT deals.
“Lower taxes and regulations everywhere or nowhere. period.”
And you’ll get nowhere. I’m not that doctrinaire: I’ll take a half a loaf.
Unfortunately with the uniparty we typically don’t even get crumbs.
Very perceptive of you. What our government calls "free trade" isn't free at all. Good on you for noticing that.
“I would also hope that would happen, but years of disappointment are not easily allayed.”
Understood. A lot of the disappointment at least in my case is with the realization that not only will I not get to see conservative measures implemented, but I won’t even have representation that tries to do it.
The uniparty represents it’s own agenda and it’s not even remotely conservative.
“A lot of GOP types don’t like those folks but had they been fully onboard with the last two campaigns we probably would have won.”
Yup. Crazy ol’ Ron Paul was about as crazy as a fox. I’ve seen the Paul supporters at work from time to time (gun politics). All I can say is wow.
“If Cruz or Paul take a Federalist/Perry approach to Marijuana it will go a long ways towards busting up the coalition that votes for the left. The Democrats are becoming ever more Nanny-Staters to the bereft of many of their libertarian supporters.”
It’s a potential winner. I think most conservatives would oppose it though. Heck, the uniparty is counting on conservatives to do exactly that.
*****************************
I hope that you are wrong. It is one of my biggest regrets that there are good Americans who may not live to see these traitors and their influence undone.
And that's the weakness libertarians see in conservatives and liberals...the damn near genetic inability to mind their own business. I tend to have more common cause with the righties, but I saw how drunk on power they got last decade and how quickly the libertarians were told to shut up and sit down because they were in charge. There is going to have to be more deeds than words to get them back under the same tent again this time.
I hope I’m wrong too. :-(
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.