Anyone who looks upon Hillary Clinton as a “war hawk” is probably smoking that new Colorado pot not made for the tourists.
How is he on abortion, amnesty, 2nd amendment, socialized medicine?
/johnny
In today’s disgusting political atmosphere, I would doubt that any candidate is going to come out swinging the “hammer” relative to war. Lest we not forget how much TALK is worth as it comes from DC.
Only actions count and most likely, we will get a candidate that has little to show in the way deeds relating to national security. We will only be able to tell once they get elected which right now is top priority when it comes to stopping the radical left agenda of destroying everything that is America.
What people are learning about Rand Paul, is how frivolous and scattered brained he is.
I am not confident they will. The RINOS running the party will sit it out, or give him a weak endorsement.
It will be fun to watch and see what happens.
Rand wouldn’t be my first choice, but he’s way better than the last two Pub nominees.
He won’t be given it...he will have to earn it, or so the story goes.
Whether he can mount a strong enough campaign to win it, is something else entirely. If we are presented with another Willard candidacy we have a huge problem.
There are some that I would like to see run, Cruz is one, though I don’t think he can win. But I would enjoy it thoroughly if he did.
Gingrich may, but he is problematic to say the least.
My personal favorite is Trey Gowdy, although I would prefer to see him as AG.
The rest of the list of potentials is uninspiring to put it mildly.
Crappy headline. I don’t think they just give away the nominations.
Rand Paul has zero chance of getting the GOP nomination, but he will very likely run as a libertarian or third-party spoiler, thus assuring that the election goes to the Dim.
Rand Paul is the Ross Perot of 2016. And that will ensure a Clinton winning, just as in 1992.
it is GOP that should sit this out.
We currently have mac, yellow streak, daddy and now paul, head up his as*, ryan who want to be potus.
He’s almost as nutty as his father.
He belonged back in the early 30’s with the “American Firsters”.
There is NOT LONGER A FORTRESS AMERICA! IF 9/11 proved nothing else, it proved this.
Only the stupid don’t learn.
I have read conflicting statements on where Rand Paul is on immigration, from Tea Party close the border to libertarian open borders.
Is it fair to say he flip flops on the immigration issue?
What does he actually believe on immigration?
Flower child ping!
Summary of this editorial : he's not hawkish enough.
I will you let you bros go first.