Published: Friday, Jan. 24 2014 3:23 p.m. MST
I don't want someone I like to run for president. Why? Because something
happens to them once they win that turns them into a different person. President
Obama, for instance, is not at all the person we knew before his first election.
Ronald Reagan evolved into something other than the advertised conservative
spendthrift we thought he was after taking office. George Bush...well,
that's another story.My point is that I don't think the
president has as much power as we attribute to him. I've come to believe
that he's following instructions laid before him once he or she takes
office, even though he or she is the one who takes all the blame or credit for
things that happen during the presidential tenure.I like Rand Paul.
I hope he doesn't run.
Have you written off the previous one?
Math time:Candidate Rand Paul = President Hillary Clinton. And judging by where the GOP stands as a party today, the formula required
that will result in a winning GOP presidential candidate in 2016 involves
You know the funny thing is, from the Quinnipiac poll cited in the opinion piece
here..... what got completely skipped is that while Rand Paul may be
surging..... if the election were held today.... Christy is still the better
candidate against Hillary. The poll states..."Christie still
runs better against Clinton than other leading Republicans. Clinton tops
possible GOP contenders:49 - 39 percent over U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of
Kentucky;50 - 35 percent over U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas;49 - 38
percent over former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida;"so to net it
out..... Christy is still the best chance the Republicans have of winning the
White House. Election held today, all the other conservatives would loose in a
landslide. Personally, I am intrigued by Rand in that he seems to
have demonstrated the ability to be pragmatic when needed and isn't running
on pure political emotion like Ted Cruz.
I was hopeful for his dad.
I hope Paul makes up his mind about the '64 Civil Rights Act before the
SEY makes a very interesting and salient point. As presidential candidates take
office, they inevitably temper their "base" ideology in having to be
pragmatic in leading the nation. Obama has been a big
disappointment to true liberals, as he adopted a healthcare reform advocated by
conservative think tanks and implemented by a Republican governor, not to
mention took too much time getting our of Iraq, etc.Reagan ran up
huge deficits, and raised the debt ceiling and taxes far too many times for true
conservatives to really support.Presidential politics is an
absolutely brutal business to be in, and Rand Paul would / will face a
blistering critique of everything he's said or voted on. Some of the stuff
he's said are going to be very, very hard to defend in any kind of general
election, such as his response to a number of coal miner deaths (in wanting to
avoid regulation at just about all costs): "people just need to know that
sometimes accidents happen".That response will play well to
libertarian purists, but would be like Mitt Romney's 47% comment in a
Rand Paul is not a viable candidate. His views on civil rights are so retrograde
that every minority voter in the nation would turn out to crush him, and rightly
so. He is a coffin nail for the Republican party. I could easily vote for
Christie, however, and many other independents would do the same.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments