Rand Paul's surge in Kentucky

[MicroBalrog]

In the meanwhile, here's Rand Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6ZEwrHOKMc

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

3. RP was attacked, mocked, and so forth, by a variety of conservative leaders, radio talk personalities, etc. To my knowledge, no prominent Republican/Conservative personality sided with him in the run-up to the primaries.

4. THe local GOP leadership, precinct committees and so forth, did their level best to derail the campaign.

To say 3 and 4 did not occur is disingenious.

<Maureen Dowd Voice>All men think I'm ugly, boring, and frumpy.  What's wrong with all men?</Maureen Dowd Voice>

It's true that most conservatives and Republicans don't like Ron Paul.  Most non-Republicans, too.  But you have to ask yourself why we don't like him.  Is it because of something inherent in each and every one of us, or is it something about Ron Paul?

[Perd Hapley]

No, we rejected him because we didn't like his wacky supporters.  Not because we disagreed with his policies.  Not because we thought he had no chance of winning.  Not because of anything substantive.  We just don't like Microbalrog, or Wookies.  That was our only reason. 

[MicroBalrog]

Considering that I am specifically talking about a subgroup of the voters, rather than the whole group of them (and that I am responding to the suggestion that 'having prominently-weird supporters will kill your campaign forever, amen'), I don't think you have a point.

My point is merely this: rejecting a candidate because you disagree with his views is one thing, rejecting a candidate because you disagree with the hair spray brand of his followers is another.

Further, politics is not a contest to see who the better candidate is; it merely is a contest to see who wins the office. If it were otherwise, the unpopularity of a given political view would be prima facie proof of it being 'wrong'.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

My point is merely this: rejecting a candidate because you disagree with his views is one thing, rejecting a candidate because you disagree with the hair spray brand of his followers is another.

Further, politics is not a contest to see who the better candidate is; it merely is a contest to see who wins the office. If it were otherwise, the unpopularity of a given political view would be prima facie proof of it being 'wrong'.

One of these things is not like the other.

As you say, the point of the contest is to win office.  Further, the point of the party is to win the contest.

To that end, no major party will ever support a candidate whose followers' "hairspray" prevents the candidate from winning office.  It would be pointless.  

Candidates wishing party support, candidates wishing to win higher office, need to recognize this and act accordingly.  

[Perd Hapley]

Why do we keep talking about how Ron Paul failed to win the primary?  No one's talking about why Huckabee lost, or Romney, or Thompson, or Giuliani, or Hunter, or...

Is it just because the Paul supporters keep crying about it? 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i think the liberty dollars were a great example. either his campaign (and by proxy paul) were so clueless that they thought no one would notice/mind the funny money, or he did think it was a good idea and a way to jump start his leading us back to the gold standard. either case indicates a man gonna lose an election for clueless and delusional are not good on the campaign trail.  ask kerry and gore

[MicroBalrog]

Why do we keep talking about how Ron Paul failed to win the primary?  No one's talking about why Huckabee lost, or Romney, or Thompson, or Giuliani, or Hunter, or...

A good question. I started a thread about Rand.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Rand's success owes a lot to the cult of personality of his father. 

[roo_ster]

Rand's success owes a lot to the cult of personality of his father. 

Maybe.

If he actually gets the nomination of the GOP and manages to get elected, I would count that Rand's accomplishment. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Rand's success owes a lot to the cult of personality of his father. 

could be greatest asset or greatest liability

[Matthew Carberry]

Fred Thompson came in late and lacked energy.  Which is a shame as his campaign could have gotten out of control and we'd have been lucky to live through it.

[MicroBalrog]

Sarah Palin endorses

Published on 01 February 2010 by David Adams in Uncategorized
0

National political icon and conservative leader Sarah Palin has endorsed Dr. Rand Paul in his bid for United States Senate from Kentucky. The Paul campaign has received a generous donation from Governor Palin’s PAC.

Sarah Palin has clearly seen that Rand Paul supports smaller, constitutional government and is taking the fight to the career politicians and will shake up the tax and spend crowd in Washington D.C.

“Governor Palin is providing tremendous leadership as the Tea Party movement and constitutional conservatives strive to take our country back,” Rand said.

“Sarah Palin is a giant in American politics. I am proud to receive her support.”

“I’m trying to go to Washington to fight to lower taxes and spending, and for term limits and balanced budgets. I will go to protect the lives of our unborn children,” Rand said.

“I will strive to capitalize on the support of Governor Palin and so many others to go to Washington and fight for liberty and limited government and put an end to the current climate of insider politics, runaway deficits and out-of-control growth of government.”

Sarah Palin’s endorsement is another major success in a long list of achievements for the Paul campaign. Dr. Paul was recently identified as one of the five most important candidates to support by Dick Armey, Freedom Works and the National Tea Party Movement. Dr. Paul has also received endorsements from Concerned Women for America, Gun Owners of America, Steve Forbes and RedState.com,

Recent independent polls show Rand holding a double digit lead in the Republican primary and large leads over either Democratic opponent. Rand Paul has raised over $1.8 million dollars, including over $650,000 in the fourth quarter of 2009.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/sarah-palin-endorses/

[Matthew Carberry]

So the question becomes, does Palin's support help him, hurt him or make no difeerence?

I assume that anyone who would vote for or against him because of Palin's support was already going to do so prior.

[alex_trebek]

I suspect that it will make no difference, except to the hard core palin supporters. I would imagine that is a fringe.

Maybe she could some get him air time on fox now. That certainly wouldn't hurt.

[Perd Hapley]

She has more name recognition than he does.  There's a lot of Pauls out there, so folks may not know he's one of those Pauls. 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

I do worry that this could become a referendum on his dad, instead of an actual decision on whether he should be elected or not.....

That being said, he isn't a neo-con.

But, he isn't as libertarian fundamentally as his father.

The real issue I think he (and all libertarian minded potential politicos have) is that socially they are seen as liberal.... and economically they are seen as conservative.

Which also oddly enough is their greatest strength.... that being said, with his pro-life credentials, I think he might actually have a chance.

[ramis]

Rand bought some local airtime during the superbowl.

Here's the add.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOrVeUWTLXI&feature=player_embedded