The article as written tries to mix up Ron and Rand opinions or beliefs or just mix ´em up.

Not much worth even writing but I guess Gerson has to pretend a reason for a paycheck...

WaPoo is not a reliable news source.

Gerson is a Rove / Bush guy.

Hmmm...Rand Paul or Michael Gerson...hmmmm...yeah, I stand with Rand.

WaPoo...P U!!

Interesting theory nonetheless..

Trust WaPo to publish confused gibberish.

Is this the long knives of the Clintons, Obamas, or Bushes?

So many questions, so many artificers.

Or all of the above, #8.

Rand Paul is nothing like his dad. Sneaky of the WaPo to try and make it so though.

If Gerson had been performing his real job which is to provide checks and balances against an all powerful government Rand Paul wouldn´t have had to do a filibuster. Gerson stands with all powerful elites against ordinary Americans.

I´ll take Rand )or Ron) over anyone at the WaPo.

Gerson is doing his job, in which he, along with other writers employed by the establishment Washington old boys club, bank on most people that read their drivel being dumb enough to believe what they are regurgitating. Such writers do not only work for the Washington Post.

Who do you trust the farrr left wing WP or Rand Paul..

Rand Paul must have hit a really sore spot for the media. Can´t have the people thinking there is an actual verifiable, criticism of his HeroBama. l

I don´t think Michael Gerson is any politician´s toadying sycophant, so forget the "Clintons, Obamas, or Bushes" meme. Even Paul devotees ought to pay attention to alternate views of him, rather than blithely brushing them away.

PS - I like Rand Paul, too, but only some of the time. He has world views that raise my antenna.

What #15 said!

Rand Paul is most welcome under our Large Awning. As is Mr. Gerson if he´d stop abetting the liberal enemy.

Typical. If it ain´t moderate, Bush, or approved by Brand Repub then kill it quick. The flag has been raised so now the usual posters can attack. At first slowly then gain momentum. Is just the usual war against anyone or anything not approved by our betters. Why must Rand Paul be lockstep with moderates in his beliefs. I personally do not believe anything sinister about his beliefs. If posters want to join McCain/Graham/Bush surrogates and begin the destruction of Paul´s character, I can already give a list of the ones who will join the attempt.

For the (political and otherwise) elites in DC, NYC and CA; of course you will suspect Rand Paul´s motives as they are a dirct challenge to your cushy world. Us regular folk - you know, We the People, are the ones who would be targeted by those Obama´s drones - not Michael Gerson.

After 9/11, I supported a full throated assualt on our Muslim enemies, but over a decade later, wrapping every assualt on our civil liberty in the name of national security is wrong.

I´m with #16: Rand Paul is making a lot of sense now, because he´s sticking with the Constitution, but we´d be fools if we didn´t remain aware that he´s heir to several strange ideological positions that he inherited from his father.
Gerson is right to be skeptical.

Gerson is another Keeper of the Flame for GWB. Who was a good man but left the Party in perilous shape. Rand Paul can reinvigorate the Party without turning us in to Fortress America.

The founders of this country debated "what if in the future" issues all the time! They worried a lot about setting up a government that would some day dominate the people, as was the case in England.
Rand is tapping into the people who have similar concerns about liberty and freedom.
Obama is tapping into people who would make ludicrous statements like, "Obama is like the Dad of the country."!!!!

If Rand is good enough for Cruz and Rubio, he is not too bad.

FTA: "But this group was joined by partisan Republicans who enjoyed watching the Obama administration squirm and yield."

As opposed to what? Non-partisan Republicans? What is another name for a non-partisan Republican?

Gerson says the drone issue is frivolous, joining McCain and Graham in ridiculing it. The subtext of his message is that government knows what´s best for you, and you shouldn´t question its decisions. This encourages the electorate to become passive and helpless, depending on government to manage their lives for them. It´s a prescription for disaster.

Gerson isn´t the first to make this observation. While Paul has good points and makes them with logic and facts, just because some mook excites the base doesn´t mean they´re ready for the Oval Office.

Rand´s ideas are welcome, if we are to have the Big Tent everybody talks about. If we have room for Olympia Snowe, we have room for Rand Paul.

Gerson is more than suggesting that Paul´s real agenda is an across-the-board anti-war policy. Rand doesn´t strike me as the type to say there is no reason, ever, for war.

Not that many politicians can be believed but in Paul´s own words here, http://tiny.cc/ho1ttw ....

...he says, "The Senate has the power to restrain the executive branch — and my filibuster was the beginning of the fight to restore a healthy balance of powers."

Paul goes on to say, "I hope my efforts help spur a national debate about the limits of executive power and the scope of every American’s natural right to be free."

If there is no hidden agenda, he´s got an awful lot of people who agree with him. This Administration isn´t a branch of a 3 co-equal government -- it´s rapidly becoming a Dictatorship, which Rand sees as well as we do.

Consider the source!

They just won´t let us be US. Even on ´´our´´ side they have to try to control our every thought. Progressives are progressives, whether on the left, or on the right. They tell us we need to be more encompassing (of the ones THEY want us to embrace), then they deliberately (and awkwardly, I might add) EXCLUDE the ones we actually like!

I am so very weary of being talked down to, as if I ... WE the People ... were a group of first graders.

And truly, with this little hit piece, of many to come I´m sure, if they wanted us to turn from our current preferred favorite, they would have been smarter to publish this scrum in American Thinker or at Townhall or some such. The left must be starting to fear their OWN beginning to slip´n´slide on over to liberty and freedom of thought!

I´ll stand with Rand.

FTA: Since arriving in the Senate in 2011, Rand Paul has been probing here and there for issues of populist resonance. Audit the secretive, sinister Federal Reserve. Rein in those TSA screeners patting down little girls.

Mitt Romney also supported an audit of the Federal Reserve. As for the TSA, I guess Mr. Gerson is just fine with young children (or anyone for that matter) being touched inappropriately by strangers.

Settle down everyone, in three years they will tell us who to support then blame us when they don´t win, no matter if, as Romney did, the candidate gets a million votes more than they did last time.

#32 has summed up the entire agenda of the Brand Repubs. Wonder how long they will get away with making suckers out of us.

I was just waiting fOr the propaganda to paint Rand with the same brush as Ron. An easy way to try to discredit him. He´s a much bigger threat with his reasoned constitutional patriotism

If what´s his name from the WA PO wants to talk about "daddies", lets talk about the squatter in the WH and his family tree. We have 2 to pick from.. The Kenyan who had many wives and kids and died a freaking drunk and a Muslim..or ,and this who I am betting on, The old commie, pervert, Frank M Davie.
I also think this is nothing but a slick little hit piece to make "Jebbie" look better. Maybe Rand Paul is not the one but I will be damn if I will take the word of a Bush boy or a bitter old man like McCain or Mini Me..
Anyone who steps up from the conservative crowd will be Bushwhacked...

Re #35..that would be Frank M Davis....
sorry..on my 1st cup of coffee ..

The establishment Repubs are nothing but closet commies. At least the Demonrats don´t try to pretend to be something they´re not.

At this point in time let us take any pull back on Marxism we can. I´m not that thrilled with Obama´s world view.

Rand Paul´s words are supportive of Israel, but his actions are not. He is calling for a reduction of military aid to Israel. He and his father have a lot of good advice on economic regulation and taxation, but not on the defense of human rights throughout the world.

If the US fails to assist other countries in remaining free (or becoming free), then we will suffer in the long run.

War is a racket, the Bush family business since Prescott.

I too stand with Rand. But it´s not blind faith. As much as I´d love to just trust him our obligation as citizens is to remain vigilant and to distrust government. If Rand Paul is who I believe him to be, he will welcome the watchful eye of a skeptical citizenry and respect the balance of powers and supremacy of we the people.

I´m with Rand, too. Ron, not at all.

So Rand is not a neocon. Good for him.

FTA: "On the other side of that debate are two administrations and the majority of members of Congress from both parties who, since 9/11, have found the threat of terrorism both real and unappeasable."
Mr Gerson if this is so, why have both parties refused to defend and establish our borders? Where 100´s if not thousands of muslim infiltrators have been pouring in to America.
Why are millions allowed to vote with no ID?
Why did the Bush admin allow thousands of Iraqi´s to immigrate to America?
Why are we sending arms to Al Qaeda in Syria, Egypt and Libya?
Why havn´t we attacked Saudi Arabia the real enemy? Where the bombers came from.
Why havn´t we increased our oil production?
Why are we allowing so many Muslim Brotherhood operatives in our state department?
Why is DHS buying up all the ammo in America?
Why did ATF supply drug cartels on our border with contacts in the terrorist world in Brazil....and yet no criminal prosecutions.
Go spout your drivel somewhere else, Mr. Gerson.

Rand Paul is like antiseptic mouthwash that kills all the nasty germs?

Oh no, he might know the Bushes from around the neighborhood, but he´s no establishment mouth piece......

fta: "varied coalition. There were, of course, paleoconservatives who believe a tyrannical dystopia has already arrived. Paul feeds their fears on talk radio: “I am worried about them doing surveillance without warrants, flying over my farm, watching where I hunt, things like that.” It is bad enough to be killed in a cafe. But warrantless hunting surveillance? Will they stop at nothing?

Perhaps Palin hatin Rove lovin braintrust should trust Obama little less and the rest of us a little more. Denounce it or own it.

The jealous ones are out to knife Rand in the back. boohoo to the establishment!

#35 thank you.
Right now I´m in the mood for the entire cast of Disney characters, pick one, than to have this communist, muslim cabal, junta with drones holding us hostage.

I hope Rand Paul runs. Let him tell the American people about his foreign policy, not Michael Gerson or others who assume that the son is the same as the father.

FTA: "Paul was aided by a bungling Obama administration, at first incapable of effectively articulating its own policy."

Well, not quite. They were seemingly incapable of uttering a simple "no" when asked whether they thought presidet Obama could kill American citizens on American soil on a whim. Their hemming and hawing and stalling on this question was eye opening, gave RAND Paul pause, and led him to focus the nation´s attention on it.

Also FTA: "Offing a noncombatant at a Starbucks in Pittsburgh is not an option. But it took some time for the attorney general to say this plainly."

My point exactly.

Rand Paul shook the earth last week, and establishment Republicans are still off balance from it. Witness this piece. Oh, and as far as Rand´s daddy´s foreign policy ideas of just coming home, I see that the Ldot comment on the preceding article with regard to Afghanistan is "Fast is not fast enough to get our heroes home." Amen. I called Ron "crazy" too, but he may prove to have been right more often than we want to admit, and THAT terrifies Mr. Gerson and establishment Republicans.

I don´t object to engaging in the war the islamic jihadists started. I don´t object to blowing them up with drones or sending out CIA or military hunter/killer teams to quielty make them disappear. I do object to running up the nation´s debt just to fritter it all away on nationbuilding. But even if I went along with SOME amount of nationbuilding, it should only come after the subject nation has been bombed and pounded and bled into absolute unconditional surrender, pleading for their lives. Then we can civilize them. The Greatest Generation understood this. How is it we have forgotten?

"Obama masks his true worldview"

Now that I would read.

Thank you #44. Exactly right and big, fat, obvious questions that the bloviating, media can´t and won´t answer. I´m finding very few in the media worth my time. Punks like Gerson are everywhere, but they can´t stand up to one poster on this site who remembers recent history and isn´t a paid hack to ´shape´ the truth. Suck an egg Washington Post.

I´d like to add, none of this would be going on without many of us having deep reservations about the President and his cloaked ideology. In short: We don´t trust him.

Very twirpish stuff.

If a conservative wanted to deal with the problems of some Senator, he would start with Harry Reid. Ron Paul doesn´t present a problem for anyone but liberals.

Gerson needs to get his priorities straight. I am not impressed.

What #2 said!

They are setting us up for the next elitist Republican candidate. Pre-emptive strike on possible candidate Rand Paul.

WaPo and an ex Bush speech writer... Anyone even contemplating believing anything either or both say/write is insane at best and the cause of the Constitutional Republic´s demise.

The choices are statist all powerful government ( Obama ) Libertarian - little or no, government and Constitutional government, a government that is limited by a constitution so it cannot become oppressive to its citizens. An emotional knee jerk reaction to statist government would be libertarian government. The difficult option is to stop the pendulum in the middle and recover constitutional government. Ron Paul was libertarian. He was good on every issue but defence accusing anyone who supported the military of wanting war. The reality is there is such a thing as an enemy and we have enemies. Nobody wants war and the best way to avoid it is to have a strong military. Peace through strength as Reagan said. Rand Paul is suspected but not convicted of libertarianism. He is a good leader but needs further testing on this point. This does not imply support for the GOP establishment which is too tolerant of a statist government.

I tip my hat to the excellents points posited in #44 and #50. I really don´t care for the establishment arm of the Republican Party, although I have called myself a Republican for well on 30 years. Senator Paul did an admirable job of presenting the concerns that many of us have regarding the expansion of Federal Authority in the hands of a feral administration. It concerns me greatly that "Republican Leaders" like McCain, Graham, Coburn and Toomey would join their antagonist at the expense of their comrad in amrs. It is appalling to me that so many Senators elected to represent their state wide constituentcies decided to sit on the sidelines instead of engaging in the battle of ideas.

As I look back at the votes that I have cast for President, while all have been for the Republican Candidate, save one; not all have possessed the same level of enthusiasm. I was adament in my support for Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter as I was in my support of George W. Bush over Al Gore. All the other votes have been a matter of ´meh´ or too bad they both can´t lose for we would be better off. Mr. Gershon fails to appreciate that candidates fo the second variety do not win elections. I don´t know if Senator Paul has what it takes to become President Paul, but I do know that he is more qualified than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I also know the place to make that determination is with the voters in the primary´s and not via a hit piece from a bona fide publication of the opposition party.

Rand Paul is the new Sarah Palin for the far right.
His positions and statements can never , ever be critiqued and analyzed in an objective way.
He must always be treated like he is infallible
Gerson is a former senior policy adviser to the Heritage Foundation , but, because he dared to
discuss Rand Paul´s policy positions ,
he is immediately derided in the usual dismissive
and puerile terms.
The far right believes that President Bush , Jeb Bush ,
Karl Rove, Michael Gerson ,
,John Boehner , Mitt Romney ,
John McCain and other so called " Establishment " Republicans are conspiring against them.
And that they are the real dangers to America.
Their focus is on defeating them , especially Karl Rove , instead of the true dangers to America.
Karl Rove´s head must be spinning-he raised and spent over 233 million on ads in 2010 and 2012 against Democrats
and in support of all Republican candidates,
including Tea Party and conservatives.
And now he´s suddenly the bogeyman because
an associate , Stephen Law , expressed the desire
to actually defeat Democrats by fielding better , non Akin, non O´Donnell candidates ?
The Democrats and the left must be giddy because their new ally in trying to defeat Republicans is the far right.

Rand Paul might give other, more plausible contenders some backbone perhaps.

Obama has shown over and over that he can´t take a hit and has a very thin skin...and doesn´t like being questioned. McCain wouldn´t attack a black candidate for fear of being called names. Romney isn´t the sort--he´s too much of a deal making businessman. Paul has shown he can draw blood, even if his cause was a bit weak.

By not being able to give a straight answer for a few days, Obama showed how to attack him. The Rep. that does draw blood will be the nominee.

For all the paranoia on this site about Rep. bosses picking the candidate, let´s remember that it was a very weak field last time. The up and comers weren´t ready yet. Paul is putting down a marker.

Thank you, #61. I agree. I continue to hope that most of us can look for a candidate who is close to our perfect choice, but can also accept and enthusiastically support a candidate who isn´t a perfect fit. There is nothing wrong with enjoying the candidate flavor of the day, but caution is recommended. Our enemy is not those who aren´t embracing the FOD, but is, instead, the Democrats. I believe we are sensible and pragmatic enough to realize that fact fairly soon.

Rand stuck up for Israel and voted YES on Colombia free trade. Far as I´m concerned, he´s not Ron, and all the things that did raise red flags are history.

He´s good. And he´s the only game in town right now. Time to lay off the Rand Paul attacks.

Set straw man up; knock straw man down. It won´t work, Gerson/WaPo. Your guy lost this round, no matter how you try to conflate father and son, and no matter how you try to minimize or obfuscate the issue. That both "big tent" parties supported the current policy is not a valid argument. Many of us are PO´ed at both of them. There are other points of view. Of course, you aren´t likely to see that from inside the Beltway.

The enemy are big government socialists and those who undermine conservatives to clear the field for loser moderates. Gerson is one of those, others are readily apparent.

One wonders if Jeb Bush put Gerson up to this. As Rand Paul blasted forward on the scene, all of a sudden Jeb Bush pops up on the talk shows and talks about being president. Then the sliming of principaled people in the spotlight like Rand Paul follows.

I see the fingerprints of Jeb Bush. It might just be that he´s going to be a problem.

Some of us are really tired of the passive agressive behaviour of the moderates in the Republican party.

Rand Paul stood up for this Country and the Constitution and you people are criticizing him for it. Isn´t that what you all want in our candidate? It sure isn´t happening with your moderate squishes. They are angry with Paul for rocking the boat in DC. He accomplished more in 13 hours than any moderates have done in most of their careers.

I no longer trust anyone who was affiliated with the Bush´s or Rove. They ruined McCain´s campaign and then Romney´s.

~ Rand Paul is the new Sarah Palin for the far right.
His positions and statements can never , ever be critiqued and analyzed in an objective way.
He must always be treated like he is infallible ~

Rand Paul does indeed stand in the same circle with Sarah Palin and many others who seek to limit federal government´s powers and strengthen government´s submission to the Constitution.

That he can never be critiqued or analyzed, that he must be considered infallible; No one has said that and we are not owning it. That is an Alinskyite attempt to misdefine and marginalize us and we should call out - loudly and clearly - every attempt by the Vichy Republicans to polarize, ridicule, and isolate us based on their made up definition of who we are and what we say.

Rand Paul has not even suggested a run for the presidency but the Republican power brokers are already working to cut his knees out from under him if he thinks about standing up. Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Do not give them the power anymore to cut off our support networks and isolate either us or the people that we appreciate.

#69-

"Rand Paul is responding to the surge of support from his 13-hour filibuster against the confirmation of John Brennan as head of the CIA – or, more accurately, against the Obama drone program – by saying he is “seriously considering” a run for President in 2016. " Washington Times, March 08, 2013

"Libertarian-leaning Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), son of retiring 12-term Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), dropped a hint Friday that he was thinking of running for president, declaring that only a "libertarian-Republican" can heal the fractured GOP and lead it forward to the presidency in 2016." PolicyMic, January, 2013

I doubt that Rand Paul is thrilled at the suggestion he is another version of Sarah Palin.I don´t think Paul does any version of coy.

I agree with 2,16,61 and 63. I guess there will never be anyone who is perfect enough for some posters. There will not and should not ever be a third party. Think!!

More democrat propaganda from the Washington ComPost.
I think (and I hope) Rand Paul will give the liberal establishment fits of apoplexy in the next three years. He might bring me back to the Republican party.

The old guard is back putting words in our mouths. They convienently forget that we are not rallying around a Savior...we are rallying around someone showing spunk and concern for all our freedoms. It is the old guard that hyperventilates and projects on us that idea that we expect perfection and no criticism. Stop playing games. We see your agenda and reject it. Rand Paul and his beliefs will be carefully vetted by many of us. We are not the ones that worship politicians. NO. We just applaud the ones that have courage and fight for our freedom. It is the moderates that hate anyone not fitting their own narrow list of acceptable candidates...and the one sure thing they hate is someone who speaks out like Palin, Paul and Cruz. Stop lying about us...Brand Repubs. We do not..I repeat...not expect anyone to be above criticism. Can you say the same thing?

You speak for me #73.

My appologies, #70, I was unaware that hats were being cast this early. But my point still stands; Rand Paul has been identified and targeted.

I did not suggest that Rand Paul is another version of Sarah Palin. I said he was in the same circle as Sarah Palin. Small government, big Constitution and unafraid to speak up for both.

Amen to #73. There are those who use the word think when they really mean get in line.

Trying to understand why anyone would be interested in Gerson´s opinion...?

"I doubt that Rand Paul is thrilled at the suggestion he is another version of Sarah Palin.I don´t think Paul does any version of coy."

Snarky.

It remains to be seen if Republicans and Americans can rally behind a few core issues, and not behind a package-deal candidate. Rand Paul has the best philosophical base for his ideology that I´ve seen, and he has proven himself to be shrewd pragmatist when it comes to playing the political game. The message, execution and timing of his filibuster were unimpeachable. He struck a nerve that resonated across all party lines, his honest discussion of the message was engaging, and his eclipse of the Obama/Republican date night certainly rubbed the establishment´s bristles the wrong way.
The guy projected gravitas, humor, brains, idealism, savvy, resolve and flexibility in a single performance... But I´m sure there´s someone more fitting for the Presidency out there... Someone more like Romney or McCain...

#79 - [high five]

Looks like the 2016 primary season is going to get even uglier than previous ones and
will start pretty soon... the maneuvering preceeds the 2014 midterms already.

Rand Paul showed courage and skill, and many of us appreciate it, especially on such
important issues.

This Gerson piece does appear to be a hit piece sponsored by The Jebster and his
coterie of elitist minions.

Even they can see that Rand Paul is far more attractive a person than Jeb.
Jeb is old news, rumpled, chubby, boring and has family baggage -- wife, daughter,
and lots of older relatives who are has-been politicos. Many of us are tired of
all the Bushes, and Jeb is the least attractive of them.

It´s going to be a long, ugly brawl for the 2016 brass ring.
All of ´em figger the GOP is almost guaranteed a win by then.
And they could be right.
Just not far enough right.

I would very much trust Rand Paul before I would the Washington ComPost. Paul is a true believer in the Constitution, and until he proves otherwise he will have my support.

Look, I´m glad everybody is thinking out of the box as regards to Paul. We got one guy willing to stand up so far and message us. But let´s not forget the task at hand which is to put the Obiemeister into a political straight jacket until 2016.

I like some things about Rand Paul a lot.

But I do remember that he is 4 for 4 for the 0bama idiots. Kerry, Hagel, Lew, Brannen

I don´t understand that.

The Republicans will never get back in office again. They can´t even get along on the floor of the House or senate. We will never get this country out of this mess. The Republicans need to work together..... meet and discuss things and make sure it is a conservative agenda. We won´t do that though as there are too many of the Republicans who think they know everything and we are in a bad way with the people and with each other. We are no longer a grand old party...We are a grand old mess.

I disagree with Gerson. And I am tired of the establishment Republicans and their antics. I would much rather have Rand Paul than who we have now and I certainly don´t want Jeb Bush. While I voted for both prior Presidents Bush I don´t think we need another one.

Ted Cruz is the man, Rand would not make it through the gauntlet.