# Rand Paul presidential campaign discussion thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 7, 2015, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039 "2015-04-07T14:27:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/81 "2015-04-23T18:31:13Z")
[Rand Paul: Sexist Women Won’t Stop Sexisming Me!](http://wonkette.com/583547/rand-paul-sexist-women-wont-stop-sexisming-me#xSswhEkHRWwUSwLc.99) ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/82 "2015-04-23T22:42:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > THe GOP field features a lot of unready candidates. Now they have to at least look ready by the fall. As I said in the Carson thread, if any of these guys go from bumbling and unready to polished and articulate in the next few months, the media might finally bring attention to the process and how success in politics is more a function of the skill of handlers than the quality of the actual candidate. That’s an interesting opinion. To evaluate politicians, then, we should be looking at the ability of their handlers rather than the qualifications of the candidates? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/83 "2015-04-23T23:14:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > THe GOP field features a lot of unready candidates. Unready? Most of them have been in politics for some time. Cruz is a freshman senator, but so was Obama when he announced. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/84 "2015-04-24T02:40:53Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That’s an interesting opinion. To evaluate politicians, then, we should be looking at the ability of their handlers rather than the qualifications of the candidates? You should as much as possible ignore the campaign itself and concentrate on their actual record in office. Not that the campaign isn’t important, but a slick campaign shouldn’t fool a voter into thinking that the candidate is competent despite no record of competence, honest despite no record of honesty, or bipartisan despite no record of bipartisanship. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/85 "2015-04-24T02:44:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Unready? Most of them have been in politics for some time. Cruz is a freshman senator, but so was Obama when he announced. A President is a politician, but a good President is supposed to be somewhat above politics, since the core job of an executive(carrying out the law) is supposed to be non-political. Congress is 100% political. The Supreme Court is supposed to be 100% non-political. The Presidency is somewhere in between, because it involves politics but also a lot of work that has to be done in a non-partisan fashion. When partisanship does slip into core government functions, it rightly creates a scandal. When the government screws up massively, that also creates a scandal. So you need someone with a proven record of competent governance. All of the GOP Senators lack that. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/86 "2015-04-24T11:25:37Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > You should as much as possible ignore the campaign itself and concentrate on their actual record in office. Not that the campaign isn’t important, but a slick campaign shouldn’t fool a voter into thinking that the candidate is competent despite no record of competence, honest despite no record of honesty, or bipartisan despite no record of bipartisanship. And yet you supported Ben Carson. Going so far as to say that he would improve under professional handling. Are there two of you and sometimes you don’t agree with each other? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/87 "2015-04-24T11:31:48Z")
What I’ve said in regards to Carson is that I’d love for him to become a good candidate with the benefit of handlers because it would be such an obvious change that it would draw attention to the role of professionals in making a candidate look good. Often the difference between “talented” and gaffe-prone is how well your staff prepares you. Carson has no political experience and probably thought anybody could do this. He seems to be figuring out that it’s not that simple and is staffing up pretty nicely. So he might be a lot better by the fall than he is now. That doesn’t mean I support his candidacy. Just that I’m rooting for him to get better. A polished Carson would be a form of political performance art that might reveal some dirty little secrets about how things actually work. I’d bet he’s probably got a higher IQ than any of his opponents on either side, so he’ll learn quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/88 "2015-04-24T16:15:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > You should as much as possible ignore the campaign itself and concentrate on their actual record in office. Not that the campaign isn’t important, but a slick campaign shouldn’t fool a voter into thinking that the candidate is competent despite no record of competence, honest despite no record of honesty, or bipartisan despite no record of bipartisanship. That doesn’t seem to be what you were saying just now. You said that success in politics was largely down to a politician’s handlers, rather than the quality of the candidate. Shouldn’t we be looking at the handlers, in that case, rather than the politician’s record or in office or competence or honesty or history of bipartisanship? Those all seem to be qualities of the candidate. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/89 "2015-04-25T00:00:02Z")
Let me try to be clearer. While staff is important, a candidate’s record in office demonstrates whether he can do the job or not and what he believes. If his record contradicts his promises, and it still sounds pretty convincing, that’s the speechwriters and handlers polishing up a turd pretty well. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/90 "2015-04-25T00:22:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What I’ve said in regards to Carson is that I’d love for him to become a good candidate with the benefit of handlers because it would be such an obvious change that it would draw attention to the role of professionals in making a candidate look good. Often the difference between “talented” and gaffe-prone is how well your staff prepares you. Carson has no political experience and probably thought anybody could do this. He seems to be figuring out that it’s not that simple and is staffing up pretty nicely. So he might be a lot better by the fall than he is now. > > That doesn’t mean I support his candidacy. Just that I’m rooting for him to get better. A polished Carson would be a form of political performance art that might reveal some dirty little secrets about how things actually work. I’d bet he’s probably got a higher IQ than any of his opponents on either side, so he’ll learn quickly. > [@adaher](#): > > Let me try to be clearer. While staff is important, a candidate’s record in office demonstrates whether he can do the job or not and what he believes. If his record contradicts his promises, and it still sounds pretty convincing, that’s the speechwriters and handlers polishing up a turd pretty well. Will you please pick a fucking topic and stick with it? I’m tired of the duck and weave that characterizes your posting in all of these threads. Pick one of the following: No matter how he looks, I will vote for Ben Carson in the GOP Primary. If Ben Carson improves some between now and the primary I will vote for him. If Ben Carson improves a LOT between now and the primary I will vote for him. No matter what happens with Ben Carson, I will vote for someone with experience over Ben Carson. I’ve already picked my candidate and it is: (fill in the blank) so everyone else’s performance (including Ben Carson) is simply reality television that I can enjoy without it influencing my vote. Now the essay question: I think (experience/intelligence - pick one) trumps (intelligence/experience - pick the other one) and here’s why: Answer these and maybe we can have a discussion. Note that none of these have anything to do with Rand Paul (who is the subject of this thread), so please feel free to answer in the Ben Carson thread. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/91 "2015-04-25T00:54:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Let me try to be clearer. While staff is important, a candidate’s record in office demonstrates whether he can do the job or not and what he believes. Then Walker, Christie and Jindal are out of the running, because their [gubernatorial records suck balls:](http://www.salon.com/2015/04/23/scott_walker_forever_tarnished_republican_governors_have_tanked_the_gop_brand/) > [@](#): > > How about being embarrassingly bad at job creation? That’s right. From January 2011 through January 2015, Louisiana under Jindal ranked 32nd in job creation with 5.4 percent growth over four years. Wisconsin under Walker ranked 35th, with 4.85 percent growth. New Jersey under Christie ranked 40th, with 4.15 percent growth. This compares with a national average of 8.21 percent. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/92 "2015-04-25T01:14:04Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Anyway Hewitt is interviewing each of the Republican candidates and his interviews are all pretty much worthwhile\*. Paul couldn’t answer a straight question with a direct answer to save his ass. And then bailed like a little bitch over a commercial break. (Hewitt asks roughly the same questions–ones for issues that interest Hewitt–to each candidate. Hewitt asked Paul something about “Colorado and Oregon have legalized pot in contravention of federal law. If you’re elected president, what would you tell the Justice Department to do?” There are all sorts of answers to that–“We’ve got higher priorities for the Justice Department than pot” or “Presidents enforce the law, I’d say shut the illegal dispensaries down until/unless congress passes a law to allow it.” Literally hundreds of ways to answer. Paul just dodged, stammered and left at the commercial break.) So, I’m not impressed. And I wanted to be. I like some of Paul’s positions. The transcript is here: [Senator Rand Paul on his 2016 Campaign and Iran Negoitations - The Hugh Hewitt Show](http://www.hughhewitt.com/senator-rand-paul-on-his-2016-campaign-and-iran-negoitations/) > [@](#): > > RP: What I’m advocating for is allowing the federal government not to intervene with regard to medical marijuana, and that’s the only decision I’ve made, is that I would allow states to have medical marijuana, and make the decisions on medical marijuana within the state lines. > HH: But of course, in Colorado and Washington State, it’s not medical marijuana. It’s all marijuana, anytime, by anyone, and that’s contrary to federal law. You would be taking an oath to uphold the federal law and the Constitution. Would that commit you to prosecuting in that state those people selling dope? > RP: Most of the time that I’ve spent in the last several years hasn’t been really with regard to federal oversight of Colorado-specific law. What I’ve spent time is trying to find a way where our criminal justice system is more appropriate, and that the punishment fits the crime. And so I’ve been opposed to people selling $300 dollars’ worth of marijuana and getting 55 years in prison. And so I really haven’t taken a position with regard to Colorado’s law. I will tell you, though, that my general inclination is to try to give states more freedom to make a lot of these decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/93 "2015-05-28T04:42:08Z")
Not that I really thought he had much of a chance given his somewhat iconoclastic views, but this most recent faux pas may be the one that kills his chances of being taken seriously at all by the Republican base. > [@](#): > > ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS. > [@](#): > > These hawks also wanted to bomb Assad, which would have made ISIS’s job even easier. They’ve created these people. And probably worst of all: > [@](#): > > Everything that they have talked about in foreign policy, they have been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise. I don’t really see much to disagree with in his statements, but then again, I’m not a Republican. Or like the WSJ said: > [@](#): > > Speaking of gall, and a word of political advice, an aide might want to remind Senator Paul which party’s nomination he is seeking. It sounds to me like he isn’t too far removed from sticking his finger in Jeb’s face and telling him, “Your brother created ISIS.” Looks like Randy didn’t get the memo about how ISIS is all President Obama’s fault. ---
**Author:** ![actualliberalnotoneofthose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e79b87/32.png) [@actualliberalnotoneofthose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/actualliberalnotoneofthose)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/94 "2015-05-28T06:13:57Z")
Well, Republican policy has created terrorists and the senior Paul was pretty vocal about that as well. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/95 "2015-05-28T15:52:28Z")
> [@actualliberalnotoneofthose](#): > > Well, Republican policy has created terrorists and the senior Paul was pretty vocal about that as well. Like I already said, I agree with the idea Republican policy created this situation. However, it is not a position that will appeal to the base in the primaries. It didn’t work for Ron and it won’t work for Randy. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/96 "2015-05-29T02:39:42Z")
The latest set of polls seems to reaffirm that Rand Paul is probably the second most electable Republican. Rubio does the best against Clinton in trial heat polls, but Paul is a close second. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest\_polls/](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/) ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/97 "2015-05-29T04:53:11Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The latest set of polls seems to reaffirm that Rand Paul is probably the second most electable Republican. Rubio does the best against Clinton in trial heat polls, but Paul is a close second. > > [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest\_polls/](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/) I think that tells us more about what a lousy bunch of candidates are running on the Republican side than it does about who will win the nomination or the election that is more than a 15 months away. The idea that Rubio or Randy will end up as the nominee makes me laugh. And to be clear, that doesn’t mean I don’t think it could happen. It could, but I would find either of those results to be hysterical. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/98 "2015-05-29T10:31:15Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The latest set of polls seems to reaffirm that Rand Paul is probably the second most electable Republican. Rubio does the best against Clinton in trial heat polls, but Paul is a close second. > > [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest\_polls/](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/) Since the “best” Republican outcome still shows a loss to Hillary, it strikes me as more accurate to say that Rand is the second\*-least UNELECTABLE\*, actually. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/99 "2015-05-29T10:42:45Z")
> [@](#): > > ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS. > [@](#): > > These hawks also wanted to bomb Assad, which would have made ISIS’s job even easier. They’ve created these people. > [@](#): > > Everything that they have talked about in foreign policy, they have been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise. Classic examples of this dictum: [QUOTE=Michael Kinsley] A “gaffe” is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039/100 "2015-05-29T11:30:26Z")
[Fox News](http://rare.us/story/fox-news-continues-to-blackout-rand-paul-in-their-poll-coverage/) pretends Rand Paul isnt a candidate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-discussion-thread/717039.md?page=6)