Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUChizad on January 25, 2013, 03:37:07 PM
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-republicans-hillary-clinton-2016-2013-1
RAND PAUL: If The GOP Doesn't 'Adapt Or Evolve, We're Going To Die'
Grace Wyler | Jan. 24, 2013, 8:47 PM
Grace Wyler/Business Insider
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul firmly staked out his place as a conservative firebrand this week, igniting the blogosphere and cable news punditry with his feisty interrogation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during Wednesday's Senate hearing on Benghazi.
The exchange — in which he told Clinton he would have "fired her" if he were president — was eyebrow-raising, but not particularly surprising. In recent weeks, Paul has made a habit of inflaming political passions, part of a calculated effort to boost the Kentucky Senator's national profile in advance of a possible 2016 presidential bid. 

Check out Paul's activities in the last month alone:
• He was one of just five Republican Senators to vote against the New Year's Eve fiscal cliff deal.
• He took a tour of Israel with 40 evangelical leaders, including several from Iowa and South Carolina, two key early voting states.
• He accused President Barack Obama of acting like a "king" by issuing executive orders to curb gun violence, and told off New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for his criticism of the NRA. (He also chided Christie for throwing a "tantrum" over Hurricane Sandy relief aid.)
• He spent Inauguration Day in South Carolina, where he spoke to the Charleston Meeting, a exclusive conservative confab in the first-in-South primary state. At that meeting, he accused House Republicans of "retreating" on the debt ceiling.
• After grilling Clinton Wednesday, he emailed supporters a video of his questioning with the subject line: "Had I Been President I Would Have Relieved Clinton Of Her Duties."
Regardless of whether he runs for president in 2016, Paul's recent maneuvers are further indication he plans on playing a big role in reshaping the Republican Party in the wake of its 2012 losses.
"I think we've become less and less competitive. If we don't adapt or evolve, we're going to die or become a permanent minority party," he told Business Insider during his trip to Israel earlier this month. "Right now, Republicans are not competitive on the West Coast, we're not competitive in New England; in this last election, we weren't competitive in the Rust Belt or in big cities."
"I think one of the things that I have to offer, and that libertarian ideas have to offer, is that I think we have to approach things differently, and appeal to different ideas," Paul added. "I think that has more appeal to independents and moderates."
Still, unlike most potential White House contenders, Paul is not shy about his interest in a 2016 presidential run.
"We're exploring the possibility," he told Business Insider. "We're doing some traveling, meeting new people. We probably won't make a decision for two years."
One possible obstacle could be Paul's re-election race in Kentucky, which is also in 2016. Paul has already announced that he will run for a second Senate term, and state law there does not allow a candidate's name to appear on the ballot twice.
Of course, Paul would not have to make a choice about which race to run in until sometime in the middle of 2016, and thus well into the Republican primary race. That raises the question of whether Paul, like his father, would use a presidential campaign as a platform to advance his ideas and personal profile — and push the party to the right — rather than as a legitimate attempt to win the Oval Office.
For now, at least, Paul dismisses that as a possibility:
"I would only run if I thought I could win," he told Business Insider. "If I didn't think I could be competitive, I wouldn't consider it."
Meanwhile, here in Louisiana:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/25/bobby-jindal-gop-leaders-aim-to-rebrand-the-republican-party
Bobby Jindal, GOP Leaders Aim to Rebrand the Republican Party
Louisiana governor says GOP must stop being 'party of stupid'
By Rebekah Metzler
January 25, 2013 RSS Feed Print
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal addresses the Nebraska Republican Convention in Grand Island in July 2012.
After suffering unexpected electoral setbacks in the Senate and losing the presidential race, Republican Party officials gathered at their winter meeting in Charlotte, N.C., are exploring ways to rebound and re-build their brand.
Perhaps inspired by the popular, tough-talking New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal used his keynote address Thursday to call out the weaknesses he sees in the GOP and share his vision for the future.
"We seem to have an obsession with government bookeeping; this is a rigged game and it's the wrong game for us to play," he said. "Balancing government's books is a nice goal, but that is not our primary objective. Our objective is to grow the private sector. We must not become the party of austerity. We must be the party of growth."
Jindal, widely expected to run for president in 2016, said Republicans don't need to "abandon, moderate, equivocate or otherwise change" their principles, but must look ahead rather than behind. He repeatedly distanced himself from Washington and said the GOP's electoral strength will come from winning arguments outside the Beltway, not inside.
"We believe solving problems closer to home should be our first, not our last, option," Jindal said.
Criticizing both his party's leadership and specific politicians, he said Republicans need to "stop being the stupid party" and "stop insulting the intelligence of voters."
"It's no secret we had a number of Republicans that damaged the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments and I'm here to say we've had enough of that," Jindal said. "We need to trust the smarts of the American people. We've got to stop dumbing down our ideas and stop reducing everything to mindless slogans and tag lines for 30-second ideas."
Jindal's comments are particularly of note because his party re-gained control of the House by campaigning on pocket-book issues and effectively sinking popular opinion on key Democratic achievements such as health care reform ("death panels") and the 2009 stimulus package ("wasteful spending") by using pithy language.
But there's no doubt the GOP is ready for a makeover particularly after losing Hispanic voters, the fastest growing voter bloc, by a record margin. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, in a Friday speech, will reportedly emphasize the importance of inclusion and willingness to compete in hostile territory as critical to "renewing" the party.
"We must compete in every state and every region, building relationships with communities we haven't before," he will say, according to Politico. "We can stand by our timeless principles and articulate them in ways that are modern; relevant to our time and relatable to the majority of voters."
Priebus also seems to have taken the lessons of the 2012 election to heart, calling for more long-term bridge-building with voters, something Democrats did much more effectively.
"Simple 'outreach' a few months before an election will not suffice. In fact, let's stop talking about 'reaching out' and start working on welcoming in," Priebus is expected to say.
But neither Jindal nor Priebus offer specific policy proposals that might attract support from non-traditional Republican voters.
And, like the Democrats in their winter meeting last week, the top Republicans also have taken joy in insulting their rivals and mocking their principles, making it unclear how they can forge inroads into new constituencies.
-
I like both Rand Paul and Bobby Jindal.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-republicans-hillary-clinton-2016-2013-1
Meanwhile, here in Louisiana:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/25/bobby-jindal-gop-leaders-aim-to-rebrand-the-republican-party
...
"I think one of the things that I have to offer, and that libertarian ideas have to offer, is that I think we have to approach things differently, and appeal to different ideas," Paul added. "I think that has more appeal to independents and moderates."
...
I do like Rand Paul but the GOP is simply not going to win another national election until they re-learn that they need to get the conservative base to actually turn out and vote. It simply did not happen in my opinion this past national election cycle. You can appeal to independents and moderates all you want which is definitely necessary but if you don't get your base to turn out and vote then you are not going to win. The Democrats know how to do this; the GOP has demonstrated that they have forgotten (and they've been asleep since election day...except for John McCain who suddenly woke up and grilled Sec. of State Hillary Clinton yesterday...of course this wasn't the same John McCain who ran for president but that's another story...). Just my 2 cents.
-
I like both Rand Paul and Bobby Jindal.
Even after both endorsed Mittins? Interesting.
-
Both side are reptilian in general. The say one thing, but both are socialists in their actions. Bush with bailouts and Obama with big time bailouts. That is fascism.
Even after both endorsed Mittins? Interesting.
I voted for Mitt/Ryan. I voted Ron Paul in the primary.
-
Even after both endorsed Mittins? Interesting.
:newmonitor:
-
Both side are reptilian in general. The say one thing, but both are socialists in their actions. Bush with bailouts and Obama with big time bailouts. That is fascism. I voted for Mitt/Ryan. I voted Ron Paul in the primary.
Both surprising and not surprising. Figured you to have voted Johnson.
I found it funny that your anarcho Libertarians have pretty much denounced Rand when he endorsed Mittins but damn sure screamed Gary Johnson at the top of their lungs and forgetting all about him being a Republican and running as a Republican just months before accepting the Libertarian nomination.
-
Even after both endorsed Mittins? Interesting.
Lesser of two evils. And it sucks.
Rand is the man.
-
I'd welcome any conservative other than the Marxist.
-
Lesser of two evils. And it sucks.
Rand is the man.
Oh, I know and I agree. I just find it funny that most of the Ron Paul Revolution'ers were/are all about some Rand up until the point that he endorsed Mitt. Of course he had to. #1. He is not his father and not as Libertarian as Ron. #2. He is a member of the GOP and wasn't ever going to support anyone outside of his party. Now they are shying away from Rand a bit when they should be embracing him. He never will get the anarcho side of the Libertarians, but the more moderate and right leaning side of the Libertarian side of the party should be wanting him in there. I was on a fishing expedition.
-
Both surprising and not surprising. Figured you to have voted Johnson.
I found it funny that your anarcho Libertarians have pretty much denounced Rand when he endorsed Mittins but damn sure screamed Gary Johnson at the top of their lungs and forgetting all about him being a Republican and running as a Republican just months before accepting the Libertarian nomination.
Johnson wanted a flat tax and I was against replacing the income tax. The federal government and congress need to be broken.
-
Johnson wanted a flat tax and I was against replacing the income tax. The federal government and congress need to be broken.
Fuck a flat tax. Give me a consumption tax. It gets everyone including illegals and those who make a money on the black market.
-
Fuck a flat tax. Give me a consumption tax. It gets everyone including illegals and those who make a money on the black market.
I can't see a consumption tax hitting the black market. Especially the government drug trade. I vote not fucking taxes. The roads are fucked already.
-
Ross Perot for president!
-
I can't see a consumption tax hitting the black market. Especially the government drug trade. I vote not fucking taxes. The roads are fucked already.
Those drug runners have to buy cars, they have to buy groceries, they have to buy hygiene products. They aren't getting that shit on the black market.
-
Those drug runners have to buy cars, they have to buy groceries, they have to buy hygiene products. They aren't getting that shit on the black market.
The drug runners are CIA. They don't pay taxes on anything
-
The drug runners are CIA. They don't pay taxes on anything
CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP! CHOOP-CHOOP!
-
The drug runners are CIA. They don't pay taxes on anything
So you are telling me that the guy I may or may not have bought my smoke from back in the day was CIA!!??? Well shit, I guess I can kiss any chance at a clearance goodbye.
-
So you are telling me that the guy I may or may not have bought my smoke from back in the day was CIA!!??? Well shit, I guess I can kiss any chance at a clearance goodbye.
They are the big time dealers. With the likes of Brown and Root (KBR), and other contractors, they move large quantities of drug into the US.
-
They are the big time dealers. With the likes of Brown and Root (KBR), and other contractors, they move large quantities of drug into the US.
I think you are missing what I am saying. The local guy that sells drugs damn sure isn't reporting that shit to the IRS, he is getting by tax free. Consumption tax would get him. He buys a car, he buys groceries, he buys soap, shampoo...etc..etc..etc. A consumption tax would make sure he pays taxes. There are a ton of people out there who are in the black market world that don't report their shit and it's the only way we are ever going to see any tax revenue come from them.
-
I think you are missing what I am saying. The local guy that sells drugs damn sure isn't reporting that shit to the IRS, he is getting by tax free. Consumption tax would get him. He buys a car, he buys groceries, he buys soap, shampoo...etc..etc..etc. A consumption tax would make sure he pays taxes. There are a ton of people out there who are in the black market world that don't report their shit and it's the only way we are ever going to see any tax revenue come from them.
I understand your point.