Posted on 04/03/2014 9:09:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
After a horde of Republican Presidential contenders from Gov. Chris Christie to Sen. Ted Cruz descended on Las Vegas to speak in front of the Republican Jewish Coalition — and kiss the ring of PAC billionaire benefactor Sheldon Adelson — one contender’s absence was noted.
Sen. Rand Paul was nowhere to be found. His positions on Israel, foreign aid, drone warfare and intervention make him unpalatable to this particular crowd.
GOP donors there were vocal in their opposition to Paul’s candidacy. According to Time magazine’s Zeke Miller, “Five donors huddled with a reporter pledged to reach into their deep pockets to ensure Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination.”
And one put it this way: “The best thing that could happen is Ted Cruz and Rand Paul run and steal each other’s support, but if not, we’ll be ready to take Paul down.”
Former White House spokesman and Republican strategist Ari Fleischer — speaking for many of the establishment hawks who define the GOP — put it this way:
“His edges aren’t as sharp as his father’s (Rep. Ron Paul), but there’s still a naiveté that’s going to be a problem. He represents a departure from something a lot of Republicans are used to.”
Republicans — donors, strategists and voters alike — are right to worry about Paul’s outlier positions on foreign policy. In fact, he seems to be increasingly aware of the problem himself.
Adopting President Obama’s language on gay rights, he’s reportedly told GOP donors that he’s “evolving” on foreign policy and Israel, and softening his position against foreign aid. He has reached out to pro-Israel groups to begin a dialogue on those issues, both a recognition that he cannot tune out powerful constituencies and an acknowledgment that his positions may be problematic in 2016.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
FURP!! Amnesty pushers need not apply!!
“S.E. Cupp(s) huh, I’m ONLY here for the PICS!
Its good that these “donors” are becoming more public and their agenda is being understood by more people. The Republican Party will need more sophisticated and informed primary voters or the mistakes of 2008 and 2012 will be repeated. The country absolutely needs an effective, credible Republican in 2016.
No longer interested in the GOP. They’ve given up on Liberty.
We need Rand Paul because letting foreign rapists, drug dealers, murderers, drunk drivers, embezzlers, criminals, and grifters of every kind come and go in the United States and do whatever they please with no possibility of just maintaining our borders is some sort of plus.
Hell with him, and all of his supporters.
He does not support the military lobby?
No. It is not our job to pay for rich farmers to get cheap labor, it is not our job to pay for the 1% to get cheap maids and it not our job to pay for the Democrats to have 30 million new loyal voters.
I liked Rand Paul, I even VOTED for Ron Paul in every primary he ran in. I don’t think we are getting anything out of all the money spend on being the worlds bully, so I don’t really have an issue with Rand Paul’s foreign policy.
We have to have someone who stands for the people instead of the rich, we absolutely can not have amnesty.
Rand Paul is no longer an option.
He would cave on abortion and queer marriage too.
The entire libtardian theory of governance can be summed up as...
“First we smoke some dope...magic happens...and our other ideas work out fine.”
No - won’t vote for him
I can’t support a pro-homosexual, open borders, weak military libertarian. I don’t understand why my elected leaders can’t represent me. My views are still mainstream:
1) Homosexuality: should be tolerated, i.e. legal, but shouldn’t be treated as though it’s the same thing as a heterosexual union, because it’s not.
2) Illegal immigration: we need to enforce existing laws. Illegal aliens take jobs from American citizens and load down our social welfare system. We don’t need to subsidize rich business owners by paying to take care of their illegal alien workers.
3) Military: We need to have the strongest military bar none. That doesn’t mean we need to meddle in other nations all over the world, i.e. act as the world’s police force. We do need to be able to deal with any threats to the USA itself.
Call me a purist, but I can’t vote for anyone who wants to push homosexual marriage, amnesty the illegals, or weaken our military.
He froze himself out. He isn’t even a choice for me. He is out
because of his on politics.
I don’t think there can be homosexual toleration without homosexual “marriage” and every other special treatment they desire. That’s where we made a profound mistake. Re-criminalization of homosexuality is the only thing that will stop this lunacy. AND, it would help us regain God’s blessings, which are being withdrawn because of our embrace of depravity.
But we obviously collectively would rather have God’s wrath than His blessings.
Just ask him views on leaglizing heroin.
Losing seems to be something a lot of Republicans are now used to. What have the GOP-E offered the public the last 2x out? They've offered up retreads who push Democrat "Lite" (all the regulation, half the price!).
At best, Republicans within the last century have offered a holding action against government growth. None have actually succeeded in reducing the scope of the Federal bureaucracy.
The country has drifted ever further to the event horizon of an irredeemable, all-powerful State; one from which the only escape will be the self-destruction of the government as it collapses under its own gravity.
Could the country return to a true Federation of States; where the Federal government has very little actual power and power rests with each State? In theory, it could, but perhaps we've already passed the Nanny State event horizon with a plurality of the population now receiving some sort of dole and therefor beholden to the almighty State.
We're likely following the same path as Ancient Rome. All Hail, Emperor Hillary!
RAND PAUL won’t get my vote. He’s not POTUS worthy with amnesty position. I’ll write in Ted Cruz if he doesn’t run.
That's what the GOP movers and shakers say about anybody who believes we could actually shrink the size and influence of the Federal government.
They tell us they'll run our lives differently than the Democrats. I want a government that doesn't run my life at all.
Paul is coming out as a liberal on far more than just foreign policy, and national defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.