Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the Republicans were serious about making their party more inclusive they wouldn`t be talking about this guy. There`s no way he can walk back his comments regarding the Civil Rights Act. Rand Paul takes outdated stance on segregation - Salon.com
If the Republicans were serious about making their party more inclusive they wouldn`t be talking about this guy. There`s no way he can walk back his comments regarding the Civil Rights Act. Rand Paul takes outdated stance on segregation - Salon.com
I too am concerned about what he said, but I think we need to hear him explain it on another show other than something he said to RM and reported again by Salon. BTW, I am not agreeing with him and yes, this has bothered me for a few years. So, I do see both sides of the story. It is probably one of the few things he has said or done I am concerned about. I also realize there is no perfect candidate. A couple of years from now, I might be supporting someone totally different, but right now he is still the candidate I am watching the closest.
Rand Paul packs the house @ Cal-Berkley, Opens to a standing Ovation.
Yes, that Cal-Berkley.
The young people are very receptive to truth and Liberty.
For what it's worth, I think Paul is the most impressive of the recent string of Republican Presidential flavors-of-the-month (including Rubio, Christie, Cruz).
That said, it is amusing how you get all starry-eyed over the notion that Paul can rally a crowd of 400 on a campus of 36,000 students. For those keeping score at home, that's barely more than 1% (even Mitt Romney got 5% of the Berkeley vote) - and it assumes the pool from which the population is drawn is limited to the student body, which is almost certainly not the case.
I think Rand Paul has been doing quite well lately politics-wise. He appears to be modeling himself after Bill Clinton as a politician--trying to be many things to many people. This is not a bad way of becoming a candidate, but at some point (as Clinton also learned) you have to actually state your beliefs and this will put voters on one side or another off. The difference is that Bill Clinton is extremely charismatic and charming, while Paul's social skills are somewhat lacking.
Rand Paul's other problem is his height. The only candidate he will not look short next to is Hillary, and if she puts on heels--he'll look shorter than her. Prior to that, he would have to get through primary debates standing next to taller candidates. Some may not think this is important, but never discount the power of psychology on voters.
Rand Paul packs the house @ Cal-Berkley, Opens to a standing Ovation.
Yes, that Cal-Berkley.
The young people are very receptive to truth and Liberty.
And this is just what the other side doesn't want to admit. He will draw from all sides in my estimation. I hope I am not wrong.
As for him being the flavor of the week or month, it goes a little bit deeper in his case. I know those like unsettomati would like to think differently. As for his height, well lets see, first the libs decided to let us know Christi was too fat and now they are deciding we can't elect a short guy and the left says the right are a bunch of bigots!!!
I think Rand Paul has been doing quite well lately politics-wise. He appears to be modeling himself after Bill Clinton as a politician--trying to be many things to many people. This is not a bad way of becoming a candidate, but at some point (as Clinton also learned) you have to actually state your beliefs and this will put voters on one side or another off. The difference is that Bill Clinton is extremely charismatic and charming, while Paul's social skills are somewhat lacking.
I largely agree about Paul - regarding his political talents, that is.
On one hand, he is clearly trying to set a certain tone and appeal to more than the right-wing base. And certain actions of his, such as his recent denouncement of Ted Nugent's "Obama is a subhuman mongrel" comments, show that he's working on the image of being the adult in the room. His kinda-sorta liberterianesque shtick pays certain political dividends without undue risk as well.
He's proven to be a fairly quick learner, and his posturing screams out that he's running for President in 2016.
If Jeb Bush does not run (and that's a big 'if') than I'd put Paul in the top tier of contenders. If Bush does run, Paul has a real chance to finish second and set himself up as the 'next in line' for 2020 or 2024.
One major caveat - since he's run precisely one race, and that in a bright red state in a year of a red wave, as a Presidential candidate he is a major unknown. He could turn out to be another Rick Perry or Bill Richardson, looking great on paper but hopelessly lost when it comes to Presidential politics. I suspect this is not the case, but we'll never really know until he's running a Presidential campaign.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
