Posted with many LOLs: "The decline of Rand Paul" by Dana Milbank

[FSogol]

Rand Paul took a left turn on his journey to the Republican nomination, and now his hopes seem to be headed south.

SNIP

The most recent national poll, by Fox News, has Paul in sixth place, with 7 percent, trailing Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee and Marco Rubio. Paul averages only about half the support he had late in 2013. Paul doesn’t appear to be winning over young voters — perhaps the most important justification for his candidacy — and does not do better than other Republicans, according to a survey released last month by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics. Even in his home state, a media consortium poll this month found that Paul had lost his lead in a theoretical matchup with Clinton.

Paul’s declining standing can be felt in Washington. Last week, he attempted to reprise his wildly successful 2013 filibuster, which caught fire on social media and forced party leaders to take notice. But this time Paul found indifference as he fought to limit government surveillance. As The Post’s Philip Bump reported, it got only about one-tenth of the Twitter attention that his first effort did. Television footage from the chamber caught Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) rolling his eyes as Paul spoke last week, and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), who joined Paul’s previous filibuster, openly opposed him this time.

On CBS’s morning show Tuesday, Paul was asked to answer his Republican colleagues’ complaint that his 11-hour speech was really a performance aimed at selling his new book; “Fox & Friends” minutes later asked him to respond to the charge that he is a “misguided ideologue.”

Whole popcorn-worthy article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-decline-of-rand-paul/2015/05/26/10a7b932-03e5-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html?wprss=rss_dana-milbank

[Renew Deal]

1. When running for president everything is viewed through that lens.

So although his filibuster is cute the first time around, it is opportunistic when he personally has something to gain. Then you have rivals like Graham sitting there trying to find an advantage or show you up. It's a different game. The republicans are will tightly packed that this is not a major blow. The problem for Paul is that there aren't enough Libertarians to carry him to victory. He has to expand his base. That's tough to do when every niche in the party is represented by two candidates.

[DetlefK]

2. That last one wasn't a filibuster because Rand didn't hold up any Senate-business.

He was there on his own time.

[Fred Sanders]

3. No matter how many GOP candidates fail, one will win the nomination, that is the frightening inevitability.

The problem is not the individuals, talking about any one is what they want, it is the entire Party.

The GOP needs an intervention, they are addicted to the fear and hate and racism of Fox.

[oberliner]

4. You really think so?

I feel like we can beat any of them.

[FSogol]

5. I agree. They are a collection of chumps and also-rans. They might win local races in some red

backwater stink hole, but on the national level, they just look foolish.

[Frustratedlady]

6. Paul had too much exposure. A little bit of him goes a long way.

He's lasted longer than I thought he would with such an early start, but there was no way he would make it to the finals. He is an arrogant jerk and says what his audience wants to hear.

The best part is that he has lost his glitz with the young people. I had a grandson who was enamored with him for a while, but he finally woke up. He's still Republican, but at least his eyes were opened on Paul. Small blessings are refreshing.