Rand Paul and Dick Cheney battle over Iraq by long distance.

[boneyard bill]

Mother Jones has come up with a video of Rand Paul accusing Dick Cheney of pushing the war in Iraq to benefit Halliburton in a speech in 2009 shortly before he began his Senate campaign. This comes on the heels of Cheney's speech to Republican Jewish Committee, hosted by Sheldon Adelson in Las Vegas in which Cheney attacked "isolationists" in the Republican Party without actually naming Rand Paul.

Hard Copy obtained a copy of the video as well as an audio of Cheney addressing some of the members privately about bombing Iran. Hard Copy also reported that Rand Paul was not backing off the comments he made five years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfUjPImEZSk

Republican hawks are growing increasingly nervous about the prospect of a Rand Paul nomination, and this may be an early effort to discredit Rand Paul by these hawks. If so, Matthews and his guests do not seem to think it will work. At any rate, expect more of this sort of thing as the GOP establishment seeks to keeps the hawks in charge in the face of an increasingly war-weary Republican electorate.

 

[laughing dog]

Rand Paul and Dick Cheney pissing on one another is a good thing for the US electorate.

 

[boneyard bill]

Rand Paul and Dick Cheney pissing on one another is a good thing for the US electorate.

Not if Dick Cheney wins the battle. Fortunately, I don't think he will.

 

[The Paul]

Shit, Bill. You and your Tu Quoque. Really.

 

[laughing dog]

Not if Dick Cheney wins the battle. Fortunately, I don't think he will.

Cheney is about as disgraced a politician in the eyes of the US electorate as a politician can get. Rand Paul is slightly less loony than his father. One can only hope that such a fight damages both people sufficiently to end whatever influence they have in the GOP.

 

[boneyard bill]

Cheney is about as disgraced a politician in the eyes of the US electorate as a politician can get. Rand Paul is slightly less loony than his father. One can only hope that such a fight damages both people sufficiently to end whatever influence they have in the GOP.

I doubt that Cheney has much personal influence left, but the people who surrounded him are still around, and they're out to get Rand Paul. I suspect that that is what this story is all about. Someone resurrected and obscure speech that Rand gave even before he announced his Senate candidacy, and they are hoping that it will embarrass him. I don't think it will because, as you've said, Cheney is about the most disgraced politician still handing around.

As for Rand, the war-mongers are scared shitless that he might get the nomination. Thus far he has shown himself to be far more politically astute than his father. But his father was by no means politically unaware. He was just unwilling to play the game. Rand is willing to play the game. He will be a force to be reckoned with in 2016 and, if he does win the nomination, he will be a force that Hillary will have to reckon with as well. You're one-dimensional a ill-informed assessment not withstanding.

 

[laughing dog]

As for Rand, the war-mongers are scared shitless that he might get the nomination. Thus far he has shown himself to be far more politically astute than his father.

That is not setting the bar very high at all.

But his father was by no means politically unaware. He was just unwilling to play the game. Rand is willing to play the game. He will be a force to be reckoned with in 2016 and, if he does win the nomination, he will be a force that Hillary will have to reckon with as well. You're one-dimensional a ill-informed assessment not withstanding.

I'm not the only member of the club of one dimensional ill-informed assessors. I predict that if the GOP is nuts enough to give Rand Paul the nomination for POTUS that his subsequent resounding defeat at the national polls will end his national ambitions. And ithat crushing defeat will cause the GOP to tack back towards its historical roots which will be a benefit for the US electorate, the world and our planet.

 

[boneyard bill]

That is not setting the bar very high at all.
I'm not the only member of the club of one dimensional ill-informed assessors. I predict that if the GOP is nuts enough to give Rand Paul the nomination for POTUS that his subsequent resounding defeat at the national polls will end his national ambitions. And ithat crushing defeat will cause the GOP to tack back towards its historical roots which will be a benefit for the US electorate, the world and our planet.

It's historical roots at this point are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. All losers in the popular vote. Rand is probably the strongest candidate the GOP could run against Hillary. She has a history as a war-monger and a supporter of violations of our civil liberties, as well as being a big advocate of Obamacare-style health care.

Chris Matthews, a liberal Democrat with no dog in the GOP race has been predicting a Rand Paul nomination for quite some time now. Here is another video from Hard Copy on the Cheney-Paul dispute. They seem to think this is a winner for Rand. I tend to agree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIsdFRDURIQ&feature=youtu.be

Here's another article that takes on your criticisms of Ron Paul, and clearly shows how Ron Paul has been right, and you have been wrong:

In 2007, Ron Paul warned that an economy based on debt and cheap money from the Federal Reserve was not sustainable, but the economy was booming and nobody wanted to listen. After the crash of 2008, they started listening.

In 2007, Paul criticized excessive federal spending, but with a Republican in the White House Republicans weren’t much interested. When Obama opened taxpayers’ wallets, they listened.

In 2007, Paul criticized endless military intervention, but most Republicans were content to repeat, “The surge is working.” By 2012, even Republicans were getting weary of 10 years of war. They listened.

In 2007, Ron Paul said that Congress and the president should not act outside their powers under the Constitution, but Republicans didn’t want to hear about unconstitutional acts by a Republican president. After the bailouts and the health care takeover and Obama’s unauthorized war in Libya, they listened.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/the-libertarian-surge-105446_Page2.html#ixzz2yQp9Va2D

 

[wufwugy]

Rand is the only person who could beat a Democrat.

 

[laughing dog]

It's historical roots at this point are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. All losers in the popular vote. Rand is probably the strongest candidate the GOP could run against Hillary. She has a history as a war-monger and a supporter of violations of our civil liberties, as well as being a big advocate of Obamacare-style health care.

Chris Matthews, a liberal Democrat with no dog in the GOP race has been predicting a Rand Paul nomination for quite some time now. Here is another video from Hard Copy on the Cheney-Paul dispute. They seem to think this is a winner for Rand. I tend to agree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIsdFRDURIQ&feature=youtu.be

Here's another article that takes on your criticisms of Ron Paul, and clearly shows how Ron Paul has been right, and you have been wrong:






Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/the-libertarian-surge-105446_Page2.html#ixzz2yQp9Va2D

I fully understand that Ron Paul worshippers cannot see that their divine emperor has no clothes. Fortunately for the US, most of the electorate saw Ron Paul for what he truly was. Which is why he never got the nomination.

- - - Updated - - -

Rand is the only person who could beat a Democrat.

Whether A could beat B depends on A and on B. I sincerely doubt that Rand Paul could beat most Democrats in a Presidential race.

 

[boneyard bill]

Rand is the only person who could beat a Democrat.

While I agree that Rand is the strongest candidate the Republicans could run, I think most of them could beat most of the names being mentioned other than Hillary. Biden? Warren? O'Malley? They don't excite anyone. I'll grant the your favorite, Schweitzer, would make for an interesting race, but I don't think he could win for the same reasons that Ron Paul couldn't win in 2008. The Democratic Party isn't ready to throw their incumbent president under a bus. The Old Guard won't be ready to give up power.

In the Republican Party, however, the establishment is changing. They are divided. They've been out of power long enough that some of them are open to embracing a new strategy and a new image for the party. Besides, there is also nothing in the Democratic Party anything like the Tea Party. There is no organized opposition to the Old Guard. No one Schweitzer can turn to for support in his battle against the establishment. That will take time to emerge, and it will emerge only if the Dems lose the WH in '16.

- - - Updated - - -

I fully understand that Ron Paul worshippers cannot see that their divine emperor has no clothes. Fortunately for the US, most of the electorate saw Ron Paul for what he truly was. Which is why he never got the nomination.

- - - Updated - - -

Whether A could beat B depends on A and on B. I sincerely doubt that Rand Paul could beat most Democrats in a Presidential race.

What they saw in Ron Paul was a guy who was uncompromising, and what they thought of that is that it is both admirable and impractical.