Rand Paul Announces Presidential Bid

Sen. Rand Paul has announced he is running for President.

A quote from his speech:

“I say the phone records of law-abiding citizens are none of their damn business,” Paul said of government officials.

His banner read:

“Defeat the Washington machine. Unleash the American dream.”

Any takers here?

< Tsarnaev Jury to Begin Deliberations in Guilt Phase | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    2 Good Ideas Out of 10 (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 04:03:58 PM EST
    still leaves 8 bad ideas on the table.  

    I take your point (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:58:13 PM EST
    And he doubtless he has tons of bad ideas.

    check out his positions

    Let's take just two , drugs and crime-

     Rand Paul on Crime  

    Blacks look who's in prison & conclude cops out to get them. (Aug 2014)
    Let convicted felons regain the right to vote. (Jun 2014)
    Justice cannot occur without a trial, especially minorities. (Mar 2014)
    Defend trial by jury & oppose unlawful searches. (Feb 2013)
    Stop over-criminalization in vague laws like Lacey Act. (Sep 2012)
    Lacey Act applies foreign laws to US citizens. (Sep 2012)
    Many criminal statutes lack requirement of criminal intent. (Sep 2012)
      Rand Paul on Drugs  

    Jailing people for 10 years for marijuana is ridiculous. (Nov 2014)
    War on drugs has unintentionally had a racial outcome. (Jun 2014)
    Don't promote marijuana but don't jail non-violent criminals. (Mar 2013)
    Tackle drug problem; no one cares where funding comes from. (Oct 2010)
    Community treatment instead of federal anti-drug programs. (Aug 2010)
    Drug abuse isn't a pressing issue; 10-20 years is too harsh. (Aug 2010)
    Favors legalizing medical marijuana. (May 2010)
    Exclude industrial hemp from definition of marijuana. (Aug 2012)
    Exempt industrial hemp from marijuana laws. (Feb 2013)

    Those ideas are going to sell VERY well on college campuses.


    Duly noted (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by vicndabx on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 11:13:16 AM EST
    but, as others have stated these positions come from the starve the beast branch of conservatism and not from the let's take care of each other wing of the liberalism.  

    That said, he would be better to further those changes in the Senate - once Americans move toward those changes (ala LGBT issues) thus exerting pressure on the legislature.  Until then, that he has these ideas is great as far as coalition building but in reality won't amount to more than a talking point.


    All Things... (none / 0) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:07:02 AM EST
    ...listed he has more impact on in the Senate than if he were President.

    That is the problem with Paul, his good ideas are items for Congress to decide, his bad ones, are ones he would actually would have the authority to change as Prez.

    I don't want the guy anywhere near a budget or deciding what Mexicans to deport.

    The wars are a mixed batch in that he would have impact, but no President will ever get us out of the Middle East anytime soon.  That is one area our government has lost control of, or rather our government can't turn down the dollars and no politicians will risk having an attack on their watch.


    No argument (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:11:24 AM EST
    but like the term limits thing that will never happen I don't think that makes any difference at all to the power these things might have in a campaign.

    Sadly of you tell people what they want to hear many will vote for you just because you said it.

    Note - ( not to Scott) spare me the Obama references to the last part.


    Yeah but... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:20:55 AM EST
    they're a very big two things!

    That's the most frustrating part to me...why can't the Brand D party as a whole get these two simple things right?  Why drive an otherwise boiler-plate lefty into the arms of libertarianism, with all it's flaws, by getting these two big issues so very very wrong?

    To be fair, Obama has done a couple good things on the criminal justice front, but it's not nearly enough.  I hope he goes buck wild with pardons during the next two years...steal some of this thunder back from the libertarians.  To be fair squared, there are a few Democrats who are right on this stuff too, but they are outliers in their own party, much like Paul is in his.

    Sh*t I might not even know what libertarianism is if not for Bill Clinton's unprecedented expansion of The War on Drugs and that evil Crime Bill he signed, and the war mongering foreign policy of both major parties/philosophies over the last 60 years or so.

    In conclusion, fault for Paul's and libertarian philosophy's popularity amongst the youth and independents lies with establishment Democrats and Republicans, and Democrats would be wise to straighten up and fly right on criminal justice and foreign policy, lest they lose their obvious demographic advantages or the Republicans wise up first.  Think of Paul as your wake up call.


    Not sure I agree (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by vicndabx on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 11:21:31 AM EST
    don't get me wrong, change in our drug and incarceration policies are most definitely needed.

    There are however much bigger fish to fry that would lift many more up. Infrastructure, re-training, continued pullback from interventionalist policies to name a few. I worry that too many are taken in by what appears to be a one-trick pony.


    Those many more.. (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 11:33:51 AM EST
    may be under-employed or unemployed or underpaid...but at least they have their freedom.

    Meanwhile over 2 million people are in prison, some being tortured in solitary confinement...I think that's a much more pressing issue.  A human rights disaster.


    I agree with all of that (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:26:15 AM EST
    which is one of the reason I'm rooting for him.  Not unlike Ms Warren he could force the democrat to adopt some more sensible views.
    I'm really curious how Hillary will or would deal with the trend of states legalizing pot.  O has basically ignored it.  Will she.  I would say probably but it would be nice for her to have an opponent who would force her to.
    I believe the question will be asked and will matter.  To lots of people.

    If the Dems... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:33:37 AM EST
    have no challenger to bring Hillary left of Wall St./World Cop/Prison Nation aka "moderate", maybe Paul can do the job.  Somebody's got to, or we're gonna be in bad shape.

    For some reason my brain files this (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 06:27:59 PM EST
    In the same file that it filed future Amazon drone delivery in.

    As usual, Charlie Pierce does not (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 08:09:50 PM EST

    Never has the blog's Five Minute Rule been more important to the survival of the Republic. To recap, the rule states that, whenever any member of the extended Paul family speaks in a political context, that person will make sense for exactly five minutes. Then, at exactly the five minute mark, the person will say something that leaves open the possibility that they grew up somewhere in the Dagobah system. Then you spend several minutes doubting your own judgment.

    So, at noon on Tuesday, as Aqua Buddha announced that Ted Cruz would not be running unopposed for the Republican presidential nomination, I started listening closely at about the 3:30 mark, just to make sure I wouldn't miss anything. My vigilance in this regard was richly rewarded.

    My favorite?  So hard to choose...

    The Worst Idea In American Politics! Right off the top! How can he possibly top that? Watch in amazement!

      I ran for office because we have too many career politicians. I believe it now more than ever. We limit the President to two terms. It's about time we limit the terms of Congress!

    Another stupefyingly bad idea, and not an entirely constitutional one, either. Which makes it strange coming from a guy who also believes...

       We need to boldly proclaim our vision for America. We need to go boldly forth under the banner of liberty that clutches the Constitution in one hand and the Bill of Rights in the other.

    First of all, banners don't have hands. Second of all, you can carry the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in one hand because they are part of the same document. I mention this because, one day, Aqua Buddha might want to go boldly forth while eating a sandwich.

    I'm sorry. I know this was a serious event and all. The gang at liberal MSNBC was all a'quiver with anticipation. Chris Cillizza laughed off the fact that Aqua Buddha is polling in single digits at the moment by cautioning us that he stands to inherit Crazy Uncle Liberty(!)'s massive field organizations, the ones that propelled the latter to one third-place finish after another. Chris Matthews called Aqua Buddha a "philosopher." Not to be too much of a contrarian here, but these people have to be kidding.

    The man is a simpleton.

    Honest to god, the "Read The Bills Act"? How does he plan to enforce that? "Put down that copy of 50 Shades, Feinstein. Pick up that omnibus reconciliation act and let me hear it. LOUD!"


    The Five-Minute Rule, indeed.

    A Couple of things (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 08:22:35 PM EST
    the man is a simpleton?

    I'm pretty sure after 8 years of GWB that is hardly a disqualifer.

    Also the term limits for congress thing is indeed a stupid idea.  It's also a very popular one.  Particularly with right wingers.  It's constitutionality notwithstanding.

    And he didn't seem to mention the flat tax.   IMO one of his worst ideas.


    Btw (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 08:24:09 PM EST
    i disagree strongly with the simpleton part.  Paul is many things.  Simpleton ain't one.

    Rand Paul's (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 05:00:46 PM EST
    libertarian credentials fall down on abortion and gay marriage. But, in keeping with his philosophy, I believe no one should help him--no financial or other support.   He needs to become president by pulling himself up by his own bootstraps.

    Swiftboat (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 03:45:44 PM EST
    veterans for "truth" funded in large by Sheldon Addleson is already out of the gate with ads slamming Rand. Another monster headed hydra from the Bush Administration that is going to destroy fellow Republicans.

    Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 03:58:07 PM EST
    Love him or hate him... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 03:59:18 PM EST
    he's on the right side of several issues that are near and dear to the TL community...namely issues of war, both foreign and domestic, and criminal justice.

    I don't think he can survive the suicidal GOP primary, but I think it's far to say if we were stuck with a Brand R president after Obama, we'd want it to be him over any of the other clown posse contenders.

    As for "any takers", if there was no 3rd party option on the ballot and it was Paul v. Clinton, I'd have to pick Paul as the lesser of two evils, major warts and all.  But they'll be other options who will be on the right side of these near and dear issues, either Green or Libertarian, so it's a moot point.

    Rand is sounding increasingly (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 04:08:04 PM EST
    hawkish or accepting of neocon policies....Trimming his sails to fit within the Republican crowd.

    And, his view on reproductive choice is solidly anti-choice....So, no so Libertarian.

    Rand is becoming less Libertarian and more just a standard issue fiscal conservative.


    He is Not... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 04:38:57 PM EST
    ...near and dear to my issues.

    All the issues I agree with, he has absolutely no control over as president.  I would love to see him single handily put the P back in privacy, but seriously...

    Most things he can have a real impact on as Prez are not things I want him touching, like immigration and the budget.

    I don't believe for a minute any president has the pull to get us out of the Middle East.  That is something he would have more impact by staying in the Senate.


    Add to MKS comment here (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 04:53:39 PM EST
    With Rand Paul: Forget any positive movement on the regulatory front with regard to big business, industry, the environment, immigration reform and civil rights.  Rand Paul's history shows outright aversion to Civil Rights legislation & enforcement (remember his attempted elusiveness even about the central 1964 Civil Rights legislation.) Rand Paul essentially epitomizes something like "Each Man is an Island ... and, Good Luck to Everybody Else."

    I used to think--and ranted on at TL earlier (in response to kdog, I recall)--that the "Libertarian" group that Rand Paul used to define was one of the scariest prospects imaginable for this country.  Indifferent; unconcerned about the lot of any others in society other than self & maybe family; a man against any beneficial purpose of government; the mountain-man standing with his rifle behind the fence shooting at anyone who might need anything from his precious property; and, most ironically & especially, the elitist person of wealth from Kentucky who attracts horse wealth and others who look to him to keep the riff-raff from upsetting their apple-cart.  He personifies "let them eat cake."  But now ....

    Now, he is bit by bit shedding the cleverly constructed trappings designed to appeal to the unsuspecting youth and the hardened isolationist.  Why?  Because he really believes he can be President ... and, he has to fit in and compromise.  His anti-foreign involvement propaganda was just that ... it was cr#p designed to appeal to those who sincerely seek to avoid harmful, killing, unwise military excursions ... yet, the reality has always been his isolationist stance based upon avoiding any foreign interactions akin to monetary assistance for the needy from tragedy and other geographical catastrophes.  Yep, he does seem sensible about his approach to drugs and sentencing, but what else ... because for a person ostensibly a fan of the most expansive personal freedoms, the reality can be seen in his opposition to freedom of choice and women and the need for healthcare.  Perhaps, freedom for him really always meant freedom for big business to get bigger while the regulations in place would be dismantled at a faster pace than even the other Repub crazies seem to admire.

    Now, he is still talking to those who believe in the myth of utopian libertarianism.  He will rail against all government (about as anti-FDR model as one can be).  In the meantime, he courts the same big $$$$ ... and he will make the same deals that he pretends to abhor.  He is a hypocrite.  <BTW, one of his long-time advisors--an international lawyer with multiple homes from Aspen to London and lucrative Lexington horse farms in between--has argued since before R. Paul ran for Senate that this pathway would be one to watch. This neighbor of mine, who spends months on big-time fundraising events associated with this, is passionate about him ... as he is about his own wealth.>

    Caveat emptor.


    kdog, you always have (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:51:30 PM EST
    to look behind the curtain.

     Rand talks a good game in generalities, but  he is not what he seems. When pressed, he is not any kind of lover of liberty.

    He does not support women's reproductive rights. He does not support anything with regards to the lgbt community. He is hedging on legalizing weed. He is backing away from his opposition to military action.

    He is just another right wing tea party nut job.

    Do not be fooled, mi compadre.


    I have no illusions... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 06:15:38 PM EST
    believe you me sister...he is a politician after all!

    I ask of all of you...if forced to choose from the GOP clown posse, is he not the best of the worst?


    Bingo, per this USA Today (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 01:33:08 AM EST
    article on what Paul must do to take IA:



    Kdog, while I acknowledge (none / 0) (#102)
    by Zorba on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 12:36:46 PM EST
    your arguments about Paul's stances on war and our criminal justice system, I would never vote for him if he was the last person on earth.
    You are way too young to remember when women died or were maimed for life because, in their desperation, they sought illegal back-alley abortions or tried to self-abort.
    I remember those days, before Roe v Wade, and I do not want to see them happening again.

    As a senator, Paul is firmly anti-choice, though he's right that he does tend to keep things fuzzy when asked if he believes that rape victims should be forced to carry their pregnancies to term. Paul has a perfect voting record with National Right to Life, the organization behind the the law that just effectively criminalized all abortions performed in Kansas during the second trimester. (That law, by the way, has no exceptions for rape or incest.)

    And then there's his sponsorship of federal personhood legislation that would extend full legal rights to fertilized eggs, a move that bans most, if not all, abortion and could make certain forms of birth control illegal.

    Because Paul's personhood proposal holds that the full weight of the 14th amendment kicks in "at the moment of fertilization," methods of birth control that may prevent implantation -- like the copper IUD when used as emergency contraception -- could become, as the New Yorker so bluntly put it last year, "weapons of murder."

    Paul likes to talk about debate and philosophy, but there's little room for such nuance in Paul's actual positions on reproductive freedom. The murkiness comes in when he's asked to explain his voting record and policy priorities, which is when he tends to sound like more of a stoner than a red meat culture warrior. This isn't a new development, either. In a 2013 interview with CNN, Paul called his proposal to establish fetal personhood an "important philosophical discussion."



    All true (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:10:50 PM EST
    still kdog's - who we do not think is stupid or uninformed - openness to his message makes my point that there is a segment of the left who will be at least open to being with him quite well I think.
    I know quite a few kdogs.

    They will until (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:33:53 PM EST
    the primaries come and he starts to sound like Ted Cruz. The theory of Rand Paul apparently is a lot more appealing than the reality of Rand Paul.

    Some will (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 06:42:10 PM EST
    some wont

    What is the difference... (none / 0) (#5)
    by NycNate on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 04:07:15 PM EST
    b/w Paul & Cruz?  Aren't they about one in the same?  What distinguishes the appeal of Paul and the repulsion from Cruz?

    Cruz can't shut up about Jesus. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 04:35:51 PM EST
    The more he talks, the more fanatical he sounds.

    Huge difference, but perhaps without a distinction, because eventually, Paul will stop making sense altogether.

    I don't see either one lasting too long once primaries are underway.


    Just my (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 04:54:12 PM EST
    humble opinion but I think Cruz is going to last way longer than Paul. Cruz has evangelicals supporting him. Paul has who? A handful of libertarians that are left in the GOP? He's hoping I'm sure to get independents to come out and vote for him in the primary however I think that's probably not all that reliable. And you already have people trying to take Rand Paul out on the very day he declared he is running. Nobody's trying to take Cruz out already.

    And apparently nobody loves Jeb Bush except the donors.


    Ga6th: Agree (none / 0) (#14)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:08:40 PM EST
    Cruz--former law clerk for CJ Rehnquist--is showing his street smarts as well as his book smarts. He IS craftier than I initially thought. But, doesn't that Koch scion--Scott Walker--appeal to essentially the same Repub contingent as Cruz ... in a smoother way???

    Re: Walker (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:24:02 PM EST
    He seems to actually be fading in the white hot light of a national spot light. The guy definitely is a second string if not third string player. He keeps making stupid statement after stupid statement. I guess he never got challenged much on anything he said by the Wisconsin press corps because he seems to think he can say any crazy thing he wants and there be no repercussions.

    Yeah, Cruz seems to have figured out exactly who votes in the GOP primary. How far that takes him is anybody's guess.


    I wonder about the lasting part (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:09:39 PM EST
    i don't doubt that Cruz will stay in until the last dog dies but he will never really be taken seriously.
    Paul is being taken seriously.  By lots of people.  The right wing smear campaign you like t mention, which is definitely under way, is the best evidence of that.

    watch this ad

    To answer J's question. I think there will be some takers here.  Not many maybe.  But some.  I thought he was very good today. Very good.

    Personally I think if he gets through the the primary, a big if granted, he would be the biggest threat to Hillary that the republicans have.  He appeals to exactly the parts of any prospective dem coalition that hate Hillary.


    Btw (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:13:50 PM EST
    all those republicans who are so eager to "take him out" he will wear like a badge of honor.  Personally I think it might just help him as much as hurt him.

    He is taking a new path for republicans.  I don't know if it will work but we know the path they have been taking has not worked in a long time.  So personally I think that's a reason to worry.


    Probably (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:37:37 PM EST
    true. Like I said above it is going to have no effect on his hardcore supporters. The question is how many of them are out there?

    Btw (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:22:53 PM EST
    that ad is from a "shadowy" group that calls itself

    Foundation for a Secure & Prosperous America

    Google it

    If that's not a name that makes the hair on the back of your neck standup I think you probably don't have hair on the back of your neck.

    Imagine what an ad Paul could make in response just using their name and description.


    They took (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:40:16 PM EST
    down their website.

    They changed the name to (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 03:05:20 PM EST
    The Motherhood and Apple Pie Forum.

    Or was it the Blood of Patriots Foundation? One or the other..


    You know (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:32:47 PM EST
    you and I can laugh at Cruz but he's taken VERY seriously by Evangelicals and even Charlie Cook (I  think) called the first so many primaries the evangelical primary. He is seen as one who stands strong in his beliefs and won't back down.

    The polling does show that he is the one who runs closest to Hillary but truthfully his appeal is the stances that he had before he did a 180 on almost everything. A huge chunk of the GOP base has said they will never vote for him. I think she would end up demolishing him because he comes off as someone who in the end stands for nothing and the 10% he would probably get from Hillary voters would not make up for the chunk of the GOP base that would be sitting the 2016 election out.

    Anyway, the link you put up will probably be very effective in scaring away any but his hardcore voting base which is probably about the same as his father's. I don't see him winning the primary anyway.


    Ted Cruz (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:40:24 PM EST
    will not be president and he will not be the nominee.  Just my opinion.  
    I do think he will stay in till he is dragged off the stage kicking and screaming.

    I really (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:50:15 PM EST
    do not know who is going to be the nominee but the only thing I would put money on is that it is not going to be Rand Paul. He has said a lot of things that are offensive to the GOP base like Carter was better on the federal budget than Reagan. That kind of thing is a cardinal sin amongst those elderly people who are the GOP base.

    Has he said more things offensive (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:52:50 PM EST
    to the base than Jeb?  I doubt it.

    I don't (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 06:15:25 PM EST
    know. Did Jeb diss Reagan like Rand did? You and I might not think that's a big deal but to the GOP base that's like saying you hate Jesus.

    And as far as immigration which they hate Jeb for Rand is almost the same. So there's that.

    The reason they hate Jeb is because they percieve him as a "moderate" and are sure all "moderates" are general election losers. If they could just get a firebrand like Cruz nominated they are sure that all these unknown voters who surely agree with them will show up at the poll in mass.

    And regarding your post below I hadn't thought of this but Walker is under criminal investigation and there's never been a candidate under criminal investigation. So even if the courts clear him he's probably toast as far as a nominee.


    IMO Walker and Christie (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 06:19:13 PM EST
    are close to non issues.

    Walker is running well (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 07:02:45 PM EST
    now.  And the Republicans will try to turn away from Bush and may settle on Walker as the anti-Bush.

    Hot air yesterday (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 07:24:12 PM EST
    from your link (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 07:42:40 PM EST
    Scott Walker has much bigger problems than the ill-considered hiring and firing of one D.C. operative," Malkin said in an email.

    What does he really stand for and is he fully equipped to bear the slings and arrows of his enemies on a national and global scale? Yes, he fought Big Labor and has managed his state well. But grass-roots activists in his state have long been warning me of his ideological gymnastics on core issues: immigration and education.He has been on the same side as the progressive Left and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Right: pro-amnesty, pro-massive legal immigration expansionist, and pro-Common Core. He's been left, right, center, and all over the map.

    And apparently Cruz is polling as well as Walker. No surprise to me there.


    It is not necessarily a good idea (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 01:23:42 PM EST
    to believe everything you read in the papers.

    Actually Perry is running (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 06:31:15 PM EST
    And he is also under indictment.



    Oh, geez (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 06:34:46 PM EST
    vaguely remember that now but Perry seems to have zero chance. He botched his big chance 4 years ago and I don't think anyone is going to give him a second look. Why would they? They have Cruz and probably others to choose from.

    I agree! (none / 0) (#46)
    by NycNate on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 06:55:57 PM EST
    Paul is an also ran to me. If I were a republican, I'd go whole hog with Cruz. I don't think Hillary is the best candidate for the Dems. But I don't see how Paul excites the base the way Cruz might.  As such, almost any Dem will beat him.

    Cruz (none / 0) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 07:20:02 PM EST
    is too full of himself to go too far, his fellow Repubs despise him, he might win Iowa maybe SC and other Evangelical strongholds but eventually the long knives will cut him off. Paul will probably slog along like his old man, grabbing a second or third in the early primaries but fading and finally running out of money. Every time Walker opens his mouth he goes backward and Jeb can afford to keep his powder dry while the rest of them clown around. Rubio is a handsome darkhorse who may make some noise. In any case the debates are sure to be a hoot.

    When he speaks of Jesus, ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 09:54:28 PM EST
    ... which he's been doing a lot more of late, I think Ted Cruz sounds less fanatical and increasingly more like one of the most completely disingenuous pols I've ever seen, save perhaps for our former Democratic mayor Mufi Hannemann out here in Honolulu. The guy is a full-blown pander bear, telling people on the right whatever he thinks they want to hear. Whether or not he actually believes any of his own bull$H!+ is an open question.

    I agree he sounds insincere (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 10:09:28 PM EST
    But all indications are he believes it.  People who knew him at Harvard say his views have never changed and that he is a true believer.

    I honestly can't decide if that is better or worse.


    Then he's nothing but a religious zealot. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 11:18:53 PM EST
    And even Jesus Christ Himself had little use for hardcore zealots, who tend to see God in their own reflection and will almost always find others to be wanting in their eyes:

    "Then they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Him in order to trap Jesus in a statement. They came and said to Him, 'Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? Shall we pay or shall we not pay?'

    "But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, 'Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a Roman coin to look at.' They brought one. And He said to them, 'Whose likeness and inscription is this?' "And they said to Him, 'Caesar's.' And Jesus said to them, 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.' And they were amazed at Him."
    -- The Gospel According to Matthew, Verses 12-17

    Ted Cruz is a latter-day Pharisee, bearing to us a Roman coin for our examination, in the vainglorious hope that we'll claim the coin as rightfully our very own and denounce the prevailing secular authority as unworthy of our respect.

    In that regard, we would do well to recall the lessons of history, and note that it was the zealots themselves who brought about the destruction of Solomon's temple and Jerusalem in A.D. 70 at the hands of the Romans, because they pointedly chose to ignore Jesus of Nazareth's advice to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's.



    Or (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 08:03:32 AM EST
    he's just another santimonious a$$hole.

    Can't throw a rock at the Republican Party without hitting one in either case.


    He sounds (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:58:25 AM EST
    insincere not only about religion but about almost everything he says. The guy is creepy. But like Howdy says and I agree he actually believes this stuff. If you've ever seen his father on You Tube you would understand why Cruz comes off as mentally unstable.

    I'm sure I could figure it out (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 09:09:34 AM EST
    but it would require way more time and attention than either of them deserve. Reading this thread is about as much effort as I am wiling to devote.

    You don't see differences? (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 04:09:28 PM EST
    He is trying to blur the differences....but conservatives could go on and on about the differences...

    it's the patriot act difference (none / 0) (#8)
    by CST on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 04:09:49 PM EST
    one is "small government except when I want to read your emails and get in your bedroom and bomb Iran and keep you from smoking pot"

    the other one is "small government"

    Personally, they both s*ck.  But Ted Cruz s*cks way worse.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:15:06 PM EST
    many will agree with you.  Including young republicans.

    It would be nice ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:21:57 PM EST
    to see a wedge driven into the Repub Party early on.  If anyone can cleave that party in two it would be Mr. Rand Paul. (It goes without saying that the so-called Libertarian Right taking on the Old Establishment Right as well as the Fundamentalist Right would be great theatre for Democrats ... and, render that Repub nomination all but useless.)

    Some of that maybe (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:30:43 PM EST
    i agree with the wedge part.  I wouldn't be surprised if it come down to Paul and someone else.

    All but useless, not so much.  IF he were to win the nomination we know most republicans would fall in like they always do.  
    This time more than most because of the boogiewoman Hillary.
    They would vote for Satan himself to keep her out of the White House.  And Paul could IMO absolutely expand the party.  In ways no one else running could. His first stop is going to be a college campus.  He will go hard after that vote and he will get some of it.


    You know (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:47:40 PM EST
    they don't hate Hillary any more than they hate Obama and I find at least around here they hate her less. But then I'm in a metro area exurban/suburban area. She plays here better than Obama apparently. Nationally the Hillary Haters are about 40% of the vote. Rand Paul polls at about 45% just because he gives people something to vote for at least. The others are around 40% or below nationally.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:51:33 PM EST
    that like saying they don't hate more than Ebola.

    And IMO that will change as soon as she is official.   Maybe you don't remember the 90s.  I do.


    Oh, yes (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 06:08:06 PM EST
    I do. Just not seeing it here and she polls better than Obama here in GA. So there's that too.

    Not saying she is liked by the GOP not at all but yet it's not as bad as Obama and frankly the GOP is more afraid of ticking off women than they are black people.


    Oops. i interpreted "here" in your (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 01:40:38 AM EST
    comment as referring to TL!

    Disagree, Capt. (none / 0) (#36)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 06:07:13 PM EST
    While I wouldn't be surprised to see him remain in the Repub free-for-all almost to the end, the only way he can get there (in a numbers sense) is by disavowing what was the original new-penny or bitcoin allure of his seeming independence, freedom, and all that.  The mean side will slip out when he is asked the first of many questions on student loans, student healthcare, job assistance, even queries about continuing the Dream Act or gay marriage ... all those pragmatic things.

    Really. A year ago, I considered him the potential biggest challenge because of the newness aspect and for the reasons you stated.  But, given that he is already contorting himself so obviously, a false step on that political high-wire is a likelihood.  Clearly--like his father before him--he inspires passion among a group of followers ... and, college students are predisposed to ideological passion in these situations.  Yet, college-students have big economic issues, which seem to call for government involvement; and, he either disavows his libertarian come-on OR they will soon start to see the economic reality of what he is saying.

    I think that it would be a challenge for Houdini to escape the unsustainable illusion that he has created. (Cute hair and jeans can only take you so far when $$$$ are on the line :) )


    As Ripley says (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 06:15:02 PM EST
    "I hope you're right.  I really do."

    One other thing (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:46:30 PM EST
    he is going after the black vote hard.   Go ahead and laugh.  He is getting very good reviews from many quarters.  He is the only republican doing that.  Probably has something to do with the good reviews.

    His primary public spokesperson the last few days has been J.C. Watts.


    I'm not laughing (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:52:46 PM EST
    about that. I have known that for quite a while. His father also did the same thing talking about how the war on drugs has been very harmful to minority communties virtually making so many of them unemployable because they have a record for something stupid. And releasing nonviolent criminals etc.

    JC Watts will repel the black vote (none / 0) (#60)
    by NycNate on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 09:45:08 PM EST
    more than gaining votes. Paul won't get more than 5% of the black vote. His best chance is going after the college vote which has been the Dem's domain.

    Jeralyn, I am a fairly new poster. This might put me at my limit per post. If so, my apologies.


    You may be right (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 09:51:45 PM EST
    from the Times

    Both Mr. Paul's words on Tuesday and the scene that played out on stage before he spoke showed how he is working to get black voters to give him a closer look. He pledged to repeal "any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color," and he invoked the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s description of "two Americas," one rich with opportunity, the other marked by "daily ugliness." A black pastor from Louisville preceded him to the stage, as did J. C. Watts, who at one time was the only black Republican in Congress. The audience, however, was overwhelmingly white.

    For some time, Mr. Paul has been trying to establish himself in places where Republicans do not often find receptive audiences: at historically black campuses like Howard University, in liberal college towns like Berkeley, Calif., and Austin, Tex., and in the moneyed corridors of Silicon Valley.

    That's absurd. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 03:10:12 PM EST
    ...repeal  "any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color..."

    Black males are about 6% of the population and are victims of and perpetrators of about 40% of the homicides. This sounds like some crazy KKK skin head proposal to see more black people in the morgue.


    crazy KKK skin head proposal.. (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 03:16:59 PM EST
    and you've heard a lot of those in your time..

    For the record (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:10:24 PM EST
    i think he was probably referring to drug laws which it's hard to deny do that.

    But, whatever.


    The high crime years (none / 0) (#98)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:37:14 PM EST
    The high crime years are from late teens to early thirties for all races.  However a as a generally younger population a greater fraction of the black population is in that age group.  

    That means even if the laws were completely colorblind in enforcement blacks would still be in the slammer disproportionately to their share of the population as a whole just because their cohort in the high crime years is disproportionate as well.


    I don't (none / 0) (#13)
    by lentinel on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 04:56:33 PM EST
    much care what party Paul represents.

    I don't see any Democrat running - the good guys - who would say, "..the phone records of law-abiding citizens are none of their (government officials) damn business.."

    Hillary wouldn't say it.
    I don't even think she believes it - as immersed as she has become in everything sinister. :-)

    And we need someone to say it.
    In front of a bunch of yahoo Republicans.
    In front of a bunch of lame and posturing Democrats.
    In front of a bunch of lapdog media gargoyles.

    If Paul is the one to say this, welcome to the fray.

    I do not, by the way, subscribe to the view that someone daring to say out loud what so many Americans feel would be an early casualty in the primaries.

    HRC voted against the FISA revise. (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 01:51:34 AM EST
    You mean in (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 10:21:59 AM EST

    If so, that was awhile ago.

    In any case, do you see her saying anything like, "I say the phone records of law-abiding citizens are none of the governments damn business," today?

    I don't.

    But apparently, we will see.


    Yes. When she and future President Obama (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 07:47:34 PM EST
    were both junior U.S. Senators.

    Senator AND president (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:36:29 PM EST
    there was a very interesting conversation on Maddow last night about this.

    It seems he might be able to do it.  With some other very interesting possible fallout.  Like losing the possibility of running a republican candidate at all except as a write in.
    Suggested viewing.

    He definitely (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 06:06:16 PM EST
    could cost KY a senate seat but in all honesty I don't think he's going to win the nomination and no one would pick him for VP probably due to the fact that the GOP would basically be forfeiting a senate seat.

    Charleston shooting (none / 0) (#45)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 06:49:01 PM EST
    North Charleston officer faces murder charge after video shows him shooting man in back

    The shooting took place Saturday.

    The autopsy done that night showed that he died from bullets in the back as he was running away.

    And it took until Tuesday when a video finally surfaced for the police chief to finally arrest him.

    Had there been no video would there ever have been an arrest???

    NYTimes (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 08:30:06 PM EST
    seems nearly as "a'quiver" as MSNBC

    Paul Is Taking an Untested Route to the Republican Nomination

    As the only candidate who supports less punitive drug laws, more probing oversight of the nation's intelligence agencies and a reduced military footprint abroad, Mr. Paul raises uncomfortable questions for a party whose nominating process increasingly demands that unorthodox candidates shift to align with conservative dogma.

    Many Republicans doubt his strategy can succeed. He would have to alter voting preferences that have been ingrained for generations, and overcome resistance from foreign-policy hawks within his party who are already criticizing his worldview as dangerously misguided.

    Yet he drew one of his biggest rumbles from the crowd on Tuesday when he vowed to dismantle the government's domestic phone data collection program, the issue that perhaps most sharply separates him from his rivals.

    Altering (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 08:52:38 PM EST
    voting preferences of the people who vote in the GOP primary yes, that is probably a hurdle that cannot be overcome.

    It seems the narrative going on now is Bush and the anti Bush who they are pushing Cruz to be.

    The reason why they won't nominate Paul is because  they are going to feel like he has a base problem and will not be able to make it up with other voters.


    Personally (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 09:14:17 PM EST
    im more looking forward to the back and forth between Cruz and Paul than either Cruz or Paul and Bush.

    As for your conclusion, we are gonna find out.

    The interesting thing is the clown car is going to be very crowded.  At least for a while.  Curz is going to have to fight with Huckabee (probably) Jindal and who knows who else.  
    Paul is taking a different path.  Who knows how well it will work.  But it's going to be fun.


    Yes (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 09:23:13 PM EST
    what is going to be interesting is how they are all of a sudden going to sound the same.

    Some of these people that are running though I question why? Jindal? He's not even liked in his own state. After Huckabee has been obviously fleecing people out of their money he seems to have lost any appeal. I wonder if he is even going to run at all. Rubio? Well, he would probably take Florida in the primary and well, I guess his purpose would be to get rid of Jeb and I guess that would work.

    I think they start the debates in August. So not a whole lot longer. I guess in about a month we will know the entire slate of candidates running.


    CSMonitor (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 09:37:53 PM EST
    Rand Paul vs. Ted Cruz: Is 2016 big enough for both of them?

    In the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, Paul leads Cruz, 49 to 40 percent, as more acceptable to primary voters. It's an indication of greater electability, Paul would argue - but also perhaps why he's not willing to give up his Senate seat, and will run for both.

    That makes (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 09:56:20 PM EST
    a great case for Cruz being the nominee. Paul would have an incredibly steep climb to undo the GOP brand damage that has been done over the last 6 years.

    The one thing that would help all of them but yet none of them will do is throw George W. Bush in the trash can.


    Breitbart (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 09:42:43 PM EST
    The latest poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) fares the best among the presumed 2016 Republican presidential candidates against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with independent voters, and is one of the top three contenders overall against her.


    Paul, Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI), and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) were the strongest matchups against Clinton out of all potential Republican contenders, and had statistically identical results. Clinton leads Paul 46 percent to 42 percent, Walker by the same margin, and Rubio 46 percent to 43 percent.

    Paul performed the best out of all Republicans with independent voters, beating Clinton by 14 points, 47 percent to 33 percent.

    Rand Paul IMO... (none / 0) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:17:37 AM EST
    ...is the kid running for 8th grade student president promising 'free ice cream for everyone'.   Knowing damn well what he is promising are things far outside the authority of the POTUS.

    If he ran on things he can actually change, he is your prototypical tea party clown.

    Please Mr. Paul, tell us how you are going to reel in the NSA, the DEA, the CIA, the TSA, and the FBI.  Tell us how you are going to get marijuana off Schedule I and decriminalize drugs.  Tell us how you are going to get the military out of the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America in 4 years.  

    We all want free ice cream, tell us your actual plan Mr Student President.

    Come on man.

    Well to be fair (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 09:20:33 AM EST
    some of those things he could change.  The scheduling of pot for example he could with the stroke of a pen.  Or so we are told.  Some think O will do this before leaving office.

    He should (none / 0) (#78)
    by CST on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 10:04:01 AM EST
    Honestly - Obama's been confusing on this one.  Frankly, it's pretty clear he is pro-decriminalization.  He could've used the feds in Colorado and deliberately didn't.  That's not even medical!  He went on record saying he wasn't interested in enforcing that law.  And yet... hasn't done anything to actually change the federal law.

    I hope he reschedules.  I wouldn't be surprised if he does.  I just wish it didn't have to happen as an end-of-presidency dump.


    I think (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 10:14:11 AM EST
    Obama is afraid to do anything and that's why he has not done anything about that.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#82)
    by CST on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 10:22:46 AM EST
    I think he's busy trying to get an Iran deal done, etc... and doesn't want any of that sidelined by pot.  But he might throw it a bone on the way out.

    Well, my point (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 12:32:45 PM EST
    is not that he hasn't done it right now moreso than he's been in office for six years and has not done it. Six months ago there was no Iran deal isuse and it wasn't done.

    I think to Obama (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 12:40:41 PM EST
    There's always something more important than Pot.

    I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, but it's been his M.O. the whole time.

    That being said, they did announce that they will be increasing sentencing commutations and pardons on his way out, so I wouldn't be that surprised if rescheduling ends up in the mix.


    I think the drug (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 10:06:47 AM EST
    schedule is the only thing that Paul might be able to change should he make it to the White House.

    I was thinking about this last night. Should Paul make it to the White House (which I think has about zero chance of happening) he's not going to be able to get anything done. Because the choices are going to be have a circular firing squad party in Washington 24/7 with in the GOP OR he's going to do what he is told to do by the likes of Mitch McConnel and the rest of them.

    That being said I think the later is much more likely to happen. Witness his caving on the Iran letter to Tom Cotton. That one little signature really ticked off a lot of his supporters.


    So scoping (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 05:46:36 PM EST
    around the internet today and Rand Paul apparently has been giving sanctimonious lectures to reporters especially women reporters it seems on how to do their job. He's not going to last long doing that.

    I disagree again (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:08:49 PM EST
    i think it's entirely calculated.  And for the record he's been doing it to men as well.  I've seen some.  The only thing his voters like less than politicians is reporters.

    This is part of the game plan.


    You know (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:16:00 PM EST
    I would get it and it would make sense if he didn't come off as so arrogant and condescending doing it. The sanctimony of the GOP is what turns so many voters off from the party. But again that probably works with some people in the GOP who he's looking to get votes from.

    I'm one of the first ones to say I hate the press in this country but in one of these cases the press was actually asking him why he did a 180 on his foreign policy stances which is not their typical stupid question and actually is one that is worthwhile because I would actually wonder what his answer to that question would be.


    Think about that interview (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 08, 2015 at 06:36:40 PM EST
    when that was asked.  The news is more about how he thrashed the reporter than it is the very valid question of why he has flip flopped.

    Yes, Rand (none / 0) (#101)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 10:59:00 AM EST
    is using the Gingrich protocol--when asked by CNN's John King during a Republican primary debate about all Newt's marriages, being a family values guy and all, he just laid into King.  Newt won that debate, and, of course, no answer of any kind to the actual question.

    And, then, there is Christie.  His bullying of the media endeared him to many--until he and his tact ran out of gas in the middle of a bridge.   Rand is not exactly the cuddly type so his attempts may not have the durability of Newt and Christie, especially when the questions are about policies, rather than something Republicans do not speak of, directly, in polite company--like serial marriage.


    Yes (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 03:43:07 PM EST
    the whole Rand interview thing didn't work out too well and not because he took it to the media which is probably not going to change the way GOP primary voters but the fact that he couldn't explain his own stance when asked about abortion. He could not answer the ultimate GOP litmus test question has people scratching their heads at him.

    Apparently Rand Paul is Rand Paul's worst enemy.


    Anybody else read about... (none / 0) (#107)
    by unitron on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:32:14 AM EST
    ...Rand's $15 little piece of plastic "NSA spy cam blocker" gizmo?