Rand Paul Tag

Alison Lundergan Grimes now fighting Rand Paul

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 18, 2014 32 Comments

Alison Lundergan Grimes was to be the Wendy Davis of Kentucky. And you know what? It worked. She was crushed by Mitch McConnell. Now Grimes is lashing out, trying to prevent Rand Paul from being able to run for both President and Senate on the same ballot. From ABC11, Grimes pledges legal challenge if Paul attempts simultaneous races:

Six weeks after she lost her own bid for the U-S Senate, Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (D-Kentucky) tells WHAS11 if U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) tries to appear on the same ballot for both Senate and President in 2016, she will challenge him in court. "The law is clear," Grimes said. "You can't be on the ballot twice for two offices." Kentucky Democrats are not cooperating as Paul considers mounting simultaneous campaigns for Senate and President. Democrats maintained control of the Kentucky House in last month's election, a roadblock to legislation favored by the Republican Senate to remove the prohibition. House Speaker Greg Stumbo (D-Prestonsburg) declined to consider a Senate bill to that effect earlier this year. Paul may challenge the law in court as the Republican Party of Kentucky also discusses whether to hold a presidential caucus rather than a primary, which would allow Paul to follow the letter of the law by not appearing on the primary ballot, twice.

Now, I understand, Grimes is just standing up for principles. Like when she wouldn't reveal, ahem, whether she voted for Obama:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/09/03/rand-paul-isis-has-without-question-declared-war-against-us

Are Rand Paul’s inconsistencies fatal to a presidential bid?

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 19, 2014 15 Comments

Earlier this week the Democrats released a video contrasting Rand Paul statements against Rand Paul's previous statements on a handful of issues. The video is a hatchet job and of course some things are taken out of context, but it highlights a major issue that's been bugging me about Rand Paul. Take a look at the video the Democrats put together: It's not uncommon for politicians to change their views, platforms, or opinions on issues. They are there to serve at the will of the people (at least in theory). Take ISIS for example. ISIS is a different kind of threat to American interests now than they were a few years ago. A policy change from isolationism to one that's considering an intervention strategy is warranted and few would fault Paul for changing his mind on this particular issue. My criticism of Paul is not because he's become an interventionist in a Libertarian body, after all, people don't flock to presidential election polls all riled up about foreign policy. My criticism is not that he's changed his mind. My criticism stems from Rand Paul's refusal to 1) admit his policy stance has changed and 2) handle this policy shift gracefully rather than indignantly.

Rand Paul: ISIS hawk in isolationist body?

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 05, 2014 12 Comments

Yesterday, we wrote about Senator Paul's apparent departure from isolationism. Last night, the Kentucky Senator chatted with Sean Hannity about his foreign policy stance:

"I've been trying to say that for the last four years of public life that I'm I'm neither an isolationist nor an interventionist. I'm someone who believes in the Constitution and believes America should have a strong national defense and believes that we should defend ourselves. But when we do it, we should do it the way the Constitution intended. That's the President should come before Congress and make the case for war." "There's a big difference between that and between doing it unilaterally. And I think the example of Libya, with both Hillary's support and President Obama's support shows all the unintended consequences when they around the Constitution."

I don't disagree we should respect Constitutional channels, but objectively speaking, this is just political posturing and an attempt to define his position as diametrically opposed to that of both Mrs. Clinton and the administration. Which is smart. But his argument seems to hinge on the fact that we would not be in this nightmare of a foreign policy situation had President Obama gone to Congress. Perhaps he's right. He continued:

Rand Paul, war hawk ?

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 03, 2014 12 Comments

Advocating for foreign intervention is not something you usually hear from libertarian poster children like Senator Paul. And yet, that seems to be what he's preaching. From WaPo:

"If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress," Paul told the AP. "I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."

Good. Someone should have a plan to deal with those monsters. But as WaPo points out, Paul is supposed to be the only non-interventionist in the bunch of potential 2016 contenders. Compare Paul's statement to the rest of the pack of GOP potential candidates, as compiled by WaPo:

Chris Christie: ""The ISIS situation is one that deserves a really detailed answer, which I'm not going to give you while walking down the boardwalk and taking selfies." Marco Rubio: "If we do not act now to assist our Iraqi partners and moderate Syrians who oppose ISIL, as well as utilize our own forces to directly target ISIL’s leadership, the result will be more suffering and tragedy for our people.”

Bipartisan Select Committee for the investigation of Hillary Clinton

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 06, 2014 14 Comments

Looks like the Select Committee headed by Trey Gowdy will be Bipartisan! Politico reports, Benghazi panel to have 7 GOPers, 5 Dems:

The select committee that will probe the attacks in Benghazi will have seven Republicans and five Democrats, according to sources familiar with the GOP leadership’s plans. A resolution to create the committee will come to the floor Thursday and is expected to pass by a wide margin. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) tapped South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy to chair the panel.

And it's pretty obvious that Hillary will be a primary focus:

On May 7, 2013 during one of the many House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearings on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy, his voice slightly shaken with emotion, had the following ringing words to say – and for their sake, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama better have been listening: “so if anyone wants to know what difference does it make, if anyone wants to ask what difference does it make (in reference to the now infamous Hillary Clinton quote) – it always matters whether you can trust your government – and to the families of the victims – we are going to find out what happened in Benghazi and I dont give a damn who’s career is impacted – we are going to find out what happened.” Rep. Gowdy will now be able to completely fulfill that promise, and in the process, could destroy the political careers of one or both of the most powerful Democrats in America.

Rand Paul is encouraging the focus on Hillary:

Rand Paul wins CPAC presidential straw poll

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on March 09, 2014 5 Comments

Poll dominated by young people age 18-25...

Imagine Bill Clinton back in the White House with time on his hands

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 26, 2014 12 Comments

To catch a predator takes a village....

Egyptian “Wedding of Death” Shows Coptic Christians Still Endangered

Posted by Leslie Eastman on October 27, 2013 5 Comments

I have been following the disturbing news from Egypt closely; while it was hoped that a new president and a ban on the Muslim Brotherhood might stem more violence against its Coptic Christians, it looks like that is not to be:

The wedding party stood outside the church, eagerly awaiting the ceremonious arrival of the bride. Instead, drive-by shooters killed four, including two children and the groom's mother, and injured 18. Beyond its poignancy, the attack in Cairo's industrial neighborhood of Warraq was significant for being one of the first to target Egypt's Christians specifically, versus the now-common attacks on their church buildings. "Since the revolution, this is the first instance Coptic people were targeted randomly in a church, with weapons," said Mina Magdy, general coordinator for the Maspero Youth Union, a mostly Coptic revolutionary group formed in response to church burnings in 2011 after the fall of President Hosni Mubarak.

Interestingly, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul spoke about the issue of Muslim violence against Christians at a Value Voters summit earlier this month:

“Christians are being attacked around the world, but you won’t hear much about it on the evening news because the answer’s not convenient,” Paul continued. “It doesn’t fit the narrative we have been told about radical Islam. The president tries to gloss over who’s attacking and killing Christians. The media describes the killings as sectarian. But the truth is, a worldwide war on Christians is being waged by a fanatical element of Islam....”

Congress micromanaging its way out of accepting responsibility

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 04, 2013 12 Comments

Rand Paul: Congress "getting too involved on how we execute war."...

Finding common ground in limited government: “His lips are moving”

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 12, 2013 21 Comments

Every semester for the past couple of years I've been privileged to be a guest speaker at the Ithaca College course on Independent Media conducted by Prof. Jeff Cohen. I get to regale students with stories about Legal Insurrection, some of which are true. (FTR, all of...

Sequester — already the biggest lie of 2013

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 21, 2013 23 Comments

On the very short drive to work this morning, I heard an interview on local AM 870 radio with the Tompkins County town administrator. The radio host kept trying to scare everyone about the Sequester cuts, repeatedly asking how it would affect people in Tompkins County. The...

3
4
5
of 6