Mediaboss Marketing

One of the big mysteries of the Koch brothers lavish gala this past weekend is the fact that Rand Paul was not in attendance. Youd think that the Kochs would at least insist that Paul come to the fete to do a dramatic reading of John Galts Atlas Shrugged speech for the billionaires in attendance, but he didnt show. Some reports suggest that he was invited, but declined. Perhaps his feelings are hurt that they also invited Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and even Carly Fiorina, when he believes that he should have been anointed by all the rich men in the world by acclamation. He is, after all, the One True Libertarian of the bunch.

Or is he? Paul has been spending so much time in recent days talking about the horrors of Planned Parenthood, youd think he was a Catholic priest or a member of Ralph Reeds Bible study group. In fact, both of the Pauls, father and son, have always played fast and loose with their libertarian principles when it comes to reproductive health; the only individual property right they dont recognize is a womans ownership of her own body. Since the followers of the Pauls tend to be those who find such concerns irrelevant to their own freedom being that they are mostly young, white males that may make some sense from a practical standpoint. Rand has to build a coalition withsomeone,so why not the religious right, since their main concern in life is keeping women in their place, and the Paulites seem to find this to be a position they can work with.

And so it is becoming clear that for all the former Beltway excitement over Pauls alleged magical ability to transform the Republican Party from its aggressively hawkish global ambitions and theocratic, authoritarian domestic aspirations into an isolationist, tolerant, pluralistic party, he just cant seem to make any headway. He cant raise much money and nobody, it turns out, is very interested in his ideas.

Thus, the true believers are depressed. One of them wrote a piece for Politico about whats gone wrong, titled,Why Im tired of defending Rand Paul.The piece was written byJonathan Bydlak, someone whos been with the Paul family for years, serving as director of fundraising on Rons 2008 campaign; a loyal lieutenant who truly believes that Rand Paul could be president. But unfortunately for Bydlak, it turns out that Rand Paul also believes that, which means that these days hes acting like just another Republican.

Bydlak writes:

After months of skepticism of U.S. involvement in Syria and Iraq, Rand Paul called for airstrikesauthorized by Congress. He later sought to declare war on ISIL and put boots on the ground. Hes done a complete 180 on the threat from Iran, signing the Tom Cotton letter opposing the recent nuclear deal. And while being one of the more nuanced voices opposing the deal, hes still relied on the sort of fear mongering and misleading rhetoric his father rejected.

Ron Paul proudly thumbed his nose at Republican orthodoxy, fearlessly voicing his beliefs no matter how hated his position might make him among the GOP. His son, of course, cannot win a primary by following that exact model. But he has failed to make the Republican base trust him, while risking losing his own.

He said gay marriage offends him, and called for tent revivals to combat Americas moral crisis while simultaneously supporting ending marriage licenses altogether. He supports lowering sentences for drug offenses, and is publicly courting the marijuana industry, while very consistently making clear he opposes legalization. And in recent weeks, hes gone so far as to apparently jump onto the Trump bandwagon in seeking to defund sanctuary cities.

He spent months reaching out to minority communities and branding himself as a different kind of Republican on police brutality and criminal justice reformbut when Baltimore was burning following Freddie Grays suspicious death in police custody, Paul couldnt have been more tone deaf, scoffing how glad he was his train didnt stop in Baltimore, and offering what seemed to be 1990s-era Moral Majority musings on the downfall of the family.

Now, its hard to have pity for this fellow. While Paul may be out there talking about outreach to African Americans and Hispanics, his views on race have never exactly been obscure. Up until last year, he employed someone known asThe Southern Avenger in his inner circle. But you do have to feel a little bit of sympathy for him about the rest of it. The incoherenceon foreign policy and national security is downright dizzyingcoming from the man who made his national reputation delivering scorching speeches against the drone war and NSA surveillance. He couldnt even bring himself to defy freshman warmonger Tom Cotton and refuse to sign on to that daft Iran letter. And refusing to support marijuana legalization even as the country is moving rapidly in that direction is as cowardly as it gets. If a libertarian cant even stand up for the stoners, you have to wonder if he has any rationale for his campaign at all.

Here is the original post:
Rand Paul is basically doomed: How the man who was ...

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul says that he can stand out from the other Republican candidates for president at the first GOP debate by being the one candidate who doesn't "want to blow up the world."

Paul told The Washington Post that he plans to challenge the other candidates who would "send half a million of your sons and daughters back" to Iraq, by asking them if they "want to always intervene in every civil war around the world."

"I want to be known as the candidate who's not eager for war, who thinks war's the last resort," Paul said while in Iowa. "When we fight, we fight to win, but much of our involvement has led to consequences that made us less safe. You'll see that come into sharp distinction."

The Post notes that the Kentucky Republican's plan is to make this a debate issue, ensuring that the debate on foreign policy will certainly be vigorous.

While many of the candidates have similar positions on issues such as taxes, criminal justice reform and defunding Planned Parenthood, Paul is the only candidate who wants to see a generation of intervening in the Middle East come to an end.

It's also a position that those in the libertarian wing of the party are longing for Paul to talk about.

The first Republican presidential debate is scheduled for Thursday on the Fox News Channel. It will include the top 10 candidates, according to an average of the five most recent national polls.

Related Stories:

2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Continued here:
Rand Paul: I'm the One Candidate Who Doesn't 'Want to Blow ...

Sen. Rand Paul has made safeguarding civil liberties a cornerstone of his presidential campaign, and he hasn't been afraid to take on his own party in that fight. At the end of May, as key provisions of the USA Patriot Act were set to expire, Paul took to the Senate floor in a heroic 10-hour filibuster to make sure the act would expire before his Senate colleagues had a chance to pass legislation to entrench the National Security Agency's abilities to collect Americans' phone records.

It was a gutsy bit of political maneuvering that showed he was willing to stand up for his libertarian views even if they are out of sync with his party. But when it comes to the question of abortion -- a private and deeply personal decision a woman sometimes has to make -- Rand Paul believes government should be making our most intimate decisions for us. He rightly believes that Big Brother shouldn't be monitoring our phone calls but yet somehow believes the state has a right to interfere in a woman's decision to end a pregnancy.

This week, Sen. Paul is leading the charge on defunding Planned Parenthood after anti-abortion activists released deceptively edited videos that purport to show that the nonprofit organization benefits from fetal tissue donations. Paul is trading in the lie -- there's no other way to say it -- that Planned Parenthood sells fetal body parts. In fact, when Planned Parenthood clinics donate fetal tissue for research, they do so only with the consent of the woman, and they are reimbursed enough only to cover the cost.

Some may object that Sen. Paul isn't violating his libertarian principles because he's simply working to stop government funding for the organization. But that's not the issue. Rather, Paul is using the video opportunistically as a step toward his ultimate goal: preventing a woman who has decided to have an abortion from getting one.

Federal funds should pay for all abortions, but they don't -- they only cover abortions in cases where the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman or resulted from rape or incest. So why is Paul making all this fuss about defunding Planned Parenthood?

Sen. Paul has made no secret that he wants to make abortion illegal. He has promised to support any legislation that would end it. In March 2013, Paul introduced the Life at Conception Act, which, had it passed, would have defined human life as beginning at conception, granted fertilized eggs the same legal status as people, and outlawed abortion in all circumstances. The only exception Paul thinks there should be is if denying the abortion would cause the woman to die. And even here Paul is late to the game, only conceding that exception two years ago.

In a statement on behalf of the National Pro-Life Alliance, Paul characterized the Supreme Court as having "played god with innocent human life," accusing the court of having "condemned more than 56 million babies to painful deaths without trial merely for the crime of being inconvenient" since the Roe v. Wade in decision in 1973. This is a slanderous and callous characterization of the three in 10 American women who have decided to terminate a pregnancy and shows that Paul has little concern for one of the most fundamental civil liberty protections for women, as if mere convenience is all that is at stake for these women and their families.

Given his goals, it's no surprise that he would take advantage of the recent controversy to further them. But here's the thing: More than 90 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides are preventive, including lifesaving cancer screenings, birth control, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections and HIV -- and it is primarily low-income women who benefit from these services.

And the controversy he is basing this bill on is dishonest and manufactured by a disreputable group of anti-abortion activists who have launched 10 attacks on Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health centers of the last eight years through trickery, deceit, and outright lies. One of the organization's board members, Troy Newman, has called the murder of doctors who provide abortions "justifiable."

Nonetheless, on Twitter, Sen. Paul tweeted that the video shows a "top doctor describing how she performs late-term abortions to sell body parts for profit!" The full video shows no such thing, with Planned Parenthood's senior director of medical services explicitly stating: "Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The message is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that's not what it is."

Read more from the original source:
Rand Paul, Libertarian? | Anthony D. Romero

Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), a Republican presidential candidate, called onCongress to pull federal funding forPlanned Parenthood, saying the money should go to community health centers instead.

Paul has introduced a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. The nonprofit has been mired in controversy in recent weeks over videos purporting to expose its allegedly illegal and unethical fetal tissue donation practices.

[Get caught up on whats in the Planned Parenthood videos]

"I think we can have disputes, you know, over abortion. Our country is divided. Some people are pro-choice, some are pro-life,"Paul said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "I think most people do want to defund this....It would bemuch less emotional for everyone if we just funded community health centers and didn't fund Planned Parenthood."

Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul is calling on Congress to defund Planned Parenthood. He posted a video touting his stance to YouTube. (Rand Paul)

Paul stopped short of supporting threats by some lawmakers including fellow GOP presidential contender Ted Cruz (Tex.) ofa government shutdown over the issue.

"I support any legislation that will defund Planned Parenthood. But I don't think you start out with your objective to shut down government," Paul said.

Read more from the original source:
Rand Paul: Defund Planned Parenthood, fund community ...

Sen. Rand Paul believes that the United States Congress will reject the Obama administrations nuclear deal with Iran.

Theres a very good chance that Congress will vote to disapprove of the agreement, Paul tells The Daily Signal. I think theres a very good chance the president will then veto it, and then the real question is, will there be 67 votes to overcome this?

Congress is expected to vote on a resolution regarding the controversial deal sometime in September.

The Obama administration is focused on making sure it has enough Democrats on board to sustain a veto.Recently, the administration picked up support from two more Democrat House members, including Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. Democrat Sen. Tom Udall is also on board.

Senate GOP leadership is pressing the Obama administration to provide the so-called side agreements that the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran have in place. For Paul, one of the biggest problems with the deal isthe process of how sanctions are lifted.

What I would have preferred in this agreement would be that we gradually reduce sanctions over a several-year period, he said, so therefore we can continue to use those as leverage to try and enforce compliance on Irans part.

Paul says ultimately this deal will require the United States to trust the Iranians, and thats a big leap of faith.

The thing that bothers me and what Im concerned about is whether or not we can have leverage to continue to have Iran comply. They have to show some initial steps, but the question is, will they consistently comply?

Originally posted here:
Rand Paul: Congress Will Reject the Iran Deal