Author Topic: Is Paul really plausible?  (Read 253 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 246,053
Is Paul really plausible?
« on: April 23, 2014, 08:42:05 AM »
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/204126-is-paul-really-plausible

 By Alexander Bolton - 04/23/14 07:16 AM EDT

Can Sen. Rand Paul really become the 45th president?

His curly hair and slight frame aren’t a Hollywood casting agent’s idea of a commander in chief. But the freshman Republican senator from Kentucky rejects established norms; he’s on a declared mission to redefine the presidency and his own party.

This approach has its detractors, notably from the national security wing of the GOP. Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, for example, has called Paul “not presidential” and said his foreign policies are “dangerous.”

Many other Republicans are nervous about Paul’s rising stock, much more than they were about the presidential bids of his father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

A CNN/ORC International poll last month showed Paul leading a field of Republican presidential contenders among Republicans and independents who favor the GOP nationwide. He garnered 16 percent support among those groups, compared to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who garnered 15 percent and 11 percent, respectively.

Paul won the presidential survey at the Northeast Republican Leadership Conference in New Hampshire and the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

Even so, there are some in GOP circles who say they don’t take Paul seriously.

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter said Paul, who’s about 5 feet 8 inches tall, can’t be president because he’s “as tall as my iPod.”

“Generally, the taller candidate wins,” said Robert Denton Jr., an expert in political communication at Virginia Tech.

But Denton added that voters’ criteria have evolved over the years and now a candidate’s ability to project empathy is as important as radiating authority and competence.

“He actually does have kind of an everyday-person appearance about him,” he said.

Paul, 51, told The Hill several years ago that he cuts his own hair, which liberal comic Bill Maher once compared to a Chia Pet. Gayle King of CBS asked him during an interview if he was trying out a new hairstyle after he showed up on camera right after taking a shower.

His fashion sense has also been ridiculed. Senate aides snickered when he showed up at the Capitol wearing a black mock turtleneck under a sports coat.

Veteran Republican operatives call Paul the Tea Party’s dream candidate and acknowledge he could win the Republican nomination given the important role conservative activists play in that process. Paul has inherited a committed group of activist supporters from his father and has worked to appeal to mainstream Republicans more than his dad ever did.

The real measuring stick for Paul, and any for GOP White House hopeful, is whether he or she can beat Hillary Clinton.

In a general election Paul would have to defend his proposals to raise the Social Security eligibility age and eliminate capital gains taxes. He would also have to fend off questions about his 2010 statement that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was wrong to prohibit businesses from discriminating against customers and his 1990s description of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme.”

“He’s never had to defend these views. At some point in a debate with the Democrats, he’ll have to defend these views,” said a senior House Republican aide.

Paul revved up conservatives during the April recess by defending Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy in his standoff with federal authorities over his cattle grazing on protected land. But some Republicans think Paul is too quick to jump onto fringe causes.

Paul held up John Brennan’s nomination to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency last year with a 13-hour filibuster warning of the danger of drone strikes against U.S. citizens on American soil.

“If there’s a nut movement in the country that he hasn’t found, please call me. He’s now getting involved in the sagebrush matter with Mr. Bundy,” said the GOP staffer. “I worry about a lot of things, but my biggest concern isn’t that Barack Obama is going to take me out at Starbucks with a drone.”

An aide to Paul retorted: “Anybody who underestimates the power of the emerging Rand Paul movement is making a big mistake. The pundit class and establishment hacks said Rand Paul could not win a Senate primary — he did.

“He has no political fear and leads by example. Politicians and pundits who talk down Rand Paul’s leadership are the same elites who have not had a good record of picking winners in the past, so it would be wise to stop listening to them.”

Paul has resonated with young independent voters in a way that few Republicans can match. He received a standing ovation when he railed against government surveillance of cellphones during a speech last month at the University of California at Berkeley, historically a liberal hotbed.

Last year Paul spoke to students at Howard University, a historically black college in Washington, D.C., and the NAACP plans to invite him to speak at the group’s national conference in July.

“He’s got a clear base in the party as demonstrated by every poll you read. I think he has broadened that base and continues to broaden it. It’s really good for the party to have him out there talking to constituencies that quite frankly we have not spent much time with,” said Ron Kaufman, who served as White House political director under former President George H.W. Bush.

Kaufman downplayed questions about Paul’s appearance, noting that Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, and John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee, looked “very presidential.”

“He comes across as a very honest, direct and sincere economic conservative with a libertarian bent,” he said. “That combination of qualities is going to be very appealing to a lot of voters. As much as the country is anti-Washington in 2012, it will be far more so in 2016.”

Paul will encounter stiff opposition from powerful kingmakers in the Republican Party.

John Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under former President George W. Bush, recently blasted Paul’s Iran policy as “incoherent.”

Vin Weber, an experienced hand in GOP presidential politics who served as a senior adviser to Romney’s campaign, said, “I think the business community is going to have a hard time swallowing [Paul].”

Paul declared this month “corporate welfare should once and for all be ended” and has pushed legislation to shrink the Export-Import Bank.

Weber pointed out that the business community is “not heavily ideological.”

“They want government to be relatively market oriented. They don’t want government to be crusading against big business or government’s relationship with big business,” he said.

That said, Weber added, “I think he’s definitely for real.”

Paul dismayed many conservative activists by endorsing the reelection of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), whom they view as a personification of the GOP establishment in Washington. But should McConnell win in November, Paul will have a powerful friend in the GOP leader who could try to convince the party’s powerbrokers to back him.

Support the USO

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,020
    • Auktion Online
Re: Is Paul really plausible?
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2014, 08:52:21 AM »
Weber pointed out that the business community is “not heavily ideological.  They want government to be relatively market oriented. They don’t want government to be crusading against big business or government’s relationship with big business,” he said.

Generally speaking, the bigger the capitalist, the less they like free-market capitalism.
"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,857
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: Is Paul really plausible?
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2014, 09:53:36 AM »
I could be wrong, and I'm sure someone will soon correct me if I am - but Rand Paul did not back Bundy's actions.  He told Harry Reid to back off from the "terrorist" rhetoric when talking about the citizens that gathered to protest the BLM's heavy-handed approach - including having snipers trained on the populace. 

I don't want to open up the whole Bundy discussion again here at all, but I wanted to clear that point up - Rand Paul takes controversial positions sometimes - very often his words are misrepresented by those who are trying to portray him as a candidate that is so far out of the "mainstream" that he cannot win. 

Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,703
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Is Paul really plausible?
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2014, 12:39:50 PM »
Weber pointed out that the business community is “not heavily ideological.  They want government to be relatively market oriented. They don’t want government to be crusading against big business or government’s relationship with big business,” he said.

Generally speaking, the bigger the capitalist, the less they like free-market capitalism.


too true

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: Is Paul really plausible?
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2014, 12:43:37 PM »
Kristol doesn't like Paul because he's not an "Israel Firster".
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,703
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Is Paul really plausible?
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2014, 12:51:04 PM »
Quote
In a general election Paul would have to defend his proposals to raise the Social Security eligibility age and eliminate capital gains taxes. He would also have to fend off questions about his 2010 statement that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was wrong to prohibit businesses from discriminating against customers and his 1990s description of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme.”


1) The eligibility age for social security should be raised for the simple reason that the predicates it's based on have all changed, like the ability to continue earning after 65 (now 67), the lack of alternative retirement resources, and the short life expectancy of people who reach 65 (67) (i.e., that in the past people generally didn't live that long past 65);

2) Eliminating capital gains taxes is probably a nonstarter, but it's an interesting concept inasmuch as it would add some marginal efficiency to the capital markets because investors would be less likely to keep their capital in a relatively inefficient investment because the tax hit on liquidating that investment would make selling the investment a losing proposition, and would also tend to incentivize savings over consumption (to a degree) because once taxed income is invested, the returns on that income are tax-free, making it more attractive to build up your investments to derive more of your income from capital sources rather than wage sources, that would also tend to drive up wages - in a natural, free market way - because the implied disincentive to earn taxable wages would tend to reduce the labor supply, thereby leading to an increase in the price paid for that supply;

3) Social security is a ponzi scheme - at least as it's currently structured - because today's working-age, tax-paying individuals are paying for the benefits received by those who no longer work, meaning that when social security goes belly up and benefits cease, those who are working at that time will be left holding the bag:  having paid for benefits but having lost the promise of receiving their own benefits in turn.


Saying that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was wrong to prohibit businesses from discriminating against customers - i.e., on the basis of race, for example - was probably a stupid thing to say.  Generally speaking, the only color that ought to matter in business is green.

Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,535
  • Common sense results oriented conservatism
Re: Is Paul really plausible?
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2014, 01:27:09 PM »
I may disagree with Paul on some topics, but I like his independent mind.

Big business, K Street, the various entitlements classes, need to be led to let get off the teat, and do more for themselves.

Most of the other candidates are just more of the same old positions, hashed and rehashed. Paul is a refreshing risk taker, charting a different way to view our circumstances, and governments' role in it.
#NeverHillary

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,020
    • Auktion Online
Re: Is Paul really plausible?
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2014, 02:01:08 PM »
Saying that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was wrong to prohibit businesses from discriminating against customers - i.e., on the basis of race, for example - was probably a stupid thing to say.  Generally speaking, the only color that ought to matter in business is green.

I agree it was a stupid thing to say, but in principle if a property owner wants to make stupid decisions, that should be his business, not the government's.  And the CR Act of 1964 did open the door to quite a bit of nefarious evil that went well beyond its original scope.

Unfortunately for Paul, that's a legitimate intellectual argument for a faculty lounge, but in public it makes anyone advocating it look like a racist.
"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: Is Paul really plausible?
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2014, 02:53:13 PM »
I agree it was a stupid thing to say, but in principle if a property owner wants to make stupid decisions, that should be his business, not the government's.  And the CR Act of 1964 did open the door to quite a bit of nefarious evil that went well beyond its original scope.

Unfortunately for Paul, that's a legitimate intellectual argument for a faculty lounge, but in public it makes anyone advocating it look like a racist.

People have as much right to play the fool as the wise man.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf