Things you need to know about the FBI

Rand Paul's digging is really important.

Rand Paul takes apart Mitt Romney's bad argument on censorship

Mitt Romney almost has a valid argument... until Rand Paul rips it apart, because it's a weak argument:

Rand Paul just stepped up the culture war big time.

 Um, wow.  

Sham of an impeachment

Let's hope this makes it onto say CNN or even Fox.  This impeachment is not a sham, it's the LATEST SHAM by the Democrats and their complicit media.

Thank you Rand Paul for pointing it out.

BLM thugs attack gay conservative (and Rand Paul)

Tim Pool explains what happened:

Democrats are late to the party when it comes to riots.  It's really getting out of control, and it's probably going to ensure a president Trump re-election, so at least that's a good thing.

Brennan still has his security clearance? Why?

Why is this traitor being protected by the deep state?  I think we all know why, there are still a lot of corrupt people in the government and the swamp still needs draining.

"People talk about the deep state, now the deep state's actually protecting their own," says Sen. @RandPaul on ex-CIA Dir. John Brennan keeping his security clearance.

"I was sitting in the White House when President Trump said I want his security clearance taken." pic.twitter.com/YcKRG26L1c

— CNN Newsroom (@CNNnewsroom) June 4, 2019

McCain about to kill Obamacare repeal again. I blame Rand Paul.

I'm not sure if there's an option for a recall election for a U.S. senator in the state of Arizona, but if there is senator John McCain should be recalled for his political treason against the Republican party and the supposed values he espouses when he runs for election.

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain of Arizona announced on Friday that he would oppose the latest proposal to repeal the Affordable Care Act, leaving Republican leaders with little hope of succeeding in their last-ditch attempt to dismantle the health law and fulfill their longstanding promise to conservative voters.

A promise he personally signed on for in the past.  This is no doubt personal for McCain, but it  is a gross abuse of his office for the sole person of vindictiveness.   But conservative voters should not be surprised by his actions. He's a "maverick"  - by that I mean weak-kneed Republican in name only (RINO).

The real problem is senators like Rand Paul or maybe even others like Ted Cruz - those who are unwilling to take at least a step in the right direction and are living proof that perfect is the enemy of good.

My suspicion is that if any sort of repeal, skinny repeal or even a mandate removal were to occur, the dam would burst and within 2-3 years something entirely different would be in place of the doomed healthcare ponzi scheme that is Obamacare.  But we may never know. 

Send a message to Rand Paul, who can make a difference by removing his opposition to the potential START of a fix.

CNN's GOP Debate Post Analysis

I meant to comment on the GOP debate yesterday, but I did not have the time to do so.  So here are my thoughts today, well after everyone else has weighed in on it.  Unlike the GOP under card debate, the participants in the main debate were not yawners.  The debate itself did not possess any wow factors, but there were definitely some things worth noting.

Firstly, credit where it's due,Wolf Blitzer was not bad.  He was fair, and stood out of the way as much as he could.  Dana Bash was predictably liberal but nothing over the top, and also deserves some credit for keeping her liberal partisanship reasonably in check. And of course while Hugh Hewitt may have had a horse in the race, being a conservative he did not ask dumb, irrelevant questions, like climate change or living wage issues during a foreign policy debate.

As for the participants, here's some top line thoughts.

Ted Cruz - his content was good, but he did not come across as likable every time he went long and flouted the debate rules.  Once or twice is fine in order to make a point but he left the impression that he just didn't care about the rules and had a sense of self-importance.  If that's the image that sticks, it's not good for him.  That would be a shame because his content was good.

Marco Rubio - he came across as solid and knowledgeable. He did nit dazzle, but he left the impression that he would be a solid president if he were the nominee.  Despite his back story however, he did not come across as someone who can easily connect.  Maybe it's just me.  Despite his weakness on immigration he's solid on a lot of issues.  I want to like him, and I'm sure he'd be a decent president.  But all I can muster so far is 'Meh'.

Donald Trump - what Trump has going for him is remarkably, his bellicosity, tempered with well-timed compliments. What he delivers is populism in the form of knowing that things are messed up.  That's something missing not only in Democrat circles but also in large swaths of the GOP.  What he lacks, in spades, is specificity.  He says he's going to hire the best people.  I believe he would. But the problem is, unless he is secretly studying with  debate gurus and will unload unexpectedly during debates with Hillary Clinton, she is going to argue circles around him.  That's a recipe for general election failure.  The debate last night did nothing to change any of Trump's positives or negatives.

Chris Christie - I'm not a Christie guy but I think he won the debate.  He was tough. He was solid, he was forceful but he also connected.  

Jeb Bush - In la la land CNN thinks this guy is the winner.  Yes, he went after Trump, and he needed to do so.  But every single time he came across as bitter, petty, and not nice.  It was clear his debate was about him and Trump and not about details on what he wants for America.  He was trying to score political points and it's exactly why he will not win the nomination.

Ben Carson - He's smart but he's just too laid back.  It's like every answer he's reading you a bedtime story.  That's just not inspiring and it's not a winning formula.  He also has not faced a truly hostile opponent or panel of questioners yet.  I think his moment may have already passed, and it was even before this past debate.  He needed a lightning bolt, he delivered a cloud.

Carly Fiorina - Smart, mature, informed and a smooth debater.  She unfortunately delivered a debate that seemed a little canned and pat.  But that was forgivable.  What may have done her in during this debate is dhe did not manage to stand out.  In a field this big, you cannot afford to not stand out.  She needs traction and she needs it quickly, even more so after not getting it at the debate.

John Kasich - go home. While he was better than his previous debates as far as pettiness goes (where he was clearly a champion of sniping other candidates unnecessarily and spitefully), he just struck me as being overly eager: "look at me", "Ohio is great now", "look at me".  He traded in pettiness for petulance. Go home.

Rand Paul - He was testy. I don't think he was effective in being able to expand his numbers.  I think he was spoiling for a fight and he didn't get one.

Overall, I think because he did no harm, you can say Trump won.  But I expect to see bumps in support for any combination of Cruz, Rubio and Christie.  If either of the other two surge enough, it might be the end of Bush.  We can only hope.

Rand Paul covers Fed territory

Rand Paul at the CNBC debate.  Good topic, well covered by Paul, but one of too few moments for him to stand out.  The other concern, as well versed as he is on the Fed, most voters are not that engaged on the topic. I am coming from the position that being a good policy person and having good ideas does not win a presidency. You need to connect.  You need to be likable and you need a moment or two to shine.  Being right is not enough.

On the campaign trail today (2nd edition)

Some more observations from on the campaign trail today. Snark is free.  You're welcome.

While the Washington Post is aghast, (aghast I tell you!),  that a Rasmussen Reports poll indicates conservatives feel Hillary Clinton should suspend her campaign, apparently New Hampshire Democrats might agree.  Bernie Sanders has overtaken her lead in a poll in that state. Actually, it's the second poll to suggest that. Chris Cillizza, you're raising the kind of objections conservatives were raising about polls showing Obama ahead in 2012. Worded badly.  Sampled badly. Not fair. Automated. We complained about Rasmussen for some of the same reasons in 2012 Chris, when it showed Obama leading.  News flash Chris, the poll's probably right, and you're probably wrong. Oh, and Bernie's contending.

Joe Biden, most assuredly, is in. As the band Foster the People sing, "Call It What You Want".  I call it a wonderful future gaffepalooza.  But please, not until you've derailed Hillary, Joe.

Rick Perry soon to be  0 for 2?  With staffers jumping ship in favor of the S.S. Trump, or even a life raft, Perry's political fortunes may be, well - over.  Two disastrous runs in a row should spell the end of a career.  But let's face it, this is the GOP we're talking about here.  It may be his turn in 2020 or 2024.

Newt Gingrich's run meanwhile, ended somewhere in 2012. So Rick Perry should take heart.  And by that I mean heart medication.  Couldn't hurt at this point.

Rand Paul has taken a shrewd strategy, bypassing unimportant early states like Iowa and New Hampshire and headed straight for the delegate rich game-changer state of...Alaska?  Maybe he's seeking the all important Palin endorsement.

Chris Christie is meanwhile busy fighting corporate polluters in New Jersey.  You know, governing.  It should serve him well - in New Jersey, which sadly does not provide him enough delegates to win the Republican nomination. Oh well.

Donald Trump has turned anger into hipness. I don't think he'll do the same for spurring on racial division. Crossing the line from questioning to pure antagonism - heck, maybe he still is a Democrat. Oh, by the way, anchor babies.

On the campaign trail today

Overpriced snark.

Some notes from the campaign trail today, with an appropriate amount of snark. It's early, there are a lot of contenders and it turns out, snark and cynicism are easy. And a bit fun.  There's plenty of snark to go around. I haven't decided on a horse to back, so don't take it personally if I offend your candidate of choice. There aren't enough Democrats in the race so I'm a little short on snark there. Not my fault - Hillary has frightened almost all comers away. Besides, my snark is Canadian snark - so snark light.

Bobby Jindal sounded off on Scott Walker's health care plan. Because, that's big news. Nothing like hitting someone at the bottom of the top tier to grab some headlines. Right?

On the lighter side, there was Marco Rubio's day, could a perfect spiral become a downward spiral? It's not a big deal, but it's not going to help him. Unless he wants to play for the Redskins Native Americans.

The Washington Post held  a pity party for Bernie Sanders and his run against big media outlets. Like..the...Washington...Post?

Is Rand Paul souring on Rand Paul? At least, is Rand Paul souring on Rand Paul for president? "Rand Paul endorses Rand Paul!" Rand Paul, Rand Paul, Rand Paul. Did I say Rand Paul enough? Somebody has to do it.

Rick Perry shared his true feelings on the band Metallica. It's about time he stopped ducking the issue.

Hillary Clinton doesn't think Black Lives Matter, changing hearts doesn't matter, only regulation matters. Stand back, there's an implosion in progress.

Jeb Bush feels America has under-empowered the NSA. No wonder Clinton wants to face him.

Mike Huckabee declared the West Bank is part of Israel. That solves that.

Rick Santorum...wait you're still reading?  Alright, he attacked Ben Carson's medical research.

Ben Carson looks like he might win (Arizona).

Democrat Martin O'Malley poised to debate himself.  He stands a good chance of winning too.

Donald Trump, the New York Times has officially declared him the devil. And Heidi Klum, declares him an idiot. Seems like a smart marketing ploy except if it were it would be obvious and therefore, not smart.

Carly Fiorina slipped up and praised some Muslims.  Back in 2001. Is Michele Bachmann just jealous?

Suggested Reading on gay marriage reactions.

Charles C.W. Cooke responds to the preposterous notion that churches that will not perform gay marriage have their tax exempt status revoked.  It's ironic that those who would do anything possible to separate church and state to keep religion out of politics are evidently gung ho to have the state invade the sanctity of the church.  Hypocrisy maybe?

Ted Cruz on the other hand has gone the Bobby Jindal route and suggested that if you don't like the law you can ignore it. Dumb, dumb, dumb. That's the kind of thinking that leads to criminal activity - drugs, murder, theft, illegal immigration. It also seems like quite the double standard - obey these laws that we like, ignore these that we detest. I'll say it again, dumb - both logically and politically.

Stephen Crowder ruminates - on gay marriage, what's up with Hypocrite Hillary?

Rand Paul separates not just gay marriage but all marriage from government entirely. Quite well. He's being consistent  with his own principles.  It's not enough to sway me to support his candidacy, but it is exceptionally well put and convincing.

Finally, The Federalist contains reactions from numerous people, and is worth reading.

GOP Candidate Info - Rand Paul Edition

Rand Paul on the Patriot Act, NSA and National Security.

First in the water - Rand Paul

Rand Paul is in for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

I wouldn't say that Paul would be my first pick, but I would not be unhappy if he won. Now what we need is a fleet of establishment-backed RINOs to cancel each other out so that the real conservatives like Paul and Jindal (for example) can have at each other and not see a Mitt Romney sneak through again.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Why abandon ship at this point?

What`s going on with GOP candidates abandoning bids for the presidency in 2016 at this point?  Two solid candidates just indicated they wouldn't run.  Rand Paul and Rob Portman both appear to have suddenly bowed out of the race.  I sort of get it - the next nominee should be a governor and no a senator.  I get trying to defend the Senate in 2016 too.

But come on.  This is the big prize. And these are not insignificant names.  And why now?  It makes me wonder. Is word out to clear a path for Jeb Bush?

Thursday Hillary Bash - #Hillary'sLosers

Hillary and Bill Clinton endorsed a number of losing candidates in the midterm elections.  I mean it wasn't just bad, it was startlingly bad. Just ask Rand Paul, who wasn't wasting time not thinking ahead to 2016.  

Although I'd argue that the real losers were those left behind in Benghazi, her endorsement performance will not be without consequence.

Rand Paul endorsed by..Julian Assange?

Curious news of the day - Julian Assange has praised Rand Paul.  It's not exactly an earth shattering news item but on a dull news day like today, it will make some waves.

 

Via The Daily Caller;

Responding to questions during a Google Hangout session, Assange praised the college-aged supported libertarian faction of the Republican Party as the “only hope” for U.S. electoral politics.

“The libertarian aspect of the Republican Party is presently the only useful political voice really in the U.S. Congress,” said Assange.

The Wikileaks founder also praised Ron Paul and Matt Drudge. Color me confused. Yes, there is likely some alignment on the views of Assange with the libertarian wing of the GOP. But why say that? And why say that now? Does it alienate the Occupy Wall Street crowd who probably were in support of Assange? Likely, so that's not a good reason. Similarly it doesn't appear to do anything to help Assange with his current extradition woes or with fighting the charges against him.

If he really supports Rand Paul, does he believe his endorsement will have a net positive effect on Rand Paul's support? It could have a negative effect, and very possibly could create a GOP primary split that only complicates matters. It's hard to say whether Assange's comments are helpful or hurtful in terms of net effect for both Paul and the GOP, particularly given how many people see Assange as having leaked sensitive national security details. Assange must realize that as well, which makes his comments all the more curious.

That said, the semi-endorsement is interesting and could get a lot of people thinking about Rand Paul.

Christie Cross

 

New Jersey governor Chris Christie is not feeling the love for Rand Paul.  In fact he thinks Paul is 'dangerous'.  Really???  This from the guy who embraced president Obama.  Other than the fact that he may...MAY... be able to deliver a Republican win in New Jersey in 2016, what possible reason would any Republican, conservative or Libertarian voter ever have to vote for this guy?  His star is falling faster than Skylab.

Christie seems to think that national security trumps privacy, end of discussion.  It's never that easy, and even president Obama said he welcomes the debate on the subject (knowing full well he is not interested in any discussion on the topic).

Via Politico, clearly happy to highlight Republican discord, here's the audio.

Rand Paul, handily fired back.

Paul’s office shot back on Friday, saying Christie may need a “new dictionary.”

“If Gov. Christie believes the constitutional rights and the privacy of all Americans is ‘esoteric’, he either needs a new dictionary, or he needs to talk to more Americans, because a great number of them are concerned about the dramatic overreach of our government in recent years,” Doug Stafford, a senior adviser to Paul, said in a statement to POLITICO. “Defending America and fighting terrorism is the concern of all Americans, especially Sen. Paul. But it can and must be done in keeping with our Constitution and while protecting the freedoms that make America exceptional.”

 

Q.E.D. 

OMG Rand Paul should be in the news cycle!

OUT: Ron Paul - kooky. (Sorry libertarians, but he is.  Yes, he's right about a lot of stuff, but he's also wrong on some important things and he is indeed, kooky).

IN: Rand Paul - reasoned, intelligent and right.

This clip should not only be in the news cycle, it should BE the news cycle. This is the single most fundamental counterpoint to Obama's unilateral actions on gun control (in this case) and it is succinct, eloquent and hard (if not impossible) to deny or dismiss  as kooky or paranoid.

EXIT Question: Does this make him a front runner for 2016 or is it just a cogent argument that will fall on deaf ears?

Quick Grading GOP Convention Speeches - Day 2

Speech of the night.

A close second.

For comparison, here are my quick assessments from Day 1. 

Unfortunately I missed Rand Paul, so I'll have to update that here after watching a replay.

The speeches tonight were good and certainly from a generally higher profile group than the first night (Christie being the obvious exception yesterday as the keynote speaker, and Abbe Romney also).

John McCain - the speech was okay, but he seemed tired and quite uninspiring.  D

Rob Portman - some great parts and some dull parts, but overall - pretty good. B-

Tim Pawlenty - A lot of good one liners kept the crowd engaged but not on their feet. B

Mike Huckabee - His prior speaking experience showed.  On point, well spoken, and engaging.  B+

Condoleeza Rice - Resolute, stirring and focused on national security which has only been casually mentioned heretofore.  Included the topics of trade and energy and economy and tied it all back to conservative philosophy. Inspired the crowd, and me. Rousing. A+

Susana Martinez - I wouldn't have wanted to follow Condi Rice. But her family success story was inspiring and important.  I wonder if MSNBC showed her. B

Paul Ryan - He hit all the right notes but it was not moving the way Rice's speech was. If it had started a bit more energetically the way it was when it had built up, his would have been the speech of the night. Still, a forward moving speech that was very strong over the latter half.    A