Rand Paul for President

Every now and then you hear someone articulate the American message so clear, so understandable and so simple that you realize how that message ever gets lost. Reagan was someone who was able to deliver that message consistently, and now I believe we have found another. Rand Paul just seems to be someone who lives and breathes the American ideal, and he time and time again articulates that ideal in a completely unambiguous way, and that is why he is my current favorite for 2016.

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered. I don’t think we need to name any names, do we? Our party is encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom. The new GOP will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and the personal sphere. If we’re going to have a Republican party that can win, liberty needs to be the backbone of the GOP. We must have a message that is broad, our vision must be broad, and that vision must be based on freedom.

There are millions of Americans, young and old, native and immigrant, black, white and brown, who simply seek to live free, to practice a religion, free to choose where their kids go to school, free to choose their own health care, free to keep the fruits of their labor, free to live without government constantly being on their back. I will stand for them. I will stand for you. I will stand for our prosperity and our freedom, and I ask everyone who values liberty to stand with me. Thank you. God bless America.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan – what Pat Caddell said at CPAC:

Caddell predicted that the Republican Party, unless it became the anti-establishment, anti-Washington party, would become extinct, like the 19th century Whig Party. “These people [in the consulting-lobbying-establishment complex] are doing business for themselves. They are a part of the Washington establishment. These people don’t want to have change.”

100% correct.

55 thoughts on “Rand Paul for President

  1. Doug Quinby March 14, 2013 / 3:12 pm

    bwahhhhh, Sorry, I’m just SHOCKED, SHOCKED, I tell you, that here, years away, you’re already covering yourself before you fall in line behind the GOP establishment candidate that will come out later. What exactly in the two paragraphs you quoted described the Mitt Romney you so clammored for? Let’s face it, too many of the GOP establishment, bloggers, et. al, are secretly pining for a Bill Clinton, that is where they want the GOP to be on the political spectrum. Whatever happened to good old individualism conservatism?

    Yes, in a couple years, you and the other bloggers will start nitpicking about Paul and start the process of backing some statist “conservative” like a Christie or a Jindal, someone who talks the talk, then just grows the government so they can give the GOP politicians and special interests more power.

      • neocon01 March 14, 2013 / 3:41 pm

        Cruz….B slaps the MORON from california.
        the other donk stooges chime in and show their ignorance of the constitution and are dangerous ideologues at best TRAITORS at worst.

      • neocon01 March 14, 2013 / 3:42 pm

        Finally, in response to Cruz’s question, Feinstein likens so-called assault weapons to child pornography, which she suggests is a limit to the First Amendment and can legally be banned.

    • neocon01 March 14, 2013 / 3:43 pm

      “Rand Paul for President”

      • neocon01 March 14, 2013 / 3:49 pm

        Did anyone notice what Durbin said?

        “None of these ***rights are absolute****.”

        a rail. a bucket of tar, a bag of feathers.
        an old oak tree.

    • Amazona March 14, 2013 / 4:08 pm

      Doug, thank you for sharing your strange fantasy about the secret yearnings of a party you clearly do not like or understand.

      Yes, I realize how confusing it is for people like you, the lock-steppers who fall madly in love with a personality and then worship at that altar no matter what he or she does. It is people like you who allow the Cult of Personality to gain and retain power.

      The first thing I learned when I moved into the light from the Dark Side of my unexamined yet passionate liberalism was how much more work is involved in being a conservative. It requires thought, evaluation, consideration of every person and every position and every new idea that comes down the pike.

      So conservatives who share the same commitment that makes them conservative—that is, a commitment to the Constitution as the best way to govern the United States—may and actually DO have different ideas regarding what we now call “social issues” and even what we think is most important in a candidate.

      I, for example. while finding abortion to be an atrocity and thinking it delusional and downright silly for two men to claim their relationship should be called “marriage”, also don’t think that issues like this should be part of the national election debate, because I think we should be voting exclusively on GOVERNMENT.

      Sp there will be serious disagreements among conservatives on things like this. And you lock-steppers will be bumfuddled and think this is some kind of defect or flaw,when in fact it is proof of the health and integrity of the conservative movement.

      I don’t expect to find a candidate I can unequivocally love on all levels in every area. And I don’t care.

      As I said about Romney: “I don’t want to date him, I want to HIRE him.”

      I’ve never been a Christie fan because I don’t trust him. Sometimes I like what he says, sometimes I don’t, but my underlying reaction to him is one of distrust. Yet I would vote for him for President if he happened to be nominated, because he would undoubtedly come much closer to my real goal of Constitutional government than any Dem you guys could put up.

      • Cluster March 14, 2013 / 4:43 pm


        The zombies are guaranteed to win the next 16 years if you don’t vote for the “best” candidate alternative when you can. That’s what they hope you do.

        To use a football analogy – teams march up the field, and sometimes suffer a setback when they are penalized, yet they keep on moving the ball down the field. They don’t just throw long bombs every play.

        I asked GMB the other day to not bother with us fiscal conservatives anymore and to just go out and put together his majority, social conservative coalition. I haven’t heard back.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 14, 2013 / 4:51 pm

        To continue the football analogy; folding your arms at mid-field and refusing to play because the Q-Back isn’t your #1 pick, means you can watch the goal scored for the other side from a very good vantage point.

        But, score they will. And often.

      • neocon01 March 14, 2013 / 4:56 pm


        I love the football analogy,
        yet you cant field a team of has been’s, drunks, cripples, NBA players and expect them to win the super bowl against the NY Giants, no matter how many GREAT plays they perform.

        The old politics of our fathers where both parties were slightly different but both had the best interest of our country in mind are gone.
        We need to realize we are being steamrolled by hard core marxists aligned with islamists……..this is for the whole enchilada.

      • Cluster March 14, 2013 / 5:04 pm

        We need to realize we are being steamrolled by hard core marxists aligned with islamists……..this is for the whole enchilada.

        I don’t necessarily disagree with that. And that is why I would vote for someone like Christie rather than let another liberal democrat win. I am not a big Christie fan, I use to be but I now think he is liberal lite, but I would rather have that than a full blown liberal, and keep moving the conservative ball down the field so to speak. I would much prefer Paul, Rubio, Cruz, etc.

    • M. Noonan March 14, 2013 / 11:19 pm


      Relax – I, at least, already back Jindal; who is my first choice for 2016. Rubio comes in 2nd. Paul right now is tied for third with Perry. My dream ticket is Jindal/Walker.

      Rand Paul represents a powerful and important part of the eventually winning coalition – but just a part. Sorry, but Paul, should he get the nomination, will need my support and the support of millions like me…which means even he will probably have to adopt some policies which you consider “statist”…on the other hand, in order to put together a winning coalition, Jindal would also have to adopt some policies in tune with Paul.

      Purists have no place in our coalition – other than a very few irreducible ideals (such as a general brief for lower taxes/balanced budgets; a pro-life ideology which, on the federal level, mostly seeks to return the matter to the States; a general defense of the traditional family without quibbling too much if local areas decide differently on civil unions; a strong national defense). It isn’t time to demand a perfect candidate – but a candidate who can win and advance the ball.

      • pelirrojito March 15, 2013 / 5:00 am

        You seem to be mistaken. You and millions like you will simply vote for whoever gets the nomination, thus he will not need to gain your support. So the only real power you have is during the primaries.

        But I’m curious, would you vote for a 3rd party? or would you ever refuse to vote? and under which conditions for both?

      • M. Noonan March 15, 2013 / 10:03 am


        Voting for a Third Party would be a waste of time unless both parties became fundamentally opposed to my views. Right now, warts and all, the GOP is much closer to my overall views than the Democrats and, also so far, does not advocate any positions which constitute support for intrinsic evil, as the Democrat Party does.

        But the fact is that the GOP coalition – when its winning – has to unite Establishment GOPers, paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and libertarians. The last person to do this fully was President Bush – McCain and Romney failed at it. If whomever we nominate in 2016 can do it, we win; hands down, no question about it because our coalition is fundamentally larger than the liberal coalition (we start with a larger base of support, overall).

  2. Cluster March 14, 2013 / 4:12 pm

    Mr Quinby,

    Mitt Romney would have made an excellent President. His moral fiber is unquestionable, his business experience is largely unmatched, and his common sense is invaluable. He would have done well, but unlike you, I don’t look in the rear view mirror and knowing that Mitt won’t run again, I like what I hear from Paul. I also thought Rubio had an excellent speech at CPAC.

    You may want to worry more about yourself other than what I or other conservatives think. Piously thinking what others may or may not do, is really childish and getting old.

    • neocon01 March 14, 2013 / 4:40 pm

      Piously thinking what others may or may not do, is really childish and getting old.

      so we just accept the RINOS and ROVE dinosaurs the establishment GOP foists upon us? talk about getting old!

      Not this ole grunt!!

  3. Amazona March 14, 2013 / 4:12 pm

    I’ve been amused at the litany of THIS GUY FOR PRESIDENT followed by an equally excited THAT GUY FOR PRESIDENT from our resident conservatives.

    But for the first time I found myself thinking maybe we had someone I could feel that way about, and that is Rand Paul. I haven’t researched him, don’t know a lot about him, but what I know I like. I think he is the best of his father without the nutty factor.

    I’d like to have someone showing up on our radar fairly soon, to start to unite the movement and help it establish itself as the Conservative Movement, which just has to operate under the GOP brand till it either takes it over or replaces it.

    • Cluster March 14, 2013 / 4:30 pm

      Rubio had a great line summing up his speech when he said that he could already tell you what the liberals will say, and that is that he “drinks too much water”, and that “he doesn’t have any new ideas”. To which Rubio said that he “doesn’t need any new ideas. The American idea still works real well”

      I love our young conservative bench.

      • neocon01 March 14, 2013 / 4:45 pm


        I love our young conservative bench.

        Now your talking……….we need to watch their six and not let the commie press tear them to shreds like they did to the real conservatives in the last cheat in.
        RID our selves of the mcLame and rove leftist light’s and avoid the inevitable GOP circular firing squad.

      • Cluster March 14, 2013 / 5:07 pm


        I share your sentiments, BUT I and we, are not the majority of the GOP. Do what we will, and support who we will, but we still have to coalesce around the chosen conservative.

      • neocon01 March 14, 2013 / 7:07 pm


        but we still have to coalesce around the chosen conservative.

        OOH BELIEVE ME I do understand.
        Our problem is that after the commie press shreds all the good candidates through a meat grinder ( Herman Cain, Sarah Palin) we are left with the default candidate as the one “chosen” that THEY picked for us by not destroying them at that time.
        They wait until our hand picked barney fife runs, then they destroy him.
        I am sooo sick of the GOP bringing pillows to fight the battle of the bulge (not Cristie) , 🙂

      • neocon01 March 14, 2013 / 7:20 pm

        OH BOY

        Texas Gov. Rick Perry Breaks From GOP Establishment, Blasts McCain and Romney in CPAC Speech

        “That might be true if Republicans had actually nominated conservative candidates in 2008 and 2012.”

        give the Rinos HELL Rick!!

      • Cluster March 15, 2013 / 12:15 pm


        Honestly I think the majority of people are looking forward to getting back to a government that made America great, rather than the current government that is what made Europe a mess.

      • Cluster March 15, 2013 / 3:20 pm

        The fact you think this phrase is a bell ringer speaks volumes to your archaic mindset.

        The fact that you think we need any idea other than the American concept which has been responsible for the most successful country in the history of this planet just speaks to your youth and complete ignorance.

    • M. Noonan March 14, 2013 / 11:24 pm


      I don’t think we’ll get a leader any time soon – we just have too many talented people on our bench. Regardless of how any one particularly feels about any of them, we’ve got Paul, Jindal, Rubio, Cruz, West, Haley, Palin, Christie, Santorum, Martinez, Sandoval and Perry – and probably a few others who may pop up between now and 2016. All of them are possible standard bearers (some of them, however, are more likely VP picks – but even so, they may try for the top spot and won’t be able to be ignored). None of these people is just going to gracefully stand aside – at least not until some measurements of strength are taken. The good news is that any of them are vastly superior to whomever the Democrats will nominate, and all of them are also vast improvements over McCain and Romney (and a couple of them are vast improvements over Reagan).

      I’m not too worried about a hard fight – because the Democrats have just as many people with Presidential ambitions and as all of them are corrupt, partisan hacks who only care about themselves, they’ll slaughter each other in the primaries.

      • Cluster March 15, 2013 / 6:08 pm


        As it is right now, your best candidates are Hillary and Biden – two old white people. Good luck with that.

      • Cluster March 15, 2013 / 6:36 pm

        You really are naive and young aren’t you? Remember Hillarycare? Didn’t float too well. Thankfully Gingrich forced Bill to the middle, of which he had the sense to go. Obama? Not so much. Besides, Hillary allowing our Ambassador to die pretty much sunk her candidacy. But “what difference does it make” right?

        By all means, run Hillary.

      • M. Noonan March 15, 2013 / 6:39 pm

        Well, after the election and re-election of Obama, it is clear that if the right set of lies are generated and the GOP nominates a candidate who can’t get it right, then literally any twit can slide in to the White House…even Hillary. So, it is true that on January 20th, 2017 we might watch as someone who is in some ways even more dishonest than Obama being sworn in. Anything is possible.

        But I still like our bench a heck of a lot more than the Democrat bench.

      • M. Noonan March 15, 2013 / 6:51 pm


        I’ve actually changed my perspective on this a bit – Hillary would not be the worst possible President. Now, Matt and I are writing “Worst” and Obama clearly claims that title – but we had to do a bit about Kerry as he’s SecState and after reviewing Kerry I can only say, thank goodness for George Bush. Obama is bad. Hillary will be bad, if she ever gets in…but if I had a choice between Obama and Kerry, I’d choose Obama. Heck, I’d campaign for Obama. I’d donate money to him. Kerry is a bullet we dodged – it is bad that we’ve got him as SecState (and reflects very ill on Obama that he is), but Kerry was the amoral, ruling class son of a bitch we never, ever want in the White House.

      • Cluster March 15, 2013 / 7:28 pm


        Hillary would be just as bad of a President as Obama is. It’s hard to believe that in this country of so many extremely bright, hard working, successful entrepreneurs that we are even mentioning the wife of a former president who is a career politician herself as a “good” candidate. We really have become a banana republic.

        Of course that excites people like Rusty. Mediocrity means that he has a chance.

      • rustybrown2012 March 15, 2013 / 9:50 pm

        She’s not a good candidate, but a great candidate, and she’s gonna kick republican ass in the next presidential – bank on it.

        And, you imply, “career politicians” aren’t good candidates. Wake up and smell the coffee dude; career politicians are all that are running these days. Enjoy your increasing irrelevance.

      • Cluster March 16, 2013 / 12:40 am

        Rusty, you seem to be a little crustier than usual. Are you a little angry? A little agitated? What’s wrong sport?

      • neocon01 March 16, 2013 / 11:36 am


        See, bfv actually encourages trolls.

        YOU are PROOF of dat!!

  4. GMB March 15, 2013 / 3:18 am

    Four point plan for the GOP to start winning again.

    This plan is especially for those of you that blame us evil social conservatives for not turning out in numbers to put your rinos over the top.

    1.) End your love affair with the amnesty for illegals crowd and defund them. Some of us will come back.
    2.) End your love affair with those pushing the homosexual agenda and defund them. More of us will come back.
    3.) End your love affair with the abortionists and defund them. A great many of us will come back.
    4.) Give us a candidate we can believe in and we will flock back in droves.

    You establishment rino types have given up on the culture war. There is no indication you will fight for anything else either. Compromise and adjusting your position to suit the needs of the progs is in your bones.

    • neocon01 March 15, 2013 / 8:28 am



      • neocon01 March 15, 2013 / 8:41 am

        CINCINNATI (AP) — Republican U.S. Sen. Rob Portman is now supporting gay marriage and says his reversal on the issue began when he learned one of his sons is gay.

        Hey I learned some one I know is a Hooker…….NOW IM FOR HOOKERS….in our schools, HOOKERS in our churches…HOOKER leaders in the Brownies and girl scouts.
        Business exec HOOKERS, HOOKERS in rest stops, HOOKERS in park bathrooms. HOOKERS in congress, HOOKERS in the US Senate, HOOKERS in the white hut…..(ooh wait that has been done by several donks).
        HOOKER parades, HOOKER PRIDE days….and laws that allow you to “marry” several HOOKERS, hey look how much money the po could make.

      • neocon01 March 15, 2013 / 8:45 am

        SORRY ROB………you were ELECTED to REPRESENT the people in your district NOT your sons pathologies.

        QUIT if you cant or WONT do the damn job you were hired to do that WE are paying you for.!!

    • Cluster March 15, 2013 / 8:46 am


      if that post is directed at me, I can assure you that:

      1. I have no desire to grant amnesty and wouldn’t fund any movement to do so. I live in AZ and support sb1070 which is under attack by the current regime.

      2. I have no love affair with the gay agenda. I do support civil unions, oppose “gay marriage”, but ultimately believe this is a local issue not a federal one.

      3. I detest abortion. I reluctantly support the exception clause (rape, incest, physical harm), but other than that, consider the practice to be manslaughter at the very least.

      4. As I have said before, how about if social conservatives offer up a candidate that can gain majority support? Why do you wait for everyone else to do something?

      • neocon01 March 15, 2013 / 8:57 am


        I didnt read GMB’s post to be directed at any one individual, but as a general statement.
        I agreed with this analogy. I will let him answer if it was aimed at certain individuals. I believe we who post here are generally on the same page.

      • Cluster March 15, 2013 / 9:01 am


        This was GMB’s opening salvo:

        This plan is especially for those of you that blame us evil social conservatives for not turning out in numbers

        And that would include me. Had social conservatives shown up in numbers last fall, Romney would be our president.

      • neocon01 March 15, 2013 / 9:10 am

        Had social conservatives shown up in numbers last fall, Romney would be our president.

        I showed, and held my nose – again.
        I agree that millions stayed home.
        However rather than recruiting homosexuals, illegals, third world banana republic peasants, and marxists thus becoming them so they will vote for us, lets get OUR OWN people back by picking winning candidates.
        We have winners, we just sit back and let the left and their minion press destroy them then the GOP Rinos dump them like an old used condom.

        you dont see the donks drop bwany, wrangle, watters, and ALL the other crooks, nuts, racists, LOONS do you?
        We need to LEARN from them NOT become them on every issue but government size.

      • Cluster March 15, 2013 / 10:30 am

        lets get OUR OWN people back by picking winning candidates.

        I agree, but in my opinion it is the GMB’s that need to get on board, not fiscal conservatives. Everything GMB outlined is relative falsehood. I do not support illegal immigration, the gay agenda, or abortion, and neither do Romney or the majority of fiscal conservatives. (McCain is another story, and I DO NOT like McCain). Now if we nominate someone like Christie, we may have a problem again because he is liberal lite, however people like Paul, Rubio, & Cruz, are solid and if social conservatives can’t get behind either one of them – then to hell with them.

      • neocon01 March 15, 2013 / 11:21 am


        people like Paul, Rubio, & Cruz, are solid and if social conservatives
        I agree and like them all, Paul would bring his fathers “paul bots” In the mix for us. I would add Allen West and Sarah Palin also…..West is a real dynamo, smart and a minority…he would be the anchor to the ticket.

      • neocon01 March 15, 2013 / 11:23 am


        I have been E mailing our governor to consider West to fill the vacancy of LT Gov……How great would that be for putting him on the national scene.
        If tra-von Scott goes back and picks what he had before he is TOAST!!!!

      • neocon01 March 15, 2013 / 2:01 pm

        Anybody catch Rush today???

        his show was about this very subject (GOP)

      • GMB March 16, 2013 / 10:13 am

        I directed that post to those who consider themselves movers and shakers within the republican party. Not at any one specific person.

      • GMB March 16, 2013 / 11:05 am

        Cluster. How to put this so you will not fly off the handle? There is no indication that Romney would have done anything other than continue the proggie agenda. I like Neo, held my nose and voted for the most progressive repub to ever have run for the office of President.

        The most progressive by deed not by words.

        I will never vote for an enabler of the progressive agenda again. There are many like me out here. If we are to blame for the loss of Romney then common sense would say you need to make us happy again.

        Quit the establishment that is doing nothing but helping the progs. If all the establishment is going to do is slow down the progs a tiny bit, there is no point in supporting them.

        Let the fight begin. I, probably have more to lose than you. Married with six children and the seventh on the way. I would prefer not to leave the fight to my children. I would prefer to do it myself.

        The fight is coming. The only now is choose your side. The abortionist, the homosexualists, the dream acters, they won’t be able to feed you when you are starving.

        Fringe little dictators such as myself will.

      • Cluster March 16, 2013 / 11:16 am

        I am hardly a “mover and shaker” in the GOP ranks but will take a stab at a few things:

        If we are to blame for the loss of Romney then common sense would say you need to make us happy again.

        I don’t need to do anything. I couldn’t care less if you are happy or not, involved or not. As you accurately said, you have a hell of a lot more to lose than I do, so I find it really strange that you seem to want someone like me to jump through hoops to make you happy. At the end of the day, I couldn’t care less what happens to your family.

        I would prefer not to leave the fight to my children. I would prefer to do it myself.

        No you wouldn’t. You prefer to sit in the cheap seats and bitch. You would prefer to wait for someone like me to bend to your demands before you get up off your ass. Your children will pay the price.

  5. Jeremiah March 15, 2013 / 2:21 pm

    America will never elect another Republican for President.

    • neocon01 March 15, 2013 / 4:40 pm

      5th Night of Protests RIOTS!! Planned in Brooklyn for Kimani Gray

      tra-von 2
      pictures of armed thug – when he was 11yo.

      • neocon01 March 15, 2013 / 4:42 pm

        Lo Fo?

        >>>”He’s my baby, and he was slaughtered, and I want to know why,” she said.<<<

        I’ll answer you, Mom:

        Your “baby” was a criminal and gang member who pointed a loaded weapon at two police officers, who were forced to shoot him to protect themselves and others.

        Are there any more questions or can we move on?

        12 posted on Friday, March 15, 2013 4:13:22 PM by Above My Pay Grade

      • neocon01 March 15, 2013 / 4:49 pm

        Rove….TAKE THAT….

      • neocon01 March 15, 2013 / 4:50 pm


      • neocon01 March 15, 2013 / 4:51 pm


Comments are closed.