Rand Paul

Rand Paul Shocker: He Criticizes the Politicians He Disagrees With!

What crazy strategy will the candidate come up with next?

|

Running for office, apparently.
CPAC

Have you read about the latest Rand Paul scandal? In a shocking move that is baffling pundits, the Kentucky senator is differentiating himself from the other candidates. This is apparently unheard-of. The Wall Street Journal editorialized today that "Republicans who begin their campaigns assailing other Republicans rarely succeed," which if nothing else is a novel theory about how presidential primaries work. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote this week that Paul "is clearly separating himself from the rest of the GOP," an observation that ran not under the headline "Candidate gives disgruntled Republicans reasons to vote for him" but "The decline of Rand Paul."

Here's a different theory: By going back on the offensive on foreign policy and civil liberties—most notably, by pointing out the Bush Republicans' role in creating a space for ISIS to flourish—Paul is highlighting his views on issues that divide his party, giving sympathetic voters a reason to support him. Crazy, I know.

Will this get him the nomination? I wouldn't bet on it, but I doubt even more strongly that he could win by remaking himself as a clone of the other candidates. Remember, a substantial number of GOP voters are fed up with the Bush Republicans' foreign policy. With the very limited exception of Ted Cruz, Paul is pretty much the only candidate trying to speak for them in any way stronger than grudgingly admitting that the Iraq war didn't go well. And while Republican hawks may be more numerous than Republican doves, they also have around 200 candidates splitting their vote.

Rand Paul's father wouldn't have gotten as far as he did if he hadn't taken a stand in South Carolina that turned every other candidate on stage against him. The younger Paul is framing his critique of U.S. foreign policy much more cautiously than his dad did, and he's doing it at a time when the average Republican voter is more open to such ideas than he was in 2007. A campaign with such themes may or may not win Paul the nomination. But at least it gives him a reason to be running in the first place.

NEXT: Glenn Garvin Reviews NBC's New Sixties Show Aquarius

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. Well, his observations about how our intervention in the Mideast haven’t exactly been successful has certainly kicked the hornet’s nest.

    It will be interesting to see if (a) he sticks with it and (b) how the voters react.

    Probably a high-risk/high-reward (if it works) strategy.

    Next step: demand that those who want to stay stuck into the Mideast specify exactly what forces they would deploy, where, why, and what would count as a victory to bring them home.

    1. specify exactly what forces they would deploy, where, why, and what would count as a victory

      “Let me be perfectly clear. I would deploy the forces my commanders on the ground deemed necessary to get the job done, and we would leave as soon as the mission was accomplished. Yes, you in the back ….”

    2. Primary voters will not react well. In a general election, he’d shred Hildebeest, but he won’t get that far.

      1. Primary voters will be fine with Rand’s foreign policy pitch. They are batshit insane on immigration. That’s where the troubles are.

        1. The troubles are everywhere. Insufficient war boner. Insufficient hatred of Brown Hordes. Insufficient assertion of Total Government Authority.

          He’s not even toast, he’s stale bread. Too bad, he’d win a general election and be a pretty decent president.

          1. So you’re saying that if someone in the Republican Party doesn’t want open borders, it is because they hate, actually no bullshit hate those Indians mixed with Spaniards from central America?

            1. Yes. Just like he’s saying that if someone in the Republican Party wants to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran it’s because it literally gives them an erect penis.

              1. I oppose open borders. Before you start, I’m not a Republican, I’m not even registered to vote.

                I fully understand that immigrants help the economy.

                I have no ill will toward them because I know the majority of them are just normal people like me and just want to have a normal life and live in peace.

                My opposition to open borders and hordes of immigrants stems from extremely selfish desires. These same selfish desires also make me disagree with people having a fuck ton of kids.

                Not that I want to use the gov’t to stop people from having kids, I’m just saying my opinion towards each is the same.

                No directed hate towards a nationality or ethnic group.

                1. My opposition has to do with enforcing the fucking laws we have. If you don’t like them, change them! Ignoring them just trashes respect for law in general.

            2. That is the left’s theory. An divergence from their PoV is motivated by hate, greed, evil, or some other deadly sin.

              1. It is also the common thought around here as well. Any disagreement means hatred (a strong word that is flippantly used by everyone).

                1. You’re wrong, and i hate you.

                  1. But you didn’t start your sentence with “No, ” thereby attempting to invalidate any preceding statement, so -1 worthless opinion.

            3. I’m content to trade with anyone from afar. I’m not keen on living with anyone and everyone. I’m a terrible person I know.

            4. I believe he’s saying that, whatever Paul’s position is, it’s not what Republican primary voters are looking for. You doth protest too much.

      2. He has to somehow make every single younger voter who remotely likes him turn out in droves. That’s pretty much impossible for a primary. But stranger things have happened. If he had the momentum he had in summer 2014, it would be much more likely. But the media is kinda over him now.

        I agree with Jesse that being the one candidate who isn’t splitting the vote with anybody is a big advantage, but that’s just an early campaign advantage. Once the field breaks down to 3 or 4 candidates in February, then it goes away.

        Let’s just hope he hires the second coming of Lee Atwater as brilliant tactician to run the campaign for him and beat down the Graham’s and McCain’s of the party.

  2. ran not under the headline “Candidate gives disgruntled Republicans reasons to vote for him” but “The decline of Rand Paul.”

    Of course it did – they are scared shitless of him.

    1. I thought he did a great job on the Daily Show the other night. Stewart kept trying to get him to say something stupid but apparently he chose his words well, such that despite the many awkward cuts, he still managed to look pretty good.

      1. He has gotten a lot better for sure. JS is a good protagonist too.

        1. Turd, Stewart is as slimy as you are, and that’s a very low bar to slide under.

          1. The slime helps. Makes the bar slippery.

          2. Wait, John Stewart is a Tulpa sock too?

            1. Tulpa is the evil genius of the internets.

              At least that is what Episiarch thinks.

              1. Tulpa is the evil genius of the internets a paid OFA hacktivist

                FIFY NTN

          3. He’s not wrong about Stewart, though. He has an audience of trained seals to back him up, which can be tough to deal with if you’re not Christopher Hitchens. Plus Stewart plays the earnest newsman until his guest starts getting the better of the argument, then switches to funnyman to throw off the guest in an attempt to get the debate back to his favor.

            1. “[…]Plus Stewart plays the earnest newsman until his guest starts getting the better of the argument, then switches to funnyman to throw off the guest in an attempt to get the debate back to his favor.”

              Exactly. Caught BSing and it’s all a joke, right? Turd’s preferred method of ‘argument’.

            2. Which is horribly effective. When you’re that slimy, the shit won’t stick.

        2. I think Jon pulled his punches because he slightly likes him. He almost never bashed Ron, and his harshest Rand piece was a “I say this because I care” segment more than a “let’s ruin him in the eyes of millennials” piece that liberal sites have been praying he’d do so they can put up the video with “STEWART EVISCERATES THEN ASS RAPES RAND IN FRONT OF HIS FAMILY” headline the next morning.

      2. Paul flubbed the last question/point. Stewart tried to make it sound like religious business owners wouldn’t serve gay people because they were sinners. “But they serve all kinds of other sinners! Isn’t it so so disingenuous?” Paul dodged it. The answer was easy. First, it’s not the customer’s sin that’s the problem for them. It’s that the customer is asking them to participate in it and facilitate it. Second, it doesn’t matter how “disingenuous” the business owner is. They can deny service for any damned reason they please. It shouldn’t make a difference with respect to the law, which is what Paul had been going on about for a few minutes beforehand.

        1. Wasn’t this the exact point he made (being against Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act) that caused him to flee from MSNBC never to return?

          Stewart was asking a question that didn’t necessarily require boobish libertarian philosophizing. He could say yeah, the owners are being dicks. If it were black customers nobody would be defending them.

          1. If it were black customers celebrating the birthday of Elijah Muhammad and the assassination of Malcolm X, people would be defending a baker who refused to cater the event.

          2. In the eyes of the law, it shouldn’t matter who defends what. If they refused to serve black people they shouldn’t have their business shut down because of it. Let the market do that on its own. And if it doesn’t, so what?

            1. Nowadays, not even the honkies would patronize a known racist establishment – except for a handful of self-employed or unemployed people with nothing to lose.

              So, yes, the racist establishment would shut down without legal help.

              1. No, no you don’t understand! American society is still so racist that if one establishment failed to arrive blacks and got away with it, the others would all follow suit until blacks couldn’t get service anywhere from anyone!!

                /Tony

                1. Are you not paying attention? Because gay equality is in the news, bigoted religious business owners are making a point to discriminate, and the political right is treating the alleged oppression of Christians as the biggest thing going. There is a major political movement fighting for the right to discriminate, meaning the problem actually does exist.

                  Antidiscrimination law has proved its value in a country with a troubled past to say the least, and will only be unnecessary when it doesn’t matter whether it exists.

                  1. You kinda sound like a teenage girl who only dates guys daddy dissaproves of.

                    Ooh, the gay marriage is in the news, and the Christians are pushing back, so we have to push back (ie, *escalate* rather than de-escalate – something you hate when the cops do it) instead of ignoring them and watching it all fade away once people realize that gay marriage isn’t the end of the world and they all go back to trying to make money instead of political points.

                    1. I know that a class of historically discriminated-against people not having basic human rights and equality is just a minor issue to people not in that class, but this is America and the Christian right is still powerful, and still incredibly protective of that power (that’s what the over-the-top whining is about). I simply don’t wish to cede the issue to them. If sexual orientation is not protected in exactly the same way that race, disability status, and even religion is, then gays are still second-class citizens. It’s a principle thing. I thought we were about that here.

                  2. People like you will never admit that a problem doesn’t exist anymore. If you don’t have identity and victim politics, then you have nothing and will cease to exist.

                    1. “Identity politics” being code for “the problems of nonwhite, nonmale, nonheterosexuals”?

                    2. Identity politics being:

                      Thinking that the three most insignificant features of a person somehow defines them.

                      I list in order of insignificance: skin color, sexual preference, gender.

                      If any of those three things define who you are as a person, then you’re a fucking sad individual.

                      None of those things affect how your brain works nor are they any sort of determining factor in how you should perceive the world and interact with it.

                    3. They are significant only to the degree that those characteristics affect how others treat you. White heterosexual males, never being affected negatively because of these characteristics, understandably may have a hard time empathizing, and may even grow tired of minorities and their “identity politics.” They may even be so self-absorbed as to think that the real problem is those minorities and how terribly their whining upsets the flow of their day.

                      You are right that these are all in principle social constructs, but they were constructed by the oppressors. And the oppressors don’t get to tell the oppressed when they have it good enough.

                    4. I disagree. People in general have a fixation on negative things. If someone says something bad to you, you will focus in on it and ignore the hundreds that have been kind. Thus victim complexes arise.

                      They are not social constructs, they are natural constructs. Your skin is black not because of society. You are attracted to the same sex because your genetic code was written that way. Your gender is because you either have a Y or X chromosome and thanks to modern medicine you can change it.

                      Grouping together as a block will never solve anything. You must treat everything and everyone as an individual case/person. There is no justice to be found in blanket policies/laws.

                      My preferred policy is one that gives everyone the right to stand and fall on their own two feet. Pandering to this group or that will get us no where and will breed contempt.

                    5. Also, can you prove that no white, male, heterosexual person has not been treated like garbage because of those characteristics?

                      Can you prove that someone being shitty to a gay person is because they hate gay people?

                      Can you prove that if someone is being an ass to a black person that the black person didn’t deserve it?

                      Perhaps you are seeing normal human interaction and seeing what you want to see?

                    6. White heterosexual males, never being affected negatively because of these characteristics

                      White heterosexual males for all their supposed evils, are the only group whose dominance in every society that they do dominate, features unmatched tolerance and prosperity for minority groups. If your generalizations were true, the opposite would be the case.

                    7. “White heterosexual males for all their supposed evils, are the only group whose dominance in every society that they do dominate, features unmatched tolerance and prosperity for minority groups. If your generalizations were true, the opposite would be the case.”

                      Please explain the reason for feminism in North America and the persecution of LGBT individuals in Putin’s Russia.

                      Please understand, I am in no way supporting either side in this argument, but are you really sure of your statement?

                    8. White heterosexual males, never being affected negatively because of these characteristics, understandably may have a hard time empathizing…

                      Right. No straight white guy is ever discriminated against. Never. No matter where he’s at, or who he is around.

                    9. Reginald Denny disagrees.

                  3. Why are you not paying attention. Equality before the gov’t doesn’t mean equality with other people.

                    If someone disagrees with something then they shouldn’t be forced to do it.

                    This means a business owner can deny service for any reason what so ever.

                    You’re just lazy as fuck and want daddy soon to be mommy gov’t to do everything for you.

                    1. This means a business owner can deny service for any reason what so ever.

                      A valid opinion, but it’s simply not true in this country, and my equally valid opinion is that this is a good thing.

                    2. And in the spirit of the great and almighty, infallible democracy would you concede your argument and accept it if anti-discrimination laws were repealed?

                    3. If someplace has developed an infallible democracy, let me know where it is.

                    4. There’s no such thing and you didn’t answer my question.

                  4. There is a major political movement fighting for the right to discriminate, meaning the problem actually does exist.

                    If discrimination is a problem, it’s still not a problem that should be solved using force.

                    1. Discrimination is force. From a certain point of view.

                  5. You’re talking about Germany, aren’t you?

                    The country that imprisoned a 74 year old woman for the terrible crime of having a sign with an unacceptable phrase on it? For disclosing her offensive (but ultimately harmless) views?

                    Germany also had hate-speech laws in the 1930s, they were used to squash political dissent as well. Just of a different kind.

                    1. This was for Tony’s alleged value of hate-speech laws in Germany:

                      “Antidiscrimination law has proved its value in a country with a troubled past to say the least, and will only be unnecessary when it doesn’t matter whether it exists.”

                  6. There’s a fine line between discrimination and freedom of association, but there is a line…

          3. To flee from MSNBC never to return? He was on MSNBC yesterday. Keep up with your talking points.

  3. by pointing out the Bush Republicans’ role in creating a space for ISIS to flourish

    The TEAM RED! faithful blame Obama for ISIS Jesse. Because Bush nation-built a flourishing democracy where Iraq had been you know.

    1. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

      Where have I heard this before?

    2. Is Instapundit TEAM RED faithful? Because he and EFP have really gone off the rails the last few weeks talking about how wonderful Iraq was up until 2011.

      1. Instapundit’s commenters are pretty solidly TEAM RED and Reynolds himself has always been very pre-Iraq war.

      2. EFP is trashing Paul over ISIS.

    3. Team Blue turned Team Red’s clusterfuck into a royal catastrophic assfuck. Both are wrong, just like you.

  4. Like HP buying Compaq and DEC, they lost their soul and what differentiated them from all the other tech companies. Rand Paul is at least different; the other zillion Republican contenders are so similar that no one really cares.

    And the remarks that he is attacking the others seem to ignore that the others are attacking him far more than the reverse (I haven’t read any of the linked articles).

    If he’s got them this scared, good on him. I take it as an encouraging sign that they are afraid and losing ground in whatever polls they have.

    1. You’ll know that Rand Paul has been successful when Dick Cheney calls him the worst POTUS in history.

      1. I guess that make you … not … a success then.

    2. HP got its soul back. Lots of crazy new innovation from 3d printing to The Machine.

  5. I watched him on Jon Stewart and at the end, Stewart muddled up the debate about religious types being forced to serve people they don’t want to serve. I thought that the response would be easy for Paul as long as he disentangled the goofy argument Stewart made, but it wasn’t and Paul totally dodged the point. Swing and a miss by Paul.

    1. I thought he did alright. Jon Stewart interviews are purposefully designed to be obtuse and Paul’s goal was clearly to build common ground on the NSA issue, not get into Kulturkampf bullshit. I think the most important thing was that he remained personable and friendly during the exchange.

    2. Keep in mind that TDS is infamous for editing interviews to try to make any non prog look like a drooling retard. They also don’t allow the guests to film the interviews separately or have an original unedited copy. Why any serious person would subject himself to that is beyond me.

      1. This was an in-studio interview. They did obviously edit it for time, but the last point was not edited. Paul just punted on it. He did very well during the rest of the interview, but the finish was weak.

        1. This. Stupid people do pre-taped interviews. Smart ones do “live”, in-studio interviews. It’s a smart move to appear on TDS for any politician, because the drooling masses that get their news from Jon Stewart are legion.

          1. The drooling masses still watching TDS will show up to vote for Clinton or not at all. TDS and its spiritual successor may whiff it carrying water for Clinton and fail to render her electable, but there’s not a chance the weekly Daily Show audience is voting Republican on a whim.

    3. Does it seem like the point behind forcing people to serve others they don’t want to for religious reasons is a way of weeding them from the business community so that the business class is predominantly secular?

    4. Rand went in there with the strategy boxers had when fighting Mike Tyson in the 80s “just don’t get humiliated so bad it’s on the highlight reel of knockouts.” He didn’t want those liberal site headliners talking about STEWART DESTROYS PAUL, FIREBOMBS HIS HOME, DIGS UP HIS GRANDMOTHER’S CORPSE AND PISSES ON IT, THEN FILES FOR CUSTODY OF HIS CHILDREN!” posts the next morning. And they had to really reach to get that kind of headline, so it was a win. Liberals want Stewart to ruin him in millennial’s eyes so badly, but he didn’t give it to them.

  6. This is absolutely the best strategy he can run on since it plays on all his strengths while baiting the rest of the field on their weaknesses, namely the ridiculous bluster they foam at the mouth with on foreign policy and national security.

    I think it’ll make Paul look like the only adult in the room if everyone else is going to scream about strength and leadership with zero specifics on what that means. Ultimately it just boils down to how many Republican voters have learned from the mistakes of Bush and the neocons. I’m not very optimistic on that point but I think Paul will compete much better than his dad ever did.

    1. I’m listening to candidates with an open mind. Paul baiting them into relieving themselves as big-government neo-cons. Christie, Bush, and Graham were easy. I was surprised Jindal disqualified himself this quickly.

      1. They relieve themselves on the heads of voters.

        1. My spell-checker just relieved itself on me.

    2. Ultimately it just boils down to how many Republican voters have learned from the mistakes of Bush and the neocons.

      Zero.

      1. Don’t be stupid that’s not true.

        1. Compelling argument from the War Boner Canuck.

          1. No, on this one he’s right.

            Peruse some of the conservative websites on these issues. You see a hell of a lot of conservatives challenging the hyper-interventionist line compared to even five years ago.

            1. Not at NRO or Weekly Standard, perhaps the two biggest/most influential.

              1. Can’t say I ever read the Weakly Standerp. But, the comments I see on NRO do have a number of people supporting Paul. Even if you go to somewhere like PJMedia, you find a number of people agreeing with Paul.

              2. the NRO commenters are on his side when it comes to the NSA for sure, and I am pretty sure they would be on his side when it comes to most of what he says about the middle east. It is pretty surprising.

              3. They’re not straight line conservative, they’re Neo-Con.

                Look at something like Red State.

                They don’t really support Paul, but they’re all over some of the same issues.

              4. But his strategy is to be the Antichrist to these people so he’s the rebel. He’s never ever going to get their vote, so look cool being their antagonist to make the voters who don’t drink that Kool Aid to vote, donate and campaign for him. Wouldn’t be a bad idea if he provoked Fox News to turn their entire fury on him. Looks like they are starting to with that Megyn Kelly interview.

      2. I think it’s a lot more than one would expect, just not enough to win a primary. Stupid Party is going to stupid.

        1. Rand will lose over immigration before foreign policy.

          1. I think he’ll lose over religion before even immigration.

            Most of the others are puffing up their christian fundamentalist credentials.

            1. Huckleburgeris doubling down on it.

            2. He had the great moment trolling Wasserman Schultz on abortion to throw red meat at them, though.

      3. My dad 4 years ago:
        We’ve got to stabilize the ME and bring it democracy.

        My dad 4 weeks ago:
        The ME is like a rattlesnake pit. The only thing you can do with a snake pit is stay out of it, or kill every single snake.

    3. Ultimately it just boils down to how many Republican voters have learned from the mistakes of Bush and the neocons.

      So, you’re saying there’s no way Rand Paul can win then.

      Because, after all, who are they going to vote for – a Democrat?

      1. So, you’re saying there’s no way Rand Paul can win then.

        Where does this come from? The GOP base has nowhere near the same appetite for foreign intervention than it did 10 years ago.

        1. I disagree with that. the GOP has no appetite for *Democratic* foreign interventions (as the Democrats have no appetite for Republican interventions) but the GOP base does tend to believe that out military are saints and that’s sufficient to cover for a multitude of administration sins.

          Add in that they tend to believe it when the government says some group on the other side of the world needs to be blown up.

          And finally – none of the other Republican candidates believe the GOP base sated their bloodlust as they’re running as pro-‘intervention’ hawks.

          1. but the GOP base does tend to believe that out military are saints and that’s sufficient to cover for a multitude of administration sins.

            The consistent refrain is MORE IRAQ!

        2. True, but they also have a knee jerk reaction against anybody blaming Dubyah for anything. It’s like bashing a family member but getting offended when someone outside of the family says something bad about them.

    4. This is absolutely the best strategy he can run on since it plays on all his strengths while baiting the rest of the field on their weaknesses

      And they don’t have a leg to stand on. The establishment is trying to double-down of completely failed policies. $4T, 14 years of war, hundreds of thousands dead, 4500 MORE Americans dead, civil liberties shat upon and we are in a worse position than where we started.

      If we just hang in there for another 14 years and spend $8T, we’ll have them…

      This is a winner for Paul. And the funny part is…he can use the same arguments against the Democrats.

      1. How do you figure? The left gives Hillary a pass on Iraq just like they do her inexistent legacy at the State Department or in Congress. About the best possible outcome is what I heard called the “ick” factor inspired by her snail trail of incompetence and corruption, which may cling to her candidacy enough to dissuade voters from showing up at all.

        1. Meaning he can attack the left for supporting the same failed policies the right did.

          Paul stands alone…and happens to be irrefutably correct.

        2. Oh, I wouldn’t say Hillary’s legacy as SecState is non-existent.

          Its just that the DemOp media wants us to ignore what her legacy really is.

  7. Rand said all that? Damn. Boys got some stones on him. I’m feeling refreshed and nearly ready for the nut crushing primary defeat to Jeb Bush.

  8. Attention libertarian-leaners: presidential season is upon us. Your duty is to fall in behind whatever principles-free “realist” the Republican establishment jams down your throat. For the good of all.

    1. Of course! After all, we have to be practical about electability!

    2. Well, Jeb has been a pretty awful candidate so far. So naturally he is the frontrunner.

      1. If being an awful candidate was enough then Hucklebee would have the nomination sewn up.

      2. I can’t see the red base going for Jeb. The establishment wants him, but I think that the establishment is weaker than it’s been for a long time.
        I hope Paul wins the nomination, but I’m predicting Scott Walker.
        Of course,I couldn’t believe that Romney won either, so…

        1. I agree. Jeb is going to be this year’s Rudy Giuliani and drop out fast in the upset. Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are the true logical front runners, with Marco Rubio being the darkhorse in the race. But Cruz and Walker are going to split the vote like crazy. That could benefit Rubio if he gets momentum and a hardcore base. But Paul being the sole libertarianish candidate could benefit more.

      3. I can’t see the red base going for Jeb. The establishment wants him, but I think that the establishment is weaker than it’s been for a long time.
        I hope Paul wins the nomination, but I’m predicting Scott Walker.
        Of course,I couldn’t believe that Romney won either, so…

    3. John hasn’t been around much to hammer that point…he better get his licks in before we all vote for that crackpot Gary Johnson!

    4. Dude, you’re stealing John’s line.

      1. Maybe that’s the new John…

  9. OT

    New pron doc’s producer displays basic understanding of unfettered exchange.

    http://news.yahoo.com/rashida-…..52949.html

    Jones says that Internet porn is so pervasive because humans are sexual beings and there is little regulation of the Web or porn ? so we are left with a simple supply/demand situation.

    “People want it. People can get it. We live in a capitalistic democratic society, so we get what we want, basically,” she says. “It’s kind of here to stay, so it’s not really about whether you are anti- or pro-porn,” she says. “It’s just a real part of our reality now.”

    No idea if she’s using the doc to lobby for regulations.

    1. “It’s just a real part of our reality now.”

      Really!

    2. Did any hot new girls show up in her documentary?

      Belle Knox is so 2014.

      1. Are you familiar with Ashley Adams (NSFW of course)?

        She looks like Belle Knox but with substantially bigger boobs.

      2. You watch so much porn that you get tired of certain actresses, and have no compunction about publicizing that fact? That’s…unsurprising.

  10. Go on the offensive:

    “OK, so getting a warrant before looking up someone’s private information helps the terrorists because….”

    “So, John Adams said our resistance to British general warrants was the beginning of our independence. You’re saying Adams was wrong because…”

    1. Patrick Henry said life and peace should not be purchased at the expense of chains and slavery.

      Ben Franklin said that sacrificing liberty for safety end up with neither liberty or safety.

      So you’re saying Henry and Franklin were wrong because…

      1. THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT!

        *drops mic and walks away*

        1. What if you accepted slavery because you thought your master would protect you, and you end up dying anyway?

          /Judge Nap

          1. Better to take that chance than to live free and die.

    2. John Adams was a hippy communist!!!

  11. Wall Street Journal editorialized today that “Republicans who begin their campaigns assailing other Republicans rarely succeed,”

    Didn’t Jindal just come out a few days ago and slam Rand for his saying that American intervention in Iraq created the power vacuum that allowed ISIS to gain power?

    Or does this only apply to Republican once they’ve *actually* declared. Sitting on the sidelines and bitching about candidates is OK for your campaign as long as you’re not officially running one?

    1. Rand isn’t an establishment handpuppet, his opinion isn’t the establishment line, and Jindal is inside the fort shooting out. Therefore Jindal is towing the lion while Rand is undermining the whole operation.

  12. I wouldn’t totally discount that Paul may have a goal of distinguishing libertarianism from conservatism rather than actually win any bid for presidential nominee.

    Perhaps the biggest lie Paul told was that he was a libertarian conservative.

    If he can actually succeed in some of that, libertarians may have something to thank him for.

  13. Did reasonable just quit working for any of you?

    1. Let’s find out…

      Hi, Kristen!

    2. Ok, now it’s back. I was being triggered and microagressed right & left! I need a safe space with puppies and bubbles!

    3. Did reasonable just quit working for any of you?

      Yes. On two different computers on consecutive days.

      A reboot fixed it.

    4. I can read your comment so…yeah.
      / JK BURN

      1. This must be Tony or ‘Plug, because it’s just a blank space on my screen.

        /JK BURN 😛

  14. I’ve been following the hyper-interventionists hyperventilating on this issue today. It’s pathetic. They’re intentionally editing what he said specifically to make it look like conspiracy theorizing (“The Republicans created ISIS”). The funny thing is, when you bring out the points he made, even a lot of conservatives agree.

    You don’t have to be a die-hard non-interventionist to support what Paul is saying. Even good-old-fashioned, Republican, conservative realism tells you the neo-cons have gone off the deep end.

    1. Didn’t Paul say, “ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most these arms were snatched up by ISIS”?

      http://www.nytimes.com/politic…..-for-isis/

      If anything, that isn’t strone *enough,* since many neocons cheerled the Obama/Clinton policy of attacking ISIS’s enemies in Syria and Libya.

      1. Yeah, it’s ridiculous.

        But, in a way it’s a little encouraging (what can I say, I’m always the optimist!). Even a few years ago, they wouldn’t have needed to misrepresent his position.

      2. Don’t you know that all of our foreign policy, ever, in all of history, has only resulted in rainbows and kittens?!?!?

      3. “ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most these arms were snatched up by ISIS”.

        Of course actual snatching as well as the start, growth and successes of ISIS happened during the Obama administration. This would have been worth a mention by a Republican candidate.

    2. “pointing out the Bush Republicans’ role in creating a space for ISIS to flourish…”

      while i’m not interested in any exoneration of Bush & co for their own idiocy…

      …technically, Dem hawks deserve equal credit or more, where ISIS is concerned

      If there’s any single cause for the emergence of ISIS, it was US policy supporting the funding/arming of syrian rebel groups via Saudis & Qatar in 2010-2012

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10…..ebels.html

      “” Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups… are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.

      That conclusion, of which President Obama and other senior officials are aware from classified assessments of the Syrian conflict… casts into doubt whether the White House’s strategy of minimal and indirect intervention in the Syrian conflict is accomplishing its intended purpose of helping a democratic-minded opposition topple an oppressive government, or is instead sowing the seeds of future insurgencies hostile to the United States””

      it is wrong to really separate Iraq as a “GOP problem” and Syria as an “Obama Problem”…but from the specific POV of the ‘germination of ISIS’…. I think far more credit is owed to Hillary, her State Dept, & the CIA

      1. …technically, Dem hawks deserve equal credit or more, where ISIS is concerned

        Except Paul’s comment was in response to a claim from Graham that the problem of ISIS was the result of non-interventionism by the U.S.

        Paul’s comments noted the support Mr. Obama & Ms. Clinton’s policies received from the GOP hawks.

        1. “Paul’s comment was in response to a claim from Graham that the problem of ISIS was the result of non-interventionism by the U.S.’

          I’m clear on what paul actually said =

          I’m taking issue with the characterization of Paul’s criticism being entirely of the policy of “Bush Republicans”… rather than policy of the current Obama administration, being supported by GOP hawks.

          He specifically cited “Hillary’s war” (both Syria and Libya could both be credited to her state dept) = not “Bush’s Iraq”

          Most places reporting on this are spinning it as entirely an Intra-GOP difference of opinion, when his comments were as much directed at Hillary as his own party’s hawks.

    3. That’s all true (Bill D. at noon, for the threading-impaired).

      Being Ron’s son & in national politics is a double-edged sword. Ron was unfortunately aligned with Rothbard’s thinking about US foreign policy, which was na?ve and/or disingenuous?n Murray’s case I think more disingenuous than na?ve, but in Ron’s case na?ve. Their policy recommend’ns were good, but from such a wacky justif’n as to lead to distrust.

      Rand would probably not have the following he does were it not for his father’s seeding it. However, Rand’s thinking is AFAICT sensible. It would lead to a foreign policy whose results would be just as good (& not as scary) as Ron’s, but Rand has to convince people it does not stem from Ron’s na?ve view of the international scene. He has to show himself to be the reasonable alternative to the neocons (who have gotten just as outrageous as Ron), but their prominent placement may lead him to be perceived as the dangerous outlier.

  15. The Decline of Dana Milbank.

  16. Let’s be honest – Republican infighting excites the MSM as much as this excites a normal person:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfEArDctJJo

  17. Rand Paul is a bully.

    1. Ohh, did he ‘shush’ you too?

      1. No I meant Rand Paul is bully!

    2. Right, he wants to become President and leave people alone! That evil bullying bastard!

  18. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My neighbour’s sister has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    =============================
    try this site ????? http://www.workweb40.com

  19. Rand Paul will not win the nomination. It’s a shame too because if he did, I was actually going to go register and vote for the first time in my life.

    All of you underestimate the absolute stupidity of the American voter. It is a force that makes the gravity of a black hole look like a school yard bitch. It spreads like a virus and is incurable once contracted.

    I live in TX and all I fucking hear about is Ted Cruz. When I tell people that I hope his plane crashes or he gets AIDS or something, they’re like “How can you not like Ted Cruz?”

    I reply, “Because he’s a fucking idiot. Just because the mother fucker walked into a church once upon a time doesn’t mean he’s Jesus in the flesh”

    Even when you go on to list how awful Cruz is and how Paul is so much better (be careful to point out that Paul is a Christian as well) they will still look at you with glazed over eyes and mutter, “Cruz 2016”

    1. Confirmation bias, previous investment trap. Hard to shake someone who developed, for whatever reason that seemed good to them at the time, admiration or at least sympathy for a candidate for office. Some of them might go for Rand if Cruz were KO’d from contention, but that’s likely to happen too late to matter.

    2. And Cruz is much bettter than whomever the big government GOP will likely end up nominating.

      Paul has a small outside chance. Cruz is only infentesimally likely to get the nomination. Christie has better chance than Cruz.

    3. Well, between Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, only 1 of the 2 backed a shitty trainwreck candidate for senate from their home state so they could get help changing the laws in that state to allow them to run for president.

      Can you guess which one?

  20. Anytime a candidate doesn’t conform to the government machine, that candidate is criticized.

    1. It doesn’t have to be disconformity to the gov’t machine to draw criticism. Outlying in any way will do that.

  21. I think RP has to do this. He can’t be just another milque-toast Republican and say only what people want to hear. He may not get win the primaries, but he can establish himself as the leader of one faction within the party. Only one person will become President, so it’s best to shoot for increasing one’s political power.

  22. Rand Paul’s best move at this point would be to get his father to take an oath of silence for 2 years (tropical vacation?? Might as well be fun).

    Ron rubs me the wrong way with his clear bitterness toward America and his “You kids stay off my lawn!!” tone. Ron takes his disbelief in American exceptionalism and runs it back down the field yelling that America is worse than other countries.

    But Rand manages to sound like he loves America and just wants to steer her back to her earlier or yet-unfulfilled greatness. Much more appealing especially to new voting factions he needs to win away from old habits.

  23. People who criticize a politician for standing by his principles, suggesting he should change or compromise his principles to improve his chances of getting elected seem to me to be confessing that they themselves are only seeking power for its own sake. Rand Paul is fighting for principles he believes in. Those principles are his very motive for being in politics in the first place. Compromising them for power would demonstrate where is priorities lie. Standing by his principles, even if it costs him political power, does show where his priorities are.

  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.www.netjob80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.