Mediaboss Marketing

Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on ISIS
Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on ISIS.

By: Keyur

Link:
Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on ISIS - Video

A funny thing happened over the weekend: While President Obama took heat for saying he didn't havea strategy to deal with the Islamic State (also known as ISIS and isil) in Syria, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delivered a pretty remarkable statement.

"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."

The quote didn't really make the rounds and was buried deep in the AP story, but it's a pretty telling little nugget.

Why? Because, to date, it's one of the most hawkish things that any potential 2016 presidential contender has said about the Islamic State. And Paul is supposed to be the non-interventionist in the bunch.

Below isa sampling of what the others have said.

Hillary Clinton: Has not weighed in recently.

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 ISILs leadership, the result will be more suffering and tragedy for our people.

Paul Ryan: "What we need to have is a strategy to finish them off, to defeat ISIS. Not contain them, not to react, but to fundamentally finish them off."

Ted Cruz: Said that the Islamic State is "mocking America" and "we ought to bomb them back to the Stone Age."

Read more from the original source:
The Fix: Rand Paul just said something very important, and almost nobody noticed

A funny thing happened over the weekend: While President Obama took heat for saying he didn't havea strategy to deal with the Islamic State (also known as ISIS and isil) in Syria, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delivered a pretty remarkable statement.

"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."

The quote didn't really make the rounds and was buried deep in the AP story, but it's a pretty telling little nugget.

Why? Because, to date, it's one of the most hawkish things that any potential 2016 presidential contender has said about the Islamic State. And Paul is supposed to be the non-interventionist in the bunch.

Below isa sampling of what the others have said.

Hillary Clinton: Has not weighed in recently.

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 ISILs leadership, the result will be more suffering and tragedy for our people.

Paul Ryan: "What we need to have is a strategy to finish them off, to defeat ISIS. Not contain them, not to react, but to fundamentally finish them off."

Ted Cruz: Said that the Islamic State is "mocking America" and "we ought to bomb them back to the Stone Age."

Here is the original post:
Rand Paul just said something very important, and almost nobody noticed

U.S. Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky gives the keynote speech to the delegates of the Texas GOP Convention in Fort Worth, Texas Friday June 6, 2014.(AP Photo/Rex C. Curry) AP

Two-thirds of registered voters in Kentucky oppose legislation that would ease a potential headache for Republican Sen. Rand Paul should he decide to seek reelection to his current seat while simultaneously mounting a White House bid, a poll out Tuesday found.

Earlier this year the Bluegrass State's senate majority leader sought to clarify an ambiguous law that Paul argued is unconstitutional if it indeed bars running for reelection to the Senate and for president concurrently. The purpose of his proposed legislation, Republican Sen. Damon Thayor said at the time, "will be to make clear that Rand Paul or anything in a smiliar situation in Kentucky can run for both offices in the same year."

Democrats running the state House ultimately blocked the bill, which is a move that seems largely popular among Kentucky voters: Only 15 percent said they believe Paul should be able to campaign for both seats, and a third say the freshman lawmaker shouldn't run for anything.

But among those who back Paul as a voice in the political arena, a slim margin - 24 to 22 percent - favors him in the Senate chamber then in the Oval Office. Some voters who spoke to the pollster, like 67-year-old Harvey Tincher, made the case that Paul's libertarian-guided foreign policy would preclude his qualifications for president.

"He's more of an isolationist, and we don't live in an isolated world," he said. Tincher added that "the fear of losing" shouldn't establish grounds for a candidate to seek multiple offices: "You've got to run for one or run for the other," he said. "If you're going to do it, go all the way."

Of course there are those in the minority who back Paul's potential double candidacy, including Mary Dean, a Kentucky Democrat.

"I do think he's a good senator and I think he'd make an excellent president, if they would change the law to allow that in the state of Kentucky," she said. "I think he's a personable candidate -- you can talk to him and he will answer you."

Paul, who's made no secret of his presidential ambitions, isn't the first potential White House candidate to seek two offices concurrently. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, then-Sen. Joe Biden and former Sen. Joe Lieberman all sought reelection while running for vice president.

2014 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Original post:
Kentucky voters oppose Rand Paul running for two offices concurrently

U.S. foreign policy is a bipartisan fiasco. President George W. Bush gave the American people Iraq, the gift that keeps on giving. President Barack Obama is a slightly more reluctant warrior, but he is taking the country back into Iraq.

Hillary Clinton, the unannounced Democratic front-runner for 2016, supported her husbands misbegotten attempt at nation-building in Kosovo and led the drive for war in Libya, which is unraveling. Most of Clintons potential GOP opponents share Washingtons bomb, invade, and occupy consensus.

The only exception is Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. He stands alone advocating a foreign policy which reflects the bitter, bloody lessons of recent years.

The Islamic State of Syria and the Levant is the latest result of Washingtons incessant and counterproductive meddling in the Middle East. Nowhere has U.S. policy been more disastrous.

But the usual suspects are calling for more intervention, more war. This time, they promise, everything will go well.

This is the Obama administrations position in Iraq and Syria. However, Hillary Clinton has begun maneuvering for 2016 by running to Obamas right.

She consistently promoted a militarist policy in the Balkans and Middle East. She took a hawkish position on virtually every issue within the Obama administration. While she mocked the presidents mantra of Dont do stupid stuff, she spent her career doing just that.

Instead of offering an alternative, leading Republicans are all in for war, more war, forever war. The dual donkeys of the apocalypse, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, naturally have been advocating that America intervene more in both Syria and Iraq.

Most plausible Republican candidates are running toward the interventionist sideline. They blame Obama for Iraq, even though it was George W. Bush who invaded that nation and failed to win Iraqi approval for a permanent U.S. garrison.

New Jerseys Gov. Chris Christie has ostentatiously joined the most hawkish GOP elements.

View post:
Can Rand Paul defeat neocon Hillary?