During such a rigorously anti-establishment election, how can the media attempt to proclaim Marco Rubio as the Republican nomination?
If the media and the GOP shills are successful, Rubio would again divide the right by alienating the growing number of anti-establishment conservatives, who will be less likely to vote for an establishment nomination than vice-versa. Anti-establishment Republican voters are traditionally stubborn in withholding support for the nomination, which would hinder hopes for the GOP in the general election.
Trump’s call for a Muslim ban, and subsequent pressuring of all other Presidential candidates to confront the issue, has gained popularity among many Republican voters. This is a telling sign that the successful campaign narratives rely much more on emotion rather than reason. The separation of church and state should be invoked when confronting the issue of a ban on muslim immigrants. While greater screening may be warranted for many reasons, the religious component alone must be a non-factor in the litmus test for immigration.
The New York Times has come out with an article detailing Hillary’s qualifications for president. In another article titled “A Chance to Reset the Republican Race”, the Editorial Board depicts Kasich as “no moderate”, but then goes on to tout his extensive liberal record. The article discounts 5 of Kasich fellow candidates, but fails to mention Rand Paul, who has focused on issues like the racial outcome of the criminal justice system, ending the federal War on Drugs, and using more militaristic restraint.
The New York Times endorsements of both Hillary Clinton and John Kasich shows how pathetic the mainstream media really is. A debate between Clinton and Kasich wouldn’t even be a debate at all, they may as well run on the same ticket.
According to Nick Gillespie, “Rand Paul has helped to start a conversation that the country needs to have, but of which it is afraid.” Whether or not Paul is the eventually Republican nominee, he represents the voice of the next generation of conservative voters. Continue reading “A Different Kind of Republican…”
In order to keep his sparks alive, Rand Paul will need to have a solid showing in tonight’s Iowa Caucus.
In 2012 Ron Paul landed in third in Iowa with 21%. Cruz has attempted to entice Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign supporters, however Rand had a significant campaign event with his father Ron at Iowa State University last night. Through the duration of Rand’s campaign, he has distanced himself from his father, but has recently made a desperate attempt to corral what he calls “liberty vote.” Rand has had difficulty in his campaign largely because the “liberty vote” previously ignited by his father, have seemed to split between Rand, Cruz, and Trump.
Traditionally, the Iowa caucuses have been held early in January, while college students were home for break, however, this election season the caucuses will be held while students are back at school. While Bernie and Hillary have worked at attracting the youth vote, Republicans have mostly ignored it, focusing more on elderly evangelicals.
Rand has only been the only Republican to visit barber shops to talk about criminal justice reform and the racial outcome of the War on Drugs. This could provide supplemental untapped votes to the Paul campaign.
Specifically, in order to have a solid showing, Rand Paul could lose to Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Carson, but should beat Christie, Jeb, Fiorina, Huckabee, Kasich, and Santorum. This would give Paul momentum going into the February 6 debate and the February 9th New Hampshire Primary.
Rand Paul delivers a unique message to the stage, in an otherwise assimilated Republican field. Will ABC and the GOP choose to include Rand Paul in Saturdays debate?
Or rather, will it even be a debate without him?
In 2015 Congessman Seth Moultons spoke at Temple Emanuel. It was quit interesting to say the least. After Moulten first explained his position, two Rabbi’s began the questioning period with statements. The first rabbi compared Iranians to children, while the other declared that with or without the deal, war with Iran is “Invevitable”.
Moulton repeatedly made the point that “if you oppose the deal, then you must also come up with an alternative to the deal.” Moulton explained that unlike Obama, he did not think that it was a good deal, but rather that, it was better than the absence of alternatives. Moulton had just returned from a trip to Israel, where Bibi and his crew conveyed a long list of things that they hated about the deal, but proposed no alternatives.
Almost everybody wearing a yamaka was also wearing an anti-deal button or t-shirt, however, some of the best words spoken were by a man who had served decades in the Israeli armed forces, who expressed empathy with the skewed way in which Iranians are being portrayed. He said that “most Iranians are like Americans” and that “wether you like it or not the Iranians are on the right side of the fight in the Middle East” in his thick Israeli accent, and correctly reminded everyone that Iran is currently Uncle Sam’s ally in the fight against ISIS.