Rand Paul

Rand Paul for President: Can Interesting Be Electable?

Rand Paul's electoral virtues might be the same as his vices.


Rand Paul
Rand Paul

Rand Paul announced today that he's definitely running for re-election to his Kentucky Senate seat. While he has not made it official, he's also by all available evidence running for his party's presidential nomination (even though under Kentucky law he can't appear on the same ballot in that state for both offices).

He's doing well in the polls so far. In RealClearPolitics' combined polls Paul is tied for second among prospective Republican candidates, along with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan. Paul is even number one in New Hampshire, often a useful place to be number one. Jeb Bush, horrifically, is ahead of them all nationally by 1.8 percentage points. (For now, all of them are being smashed by Hillary Clinton, with whom Paul is already in open battle.)

Paul has a quality that doubtless irks his possible opponents even as they anticipate it will provide them the weapon with which to dispatch the troublesome constitutionalist. As publications from Reason (first!) to Time have noticed, he's a serious national politician, not merely an amusing/alarming maverick and as such Rand Paul is the most interesting guy in the field. This peculiar character says and does things fresh and dramatic in politics, within the context of his party, the context of presidential politics writ large—on both levels he advocates things no one else will—and the context of his own political and familial saga—where he can be examined constantly for flip flops, apostasy, and the struggle to escape his father Ron Paul's allegedly baleful (electorally) shadow.

What other presidential candidate with serious prospects has ever said he would "do everything to end the war on drugs," a position Paul has come to gingerly but finally arrived at? Who else would react to Ferguson not by avoiding the topic (most of them), or offering mealy-mouthed evocations of the "decent and respectful law enforcement officers" as Hillary did, but by blaming systemic issues of government preying on the poor with petty law enforcement and fines and the racial disparities in an unjust war on drugs? Especially since the specifics of the Michael Brown shooting weren't really related to either of those things. Paul saw a teachable moment to go off-reservation for not only his party but American politics writ large, and he took it.

He's the Republican with a realistic chance of winning the love of the big-money of Silicon Valley with his general aura of "entrepreneurial change agent" (and specifically being anti-regulation and anti-tax). He's even intending to open a campaign office in San Francisco shortly. At the same time he sticks to his anti-regulatory principles and stands against Net Neutrality even though most of the tech industry he's trying to woo is for it. Something larger is going on with this guy than just kowtowing to select constituencies, and it's attractive, even in how inscrutably Rand Paul can read in standard political terms.

Watching Paul walk through the political dramas and traps created by his own strongly, and unusually, held positions is great for reams of ink, a lot of it respectful and fascinated. He comes across as prickly, yes, but brave, and striving for big things, with all eyes eagerly on him waiting for a stumble—but on him nevertheless. It's great political drama for friend and foe and ensures his fresh message will gush through earned media.

Being interesting has its pitfalls as well. If Paul can't shake the impression that his interestingness is tantamount to being unelectable, it could hurt—but it seems likely from the money and the polls and the media that he's already crashed that barrier. It takes a die-hard fading influence like Bill Kristol to seriously insist that Rand will under-perform compared to Ron Paul in a presidential race. If Paul succeeds, he'll be the re-brander he insists his party needs; if he fails, he'll just be one more cult star who failed to break the mainstream.

So far he's making all the right moves and establishing his star power, as the leading utility player for fellow Republicans campaigning in 2014. Scott Reed, former 1996 Bob Dole presidential campaign leader and now the Chamber of Commerce's senior political strategist, told Politico that "In any two-week period of this last six months, Rand Paul did more smart things to grow the party than everyone else combined." Rand Paul is no outsider in his own party. His RAND PAC supported at least four new GOP senators-elect.

As Paul rolls out a prospective campaign team of workers and advisors heavier on GOP pros than Ron Paul Machiners, he earns Strange New Respect for seeming like a "serious candidate, out to win" and able to fund-raise, both in official campaign funds and potential SuperPacs, in the big leagues (while his new choice of allies gets some of his father's loyalists to declare Paul has obviously sold out to the Council on Foreign Relations and the internationalists trying to steal our sovereignty through trade agreements).

Rand Paul has got a digital guru, Vincent Harris, who has worked for Mitch McConnell, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, and Rick Perry. He's got a national political director of his RAND PAC, John Yob, who used to work for John McCain, and Mike Biundo, a Rick Santorum vet, running his New Hampshire operation. He's got former Bush bundler and entrepreneur of the "uber of trashNate Morris as his new BFF and guide to the real big Republican money, outside Ron Paul World (which itself was good for around $40 million in official campaign funds in 2012.)

Foreign policy, conventional wisdom has it, will be Paul's hardest sell with the GOP. His announced foreign policy advisor, unofficial and unpaid so far, who seems most willing to talk to the press is Lorne Craner, a former McCain associate and longtime head of the International Republican Institute, one of those do-gooder democratizing foreign aid groups that Ron Paul and many of his fans strongly disdain and distrust. Craner seems to be playing the role of serious older brother to that wing of the GOP establishment, showing that young Randy can actually be pretty cool and even responsible beyond his years, if you get to know him.

If one believed Rand Paul was going to become a mouthpiece for advisor Craner's beliefs, Paul would lose almost everything libertarians and fans of his dad could have admired about his foreign policy. Craner recently tweeted that it was "encouraging" that a Pew poll showed the number of Americans feeling threatened by everything everywhere was rising, and that the numbers who wanted overseas activism were rising (though, thank goodness—and pay attention Rand!—the  percentage who think we do too much overseas still trumped those who thought we do too little, 39 to 31).

Elise Jordan, another foreign policy advisor, copped on MSNBC to having worked on Paul's lauded October foreign policy speech. Jordan (the widow of controversial and tough-on-the-Pentagon journalist Michael Hastings who died in a car wreck in Los Angeles last year) was respectful toward Ron Paul in the pages of National Review all the way back in 2011. While she was careful not to openly say on MSNBC that Rand's big speech advocated a general non-interventionism, she at least didn't spin it as being about getting tough against all the myriad horrible threats the U.S. is supposedly beset with.

As evidenced in Matt Welch's probing interview on foreign policy with Paul after that speech, Paul refuses to be backed into any standard corner of the foreign policy spectrum. However, in trying to sound potentially reasonable to everyone, he runs the risk of giving everyone a reason not to vote for him.

Paul can, as he did in the interview with Welch, play to the GOP base by slamming Hillary over Benghazi, and then suggest we get involved in making a peace of sorts with Turks and Kurds (the U.S. having such a sterling record in settling long-simmering ethnic, religious, or sectarian conflict in the Middle East).

"I think the vast majority of people are not for sending 50,000 troops back into Iraq at this point. But the vast majority is also for standing up and saying to barbarians that we're not going to let you behead our citizens," he said, which sounds reasonable. Yet it is at the same time unsatisfying to most voters with strong opinions about either the American destiny to pacify and democratize the globe—in which you use as many troops as it takes—or those who realize that sometimes a large scale military response to even a few murders of American citizens is unwise and unnecessary.

The problem Paul could face with claiming a unique, nuanced space and thus potentially losing all sides applies beyond foreign policy. For example, his bold declaration that the current GOP brand "sucks" may help in outreach to independents. At the same time, it's going to be a tough soundbite to evade when his primary opponents' SuperPACS throw it out in ads to rile up a GOP base who might already have reason to see Paul as culturally not one of them—isn't that the guy who met with Al Sharpton? And wants to legalize drugs? And wants to hobble our brave intelligence agencies keeping us safe from omnipresent Islamic terror?

When it comes to his desire to be the Republican who reclaims Silicon Valley from the Democrats, Paul has annoyed some people who loved him for his loud anti-surveillance stance when he voted against allowing the USA FREEDOM Act to proceed in the Senate. That bill was perceived by most as at the very least a needed first step in reining in NSA surveillance power. Paul thought it didn't go far enough, and besides included a reauthorization of some Patriot Act provisions he could not in good conscience vote for.

Paul's move on USA FREEDOM could be seen as an ideologue letting the best be the enemy of the good and thus becoming merely obstructionist, or even indicating that he's insincere about actually waging a real political fight over change in NSA practices. His fans, and doubtless Paul himself, see it as a proving that when it comes to truly vital matters like the Fourth Amendment, he's not going to just vote for what he sees as fig leaves over a huge problem, even if it might score him political points for seeming to have "done something."

Similarly, when it comes to war on ISIS, it's nice that Paul has been bold on congressional prerogatives and condemned Obama's war as illegal. That sort of talk seems alarmingly peacenik to those who believe an Imperial President is all that keeps us from a dozen 9/11s. But he's also proposed a congressional authorization for war on ISIS that leaves non-interventionists worried that his standards for boots on the ground are alarmingly thin. It's one thing to be strong on constitutional process for war-waging, but perhaps more important to be strong on content.

It seems impossible to believe that a Paul who wins the Republican nomination wouldn't alienate a fair number of otherwise reliable Republicans who would either stay at home (most likely) or even go for a sufficiently hawkish Hillary Clinton come November. Which means that the anti-surveillance, anti-police state, anti-drug war, possibly anti-intervention Paul will have to shave off votes from a left-of-center base assumed to generally go Democrat. This might be possible for some. But cultural divides related to Paul's stances on spending, taxes on the rich, welfare, global warming and abortion will likely make it hard for many people who agree with him on those earlier antis to actually pull the lever for a Republican.

Republicans and Democrats will both be vexed in different degrees for different reasons by the unusual spectacle of a Paul close to the presidency. But what of the serious libertarian's stance toward Paul? Why, he or she should do whatever they want about Rand Paul. That's what freedom's all about, man.

But libertarians might want to consider getting over the team superego annoyances of seeing a guy who you either want to identify with—he's so good on so much!—or who others identify you with—isn't Rand Paul the "libertarian Republican?"—disappoint you for not being you. If libertarians just contemplate what he might accomplish, either actually in office or in normalizing his general attitude toward governance in his party, it might be easier to shout "Rah Rah Rand!"

Might a nominated Paul get drubbed so severely in November 2016 for being so outré on government size and scope that a Goldwater dilemma arises—the sudden and severe repudiation of his approach by the Party next time around? Maybe. Then let them go back to the likes of a Romney or God forbid a Santorum and see where it gets them. The game of political and social change is a long one. Even a defeated Rand Paul will, by his very running, shape the ideology and politics of the next generation in big and very likely positive ways.

But better for the libertarian that Rand Paul fail, if fail he must, by going big and bold in the areas where he's distinct from all his rivals, Republican and Democrat.

NEXT: Pedophile Panic at the Salvation Army: No Teen Boys Allowed, Too Dangerous

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. Umm, I thought he couldn’t both run for President and for re-election to the Senate. Or is it he has to give up the Senate run if he wins the GOP nomination?

    1. His state won’t print his name on the ballot in both columns/rows.

    2. Basically – he can run for senate in his home state and for president in the other states.

      1. So if he wins the nomination, he has to either cede a Red state to the D nominee, or give up his Senate seat?

        1. Or Kentucky Republicans will be smart enough to vote for some other Electors pledged to a dummy candidate.

      2. So he runs for president starting -8 in the electoral college?

        1. I never said any of this was a *good idea* only that its one way of running for both offices simultaneously.

          And I wonder, if he were to win both, is there anything that would prevent him from taking both offices?

          Well other than ethics, I mean.

          1. I never said any of this was a *good idea*

            Fair enough. CE seems to have it figured out.

          2. Article I Section 6?:

            No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

            1. Senators are not appointed. They are elected to office since the 17th Amendment was passed. Prior to the 17th Amendment they were appointed by their individual state legislatures instead of by popular vote.

              As to the part in bold – all that says is you can’t occupy two offices at the same time and prevents an executive appointee from serving in Congress or a Congressman serving in the Executive branch. Thus if a person is elected President they must relinquish their position in congress representing their state

              Here is the wikipedia entry of the Emoluments Clause (a.k.a Ineligibility Clause)


  2. My guess is that Rand Paul will not run for President.

    He is likely to lose, and if he wins will struggle with a civil service determined to gut his efforts to restrain them.

    If he were allowed to simultaneously run for both positions by the rules in Kentucky, if might be worth the risk, but he would essentially have to surrender his Senate seat to even take a shot at the presidency.

    If he stays in the Senate, he can continue to try to build a political coalition that would sustain a successful candidacy by either himself or another like minded individual.

    1. …if he wins will struggle with a civil service determined to gut his efforts to restrain them.

      But that will be the fun part!

      1. Until he meets Humphrey

  3. I kinda think we’d all be better off if he was a Senator in perpetuity, like Teddy Kennedy. I’d rather have him being a moderately powerful voice for 40 more years than a very powerful voice for 8 (or 4).

    1. While I understand that appeal in a long senate tenure, I’ll say this for the executive position: it has the possibility to be wholly transformational and reshape the political culture for a generation.

      1. Spot on.

    2. I’m going to have to disagree with you on that. Think about it: if he’s president for 4-8 years, he’ll be in a much better position to forever changed the tone of the Republican party. Republicans will finally be a party that younger voters can relate to. College Republican clubs may actually have more than 5 active members!

      Also, personally, I wouldn’t in good consciousness be able to vote for either Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton. If Rand either doesn’t run or doesn’t win, I’ll have to vote big L. Not that that’s a bad thing, but there’s still no way a big L will ever win, so we’ll end up with another shitty president regardless.

  4. I’m reminded of Yes, Minister, where the quickest way to stop any reform was to refer to it as courageous.

  5. Too bad Mr. “Tea Party Goes to Washington” has allied with the very anti-TP Chamber of Commerce, and they are bragging about how he has helped them defeat the insurgent movement.


    Rand’s reward for selling out to the establishment? He has gone from frontrunner status to fifth place in the most recent primary polls.

    1. Right. Rand Paul, the voice of the Establishment and Country Club Republicans everywhere.

      1. *snort*

    2. Whew! That linked article is so off target its not even a good propaganda piece. But, thanks for the laugh!

  6. Congratulations! Our debt just hit 18 Trillion dollars, 70% of which occurred under Obama. Of course, this is just the fiscal operating debt, the unfunded liabilities are well over 100 Trillion.

    1. Libertarian moment!

  7. The Democrats and Republicans had done such a good job of destroying his father and most voters are too stupid to even know they are two different people that I doubt he can ever be President.

  8. I’d prefer a candidate who has run something larger than a Senate office, but he’s obviously preferable to Clinton or Warren or any other Democrat I can think of.

    1. Perhaps someone who’s been a community organizer and a Jr Senator would be more to your liking?

    2. How about an eye doctor’s office?

      1. That’s probably smaller than a Senator’s office.

        1. But more beneficial to society.

        2. But Rand has both!

  9. What are the chances a terror attack kills it for non-interventionists for 2016?

    1. There is probably a SEAL team out there right now making sure that happens.

      1. Not until the FBI recruits the patsies, they don’t.

  10. What would be the best guess for the highest possible vote for a candidate Rand and the lowest in the popular vote?

    Highest 50.1%? Lowest 35%?

    Would there be any dark comic justice if the difference between Clinton and Rand was less than the vote total for the Libertarian candidate?

    1. If Rand wins the nomination, he will only need about 43 percent to win the general election, since the neocons will nominate Giuliani, Bloomberg or some other fascist as an independent candidate.

    2. “If Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination, I’d expect a big fight within the [party] over whether or not we should run our own candidate. It wouldn’t just be a discussion.” -Libertarian National Committee Executive Director Wes Benedict


  11. He’s doing well in the polls so far. In RealClearPolitics’ combined polls Paul is tied for second among prospective Republican candidates,

    I dont know how many polls are considered in the RCP average but worringly in the very latest polls the Senator has fallen well back into the pack.

    And this during a year where he has had good press.

  12. I can’t figure out if Drudge has jumped on the Bush wagon, the Perry wagon, the Christie wagon, or if he’s back on the Romney wagon again this year.

    Rand is the only GOP candidate that can win. If not Rand, prepare for 8 more years of Hiltlary or worse, and I think you know what I mean by worse. And Hillary will be even worse than Obama and probably get us all killed in a nuclear war before her 8 years are even up.

    1. I don’t think that Hillary can beat Joe Biden in the Dem Primaries.

  13. …the struggle to escape his father Ron Paul’s allegedly baleful (electorally) shadow.

    Ron Paul’s electoral shadow was so baleful he was 11-4 in federal elections and once raised 6 million dollars in 24 hours.

    1. Think how much it would have been if he just hadn’t written those racist newsletters!


    2. My favorite media coverage of Ron Paul in 2012 was the SNL skit where the GOP Debate had him in the parking garage. When the moderater tried to ask him a question, a van drove up, and two guys pulled him in. There was the sound of two shots, and then Ron Paul climbs back out and brushes himself off. Pure Awesome.

      1. I remember seeing that. That was awesome. I have Ron Paul to thank for becoming a libertarian.

  14. And this is why we roll with the punches dude.


  15. The GOP bigshits will never support Rand Paul. They want Jeb or Christie. Money matters far more than the Tea Party.

  16. What is up with the curious prominence of ophthalmologists in geopolitics lately?: To wit: Rand Paul, Assad Jr., and Abdullah Abdullah in Afghanistan.

    Coincidence? Or should I worry that my eye doctor is going into politics?

  17. Can Reason please stop shilling for this guy, and talk about an actual, for-realz, Libertarian Presidential Candidate?

        1. Bob Barr maybe?

    1. Because while he is far from a libertarian, he is the closest thing with a realistic chance of winning anything we have seen since at least Goldwater.

  18. The only realistic strategy for effectively ending the NSA and the country’s surveillance state is to end the international threats to our national security and, thus, the justifications for these appariti. The countries that have directly attacked and/or supported attacks on this country’s military and citizens are Iran and Saudi Arabia. What are we counting on to end the threats from these countries. They have indicated by word and deed that they hate us and want to destroy us. Ending these threats is the stance Rand SHOULD take in his effort to reinstitute the 4th Amendment, but obviously won’t. It is also the stance libertarians should embrace, but obviously won’t.

    1. A War to End All Wars, right?

      1. You are correct. The US should never have entered WWI. You go to war to end threats to your nation, not to end stupid quests.

    2. I bet you have that all figured out, right? So entertain us, I’m bored.

      1. So what would have been the libertarian solution when Pearl Harbor was attacked? Ignore the threat? Hope the Japanese lose interest? Negotiate? Appease for the next 35 years?

        America has clear enemies. Ignoring them will not make them go away.

        1. Oh yeah, I forgot about the similarities of the Pearl Harbor attack and the war on terror.

          You know, I just now remembered how we created and armed the Japanese to fight the commies, and then kept arming the ‘moderate’ Japanese to fight the ‘extremist’ Japanese after they turned on us, and how that didn’t work out but we kept doing it because we needed another regime change or a Japanese Spring or something like that.

          1. There are many similarities between the hatred of the Japanese and fundamentalist Islamist toward America and Western culture.

            The analogy is apt.

            Libertarians can ignore 911 and the attacks leading up to it and after it, but the people who perpetrated these attacks still are in power, still want to destroy this country and are building the capability to do it. Do you think Iran’s motivation for obtaining nuclear are for peaceful purposes?

            I like Rand Paul, but his weak foreign policy positions will likely become an albatross for him and makes him extremely vulnerable as a candidate just as it did for his father.

            1. Yeah, I know, forever war. We can get rid of the patriot act, government spying on us, militarized police, and an overall disintegration of our civil rights as soon as we kill all the terrorists, if the sun doesn’t implode first in about 3 billion years or so.

              The government has this same plan that you do, so you should be happy.

              1. The government has no plan to get rid of the country’s threats. Bush and now Obama want a permanent war. It helps build the power of the state.

                Getting rid of these threats would end any justification for the surveillance and much of the militarization the country. I want to see the end of these threats and normalization as a way to effectively reverse statism. Don’t you? Do you doubt that our military can’t do this? Of course they can. They could end both of these regimes fairly quickly.

                1. Exactly, just like we ended Saddam Hussein’s regime and now everything’s peachy in Iraq. You sir, are a giant among men.

                  1. The US should NOT have fought the Iraq War. That war was an abomination. They did not attack the US.

                    Iran essentially declared war on the US in 1979. Nothing this country has done since then has ended the threat they pose. They are still our enemy, and will pose a grave threat to the country if they obtain nuclear capability.

            2. Iran bombed ISIS today. Yes, we need to keep an eye on Iran, but they are not intimately involved in terrorist attacks against the United States.

              They did (very likely) attack U.S. troops in Iraq, and they support Hezbollah and Hamas, but neither have attacked the U.S. homeland.

              1. The fact that they are off shoots of organizations that Allied with a certain AH in WW2 means nothing.

              2. They directly supported the attack on the Marines in Beirut. They directly supported deadly attacks on several US embassies. Like you mentioned they directly killed Americans in Iraq. They are in a keeping of the Jones’ rivalry with the Saudis in supporting terrorist attacks in all western countries. They hate Western freedoms and the influence of the west in their countries. They have repeated expressed a desire to destroy us. I do not think their intentions should be doubted. Once they can manage an attack against the US they have indicated they will attack us. How much provocation is needed for the country to defend itself? NYC or DC destroyed by a dirty bomb or some similar horrific attack? Americans have accepted a permanent militarized state and the abolishment of the 4th Amendment because of these threats. They should not, rather, they should demand an end to the threats.

                1. They directly supported the attack on the Marines in Beirut. They directly supported deadly attacks on several US embassies.

                  Who is they specifically? Are they still in ruling positions in Iran? Countries don’t make decisions. People make decisions and carry out actions.

                  1. Iran.

                    http://goo.gl/9JSej4 (Wikipedia 1983 Beirut Bombing)

                    And yes, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was President of Iran at the time, is now the Supreme Leader of Iran. Iran is an Islamic religious state. Nothing is done without the religious leadership approval. In fact, you can’t even be elected or run for office in the government if you are not sanctioned by the religious ruling party.

        2. Your analogy is fatally flawed. There is no similarity between being attacked by a sovereign nation and a group of religious zealots.

          Libertarians recognize the need for national defense (emphasis on “defense”).

          1. And we have to let the zealots alone until they declare themselves a nation.

          2. Iran has supported multiple threats since essentially declaring war on the Great Satan, supporting the take over of the embassy in 1979. The assholes state their intention to destroy us fairly regularly. I believe the intend to do this. The Saudis financially supported 911, continue to support terrorist attacks on the west and have not suffered any consequences. They should be taken out.

          3. @Soy – You’re just not knowledgeable about history or about the current state of affairs. Iran is a sovereign nation controlled exclusively and rules exclusively by religious zealots. Supporters of Hezbollah, committed Beirut Bombing in 1983 against the US and is a confirmed exporter of terrorism.

            John Galt, meet Sun Tzu

            “It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”

            John Galt climb out of a book and an ideology into reality to know your enemy. Do you know what is the ideology of Islam? Do you know who the US fought the first war with after achieving independence? Do some reality reading. 1st Barbary War 1801 and notice that wasn’t the last and it has continued upto and including today with ISIS. The actors change but their ideology and overall centuries old goal does not.

  19. Pity about the all the laissez-faire economic nonsense, he could be a good liberal candidate without that billionaire-pleasuring horsecrap.

    1. Yay, Tony!

    2. Yeah, unlike Saint Hillary and Saint Warren who have taken vows of poverty and will never accept a dime in campaign money from any evil rich people.

      1. You should know what a champion I am of the lesser of two evils.

        1. “lesser” is correct.

    3. Yeah, because most billionaires favor laissez-faire economics. It’s definitely not the subsidies, bailouts and artificially low interest rates that they support which are contrary to laisses-faire economics.

  20. Rand Paul claims to be a libertarian, but he supports religious-based, non-scientific restrictions on abortion. Why is Gary Johnson (a real libertarian), not getting the same level of coverage as Mr. Theocracy?

    If we are going to lose anyway, we might as well vote for the real thing.

    1. Are all abortion restrictions non-scientific? And favoring abortion restrictions is not the same as supporting a theocracy. Oh, and Gary Johnson actually opposes late term abortions and wants to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

    2. Never let values get in the way of facts.

  21. Rand is awesome! A run-of-the-mill republican with a rug on his head, masquerading as a libertarian, crowing about how America needs new wars against whoever Israel’s enemy is today. What’s not to like?

    1. What’s not to like?


  22. I read New Jersey Gov. as New Jersey Cow.

  23. They verified that Jackie did get very upset when Erdely wanted to find out more about the alleged assailants

    Has anyone here watched the documentary movie named ‘The woman who wasn’t there’? If so, remember her reaction when the NYTs tried to interview her?

    1. Shit! Wrong article, never mind.

  24. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.