0 votes

Rand Paul said Palin COULD be a great President, not WOULD

Politically and technically there is a major difference. Anyone has potential for greatness (could), but not just anyone has the majority of potential for greatness (would).

Anderson Cooper asked if "she'd be a good President" and then clarified if "she WOULD be a good President". Rand answered with COULD.

SO...COULD Sarah Palin make a great President? There's a chance, it might be miniscule, but it's still there. So long as Sarah Palin philosophically supports interventionism, she would not make a great President. Who knows, between now and 2012 she might just look at the fiscal aspect of interventionism and change her mind. She is still fresh in the political field and has time enough to change her opinion on things easier than say someone who's been around for so long like Ron Paul.

What Sarah Palin really stands for and against, we're not entirely sure of. Even after hours of interviews with reporters, I don't know if her political philosophy has really solidified to the point where it makes sense across the spectrum. Intertwining your social, financial, relations and basic government opinions to make logical sense across the board is very difficult for some people. Compare invading countries with fiscal conservatism and it makes no sense logically.

So...COULD Sarah Palin make a great President? Yes.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This reminds me of Bill Clintons meaning of what 'is' is

The 'would, could' defense is an insult to our intelligence.

If you want to back Rand Paul, then put on your Palin, Perry, and McCain buttons and follow the creep, but I'm not buying his load of crap, or yours.

If I were Rand

and had the opportunity to ask Palin some questions just between the two of them, I would ask her exactly what happened after she was chosen to be VP. What happened with Kissinger, what happened with AIPAC, who around McCain said what to her. Did she feel hampered in her beliefs in any way. Did they try to bend her views.

He's a Gentleman

You can bet all the Paul boys have good manners.

One does not go on TV and say hurtful things about someone who has not attacked one, which Palin has not done.

Sheesh. Real life and the snippets of it that appear on TV have rules that apparently don't apply in cyberspace between anonymous participants.

I thought he was truthful in pointing out that the voters would decide the answer.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

There is a difference between not saying hurtful things...

...and giving a seeming endorsement of her possible presidential bid.

It didn't seem like an endorsement

He said only as much as he could say, truthfully, which was she could be (not is) if she can get through the gauntlet of the voters. That means, in order to be a good president, she has to get past us. Doesn't sound like an endorsement to me.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

absolutely

absolutely

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

She couldn't

AND she wouldn't.

She doesn't have the intelligence, principles, or backbone to carry out good decisions. She is good puppet material, like Obama...and that's it.

Palin was discussed on the BBC this morning...

... they read out my email comment to all the world:

Sarah Palin, a mayor of a small town, became the Governor of an out-of-sight-out-of-mind state, but then failed to see out her term. When John McCain’s campaigned floundered, he plucked this Barbie doll from obscurity and threw her to the Religious Right. McCain’s improved poll numbers were proof of the gullibility of this segment of the US electorate. Palin is all form and no substance. Her popularity demonstrates how some voters have lost their way, thanks to the efforts of talk radio and second-rate TV commentators. True conservatives seek a return to Constitutional government. Palin has never said or done anything to suggest that she understands this subtle distinction.

Plano TX

I wonder what Ron sounded

I wonder what Ron sounded like when he was trying to get elected for the first time

Mises.org
Know your stuff, learn real history and economics @LibertyClassroom.com

Rand needs to go home and

Rand needs to go home and wash his mouth out with soap.
I could see he did not want endorse her, but he did anyway. One hand washes the other!

Agreed!

Well said libertylady

liberty lady needs to go home...

and read a dictionary. Try to learn the difference between would and could.

yeahhhh

Bomb Iran Sarah all the way baby let's go America!
Let's kill some people on the other sides of the planet! yeah bring me that cowboy hat that W wore at Nascar races!

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

LOL!

nascar races....

I understand the politics involved

And can maybe accept it - but I don't like it much.

heavily edited

heavily edited interview...the worst things Rand said were in support of McCain.

Ventura 2012

In the field of politics,

In the field of politics, it's about perception, not symantics.

Rand Paul endorsed Sarah Palin...plain and simple.

Frankly, of all the neocons, Sarah is one of the better ones. Just look at her record. Sure the neocons sucked her into their machine, but Sarah was pretty naive at the time. I'd definately label her a neocon right now, but she might change.

She did back Rand, which is a positive...and frankly, Rand returning the favor isn't that big of a deal.

We DO have to reach out to neocons, democrats, independents. Rand is leading by example.

Still, of course, we should judge all politicians by their actions: especially legislation, voting records, etc. Thus, this alliance does warrant special scrutiny.

You know, when I heard

Anderson Cooper (CIA) was going to interview Rand, I thought Wow, that's weird. So, this was a setup to either get Rand to look bad or to give Palin legitimacy in the eyes of the Ron Paul followers or tea party crowd.

No, I do not think she could be a great President, I would even bet on it.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

Come on guys...face it.

Rand is NOT Ron...it's as simple as that !!!

Discover Costa Rica

You don't bite the hand that endorses you ;-)

As long as he has sought and accepted Palin's endorsement he cannot very well give her bad marks. It's the unspoken price of being helped by someone. You may argue that it's a price he shouldn't have paid but he HAS paid it and cannot be ungracious toward her.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Good response...

If Rand took shots at Palin who endorsed his campaign there would have been Medina-esque back-lash. This could have been another liberty candidate setup, and he didnt bite.

right, Rand is on track

Rand is on track to get a seat in Congress. Working with others to help them bring out their future potential is OK.

If the holier-than-thou critics on the DP want to shut themselves off from anyone who is not pure, then they can do so. I ask those people what are they personally doing to get their holier-than-thou person elected to any government agency (even the sewer district board)?

good point

after all she is the darling of the GOP, it would be political suicide to say anything negative about her, before the election.

*May the only ones to touch your junk, be the ones you want to touch your junk.*

Rand ignored a clear opportunity...

...in this interview to highlight the problem and immorality of Palin's interventionist policy.

True. He could've at least put qualifiers on his response...

...that show some distinction between him and her.

Something like, "I'd like to see some changes in her views with regard to foreign policy (and whatever else). If she did that, yeah, she could."

But does Rand have a problem with her interventionist stance?

In his interview with WSJ, he also had an opportunity to point out the problem and immorality of our current interventionist foreign policy when asked "What should happen in Afghanistan?"

Instead, he said, "I support a declaration of war in Afghanistan. We have to now determine what our mission is. It’s become somewhat murky".

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/12/qa-with-rand-paul-s...

Since he had already dealt with the declaration issue right before that question, and since lack of declaration is not the only problem, and since the question was not dealing in the past tense, I have to wonder what exactly he meant and if he has a problem with the interventionist stance.

yes

of course!

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

He could have said

something like if she changed her veiws on a few policies I could maybe see a possibility considering her abilty to connect to the average American. I appreciate her support,but no one agrees 100% on the issues. I not quite clear where she stands on some things.
Saying could still sounds like an endorsement.especially to her fan base. Maybe if he had said something more to that affect it would encourage them to start asking What does she really stand for in clearer terms. Maybe. Her supporters are mostly McCain fallout. The type that would vote for anything with an R in front of their name or yell WAR. Even if it is for no good reason. Not exactly the type that are familiar with facts. Propaganda eaters.

Agreed. I think that's how Ron Paul would've handled it.

"She could, if she were to change some of her positions...."

I'm waiting to see this video.

He did not just say "could".

(at 6:58)His first word in reply to Cooper's repeated question of whether he thought Palin would make a good president was "Yeah". He also expanded Cooper's word "good" to "great".

(at 7:18)Then he said she's supporting people who are running against the establishment. She endorsed Perry for cryin' out loud...and please don't say, "Gosh people, he didn't say everyone she supports is against the establishment."

Since he used himself as an example of her "astute and smart political moves", he could've said, "She's supporting someone who's running against the establishment", instead of making the statement plural.

Don't want to make any hasty conclusions about his response to Cooper's question, as I understand he was on the spot. But his "yeah" and "great", not to mention the other things he said to support his statement, make me wonder if he meant a wee bit more than the ~Gee, anything's possible~ kind of "could" you are talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oddRDcEUKnE#t=6m37s

Jiminy you put it well

Sarah as president means hundreds of thousands of dead and hundreds of thousands of injured people in fake illegal wars - and her support for bombing Iran - my God!!!

Rand - have you lost your mind?

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15