Rand Paul: America's eyes opening to unlikely potential president


US Senator Rand Paul likes to spend his vacations helping people to see better. Last week, the Kentucky senator (an ophthalmologist) was on a humanitarian mission, performing pro bono eye surgery in Salama, Guatemala.

And while some Guatemalans are sure to have better vision as a result, Americans are starting to envision the possibility he could be president.

Polls conducted by NBC News and Marist College last month showed him either winning or tied against leading Republican rivals in both the Iowa and New Hampshire presidential primaries.

This is not an aberration; Paul, who was elected in 2010, has long polled well in these important early states.

It’s too early to make any serious predictions, but winning the first two primary contests would potentially set him up as a juggernaut for the Republican presidential nomination. As the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake observed: “No non-incumbent Republican presidential candidate has won both states since they were granted first-in-the-nation status in 1976. Not one.”


This kind of talk makes me a little nervous - not surprised though. If Paul gets front runner status, it could get interesting. I just hope he has a little more establishment blood in his veins then he lets on, for the sake of the country. Or this could just be a trend that will die out before 2016.


Is Rand Paul capable of beating Hillary? No doubt Hillary would (by proxy supporters - the media, others) start a campaign that Rand Paul is a “dangerous” candidate given his foreign policy views. Perhaps the question is would the GOP establishment get behind a Rand Paul candidacy? Or would the major donors abandon him? Hard to say. If foreign affairs is a big issue in 2016 then the GOP might rather nominate a candidate who is considered more experienced and less “risky” on the issue. I would vote for Rand Paul. But I’m not sure he would be able to win.



If he “catches on” and gains enough momentum, I think, yes, he could beat Hillary. She would paint him as risky, but he would paint her as Obama’s successor which I think could be very effective. Also she is old news; Paul would have “newness” going for him. We have short attention spans in this country and that would be an advantage. I see signs that Rand Paul is catching on, but I don’t know if it will last to 2016. I would vote for Rand Paul and believe he could beat Hillary Clinton, but I am not sure he is what we need as a country right now. From a Catholic perspective, social and/or economic, doesn’t look too good. I think we need to look for a new, “cool” alternative…such as others we’ve discussed: Rubio / Jindal, etc. But we need to watch the Rand Paul phenomenon - as they say, know your enemy…:wink: (just joking)


What are Mr. Paul’s foreign policy views? There are so many politicians it is difficult to keep up with them all.


Great comments. I would vote for Rand Paul too although I was never a huge fan of his father. I also agree that Hillary is very, very vulnerable on all issues but especially foreign affairs (supposedly her strong point). So if she makes foreign policy an issue with Rand Paul I think he could really turn it around and make the issue her abysmal tenure as secretary of state. Hillary, if you want to explain why it doesn’t matter that our consulate in Benghazi was attacked and ambassador killed then please do so - we’re all ears. So if Rand Paul wants to get serious (and the GOP) then I think he’d have a field day as she’s pretty vulnerable. The problem is I have my doubts that he GOP would really pursue that effectively.

Rubio/Jindal or vice versa might be a great ticket. A successful governor with new ideas and a young senator. Not your white male country club party ticket.



Good question. While I don’t think he’s quite as isolationist as his father Ron Paul, I do think he views America’s power as more limited and would not be as likely to commit troops around the world as another GOP candidate - such as a Paul Ryan, a Rubio or a Romney would.



Ted Cruz all the way, simply because he is the best man if he can draw back a little on views that might be hawkish.

Scott Walker, plenty of accomplishments, Christie really isn’t bad, like Perry, another good candidate, these men are victimized by partisan witch hunts.

Rubio can hardly point to having done anything yet and his immigration bill was a travesty. I’d like to support Rubio and perhaps I still can but he abandoned some of the reasons he was elected. He has backpedaled on that now.


If the Democrats nominate either Hillary Clinton, or Elizabeth Warren, should she run, one of them will be the next president.

The will carry the women’s vote merely because they’ll become the first female president.

I watched Elizabeth Warren beat Scott Brown, merely through the women’s vote to see the first female Senator, despite her false claims of being a Native American and for tuition costs to be covered by the government, despite her and her husband having salaries of almost $1 billion from Harvard University.

We’re in a time where people want to see “firsts” that break the status quo, regardless of honor and integrity.



I think your correct, Jim.

Hillary will swing to the middle (she already is doing it) and will look to many as a moderate candidate they can vote for. She isn’t a moderate but that is the way she will appear. Coupled with being the first woman president, I think she will win by a mile.

I don’t think the Republicans would be wise to run someone who is essentially a Libertarian-Republican against her and hope to win. Personally, I would be very surprised if Rand gets as far as the nomination.



If Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio run, they will be elected for being the first Hispanic to run, if Bobby Jindal wins the nomination, he will be elected for being the first person of Indian ancestry to win. If Scot Walker runs, he will win because he would be the first person nominated to run for President from Wisconsin. If Susannah Martinez runs, she easily wins it hands down as she will draw both the Hispanic and Woman’s vote.


America is much more pro-life than it use to be, America sees abortion as genocide and the Democratic Party as supporting genocide.


The Democrats want amnesty because it hoodwinks elections and dilutes everyone’s votes. It’s not an honest way to win and yes, this is why California is blue now.


Obama largely won because people wanted to vote for a black man but I don’t think that precedent will happen in the future. IF Elizabeth Warren were elected, the Republicans would win in a landslide and I don’t know if Hillary Clinton can point to any great accomplishments as well. IF Obama were white, he would have been impeached already.


If Hilary doesn’t run, the democrats are in big trouble. If Warren is the nominee, her appeal is largely in the northeast. I don’t think she can relate all that well to voters in the Rust Belt and Midwest. Also, if the GOP has a minority on their ticket, I could see them defeating Warren easily.

Also, Hilary is no guarantee to win either. As Nate Silver notes “Hillary’s numbers are more likely to go down than up.”

Other than Hillary, any other democrat nominee would either be too fiscally conservative on record (Corey Booker or the Castro Brothers) or too polarizing like E. Warren.

The exception could be Biden, but it’s rather pointless as long as Hillary since he trails four of five of the leading GOP nominees.

I’m sure he’d do better than many on the right think, but his numbers right now could be a new low for a sitting VP, who should be almost a shoe-in for the next president if he/she wants it.

The will carry the women’s vote merely because they’ll become the first female president.

Democrats usually carry the women vote. The Obama/Biden ticket did last time, but Romney/Ryan won married women of all ethnicities by double digits.

I watched Elizabeth Warren beat Scott Brown, merely through the women’s vote to see the first female Senator, despite her false claims of being a Native American and for tuition costs to be covered by the government, despite her and her husband having salaries of almost $1 billion from Harvard University.

Warren barely beat a republican in Massachusetts. Is that really something to hang one’s hat on?

We’re in a time where people want to see “firsts” that break the status quo, regardless of honor and integrity.

Charles Krauthammer had a interesting take on that recently. He doesn’t think the country is looking to set another precedent. There can no longer be another “first” minority president.

Even if people did want to set another precedent, what’s to stop Nikki Haley, Kelly Ayotte or Governor Martinez from being the first woman president? Why does it have to be a democrat?


Well, Hillary doesn’t have much credibility with foreign policy issues. Also, Rand Paul didn’t vote for the 2003 Iraq War and Hillary did. She can say Rand is “dangerous” but he has the luxury of not being involved in controversy.

Hillary is connected to failures including Somalia, Bosnia, the 1998 airstrikes against Afghanistan and Sudan (which failed to kill bin-laden), 2003 Iraq, Russian reset and Benghazi.

President Obama is actually boosting his credo, however lightly, by taking on ISIS bit by bit. One could possibly argue that without Hillary around, this operation is more successful than Benghazi.

Hillary is not as strong of a candidate as many think, and recent poll numbers show Rand Paul pulling ahead in a couple of key states.

Remember, it’s all about the electoral college.


Cruz will never win the nomination.

He’s seen as part of the shutdown of the government which cost the US Economy over $28 billion and in the end, served nothing.

Also, the opponents will go after Cruz’s wife who is a high-ranking executive at Goldman Sachs.

In fact, it’s my belief that the entire shutdown scam was orchestrated by the likes of Ted Cruz and Eric Cantor, to manipulate the stock market for their own financial gain.

Imagine knowing that by shutting down the government it would cause the stock market to dive, as it did, but also knowing that when you open up the government, the market, as it did, will skyrocket ?

Having such knowledge and power, is stronger than having insider trading information on a corporation. Add to the fact that your wife works for Goldman Sachs.

What a way to make tons of money while throwing proverbial meat to your conservative base who believe your scam is for the good of the nation.

OH and BTW, just to be fair, Bill Clinton pulled similar stunts when he was governor of Arkansas and put in place state regulations and removing them, in order manipulate the market.



Yeah well we thought Scott Brown would beat Warren by a landslide in his relection to the Senate.

We were shocked to see the final results and the analysis showed that Warren carried the women’s vote.



That might seem like the conventional wisdom. Hillary or Elizabeth both “inevitable.” And I don’t doubt at all what you’re saying about the media making it a referendum on “making history” (“herstory”).

And yet…

Hillary is very, very vulnerable. She is associated with the perhaps the worst president in modern times. She ran foreign policy - and foreign policy was perhaps the biggest disaster for the Golfer-in-chief administration. She has a lot to answer for. Have you heard Hillary speak in public? Shrill - like nails on a chalkboard. Will the voters care about electing a woman when there are so many problems in our country and around the world? We will have to see. I am skeptical like you - I can’t underestimate the power of media campaigns and narratives carefully drawn to sway simple-minded voters. The First Woman President - ever!


Rubio would be the first Hispanic president - ever. And just as Hillary would “sew up” the women’s vote (not all of it), a Rubio or Susanna Martinez would get more Hispanics. That would complicate things.

That said, here is how I see it: Romney was correct in his 47% comment. So many in this country are receiving government aid that they will be more inclined to vote for the party which promises to keep giving them “stuff.” We live in an entitlement society. The conservative philosophy of “work hard and get ahead, government exists to enforce the law, etc.” is perhaps no longer tenable. People want stuff. And they will vote for the guys who promise stuff. That explains why the Democrats win. It explains why they are for amnesty - more voters to give stuff to, in return for their votes.

But its not inevitable: as I always say, the “x-factor” is liberal policies themselves and the tendency for things to get screwed up. A 2nd recession. Terrorist attack on the US. Crisis on the border. Disaster after disaster. At some point you would hope that people will wake up.

A Democrat win is not inevitable.



I would not vote for Mr. Paul. Considering all the trouble in the world, middle East and ISIS isolationism could be our very unwise.

I live in Texas, and I would say no to Perry, the Southern Baptist.


In the liberal northeast. The only Republicans that can win are moderate/liberals. Not surprising that a Warren would win there. I don’t think that necessarily applies to the rest of the country.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.