E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDuring his presidential bids in 2008 and 2012, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was an easy target for establishment Republicans to ridicule.
Many laughed at his demands to "end" the Federal Reserve and reinstitute the gold standard. At debates, they sometimes booed his non-interventionist views on foreign policy and national security. And he never won a single nominating contest during those two presidential runs, though he did rack up delegates in 2012.
But Paul -- and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) -- could be the ones laughing now.
Indeed, Rand Paul's marathon filibuster on Wednesday against President Obama's pick to head the CIA -- joined by other GOP senators (including conservative stars like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, as well as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell) -- was the latest evidence that the Pauls might have had a larger imprint on today's Republican Party than its last two presidential nominees.
Consider the libertarianism in the Tea Party, the calls to cut spending, the growing suspicion of the Federal Reserve, and some growing skepticism about the use of force.
That sounds much more like Ron Paul than John McCain or Mitt Romney. And son Rand is already being viewed as a potential 2016 presidential candidate.
But it also doesn't mean that all Republicans have jumped on board. On Thursday, McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) took to the Senate floor to denounce Rand Paul's criticism of the Obama administration's drone program -- the issue at the heart of his filibuster.
"If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms," McCain said, quoting the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page.
"To somehow allege or infer that the president of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda or someone who disagrees with the policies is a stretch of imagination, which is frankly ridiculous," McCain added.
But that even this drone debate is taking place inside the GOP -- and that Cruz and Rubio joined Paul's filibuster -- shows the growing influence that the Pauls have had on the GOP and conservatism.
Leave a Comment:
Get serious. Rand Paul isn't going to run for President in 2016. That said, Libertarianism is very influencial in my state, especially in the rural areas and among the young. It's also a great strategy to get distance from the Bush record of starting two wars and leaving us in a financial crisis.
Ames,
Rand Paul is just the latest flavor of the day!
Remember, only Monday the MSM was telling us it was a sure thing Jeb would run in 2016! lol
Right now the only candidate I can see wining the WH is Christie, shame he'll never make it through a primary.
It's becoming more influential in every state. Most people are socially accepting (not as Ann Coulter says, pussies for not standing up to liberals http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/ann-coulter-booed-students-john-stossel-libertarians-gay-marriage_n_2741535.html) and fiscally conservative. People are realizing that neither mainstream political party represents both of those ideals.
I sooooo hope Hillary will decide to run! Not one of these other "flavors of the day" (good one, Feisty!) has even a prayer of a chance!
I am very firmly Progressive, but agree with some of what the libertarians espouse . . . but Randy Paul gives libertarinism a bad name . . . he's just a jerk who never would have been elected (IMHO) with out his daddy's influence.
.
FORWARD! :-)
Christie? I would never vote for that RINO
Libertarians are devout, but few and far between, unfortunately!
A Pyrrhic victory for an outcome (i.e., Holder's "no" response) that was known by everyone, everywhere in advance.
Who does Rand think he's fooling? Oh, wait--I see the answer above and below: Dingle B and GOP Comeback.
You say it as if it were a bad thing to be a RINO, as opposed to a full-blown Republican.
The thing about Libertarians is that they're so out of touch with reality they think society can manage without a government. Their ideals are so naive, it's very hard to take them seriously. To say nothing of the fact that their particular brand of economics has been proven wrong at every turn over the past few years. In principle, I disagree with any ideology that takes an extremist approach. And, frankly, the libertarian movement represented by Paul is as extremist in denouncing government as useless as communism is in denouncing private enterprise, so I have absolutely no reason to take them seriously.
That said, I'd rather take a libertarian than a conservative Republican. They may both be equally obtuse in their no-taxes approach to fiscal soundness, but at least libertarians are consistent enough that they don't advocate more defense spending. And, more importantly, at least libertarians are as concerned with personal freedom (which conservatives seem to despise) as they are with economic freedom.
As a Libertarian, how am I out of touch? You really think that we need huge government? In my mind, a good mix of fiscal conservatism, and liberal freedom. I believe if we want to promote Democracy, or "our" form of Democracy, lead by example, not by force and foreign aid!
Jack in Portsmouth
It isn't a Pyrrhic victory. The administration's previous response was intentionally ambiguous and left the door wide open for the current administration and -of much greater concern- future administrations to exploit that ambiguity. Adding some legal clarity to the issue is a good thing. What was the down side?
I know if Rand believes like his libertarian father, they don't believe that women have the right to be first class citizens with being able to decide her health-care for herself.
But try and limit assault weapons and they are all about freedom.
Republicans only seem to believe in freedom and choice if you are a man.
They want limited sized government just big enough to fit inside a woman's vagina.
Lets kill government for all those big corporations that care so much for America that they have been moving our jobs overseas for an extra dollar of profit and that is who the libertarians want to run our nation without the government to protect the people.
pffft .. if you can't handle transgender restroom issues, you are certainly out of touch with liberal freedom. Someone claiming liberal freedom would support unisex bathrooms.
We were all subjected to showboating. You don't really believe Rand was doing this for any reason other than his ego, do you?
RedDev . .
But that was YESTERDAY! ;-)
I also wrote that I don't care if transgenders had "their own" bathroom/locker room, I just didn't want Johnny sharing the shower with my daughter.... there is a difference.
So, do you think that is alright then?
Nobody, aside from anarchists, advocates for a society without any government. Libertarians aren't anarchists. A government's role should be limited to the powers given to it by the constitution. That's hardly anarchism.
You're wrong. In fact, capitalism has been the system which has created almost the entire wealth of the western world. How is that wrong? It is the Utiopian promises of socialism which have scientifically been proven wrong. Read this and if you still think socialism is possible, you didn't understand it: http://www.amazon.com/Socialism-An-Economic-Sociological-Analysis/dp/0913966630
Way to end with a positive note :)
Ah, so now the talking point has moved from bathrooms to showers. I'd be more afraid of the DNA in water turning it into gasoline - talk about explosive shower talk.
RedDev . . .
You need monitor warnings with comments like that!!! Hahahaha!
Really? That is your answer to my question?
You would or would not have your daughter sharing a shower with a "girl in boys body"? Interesting, but creepy!
Jack in Portsmouth
Instead of admitting that calling it a Pyrrhic victory was overly dramatic...
Nevermind. The rules of civilized discussion require a person to admit they were wrong. That's not why most people come here.
To answer your question, I don't know Dr. Paul's motivations, only he does. It could be all political, but it doesn't change the fact that he was right.
"The Paul's growing influence on today's GOP"...
Why does that sound like the opening line of an ad for a jock-itch product?
Is that just me?...
I have THIS opinion of Rand Paul (with acknowledgement to the Bard of Avon... slightly modified)
"...Rand Paul's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his 13 hours upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
Hopefully Rand Paul will get the nomination. Then immediately get completely trounced in the general election.
Rand Paul - I say go for it. In modern day politics, we haven't had the pleasure of watching a party cannibalize itself - it is only something we read about in history books.
On Monday it was all about Jeb (while he was out promoting his book) and the possibility of his candidacy. Today, after Rand Paul's attempt at "Mr Smith Goes to Washington," he's the candidate of the day ... who's it going to be tomorrow?
who's it going to be tomorrow?
Layton, who ever grabs the microphone. That's all it takes in that party. Just someone who has a big mouth, with nothing coming out of it except rhetoric.
Would be the same as his dad running, a few staunch supporters and not much more. That said, I would like Hillary to run on the Dem ticket, she has already proved that she knows how to lose...
Lil, Hillary also proved she can win.
Then you haven't watched the Progressive Party make complete fools of themselves for their stance on spending.
Why even that great economist, Paul Krugman, learned you can't spend your way out of the depression. He just filed for chapter 13!
Further proof, fiscal conservatives will never understand economics and and personal finance are two completely separate issues.
I remember Hillary's approval rating in the mid 30's, much less than even Mitt Romney had. Don't get me wrong, Hillary would definately be an upgrade, you guys put the wrong guy in the WH.
Google it RedDev.
Neither does Krugman!
Not when he follows his own strategy!
But do, continue to support his world class economic plan. FAILURE!
I remember Hillary's approval rating in the mid 30's
That's nice.
I'm no fan, but I can certainly see why he'd bubble up toward the top of their heap for a minute or two... He's a racist and an idiot that hasn't mispronounced his own name in the last 72 hours...
That's the mark of a front-runner in today's GOP. A veritable golden-boy of political muscle.
He's a racist and an idiot
Exactly.
as a non-suporter it was a brilliant move, a face to go with the name, a new leader for the teas and gun slingers, and rubio and especially mc connewl couldnt let that train go by without hitching a ride. the new protector of the american citizen, not really but thats their or his hope, and yes he will run.
how will he be treated by the news and i dont mean fox and what will be his next move?
Ron Paul succeeded in getting something which has been a very rare occurrence in Washington DC since 2009.
An actual straight answer from the Obama Administration.
Eric Holder has finally said that droning a US citizen in the US who isnt an immediate threat is unconstitutional.
He also succeeded in doing something else which is a very rare occurrence by a politician...inspire people.
the only inspiration was to the dumbf ucks who are teabagger supporters in the first place. EVERYONE ELSE knew it was a non-event and that the answer was NO, RIGHT FROM THE START.
Randal (Rand) Paul is a chip off the old block. He is as nutty as his father. Some of their ideas sound perfect in title or when one only looks on the surface but when one is looking deeper into their ideas it's scary. Imagine the anarchy we'd have if they had everything their way.
I do want to compliment Rand on his actually standing on the floor of the Senate when he filibusters rather than doing it in absentia. Fortunately the wisdom of mother nature prevailed and he shut up. Now we can do the people's business again.
If you listen carefully you can hear the sound of McCain and Graham becoming irrelevant.
HA! good one, Patriot! . . . but I thought McPain became irrelevant ~4 years ago, it's just somebody forgot to tell him. And Little Lindsey is just McCain's poodle . . . I so hope he gets primaried! (and McPain retires).
:-)
I will agree with you KC NC, he and the rest of the republican old guard are becoming irrelvant. It's time for the new breed of GOP to take charge.
Many will not agree, but Paul received accolades from not only young Republicans for his efforts last night, but also garnered favor with many Dems. He was't out reading the ABC's but talked about this country and the need for change.
McSENILITY?
John McCain....bye.
Every day that a republican stands up and says that a democratic POTUS is too harsh when it comes to the security of the US is a great day for democrats. Rubio, Cruz and McConnel all look like they are weak on security issues. I believe that Rubio has made a critical error by siding with Paul on the drone program.
EXACTLY!
They always sing a different tune when a nutbag goes off the deep end on US soil,...Timothy McVeigh - Ft. Hood
They just can't help themselves. If Obama is FOR it,...they gotta' be agin' it! Come hell or high water.
It's so predictably reactionary that it truly has passed the comical stage to the absurd and uncomfortably pathetic stage.
I am designing a car roof rack which will hold the Obama campaign logo, plus a copy of the Holder letter to Paul, ten times it's orginal size.
Every good American should own one...for their personal safety.
Another privilged one makin mischief in D.C.
Rand Paul made me very proud to be an American (and a Libertarian American at that) the other night. I don't always agree with him but he is one of the very few (perhaps Rubio, Amash, and Cruz?) that I can feel decent enough about. So many of you are hung up on the "but it's never going to happen!" thing. The fact that it COULD, BY LAW, happen means that there is too much power in the Executive Branch. Whether or not Obama would kill an American citizen on US soil with a drone is irrelevant. The relevant part is that future leaders would have that ability - and may well be inclined to do it. Land of the free and home of the brave is seldom true anymore. I stand for Freedom. I stand with Rand.