shortformblog
shortformblog:

Here’s a piece for the libertarians out there: The New Republic has a story laying out the potential for Rand Paul to follow in his movement-creating dad’s footsteps, noting that Rand’s strength is that he’s a strong political player, not just an ideologue. The NSA scandal only plays into that, Julia Ioffe writes: “This is a moment tailored for Rand Paul, more than for Marco Rubio or Chris Christie, or anyone else in the potential Republican 2016 lineup.” Read on for a pretty solid talker.

shortformblog:

Here’s a piece for the libertarians out there: The New Republic has a story laying out the potential for Rand Paul to follow in his movement-creating dad’s footsteps, noting that Rand’s strength is that he’s a strong political player, not just an ideologue. The NSA scandal only plays into that, Julia Ioffe writes: “This is a moment tailored for Rand Paul, more than for Marco Rubio or Chris Christie, or anyone else in the potential Republican 2016 lineup.” Read on for a pretty solid talker.

Paul repeatedly reminded the audience that Democrats passed Jim Crow laws in the south and that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, as were the first black legislators and the founders of the NAACP.

“Would everyone know here they were all Republicans?” he said at one point, referring to the NAACP’s founders. “Yes!” came the booming response from nearly the entire audience, who appeared offended Paul would even raise the question.
They’re assuming I took a side with this post. But I was merely pointing out that the GOP’s new flavor of the month, Rand Paul, might have a problem because of his stated stance about cutting off funding to Israel. 
My point was political, not ideological. If Paul runs, won’t right-wing evangelicals go nuts? Won’t most republican politicians do the same? We went through an entire episode with Defense Secretary Hagel’s nomination because of his so-called anti-Israel positions.
Politically speaking, doesn’t it make sense that Paul will have to flip on this issue? And my question at the end of the post was basically: Can he and survive, or even win? 
P.S. Thank you for the kind words!

They’re assuming I took a side with this post. But I was merely pointing out that the GOP’s new flavor of the month, Rand Paul, might have a problem because of his stated stance about cutting off funding to Israel. 

My point was political, not ideological. If Paul runs, won’t right-wing evangelicals go nuts? Won’t most republican politicians do the same? We went through an entire episode with Defense Secretary Hagel’s nomination because of his so-called anti-Israel positions.

Politically speaking, doesn’t it make sense that Paul will have to flip on this issue? And my question at the end of the post was basically: Can he and survive, or even win? 

P.S. Thank you for the kind words!

Speaking of Israel… Rand Paul has a BIG problem, no?

Somehow Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is regarded by friend and foe alike as a legitimate potential GOP presidential candidate in 2016. I’ve heard CNN, FOX News — in an interview with Sean Hannity — and MSNBC refer to Paul as a serious candidate. Everyone is ignoring the GOP elephant in the room. 

Now, I am aware that Paul can both stand and talk for a really LONG time. So, that’s fantastic, I guess. But when did the media and republican pundits decide that someone can run for president, under the banner of either of the two major parties, and actually win the nomination when they’ve stated flat-out that they are for ending all foreign aid to Israel? 

No doubt, if he decides to run, he will flip on this issue. But can he get away with that, especially in a republican party that supposedly has unconditional love for Israel? 

"So, we can talk about this in an adult way, the way I want to talk about it, my ground rules. Or I can remind everyone you use to f**k hookers." - Jon Stewart