Obviously, Rand’s not running for president this year.

He’s not qualified, because he apparently tells the truth sometimes.

Not sure why I should care what he has to say about some one that shouldn’t be heard at all

Because it’s funny :)

You should have also noted Paul’s multiple positions on Libya as well.

Speaking as someone who has racked Obama’s ass with the best on here, it’s clear that the big, brave, hawks in the GOP are shitting green nickels that Obama just might engineer a real “mission accomplished”.

Having said that, the problem is, that Obama’s footdragging about wiping out Ghadafy’s hardware and giving the clear message to his miltary that they are going to lose to the rebels, is, daily, making a stalemate more likely.

Is there any moral imperative that this president will get behind, foursquare?

Rand Paul is a crazy true believer type who will not think twice about taking shots at the sleazy weasels who will say anything to “win,” whether the sleazy weasel is Newt Gingrich, Faux News, or Barack Obama.

Well, giving Newt a lick, en passant, is always God’s work, but, as with Palin and most of the bible zombie/wingnut losers that are jockeying for position, he has practically no chance of getting the GOP nomination.

In point of fact, unless David Petraeus has something really unsavory in his background, I think that’s his for the asking.

That is, unless he’s stupid enough to let Obama bury him at the CIA, and I don’t think he is.

If I were the DNC, I’d be working on the assumption that they have to beat Petraeus. The GOP will dance naked if he opts in.

Rand Paul strikes me as a kind of guy who is like some of the far left radicals I knew back in the day who subsequently moved to the far right. He is essentially a Trotskyite in drag.

This was clear a year and a half ago, which is why he is now saddled with the Afghanistan fiasco. Obama may not have any economic smarts, but he didn’t get where he is by giving a free pass to enemies. The administration almost certainly have something on Petraeus, and Petraeus knows it.

BC it’s funny.

I think he might pander to the TPers. Can’t remember the particular issue on which I have a vague memory of a flip flop. I’ll try to resurrect it from the memory hole.

Rand is like his dad. He sounds perfectly sane and then batshittery comes out randomly. He’s spot on about Newt and FOX in this case.

The consumption of oil-Corexit-tainted Gulf Shrimp by his children. He’s all into that.

Plus Nuclear energy. He’s foursquare into that too. And Winning The Future. And a Jobless Recovery. (Increases Productivity!). Makes America competitive!

And Jeff Immelt. Obama loves him.

And Wars and unbridled enthusiasm for Israel. Obama is very enthusiastic about his mentor in the Senate: Joe Lieberman.

Don’t forget Reagan! Foursquare into Reagan.

Loves to cut Social Security. Austerity Measures all around.

Except for Goldman Sachs. Obama loves GS. And AT&T and BOA. Dyncorp, Haliburton, Big Oil, Boeing, Raytheon – All Barry favorites.

My comment was about something that matters, i.e. that Obama is a sleazy weasel who will say anything to “win” (just like Newt Gingrich and Faux News).

Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize some peoples’ comments are about stuff that matters, some not so much.

707!

My daughter would call that a “sick burn”.

You say, “You should have also noted Paul’s multiple positions on Libya as well.” I assume you are referring to what O’Donnell said on MSNBC but O’Donnell owes Rand Paul a retraction.

O’Donnell pretends Rand ‘voted’ for a nonbinding resolution that urged the UN to look into a no fly zone, but in fact that was a procedural ruse we all should be outraged by. The nonbinding resolution wasn’t even read on the floor, only the title which had no mention of military action was read, with a request to pass it ‘without objection’ by unanimous consent WITHOUT reading it, and without giving it to Senators. By the time Rand Paul made it back to the floor so he could have objected, the resolution was already in and out, with him (and the other Senators) still not knowing what was in it.

http://t.co/Yp3YAvF

You can look it up in the Congressional Record and on CSPAN, the whole thing was in and out, without description, in 40 seconds. O’Donnell knows this and just pretended a unanimous consent, supposed to be used only for noncontroversial matters’ was ‘voting [intentionally] by remote control’. O’Donnell has no credibility at all, at this point.

Rand Paul spoke against this consistently and is leading the fight against it, and they are just trying to pretend he is inconsistent so people won’t listen to what he is saying — which is compelling.

Rand Paul’s utterances and efforts to pander to the TPers just aren’t that high on my list of concerns.

The fact that Barack Obama is no less sleazy than Newt Gingrich and that he’s just as full of shit as Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, matters quite a bit to me.

Not so much to you?

Trotskyite? I don’t think that word means what you think it means….either that, or you don’t know much about Rand Paul.

One of the telling points for me about Rand Paul’s dig is how few of the politicians jockeying for power seem to have a real sense of humor or wit. (Not to be confused with the plastered on smiles.)

Like his Dad, Rand Paul wants to end the energy department. Rand Paul’s budget proposal puts nuclear into defense, but ALL the energy subsidies to oil, etc would be gone. He wants to cut back military spending, hardly looking out for Halliburton. He wants to audit the federal reserve and EXPOSE Goldman Sachs. You really are missing out by only looking through a ‘red lens’ ‘blue lens’ point of view.

I’ve not made any secret of my negative opinion of O, starting before the election. And was a whipping girl for quite awhile owing to it.

Think there’s plenty of time on this blog to talk about lots of different stuff of different priorities.

Or self-deprecation or humility to go with it. (Danger, Will Robinson.)

I don’t claim to know much about him personally, but I know the type. A true believer. The thing about true believers is that they sometimes swing from one end of the spectrum to another. Now this may be giving him more credit than he deserves, I concede.

You mean you aren’t an O-Bot?

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous, when you have to defend yourself as not being rough enough on Obama. I can’t help but laugh at this. Really.

I was referring to Obama. I was replying to tanbark’s remark about Obama not standing up to any moral imperative.

The Pauls, and others of their ilk, have a lot of things they’d do away with but no answers/ideas as to how things should be run. Being against something is easy, finding solutions to those problems not so much.

I love it when the wingnuts eat their own.

He’s running interference for his dad. Its a good strategy. You basically have two prominent Libertarian leaning republicans campaigning. The more coverage they get the more conservatives are exposed to a Ron Paul presidential run.

I am optimistic about this because I would like to see the Republican party shift back toward its non-intervention roots as a balance to the historical humanitarian/geopolitical excuses towards war of the Democratic party. Right now truly both parties are the party of war.

I anticipate that this Libyan War will not go well and it may cost Obama his presidency. If a republican is elected then most likely congress will go republican as well. I would not like to see a McCain type sit in the executive while republicans control congress. Just observing the behavior of McCain during this Libyan war confirms why many Americans did not vote for him. To me a non-intervention republican candidate riding an anti-bailout/corporatist platform is preferable to Obama and the Gingrich’s of the world.

From my perspective both parties are the same. Its the groups within that contrast and supporting them hold the real political solutions.

The Pauls do have the answers for every problem: Just leave everything alone bc the “market” will take care of it.

Fair enough. I got here around 6-7 months into O’s presidency. Had I been here in ’08, I would have been right there with you voicing my negative opinion of him then, too.

No problem.

Precisely. Their solutions, as we all know, have been proved to fail time and again.

True believers are immune to evidence.

And in this case, they’re also immune to the negative impacts of the free market. They have too much money to be screwed by their own philosophy.

It’s a wonderful life.

That’s been the trend around here, lately…

Most of us posting here have been in the negative column vis Obama for quite some time now. It’s interesting and amusing to take some time out to witness conservative infighting, esp if it involves actually telling the truth about Fake Nooz.

The Pauls have some “ok” things to say sometimes, but then they say other stuff which is either: a) batshit insane, b) extremely racist, or c) just plain stupid.

Nonetheless some smidge of credit to Paul for dissing Fake for the amusement value, alone.

O’Donnell has no credibility at all, at this point

Fixed.

Just as long as you acknowledge that manipulating interest rates and the supply of credit available is detrimental to the so called free market.

yes, duly noted as well, and I don’t get it. If anyone spends a couple of hours (over some days), it’s quite easy to witness which way the wind blows here. Like: read & figure it out.

Way O/T (sorry): Keith Olbermann has his entire Cornell speech posted, including the Q&A. I haven’t gone all the way through because I’m in the middle of something else, but if you’re interested, check it out:

Cornell Speech (3 parts)

I ranted about it last night and then went to bed fuming. I like it here — a lot — but sometimes I have a problem with the anti-Obama echo chamber. And the “purity” stuff.

Guess it is JMHO. When it gets to me, I take a break.

I someone is against wars and attacks on civil liberties, that in my mind more than counterbalances any number of screwy positions.

I was lurking and read some of posts. I “hear” ya. Not sure what the “deal” is, as some who appear to be engaging in the “purity” questioning have been posting here for a bit, at least, and should have a better notion of where folks are at.

Oh well. Onwards…

It just shows that the GOP’s only strategy is to oppose everything Democrats do. They should be renamed the Terrible Two’s Party.

Newt is a fossil. That didn’t keep McCain from the nomination. Personally, my money is on Jeb.

The one out of many I recall is his placing Hitler in power a decade too soon. (No link b/c that would make it a triple-Godwin.)

I hear ya (not that I want that), albeit some here have made a pretty persuasive argument that JEB’s being “held in reserve” for 2016. That may be the case, but I’m thinking we’re “in” for another Booosh run for POTUS before the end of this decade, more’s the pity.

Yup, Ol’ Randy voted for the no-fly zone, didn’t he?

It really does sound like they fear that he’ll pull it off, doesn’t it?

You’re correct. Rand Paul has questioned the war and the manner in which we went to war in Libya in every speech he has given on the topic, starting with his reaction to Obama’s speech on the topic.

Last I saw Jeb he was about a hundred pounds overweight. If he starts sweatin to the oldies, look out. Also Obama has been hanging around with him for no discernible reason. And look at the Republican field. Gah!

Plus, Black Nixon has rehabilitated Jeb’s ***edited in moderation*** brother’s legacy. On it goes.

Actually that’s one of the nicest things I ever said about George Bush. But I acknowledge my mistake. It won’t happen again.

Newt Gingrich is one of the most two-faced hypocritical politicians in this country today. He should stop talking about family values and morals to the rest of us. Any man who deserts a wife who is terminally ill to screw around with a young bimbo should not be talking about Christian values. He did this twice no less. A real man sticks around when things go bad. He is a weasel. I do believe in forgiveness, however, it is too easy for him to answer his critiques with “I have sinned in the past but Jesus is forgiving….” Yes, true, but it is so clear to most of us that NEWT just wants to be president and this is just more bull from a hypocritical two faced immoral faker. Mark my word, as soon as he gets tired of the present wife, like when she gets sick, or starts to show wrinkles, he will find himself a new bimbo. He thinks with his little head.

I would love to know, why any true believer in family values, would ever take this morally corrupt man seriously.