What to watch for to confirm that the Establishment is Comfortable with Rand Paul as President

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A close observer of inside politics tells me that, if the Republicans gain control of the Senate after next week's mid-term elections, Rand Paul will surely be named to chair a Senate committee.

This insider tells me that the key is to watch what Senate committee he gets to chair. The more powerful the committee, the more comfortable the Establishment is with Rand.

Target Liberty The Signal to Watch For that Will Indicate the Establishment is Comfortable with Rand Paul as President

This of course assumes that Republicans take the Senate, but if that does happen then this is a good point. Remember that establishment Republicans did everything in their power to deny Ron Paul any kind of Chairmanship, let alone an important one. He only got the chairmanship of his subcommittee in his last term because there would have been an uproar if he hadn't.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hell freezing over, pigs flying, and talking sharks would be a good indication.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rand Paul is finally coming to his senses.

 

[rdean]

If he can't even manage that silly wig he wears, who could possibly think he could manage a country?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If he can't even manage that silly wig he wears, who could possibly think he could manage a country?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Rand Paul is finally coming to his senses.

The deStarkification of the Republican party is in full swing

 

[JakeStarkey]

What you mean is that the far right has lost its power to influence the party, which is great news for the Republic.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hell freezing over, pigs flying, and talking sharks would be a good indication.

While the warmongers will evidently never be fully satisfied with Rand, we'll see how the rest of the establishment feels.

 

[rdean]

If he can't even manage that silly wig he wears, who could possibly think he could manage a country?

It's possible that Obama visited states 57 times. It doesn't even have to be 50 and then revisiting 7 a second time. It could be 30 and visiting 27 of those 30 a second time. That would indeed be 57 state visits.

And Rand Paul's wig is still silly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If he can't even manage that silly wig he wears, who could possibly think he could manage a country?

It's possible that Obama visited states 57 times. It doesn't even have to be 50 and then revisiting 7 a second time. It could be 30 and visiting 27 of those 30 a second time. That would indeed be 57 state visits.

And Rand Paul's wig is still silly.

Hilarious. Thus the new truther/birtherism is born. The term "wigger" is already in use, so I'm thinking "wiggist." Any thoughts?

 

[The Rabbi]

Hell freezing over, pigs flying, and talking sharks would be a good indication.

While the warmongers will evidently never be fully satisfied with Rand, we'll see how the rest of the establishment feels.

Probably no Republican has ever attained major office by running as an isolationist and a blame-America-Firster.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet we see how neo-conservatism and its earlier forms has harmed the country terribly in the last 50 years.

The millennials are disconnected from the reverence the baby boomers overwhelmingly have for the Greatest Generation and the massive consequences of WWII.

They generally believe Vietnam was "stupid" and generally believe Iraq and Afghanistan are not worth it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hell freezing over, pigs flying, and talking sharks would be a good indication.

While the warmongers will evidently never be fully satisfied with Rand, we'll see how the rest of the establishment feels.

Probably no Republican has ever attained major office by running as an isolationist and a blame-America-Firster.

Your meaningless buzzwords aside, none of those critiques apply to Rand in the least. The worst that can be said from your perspective, and I believe Jennifer Rubin has made this point, is that you don't believe Rand is sincere. Frankly, I'd say that's a valid criticism given his willingness to switch his position and deny past positions, but he's always compromised away from non-interventionist positions rather than towards them. So to say that he would run as a non-interventionist is to completely misread the situation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rand will say what he needs to say to be elected.

The issue of "intervention" while in office would depend on how Rand is defining intervention at the moment.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hell freezing over, pigs flying, and talking sharks would be a good indication.

While the warmongers will evidently never be fully satisfied with Rand, we'll see how the rest of the establishment feels.

Probably no Republican has ever attained major office by running as an isolationist and a blame-America-Firster.

Your meaningless buzzwords aside, none of those critiques apply to Rand in the least. The worst that can be said from your perspective, and I believe Jennifer Rubin has made this point, is that you don't believe Rand is sincere. Frankly, I'd say that's a valid criticism given his willingness to switch his position and deny past positions, but he's always compromised away from non-interventionist positions rather than towards them. So to say that he would run as a non-interventionist is to completely misread the situation.

He has a history of shunning world involvement. Those are his true colors.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If he can't even manage that silly wig he wears, who could possibly think he could manage a country?

It's possible that Obama visited states 57 times. It doesn't even have to be 50 and then revisiting 7 a second time. It could be 30 and visiting 27 of those 30 a second time. That would indeed be 57 state visits.

And Rand Paul's wig is still silly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hell freezing over, pigs flying, and talking sharks would be a good indication.

While the warmongers will evidently never be fully satisfied with Rand, we'll see how the rest of the establishment feels.

Probably no Republican has ever attained major office by running as an isolationist and a blame-America-Firster.

Your meaningless buzzwords aside, none of those critiques apply to Rand in the least. The worst that can be said from your perspective, and I believe Jennifer Rubin has made this point, is that you don't believe Rand is sincere. Frankly, I'd say that's a valid criticism given his willingness to switch his position and deny past positions, but he's always compromised away from non-interventionist positions rather than towards them. So to say that he would run as a non-interventionist is to completely misread the situation.

He has a history of shunning world involvement. Those are his true colors.

So then your complaint is that he is insincere, you won't have any argument from me on that point, rather than your previous contention that he would run a campaign based on a non-interventionist foreign policy. Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that he is one of the most popular potential candidates at the moment, and that he is likely to run. The only question remaining is will the establishment support him or do everything in their power to suppress him like they did his father.

 

[g5000]

2015 news item:

The Senate Select Committee on Dronez, chaired by Senator Rand Paul of Libertopia, approved a bill today that would allow police to kill liquor store holdup men with armed unmanned aerial vehicles without a trial, if the amount stolen exceeds $50. Rand Paul then filibustered his own legislation.

Meanwhile, over in the Canadians Are Americans Too Committee, Chairman Rafael "Ted" Cruz drafted legislation making all birth certificates shorter. President Obama is expected to sign the legislation should it ever make it out of Congress, which is about as likely as ObamaCare not being repealed by Congress at least 58 times in the next 12 months.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hell freezing over, pigs flying, and talking sharks would be a good indication.

While the warmongers will evidently never be fully satisfied with Rand, we'll see how the rest of the establishment feels.

Probably no Republican has ever attained major office by running as an isolationist and a blame-America-Firster.

Your meaningless buzzwords aside, none of those critiques apply to Rand in the least. The worst that can be said from your perspective, and I believe Jennifer Rubin has made this point, is that you don't believe Rand is sincere. Frankly, I'd say that's a valid criticism given his willingness to switch his position and deny past positions, but he's always compromised away from non-interventionist positions rather than towards them. So to say that he would run as a non-interventionist is to completely misread the situation.

He has a history of shunning world involvement. Those are his true colors.

So then your complaint is that he is insincere, you won't have any argument from me on that point, rather than your previous contention that he would run a campaign based on a non-interventionist foreign policy. Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that he is one of the most popular potential candidates at the moment, and that he is likely to run. The only question remaining is will the establishment support him or do everything in their power to suppress him like they did his father.

No, my complaint is he is a blame America firster and a proponent of running away. I dont know how he'll campaign but that's what he is, thats what his record shows.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My complaint is that if a Rab-type becomes president the country will fall into a terrible Depression that will turn America into a 3d rate country.