Posted on 03/20/2013 12:34:58 PM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
Perhaps no Republican has had a better 2013 than Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator who drew attention and praise for his talking filibuster against the C.I.A. director nominee John Brennan, then last week won the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. Then, on Tuesday, as my colleague Ashley Parker reports, Mr. Paul gave a speech to the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, outlining his plan for immigration reform.
Mr. Paul has been fairly explicit about his potential interest in running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, so it is safe to assume that at least some of his actions are colored by his interest in positioning himself for the primaries and caucuses. But oddsmakers continue to list Mr. Paul as something of a long shot, giving him anywhere from 12-to-1 to 28-to-1 odds against winning the nomination.
Is Mr. Paul, in fact, a viable 2016 contender? Or, like his father, Ron Paul, is he someone who might expect to win the enthusiastic support of libertarian-leaning G.O.P. voters but who might otherwise fall well short of winning a plurality or majority of the Republican electorate?
(Excerpt) Read more at fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com ...
I have and will continue to back Palin.
I will never quit bashing that phony wimp, Saintorum.
http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-zimmerman-very-sick-mind-motive-malicious-one-162845818.html
meany....lol. Have a good one....we can wait until 2015 to have our Santorum discussions.
He lost my vote!
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php
It isn’t.
You are lying.
Again...
I too would love to see that team go all the way.... but they won't.
Missed that whole “close the border first and then push everyone through the existing process” part did you?
Or are you another one of these who’d prefer to start bailing water and shuffling deck chairs while blowing bigger holes in the boat?
Gator,
Thanks for posting that article. Those quotes speak volumes about Santorum.
Senator Rand Paul: ” - - - I’ve never met a new immigrant looking for a free lunch. - - - “
Then you have never been to a US Border town hospital emergency room entrance and seen the mass of illegal aliens from Mexico lining up for FREE medical treatment for their entire families just brought in from Mexico for their annual check-ups with their English interpreters.
The only way to make the Illegal Alien “Problem” go away is to make the USA as hostile as possible to those who have ALREADY broken our US Border Laws.
For starters:
* Repeal and ABOLISH the Federal Hospital Emergency Room Free Medical Treatment Law;
*Fine all private employers $1, 000 per day per illegal hired;
*Enforce ALL US Border laws;
*Jail in Arpaio-Style Border Outdoor Prison Camps ALL men women and children for 6 months, as required by existing Federal Law, any UNDOCUMENTED people found ANYWHERE in the USA.
The Reagan Amnesty did not work, and the Rand or Rubio Amnesties will also not work.
BTW, the US/Mexican Border is 2, 000 miles long, so that border will NEVER be secure. Spend the money on apprehension and incarceration instead of try to fix the unfixable.
BTW, BTW, the deportation of the 12 MILLION Border Law Breakers from Mexico would solve our current unemployment problem.
It is all about the money, Senator Rand Paul - - - it is all about OUR tax money.
Don’t think just POTUS....think “team” and foot soldiers. Infrastructure is everything!!!
If you have a game plan, message, mindset and infrastructure, then POTUS becomes an afterthought (philosophical sense)
Or is this more pixie dust and ground unicorn horn like your lying claim Rand is for aborting babies conceived of rape and incest?
I'm betting the latter.
Rick santorum was my pick for President, after Herman Cain dropped out. But I don’t see Palin running. I wish she would but don’t think she will. I don’t agree with Rand Paul on immigration, but I don’t agree with anyone on immigration. I’m all for an electrified fence with armed guards and deportation on everyone not here legally.
That said, I like his stance on abortion and the whole “dont drone me bro” filibuster really propelled him forward when it comes to my support.
However, during an interview on Tuesday with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the Kentucky senator seemed to soften his tone when asked about abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk.
“Just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother. Is that right?” Blitzer asked.
“What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different,” Sen. Paul responded. “Everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what is going on that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.”
Paul continued:
"I would say that, after birth, we’ve decided that when life begins, we have decided that we don’t have exceptions for one-day-olds or a six-month-olds. We don’t ask where they came from or how they came into being. But it is more complicated, because the rest of it depends on the definition of when life comes in. So I don’t think it’s as simple as checking a box and saying, “Exceptions” or “No exceptions.”
I’ve been there at the beginning of life. I’ve held one pound babies in my hand that I examined their eyes. I’ve been there at the end of life. There are a lot of decisions made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t, the law won’t apply to. But I think it is important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeonhole and say, “Oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family.”
“I don’t know if there’s a simple way to put me in any category on any of that,” he concluded.
“Well, it sounds like you believe in some exceptions,” Blitzer pressed.
“Well, there is going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved,” the senator responded.
“I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law, let’s say people came more to my way of thinking,” he continued, “there would still be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.”
Says nothing in there about “rape” or “incest”. Nor does his bill.
You are a liar.
He’s talking about when carrying a baby any further in term would cause and end to the life of the mother. If he had stated it any other way than he had, then he’d be accused by people like you of wanting women to die.
Again, his legislation extend Right to Life protections already in the Constitution all the way to conception.
If that isn’t good enough for you, you are a friggin’ idiot.
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.