There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
More specific examples such as yours on drugs show that Paul is intriguing.
The "Amash" coalition remains intact, with liberal DEMs opposing NSA/foreign wars/drones.
BTW, Amash does have a RINO-primary in MI.
Paul tweeking Jeb Bush on his "act of love" comments shows another fissure in the GOP, with Paul opposing Bush/Rubio.
I see more than these two views in the GOP on immigration,
giving us the ZERO movement in the House we see after the Senate passed Rubio's bill, which still gives him trouble with TEAs.
Paul's words on the Civil Rights Act are still closer to Goldwater's, who voted no.
This is where his honesty about his libertarianism gets him in trouble.
Paul is certainly in denial that the problems with Civil Rights and Voting Rights still exist.
Paul's unholy alliance with McConnell in McC's Senate race after McC was against Paul in 2010 is multi-faceted.
Paul plays bad cop by bashing Bill Clinton when he comes to Kentucky--McC will owe him big time.
With Paul up for reelection in 2016 and still being young, he can run in 2020 or 2024 or after.
Paul remains the best hope for non-DEM voters tired of the old GOP and war-mongering Neo-cons .
Chemists Have Solutions .
The only thing Ted Cruz is capable of doing is screwing up a wet dream.
If he gets into the Iowa through Florida primaries, he splits the TEA/Libertarian vote with Paul and whichever others from that ilk run.
My pick at this time is Gov. Kasich, but these things change daily .
Chemists Have Solutions .
I would call someone who is willing to negotiate with the left as a RINO, because they're not hard right enough on conservative issues. But, by the same token, Paul could be considered as a RINO too because of his extremist beliefs. Not all republicans, libertarians or tea party people wish to tow his line. Saying that Paul is not an establishment republican is like saying the sun will not rise tomorrow.
I believe what most people are looking for in a republican candidate is someone who has great negotiating skills, one who is willing to be flexible.
Participating in a proposal to shut the government down is not my idea of a person I'd like to see as a president.
It seems the Kochs have taken the lead to win the Senate.
And adelson has taken the lead to keep out the TEAs from the POTUS nomination.
The epicenter of the ACA debate with a DEM Southern governor and six states with conservative regions surrounding your west, north and east.
McC up in 2014 and Paul in 2016 and Beshear term-limited next year.
I still don't see Grimes beating the wily McC, which means Paul will have a strong platform to run on for 2016 if the GOPs take the Senate .
Chemists Have Solutions .
I wouldn't vote for Paul for the same reasons I didn't vote for Obama. Today's politicians seem to be vying for the best combination of the most electable positions on issues, rather than passionate explanations for why their stance is one that leads to the most equitable solution. They play on emotions, division and impossible promises- instead of compromise and bipartisan rational answers. Otherwords, they just want to win at any costs and have no clue how to really fix anything, nor do they probably care.
Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
The nature of how the Tea Party movement works likely precludes a "Tea Party candidate" from winning the nomination for the Presidency unless said individual has cross-over appeal to other constituents within the Republican Party. This is because the Tea Party movement's messages that are actually consistently unifying across the entire movement cover a very limited scope of the actual issues that are relevant to an actual election and political parties platform. On a local level, or in more localized national elections like that for the House, this works wonderfully as you have the potential for multiple candidates that share a common view on certain core issues but whose surrounding issues can be tailored to the region in question. On a national election however, it's far harder to mobilize the entire movement in support of a singular individual. This is because in a Republican Primary for president there are likely MULTIPLE individuals who fit the bill of the Tea Parties views on those narrow "core" issues, and thus individuals are more likely to throw their support behind people based on their views on the more varied list of secondary issues.
For example, Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Huntsman all could've made a legitimate argument in 2012 that regarding the core views of the Tea Party movement they all fit the bill. However, none would've recieved a significant majority of the "Tea Party" vote because voters in different regions would be more likely to vote on those secondary issues (or other things, like electability, tone, etc) that are important to them because there's a level of comfort across the board with them all when it comes to the core Tea Party message.
So if someone is spending big money to try to keep Tea Partiers from getting someone nominated for POTUS, I think they're pretty much wasting their money on something that will play itself on it's own UNLESS an individual has the ability to both appeal to a wide range of the Tea Party base AND to other constituents within the Republican voting base. On top of that, spending money to stop such a candidate would be fool hearty as such a candidate would likely provide the best option for an actual Presidential Run.