Mediaboss Marketing

"Stand With Rand." That's Sen. Rand Paul's main slogan as he launches his campaign for the White House. He's holding a "Stand With Rand" rally in his home state of Kentucky on Tuesday and is holding another "Stand With Rand" rally in New Hampshire, the traditional first primary state, on Wednesday. It's an unfortunate choice of words, because it underscores the chief problem with his candidacy. For the life of me, I can't figure out what he really believes where he really stands, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

At a January forum with fellow Republican Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, Paul challenged his colleagues' hawkish showboating on Iran: "Are you ready to send ground troops into Iran? Are you ready to bomb them? Are you ready to send in 100,000 troops? I'm a big fan of trying the diplomatic option as long as we can. If it fails, I will vote to resume sanctions and I would vote to have new sanctions. But if you do it in the middle of negotiations, you're ruining it.'"

Two months later, he was "ruining it" by putting his signature on an open letter to the Iranian leadership. Authored by arch-neoconservative Sen. Tom Cotton, the letter basically told Tehran that a Republican in the White House would nullify any deal negotiated by the Obama administration.

His explanation for this complete reversal was baffling. He told Glenn Beck that it is "kind of crazy" for anyone to question his decision to sign: "Do I have any regrets about informing another country of how our Constitution works?"

He told a different story at the SXSW Festival in Austin, Texas. Claiming to support the diplomatic talks, he said: "I want the president to negotiate from a position of strength, which means that he needs to be telling them in Iran, 'I've got Congress to deal with.'"

How is it helpful to tell the Iranians that any agreement they sign may expire in two years? Cotton is nothing if not forthright: He has said he wants to "blow up" the negotiations, and certainly his letter aimed at doing just that. For Paul to join in this sabotage attempt was intellectually indefensible and entirely in character.

As a U.S.-backed movement seized power in Kiev, Paul called for "respectful relations" with the Kremlin: "Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time, and I don't think that is a good idea."

A few months later he was demanding that President Vladimir Putin be "punished," invoking "our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia's latest aggression." Putin, said Paul, was guilty of "violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation." Here's the thing: The Budapest Memorandum was never ratified by Congress. It was signed by President Clinton, who didn't bother to consult the Senate. It's kind of crazy, as Paul would say, that it's necessary to inform the senator how our Constitution works.

Paul's record of contradictions is extensive. In 2011, freshly elected to the Senate, Paul proposed an alternative budget that zeroed out all foreign aid including to Israel. The budget included a section explicitly eliminating aid to Israel on the grounds that it undermined "Israel's ability to conduct foreign policy, regain economic dominance, and support itself without the heavy hand of U.S. interests and policies."

After the neoconservative wing of his party lashed out at him for being "anti-Israel," Paul started singing a different tune. His revised budget froze foreign aid at present levels. Yet even that modest attempt at fiscal discipline was thrown overboard when he voted to increase aid to Israel and boasted about it in a statement issued by his office.

Read the original post:
'Stand with Rand' Paul? But where, exactly?

Nothing screams Im a libertarian like a creepy, cultish, rhyming campaign slogan, dont you think? Something like Defeat the Washington machine. Unleash the American dream, Sen. Rand Pauls new motto (as leaked to Politico), teasing the kickoff to his 2016 presidential campaign?

Cant you imagine glassy-eyed, libertarian-minded Millennials chanting that slogan, maybe wearing some kind of military-style yet vaguely hipsterish campaign uniform?

No, actually, I cant either. Rhyming slogans dont say libertarian to me; Pauls tweet seemed weirdly authoritarian, in fact. But on the eve of Pauls announcing a 2016 presidential run, nothing makes sense about his campaign branding, or the way the media simply accept it, in all its messy, massively self-contradictory glory.

So I write to give my colleagues one simple tip to improve their Paul campaign coverage: Stop calling him a libertarian. Stop it right now.

And a related piece of advice: Stop reflexively insisting hes going to appeal to supposedly libertarian-minded Millennials. Because hes not.

Robert Draper didnt create the Paul charade, but he seriously helped it along, in his New York Times magazine piece on the nations supposed libertarian moment last August. He saw the moment well-captured by Rand Paul, who was to the libertarian movement what Pearl Jam is to rock, Draper wrote, explaining.On issues including same-sex marriage, surveillance and military intervention, his positions more closely mirror those of young voters than those of the G.O.P. establishment.

Many good reporters and analysts have spent many long hours debunking Drapers assumptions. (I tried it here.) On issues of womens rights and LGBT rights, immigration, drug legalization and even military spending and intervention, Paul has either always been or has become a fairly standard issue Republicans.

Think Progresss Judd Legum runs exhaustively through the record, but here are a few highlights. First of all, hes staunchly anti-choice, supporting the Life begins at Conception Act and pretty much every other piece of anti-abortion legislation thats come before him. Hes got a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee. To be fair, other libertarians have gotten away with being pro-liberty for everyone but women. Pauls father Ron, who was somewhat more genuinely libertarian than his son, likewise supported draconian anti-abortion laws.

And while Paul used to sound vaguely live-and-let-live when it came to gay marriage, he has toughened his rhetoric. He now says the idea of a marriage between a same-sex couples offends myself and a lot of people, and hes joined Rick Santorum in suggesting it may lead to interspecies intimacy. We learned last week that he doesnt even believe in the concept of gay rights, telling an interviewer in 2013, I really dont believe in rights based on your behavior.

Where libertarians tend to support liberalizing immigration laws and promoting more open borders, Paul has voted against any liberalization of U.S. immigration policy. He even cosponsored a bill with Sen. David Vitter to end citizenship rights for the children of foreigners born on this soil, when he first got to the Senate. Citizenship is a privilege, Paul said at the time, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits.

Go here to see the original:
Stop calling this man a libertarian: What 2016 campaign journos miss about Rand Paul

Progressives forced the Chicago mayor into a runoff, but he's poised for reelection Tuesday.

After years of his tiresome shtickthe bullying, the profanity, the glorified tough-guy act, and most of all the centrist corporatismRahm Emanuel was getting his due, and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party was elated. It was late February, and the Chicago mayor had just been forced into a runoff to hold on to his seat, despite spending nearly $16 million and bringing in President Obama for a last-minute appearance in a bid to head off challengers.

"Rahm Emanuel and his corporate cronies have awoken a massive grassroots army across the city committed to ending his agenda of privatization, public school closings, and pension cuts," exulted Jim Dean, brother of Howard and head of the liberal group Democracy for America.

With the final ballot coming on Tuesday, that excitement has mellowed into glum resignation as Emanuel looks like a lock to win a second term. Poll after poll shows him with a sizable lead over Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, a Cook County commissioner.

Rahm Emanuel's Moment of F*&$ing Truth

Progressive Democrats have notched several impressive wins in recent years. Bill de Blasio won a surprising victory to become New York mayor. Elizabeth Warren has proven an effective advocate for progressive causes in the Senate. But there are signs of limitations, too. Zephyr Teachout couldn't reproduce de Blasio's magic in a race against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a centrist who particularly annoys progressives, and progressives haven't been able to recruit a potent alternativewhether Warren or someone elseto Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential race.

Garcia seems to embody both the triumphs and the limitations of contemporary progressivism. His strong showing in the first round of voting was a huge win, but the fact that he hasn't been very competitive since seems to suggest either an immaturity of tactics or a glass ceiling for progressive Democrats. They made an impressive early showing, but when it comes to the vote that matters, Garcia and his allies don't have what it takes to get across the finish line.

* * *

Rahm Emanuel is, perhaps, a surprising target for the left. After all, Emanuel has devoted much of his career to screwing Republicans, though the famously profane pol would likely use a different gerund. As chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he helped engineer his party's takeover of the House in 2006, and then served as Barack Obama's first White House chief of staff. In both roles, he irked progressives. As DCCC chair, he recruited a host of business-friendly centrist candidates, which he saw as the best way to take seats away from Republicans, but which progressives saw as the route to a squishy caucus (both arguments saw some vindication). In the White House, he was an outspoken opponent of pursuing healthcare reform, but was central in negotiations bringing the pharmaceutical industry on board.

Emanuel's tenure as mayor of Chicago has confirmed all of the left's suspicions about him. He has been far too concerned, they say, about winning the approval of wealthy donors and pursuing initiatives that appealed to well-heeled Chicagoans and downtown businessmen. He has imposed painful budget cuts (though it's likely that any mayor would have had to trim spending). As part of an aggressive school-reform program, he closed almost 50 schools, and fought the Chicago Teachers Union during a weeklong strike. Meanwhile, the city saw a huge spike in violence. The mayor cozied up to newly elected Republican Governor Bruce Rauner, and Rahm's largest single donor was a billionaire Republican financier.

Read more here:
Why Can't the Left Unseat Rahm Emanuel?

To the editor: Jacob Heilbrunn's warning of the significant return to power of neoconservatives in influencing the foreign policy advocated by the GOP, and less directly affecting our government's resulting overseas actions, should be taken very seriously. ("The neocons: They're back, and on Iran, they're uncompromising as ever," op-ed, April 2)

Neocons were totally discredited 10 years ago when the failure of their Middle East policies became clear. But memories are often short.

With Congress contemplating plans to undercut a tentative nuclear agreement with Iran, and with frequent calls for our military to intensify airstrikes and consider using ground forces again, the neocons apparently are slow learners. They still believe they have the power to unilaterally remake the Middle East.

Bill Hessell, Oak View

..

To the editor: Characteristically, progressives have high hopes and short memories.

Remember the North Koreans, who after talking 25 years ago about not having nuclear weapons now have these weapons and threaten the world? President Clinton was at first so happy and triumphant after making diplomatic inroads to North Korea. If only he had been more of a neocon.

The Iranians have been "snowing" us for years. Is there any doubt that even with an agreement in place, Iranian leaders will stall, lie and cheat?

Jack Kaczorowski, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinionandFacebook

Go here to see the original:
Neocons and progressives: Which side has the shorter memory?

Deputy Governor of Jigawa, Alhaji Ahmad Mahmud

The Deputy Governor of Jigawa, Alhaji Ahmad Mahmud, has defected to the All Progressives Congress. But the state Peoples Democratic Party stated that he was expelled for alleged anti-party activities.

This was contained in a statement by the PDP chairman of Galagamma ward in Gumel, Jigawa, Alhaji Ibrahim Kafinta, made available to the News Agency of Nigeria on Monday in Dutse.

The chairman said the decision to expel Mahmud was taken during a stakeholders meeting held in his ward.

Reports had earlier indicated that Mahmud had dumped the PDP for the All Progressives Congress, which won the March 28 election in the state.

Kafinta did not say when the stakeholders meeting, which ratified the expulsion, held.

The ward chairman alleged that the deputy governor sabotaged PDP during the recent National Assembly election.

He added that the Gumel Local Government Area headquarters of the party, had endorsed the expulsion.

Efforts by NAN to get the comments of the deputy governor on the matter failed as he neither picked a call nor replied a text message sent to him.

More here:
Jigawa dep gov defects to APC