Rand Paul

Looking Forward to Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clinton, 2016

|

Timothy Stanley, a British historian and author of the quite good bio of Patrick Buchanan, The Crusader: The Life and Tumultous Times of Pat Buchanan, that I reviewed for Reason in our June 2012 issue, is over at CNN analyzing Hillary Clinton's fight with Senate Republicans yesterday, and concludes:

the most impressive performance by far was from Rand Paul. He delivered a cool, withering statement that climaxed in this devastating paragraph (and you have to watch it to get the full effect): "I'm glad that you're accepting responsibility. I think ultimately with your leaving that you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11. And I really mean that. Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador (Christopher) Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it's inexcusable."

This performance might be—and should be—remembered well by the Republican base when the primary campaign of 2016 starts. Ever since the last president election, Rand Paul hasn't set a foot wrong. From his bridge-building visit to Israel to his opposition to the fiscal cliff deal, he seems well placed to become the tea party candidate.

And what an unusually satisfying choice Clinton vs. Paul would be.

It would be a genuine contest between big government liberalism and small government conservatism: Clinton's internationalism and support for welfare programs vs. Paul's anti-interventionism and opposition to pork.

The question of who could win such an unusual contest is difficult to answer. The Paul family has a tradition of winning votes from Democrats, but Clinton's new respectability could also pull votes away from the Republicans. One Kentucky poll found that in a head-to-head contest, she'd even beat Rand in his home state of Kentucky.

It would be a campaign that any elections scholar would relish.

I blogged on Paul v. Clinton yesterday, with video of the duel.

Advertisement

NEXT: American Gets 35 Years for Role in Mumbai Terrorism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Rand is not really libertarian so much as he is libertarian-leaning. Fuck Hilray, though.

      1. FOAD

        I’ll just assume you’re agreeing with me.

    1. I’ve decided that despite my atheism and Objectivist purity, along with my social libertarianism, that Rand Paul is good enough. Don’t ask me to define it or whatever, but he’s past the threshold, IMO.

      1. Same in spades.

      2. Yeah, I see Rand at about 75% or so. That’s well on the plus side of my political Mendoza line.

      3. As long as he does not betray Aqua Buddha, I’ll vote for a curly-haired Republican.

      4. Where is he on the war on drugs? I like him, but I can’t really get behind anyone who thinks it is OK to lock people up or take their stuff for no reason at all.

        1. Nice time check on your question.

        2. He’s been kind of ambiguous as to whether or not he thinks drugs should be legal at the state and local level, but I think he’s against in on the federal level, and I know he’s been involved in efforts to stop criminalization of new drugs since he’s been in the senate

        3. And why isn’t the LP a serious party? oh, right… -and this from someone whose baked right now

  2. Cool and withering is right; I actually watched it just now and Paul was very good. Nice job, guy. Only Hillary isn’t withered at all by it. She just smirks like an asshole the whole time.

    1. The son learns from the mistakes of the father.

    2. Hillary is a would-be slavemaker — a viciously amoral banshee. I hope to God there’s a special hell for people of her particular breed.

      1. Hillary = Nazgul

        1. Oh, God, now I can just see Barack nominating her for the next SCOTUS vacancy.

          1. it’s not like obama would pick someone we like.

          2. To be fair to Hillary, she’s just as qualified as Wise Latina ever was.

            Then again, so is Coulter.

  3. “but Clinton’s new respectability”

    . . . WHAAAAAAAAAA?

    /moesyzlak

      1. But what about the funniest 50 seconds in television history?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-TZ8Z5S9rI

        Now that’s “Moe” like it!

  4. And what an unusually satisfying choice Clinton vs. Paul would be.

    Ha! You greatly underestimate the venality, the mediocrity, and intellectual vacuousness of the general primary voting population.

    Look for Biden v. Santorum in 2016.

    1. UNCONTROLLABLE VOMITTING

    2. You might be right by Rand is absolutely the golden boy in Tea Party circles right now. And they don’t care much about foreign policy.

      1. Paul will inherit most of his father’s supporters. And most importantly, all of his father’s organization and fund raising contacts.

        Who else has an organization right now? Who will have one in 15? He has a huge head start over the rest of the field. He is the guy to beat right now.

        1. Jim Demint?

      2. You might be right by Rand is absolutely the golden boy in Tea Party circles right now. And they don’t care much about foreign policy

        Ron was the golden boy before, and look at how the GOP establishment gave him the shaft during the primaries.

        1. Ron was never the golden boy of the Tea Party. He was always a bit outside of the grassroots with his own dedicated group of followers. Rand is a much more viable national candidate because he doesn’t have the baggage that Ron had.

          1. NEWSLETTERZ

            1. I am not going to get into this extended rigmarole, but Ron Paul was closer to the Alex Jones types than I was comfortable with.

              1. He had a little bit of that vibe for sure. He also sometimes came off as the crazy uncle when he talked about foreign policy. And I say that as someone who mostly agrees with him.

              2. He should have been WAY more careful and aware of the company he kept.

          2. The difference between Ron and Rand is age. What comes across as witty from Rand is seen as doty from Ron. I can definately see myself supporting Rand in 2016. However, I never underestimate my party’s ability to eff up a one car parade so I won’t hold my breath waiting for a Paul candiacy.

            1. If Rand is the candidate get ready for claims that as a one term senator he isn’t qualified to be president. Dems are nothing if not unaware.

        2. Ron was not the golden boy. Tea Party people respected him but could not get past certain…sensitivities. Rand knows how to placate them and he is.

          1. I guess you’re right. For me, I still think of the Tea Party as when it was in its infancy, before it turned into the “HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE, AND PULL UP YOUR PANTS, SNOOPY POOPY DOG!” party of disgruntled old people.

        3. Ron was the golden boy before, and look at how the GOP establishment gave him the shaft during the primaries.

          And then they were immediately curbstomped for running a big government pseudocon. With Rand, they might learn from their mistakes…

          …Ahahahaha, just kidding. Nuke America today.

    3. Santorum is not winning the nomination in 16. People hate Santorum. A lot of Republicans hate his guts. Even the SOCONS really don’t have much use for him. Look at the exit polls sometime. In a race that didn’t have any other candidate who was even talking to them, Santorum still won surprisingly few SOCONS.

      Basically, 12 was his chance. There was no one else there to divide up the SOCON vote. And he still finished a distant third.

      1. Santorum is not winning the nomination in 16. People hate Santorum. A lot of Republicans hate his guts.

        I hope you’re right, but remember, 4 years is a long a time. Practically geologic in scale in our Internet attention span age.

        1. I am not saying the Republicans won’t come up with someone just as bad. But I really don’t think it will be Santorum.

          1. I think Santorum is not coming back. He’ll have been out of the Senate for what, ten years at that point? What have you done lately, Ricky? I mean, if he were governor of Pennsylvania or something, that would be one thing

            1. Exactly. Sarah Palin would have a better chance at the nomination than Santorum. She has a real following of people who like her. What does Santorum have? I bet he doesn’t even run.

              1. I mean a decade of doing exactly jack shit is not a stellar record, and it ain’t 2002 any more.

                Rick Santorum trying to tell me in a speech that I had to be against gay marriage to be a fiscal conservative was the first time I openly booed somebody and walked out on a speaker.

            2. Santorum is exactly the type of conservative that Republicans don’t want around. His mere presence as a candidate for the nomination gave the media ample opportunity to ask about contraception, abortion, gay marriage, ect. Santorum is a big part of why the Obama campaign was able to create the narrative of the Republican “war on woman”.

              1. He’s the type of candidate the Republicans SHOULDN’T want around. Unfortunately the reasons you list will actually help Santorum in the primaries, becuase the Republican base enjoys flipping off the Democratic base more than they enjoy winning.

                1. Republican base enjoys flipping off the Democratic base more than they enjoy winning.

                  That is certainly true for many Republicans, which is precisely why Newt Gingrich did as well as he did. But Newt Gingrich also did not win the nomination. Nothing will piss off Democrats more than a Republican winning, and the Republican base knows it.

                2. Oh look, another Team Blue Concern Troll here just to “help” the Republicans.

                  Yes, Stormy, Rick Santorum is coming for you! He’s under your bed! He’s in your recently-vacated closet! He’s stalking you in the night!

        2. Yeah, but time isn’t going to be much on Santorum’s side. He was able to pull off the “I’m a Tea Party guy!” line in 2012 because few were looking. And not too many were paying attention to those who were. In 2016, it’s going to be awfully hard for him to claim that mantle (or its successor). He’s a bullshit artist. That only works if you don’t give people time to think better.

        3. The biggest problem for Santorum in 2012 was keeping the coffers filled. I feel that it would be even more difficult for him to do that in 2016. Santorum’s ship has sailed, but not necessarily for the reasons John stated.

  5. Clinton’s new respectability
    Clinton. Respectability. WTF am I reading? Otherwise good column. Rand vs Clinton would be metal.

  6. How the hell does that poll exist where she beats him in KY? Can that be real?

  7. One Kentucky poll found that in a head-to-head contest, she’d even beat Rand in his home state of Kentucky.

    I find that poll suspect. The problem with any Hillary campaign is that there is a certain breed of suburban do gooder mom who loves her. They just can’t help themselves. It doesn’t matter that she is an incompetent who has fucked up everything she has ever touched and has made her bones taking the fall so more powerful men can avoid responsibility for their actions. They just love her. They can’t help it. It would feel so good to finally vote for a woman for President. It would be their turn after watching a black man assume the job.

    That would be an overwhelming powerful urge. The problem for Hillary is that the Obama people hate her. And the Chicago machine will fall in behind Biden. She couldn’t beat that machine in 08, why could she beat it in 16?

    1. You’ve found other polls suspect in the past John…

      1. Read my next paragraph. Don’t underestimate Hillary. She would give stupid people a stupid reason to vote for her. And Obama has shown, that is a really big force in a national election.

        1. Fair point. Hm…Rand needs to stick something criminal on her. Makes him a hero to his base and wrecks his most fearsome opponent. Two birds one inquiry.

          1. Stick something criminal on … hahaha. Good one. You had me going there for a second. We all know that laws don’t apply to the Clintons.

      2. The PPP poll had Wrongway Conway beating Paul in a landslide in 2010. PPP is worthless in Kentucky.

    2. Because Biden isn’t sort of blackish. Identity politics is all that matters now for the Dems, so unless Biden comes out of the closet, Hilldawg will cream him but good.

      1. Hilldawg will cream

        Please, just stop it. I can’t take much more.

        1. Gender advantage aside, she’s also going to be super determined to win. 2008 was supposed to be her year, but we all know how disappointingly that ended for her. After eight years of pent up frustration, you have to expect her to come hard.

          1. Hillary is sixty-five years old. She looks like she’s been rode hard and put to bed wet and chances are she’s going to look even rougher in ’16 than she does now. Standing her (or Biden) next to Paul is not the kind of optics that wins elections.

            1. That’s not going to stop her. The presidency has been her lifelong ambition and will be the climax of her career.

              1. Well, good. I hope she comes across like Nixon in his TV debate with JFK.

    3. Is Biden really…I mean really?!…going to run?

      Is this the land we’re living in now?

      1. Yeah. He is really going to run. And he is going to have all of the Obama machine behind him. I think in a general election he would be killed. But it wouldn’t shock me at all if he manages to get the nomination.

        1. I would be delighted with Rand vs. Biden. Cakewalk.

      2. Yes. This is what it’s come to. I only wish a great foreign horde lead by Sauron would descend upon America and destroy her. It would be a dignified honourable death. Wait…

        BIDEN VS SAURON 2016

        1. SauronBiden IMO.

          1. supposed to be Sauron over Biden

          2. Biden would be the Nazgul who kept riding his bird-beast backward or would be the dumbass that walks into fire or asks Sauron ‘did you always have balls the size of cue balls?’

            1. Oops I thought you meant running together.

              1. Dream Democratic ticket.

            2. “Biden would be the Nazgul who kept riding his bird-beast backward”

              OK, that is pretty damned funny.

      3. Their was a quick news story the other day about Biden preparing for a 2016 run. My wife turned to me and said, if he wins, we’re moving January 19th 2016.

        1. I just don’t get anybody who thinks Biden is a worse prospect than the reality of Obama. Nixon cronyism, Carter incompetence, Herbert Walker aloofness, Obama is the full package of shitty presidents.

          1. Yes but Obama will be out in four years, she feel’s we can weather the storm for that long. Biden would pretty much mean 8-12 more years of Obama, so 2020-2024. By that time we’ll have long ago resorted to cannibalism.

            1. Okay, that makes sense to me. Two terms of national degeneracy plus many years of self inflicted mistakes before then is enough. Anymore, and it’s time to pack, iow.

          2. Barack Obama: Dumber than Carter; Dirtier than Nixon.

        2. You mean 2017, of course.

    4. I thought suburban do-gooder moms liked her because she “made her bones taking the fall so more powerful men can avoid responsibility for their actions.” She is, uh, just like them, or something.

    5. The person to beat will be Colon Powell. He is giving signals of changing parties. I believe that he will be the Democratic candidate for president in 2016. And he will win.

      1. Well, since the Dems are going full on national socialist, I guess nominating a former general would fit right in.

      2. He would be the favorite choice of low information voters. I’ve heard the favorite meme from them for years in regard to Powell, ‘there is just something about that guy.’

        Before developing a dislike for him, I didn’t see the presidential timber in him that others did. He seemed too much of a specialist to be effective as a commander. Someone who took orders and carried the out competently, but had not the personality nor force of will to initiate them himself.

        1. Gulf War = Powell never had enough troops and wasn’t about to take a step forward without someone booting his rear end. About as imaginative as a Cold War Soviet Marshal – “more, more, more…then I might move”.

          Bah.

          1. As opposed to the Leroy Jenkins approach to military tactics we’ve used in every conflict since then to such “amazing” “success”?

            1. The run to Bahgdad in 03 was absolutely brilliant. So was the original taking down of the Taliban. We have had wonderful military success in the last 10 years, including winning two different insurgent wars. The US military has done things that people will be studying for the next 100 years.

              The only way they are not successful is if your standard of military success is transforming Kabul into Pasadena.

              1. To quote Clauswitz, “war is the continuation of politics by other means”. The purpose of a military operation is to achieve a particular political objective. If the political objectives were never achieved (as they were not in Iraq and Afghanistan), then the operation was a failure, regardless of how aesthetically “brilliant” the tactics were.

                In the first Gulf War we waited until we were fully prepared to start, rather than rushing in half cocked, and limited ourselves to an obtainable objective, rather than an impossible dream. Which is why that operation was far more successful than our subsequent involvement in the Middle East. If that makes Powell a Societ Marshall, then perhaps we could use more Soviet Marshalls in our military.

                1. How was the political objective not achieved in Iraq? Last I looked Iraq had a stable government and was no longer a threat to its neighbors. That is success.

                  As far as Afghanistan goes, we destroyed the entire Al Qauda infrastructure and ran the Taliban out. We could go home tomorrow and rightfully claim victory. In fact we should If the Taliban and Karazi’s crew want to have a civil war, that is not our problem. And whichever side wins, they will be very unlikely to welcome the next Arab who shows up with a wad of cash and plans to wage war against the great Satan.

                  The only way to consider either of those wars failures is to constantly move the goal posts for what success is. The point was to neutralize both places as a threat to their neighbors or the US, which has happened.

                  1. “The only way to consider either of those wars failures is to constantly move the goal posts for what success is.”

                    ^THIS, +1 to you.

                    Riley: I don’t like losing.
                    Huey: Then stop beating yourself….

          2. He was CJCS during the war. He didn’t command shit. And he didn’t build the army that won that war. And he didn’t build the diplomatic coalition. It was Dick Cheney and George Bush I who did that. So exactly what did he do in that war beyond give briefings?

          3. Gulf War = Powell never had enough troops and wasn’t about to take a step forward without someone booting his rear end. About as imaginative as a Cold War Soviet Marshal – “more, more, more…then I might move”.

            Bah.

            Sounds like Gen. George B. McClellan. Only he WAS relieved. But he did become a Democratic nominee for pres.

      3. The person to beat will be Colon Powell.

        I doubt our country is ready for our first Gay Pornstar President.

        Jus’ sayin’

      4. You have got to be kidding me. Took the long way ’round, didn’t he?

        I mean, after all, he was a stone-cold lock in 2000. Now I’m not so sure.

        1. No, I am not kidding. When he changes parties, you’ll change you mind. And he would be a great Dem candidate. War hero, black, Democrat.

          1. I mean, he’s never really expressed interest in the position anyway. I also don’t see how a Bush Administration official integrally tied to the Iraq War would be a logical or popular pick for Team Blue. Demographics aside.

      5. No way he survives the Dem primaries after his Pre-Iraq UN performance.

  8. the most impressive performance by far was from Rand Paul. He delivered a cool, withering statement that climaxed in this devastating paragraph (and you have to watch it to get the full effect): “I’m glad that you’re accepting responsibility. I think ultimately with your leaving that you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11. And I really mean that. Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador (Christopher) Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it’s inexcusable.”

    That’s all well and good, but instead of making statements shouldn’t he have been asking questions?

    1. Why bother? Do you honestly think Hillary was going to be responsive to any substantive questions?

      1. All together now:

        What difference does it make?!

        1. That statement alone should sink her chances of ever living in the White House again. I mean fuck, it perfectly encapsulates that her and her boss were more concerned about Benghazi hurting them politically than in why it happened or what it means for US foreign policy.

      2. Her responses were

        1. It doesn’t matter why people died.
        2. I was too busy to care.

        People will still vote for her.

        1. I mean she was in essence correct: It’s obvious nobody gives a shit about Benghazi (except for “us” TEABAGGERZ and other people actually concerned with justice) such to the point that there were absolutely no repercussions for anyone involved or anybody else in the Administration, so effectively she’s right – it really doesn’t matter.

          1. I just hope the rest of the diplomatic corpse learns a lesson from this example. With this crowd in charge don’t be a hero.

          2. I think there were two low-level resignations immediately following the consulate attack. Could be wrong. Too lazy to really care.

      3. Regardless, their job there was to question Hillary about what happened. For the most part, they all just gave speeches. The times Hillary didn’t answer were the times she wasn’t asked any direct questions. IMO, they should have been able to put together a 30 minute track of her saying over and over and over again “What difference does it make?” That would just relentlessly pound the point home.

  9. I doubt the 80 year old men back at the country club are going to allow a Rand Paul nomination. Probably stick us with another Bush.

    1. I doubt Jeb will run. I don’t think he wants the job. But Jeb Bush is the only one who could match up with Paul’s organization and fund raising advantage.

      1. I doubt Jeb will run.

        George P. Bush might do the trick. “He’s brown, right? Them Hispanics like the browns, don’t they?”

        1. Too young. His chance to be the next idiot son in office will come in 2020.

          1. He should probably win some kind of election before he runs for President.

            1. Pffft. He’s a Bush, they start at the top.

        2. George P wants to, but he’s already stated that he’s going to run for a state office first, develop a record to run on and hopefully wait for Bush fatigue to die down.

          1. develop a record to run on

            And then turn on it and ruin his name in the process.

        3. Even the GOP kingmakers are aware that a George P. Bush run would be a year of “he’s just a corn(ball) tortilla.” AND IT WOULD WORK.

      2. You don’t think Jeb wants the job? Really? I doubt he’ll run but you bet your ass he’d want to be president.

        1. I think for Jeb it’s a case like Colin Powell in ’96 or Mitch Daniels this last election.

          He loves his wife too much to subject her to the process.

  10. One Kentucky poll found that in a head-to-head contest, she’d even beat Rand in his home state of Kentucky.

    To be fair, Clinton has 20+ years of name recognition behind her, including a popular former President.

    1. Outside of the blue areas, Kentucky is the very definition of “low information voters” for a 2016 race.

  11. Abortion.

    I think being anti-abortion and running against a woman is a non-starter.

    1. Given how Obama’s performance in his first term was irrelevant to his reelection because he could somehow make the election about abortion, you might be correct.

  12. I welcome the prospect of Hillary running against Rand in 2016. In fact, I’d almost be willing to donate money to Hillary’s primary campaign if she weren’t going to be up against Biden.

    The idea that anyone other than the yellow dog dems would side with someone who is so devoid of human emotion or empathy, someone who is so obviously and transparently a sociopath, is unbelievable. Obama is charming and quite a good actor; while that only angers those of us who pay attention to what he does, I can understand why an idiot or political naif might be fooled by him. I can understand why he’d beat an empty suit like Romney, even if he’s just an empty suit himself.

    Five minutes of listening to Hillary speak, however, is more than sufficient to convince those of us with functional consciences that she’s an awful human being. Forget everything that she’s screwed up in her political career–she’s a marionette who is completely incapable of aping appropriate human emotions or expressions. There is no way–not in ten thousand years of chances–that this woman would ever become president.

    1. You would think that. But do not under estimate Hillary. There are a lot of women who really like her. Hillary running would be a repeat of 08, only for the womenz this time rather than black people. The media would fall all over themselves about how incredible it would be to be a part of electing the first woman to the Presidency. She could create the same kind of personality cult Obama created.

      I can’t stand Hillary. And I think her whole career is an insult to women. But I swear there are a lot of liberal women, who seem to be the ones who decide elections these days, who love her.

      1. Ya even some of the woman I know who don’t like the Obama administration have this strange attachment to Hillary Clinton. Most feel that although Obama has been a colossal failure, Hillary has done her best at the State Department. Also might be that compared to Bill Clinton Obama’s liberalism makes Clinton look like Newt Gingrich.

        1. What is most crushing to Hillary is that that was the perception: that she was doing a decent job running the State Department – up until now. Without Libya, she would have been a 2016 lock.

      2. The PUMAs have been waiting quietly for four years now. As soon as Hillary is no longer Sec of State, look for the PUMAs to start making lots of noise again.

          1. Party Unity My Ass — the wymyns that were pissed that Obama somehow wrangled the nomination from Hillary robbing them of the chance to have the first XX in the whitehouse.

            1. Click the link, dude.

              1. I did. One of my favorite pics 😉

            2. The truth is that Obama probably stole the nomination from Hillary. Hillary won all of the primaries. Every time someone counted the votes Hillary won. Obama won the caucuses and he won those by David Axelrod bullying and intimidation.

              1. Yup. The PUMAs had a legitimate right to bitch.

        1. Jesus, I forgot that that PUMA stood for “People United Means Action.” What a stupid, stupid acronym.

      3. I don’t doubt that, but I’m counting those people as yellow dogs. The Dems will get 45% no matter what, and the Republicans will get 45% no matter what.

        The 10% that remain–the wishwashy idiot vote–typically vote for charisma: Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama…all of these men are good with people in one way or another. Hillary is absolutely, 100% not. She was the sort of child who finished last in Girl Scout cookie sales despite hours of cajoling and threatening, the kid who couldn’t convince a single member of her church to sponsor her in the five-mile race for a cure. She’s downright creepy.

        The idea that the idiot vote will swing her way, not even considering that it would come after the next four years of misery are complete, is literally unbelievable.

        1. “She was the sort of child who finished last in Girl Scout cookie sales despite hours of cajoling and threatening”

          Awesome!

      4. John, you have inspired me to text my mother to see what she thinks of Hillary these days. She voted for her in the 2008 presidential primary, I know that for sure.

        1. Your mother is just the kind of woman I am talking about. I am very curious to hear her answer. Maybe I am wrong and Hillary doesn’t have the following she used to. But at one time, she had a real following.

        2. After asking me, “Why, did something happen?” (she is a low-info voter, people, and has no idea Hillary testified yesterday), she says:

          I sort of like her, she’s intelligent, but stupid for letting Bill make a fool of her when he cheated. But at least he’s been by her side lately.

          My mom is like, the most normalsauce, middle-aged, middle-class, white lady Democrat in the universe. Her favorite book is Twilight. Peeps still definitely like Hillary…for no apparent reason.

          1. As I said above, Hillary gives low information voters, a simple and understandable reason to vote for her. We have never had a woman President, why shouldn’t we give one a chance? That is the kind of thing your mother and her peeps understand.

            1. Yes, I agree. And not just a woman, but an “intelligent (but stupid)” one. I.e., not Sarah Palin.

              1. So what’s Palin? Stupid (but intelligent for turning her brief turn in the political spotlight into a media career).

                1. Palin is not stupid. She is just better looking and has a better looking husband than most women. And God do they hate her for it. Hillary is so homely even the worst house frau can feel attractive compared to her.

                  1. I meant according to Nicole’s mom. I don’t think Palin is any great intellect, but she is certainly no fool.

          2. Her favorite book is Twilight.

            How did she make….you?

          3. I assume you take after your father Nicole. Or were you adopted?

            1. I do take after my dad as a rule, though he is a huge class warrior and we have massive political disagreements. He is a very smart guy though. My moms claims she got stupider after having kids, but I don’t really buy that. She’s socially intelligent, not a complete moron.

    2. The idea that anyone other than the yellow dog dems would side with someone who is so devoid of human emotion or empathy, someone who is so obviously and transparently a sociopath, is unbelievable.

      Two words:

      Lizzie Warren

  13. “Clinton’s new respectability”

    WTF?

    BTW, Ann Althouse has indicated that she has a feeling that the Left is going to do whatever it takes to bring Rand down.

    “GOP Senator Pushes Gun-Running Conspiracy Theory During Benghazi Hearing.”
    That’s the way they put it over at Think Progress. I’ve watched the video. Rand Paul asks a question. It seems histrionic to equate asking a question with pushing a conspiracy theory, and the truth is Hillary Clinton’s answer has the ring of… lying.

    The effort on the left to stereotype Rand Paul as a nutcase is so strenuous that it stimulates my root-for-the-underdog instinct. And makes me suspicious. I feel a Rand-Paul-must-be-destroyed conspiracy theory blossoming within.

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..nning.html

    1. They are very good at perceiving who is a real threat to them.

        1. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

        2. That is just a lie put out by Breitbart.

          You can tell that Paul both told the truth and hurt Hillary by the panicked screaming of our resident sock puppet on how thing are just the opposite.

          1. That is just a lie put out by Breitbart GHOST BREITBART BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA.

      1. This is why Democrats call Jindal a born again Catholic. Ha!

    2. Well Rand is pretty much antithetical to everything the Left stands for.

      I think what really enrages them is that he’s the most powerful libertarian in America and therefore is a threat to actually influence public policy, particularly when it comes to Federalism and nullification.

      A President Paul might not be able to slash the budget the way he wants to with Congress, but he can basically tell the states that they can do whatever they want and he won’t stop them.

    3. He is young and doesn’t fit the evil old fuddy duddy white guy stereo type. The liberals know he is a threat. And they are going to try and destroy him. Look for him to get the full Palin treatment and soon.

      1. He also completely deflates the evil rich white racist narrative that the Left used on Bush and Romney.

        If he’s the nominee it’s pretty much a guarantee that his Democratic opponent will be wealthier than him and more in-bed with lobbyists and special interests.

        The most satisfying thing about a Rand Paul run would be for Rand to firmly steal the pro-civil liberties, anti-war, anti-corporatist mantle from the Democrats.

        1. He would. It would make the Democrats defend and become the party of the wall street bailout, the crooked green energy scams and all the rest of the shit that has happened the last four years.

        2. And not a single professed pro-civil liberties, anti-war, anti-corporatist Democrat will cross over to vote for him.

          1. But how can you not vote for a woman RC? That would be so groovy!!

          2. I’m not sure about that. Not one of them had any reason to vote for Romney. But in the privacy of the voting booth and the choice between Rand and a slimey Democrat they might defect.

            It really depends on how well Rand images himself. He has a clear path to run as a populist.

          3. I don’t know about that. Some will, the question is how many.

            Further a candidate like Rand would, depending on what he does in the next 3 years, concievably be able to overcome the stigma the Republican party has built for themselves among minorities simply because he is not a stock establishment Republican.

      2. Oh God please Rand Paul get the nomination. Not only would he obviously lose in an embarrassingly massive fashion, he would put libertarian bullshit on the national stage to be debated and destroyed. What a great race that would be.

        1. Since our resident sock puppets lie about every single subject, it is pretty clear that the brown shirts are terrified of Paul.

          1. You may not have gotten the message from the last election, but, for your benefit, it was: living in an alternative factual universe does not help Republicans win elections.

            By all means keep thinking ridiculous things like Rand Paul would be a credible threat to win the presidency.

            1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weu-R_bgmU4

              The more you scream, the more we know it hurts you Tony.

            2. You may not have gotten the message from the last election, but, for your benefit, it was: living in an alternative factual universe does not help Republicans win elections.

              This is one of the more accurate things the sock puppet has said. The last election did pretty conclusively prove that if we live in an alternate reality where abortions are threatened, “reproductive rights” are clearly the most important issue, and Obama hasn’t been the President for the past four years, the Republicans lose the election.

            3. Re: Tony,

              You may not have gotten the message from the last election, but, for your benefit, it was: living in an alternative factual universe does not help Republicans win elections.

              The lesson I saw – and I have the advantage of being an outside observer – is that pitting a guy that is just as bad as the incumbent except slightly less black is NOT going to win you elections.

        2. Uh, wouldn’t that depend on who his opponent is?

          I mean seriously can you see Joe Biden “Destroying” anyone in any form?

          Sure, he could stumble into the oval office if the Republicans did something equally stupid by nominating a Socon like Santorum but he’d have a hard time beating a wet paper bag all on his own.

        3. Today is Thursday. Why the fuck are you here?

    4. I would add that I recommend Althouse’s blog. I read it everyday. She’s funny, smart and fairly open-minded.

      1. Well, we know what handle Ms. Althouse posts under on here….

          1. Oh come on.

    5. “Clinton’s new respectability”

      WTF?

      Compared to being a beraggled cheated-on First Lady of the Twat-Cigar President, her current role in government is a vast improvement.

  14. A sewer rat could beat Hillary Clinton.

    Sewer rats have the advantage of not having made money off of futures contracts of questionable origin or having made any real estate deals that landed a lot of people in jail, and in addition to that, compared to Hillary Clinton, sewer rats have eaten fewer babies.

    1. When I heard her explanation of a successful investment strategy and the overwhelming return from it, I just assumed all that time I had been reading the WSJ the wrong way. What? The brokerage absorbed the losses and kicked the profits her way? What section of the WSJ was that investment strategy explained?

    2. But sewer rats don’t have a complicit media to make excuses and bury skeletons for them.

  15. If Paul runs in 2016, he will have to leave the Senate. Under Kentucky law he can only run for one office. If he wins reelection in 2016 he could run for President in 2020 without risking the Senate seat.

    1. That’s my big concern. I would rather see the guy safely in the Senate for a long career than loose the seat and the whitehouse.

      1. Can he challenge Mitch in 2014?

    2. I hear that his brother Robert Paul may consider staging a run for Senate in Texas against John Cornyn, who epitomizes the establishment Republican.

      Having seen a few videos of Robert Paul, I’d say he’s a more articulate speaker than his dad and his brother.

      1. Youtubing Robert now. Ron is a passionate speaker, but Rand never fails to impress me with his teleprompter-less polish.

  16. We don’t live in a good enough universe for Rand Paul to get elected. Sorry, no way.

  17. Meanwhile, here in the real world, Rand Paul made an idiot of himself. This was the worst tragedy since 9/11? “If I had been president…”? Then some right-wing blogger conspiracy nut bullshit. It’s always so amusing when public officials get caught repeating lies found on breitbart.com (poor Mitt Romney during that debate on whether Obama called it terrorism).

    1. Fuck you, CUT SPENDING!

    2. Don’t feed the sock puppet.

      1. Oh now you’re sockpuppeting the sockpuppet police?

          1. Tony is closer to this.

            1. It’s so clearly labelled, and yet I watch it anyway…

            2. It is funny how he is so sure Paul is just a terrible idea, but he feels the need to pollute the entire thread telling the world about it. I guess he just cares about the Republican party and wants them to nominate the right person.

              It couldn’t be because him and every other leftist sock puppet on the internet has been told to go out and paint Rand Paul as an extremist who could never win. Nope, couldn’t be that. Tony just cares.

              1. I know right? All the Left does is Concern Troll the Republican Party.

                “Gee Golly Republicans, if you nominate a compassionate conservative like Bush, we’ll vote for you!”

                “Gee Golly Republicans, if you stop nominating the crazies and nominate a maverick independent like John McCain, we’d vote for you!”

                The Republican nomination process has been one long pander to the liberals since 1988. H.W., Dole, Bush, McCain…

      2. Do the screaming monkey clip.

        Please?

  18. Can we agree that Hillary is morphing into Harry Caray?
    http://www.bing.com/images/sea…..p;=-1&sk;=

    1. Did you know that Barney Frank spelled backwards is Knarf Yenrab?

    2. Secretary of State Clinton: What’s your favorite planet?
      Jeff Goldblum: well…
      Secretary of State Clinton: Mine’s the Sun!
      Jeff Goldblum: Actually the Sun’s not a plan
      Secretary of State Clinton: It doesn’t matter. When that thing goes out we’re all screwed.

  19. For reals though, what is the big drawback for Rand in terms of 2016?

    What scandal -besides the Maddow civil rights flap- is Rand involved or even cursory associated with that could stop him from being the frontrunner?

    1. He’s an idiot and an extremist? So, he’s got a great shot in the primary.

      1. Quiet shithead, the adults are talking.

        1. No, I agree with Tony here. Only stupid people can becom OB/GYN’s.

    2. What scandal -besides the Maddow civil rights flap- is Rand involved or even cursory associated with that could stop him from being the frontrunner?

      His father has corrupted the blood of his clan 3 generations back and 3 generations forward by not properly editing his newsletters.

      1. The thing I find fascinating is how the whole brou ha ha died down when a director at Forbes Magazine was fingered as the actual author of the racist newsletters.

        The pathetic thing was that Kirchick apparently knew the whole time but decided not to publish the guy’s name.

        1. I didn’t even hear he had been named until someone mentioned this the other day (not sure if it was you, tarran).

        2. Not to defend that ghoulish Eli, but Paul didn’t give up the author, either.

          Ron was never much of a politician.

          1. Ron was so hands off, he likely didn’t know who it was either. I hated how he was treated in the primaries but had no illusions about his competency in executive matters. Then again, hands off worked pretty well for Reagan and meticulous organizer Carter was amongst the worst.

            1. Sorry, I don’t buy that.

              Regardless, setting the race-baiting aside because it’s way too contentious, all that Bohemian Grove black helicopter bullshit is enough to make any sane person think twice.

            2. I didn’t look for the interview (might have been the one he walked out of), but I recall a reporter asking him if he knew who the author was and whether he would reveal him/her. Paul indicated that he was aware of the author’s identity, but wasn’t going to sell him out.

          2. Ron was never much of a politician.

            Good men rarely are.

      2. What scandal will sink Rand Paul?

        Why, whatever scandal needs to be ginned up to do the job, of course. This is the DemOp media doing the bidding of the Chicago Machine, here. You don’t think they’ll let a little thing like truth or decency stop them, do you?

    3. AquaBuddha!

      1. Yup. A kidnapper of teh womens.

  20. As soon as Rand talks of reforming entitlements, he will have lost. And Rand will talk of reforming entitlements.

  21. Rand and Jindal or Jindal and Rand

    1. I’m trying to think if either party has run a better ticket than that in the past century.

      1. Yep, these are the best the Republicans have. And they would cover the spectrum of the Right quite well.

        I don’t know of two more in

        … and I guess it would be Paul/Jindal or Jindal/Paul

    2. Rand/Jindal

      Had not thought of that. Nice one.

  22. If I was president, I’d fire Doherty for spurning alt-text.

  23. Unfortunately I think it’s a safe bet that if Rand got the nomination in 2016 vs Hillary, the media would put the clip of him talking about overturning the CRA on 24/7 loop. That combined with more “Rethuglican War on Wymen/ Vote With Your Lady Parts” and “Vote Hillary! Moar Free Shit!” would give the election to Hillary. It fucking sucks, but that’s where we are as a country.

  24. The fact that the only African-American Senator currently serving in the United States is Tea Party Republican Tim Scott might come into play if Dems try using their plantation card in 2016

  25. Watching TONY going apeshit over this is hilarious. If Rand were a typical GOP politician, he’d do his typical leftard act, but TONY knows that Rand is a serious contender for the establishment GOP–and thus a threat to the establishment Democrats–so he’s completely frantic.

    HAHA CAN YOU BELIEVE RAND HE’S SUCH A JOKE RIGHT AHAHA STUPID TEABAGGERS THINK THEY CAN RUN ON THIS NUTTER WHAT A LARK HAHA THIS IS HILARIOUS ISN’T IT GUYS

  26. But guys, the Very Serious People at ABC and CBS think the Republicans should nominate Chris Christie. Y’know, so the GOP can re-live the glory days of Taft. They say Christie is one of The Good Ones, not a Very Bad Tea Party Extremist. And they wouldn’t want Republicans to lose, would they?

    1. I’d leave the country if that happens. Switzerland, maybe, or the Dollar Vigilante guy’s Galt’s Gulch in Chile. Anywhere but here.

      1. C’mon, the country is clamoring for a morbidly obese Northeast blue-state Republican governor to be president. He’s just like Romney, but uglier and with no business experience…a sure-fire winner! Don’t you trust Jay Carney’s wife at ABC “news” to steer Republicans to sure victory?

        1. Right, so here we go again. For the next four years, the media is going to pimp the likes of Christie and Christine Todd Whitman and Colin Powell.

          The Republicans will fall for it, and the media will turn on them…AGAIN. Just like McCain.

      2. Christie is such a dooooouuuuuuchebag.

        His only chance now is to run on some kinda Unity Party / Democrat Pres. Indie VP (Christie) ticket. Throwing a tantrum because a pork-laden bill didn’t get passed when you demanded it? What a fucking child.

  27. The question of who could win such an unusual contest is difficult to answer. The Paul family has a tradition of winning votes from Democrats, but Clinton’s new respectability could also pull votes away from the Republicans.

    I am not sure what exactly is Mr. Stanley talking about. Maybe there’s a level of respect for the soon-to-be-former madam Secretary of State from the usual cadre of RINOs in the Senate and House, but for the love of Aphrodite dunked in honey, I can’t think how the obfuscating lawyer supposedly garnered a “new respectability” from your normal mid-land Republicans.

    1. There’s just something about HillDog. Even I don’t hate her. I met her once in Kyrgyzstan and while I think she probably is an emotionless sociopath and would sooner boil my pet rabbit than actually talk to me, there is just some kind of magnetism she has on people.

  28. Sometimes dude, you jsut gotta smack em good!

    http://www.Anon-ids.tk

    1. Violence against women is wrong pedobot!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.