Texas libertarian Ron Paul will probably run for president again. But if he doesn't, his son, brand-new Republican Senator Rand Paul just might run instead. Which one would make the better candidate? Which one has even a shot at winning a single primary or caucus, anywhere? Probably neither one, but that is no reason why we cannot compare and contrast their "strengths" in a hypothetical 2012 match-up:
| Ron Paul | Rand Paul |
|---|---|
| Wise and experienced | Young and dynamic |
| Already has kick-ass logo | Much better at sucking up to money |
| More time in office | Senator outranks Representative |
| Actually interesting to listen to | Not 100 years old |
| Didn't rename himself "Rand" like an idiot | Didn't publish racist newsletters like an idiot |
| Is a real doctor, not just a silly "eye doctor" | Has message from tea parties |
| Already has kick-ass logo | Prickly demeanor, droning speaking style denote "authenticity" |
| Wars he opposes no longer managed by Republican president | More "mainstream" than father due to not talking about libertarian stuff that freaks out Republicans |
| Understands that deficit is caused mostly by giving healthcare to immigrants | Has decided Constitution needn't be read literally when dealing with immigrants |
| Long history of voting no on everything appeals to childish, nasty feeling of resentment at heart of American dream | Hates mountains |
| Supporters will rent blimps | Supporters will stomp on heads until he is elected |
Shares