A few weeks ago this article, raised the ire of many. It explored whether Hillary Clinton was the president we needed at this time. It explored some of her major weaknesses. It also wondered if an Elizabeth Warren like candidate would be a better fit. The article concluded the following.
If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, as a Democrat it would be better than any Republican getting elected. Given Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street baggage however, the triangulation used by the Clintons against the Republicans in the past may just be used against them in 2016. A populist Republican with limited Wall Street ties, with a fairly liberal social stance on marijuana, marriage equality, immigration reform, incarceration (mandatory minimums), and women’s rights is out there waiting. Anyone following the news can see that Republican in the making.
Many believed that the populist Republican being referred to was Rand Paul. That was not necessarily the case then, however it is now. This is not some naïve judgment. It is something that Democrats better take seriously before the coronation of our candidate. We better have a credible populist in the wing.
Rand Paul visited Howard University, one of the bastions of Black ‘intelligencia’. He had a few bouts of condescension. That said, Black folks are used to unnecessary pander when visited by white conservative or liberal politicians who generally do not mingle with them. What he had to say about many policies rank and file Democrats seem to run from have legs in communities who have seen the status quo maintained on drug and prison policies.
Rand Paul’s recent immigration comments are lacking. However a statement like the following has traction even with some Latinos, Africans, and South Asians who simply want papers to stay.
“Are you willing to try to bring the 11 million people who are here, bring them out of the shadows, give them an existence, try to be more humane, and try to get a better situation for them? That could happen tomorrow,” Paul said on ABC’s “This Week.”
“The problem is, is the sticking point going to be we have to have immediate voting privileges for those who came here illegally,” Paul added. “If the Democrats are willing to come halfway, I think we can pass some meaningful reform.”
Rand Paul visited the lion’s den of liberalism, the University of California-Berkeley. In the speech he attacks the NSA and the CIA. This is something many young voters like. But this exchange appearing in Politico’s article is probative.
During the question-and-answer portion of the appearance, the moderator began, “There’s been pretty extensive media coverage of your recent visits to places that don’t usually vote Republican, like students at Howard University …”
“You mean like Berkeley?” Paul interjected, to laughter and applause.
Asked whether such efforts are an attempt to broaden his “personal appeal” ahead of 2016, Paul responded coyly, “Maybe.”
“Part of it might be that,” he said. “Part of it might be that the Republican Party … has to either evolve, adapt or die. … Remember Domino’s [the pizza chain] finally admitted they had bad crust? I think the Republican Party finally admitted it. OK, bad crust, we need a different kind of party.”
Anyone who reads DailyKOS and other liberal and progressive blogs cannot be fooled by Rand Paul. Rand Paul is a true Republican Libertarian with a touch of ‘Dixiecratocracy’. The problem is that most voting Americans are not the well informed. Most of the traditional media are lazy or programmed to misinform by the plutocracy.
Rand Paul just needs to skim Obama’s base as his is already locked up
Rand Paul does not need to blow up the Obama coalition to win. He simply needs to skim the fat. His little excursions into the liberal base can do just that. His base is much more committed to winning and voting than our base. The Florida-13 election was probative.
It would be irresponsible if liberals do not start taking serious steps now to be inoculated on the populous flank. This will help not only in the presidential race but in every district.
The biggest fear is that if there is a coronation of a select few, many potential candidates remain undeveloped. Worse is the inability to recover from an unknown. The fact that Ronald Reagan and George Bush were elected presidents of the United States means it is not farfetched that Rand Paul could be our next president.
Viewers are encouraged to subscribe and join the conversation for more insightful commentary and to support progressive messages. Together, we can populate the internet with progressive messages that represent the true aspirations of most Americans.
there is no way someone who was against the civil rights act can ever be president.& by the way,i’m laughing u dumb mother fucker who wrote this.she’ll eat him alive in the debate.& all i can say is run rand.run.& the author better get his facts straight.if he is inconsistant like he’s been showing,this embarassment will be laugh off stage.like this rediculous author.
I agree.
Eric, Rand Paul isn’t against civil rights. He’s against parts of the Civil Right Act that forced cooperation between races. He believes that government making laws doesn’t solve the racism issue, only actual people can solve that. If he was against civil rights, why is he the only politician trying to get voter rights back for felons who are mostly minorities? I don’t see a democrat pushing for that. Why don’t you get your facts straight and work on your spelling while you’re at it.
Bravo!
Well it’s a good thing he wasn’t against the civil right s act
If you actually knew anything, you would know that Rand didn’t actually say that he was against the Civil Rights Act. He said that he would have tried to moderate the part of it that deals with private property/industry. But most of what it dealt with was institutional (government mandated) discrimination. Try learning the facts next time.
The author of this can’t provide bit of evidence to prop up the assertion that Clinton would not be able to hold the coalition together. Indeed is the author aware that Clinton outpolled Obama in 2008 and that the only reason she was denied the Presidency then was the dubious superdeleagte system? The notion that Rand Paul will defeat Cruz or someone from the far right is more wishful thinking than it is anything else.
As was Ron Paul with Romney. Force fed our elected officials is insane. Mrs. Clinton, although a worthy opponent, will very much likely not run. The Bengahzi will haunt her, if you can’t control your man, how are controlling the country? Bigotry, aside, her Senate record is thin. And she seems to be ill. Rand Paul still has the “not quite” republican appeal, is known to stand for his interests. Vs Cruz pure well invested rich republican tea party image. And the dems, who’s their back up plan, that
Ocare Russia, or gun Rights won’t beat them down? I do believe “Yes we can…but we won’t” has reinstalled Independent voter’s to broaden their spectrum, leaning to less government, fed, Congressional perks and separatism, and Mr Paul may hit those various corners very well
He will never be able to come close enough to the middle to get the majority of the independent vote. He has to get out from under the Tea Party and that won’t happen.
I didn’t know the presidency was decided by a majority vote, let alone the Independent majority vote.
Obama gets us into another war. Rand Paul runs as the anti-war candidate.
All I here from both sides is “my side is right, and your side is wrong.” Both sides have had thier role to play in the degradation of our nation. No one will accept responsibility, no one is to blame. Both sides suck, and there is no middle ground anymore. That’s why the majority of american voters are disenfranchised. Squabbling will never solve the problem.