You know who this helps?
....."There's two votes in my family," he said. "My wife has both of them. Both of them are 'no' votes right now."
Paul added: "So if I'm a very able politician, I'll tell you in a year whether I'm able to persuade my wife. Right now, I don't know yet."
Paul has made little secret of his interest in running for president, and his wife has made little secret of her apprehension. In a Vogue profile in September, Kelley Paul said she worried about the "character assassination" that awaited her husband.
"When I think of the tens of millions of dollars in opposition research that they’d be aiming right at us and our family — that’s what it’s about," Kelley Paul said of her apprehension.
More here
Paul has made little secret of his interest in running for president, and his wife has made little secret of her apprehension. In a Vogue profile in September, Kelley Paul said she worried about the "character assassination" that awaited her husband.
"When I think of the tens of millions of dollars in opposition research that they’d be aiming right at us and our family — that’s what it’s about," Kelley Paul said of her apprehension.
More here
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
44 comments:
Several Paulians are stating they will support Cruz if Paul opts out. Others are skeptical for foreign policy reasons, but they'll come around.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?434994-Sen-Rand-Paul-Wife-is-saying-no-to-presidential-bid
Ha. I find it hard to believe Paul isn't in. He's going to be like his dad--a permanent fixture. Cruz could be the same, but he will probably jump the shark and become a non-factor. He's almost there now.
-Martha
FACT - NO Republican could have won in either 2008 or 2012. NONE. Not Christie, not Daniels, not Ryan, not Palin, not Jeb, and not Romney, nor any of the clowns of 2012. It was never possible for a host of reasons.
But, as a recent polls showed, Romney would be president today if the truth about Obamacare had been realized before the election. But that couldn't happen, and indeed was prevented from happening. There was nothing ANYONE could do until the American people fully realized the truth about Obamacare, and Obama lies.
So contrary to what some people believe, Mitt Romney was the best shot we ever had for 2012, but it was never going to happen.
2016 will primarily come down to how down and out Democrats are after the Obamacare mess. It's still a long way off, but I don't even know if it matters all that much who we nominate, as long as the nominee is serious, qualified, and not seen as extreme. (Cruz would be a big mistake because he is extreme, and also unlikable.)
-Martha
Very misleading post.
The misleading title suggests Paul isn't running.
It was a tongue-in-cheek remark to a final round of questions to him at an event yesterday.
More a case of hope from the Cruz-heads.
If there is a God, Cruz will STFU, and start actually BEING a senator than a demigod wannabe.
LOL at the Rombots on this site still trying to convince themselves that their hero ran a "great" presidential campaign, but just "never, never, never had a chance against the unbeatable Obama juggernaut."
Rombots continue trying to rewrite history, but as Romney himself liked to say, "facts are stubborn things" ...
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/262809-gallup-poll-romney-opens-up-7-point-lead-among-likely-voters
Perhaps, just perhaps, if Romney hadn't "French-kissed Obama"(hat tip Ted Cruz) in the second and third debates, and instead went on the offensive like he did in the first debate, he would have held onto that 7-point lead, or even increased it.
And Lord knows, Romney had SO MUCH AMMUNITION to go on the offensive with - Benghazi, Fast & Furious, ObamaCare, gasoline prices, the economy, the national debt & deficit, the list goes on.
Romney's repeated gaffes, inept television & radio advertising, atrocious get-out-the-vote program, and incredibly inaccurate internal polling operation had already put his campaign behind the eight ball.
Losing 2 of the 3 debates was the final nail in his coffin.
Cruz Country is rarely correct, but he is correct on essentially every word of his post.
Romney won the first debate by the greatest margin in polling history. He tied the 2nd and 3rd debates. Geez, the guy isn't Superman. Romney certainly did enough to win a presidential election. Of course Cruz bad mouthed him on the french kiss comment, which was a fairly ignorant thing to say, and won't be forgotten. The great fighters of the tea party, if only the rest of us had their immeasurable courage.
Cimbri - Virtually all of the post-debate polls, as well as his freefall in the head-to-head election polls, showed that Romney LOST the second & third debates. Nice try, try again.
Nonsense, he had at least tied the 2nd debate and was on the offense most of the time. The 3rd debate was boring and a wash. You guys think a tie is a defeat. Bottom line, Romney was ahead after the debates. It was only until some crank socon senate candidate started talking crazy that our momentum stopped. The hurricane finished it; even Chris Matthews said so, hardly a supporter of Romney.
Cimbri -
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-obama-edges-romney-in-second-debate/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-decisive-win-for-obama-in-final-debate/
And there's a LOT MORE where that came from.
Facts are stubborn things.
CBS talked to 500 people. I'm not impressed by that poll in a nation of 300 million. At the time, they were under extreme pressure to help Obama.
Based on my many years of studying politics, I do not think for one minute, that Romney lost ground as a result of the 3 debates. If you think that, then you don't know politics. No offense.
Cimbri - "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt" ~ Mark Twain
LOL at Martha The Village Kook, back again with her favorite delusional paranoid schizophrenic rant. Pass the popcorn, her clown act is way too funny. But little does she know, the joke's on her.
If Rand doesn't run, Christie would be more likely to get the libertarian vote than any candidate on the R side.
Cimbri -
You can't be serious. Christie is a warmongering interventionist neocon just like Bush 43 was. That's a BIG TIME TURNOFF to libertarian voters.
Cruz, on the other hand, OPPOSES military intervention in Syria, Iran and elsewhere unless there is a clear and direct threat to our national security, just like Rand Paul does.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/20/ted-cruz-lets-go-into-syria-secure-or-destroy-assads-chemical-weapons-then-get-out/
Cruz suggesting we attack Syria...
Let's be honest, if this was 2003, Cruz would be a big neocon.
Cimbri - I did not read that article, but the headline is quite clear. Cruz was suggesting that we go into Syria, take care of business with targeted air strikes, then get out immediately. No ground war, no occupation, no massive casualties. The exact opposite of Bush 43's & Christie's approach.
My first impression was that Paul's comments were tongue in cheek also, but his wife's comments to Vogue earlier in the year lead me to believe she's not 100% on board. Recall that Mitch Daniels likely would have run if his wife had been in board. Win or lose, it's a life altering decision not to be taken likely.
I think Rand Paul wears a wig. I personally don't care but it will be fodder for a million dumb jokes. They are going to put him through the ringer. I hope he has a thick hide. He's actually my prototype of who should be the president, but we all know that we have to support the guy most able to win.
I consider this interesting but not final. Methinks a little of the Senator's calm persuasion might be put to work in the coming year.
Cimbri - Rand Paul wears a wig? Never even crossed my mind. I'll have to take a closer look. You're the first person I've ever heard mention that possibility.
I can't see it--why people are infatuated with Cruz. But it seems to be the same people who were infatuated with Sarah Palin. They are polar opposites in some ways, but the same in others. For one thing, they both dig the spotlight. lol
-Martha
And for the record, I would be far far more inclined to vote for Paul, than for Cruz, no contest.
-Martha
CC - I had not thought of it either, heard it from someone else. Don't know if it's true. Once again, I don't care, but there will be late night jokes if true.
I just googled Rand Paul photos. Short hair in some photos, longer in others. Doubt it's a wig.
Rand Paul's lack of political instincts will be his downfall.
Martha, I think they're looking for a hero knight. The far right has that primitive belief system in a hero or strongman coming to the rescue.
Ignore The Village Kook, folks. The humiliating defeat of her idol by Obama has driven her off the deep end. She's obviously had a mental breakdown and is in dire need of professional psychiatric help.
According to other Right Speak participants, The Village Kook has been REPEATEDLY BANNED from other websites for her uncivil, hostile, crazy, off the wall behavior. It's shocking that a cancer like her who VIOLATES EVERY COMMENT POLICY IN THE BOOK, is still allowed on this website.
Cimbri,
"Martha, I think they're looking for a hero knight. The far right has that primitive belief system in a hero or strongman coming to the rescue."
I think you are exactly right about that. They are also the people who thought Fred Thompson was it. lol
-Martha
Martha The Village Kook - You don't have a shred of evidence to back up anything you say, except for the voices in your head that you find so convincing. Please get professional help for your illness. Pronto.
It is highly likely that Paul will run, so no need to worry about who his supporters will flock to. And for the record not only was Romney the best candidate in 2008 and 2012, he would also be the best candidate for 2016, especially judging by the recent polls indicating that voters have finally come to their senses and recognize who was the right choice. I think it would be interesting if he were to run again. At least he would run for all the right reasons in contrast to the others currently positioning themselves for a run.
Martha, I suspect the reason you had trouble on the other site, is that you don't know when to drop it. In this case, that time was months ago.
Martha The Village Kook -
One more time. Let's see if it registers in your sick, twisted, delusional, paranoid, schizophrenic mind. You have ZERO PROOF that I am Newark Hawk. Just saying "go look it up" doesn't cut it. If you had proof, you would have already presented it. But you've got NOTHING, NIL, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO!!!
"THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOUR" ~ NINTH COMMANDMENT
You're an EMBARRASSMENT to the LDS religion, an EMBARRASSMENT to Romney fans, an EMBARRASSMENT to this website(any other website on the planet would have banned you a long time ago).
HAVE YOU NO SHAME?!!!!
Village Kook - I don't have to prove anything to you. You're the one making the ridiculous accusations, not me. Put up or shut up.
Village Kook - I've made myself perfectly clear on this matter. You're just too stubborn, stupid and sick in the head to get it.
Village Kook - You must have an awfully MISERABLE LIFE if this is how you spend your time - obsessing endlessly about a comment made on the internet months ago by someone named 'Newark Hawk'. What a miserable, empty, boring life you must have. I pity you.
I don't care if it's Newark Hawk, or not. But I'm getting fed up with all of my threads getting hijacked by Martha's obsession with a comment someone made months ago. It needs to stop, or I will just start deleting comments.
Hallelujah, RW, Hallelujah
Nowhere did I state that I know that they are the same individual. You could be btp or Lori P for all I know. Time to move on.....
Martha,
You left me no other choice. Say whatever you want in the future on my threads, but that topic is off limits from this point forward.
"They are also the people who thought Fred Thompson was it. lol" Well, Mr. Thompson would make a lot better President than many other possibilities.
Post a Comment