Rand Paul: I guess my belief is in the individual. And individuals will make mistakes. And, uh… but I believe the individual ought to be left alone as long as you’re not hurting someone else. Libertarians have something we call the non-aggression principle.
Trevor Noah: Yeah.
Rand Paul: So I could do whatever I want as long as I’m not harming you.
“Mean what you say, and say what you mean.” Wordy Rappinghood.
Rick Adams
January 8, 2016
I came across this perspective from the Left by veteran Democrat politico-turned-blogger Ed Kilgore:
“Johnson’s announcement probably marks the sad realization of many libertarians that the mainstream political breakthrough, or “moment” (as Robert Draper put it in a much discussed New York Times Magazine feature [http://nyti.ms/1pgQE0c] in August 2014), they had hoped for isn’t happening. That’s because the presidential campaign of the supposed vehicle for that breakthrough, Senator Rand Paul, has made even Jeb Bush’s effort look effervescent.
…The whole premise of the Draper piece was that Rand Paul had taken the old man’s creed and modified it enough to make it acceptable to mainstream Republican audiences, while potentially adding some independent and even Democratic voters to an old white GOP base badly in need of new recruits. Instead, he seems to have lost some of the old magic of the Revolution, and more than a few voters.
It’s probably too early for a complete postmortem of Paul ’16, but one theory is that Rand sold his birthright for a mess of hypothetical pottage that was ultimately worthless. Libertarians, not the most compromise-prone political tribe, may be happier to go into the general election with Johnson, who lets his freak flag fly.”
I think paulie’s analysis is mostly right, except I’m not quite that pessimistic about some Rand supporters voting for Gary. It will happen to some degree, but less than Ron 2012 supporters did, and there’s very little we can do in terms of ignoring/attacking/praising Rand that will make any difference. Most of the ones that won’t end up voting LP, aren’t winnable at all.
I also think it’s absolutely true Rand will happily revert to being the Chamber of Commerce attack dog against LP candidates in 2016….. but, if Trump is the nominee, that throws a monkey wrench into it, at least on the presidential level. In that scenario I see it more likely Rand staying on the sidelines. Certainly not endorsing the LP nominee, but not enthusiastically campaigning against the LP nominee on behalf of Trump. Instead they’ll have him running around playing the anti-spoiler card against LP candidates for Gov & Sen & House.
Look at an electiond ay thread and you’ll see few of the posters bothered to vote for Romney. There wasn’t much enthusiasm for him even after Rand endorsed him.
Rand was not the candidate in 2012, and while he did endorse Romney he was not really campaigning for him hardcore and targeting LP and LP leaners as he did with e.g. the Sarvis race and a few others in the years since. I think that’s a significant difference. And I expect the latter approach from him this year.
But judging from the comments I’ve seen many Ron Paul supporters ended up defecting to Johnson
While there is obviously a lot of overlap, a lot of the more libertarian Ron Paul supporters are not supporting Rand Paul, and a bunch of less libertarian leaning Republicans that never supported Ron Paul do support Rand Paul. Ron Paul never endorsed much less campaigned for Romney, and while he never endorsed Johnson either he said good things about him in public and mutual acquaintances tell me did in fact vote for him even though he did not publicize it.
Again, this is a very different dynamic this year, and people who think the playbook of appealing to Ron Paul supporters can be translated to Rand Paul and 2016 are mistaken. Rand Paul will be sure to try his damnedest to make sure of that. And the fact that there is no incumbent this year and the Democrats will be running the much hated Hillary Clinton will make his job easier in that regard.
Dave
January 8, 2016
I really respect your insights Paulie but I’m afraid i must disagree on this front. Yes, most of Rand’s supporters will likely stick with the Republican, but a significant minority won’t. For proof, take a look at Ron Paul forums in 2012. Look at an electiond ay thread and you’ll see few of the posters bothered to vote for Romney. There wasn’t much enthusiasm for him even after Rand endorsed him. And there’s not much love for Trump.
I’m not saying L’s should really praise Rand, but I think his base represents an opportunity for growth after he drops out. Were I Gary Johnson or whoever the nominee ended up being, I’d aggressively target them after Rand dropped out. Have Rand’s statements( not necessarily his actions mind) on privacy and foreign intervention that sound “Libertarian-ish” as he might put it, and then showcase Johnson standing for the same things. For bonus points, show how Clinton and Trump have at various times been for more government and more war.
And yeah, do the same for Sanders. Most of his fans are more likely to favor the Greens, but there’s a segment of them who are big privacy advocates. Showing the LP as a natural home for them can’t hurt.
Now maybe I’m overly optimistic about how many supporters this outreach would attract. But judging from the comments I’ve seen many Ron Paul supporters ended up defecting to Johnson( and indeed, I was one of them) It really just seems like one of the best opportunities for outreach to me, since with him and Sanders you have supporters who are very likely to be disappointed with the eventual nominees of their party. At least some of them will be looking for other options. Even if only 10% of them ultimately consider voting LP or third party, that’s a group worth pursuing and an easier way to gain votes than appealing to the general public and hoping for the best.
That’s what they say now, before Rand Paul himself and organized teams of both paid and volunteer Rand Paul operatives work day and night for months to convince them that this election is too important, the most important election ever, and that indeed there will never even be another election if they allow Hillary to win.
Andy
January 8, 2016
Most of the Rand Paul supporters I have encountered are in fact sympathetic to the Libertarian Party. Some have said they will vote for the LP candidate if Rand does not win the nomination.
We don’t need a war with Rand Paul right now. We need libertarians who are [mistakenly] supporting him in the belief that he is a libertarian to be able to support our candidate after Paul is eliminated in his party’s primaries.
The war is already being waged by Randall and what we need is self-defense. However, what we have instead is a lot of LP folks who mistake Randall for his father and think we will be effective at reaching out to his supporters post-nomination. I don’t believe that strategy will work even close to as well this time. Unlike Ron, Rand will be campaigning hard for the Republican presidential nominee and specifically targeting LP supporters or leaners to peel our votes away from the LP and scare us with sky is falling claims about Hillary and the Democrats. It will be not only “the most important election ever” but the apocalypse itself and blah blah blah. We already know the playbook and saw it whipped out against Sarvis and other LP candidates. We already know Randal is working to acquire as many LP lists as possible for this purpose and has loyal teams of keyboard commandos all over all LP and small l discussion and social media groups. We already know he will be making mailers, robocalls and radio and TV ads and youtube videos specifically aimed at minimizing the LP vote at all levels, including but certainly not limited to presidential.
If anything, trying to appeal to Sanders fans after the nomination will be better than trying to appeal to Rand Paul fans. Yes, Sanders will be working hard for Hillary at that point, and yes, they have the Greens to go to, but even so, with as much of a flop as appealing to Sanders fans will be, it will still be less of a flop than trying to go after Rand Paul fans.
I disagree but after a season of chanting the various top Sanders mantras they are not going to be voting for Republicans or Libertarians.
Some will some won’t. Some of the Sanders support is ideological, some of it is because he is perceived to be an outsider or anti-establishment to some degree.
I don’t see Sanders throwing his endorsement to the Green Party nominee.
Correct, he already says he will be campaigning for Hillary, just as Randal Paul has already said he will be campaigning hard for Trump, Cruz, Christie, Jeb!?, or indeed any other turd the NSGOP nominates.
Paul assures evangelicals that he does not want to end the war on drugs.
He’s also anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage, pro-states’ rights,pro-bigger-military, anti detente and trade with Iran,…
Andy CraigPost author | January 8, 2016
Rand Paul on Kennedy in the afternoon: How dare libertarians say I’m not good enough, don’t they know I’m a leading advocate of ending the drug war!
Rand Paul on Colbert later that same evening: Don’t say I’m in favor of legalizing marijuana, I just want shorter sentences!
Andy CraigPost author | January 8, 2016
Rand Paul is, of course, not correct when he says Gary never mentions any specific issues he disagrees with Rand on. The particular line quoted was just a passing reference, alongside his run-down of the other major-party candidates, from his “Why I would run for President” essay. But in other interviews he’s gotten much more specific, typically zeroing in on social issues but also some on foreign policy.
@05:58
No, it’s not new. The line Kennedy quoted is from October. Unless he’s been asked about it an interview, I don’t think Gary has mentioned Rand at all since the announcement. Then again there’s not much of a Rand Paul campaign left for him to be asked about. And, as we’ve covered here at IPR, Rand has attacked the LP and Libertarian candidates many, many times, including campaigning against them for their Republican opponents. Wise to go after him now? Maybe, maybe not, but I haven’t seen any indication that GJ16 is doing so. Rand’s the one than went on Kennedy to get asked about Gary and then uploaded the clip to his campaign’s YouTube channel.
I also think it’s very silly for Rand to humble-brag about not attacking Gary and the LP… while attacking Gary and the LP.
Robert Capozzi
January 8, 2016
SF, iirc, GJ was asked about RP2. He’s also said supportive things about RP2 in the past. It’s not much of an attack, as I see it, and it sounds about right to me. RP2 has swung too far toward the Establishment on too many issues, and that disappoints his base.
A little bit of friction and controversy is a good thing, IMO. The media covers conflict and friction, and getting people talking and thinking about what it means to be L in an un-L world seems productive to me.
I’d also say that RP2 handled this VERY deftly. He seems to have lost his prickly defensiveness. His response was pretty freaking compelling as far as it went.
In this case, win/win.
Stewart Flood
January 8, 2016
Why would Johnson attack Paul at this point in the campaign? Was this a new/recent attack, or were they bringing up something from the past?
The response was good, and fortunately did not attack us back. We don’t need a war with Rand Paul right now. We need libertarians who are [mistakenly] supporting him in the belief that he is a libertarian to be able to support our candidate after Paul is eliminated in his party’s primaries.
This gets worse and worse…
Darcy G Richardson
January 8, 2016
It’s hilarious that Gary Johnson was criticizing Paul for “a vague mix of issues,” when it’s virtually impossible to grasp where the former New Mexico governor stands on anything. Seriously.
All in all, that was a pretty good response from Rand Paul, especially when he asked, “What’s he talking about?”
It’s also the same question many Libertarians have been asking the past day or two…
Thane Eichenauer
January 8, 2016
I don’t see that Rand Paul is claiming purity. He does claim that he is the best advocate on several issues in the US Senate. If anybody disagrees then find and support a better candidate or group or movement. Donald Trump and Rand Paul have spoken to more ears and eyes about reasons not to be involved in Syria than the rest of the duopoly candidates. Good for them. I hope they continue their good efforts. Frankly Rand Paul talking about Gary Johnson may have clued in a few thousand people that Libertarians exist. Is that a bad thing? I think not.
Andy
January 8, 2016
Funny for Gary Johnson to have been lecturing Rand Paul on libertarian purity.
Thane Eichenauer
January 8, 2016
Dave commented, “Something similar should be sent out after Sanders drops out as well, as much of his support is anti Clinton.”
I disagree but after a season of chanting the various top Sanders mantras they are not going to be voting for Republicans or Libertarians. I don’t see Sanders throwing his endorsement to the Green Party nominee.
Thane Eichenauer
January 8, 2016
My innerds find that clip to be persuasive. Darn you innerds!
Dave
January 8, 2016
Something I find interesting is the top rated comment on that video.
“Ill vote for Dr Paul but when the GOP screws him I’ll vote Gary Johnson again like I did in 2012. I will not vote for trump, bush, Rubio, Carson… #StandWithRand?”
With RP 2 not going to get the nomination,and indeed not even likely to be in the next main debate, I think there’s a lot of possibility for outreach to that community. The people who backed Ron Paul were a diverse bunch. Many of them have ended up with Trump, Sanders or Cruz this year, as evidenced by Rand not polling as well as his father. But I do think a lot of the “true believers” as it were that stuck with Rand’s campaign will be willing to jump ship to the LP when he loses, even if Rand himself endorses the Republican. Probably worth sending out something when he withdraws showcasing the areas of agreement ( at least in Rand’s rhetoric, we can argue about his record) between him and Gary or whomever the LP nominates. Something similar should be sent out after Sanders drops out as well, as much of his support is anti Clinton.
Yes, and http://ballot-access.org/2016/01/15/rand-paul-interview-seems-to-reveal-that-his-highest-political-goal-is-to-aid-the-republican-party/
Probably, but he’s never confirmed it, and has tended towards implicitly denying it when pressed on that point.
Rand may have in conjunction with his father’s campaign in ’88, even though he doesn’t like to discuss that now.
Ron Paul also mentioned the NAP pledge in the interview I just posted. Probably not a coincidence.
Difference being, Ron Paul is actually on record as having signed it.
LOL
Wow… looks like Rand Paul just called Austin Petersen out on the NAP:
The Daily Show (starting at 9:07):
http://www.cc.com/shows/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah/interviews/6yx39d/exclusive-rand-paul-extended-interview
He’s off the debate stage. Stick a fork in him, he’s done.
A Rand Paul victory would have been anti-libertairan, because his positions are anti-libertarian.
1:51 Rand Paul keeps saying he is not a Libertarian, and he is telling the truth on that one.
“Mean what you say, and say what you mean.” Wordy Rappinghood.
I came across this perspective from the Left by veteran Democrat politico-turned-blogger Ed Kilgore:
“Johnson’s announcement probably marks the sad realization of many libertarians that the mainstream political breakthrough, or “moment” (as Robert Draper put it in a much discussed New York Times Magazine feature [http://nyti.ms/1pgQE0c] in August 2014), they had hoped for isn’t happening. That’s because the presidential campaign of the supposed vehicle for that breakthrough, Senator Rand Paul, has made even Jeb Bush’s effort look effervescent.
…The whole premise of the Draper piece was that Rand Paul had taken the old man’s creed and modified it enough to make it acceptable to mainstream Republican audiences, while potentially adding some independent and even Democratic voters to an old white GOP base badly in need of new recruits. Instead, he seems to have lost some of the old magic of the Revolution, and more than a few voters.
It’s probably too early for a complete postmortem of Paul ’16, but one theory is that Rand sold his birthright for a mess of hypothetical pottage that was ultimately worthless. Libertarians, not the most compromise-prone political tribe, may be happier to go into the general election with Johnson, who lets his freak flag fly.”
Source: http://nym.ag/1OVHT4p
I think paulie’s analysis is mostly right, except I’m not quite that pessimistic about some Rand supporters voting for Gary. It will happen to some degree, but less than Ron 2012 supporters did, and there’s very little we can do in terms of ignoring/attacking/praising Rand that will make any difference. Most of the ones that won’t end up voting LP, aren’t winnable at all.
I also think it’s absolutely true Rand will happily revert to being the Chamber of Commerce attack dog against LP candidates in 2016….. but, if Trump is the nominee, that throws a monkey wrench into it, at least on the presidential level. In that scenario I see it more likely Rand staying on the sidelines. Certainly not endorsing the LP nominee, but not enthusiastically campaigning against the LP nominee on behalf of Trump. Instead they’ll have him running around playing the anti-spoiler card against LP candidates for Gov & Sen & House.
Rand was not the candidate in 2012, and while he did endorse Romney he was not really campaigning for him hardcore and targeting LP and LP leaners as he did with e.g. the Sarvis race and a few others in the years since. I think that’s a significant difference. And I expect the latter approach from him this year.
While there is obviously a lot of overlap, a lot of the more libertarian Ron Paul supporters are not supporting Rand Paul, and a bunch of less libertarian leaning Republicans that never supported Ron Paul do support Rand Paul. Ron Paul never endorsed much less campaigned for Romney, and while he never endorsed Johnson either he said good things about him in public and mutual acquaintances tell me did in fact vote for him even though he did not publicize it.
Again, this is a very different dynamic this year, and people who think the playbook of appealing to Ron Paul supporters can be translated to Rand Paul and 2016 are mistaken. Rand Paul will be sure to try his damnedest to make sure of that. And the fact that there is no incumbent this year and the Democrats will be running the much hated Hillary Clinton will make his job easier in that regard.
I really respect your insights Paulie but I’m afraid i must disagree on this front. Yes, most of Rand’s supporters will likely stick with the Republican, but a significant minority won’t. For proof, take a look at Ron Paul forums in 2012. Look at an electiond ay thread and you’ll see few of the posters bothered to vote for Romney. There wasn’t much enthusiasm for him even after Rand endorsed him. And there’s not much love for Trump.
I’m not saying L’s should really praise Rand, but I think his base represents an opportunity for growth after he drops out. Were I Gary Johnson or whoever the nominee ended up being, I’d aggressively target them after Rand dropped out. Have Rand’s statements( not necessarily his actions mind) on privacy and foreign intervention that sound “Libertarian-ish” as he might put it, and then showcase Johnson standing for the same things. For bonus points, show how Clinton and Trump have at various times been for more government and more war.
And yeah, do the same for Sanders. Most of his fans are more likely to favor the Greens, but there’s a segment of them who are big privacy advocates. Showing the LP as a natural home for them can’t hurt.
Now maybe I’m overly optimistic about how many supporters this outreach would attract. But judging from the comments I’ve seen many Ron Paul supporters ended up defecting to Johnson( and indeed, I was one of them) It really just seems like one of the best opportunities for outreach to me, since with him and Sanders you have supporters who are very likely to be disappointed with the eventual nominees of their party. At least some of them will be looking for other options. Even if only 10% of them ultimately consider voting LP or third party, that’s a group worth pursuing and an easier way to gain votes than appealing to the general public and hoping for the best.
That’s what they say now, before Rand Paul himself and organized teams of both paid and volunteer Rand Paul operatives work day and night for months to convince them that this election is too important, the most important election ever, and that indeed there will never even be another election if they allow Hillary to win.
Most of the Rand Paul supporters I have encountered are in fact sympathetic to the Libertarian Party. Some have said they will vote for the LP candidate if Rand does not win the nomination.
The war is already being waged by Randall and what we need is self-defense. However, what we have instead is a lot of LP folks who mistake Randall for his father and think we will be effective at reaching out to his supporters post-nomination. I don’t believe that strategy will work even close to as well this time. Unlike Ron, Rand will be campaigning hard for the Republican presidential nominee and specifically targeting LP supporters or leaners to peel our votes away from the LP and scare us with sky is falling claims about Hillary and the Democrats. It will be not only “the most important election ever” but the apocalypse itself and blah blah blah. We already know the playbook and saw it whipped out against Sarvis and other LP candidates. We already know Randal is working to acquire as many LP lists as possible for this purpose and has loyal teams of keyboard commandos all over all LP and small l discussion and social media groups. We already know he will be making mailers, robocalls and radio and TV ads and youtube videos specifically aimed at minimizing the LP vote at all levels, including but certainly not limited to presidential.
If anything, trying to appeal to Sanders fans after the nomination will be better than trying to appeal to Rand Paul fans. Yes, Sanders will be working hard for Hillary at that point, and yes, they have the Greens to go to, but even so, with as much of a flop as appealing to Sanders fans will be, it will still be less of a flop than trying to go after Rand Paul fans.
GP @ 10:32, AC @ 0936 and 0929
Good points.
Some will some won’t. Some of the Sanders support is ideological, some of it is because he is perceived to be an outsider or anti-establishment to some degree.
Correct, he already says he will be campaigning for Hillary, just as Randal Paul has already said he will be campaigning hard for Trump, Cruz, Christie, Jeb!?, or indeed any other turd the NSGOP nominates.
Mine sure as hell don’t.
Ask and ye shall receive.
The slide has continued further since this:
https://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/rand-paul-assures-evangelicals-that-he-d
Paul assures evangelicals that he does not want to end the war on drugs.
He’s also anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage, pro-states’ rights,pro-bigger-military, anti detente and trade with Iran,…
Rand Paul on Kennedy in the afternoon: How dare libertarians say I’m not good enough, don’t they know I’m a leading advocate of ending the drug war!
Rand Paul on Colbert later that same evening: Don’t say I’m in favor of legalizing marijuana, I just want shorter sentences!
Rand Paul is, of course, not correct when he says Gary never mentions any specific issues he disagrees with Rand on. The particular line quoted was just a passing reference, alongside his run-down of the other major-party candidates, from his “Why I would run for President” essay. But in other interviews he’s gotten much more specific, typically zeroing in on social issues but also some on foreign policy.
@05:58
No, it’s not new. The line Kennedy quoted is from October. Unless he’s been asked about it an interview, I don’t think Gary has mentioned Rand at all since the announcement. Then again there’s not much of a Rand Paul campaign left for him to be asked about. And, as we’ve covered here at IPR, Rand has attacked the LP and Libertarian candidates many, many times, including campaigning against them for their Republican opponents. Wise to go after him now? Maybe, maybe not, but I haven’t seen any indication that GJ16 is doing so. Rand’s the one than went on Kennedy to get asked about Gary and then uploaded the clip to his campaign’s YouTube channel.
I also think it’s very silly for Rand to humble-brag about not attacking Gary and the LP… while attacking Gary and the LP.
SF, iirc, GJ was asked about RP2. He’s also said supportive things about RP2 in the past. It’s not much of an attack, as I see it, and it sounds about right to me. RP2 has swung too far toward the Establishment on too many issues, and that disappoints his base.
A little bit of friction and controversy is a good thing, IMO. The media covers conflict and friction, and getting people talking and thinking about what it means to be L in an un-L world seems productive to me.
I’d also say that RP2 handled this VERY deftly. He seems to have lost his prickly defensiveness. His response was pretty freaking compelling as far as it went.
In this case, win/win.
Why would Johnson attack Paul at this point in the campaign? Was this a new/recent attack, or were they bringing up something from the past?
The response was good, and fortunately did not attack us back. We don’t need a war with Rand Paul right now. We need libertarians who are [mistakenly] supporting him in the belief that he is a libertarian to be able to support our candidate after Paul is eliminated in his party’s primaries.
This gets worse and worse…
It’s hilarious that Gary Johnson was criticizing Paul for “a vague mix of issues,” when it’s virtually impossible to grasp where the former New Mexico governor stands on anything. Seriously.
All in all, that was a pretty good response from Rand Paul, especially when he asked, “What’s he talking about?”
It’s also the same question many Libertarians have been asking the past day or two…
I don’t see that Rand Paul is claiming purity. He does claim that he is the best advocate on several issues in the US Senate. If anybody disagrees then find and support a better candidate or group or movement. Donald Trump and Rand Paul have spoken to more ears and eyes about reasons not to be involved in Syria than the rest of the duopoly candidates. Good for them. I hope they continue their good efforts. Frankly Rand Paul talking about Gary Johnson may have clued in a few thousand people that Libertarians exist. Is that a bad thing? I think not.
Funny for Gary Johnson to have been lecturing Rand Paul on libertarian purity.
Dave commented, “Something similar should be sent out after Sanders drops out as well, as much of his support is anti Clinton.”
I disagree but after a season of chanting the various top Sanders mantras they are not going to be voting for Republicans or Libertarians. I don’t see Sanders throwing his endorsement to the Green Party nominee.
My innerds find that clip to be persuasive. Darn you innerds!
Something I find interesting is the top rated comment on that video.
“Ill vote for Dr Paul but when the GOP screws him I’ll vote Gary Johnson again like I did in 2012. I will not vote for trump, bush, Rubio, Carson… #StandWithRand?”
With RP 2 not going to get the nomination,and indeed not even likely to be in the next main debate, I think there’s a lot of possibility for outreach to that community. The people who backed Ron Paul were a diverse bunch. Many of them have ended up with Trump, Sanders or Cruz this year, as evidenced by Rand not polling as well as his father. But I do think a lot of the “true believers” as it were that stuck with Rand’s campaign will be willing to jump ship to the LP when he loses, even if Rand himself endorses the Republican. Probably worth sending out something when he withdraws showcasing the areas of agreement ( at least in Rand’s rhetoric, we can argue about his record) between him and Gary or whomever the LP nominates. Something similar should be sent out after Sanders drops out as well, as much of his support is anti Clinton.