Run, Rand, run!

The best thing about Rand Paul’s talking filibuster this week is that public reaction to it seems to have heightened the Kentucky senator’s presidential ambitions, as we see HERE:

Paul himself seemed to appreciate that this was an important moment for himself, confidently acknowledging to POLITICO in an interview that he was “seriously” considering running for president in 2016.

“I think our party needs something new, fresh and different,” he said. “What we’ve been running — nothing against the candidates necessarily — but we have a good, solid niche in all the solidly red states throughout the middle of the country.”

But he suggested previous Republican candidates have had limited appeal to voters beyond the Republican base.

Partisan liberals like me would gladly welcome a Rand Paul bid for the Republican nomination four years hence. Like his dad, he would enjoy the enthusiastic backing of a band of libertarian ideologues. And like his dad, he would have no chance of winning the GOP nod, let alone the presidency itself.

So, yeah, go for it, senator!



  1. Rand will just be another passenger in the clown car for 2016.

  2. Neftali

    Pat is too quick to characterize Rand as like his dad and write him off. The reality is that Rand is much more mainstream than what some people think. For example, he endorsed Mitt Romney for President, something his dad never did with his opponents.

    When Rand runs, he won’t be preaching the mantle to eliminate the Department of Energy/Education/whatever else. Nor will he offer the drastic cuts to the military. He’s smarter than that. Years of watching his dad has led Rand to understand what gets people elected, and what doesn’t. He’s also keenly aware of how Washington, and the media, operates. He’s a force to be reckoned with.

    What Rand will do is offer enough defense cuts (certainly more than his opponents), but not enough to scare off the neoconservatives. Charles Krauthammer and Kevin D. Williamson of the National Review gave Rand great praise for his filibuster speech. That’s a stark contrast to the McCain/Graham/WSJ/Frund of the right wing who can’t stand him. There’s a growing anti-establishment hatred within the Republican side. They’re tired of nominating people like Romney and McCain. Heck, most Republicans didn’t really care for Bush in the first place, but enough voted for him. The point is that Rand Paul can very well win the Republican nomination.

    In fact, I think Rand Paul beats either Hilary Clinton or Joe Biden in 2016.

    Who else does the left have? Cuomo? (Too Snobby) O’Malley? (no one outside of Maryland has heard of him) Warren? (She could possibly win if nominated) Julian Castro? (No national experience)

  3. Women will play a much greater role in the next election and Rand Paul is not their favorite son.

  4. Craig Knauss

    I believe Rand Paul has only been elected to office in Kentucky. In Kentucky, the two things people love most are moonshine and first cousins. The rest of the country isn’t like that.

  5. Yup!. That’s what this country needs alright. A man who can talk and hold his bladder continuously for twelve and a half hours.

    And Nef, you certainly worship some weird heroes.

  6. D.Kessler

    The most frustrating thing about Rand Paul is that he is actually an elected part of our government. Try reading the book “Confederacy of Clowns”. It’s amazing how he defines the very title of the book. “D”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *