Could a Rand Paul Candidacy Be the Best Thing Ever for Liberals?

[HomerRamone]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/53834/could-a-rand-paul-candidacy-be-the-best-thing-ever-for-liberals

Thom Hartmann:

If he were to run in 2016, and secure the Republican presidential nomination, it's very possible that not only would he pick up Conservative votes, he could also pick up progressive votes as well based on his stance on issues like domestic spying, marriage equality and drug decriminalization.

So, if the Democratic nominee wanted to have any chance at defeating Paul, whether that nominee was Hilary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or Andrew Cuomo, they would have to move way to left of the current mainstream Democratic Party's positions.

<...>

Creating protectionist trade policies and decriminalizing pot could become parts of the official Democratic platform.

Suddenly, pushing for things like healthcare for all and legalizing marijuana would seem mainstream.

[liberal_at_heart]

1. I will say this about independents including the crazies like Ron and Rand Paul.

Independents talk about the issues. The republicans and democrats are so busy telling people why you shouldn't vote for the other party they never actually talk about the issues. Having a Rand Paul candidacy would at least force the parties to address issues and hopefully like you stated drive the democratic party to the left.

[geek tragedy]

5. Rand Paul is not an independent, he is a rightwing Teaparty Republican. nt

[TwilightGardener]

2. AquaBuddha, plagiarism, don't-drone-me-bro, weird hair.

He ain't going nowhere.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Pushing the rhetoric to the left doesn't

mean the policy will be any more left when Democratic candidate becomes President. Just means we will be reading more excuses on DU. President Obama's policies are on the right of his rhetoric, and we get a lot of excuses as to why this is. Some excuses are more compelling than others, of course.

[geek tragedy]

4. In one or two areas, yes, but he is FAR to the right of Romney/McCain/Bush on economics.

So, if the only issues one cares about are drones and pot, I guess you could say this would be true.

And what kind of drugs has Hartmann been smoking if he thinks progressives would vote FOR Rand Paul on the issue of marrige equality. He's a nasty, nasty homophobe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/27/rand-paul-invokes-bestiality-while-discussing-gay-marriage-walks-it-back/

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. The Republican nominee will be a Corporatist big business type.

like Jeb Bush or some other CEO approved product. It will be someone that the media announces is "electable" because he is a "moderate." In this case, of course, "moderate" is meaningless. If elected, they will go about enacting big business friendly, Imperial policies.

Paul would be ideal from a Democratic perspective because he isn't electable. It would be good for Republicans because after the train wreck no one can say, "If we just nominated a real conservative."

What I've come to understand after seeing Bush I run, Bob Dole, GW, McCain, and Romney, is that they nominate the person that they think can fool independents into thinking that he isn't an freaking extremist who is backed and approved by big business. Now that Christie is self immolating, jeb Bush will step up and win the nomination after being called the "Savior of the Republican Party."

[Yavin4]

7. Neither Rand Paul nor Ted Cruz have any hope of getting the Republican nomination

It. aint. gonna. happen.

[karynnj]

8. Aparently, that's not what the polls say

Hillary Clinton (the only Democrat polled) defeats Rand Paul SOUNDLY! Just because both fringes make a lot of noise does not mean that - even added together - they are anywhere near a majority.

I assume that ANY viable Democrat would also beat Paul -- so even if for some reason HRC doesn't run --- Paul still is likely to have no chance.

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. +1000

[Fumesucker]

13. I think pretty much everyone on DU thinks Rand Paul is lower than sea slug squeeze

[karynnj]

15. I would hope so!

I do think there are some who think they are on the left who are really libertarian who support Paul on a set of issues and - unlike the vast majority of us - are not liberals/progressives on economic issues.

As the OP quoted, Hartman,

"If he were to run in 2016, and secure the Republican presidential nomination, it's very possible that not only would he pick up Conservative votes, he could also pick up progressive votes as well based on his stance on issues like domestic spying, marriage equality and drug decriminalization."


Now this leads him to then recommend the same set of people he already wants anyway - not Paul. In fact, every Democrat who runs will be for marriage equality - that is no longer even a tough position to take. No one has ever run saying they favor domestic spying - both parties will speak of reforming it. (That is actually easy as the actual "spying" has been exaggerated.) That leaves decriminalization of drugs - even if limited just to pot - that will not be a big enough voting issue.

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. Thom has jumped the shark. Rand Paul's "you're on your own"; his "abolish the fed";

& "corporations rule" philosophy has some "liberals" all atwitter. Liberals like Hartmann & Nader need to stop trying to "teach the Democrats a lesson", and actually draft a candidate that the country wants to vote for.

[struggle4progress]

10. Backing wack-a-doodles won't help us: we can only win by organizing

[stevenleser]

12. It wouldn't work out like he thinks. Rand is homophobic and he is anti-women's reproductive rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Political_positions

Combine that with being totally for funnelling more money to the 1% by lowering taxes as much as possible, removing regulations and being completely against organized labor and I don't think Rand Paul would attract more than the usual amount of conservative Democrats to his cause. There is no way most Liberals or Progressives vote for someone who has that combination of policy positions.

[MurrayDelph]

14. Could go either way

He would be so terrible a candidate that it could energize the Democratic electorate.


Or he could be so horrible that Democrats would skip going to the polls, believing that no one is stupid-enough to let that bozo into office, and there will be enough votes without them having to wait in line (Which, I believe, was how Evan Mecham was elected governor in Arizona).

[tabasco]

16. Yes, it would guarantee a Democratic landslide victory

The American People are smart enough to reject lying, evil kooks like Rand Fucking Paul.