Rand Paul: I #39;m Just As Crazy As Ted Cruz, I #39;m Just Better At Hiding It!
Rand Paul says he is more electable than Ted Cruz... This clip from the Majority Report, live M-F at 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at http://Majority.FM Download our FREE app: http://majority...
By: Sam Seder
Originally posted here:
Rand Paul: I'm Just As Crazy As Ted Cruz, I'm Just Better At Hiding It! - Video
Rand Paul calls Bill Clinton a Sexual Predator
Rand Paul calls Bill Clinton a Sexual Predator Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky Sunday called former President Bill Clinton predatory for his 1996-1997 liaison with former White House intern Monica...
By: Sebastian Voronof
Read more here:
Rand Paul calls Bill Clinton a Sexual Predator - Video
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been taking more hawkish foreign policy stances as he gears up for a presidential run. (AP Photo/Jim Cole) | ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- The Most Interesting Man in American politics is quickly becoming anything but.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is expected to announce his campaign for president next month, on Wednesday quietly introduced an amendment that would drastically boost defense spending over the next two years. The measure, first spotted by Time, would allocate an additional $190 billion to the Pentagon -- amounting to an approximately 16 percent increase to its budget. To offset the increase in spending, Paul calls for substantial cuts to U.S. foreign aid, the Environmental Protection Agency, and departments of Education, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development.
"It is done in response to others in both chambers who are attempting to add to defense spending -- some way more than Senator Paul's amendment -- without paying for it," Doug Stafford, Paul's senior adviser, explained in a statement. "This amendment is to lay down a marker that if you believe we need more funding for national defense, you should show how you would pay for it. No one should be seeking increased funding for anything by increasing our debt."
The proposal marks a notable reversal for Paul, a libertarian-leaning senator with Tea Party cred who swept into office with promises to slash defense spending. In his first five-year budget, introduced in 2011, Paul called for a draw-down and restructuring of the Department of Defense that would have reduced its budget to $548 billion by fiscal year 2016. "Military funding has often far outpaced not only our most likely enemies, but has often outpaced the entire worlds military spending combined," he wrote at the time. By comparison, his new stance would boost spending to approximately $697 billion in the same year.
The amendment gives Paul a line of defense against potential rivals for the Republican presidential nomination -- Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Ted Cruz of Texas -- all defense hawks who have accused the Kentucky Republican of advocating for a less muscular foreign policy. But in so doing, Paul dropped any pretense of being a new brand of Republican, one dedicated to reforming the bloated defense establishment, as he presented himself early on. It puts him more in line with some of the more hawkish members of his party, like freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who suggested spending upwards of $900 billion on defense annually.
Paul's transformation into a foreign policy hawk has been remarkable. In recent months, the senator signed on to a controversial letter to the leaders of Iran. He endorsed carving out a new state in the Middle East for afflicted Kurds in Iraq and Syria. And he gradually came around to expanded military operations against Islamic State terrorists, even endorsing limited boots on the ground.
To top it off, next month Paul is expected to campaign for president in front of an aircraft carrier, in yet another overt bid to toughen up his image ahead of the presidential primary.
UPDATE, 2:45 p.m.: The Senate voted down Paul's amendment on Thursday by a vote of 4-96. Cruz and Rubio, two of Paul's likely rivals for the GOP nomination, both voted against the measure. Rubio's amendment, which would have boosted defense spending without offsets included in Paul's proposal, also failed, by a vote of 32-68.
Graham weighed in on the matter in between Senate votes.
See more here:
Rand Paul Channels His Inner Tom Cotton, Calls For Defense ...
As he pulls together his expected presidential campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sen. Rand Paul is confronted by defections from an unexpected quarter: the die-hard idealists whose energy powered his fathers campaigns.
That network of committed supporters was expected to convey to Paul, the natural successor to Ron Pauls libertarian movement, providing him with a plug-and-play ground organization in the make-or-break early voting states. But instead of embracing the Kentucky senator, many of those grass-roots activists are turning their backs on him, disillusioned by the younger Pauls concessions to mainstream politics.
Story Continued Below
One of the most prominent defectors is Drew Ivers, chairman of Ron Pauls 2012 Iowa campaign, who says he will not endorse Rand Paul for president. On Tuesday, three members of Iowas Ron Paul-aligned Liberty movement state Sen. Jason Shultz and former Iowa Republican Party central committee members Chad Steenhoek and Joel Kurtinitis announced the same, adding that they will support Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Ivers said he does not plan to endorse any candidate.
Sen. Rand Paul continues to have tremendous support from the vast majority of the liberty movement, said Sergio Gor, communications director for the Paul campaign.
Shultz had endorsed Ron Paul in 2012 and Kurtinitis served as his Iowa regional director. Steenhoek worked for Newt Gingrichs Iowa campaign but was sympathetic to Ron Paul, who endorsed Steenhoeks subsequent bid to serve on the state central committee.
Ivers, who had dinner with Rand Paul in August, said the Kentucky senator has abandoned many of the stances that made Ivers loyal to his father.
Hes moderating on most of them, not taking a real clear stance on a number of them, said Ivers. The strategy of sending a blended message is one that has risk.
That was never an issue for Ron Paul, whose uncompromising ways and willingness to operate on the margins relegated him to the sidelines of national politics. Even at the height of his national influence and popularity in 2012, the Texas congressman proved unable to win the popular vote in a single state and never seriously contended for the GOP nomination in several tries.
Rand Paul, by contrast, won statewide office in his first try and has established himself as a viable presidential candidate with a talent for taking the movements liberty message to a broader audience.
Read the original here:
Ron Paul supporters bolt Rand Paul camp - Ben Schreckinger ...
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) -- he of the "non-interventionist" foreign policy -- wants to increase defense spending. This comes after he has, in the past, called for a significant reduction thereof.
From Time's Alex Rogers and Zeke Miller:
The move completes a stunning reversal for Paul, who in May 2011, after just five months in office, released his own budget that would have eliminated four agenciesCommerce, Housing and Urban Development, Energy and Educationwhile slashing the Pentagon, a sacred cow for many Republicans. Under Paulsoriginal proposal, defense spending would have dropped from $553 billion in the 2011 fiscal year to $542 billion in 2016. War funding would have plummeted from $159 billion to zero. He called it the draw-down and restructuring of the Department of Defense.
But under Pauls new plan, the Pentagon will see its budget authority swell by $76.5 billion to $696,776,000,000 in fiscal year 2016.
The boost would be offset by a two-year combined $212 billion cut to funding for aid to foreign governments, climate change research and crippling reductions in to the budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the departments of Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Education.
So while Paul's old proposal funded defense at $542 billion in 2016, his new one funds it at $697 billion -- a 28 percent increase.
This is significant. Paul has often stressed that his non-interventionist foreign policy isn't isolationist, but he has also clearly been on the more dovish side of the GOP, particularly when it comes to curtailing foreign aid and avoiding unnecessary wars.
The problem is, the dovish portion of the GOP is a fast-shrinking constituency in the 2016 presidential race. While it was trendy not long ago, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have drawn down and the Islamic State has taken hold, the Republican Party has very much reverted to a more hawkish footing akin to where it was during the Bush administration. And it has happened very quickly.
To wit, this poll from September:
In less than a year, the percentage of Republicans who said the United States was doing "too little" overseas jumped from 18 percent to 46 percent. That's the kind of massive shift you rarely see in such a short period of time. And it belied what has long been true of the GOP; when there is reason to be hawkish, today's Republican Party will be hawkish.
Read the original here:
The Fix: Rand Paul now wants more defense spending. Welcome back to the old GOP.