79 votes

I Gotta Admit Rand Is Winning Me Over

While I still don't hold out hope for a political answer to what's going on. I gotta admit as much as I hate Rands playing politics its working so far and he is good at it and is starting to win me over.

He is more well spoken and articulate then his Dad and more appealing to listen to for most people. He is sharp on his feet and willing to attack back when he is attacked and is good at doing it politely but firmly. Ron almost never responded to attacks even when he should have.

While a lot of conservatives like people like Cruz and Rubio Rand was the clear leader last night and made them look almost like amateurs and he is winning over a lot of people that would not give Ron the time of day...

Lets face it he is the best we got up there right now and is a natural leader and last night he showed some meddle and some real strategy in elevating his stock and gathering a following among his fellow senators and conservatives in general. So much so the old guard got scared and attacked him this morning.

I still have my concerns but after last night he could win the presidency he showed he has what it takes. Not that I think the puppet masters will allow him to win it for a minute but he could get the backing of most of the conservative base if he plays it right. It would be interesting if he got the majority of conservative backing just how far the establishment would go to keep him out and if nothing else make a serious mistake? Even though I think the elections are fixed if a super majority of people support him it is a lot harder for them to pull off their corruption.

It's a dirty game and he is willing to get a little dirty. We don't like that because most of us are principled but we're also spoiled with Ron's no compromise stands on principles. However maybe its time we get a little dirty with Rand if that's what it takes for a shot at getting this country back? We can't do any worse then what we are getting now... Just some thoughts I have been having maybe I am just out to lunch here?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

He did

He did. I'm not sure if you're speaking of a particular interview that he did, but I know he mentioned it during the filibuster on the Senate floor as well as in his interview with Rush yesterday.

yes i've heard him mention it before

i'm referring to the FOX interview where he let it go right by him.
http://www.dailypaul.com/277360/video-rand-paul-fires-back-s...

Here's my 2 cents. IMO,

Here's my 2 cents. IMO, leading the country without playing the political game is a pipe dream. Atleast, not at this current stage. Even RP stated that for this movement to succeed, it would be necessary for atleast ONE person to play the politician. It cannot be done otherwise.

Can someone like RP succeed and win the presidency? Yes, but it would be neccesary to first bleed out all the corruption from the House and Senate. Or atleast have enough support and power that anything they might throw at you, becomes useless. But in order to do that, you would need atleast one politician playing the political game to clear the way in order to let someone like Ron Paul win. At this moment, there are too many negative forces for someone like RP to succeed.

What you essentially need are collaborators. POLITICAL collaborators, because while RP did significantly grow the movement by attaining supporters, it´s still not enough to make a difference. You would need 10 times the amount of supporters we currently have, not to mention having these supporters being far more active in their actions. But the current environment (media, politicians) are actively stopping RP from gaining these supporters. It's already amazing how RP managed to gain this much, even though he's being blocked from all sides.

So in essence, Rand needs allies within the House and Senate. Without these allies, everything the Liberty movement pursues, will eventually be blocked by either the House, the Senate or the media or whatever. That includes pursuing the Franklin scandal, 9-11 and other controversial matters. These incidents were caused by people with enormous power. If you want to hunt down these guys, you must have a corresponding powerbase that can match them. Otherwise, you end up with an assasinated Rand Paul or we suddenly find out that there's a murder weapon in his house or that Rand embezzled huge amounts of cash or that the media blocks any of Rands interviews, etc, etc.

The problem with most Republicans today, is that they are too combative. Aggressive to the point where it turns off alot of people, especially people of the other side. They are living in their own bubble, pursuing only what THEY believed, without considering how the other side feels. And you NEED to consider the other point of view of that group, because you need their help in order to succeed. That group whose points of views need to be considered includes the politicians AND the people supporting these politicians. If you do not have a message that can reach the other side, the outcome is obvious: you end up like Romney, flabbergasted and without a clue, not even realizing the reason of the loss.

It is for the above reasons why it's pointless to aggressively stop Brennan's appointment. The other side would merely look at it as the hypocritical action by a Tea party politician, only making this point, because it was the opposing party that made the appointment. But by backing down, the other side will think "oh, so he didn't stop Brennan's appointment, because he wants to make life difficult for the President and because of partisan reasons, he actually did it because he cared." This approach works well with the people as well, who are already tired of politicians who won't compromise.

Stopping Brennan's appointment would be useless as well, because you need a far stronger position of power in order to make it stick.

Anyways, I do not view Rand with adoration. I'm a paranoid fella as well. It's just that if I were in his shoes, this would be the way I would have done it as well. So he hasn't done anything wrong.....yet.

But it pays not to let idealism tint your glasses rose colored. I'm not one of those guys that believe that Rand (and even Ron) cannot do anything wrong. It's possible that Rand IS used to set us up. That's why it is good to be watchful. Only, it's too much to expect Rand to pursue issues only WE care about without considering the opposing side. It cannot be done, unless most of the opposing side BECOMES us.

Rand is not for us

Rand is for the Sheeple.

For us, Rand is like a good TV show. But as we know a good TV show, even if hard to find, is still just a TV show. The Real Truth is never shown in TV.

When you have experienced the Reality, then of course TV, even when its pretty good or even good, is still BS. But even BS can sometimes be highly entertaining and interesting.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

Rand is not for me but since I do agree with you

I can honestly say rand is not for you and I or not for us. I do believe that Rand Paul has infiltrated the daily paul with a bunch of shills that keep putting his name on here then voting down any that oppose. Appears to be the same old story all over again. Know this you are not alone. Jessie benton is Rand Paul's main man and we do know about Jessie Benton. It could be one of his stupid plots to do this propaganda push on the daily paul.

sovereign

scawarren's picture

Who in the hell is this "us"

Who in the hell is this "us" you are referencing? Please stop with the classification and name calling.

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain

US is him and I

So since we both agree he refered to us as us.

sovereign

Who is "Us"?

You have a point, because of course to say anything about anybody else than of oneself, that is, of 'myself' is always a generalization. (Even what I say of myself are classifications and generalizations most of the time.) All use of group-notions are always in a smaller or larger scale distortions, but of course we always use them. This means that 'classifications' are almost impossible to avoid in language.

But in my comment I meant particularly by 'us' fishy and myself, but also generally DPers, or Ron Paul supporters. What I meant by the phrase "Rand is not for US"? Rand is not for us as Rand speaks the compromised message. Rand speaks to the people who do not understand at all what Ron Paul is saying. Rand is FOR those (the majority) who think that Ron's message is crazy. Rand is doing important work. But for somebody who understands the Liberty message it is highly disturbing sometimes to hear some of the compromising statement of Rand (for example, endorsement of Romney, Israel-talk, Iran-sanctions, etc.)

You can of course also misunderstand the word 'for' in my phrase. It doesn't of course mean here the opposite of 'againts'.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

Since I do agree that Rand Paul will never ever get my vote

I would rather vote for an enemy than a freind who stabbed me in the back. So US is the guy who posted and I. We agree so he speaks of us, plural.

sovereign

Ban electronic voting machines

and we have ourselves an election! Rand 2016, but first we need to fix this badly broken election process.

Rand Paul

is Ron Paul's Transition Plan!

Or stated little differently:
The Rand Paulitics is the Transition Period to the Ron Paulitics!

Rand has become the Incarnation of this Transition Plan that Ron has often talked about. Ron is the Real Message, Rand is the Transition to this Real Message.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

what about...

Justin Amash filling Carl Levins empty Senate seat?

T.Rogers

What I dislike about Rand...

1. Endorse Romney
2. Voted for Sanctions against Iran
3. Not as Libertarian as Ron
4. Not as willing to stands alone on issues
5. Won't stick up for conspiracy theorist or acknowledge the fight against global government

RP 2012

Sometimes you have to reach

Sometimes you have to reach down to the level people are at and offer them a hand up and you get dirty in the process of pulling them out of the mud.

Ron would not stick up for conspiracy theorist either and Rand seems pretty willing to stand alone on issues. However all the other things you mention I think most would agree with however those are most of the things that prevented Ron from winning over more people.

I know that sounds repugnant and it is to us however so far it's working for Rand. He is winning over people who would not give Ron the time of day. The all or nothing approach has gotten us nowhere.

Who else that has a real shot in today's political climate in Washington would you rather see in the White house besides Rand? You don't have to agree with him on everything but he is a hundred times better then anyone else up there...

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Its about baby steps.

You can't change people overnight. They will be lead in small steps to libertarianism. He is a lot better than most in politics.

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

Ron>Amash>Gary Johnson>Rand> Every other GOP Member

.

RP 2012

You're right on target.

You're right on target.

ConstitutionHugger's picture

"Rand starts at the US mainstream position

and pushes people toward libertarianism." I read that comment earlier today and I think it might be right. We are already in the liberty camp, Rand is outside the camp, speaking to people in terms they can relate to and directing to the door. I love the media coverage he's getting. Republicans are really looking for answers and are feeling desperate. If Rand is as effective as I think he is- then I love him now.
I've also noticed that liberals are cocky. I've seen posts where they are relishing this apparent party turmoil. Well, they shouldn't relish it. The republicans are re-evaluting, and if they come our way, the liberals will learn a thing or two. Like that they've been supporting a dictator-ish president. That's going to be embarrassing!

That's entirely correct

People that did not like Ron, are coming around to Rand. I've read many, many comments from people stating things like; "At least he's not like his father" and "Now this Paul I could get behind". A lot of comments are being made in that fashion, obviously from people that aren't entirely awake yet and still saw Dr. Paul as a crazy old man with a dangerous foreign policy.

If elected president in 2016, I for one hope he pulls an "obama" on people. By that I mean that once he's elected into office, he changes his foreign policy stance and behaves just like Dr. Paul would have.

Well said and good

Well said and good perspective in looking at it that way. Start where people are at and bring them up to your level...

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

It was fun to watch the Neocons line up

to try to get a little of the glory for themselves when they saw which way the wind was blowing.

Yeah they knew he was on a

Yeah they knew he was on a roll and looking very presidential and world leaderish and even if they had to play second fiddle they wanted on the band wagon at least the few smart ones did early on... Even McConnell figured he better make an appearance as he saw his minority leadership position flash before him...

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!