Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

H2O Man

(73,333 posts)
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 12:42 PM Apr 2015

Regarding Rand Paul

I’ve watched the news about Rand Paul’s announcing that he has officially entered the primary contest for the republican nomination for president. This makes him #4 among republicans who have filed with the FEC to run; the others are Jack Fellure, Mark Everson, and Rafael Cruz. It’s worth noting that two of the other three do not merit serious consideration -- they are running for VP -- while Cruz can be trusted to self-destruct The fact that the republican machine has already unleashed the modern version of what were known as the “rat-fuckers” in the Nixon era on Rand Paul suggests that they consider him to be a serious threat to their candidate.

Most people could probably agree that Paul’s father ran in republican primaries for about the same reason that Rev. Al Sharpton ran in the Democratic Primary -- to give voice to a segment in his party that he felt was being ignored by the machine. But, as Chris Matthews has noted, Rand Paul believes that there is a way for him to not only win his party’s nomination, but also the general election. While current polling indicate he is unlikely to win the primaries, a lot can change in a year.

The republican machine is most likely to pick Jeb Bush. Their back-up candidate might be Scott Walker, with a Cheney-type VP candidate; surely, the machine wants a seasoned elder to make the international policies that exploit some nations, and invade others. And, in a sense, Walker might well compete with Paul better than Bush. Although the republicans are scheduling far fewer debates than in 2012 -- sad for us, entertainment-wise -- the republican audience would see that Paul can easily out-debate Bush. Expectations are key: what they expect from Jeb Bush is different than from Scott Walker.

Foreign policy will be an important topic in republican primaries, and I believe Paul will gain more support from his policies on these issues than Bush and Walker. In terms of the other two major policy areas -- economics and social policy -- he could likely remain close.

Perhaps the wild card factor is that he can appeal to quite a few young republicans. Likewise, if he does win the republican nomination, he could be something fairly rare in Democrat vs. republican presidential election contests: the younger candidate, claiming to bring “new” ideas to Washington, DC.

In theory, there are a few people who would be worse as president (for example, had McCain won, died, and Palin became president). In real life, none of them has any chance of winning an election. That Paul does have a chance should concern us all.

Peace,
H2O Man

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

hootinholler

(26,449 posts)
1. My fear is he makes it
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 12:48 PM
Apr 2015

And motivates the uninformed independent who doesn't vote often to vote. The anti-machine message could resonate among that group which I hope that Bernie can motivate the same group to vote for him.

All that said, Fuck Rand Paul!

H2O Man

(73,333 posts)
3. Right.
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 01:00 PM
Apr 2015

A few people that I know -- from non-political circles -- who are "low information" voters, have said they would vote for him. They tend to be people who view "the system" as stacked against their interests. I do not understand how they could mistake Paul for being on their side ....other than that they are really "low-information," and thus unaware of what he represents.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
2. The thing that chills me about Rand Paul is his idea for "economic freedom zones"
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 12:54 PM
Apr 2015

There are areas that he would set up in depressed areas like detroit - in which the top tax rate, both income and corporate, would be 5%. You can also count your charitable contributions as credits, not deductions. So you could just make a charitable donation if you don't want to give the government any money. Such Zones would see a weakening of all regulation, particularly environmental. Education would be privatized as much as possible - and should these plans fail to produce prosperity the bill mandates no bailouts or additional government aid.

Just what Detroit needs.

The things that Rand Paul wants to do are dangerous - both for the communities he would inflict these plans on and for America as a whole. But you are right; he might well catch the Tea Party Vote, and enough of the Corporate vote to close a gap.

This info from Rand Paul’s terrifying vision for America: The truth about his plan for “Economic Freedom Zones” by Matthew Pulver.

Bryant

H2O Man

(73,333 posts)
4. Thank you for
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 01:02 PM
Apr 2015

the link.

I think that he is glib enough to fool people. I do not, of course, intend that as a compliment.

 

DesMoinesDem

(1,569 posts)
5. Thank you. I applaud you for an honest analysis of the situtation.
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 01:05 PM
Apr 2015

Unfortunately, almost all discussion of Republicans on DU is inane attacks, name calling, and saying FUCK (INSERT REPUBLICAN NAME)! It is childish, unproductive, and reflects poorly on this site and it's members.
If Rand wins the Republican nomination and Hillary wins the Democratic nomination it will be terrible for the Democratic Party. All of the sudden the Democratic Party will be the party in favor of NSA spying, the drug war, drones, foreign intervention, etc. and the Republican Party will be the party opposed to it. Neoconservatives will support Hillary over Rand. It will be a dramatic change, and not a good one.

H2O Man

(73,333 posts)
6. Thank you.
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 01:16 PM
Apr 2015

I think that Paul might prove to be more difficult to defeat in a general election, than either Bush or Walker. I'm convinced that in recent times, the presidency offers more opportunity for a person to accomplish "bad" than "good." George W. Bush is the prime example. (This is why I consider President Obama's leadership per Iran such an extremely important win.)

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
7. Gain support from who?
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 01:23 PM
Apr 2015

On foreign policy I agree more with Rand Paul than most Democrats that would have numerous attack ads run against him calling him a terrorist loving liberal. His views of Iran are pretty unusual coming from him but considering he just announced he is advocating mainstream GOP views to become electable in a primary. He'll always have to be against choice & anti gay rights to ever become elected as a Republican. I agree on a lot of his 4th amendment views such as against the Patriot Act, against FISA, giving felons the right to vote, etc.

There are numerous other issues I disagree with Rand Paul & he often falls of the rails like he'll acknowledge the reality of climate change but will obsess about wetlands & regulation. He'll oppose government funding of much of anything really & oppose regulations & restrictions of private business though this view isn't much different than the GOP position.

Out of all the Republican candidates -- if I had to choose which one of the Republicans I'd have to live under as President it would be Rand Paul only because the other Republicans are so far away from my views Rand Paul is the only one where I actually more than 1-2 or agreements but he is certainly bad when it comes to matters of economics, education, health care & numerous issues involving government funds or agencies.

I'd support the Democrat over Rand Paul most likely but the other Republicans I just don't even want to think about. Jeb Bush?

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,705 posts)
8. Paul is part of the Teheran 47 and favors a 190 billion dollar increase in the defense budget...
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 01:26 PM
Apr 2015

He's only liberal in that arena if you compare him to Oliver North.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
10. I meant his Iran view is unusual for Rand Paul
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 01:30 PM
Apr 2015

I clearly see it as an attempt to have more mainstream GOP views (flip-flopping for the primary) but he opposed arming the Syrian rebels

Paul holds that the primary Constitutional function of the federal government is national defense, and that the greatest national security threat is the lack of border security. He supports eliminating issuance of visas to people from "about ten rogue nations." He supports trying terrorists caught on the battlefield in military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Paul believes that when the United States goes to war, Congress must declare war as mandated by the United States Constitution.[87]

According to the Huffington Post, unlike his more stridently "non-interventionist" father, Paul sees a role for American armed forces abroad, including in permanent foreign military bases.[88]

Paul has announced his "strong opposition" towards granting Obama fast-track authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership and has called for Obama to finish the negotiations in just a few months.[89][90]
Afghanistan and Iraq

During his 2010 Senate campaign Paul questioned the idea that U.S. Middle East policy is "killing more terrorists than it creates." He supported the war in Afghanistan and opposed rapid withdrawal from Iraq.[91] He says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq and questioned whether the intelligence was manipulated.[92]

Upon returning from a week-long trip to the Middle East, Paul asserted "it is none of our business whether Israel builds new neighborhoods in east Jerusalem or withdraws from the Golan Heights; the U.S. should not tell Israel how to defend itself.[93]

Paul reiterated that the U.S. needs to reassess who it is giving financial and military assistance to. He said the U.S. should begin cutting aid to countries who are burning the U.S. flag and chanting 'Death to America.' Paul raised concerns on continuing to give weapons and financial aid to Egypt. The Senator said he was "very disappointed that after giving Egypt $60 billion in financial assistance over the past 30 years, Egyptian rioters climbed onto the roof of the U.S. Embassy, took down the U.S. flag and burned it. That should never have happened and is inexcusable."[93]

Paul also spoke against U.S. overseas military bases.[94]

In 2009, Paul put forth the theory that Dick Cheney exploited the September 11 attacks in order to push for war against Iraq so that Halliburton, Cheney's old company, would profit from it.[95]
Reducing foreign aid to Israel

Paul called for reducing foreign aid to Israel,[96] but when later asked to clarify his position he said he has never proposed any legislation to do so.[97] In 2011, Paul had proposed budget cuts of US$500 billion from the federal budget in part by cutting off foreign aid to all countries, including financial grants to Israel,[98] and in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer in 2011 he pointedly said he would favor a halt to U.S. aid to Israel.[99][100]

Paul stated that the portrayal in the media stating that "Rand Paul wants to end aid to Israel" are "not true, inappropriate and inflammatory".[101]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rand_Paul

This would get him called a terrorist loving liberal who wants to give "rights to terrorists".

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,705 posts)
11. I would elaborate and maybe later but I have to go...
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 01:33 PM
Apr 2015

He has changed his position on so many key issues I wonder if he recognizes himself.

H2O Man

(73,333 posts)
13. He will say anything.
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 01:57 PM
Apr 2015

(Shocking, I know.)

Per the 47 letter: during the primaries, that actually put him in a better position than had he not signed it. To appreciate that, we have to suspend logic and common sense, of course. But he actually advanced his "primary cause."

He will say that he signed it for one reason: that he believes the Constitution of the United States mandates international treaties to be approved by the Senate. He will keep the focus on that aspect.

At the same time, he prevented other republicans from saying he was "weak" on this issue. That's the same idea as with his being both for cuts in the military budget, and increasing it. That budget is large enough that he can easily point out some waste, but still advocate increases in other areas. His bit about being against "nation-building" will go over well with the republican base, as well.

(I long considered Ollie North as among the most dangerous threats to our society. Clearly, he was eager to trample the Constitution. But I think Paul represents another type of threat.)

H2O Man

(73,333 posts)
12. Great question! Thanks.
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 01:45 PM
Apr 2015

I think it is fair to say there are different factions within the republican party, that include some -- starting with the neoconservatives -- who absolutely do not; paleoconservatives who do; energy corporatists who do not; other corporate-industrials who do; and then the common, every-day folks who are registered republicans, although it is clearly not in their best interests.

Within that last group, I (like everyone else) can only speculate. I'd hope that the mere thought of another Bush would make them puke. However, in a republican primary debate, I think it is likely that Paul would come across better than Walker.

What do you think?

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
14. Actually he switched to aiding Israel and no diplomacy with Iran..
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 02:22 PM
Apr 2015

So maybe you are right about his party backing him.

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
15. Fortunately, Hillary remains well ahead of all rivals...
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 02:57 PM
Apr 2015

... but we're a long way from 2016, and she is still only a "theoretical" candidate (in about the same way as gravity is a theory).

I'm no lover of Hillary, but I always view elections in terms of damage control first. That old "she's better than the alternative" rears its head once again. This would be true no matter whom the GOP nominated, since there is no one in that party who can be taken seriously as a human being, however seriously he might be taken as a candidate.

Rand Paul is a particularly dangerous-looking viper because, as you say, the low-information voters are going to go by cosmetics and irrelevancies and not care about substance. But if the voters cared about substance, our choices in elections would look very different indeed.

I'm pretty much in "sufficient to the day" mode, right now. The Presidential race has hardly begun. I figure whoever announces will get an immediate boost just by virtue of announcing, but when the ballots are counted, we'll end up with the establishment candidate as usual. Remember in 2012 that virtually every GOP candidate was leading the polls at some point. Every week was turmoil over the next fool in the driver's seat, but in the end Romney was nominated without much difficulty. I expect much the same thing will happen now, but as I opined when Cruz announced his candidacy, one must never take anything for granted.

-- Mal

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
16. No matter which republican is nominated, any one of them would be an unspeakably evil
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 03:20 PM
Apr 2015

president, so survival instinct and unbridled fear and loathing has already driven me to campaign for *Any Dem 2016* at every opportunity.

MarianJack

(10,237 posts)
17. I've long expected him to be their 2016 nominee.
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 03:38 PM
Apr 2015

If so, the "drop cheeseburger and run away from a teenager" moment should be prominent in any Democratic ad about dealing with difficult issues!

PEACE!



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Regarding Rand Paul