Rand Paul in 2012? Maybe.

[MR2-Sooner86]

If his father, Ron Paul, doesn't run Rand may consider the White House. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/rand-paul-2012-senator-re_n_839001.html)


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is testing the waters for a possible presidential bid in 2012 in the key primary state of South Carolina, the Post and Courier reports.

According to the Palmetto State-based outlet, Paul made a stop in Charleston on Monday and signaled a campaign for the White House in the next election cycle is not off the table. "The only decision I've made is I won't run against my dad," he said.

Last month, Paul addressed the prospect he could run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. "Come back and ask me in a few months," he responded when asked about the possibility in an interview with ABC News. He suggested that he's "very much interested in trying to shape the debate" on issues such as reducing the debt and government spending.

The Post and Courier reports that in South Carolina Paul suggested he has upcoming trips planned to the primary battleground states of Iowa and New Hampshire in part because he wants "the Tea Party to have an influence over who the nominee is in 2012." The remarks echo a similar sentiment he conveyed to ABC News last month.

"There are always problems in our nation's capital that are more important than party affiliation and I will always believe that," he said. "It's not necessarily Tea Party versus Republican Party, but I would say that if you ask me what's more important, tackling our nation's deficit, our nation's debt problems or being a Republican, I would say tackling the debt."

:pop:

Personally, I'd rather see his father make a run at it. He doesn't have enough experience and the other side will use that. Funny because it didn't matter when their guy was running...

However, Rand Paul is better than what most of the GOP has to offer.

[Veritas]

However, Rand Paul is better than what most of the GOP has to offer.
Ugh, no kidding. I have some family that thinks Mitt Romney would be a great GOP choice. I think he's a crowned hat away from being a goose-stepping fascist.

[sooner ngintunr]

Things would be better if we got rid of political parties all together.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Hopefully Ron Paul's health can hold out and he can ride the anti-government wave in 2012. Is Rand a clone of Ron? That would be acceptable....

[sooneron]

Didn't Rand JUST get elected? The GOP needs to roll out someone with knowledge and experience to have a chance. Michelle Bachmann, Palin, Huckabee and Romney won't hack it. Palin is a joke, like Bachmann.

[sooneron]

Hopefully Ron Paul's health can hold out and he can ride the anti-government wave in 2012. Is Rand a clone of Ron? That would be acceptable....

Not really.

[Veritas]

Didn't Obama JUST get elected? The Donks needs to roll out someone with knowledge and experience to have a chance. Howard Dean, Kerry, Clinton and Kucinich won't hack it. Dean is a joke, like Kerry.
Warped it back four years. Worked out ok for Obama.

[sooneron]

Warped it back four years. Worked out ok for Obama.

Yeah. If this country gambles next year, it won't be with a noob.

[sooner ngintunr]

The GOP needs to roll out someone with knowledge and experience

Yeah. Good luck with that.

[Boarder]

Whoever wins will be our Carter. Then we will have another transformational president.

FDR - Reagan. Transformational presidents
Truman - HW Bush. Managerial types who suffered from following the transformational president.
Eisenhower - Clinton. The other party but didn't shake it up too much.
Kennedy wasn't around long enough to be in the cycle.
LBJ - W. Part of the regime and implemented several policies. But, each was tarnished by a war that was unpopular.
Nixon - Obama. Accomplished some meaningful policy change but were determined to be largely ineffective. Remains to be seen if Obama will have a watergate.
Ford wasn't around long enough.
Carter - Next guy (prob a Republican). At the end of the regime, they try to do stuff, but everyone is tired of the prevailing regime and wants serious change.
Reagan - ????. A democrat (presumably) who will change the prevailing regime from the Conservative Republican one to something else. It will happen because the public demands it.

This is from a book by Stephen Skowronek, Presidential Leadership in Political Time: Reprise and Reappraisal. Interesting concept that has held true through the history of the US with the transformational presidents being Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan.

So, Rand Paul would be the latest Jimmy Carter, would be largely ineffective, and would usher in the next big change.

Interesting, no?

[MR2-Sooner86]

Ugh, no kidding. I have some family that thinks Mitt Romney would be a great GOP choice. I think he's a crowned hat away from being a goose-stepping fascist.

If Romeny is the GOP's choice you can go ahead and get ready for four more years of Obama. Same thing can be said about Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, or Rudy Giuliani.

Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, or Scott Brown would do wonders but they're not running because they're smart. We'll probably see them in 2016 when they can get all their resources together.

The only people I've seen who could take on Obama is Ron Paul and MAYBE Herman Cain.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Hopefully Ron Paul's health can hold out and he can ride the anti-government wave in 2012. Is Rand a clone of Ron? That would be acceptable....
Not really.

We don't really know because we don't have Rand's voting record to put up against Ron's. You can say this or that all day but we really don't know.

If I had to make an assumption I'd say Ron Paul is more Libertarian politician while Rand is a more traditional Republican politician.

What I mean by that is Ron Paul's base, if you listen to the media, is the anarchist, 9/11 Truthers, etc. simply because he brings a Libertarian view to the table. Is it fair? No, but that's what you get when you bring something fresh to the table that isn't the status quo. However, Rand Paul's is considered a "tea-party politician" while Ron Paul is not. Yes, many of Ron Paul's ideas are fine with the tea-party but his stance on gay marriage, war on drugs, prostitution, etc. rub the wrong way with the religious right of the GOP which unfortunately is a large number. From what I understand Rand isn't as extreme as his father in some regards and would say "no" to a couple of things. What? I really have no idea.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

What I mean by that is Ron Paul's base, if you listen to the media, is the anarchist, 9/11 Truthers, etc. simply because he brings a Libertarian view to the table. Is it fair? No, but that's what you get when you bring something fresh to the table that isn't the status quo. However, Rand Paul's is considered a "tea-party politician" while Ron Paul is not. Yes, many of Ron Paul's ideas are fine with the tea-party but his stance on gay marriage, war on drugs, prostitution, etc. rub the wrong way with the religious right of the GOP which unfortunately is a large number. From what I understand Rand isn't as extreme as his father in some regards and would say "no" to a couple of things. What? I really have no idea.
I'm hoping Ron's anti government "extremism" plays well enough to republican voters that they ignore some of the other parts they may not like.

[sooneron]

We don't really know because we don't have Rand's voting record to put up against Ron's. You can say this or that all day but we really don't know.

If I had to make an assumption I'd say Ron Paul is more Libertarian politician while Rand is a more traditional Republican politician.



Uh, yeah, that is why I said that. Ron is a libertarian and Rand is a right wing mouthpiece for the tea baggers.
And... you don't have to tell me what you mean. I get it. I don't need your basic walk thru of "this guy is like this and his daddy is like this. I listen to the news. Thnx.

[sooneron]

If Romeny is the GOP's choice you can go ahead and get ready for four more years of Obama. Same thing can be said about Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, or Rudy Giuliani.

Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, or Scott Brown would do wonders but they're not running because they're smart. We'll probably see them in 2016 when they can get all their resources together.

The only people I've seen who could take on Obama is Ron Paul and MAYBE Herman Cain.
And once again, the people that trumpet Jabba the Gov (Christie) don't really know him. I know he would make a fine GOP candidate with his "so what, **** you!" demeanor about silly things like ethics and malfeseance , but the guy is not electable. Anyone that thinks, "ooh, he's the bees knees cuz he won blue state jersey", doesn't ****ing know jersey. Its banking whores and the like that think his way is the way to be taxed less. Guess what? My property taxes will likely raise exponentially as the income taxes will stall- MAYBE. I doubt it, but the guy is a doosher. Good luck with Mayor McCheese.

edit: I meant Grimace.

[Blue]

If things stay the same at the moment, I might just vote for Obama.

Hear me out....the guy is freakin harmless. He has no way to pass all the programs he'd like to due to the red congress and he's basically just taking up space. Thats how I like my presidents these days. Ineffective.

[Blue]

Uh, yeah, that is why I said that. Ron is a libertarian and Rand is a right wing mouthpiece for the tea baggers.
And... you don't have to tell me what you mean. I get it. I don't need your basic walk thru of "this guy is like this and his daddy is like this. I listen to the news. Thnx.

It sucks that people that love our country and just long for less govt. are villified so badly.

Thanks alot Bin Laden, and Beck, and Palin.

[sooneron]

I will say at this moment (no surprise) that i voted for BHO (MCCain's ticket too much to bear- same as Dubya) and I would give him a D- right now.

[OU_Sooners75]

Things would be better if we got rid of political parties all together.


Please elaborate.

[picasso]

Didn't Rand JUST get elected? The GOP needs to roll out someone with knowledge and experience to have a chance.

This is true because the media won't support such a noob unless it's say, Obama.;)

[MR2-Sooner86]

Things would be better if we got rid of political parties all together.Please elaborate.

http://southparkstudios-intl.mtvnimages.com/shared/sps/img/content/characters/126a.jpg

Maybe not do away with them but redo the laws to where it's not just the heavy hitters who are allowed to play.

In Oklahoma, candidates who are not Democrats or Republicans appear on the ballot as independent unless they receive a certain number of signatures from voters. To be listed on the ballot as a third-party candidate with party distinction, a candidate must collect signatures that amount to 5 percent of the total votes for governor or president. In past elections, political parties have had to collect nearly 75,000 signatures to appear on the ballot with their party distinction. (http://newsok.com/ralph-nader-urges-oklahoma-to-reform-laws-for-third-party-candidates-on-the-ballot/article/3493215)

It's not just in Oklahoma however.

Voters deserve choices at the polls, but not too many, the N.C. Supreme Court said in a disappointing ruling last week.

The 5-1 decision denied the state Libertarian Party’s challenge to North Carolina’s strict ballot-access law.

Oh, but the law isn’t really so strict, the court said. After all, the Libertarian Party has surmounted the obstacles and earned a place on the ballot, the opinion, authored by Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson, noted. Its 2008 candidate for governor, Michael Munger, won close to 3 percent of the vote. “This success indicates the party may have turned a corner in popular support, effectively graduating it from the recognition requirements of section 163-96(a)(2).”

That statute sets a 2 percent standard for political parties. If a party submits petitions signed by 2 percent of the number of people who voted in the preceding election for governor, it can earn a place on the ballot for the next election. Then, if its candidate for president or governor wins at least 2 percent of the statewide vote, the party can remain on the ballot for another four years.

The Libertarian Party is the only third party to achieve that goal under the law’s current standard.

Some unfair quirks exist within the law. For example, a third-party candidate running for a county or state legislative office could win election, but if his or her party did not make the 2 percent mark statewide, then that candidate would not be guaranteed a place on the ballot four years later. If an incumbent can be kept off the ballot, then the state’s ballot-access law is too tough.

The court sees good reason for that, however. While acknowledging that “ballot-access rights, though distinct from voting rights, are central to the administration of our democracy,” the court said such rights are not absolute.

“Here, the avoidance of ‘voter confusion, ballot overcrowding,’ and ‘frivolous candidacies’ is an important regulatory interest,” Timmons-Goodson wrote, citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision that was not binding on North Carolina. (http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/03/17/article/editorial_ballot_access_is_too_strict)

Then with campaign finance reform which squashes the little guy.

0UgJPWxT0bw

It's a bull**** system that George Washington warned us about before he left. Besides, show me in the Constitution where this is alright?

We're being ****ed over and people and smiling and taking it in stride.

[bigfatjerk]

There's only a few people I would vote for if they ran for president. Chris Christie and the Paul's are 3 of them.

[soonercoop1]

Experience? The lack of DC experience is refreshing...