1. It revs up the base...Before reading those reasons — which are detailed at the link — I set a goal for myself to come up with 4 more reasons. Off the top of my head, here:
2. It's a way to get at Hillary...
3. It's who Rand is...
4. It's personal....
1. He believes in the principle of workplace equality and is dismayed at how predatory individuals seeking personal sexual pleasure have disrupted the meritocracy that should prevail.
2. Someone on the Republican side needs to be able to counter the "war on women" propaganda of the Democrats, and no one else seems to have the guts or skill to do it properly.
3. He dislikes the idea that the distinction of first female President should go to a woman who leveraged her power through a male who she knew was taking advantage of women.
4. He knows that if the Democrats had material like this to use against a Republican candidate, they would have no mercy.
I'm sure you can help me lengthen this list.
पोस्ट्स
११० टिप्पण्या:
It keeps Rand Paul's name front and center, and I don't know if there's a down side to what he's been talking about, because it's true.
He knows Hillary won't respond, for obvious reasons. Rand is very smart. He's going to be the nominee.
I think your (3) is the most likely, Althouse. Few things enrage libertarians more than high status achieved through cynical and hypocritical use of access. This lies at the center of their j'accuse of the statists.
Hillary has promised him a three way with Julianne Moore and Susan Sarandon if he takes Paul out of the picture!
Rand Paul may be on a kamikaze mission, but he is revealing the inherent hypocrisy of the left in general and the Clintons in particular.
There are a lot of juicy targets with Class Warfare, Racial Issues, Climate Change, and the false claim that the Dems are the "youth" party.
Why wouldn't Hillary respond?
"Why wouldn't Hillary respond?"
Maybe she doesn't think his little campaign merits a response?
Yeah I think he may be (not sure) willing to throw himself into the fire that the Hillary 2016/Predator Bill/War on Women Hypocrisy will be. He knows it can't stand up to a sustained exposure. He seems up to the task where most republicans aren't. Let's talk about it and talk about it some more.
Also, Althouse--your cruel neutrality here seems to lead you to consider the most noble motivations for Paul. You do this with Walker constantly. Your whole schtick is a fraud--Amazon portal click bait for the far right delusional.
Chris just likes safe accusations. Those others get people to wondering about Dems.
I said to my wife yesterday, "did you know that BC had to pay Paula Jones $850k for sex harassment settlement?" She did not. I did not.
I said do you think that if that would have happened to a republican president that it would have been the lead story every night on every news cast?
"The news September 11 2001, our to story, remember, republican president Bill Clinton, woman harasser had to pay a $850k settlement last year for harassment. Also something happened with some planes."
Rand Paul is willing to slay some dragons that the rest of the GOP is afraid of.
""The news September 11 2001, our to story, remember, republican president Bill Clinton, woman harasser had to pay a $850k settlement last year for harassment. Also something happened with some planes."
Beautiful.
"There was an accident in Manhattan today."
This may just be a corollary to #1 rather than a separate reason, but: All these years later, Republicans still can't stop thinking about the Clenis, so he's just talking about what's on the minds of his party's base. Kind of like talking about football in a sports bar during the fall months.
Re rand paul, remember he didn't ask for this. David Gregory sprang the "war on women" trap question, Paul was just deft enough to turn it around.
Don't be all butt hurt he sidestepped a trap by a dem designated media lap dog.
t: All these years later, Republicans still can't stop thinking about the Clenis,
Yep, you never hear about Watergate any more./sarc
Heyooyeh said...
Also, Althouse--your cruel neutrality here seems to lead you to consider the most noble motivations for Paul. You do this with Walker constantly. Your whole schtick is a fraud--Amazon portal click bait for the far right delusional.
Well, it's pretty obvious that all the ones Chillizza came up with are just attacks on Paul. What should Althouse do, pile on? Or perhaps rebut his leftwing speculations?
Any similar defense she gives to Walker is because it's not easy to come up with new smears, lies, spin, propaganda, myths, distortions, et al, against him - the left has tried every one already, incessantly, non-stop and at their top of their Collective lungs, too.
The subject of Bill's Clinton's predatory behavior in the office and Hillary's hypocrisy about the "vast right wing conspiracy" is long over due for a public airing ... if she is going to be front and center Democrat front runner. It's only fair and we know how the Dems are all about fairness.
Yep, you never hear about Watergate any more./sarc
Yeah, I remember Democratic Presidential candidates, like Barack Obama, talking about that all the time in the run-up to 2008. Oh, wait...
In fairness to Chris Cillizza, those 4 responses were not his but the responses he got after asking "a handful of Republican strategists" "What gives?"
What is truly revealing is that Cillizza and, by extension, all Clinton supporters have no plausible answer of their own to the question "What gives? Why is Rand Paul calling Hillary Clinton's husband a sexual predator?"
1. Hillary's husband did, in fact, have sex with that woman...
2. 9 separate times, in the Oval Office...
3. while he was president and she was his intern...
4. with his wife, First Lady Hillary Clinton present, in the White House, on 7 of those 9 occasions.
@somefeller,
Republicans still can't stop thinking about the Clenis,
You don't think that Hillary's attempt to ride her relationship to said Clenis all the way to the White House has anything to do with the duration of that topic among the Republicans, do you?
Well, if Hillary retired and took over some NGO & looked forward to some grandkids, we'd get to test your hypothesis on the Republicans' obsession with the Clenis. I'm betting the topic would drop out of conversation in a New York minute.
Also, Rand Paul needs to get his facts straight: The $850,000 settlement was greatly reduced by the court.
There is something very galling about the wife of the serial womanizer running who will suggest that the oppposition party is engaged in a war on women.
The core is:
Democrats' electoral strength comes from its branding as champion of various groups so it's useful to show that brand is a fraud.
This drive his two and your 2 -4.
This might be considered part of your number 3, but I think it extends far beyond that: Pointing out how Bill Clinton abused his power in pursuing women shows the falseness of the whole war on women meme. Are we to believe that the party that continues to honor and adore such a man is also the party that protects women?
He is simply and consistently applying Andrew Breitbart's excellent and winning advice to attack liberals where they are most (and always) vulnerable - their unearned air of moral superiority.
This is a rich target area because Progressives are not just wrong, but "as wrong and wrong can be", which takes some doing and includes being 100% hypocritical on almost every issue.
Fish in a barrel if you just have the guts to do it. Rand clearly does.
It ain't going to be pretty when Hillary does respond. Plagiarism, hiring of neo-confederates, barrage of questions about black lunch counters, questions about hid dad's racist newsletters.
Maybe Rand Paul just wants to have one of those "conversations" that Hillary keeps yapping about while nodding her head?
BTW, Meade, do courts reduce "settlements", which are typically private agreements?
It ain't going to be pretty when Hillary does respond. Plagiarism, hiring of neo-confederates, barrage of questions about black lunch counters, questions about hid dad's racist newsletters.
Dammit, that was supposed to be a surprise! Could you at least not tell them about Operation Soros-Alinsky? Because that's gonna be sweet.
I thought Biden had the market cornered on plagiarism.
I rarely see the sex DISCRIMINATION problem discussed. Think about Monica's job post-internship. She landed a GS-9 salary from the Pentagon. How many White House interns who are NOT female, cute, white, and accommodating of the powerful wind up profiting so? What could a male intern do to highlight his usefulness to a male president that was quite as pleasant as Monica's performance? What would a Black intern do for a Southern Arkansas small town boy grown up to a position passing out preferrments? What would the plump and acne-scarred intern do; or the shy and virginal abstinence-educated young person do; to compete with the intimate services of Monica?
Note that Kathleen Willey testified that she deliberately and intentionally hoped to obtain favor -- and a good job-- from Clinton in exchange for -- (ha ha!) bringing him chicken soup! Clinton approved the sentiment, yeah, he'd trade a job for personal services. But Clinton wanted more than just soup. But what does that environment do to all the square-shooting fair-playing hard workers who read the open job postings, file applications, and otherwise attempt to advance by following the published rules?
To me it's not that Clinton abused Monica. It's that Clinton cheated a dozen other interns and subordinates out of a legitimate shot at jobs they qualified to do.
garage: "..questions about hid dad's racist newsletters."
Hey, remember all those questions to Al Gore about his daddy's unwillingness to support the Civil Rights Act?
What's that?.......
garage mahal seems to want us to think that Hillary won't throw all that and more - true and false - at Paul if he runs, or at anyone else who runs against her, whether they treat her with kid gloves or not.
Michael K said...
I thought Biden had the market cornered on plagiarism.
That's Biden, so that's the "good" plagiarism.
How can you not know that?
It is unseemly to the left to have Bill Clinton held to the standards that Bill Clinton and the dems insisted everyone (excluding dems) be held to.
It is even more unseemly to the left to have to explain how their valiant defense of women against the republican horrific "WAR ON WOMEN!!" includes Hillary as the standard bearer when Hillary participated fully in the destruction of women whose only "crime" was that they ran into sexual predator Bill Clinton.
It will be important for garage and somefeller and the rest of the gang to double and triple down on the distractors.
Not to worry though lefties, you can be sure those types of stories will only show up on Fox.
The "good news" out of all this is that after Clinton could no longer deny the truth, the entire, ENTIRE, feminist establishment turned on a dime (as lefties are wont to do) and suddenly discovered all sorts of justifications to allow men the "one grope rule".
Thanks Gloria Steinem!!
Hillary told the feminists to get in line and, as you would expect of any good leftist, they more than happily followed their orders.
Hey, remember all those questions about obama's parents communist backgrounds?
What's that?.....
Paul is a master of Aikido.
Democrats need to shorten the fuse or otherwise reconfigure their armaments. As it is, there is more than sufficient time to capture, and redirect their assaults to damage them with their own narratives.
Neither Obama or Al Gore are running for president. Other than that, a very statue observation.
Ah, the airing of the dirty linen. Rand Paul has plenty of unwashed laundry. I'm looking forward to Hillary scrubbing him over the washboard.
The reason is that if Paul runs against Hillary he has to solve the problem of how you can attack a woman candidate without being seen by many voters as at least ungentlemanly, and perhaps as conducting a War On Women. Attacking Bill Clinton is not the solution to that problem, but it's a start. What would solve the problem is for Hillary to get mad and launch a personal attack on Paul (an attack on Rand's father could be perceived as such a personal attack). I learn from the movies that you can't slap a woman, but if she slaps you, you can slap her back.
It's uniquely possible then that Paul simply doesn't like Clinton and in his heart of hearts believes the former president was let off too easy for his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
No, that would be retarded. Nobody attacks a former President has been retired for 14 years out of the blue, just because you're still pissed. That would be like Mondale trying to "rev up the base" in 1988 by attacking Richard Nixon.
Saint Croix:
What difference does she make now anyway? Besides, she was was neutralized by the Obama faction, and the Democratic base did not even blink at their tactics.
The four points you came up with off the top of your head each register a solid 10 on the Laugh-o-Meter. Taken collectively, they break the damn thing.
#1.) Rand Paul believes that employers should be free to discriminate against anyone, for what ever reason they choose. He and Pops always have been clear about this, through their opposition to the 1965 Civil Rights Act, and many other explicit statements. Some champion of workplace equality.
#2.) The Republicans certainly do need to parry the Ds "war on women" thrusts. Unfortunately, they won't be able to do that with transparent rhetorical slights of hand that confuse broad social policy objectives with individual behavior. Rand will have to come up with an actual policy or two that benefit women to gain much credibility with them, I think. Not all women as as beguiled as you seem to be by his curly hair and glibness.
3.) If Rand had any principle against piggybacking on the success of influential relatives he never would have run for the Senate. I don't think Rand finds nepotism offensive. More of a calling card, really.
4.) This is the biggest howler of all. It wasn't the Democrats who savaged Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich for their infidelities, any more than it was the democrats who tarred Ron Paul with his past canoodling with neo-Nazis. If you don't believe me, check out the many Fox News clips on You Tube(Is Rand in favor of Papa giving back the money from those fundraising newsletters? I didn't think so.)
If Rand were half as smart as he thinks he is, he would be a dangerous candidate. But he's not. Senator from Kentucky is not a bad gig. Rand will have to be content with it.
Rand is hitting a bullseye every time he shoots.
Althouse 2 and Althouse 3 were my thoughts when Rand fired off his salvo.
Getting fire on the enemy is how you win a battle.
He believes in the principle of workplace equality and is dismayed at how predatory individuals seeking personal sexual pleasure have disrupted the meritocracy that should prevail.
Is he proposing federal sex harassment legislation? Nope. His focus is on President Clinton specifically.
It's nice to try to spin this as high-minded. Yet Paul himself is focused on fund-raising.
"Anybody who wants to take money from Bill Clinton or have a fundraiser has a lot of explaining to do."
He's going after the money! Rand Paul has declared that anybody who holds a fundraiser for sexual predators like the Clintons is guilty of a "war on women."
Ouch!
Someone on the Republican side needs to be able to counter the "war on women" propaganda of the Democrats, and no one else seems to have the guts or skill to do it properly.
I think this is right. It's political, not substantive. The "war on women" is propaganda and Rand Paul is announcing that he will use this propaganda against Democrats. He is putting HIllary, feminists, and the media on notice.
He dislikes the idea that the distinction of first female President should go to a woman who leveraged her power through a male who she knew was taking advantage of women.
That's just a high-minded version of an attack on Hillary. It's character assassination anyway you look at it. I'm not saying it's not effective! (Or fun, in a mean sort of way). And maybe it's necessary, since our media has become so ideological, and plays this game all the time.
In a just world, Hillary would be judged on how she handled Benghazi. Instead we get "sexual predator in the White House!"
she was was neutralized by the Obama faction
Remember when Obama went after Bill Clinton for being racist? He attacked Bill, not Hillary!
My advice to HIllary is that she should defend her family. "I don't appreciate Rand Paul attacking my family and I wish he would stop."
That's pretty much how I feel about it. Family should be off limits. Even the Mafia won't assassinate your family. This is all Columbian drug cartel.
Also, it is really frickin' early to go negative. The negative campaign has started before the actual campaign. Wow.
It is amazing how out of touch Republicans are. Americans couldn't get excited about this to hate Bill Clinton in 1998. They aren't going to care between now and 2016.
Dream on, losers.
Will the interns be sleeping with the First Husband? Stay tuned, America!
Well, if Hillary retired and took over some NGO & looked forward to some grandkids, we'd get to test your hypothesis on the Republicans' obsession with the Clenis. I'm betting the topic would drop out of conversation in a New York minute.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. They've spent so much time on it and it would be hard to let go. But maybe you have a point and they'd change their focus to Obama being a secret Muslim from Kenya. Such is the nature of modern conservative thought and they need something to talk about.
I don't believe Althouse when she says she thinks this is a good angle of attack on Hillary. It didn't work against Clinton 20 years ago and polls show it actually helps Hillary and hurts Paul. I suspect Althouse knows this and persists because it will hurt Rand and help Walker to encourage him to keep up this angle of attack. There are far more useful and accurate angles to attack Hillary - for instance her absolute lack of accomplishments.
Americans couldn't get excited about this to hate Bill Clinton in 1998.
Are you kidding? American was aghast about Monica Lewinsky. It dominated the news forever. I think Clinton bombed a country to try to change the subject.
There is no way in hell Hillary wants people to be talking about Bill and his sex scandals. I agree it's old news. Really old news.
And yet 2012 was all about the war on women. I suspect Rand Paul is thinking about that and thinking about how 2016 might play out if Hillary is the nominee. And he's announcing, to everybody, that he is not afraid to fight that fight. He has hijacked the war on women and found his bad, bad man.
I agree with Cliff that "There are far more useful and accurate angles to attack Hillary - for instance her absolute lack of accomplishments.", but, as some Solon said, What difference, at this point, does it make?
Are you kidding? American was aghast about Monica Lewinsky.
How did the 1998 congressional elections go for the GOP, then?
It dominated the news forever.
Sexy stories usually do.
I think Clinton bombed a country to try to change the subject.
I'm sure you think of lots of things that aren't correct. But please, make this a prime talking point in the coming elections. Don't stop on my account.
Heyooyeh said...
Why wouldn't Hillary respond?
because everything Rand Paul is saying about her husband, and about her support for her husband, is true. And responding just makes that apparent to more people.
Saint Croix:
I agree. Both sides should recognize the limit of "war on" whatever and return to substantive issues, addressed on their merits, which affect individual and general Welfare.
I'm sure you think of lots of things that aren't correct.
Here is how the New York Times reported on the bombing.
"Dozens of U.S. cruise missiles struck targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan on Thursday in what President Clinton described as an act of self-defense against imminent terrorist plots and of retribution for the bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa two weeks ago."
"Clinton's stone-faced appearance marked his emergence from two days of shelter from a howling political storm. He returned to the White House on Thursday afternoon from vacation on Martha's Vineyard, where he was trying to repair family ties damaged by his admission Monday of an intimate relationship with a White House intern."
The missile attack in Sudan was of a pharmaceutical factory, and a night watchman was killed.
In 2005 the New York Times writes
"American officials have acknowledged over the years that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans..."
"There are far more useful and accurate angles to attack Hillary - for instance her absolute lack of accomplishments."
This one has been making the rounds this week. It ignores that electoral politics is a game of comparisons.
If the opposing candidate is Rand Paul, for instance, that angle is counter-productive.
garage: "Neither Obama or Al Gore are running for president."
But what happened when they were running for President?
Don't recall?
Above your paygrade?
Well, truthfully, what isn't?
Just go back to your ice fishing in your lilly white enclave and waiting for uncle sugar to give you more "free stuff" others worked hard for.
After all, you worked very hard to graduate from high school.
You clearly deserve it.
Somefeller: "But maybe you have a point and they'd change their focus to Obama being a secret Muslim from Kenya."
So, a member in good standing on the left takes time out from claiming GW Bush purposely blew up the New Orleans levee's and that Ronald Reagan conspired with the Ayatollah to claim that conservatives think obama is "a secret Muslim from Kenya."
Delightful.
I'm sure you can help me lengthen this list.
5. Rand Paul wants to remind Democrats that HIllary is vulnerable, in order to encourage other Democrats to run for President. He wants the Democrats to nominate the best possible candidate.
6. Rand Paul objects to the coronation of Hillary by feminist sycophants in the media. It's a broadside against the media. He's using the media's own propaganda against the media's favorite candidate.
So, a member in good standing on the left takes time out from claiming GW Bush purposely blew up the New Orleans levee's and that Ronald Reagan conspired with the Ayatollah
I haven't claimed either. Are you confused again or just going into one of your fantasy fugues?
to claim that conservatives think obama is "a secret Muslim from Kenya."
Sorry to mention the views of much of the conservative base. But I can understand if you find them embarrassing. I do too.
7. Rand Paul objects to all the corporate money involved in politics and he wants to put the corporations on notice that if they gave millions to the Clintons they are a participant in a war on women.
bbkingfish said...
"There are far more useful and accurate angles to attack Hillary - for instance her absolute lack of accomplishments."
This one has been making the rounds this week. It ignores that electoral politics is a game of comparisons.
If the opposing candidate is Rand Paul, for instance, that angle is counter-productive.
Nope. Not at all true.
The point is "accomplishments in light of the opportunity to have some".
Hillary has had plenty of opportunity, and still no accomplishments.
"Dozens of U.S. cruise missiles struck targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan on Thursday in what President Clinton described as an act of self-defense against imminent terrorist plots and of retribution for the bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa two weeks ago."
How dare a Democrat bomb al-Qaida and its allies. That doesn't fit The Narrative.
8. Rand Paul thinks the laws (and the media) should be fair. Whatever the standard is, apply it to everybody, regardless of political party. Thus this attack is really an attack on hypocrisy. Specifically, he is attacking feminist hypocrisy. One standard for Bill Clinton and another standard for Republicans? That is unfair, that is wrong.
Ah, the airing of the dirty linen. Rand Paul has plenty of unwashed laundry. I'm looking forward to Hillary scrubbing him over the washboard."
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Paul knows what he is doing. If she said nothing the attacks keep damaging her. If she responds she looks weak and foolish.
BBKingfish:
By all means, let's talk about Rand Paul's accomplishments.
Successful doctor
Did a lot of pro-bono work as a doctor
Got elected on his own. His father may have helps with name recognition but may have hurt him as well. Certainly Ron Paul as a maverick Texas Congressman was in no position to do much for Rand in his race in Kentucky.
And in 4 years in the Senate, Paul has succeeded in changing the entire course of the national conversation. Not alone, of course, but he is one of the leaders doing that.
So by all means, let us compare Hilary!s lifetime accomplishments vs Pauls.
Pass the popcorn.
John Henry
I hope this is not off topic but how come nobody is talking about Huma and Hilary and their alleged/rumored sexual relationship?
Seems to me that this is no different from Bill/Monica:
Back in the day Huma was only a step or two above being an intern to a Senator.
When Hilary! became SecState, Huma was promoted, with little apparent qualification, to deputy chief of staff.
IF there was a sexual relationship between them it seems like one more example of a powerful boss taking advantage of an employee. All the other objections raised here and elsewhere would apply. Such as an employee using sex rather than merit to get a job and a boss using the same criteria to give the job.
Doesn't matter if Huma was willing or even if she was the one who instigated it.
I suspect that this will be extremely difficult to bring up, though:
1) There is no proof of a sexual relationship between Huma and Hilary!
2) It is gay so any bringing up of it would raise all kinds of cries of homophobia.
It is the kind of thing an Ann Coulter would need to come out with first to provide some cover to others to look into and discuss it.
John Henry
37. Reporters keep asking him about it.
Maybe he is troubled by the knowledge that Democrats idolize a man who, at the very least, sexually harassed (according to the lefty definition) a 22-year old intern and committed perjury to cover it up. He may be further troubled by the fact that the man's wife, who facilitates his adulterous sexual behavior by forgiving it, a woman otherwise devoid of accomplishment, is the front runner for POTUS.
Yes and no to your rapid defense of WJC, Meade...
From Wikipedia:
"On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal. Robert S. Bennett, Clinton's attorney, still maintained that Jones's claim was baseless and that Clinton only settled so he could end the lawsuit and move on with his life.[8] In March 1999, Judge Wright ruled that Jones would only get $200,000 from the settlement and that the rest of the money would pay for her legal expenses."
Sure seems that the amount she received was reduced because of her lawyers, not because of anything that exonerates WJC (as you seem to imply).
I think he does it because
1. It is true; and,
2. It is delicious.
tomaig to Meade: "Sure seems that the amount she received was reduced because of her lawyers, not because of anything that exonerates WJC (as you seem to imply)."
You are correct. The important part is that Clinton paid $850,000. How the judge allocated it between the plaintiff and her lawyers is unimportant.
"He knows the press won't mention it because Hilary is the Democrat."
A quick look at the comment thread at the linked article will be instructive.
The theme: If you are not a liberal you are evil. Very very evil.
Just go back to your ice fishing in your lilly white enclave and waiting for uncle sugar to give you more "free stuff" others worked hard for.
Okay, will do!
Saint Croix:
Americans, Europeans, et al were shut out of China's humanitarian issues by their own hypocrisy... sanctimonious hypocrisy. The Chinese merely reminded us of our own unhappy record, and especially our effort to abort over 1,000,000 human lives annually, for money, sex, ego, and personal convenience, and the civil and human rights activists were silenced.
The Democrats follow the low moral road in principle and in practice, which leaves them vulnerable to exploitation of equal standards of morality. Unfortunately, the Republicans, while right in principle, are inconsistent in practice, and need to get their house in order.
It ain't going to be pretty when Hillary does respond. Plagiarism, hiring of neo-confederates, barrage of questions about black lunch counters, questions about hid dad's racist newsletters.
Rand Paul isn't running on that. The Dems are still running on a totally fictitious "war on women".
Also, Hillary has WAY more influence over her HUSBAND than Rand has over his FATHER. She could've left.
Jenny Sanford did so. But, unlike Hillary, she is ACTUALLY a woman who believes in equality.
#1.) Rand Paul believes that employers should be free to discriminate against anyone, for what ever reason they choose. He and Pops always have been clear about this, through their opposition to the 1965 Civil Rights Act, and many other explicit statements. Some champion of workplace equality.
Opposing current law doesn't mean one cannot notice that people who claim to support the current laws vigorously violate them with aplomb.
If Hillary was running on a more Libertarian platform, your argument might hold water. She isn't...and yours doesn't.
#2.) The Republicans certainly do need to parry the Ds "war on women" thrusts. Unfortunately, they won't be able to do that with transparent rhetorical slights of hand that confuse broad social policy objectives with individual behavior
I know Dems are morons...but some voters might ask why people who claim to support laws opposing sex harassment routinely engage in harassment.
Rand will have to come up with an actual policy or two that benefit women to gain much credibility with them, I think. Not all women as as beguiled as you seem to be by his curly hair and glibness.
Nah. Pointing out the rank hypocrisy in the Dems is sufficient.
3.) If Rand had any principle against piggybacking on the success of influential relatives he never would have run for the Senate. I don't think Rand finds nepotism offensive. More of a calling card, really.
...except he doesn't profess to oppose mistreatment of women while remaining married to a repeat offender of women...
4.) This is the biggest howler of all. It wasn't the Democrats who savaged Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich for their infidelities
Gloria Allred is a Republican now?
Sorry to mention the views of much of the conservative base.
Do you really want to discuss what part of the Dem voting base are Truthers?
Hell, Howard Dean was head of the DNC while being a Truther. Obama named a Truther to his administration.
How dare a Democrat bomb al-Qaida and its allies. That doesn't fit The Narrative.
In case you got tired, later info showed that they had zero info that AQ was there at all --- and evidence, in fact, shows that all they bombed was an aspirin factory.
Explain the narrative, please.
Much of the dem base believes bush blew the levees.
Much of the dem base believes Reagan conspired with the ayatollah to keep Americans hostage longer. Cookie on these very boards said it.
"Much"
And still do. A quick perusal of former DNC leaders, obama admin members and a gander at dailykos or dem underground or other lefty bastions of "reason" demonstrates it.
Now would be a great opportunity for somefeller to disabuse his lefty pals!
And since somefeller is "on the case" of wild conspiracies do take a moment to discuss "secret routers" with garage.
Lol
Much of the dem base believes bush blew the levees.
Much of the dem base believes Reagan conspired with the ayatollah to keep Americans hostage longer. Cookie on these very boards said it.
"Much"
And still do. A quick perusal of former DNC leaders, obama admin members and a gander at dailykos or dem underground or other lefty bastions of "reason" demonstrates it.
Now would be a great opportunity for somefeller to disabuse his lefty pals!
And since somefeller is "on the case" of wild conspiracies do take a moment to discuss "secret routers" with garage.
Lol
Now would also be a good time for somefeller to explain to certain dem congressman why an increase in population of Guam wont really cause the island to capsize.
"Reality based"
Lol
To John Henry and damikesc:
Rand Paul is a vanity candidate and nothing more.
He and his father are despised by the kingmaker's of their own party. Remember: Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, and Romney.
You will not get Paul. You might get any one of the other people-balloons now being floated (well, probably not Cruz), but you won't get Paul.
Hillary doesn't respond to him because she knows she needn't lift a finger towards him. Fox News, the Weekly Standard, The American Conservative, National Review, Pat Robertson, and a ton of Republican PAC cash will bury Rand, just as they did his father, should it become necessary. Just think of him as Rand Nobody, self-accredited opthalmologist, who made good copy for a time while nobody was paying attention.
I hope you paid attention this time because I'm not going to explain it to you again.
I can't take Rand Paul seriously as a politician when he goes on Meet the Press intending to speak about the minimum wage but says he doesn't know whether there should be a minimum wage in the first place.
5. The only damned thing that Bill Clinton will be remembered for 100 years from now is his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. Everything else he did or said as POTUS was brilliantly phony, and this was the one true moment of his character and his presidency, to his eternal shame, and the shame of all who'd support him OR HIS SPOUSE.
Kchiker said...
I can't take Rand Paul seriously as a politician when he goes on Meet the Press intending to speak about the minimum wage but says he doesn't know whether there should be a minimum wage in the first place
Do you really know so little about the opposing argument that you immediately dismiss anyone who holds it?
That's some serious echo chamber shit. You need to open your mind a bit, cousin.
You can oppose the argument, if you choose, but to dismiss it as being without any merit whatsoever --- well, you ought to be embarrassed, but probably aren't.
bbkingfish said...
To John Henry and damikesc:
Rand Paul is a vanity candidate and nothing more.
Hey! bbkingfish is still on this thread! And ignoring my nuking of his previous comment, I see.
Got no quit in ya, I guess. Good show, sport!
garage mahal,
Bill and Hillary Clinton have never done anything racist before? Did they not try and use racism to defeat Obama?
Hillary "I Let My Husband Sleep With Other Women" Clinton.
I can't take Rand Paul seriously as a politician when he goes on Meet the Press intending to speak about the minimum wage but says he doesn't know whether there should be a minimum wage in the first place."
That is actually a very defensible economic argument. It's just beyond your ability to understand it.
5) to help bury wendy davis' flailing "war on women" campaign and help abbott.
rand paul now doin work, while chris christie stuck in that bridge thing.
"Do you really know so little about the opposing argument that you immediately dismiss anyone who holds it?"
Nope. Read more carefully. He was asked whether he supported a minimum wage. He said "I don't know".
That's some real courage.
Perhaps Rand Paul believes that a woman who would let her husband insult her is too weak a person to be President of the United States.
tomaig said...
"Yes and no to your rapid defense of WJC, Meade..."
Rand Paul would be smart to keep on getting the details of the settlement "wrong" and cause the Clinton defenders to talk about what the "true" facts were.
The more the Democrats feel compelled to defend Bill and Hillary and talk about the "truth" of Bill's serial sexual harassment of underlings over his long career while married to Hillary, the more money will be donated to Republican congressional candidates this year.
Mead,
How did Paul get the facts wrong?
Did Clinton pay $850,000 to settle the case or not?
What difference does it make how it was split up?
We've learned over the years that there are certain things that Ann is absolutely buggy on. Hilary! is one of them, for reasons I can't fathom.
I might expect this kind of meaningless hair splitting from her.
She is not buggy on most things, which is why I am here every day. But Hilary! is one of the exceptions.
John Henry
With regards to item #1, I think your spell checker made a mistake
"meritocracy that should prevail." Given the place and the players it should be
mediocrity that does prevail. :-)
It matters, and ought to matter, that "Hillary participated fully in the destruction of women whose only 'crime' was that they ran into sexual predator Bill Clinton." But I think there are better grounds for opposing her, namely, that Hillary Clinton is a failed and disgraced politician.
Her backers have nothing substantial to say justifying the claim that she was a great Secretary of State, except to point out that she flew a million miles.
She is personally corrupt, and everyone knows it. In addition to her pre-first-lady $100,000 commodities payoff, she and Bill disgraced themselves on the way out of the White House. Her husband bought her Senate seat in part with the pardons of 16 Puerto Rican terrorists, as well as of Hasidic community leaders who had embezzled $30 million from the U.S. government. Other Bill Clinton pardons just happened to have been preceded by hundred-thousand dollar payments to two of Ms. Clinton's brothers; and $100,000 to Ms. Clinton's Senate campaign and a million dollars to the Democratic party came from Marc Rich, a man who, far from having paid his debt to society, had fled to and stayed in Europe prior to his unusual pardon. Both of the Clintons are crooks, and they belong nowhere near the levers of power.
harrogate said...
"Why wouldn't Hillary respond?"
Maybe she doesn't think his little campaign merits a response?
More like "She knows it will disappear without a ripple if she ignores it because the MSM won't do anything to give it legs."
Garage mahal wrote:
Neither Obama or Al Gore are running for president. Other than that, a very statue observation.
but they did run. And one of them is now, in fact president. You say that rand should be held to account for his daddies sins. Yet when it was Obama's 29 year association with Reverend wright associations don't matter. And when it was Obamas association with bill ayers, associations don't matter.
We get that libs will be hypocrites, but do you have to be so blatant about it?
He and his father are despised by the kingmaker's of their own party
The kingmaker's are hated by the base.
I can't take Rand Paul seriously as a politician when he goes on Meet the Press intending to speak about the minimum wage but says he doesn't know whether there should be a minimum wage in the first place.
I don't get why this is disqualifying. The minimum wage has never worked as an effective policy.
Leave the echo chamber for a little while.
If Sen. Paul's goal is to force me to pay attention to him, he's succeeding.
My lesson from the last election is that negative campaigning works. The "war on woman" meme is excellent propaganda (defined as lying for political purposes) for the Democrats. The GOP can't win unless they find someone who can turn it around on the Democrats and raise the negatives on the Democratic candidate, whoever that turns out to be.
The GOP will only succeed against the Left/Progressive/Liberal/Slacker etc. party when they stop attacking the politicians and start attacking the narrative. That narrative comes from the legacy media and academia, and that's the one that keeps saying "Republicans/Conservatives are all racist sexist Christianist polluting fanatic colonizing slavers with bad hair and clothes." Until you start blowing holes into that storyline we'll never really win.
It's also a direct refutation of the war on women meme in so far as repubs are castigated for saying stupid things, but dems get a complete pass for things they do. Here's looking for at that denouncement from Nancy Pelosi regarding Bob "Filthy" Filner that never came.
If I were rand i would also bring up the question why Slate and Salon.com continue to publish Nina Burleigh.
Regards
My goodness, as a Hillary supporter, I hope we get to relitigate the Lewinsky affair cuz that worked so well for the Right last time! More please!
5. Reporters keep asking him about it. He keeps answering.
Josh,
The Republican attack on the Bill Clinton over the Lewinski lie worked very well. Both Clintons were kept from backing and campaigning for Al Gore during his run against Bush. Now, you may think Bill and Hillary planned on tanking Gore so that Hillary could run in 2004 after 4 years in the Senate, but I don't think that's the case.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा