Author Topic: WSJ Columnist: Nominate Rand Paul Because GOP Needs 'Another Humbling Landslide Defeat'  (Read 269 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 254,295
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-for-president-bret-stephens-gop-landslide-defeat

TOM KLUDT – APRIL 15, 2014, 11:25 AM EDT

Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens revisited one of his favorite themes on Monday, arguing once again that what Republicans really need is another defeat in a national election.

According to Stephens, a Rand Paul presidential nomination in 2016 ought to do the trick. The columnist offered an endorsement of the Kentucky Senator that oozed with sarcasm.

Quote
No, what we need as the Republican nominee in 2016 is a man of more glaring disqualifications. Someone so nakedly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of sane Americans that only the GOP could think of nominating him.
This man is Rand Paul, the junior senator from a state with eight electoral votes. The man who, as of this writing, has three years worth of experience in elected office. Barack Obama had more political experience when he ran for president. That's worked out well.


Stephens took aim at Paul's former staffer Jack Hunter, whose troubling past includes a defense of Abraham Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth. The Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist also mocked Paul's suggestion in 2009 that Dick Cheney wanted a war in Iraq to deliver profits to Halliburton.

Quote
If Mr. Paul wants to accuse the former vice president of engineering a war in Iraq so he could shovel some profits over to his past employer, he should come out and say so explicitly. Ideally at the next Heritage Action powwow. Let's not mince words. This man wants to be the Republican nominee for president.

And so he should be. Because maybe what the GOP needs is another humbling landslide defeat. When moderation on a subject like immigration is ideologically disqualifying, but bark-at-the-moon lunacy about Halliburton is not, then the party has worse problems than merely its choice of nominee.


This isn't new territory for Stephens. Anticipating President Obama's eventual re-election, Stephens wrote in early-2012 that "Republicans deserve to lose."

A week after the GOP's disappointing showing in the election that year, Stephens urged the party to "get a grip." He wrote that the GOP base should "demand an IQ exam as well as a test of basic knowledge from our congressional and presidential candidates." He also called on Republicans to stop "demonizing Latin American immigrants" and "tone down the abortion extremism."

"Our republican experiment in self-government didn't die last week," Stephens wrote following the election. "But a useful message has been sent to a party that spent too much of the past four years listening intently to echoes of itself. Change the channel for a little while."

Support the USO

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,057
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Here's an idea - why don't we let the people nominate the candidate they want - and stop letting the media, manipulated polls, liberals and elites tell us who can and cannot win?
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,045
Here's an idea - why don't we let the people nominate the candidate they want - and stop letting the media, manipulated polls, liberals and elites tell us who can and cannot win?

 :amen:
Character still matters.  It always matters.

May 3, 2016 - the day the Republican party left ME.  I am now without a Party, and quite possibly without a country.  May God have mercy!

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 46,835
  • #ToldYouSo
Other than an obvious personal hatred for Rand, what is the basis for this guy's conclusions?  And whom is he pimping for, Jeb Bush?

Offline AbaraXas

  • Не русский хакер
  • Social Media Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,589
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
IMHO, Rand as Rand is fine, but his biggest problem is his father and the political baggage that comes with that, including shared staff and grassroots leaders (Jack Hunter is a good example). He will need to distance himself from the likes of Hunter, Rockwell, and the like. He has done a good job charting his own course but he needs to remain his own man and not an extension of his father.

Offline Slide Rule

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
Hard to hear that Rand is not the one? A rino is not the one either.

Of course this is a very old conversation.

Al
« Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 07:30:11 PM by Slide Rule »
All the best,
Al

Disclosure:
I am 3% Neanderthal and 97% Conservative.

Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

Richard Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics

Roger Penrose, The Road To Reality & The Emperor's New Mind

Karl Popper, An Open Society and Its Enemies & The Logic of Scientific Discovery



Online jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,887
  • There's no one out there quite like me.
    • Fullervision
Other than an obvious personal hatred for Rand, what is the basis for this guy's conclusions?  And whom is he pimping for, Jeb Bush?
Sounds like he's looking for another Jon Huntsman type candidate.
"Just because people in positions of authority are stupid, it doesn’t mean you have to go along with it." —Arlo Guthrie

"In the excitement of great popular elections, deciding the policy of the country, and its vast patronage, frauds will be committed, if a chance is given for them." —Richard Henry Dana, Jr.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf