The title kind of betrays it, and as I sit here writing I have no doubt in my mind that at the most current GOP debate, the final one before Iowa caucuses, we will see an unprecedented thing happen: the GOP is going to embrace their sorta-weird sorta-smart libertarian wing. Right now the idea seems crazy – I mean it feels like mainstream Republicans have spent an insane amount of time deflecting and sweeping Rand Paul under the rug in recent debates (note they had done in the previous election cycle with the much older Ron Paul) — but I think the time has come where people start to listen.
Here are four reasons why:
1. He is the herald of Donald Trump’s absence from the debate.
With Trump stepping out of this debate, Rand Paul gets the chance to step back in and I think he will be welcomed as a relief by moderators, candidates and viewers alike.
2. He has an authentic political voice.
Small government, liberty, free flowing capital, increased state powers, etc. Paul’s narrative remains ever the same.
3. He has grassroots support.
There is no denying that Paul supporters are some of the most enthusiastic and loyal political voices.
4. He’s the only one who has a chance at beating Bernie Sanders at his own game.
The ideological opposite, with similar authentic grassroots support. Remember the invitation to debate Sanders in a town hall? That was well before Sanders’ surge.
By the time this is published the debate will have already happened and we will have the results to talk about below, I have included some commentary on the debate.
After the Debate: The GOP field without Trump
The fact of the matter is the Republican Party establishment does not like either Trump or Cruz, its two highest polling candidates, a legitimate third candidate is exactly what they are looking for right now. The party elite hate Trump so much that virtually every other candidate offered praise for his absence. Ted Cruz faced down most of the remaining attacks, which one can see as fairly warranted. Paul for one criticized Cruz’s absence from a particular vote on government surveillance and other lampooned his various flip flopping on issues and in political attitude characterizing him a someone who, ‘Will say anything to get elected’. But plainly despite high polling numbers neither Cruz nor Trump are favored to get the final nomination within the party.
Marco Rubio at first glance looks like he should be the man, but I’m skeptical. To his credit, Rubio does stand in the proper political territory to appeal to people both in the party elite and to the public at large but his message comes off as inauthentic, as negative, and as fearful. Hearing him talk about “ISIS” tonight sounded a bit like those old tapes of McCarthy during the Red Scare. Not to mention his involvement in the much talked about “Gang of Eight” immigration legislation which any republican challenger will not hesitate to criticize. Furthermore, I for one do not buy for a second that Rubio can beat either Clinton or Sanders, his debate skills simply are too weak. Poised perfectly to take center stage with Trump gone, Rubio let Paul (and arguably Jeb Bush at times) steal the show too often.
That leaves Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich as viable options. (Sorry Chris Christie and Ben Carson, you guys aren’t really electable either). Jeb Bush is Marco Rubio Sr. in that he mentored him in Florida, and it seems like the Rubio-Bush feud has split their support base such that neither can survive unless the other dies and it looks like Bush will not be able to take out Rubio but his campaign certainly will not let Rubio take him out. Consequently each will prove to be the other’s downfall.
John Kasich is a special case, being from Ohio I actually have experience with Kasich’s past bills, particularly I want to bring up his record on education which is a MESS. Guess who had to go through K-12 hearing all about how his public school had just had its funding cut, how every year there would be a local levy tax by the city to step in and provide the needed funds to keep the school afloat, or how there was a big uproar when he gave “CEO powers” to school board administrators in order to combat teachers unions. Kasich literally fought against the teachers. What did Kasich do with that tax money he saved by slashing public school budgets? He put it into a charter school voucher program, which failed miserably and ended up being large money sink considering the cost of private school tuition compared to public education cost. Furthermore, remember the much derided common core and its failure? Well Mr. Kasich remains a staunch advocate and was a major force behind its implementation in Ohio schools. I cannot in good conscience see John Kasich as a president. Despite his arguably quality debate form; past policy decisions weigh too heavily against him so much so that I doubt he would be able to win his home state from the Democrats in a general election.
So we are left with Rand Paul.
Why I’d Stand With Rand
1. He arguably won the debate.
Multiple polls are reporting Rand Paul as the victor here, here and here. One commentator from the Washington Post said of Paul, “A candidate willing and able to speak to issues his party has struggled to address in recent years,” after declaring him a major winner He focused on broad appeal to traditionally non-republican voters.
2. He focused on broad appeal to traditionally non-republican voters.
Note the very well put responses made by Paul to not only the video question about Fergeson (in which Paul proposed criminal justice reform and addressed race issues) but also to ask questions about women’s rights.
3. He opposed the Iraq war.
Most other republican’s did, and still do, despite the overall public image of its failure and the current state of the middle-east as empirical evidence. This was a major selling point for the Obama coalition when it took over after Bush.
4. He can’t be painted as an establishment candidate.
A Libertarian-leaning candidate running on a message of small government? Kind of hard to paint him as a member of the establishment.
5. He has a fully developed and congruent political narrative.
Always a plus when a candidate says something and supports it ideologically with real reasons to back it up.
The question now becomes: Can Paul rise beyond ~10% in the polls, a threshold his father had trouble passing. If the numbers trend successfully he might even take third in Iowa or more likely New Hampshire. That is what Rubio was supposed to be doing but he seems to be falling short. This third place finish is a coveted spot as it will likely galvanize support for whoever takes it against Trump and Cruz from both people in the party establishment and regular republican voters looking for an alternative.
