People just won’t elect a effeminate male to be Commander in Chief...
Posted on 03/31/2014 2:14:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Nothing surprising here but the quotes are oh so tasty. Including one that comes, secondhand, from Paul himself.
Is that what the last month of Russia-bashing and Tomahawk-praising was all about? Is Rand … “evolving” on foreign policy?
The [Republican Jewish Coalition] conference brings together some of the biggest names — and wallets — in Republican politics, most notably billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. At a private dinner for VIP donors in an Adelson-owned aircraft hangar holding one of his pair of Boeing 747s, Bush was asked about the growing isolationist wing of the Republican Party and replied there was no such thing — effectively casting Paul out of the fold, according to attendees…
Rand Paul has told top GOP donors that he is “evolving” on foreign policy, particularly when it comes to his positions on Israel, according to several people who have had conversations with him. In recent months he has toned down his opposition to foreign aid — a red flag for most at the RJC — replacing it with a call to end foreign aid to countries that are unfriendly to the U.S. He has also increased his outreach to prominent pro-Israel and neoconservative thinkers and donors to show he is interested in having a dialogue. The U.S. gives more than $3 billion in foreign aid to Israel every year, almost entirely in the form of grants for Israel’s military and defense services…
On the margins of the conference, where attendees heard from four potential 2016 candidates who advocated for a strong American foreign policy and support for Israel, five donors huddled with a reporter pledged to reach into their deep pockets to ensure Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination.
“The best thing that could happen is Ted Cruz and Rand Paul run and steal each other’s support,” says one of the donors, “but if not, we’ll be ready to take Paul down.”
Adelson is expected to spend untold millions against Paul in the primaries. Those millions didn’t help Newt stop Romney two years ago, but Romney’s team had more financial firepower than Rand’s will to fight back. Rand will try to fight back in a different way: Since his candidacy will be framed as an insurgency against the establishment, he can point to big donors on the other side as a vindication of his “me against the fatcats” populist message. How do you beam that message out to undecided low-information “somewhat conservative” voters, though, when TV and the Internet are full of “Paul will sell out Israel!” attack ads from the other side? As much as I think a Paul run will be fascinating, I worry that we’re going to end up with one of two outcomes. Either he wins the nomination despite it all and some crucial core of GOP hawks, having been convinced that he’s his father’s son on foreign policy, crosses the aisle for Hillary or he loses the nomination and his libertarian base, disgruntled over the attacks on him, decides to stay home. Makes me wonder if Rand is destined to end up on the ticket as VP even if he doesn’t win, and whether that arrangement would be acceptable to anyone. How can a guy who’ll be attacked as a new Charles Lindbergh end up one heartbeat away with the approval of his critics?
The only way to save this marriage, as I said last week, is for Rand to convince his enemies that he’d be acceptable as nominee even if they end up supporting someone else in the primaries. Sounds like that’s … not working out so far. Gulp. Here he is in a video shot two years ago and showcased this weekend by Jen Rubin warning about the perils of different approaches on Iran. Rubin treats his point near the end as Paul “blaming” the U.S. partially for World War II. I think he’s saying merely that sanctions are a form of escalation which can lead to war. If you want to knock him for something about this vid, knock him for the fact that he seems to believe (albeit without explicitly saying so) that war is the absolute worst-case nightmare scenario when it comes to Iran rather than the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran throwing its weight around the Middle East and beyond. We’ll have that debate next year, I guess.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
“The best thing that could happen is Ted Cruz and Rand Paul run and steal each other’s support,” says one of the donors,...”
That is what I am worried about. If the conservatives split their votes we get stuck with one of the two fatso rinos, Jeb Bush or Christie. Yech!
Let the libertarians support Paul, everyone else can back Cruz
This shows the gop is owned by elites. They have nothing in common with the voters. They say what they think the voters want to hear. Just like the democrats.
No republican will ever again get my vote. If they’re not willing to stand up against the gopE, then they’re not worthy of my vote.
Now if they can only like up 7 or 8 more primary candidates and break out the stockpiles of ammo for the circular firing squad...
Rubio is from FL.
I believe in preparedness as a deterrent. I do not believe in using war to solve every problem and nation building to make other nations just like us when they are just not.
We lost so many lives over Iraq and Afghanistan and we have lost those wars at a huge price.
We did not stop anything for long, the bad guys are back with new backers probably more deadly.
I know there are those out there that do not care about the awful price paid by families, they are ready to move on to the next death inducing front as long as it wasn’t their kin.
Yes but the Bush Machine is cranking up big time and Levin is talking about it ( on break as I type ) and I am about to puke just thinking about it...
#17: That’s bu!!$hi#. Israel doesn’t want American bodies. Never have, never will. Support, yes, but not our soldiers.
I think you mean 2008, correct? We won in 2004.
We may agree more than disagree. I thought Iraq made sense for about a two week operation, if that, and basically a good undercover bit man to remove saddam should have been enough. Afghanistan less so. On the other hand, we do need to defend ourselves and help defend our allies. Failing to of this, or rendering ourselves incapable of serious military action, only invites aggression and more wars. Reagan was right about this.
No, I meant 2004. Two Skull and Bones members as the candidates of the two major parties. Did that slip your mind?
I’m certainly not saying it’s Paul’s fault, but his biggest liability - his effeminate voice and manner - more or less disqualify him. I don’t think he can overcome this handicap with positions on issues. People just won’t elect a effeminate male to be Commander in Chief. And, again, I don’t think it’s his fault. He is who he is.
I wondered about that, but the alternative was Kerry. Probably as bad as Biden would be—there both a coupla dumb clucks.
Spot on analysis.
People just won’t elect a effeminate male to be Commander in Chief...
Paul isn’t effeminate, he has a beautiful wife and children.
I think it would be far worse to have a masculine female as the Hildebeast.
People just won’t elect a effeminate male to be Commander in Chief.
How .... Can. .... I stop... Laughing....
seems to put the final conclusion that Jeb Bush is not a real candidate but a vote splitting candidate.
A man who wants votes needs to project a masculine image. Not everyone can do that and, like I said, it isn't Rand Paul's fault.
Cruz is a much better prospect. He's better on the issues and there's certainly nothing effeminate about him.
Ted Cruz - 2016!
It’s sadly predictable, isn’t it? The craziest ones think that Rand is pro-establishment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.