Skip to main content

With Rand Paul continuing his attack on Hillary Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky affair, and with GOP chairman Reince Priebus defending Rand's attack, it's obvious for all to see that the GOP has achieved a new level of stupidity. In fact, it's gotten so stupid that even Karl Rove, one of the dumbest men to ever rise to power in political history, realizes just how idiotic it is.
"Frankly, Rand Paul spending a lot of time talking about the mistakes of Bill Clinton does not look like a big agenda for the future of the country," [Rove] said. [...] "I'm not certain again that beating up on Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky is a particularly good thing to strengthen your skills for the 2016 contest," he said.
It's actually dumber than that; Rand Paul's attack isn't really against former President Clinton, it's against Hillary Clinton, who will probably be his opponent if he wins the GOP nomination. And if Rand thinks he can expand his appeal by attacking a woman for getting cheated on, he's absolutely insane ... which means he'd be a pretty good guy to represent the GOP in 2016.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Wait, don't tell me! (39+ / 0-)

    The "nut" is Rand Paul!

    Am I right? Huh?! What do I win?!

    Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

    by ontheleftcoast on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:03:19 PM PST

  •  Who is the guy in the video? (11+ / 0-)

    And yes he is insane.

    “He talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans.” James Carville

    by Mokislab on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:04:20 PM PST

  •  IIRC... (14+ / 0-)

    Wasn't there a poll POST-confession that said a majority of Americans would still vote for Bill Clinton for a third term??

    IOW, this tactic of Paul's really makes no sense at all.

    Message to Dems: We HAVE to start showing up for Midterms.

    by Jank2112 on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:04:45 PM PST

  •  I wish there was a category for best diary title! (8+ / 0-)

    We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

    by occupystephanie on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:08:32 PM PST

  •  Today's GOP: The gift that keeps on giving! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Railfan
  •  If things don't get better, Hillary will be wide (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sue B, Kevskos

    open to attack in 2016.

    She will be a representative of the entrenched party that has held the White House for 8 years and one or both houses of Congress for 10.

    She will have been Secretary of State during the Benghazi tragedy.  She will have been Secretary of State while Russian and Vladimir Putin grew more aggressive.

    She will be old and more of the same.

    Those will be fruitful avenues of attack.

    Pushing Monica Lewinsky and the foibles of her husband will make all of those fruitful avenues spiral away down the toilet.

    Partly because it will make Hillary a sympathetic figure and it will make (Paul|Christie|whomever it may be) look like a complete jerk.

    But only partly.

    The real question will be, "Why in the Hell would I put any trust in your priorities when you think it's important to dredge up (Drudge up) 20 year old misdeeds not even perpetrated by the candidate?"

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:11:52 PM PST

    •  Benghazi is for craziest of crazy nuts. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      claytonben, Old Sailor

      David Petraeus practically endorsed Hillary Clinton in the new book "HRC" that came out this week.

      In a new book he is quoted lavishing so much praise on Hillary Clinton, he seems to be endorsing her as a candidate for President.“She’d make a tremendous president,” Petraeus says in the new book “HRC” by Jonathan Allen and Aimee Parnes. “Like a lot of great leaders, her most impressive qualities were most visible during tough times,” Petraeus tells Allen and Parnes. “In the wake of the Benghazi attacks, for example, she was extraordinarily resolute, determined, and controlled
      Also, GOP House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon gives clean chit to Hillary and Obama Administration on Benghazi. There is a new Armed Services Committee report out yesterday:
      V. There was no “stand down” order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi. However, because official reviews after the attack were not sufficiently comprehensive, there was confusion about the roles and responsibilities of these individuals.

      VI. The Department of Defense is working to correct many weaknesses revealed by the Benghazi attack, but the global security situation is still deteriorating and military resources continue to decline.

      “Given the military’s preparations on September 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack,” the report concludes.

      http://armedservices.house.gov/...

      I know the Petraeus is not the guy to quote here on Daily  Kos, but his words will work for Hillary among centrists, independents, suburban moms etc.

      Teabags will keep yelling Benghazi but I think Hillary has been inoculated.

      •  Hardly. The embassy was attacked and an (0+ / 0-)

        ambassador was killed.

        Buck stops at the top.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:37:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It was CIA operation gone bad. (5+ / 0-)

          Not the first time an Ambassador was killed or a CIA operation had gone bad and it certainly won't be the last time an Ambassador has been killed while serving or a CIA operation has gone bad.

          All Americans serving abroad are at a risk all the time and the risk cannot be eliminated.

        •  where to start? (16+ / 0-)

          the idea that Benghazi has anything to do with the 2016 election is madness on so many levels I don't know where to start.

          this event happened in 2012 - not long before the 2012 election - how much effect did it have on the 2012 election? approximately zero. by the 2016 election it will be extremely old news (it already is to everyone but the far right wing nutbags who will vote Republican no matter what - this has no effect on the election.)

          unless there was some kind of cover-up conspiracy proven (which there hasn't been and won't be as the whole thing makes zero sense) ... I have to say ... OK.. and ? yes, it was a bad thing that happened ... just like many other bad things that have happened ... why is it when something like this happens with a Democratic President we're all supposed to blame the President (and his administration - including HRC at the time) while when it happens with a Republican President we're supposed to have the exact opposite reaction? We're supposed to rally around the flag if attacked during a GOP administration.

          it's just such madness, it's absolutely mind-blowing. on 9/11/01 almost 3000 Americans were killed in the United States by a terrorist attack - and did a single prominent Democratic politician try to use that for political gain against the sitting GOP President? I really don't remember that happening .. no - we all rallied around the flag - everyone placed the blame where it belongs - on those that did the attack ... yes there was some hand wringing about preparations for 9/11 but it would be insane to think that 9/11 was anything but a political touchdown for George W. Bush.

          again: why is it that when we're attacked by terrorists during a Republican presidency that's a political win for the administration but when we're attacked by terrorists (on a far far smaller scale) during a Democratic presidency it's supposed to be this huge poltical catastrophe?

          It makes absolutely no sense.

          the whole Benghazi thing makes ZERO sense. None. I'm just amazed that it's even a thing. at all. to anyone. the absurdity of it is mindblowing. absolutely freakin' mindblowing.

        •  You mean Reagan in 1983 when 234 soldiers (5+ / 0-)

          were killed in Lebanon, and Reagan cut and ran. Reagan was re-elected. Didn't hurt him a bit. There wasn't any application of the BUCK in his case!!

          •  When 234 soldiers were stationed in vunerable (0+ / 0-)

            valley because a movie star had a script and read it perfectly. RR thought take the high ground and hold it was another movie he did not care about.

            Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

            by 88kathy on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 07:02:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  If family and close friends of Stevens (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jeremimi, ecolady

          come out in support of Hillary Clinton for President and personally absolve of her of responsibility, it blunts the attacks on her which then appear personal and mean and groundless, and appear to try to use and smear a family's real suffering and loss for political gain.  Americans don't like that.

          I suspect this will be the case in 2016, if she runs.  Bill Clinton (DADT, DOMA, NAFTA, welfare reform, banking deregulation, etc) is not called the Master of Politics for nothing (I voted for him, twice.)

          I'm still not sold on her desire to run.  I'll vote for her if she does, because Elizabeth Warren will not run, and neither will Joe Biden.  Because I suspect she will be a surprising and thoughtful new leader, and not the self-serving jackass Bill Clinton was.

          "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

          by Uncle Moji on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 07:57:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I sure hope you're right. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Uncle Moji

            If Hillary runs I also will vote for her, because she is the most qualified and most experienced of any candidate on the left or the right. She has her faults, of course, but overall she has the best credentials.

  •  Yeah, but the Village is eating it up. They're (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hillbilly Dem

    just loving the dredging up of the Monica thing.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:14:49 PM PST

  •  Rand Paul's comments.... (8+ / 0-)

    ....are not for the benefit of a general audience, but for a very specific right wing audience. They are the only people that really care about Bill Clinton's penis anymore. The general electorate could give a fuck about what Hillary Clinton's husband did 20 years ago. But the right wingers are still fired up.

    •  I agree... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, atana

      I think this red meat is more about Republican fundraising and keeping the base engaged at a time when the party leadership is fractured in all kinds of directions over all kinds of issues. The party is not growing, even though the country is, and they know it.

    •  yes ... I can possibly see this helping Rand Paul (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      metal prophet, TKO333, Be Skeptical

      get the nomination - - - but then what? is he going to really bring this shit up during the general? and even if he doesn't bring it up again - I think he's already done damage (to his already damaged) reputation by bringing it up as much as he has so far.

      Ann Coulter said that this Rand Paul attack on Clinton/Lewinsky "undermines the GOP war on women idea" ... but it obviously doesn't - it underlines it. Attacking Hillary Clinton for her husband cheating on her almost 20 years ago? It's pure madness.

      I just can't believe this is anything but an enormous turn off to the middle of the road voters who really decide our general elections.

      •  "I just can't believe this" (0+ / 0-)

        "I just can't believe this is anything but an enormous turn off to the middle of the road voters who really decide our general elections."

        Yeah . . . but please don't tell it to the GOP.  Let them find out the hard way.

      •  If Rand Paul does get the GOP nomination (0+ / 0-)

        he will be quickly ground up during the debates when Hillary will chew him up and spit him out. Rand is a moron whose mouth gets ahead of his mind, and whose history is one of racism and bad choices. He is a little weasel and he will look like one after Hillary has a go at him.

  •  It's a foolish thing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy, TRsCousin

    to underestimate the intelligence of your opponent.  Take it from a lifelong chessplayer.  If you're to err in that way, always give more credit than they deserve.  That's a much smarter route on your own part.

    Rove is no more stupid than Mark Hanna was.  I don't know if that name means anything to anyone any more, but we STILL live in his political world.  Citizens United makes it moreso than ever.

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." ~Frederick Douglass

    by ActivistGuy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:15:57 PM PST

  •  I was in the car a lot today (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    travelerxxx, 88kathy

    and found that this is all the talk on winger radio. Add in the new papers that just cam out and you see the right in an absolute panic over her candidacy. Every station I tuned in was all about her being a ruthless, enemies list taking, pacifist who would destroy the country.

    Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

    by Mike S on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:16:00 PM PST

    •  Are you sure it wasn't a time warp broadcast (0+ / 0-)

      and they were talking about Nixon?

      a ruthless, enemies list-taking, pacifist who would destroy the country
      except for the pacifist part, of course

      America's LAST HOPE: vote the GOP OUT in 2014 elections. MAKE them LOSE the House Majority and reduce their numbers in the Senate. Democrats move America forward - Republicans take us backward and are KILLING OUR NATION!

      by dagnome on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 07:57:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ruthless pacifist (0+ / 0-)

      Interesting concept.

  •  "You hope" title... (0+ / 0-)
    Blind squirrel finds enormous nut
    Rand Paul is a big nut, not a blind squirrel. He is attempting an end-run around our (Democrats, and Obama in particular) success at online and small donor fund raising. We need to pay attention to this effort!  He could end up with a substantial wingnut (and faux moderate) list, and I wouldn't count on him being to stupid to figure out how to use it.

    To be first in the soil, which erupts in the coil, of trees veins and grasses all brought to a boil. -- The Maxx

    by notrouble on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:17:32 PM PST

  •  The Republicans can't help it... (6+ / 0-)

    They see a woman who almost 20 years ago was the victim of an adulterous spouse, and they attack her.

    Why? Because this is the best that the Party Of No has to offer the American people.

    No leadership.
    No solutions.
    No future.

    Just say no to the Party Of No!

  •  What exactly do they think she should have done? (6+ / 0-)

    As far as I know, these folks don't believe in divorce; they believe in standing by your man no matter what. So what are they saying Hillary should have done about Monica (or her predecessors)? Kicked Bill to the curb, like Elizabeth Edwards and Jenny Sanford basically did? Instead, she did what good faithful Christian wives are supposed to do: forgive and go on loving him.

    And that's what they're going to hammer her for?

    All I can figure is that this is a back-handed way of slamming her for being female, without actually saying so -- reminding everyone that she's a wife, therefore unfit to be President.

    Get a life. Really.

    •  No matter what she did she would have been wrong. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AZ Sphinx Moth, OldDragon

      Because women are the ones solely responsible for a husband's behavior and the marital relationship.
      Geez Louise, it might as well be 1840.

    •  They're still steamed about her not baking cookies (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AZ Sphinx Moth, JeffW, Sue B, TKO333

      Punxsutawney Phil has been unfriended.

      by jwinIL14 on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:37:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't you know that it's the woman's (0+ / 0-)

      fault if her man cheats on her?

      My take on it is she calculated that it was for the benefit of her political career to stay with her husband. I was furious when she took that stand. Of course, it is her personal decision and it is none of my business. I was disappointed because at the time I felt that she let her "sisters" down and placated to the conservative right. Bottom line, the whole thing became grossly publicized when it should have been private. I think most of the people understand this and don't want to be reminded of it.

      •  charming (0+ / 0-)

        Bill has many charming qualities. But I bet he would be hard to live with.

      •  I agree that Hillary was thinking it was not only (0+ / 0-)

        the Christian thing to do but was also thinking of her future political career, when she decided to forgive Bill, rather than file for divorce.  Can you imagine the media circus and bad publicity it would have created if she would have filed for divorce?  I'm not a true Democrat, or Republican, but pretty much lean toward Democrat, because Democrats seem to care more about us, who are in the 99%.  It seems the Republican's couldn't care less about us.  I really liked Bill Clinton as president and was extremely disappointed in him, when the Monica Lewinsky situation was made public.  I still liked him, as president, even with this being made public.  What really irritated me, was the way the Republicans jumped on it and kept pounding on it, even going so far as to start impeachment proceedings on him.  This when he only had a few more months left in his 2nd term.  Of course a Democrat did this, so they had to demonize him, to make themselves look better, but unfortunately it only made them look more like idiots, who didn't care how much of the taxpayer's money they spent trying to embarrass him and the Democrats.  It don't seem like they thought too much of it, if they impeached him and Al Gore would have become president.  I loved it, when no matter what they did, it seemed to slide off  Bill Clinton's back and he kept on smiling.

    •  I agree that Hillary was thinking it was (0+ / 0-)

      not only the Christian thing to do but was also thinking of her future political career, when she decided to forgive Bill, rather than file for divorce.  Can you imagine the media circus and bad publicity it would have created if she would have filed for divorce?  I'm not a true Democrat, or Republican, but pretty much lean toward Democrat, because Democrats seem to care more about us, who are in the 99%. It would be a cold day in you know where, before I would vote for a Republican, because of all the antics they have been doing the last couple of decades.  It seems the Republican's couldn't care less about those of us in the 99%.  I really liked Bill Clinton as president and was extremely disappointed in him, when the Monica Lewinsky situation was made public.  I still liked him, as president, even with this being made public.  What really irritated me, was the way the Republicans jumped on it and kept pounding on it, even going so far as to start impeachment proceedings on him.  This when he only had a few more months left in his 2nd term.  Of course a Democrat did this, so they had to demonize him, to make themselves look better, but unfortunately it only made them look more like idiots, who didn't care how much of the taxpayer's money they spent trying to embarrass him and the Democrats.  It don't seem like they thought too much of it, if they impeached him and Al Gore would have become president.  I loved it, when no matter what they did, it seemed to slide off  Bill Clinton's back and he kept on smiling.

  •  Dear God, please make Rand the GOP nominee (6+ / 0-)

    I swear to God I'll stop worshiping Satan if you just grant me this one wish.

    Imagine the most profound idea ever conceptualized occupying this space. Now expect exactly the opposite. You'll never be disappointed.

    by Gurnt on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:23:26 PM PST

    •  Not gonna happen, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gurnt

      it's Jeb. Satan will most pleased.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 05:57:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW
    he's absolutely insane ...
    same as his followers.

    Obama 2012 http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

    by jiffypop on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:25:36 PM PST

  •  I'm stunned (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Skyye, JeffW

    I thought Rove was the dullest tool in the shed. Obviously, he's sharper than anyone leading GOP thinking. 'Course, don't mean much in that shed.

  •  This Rand Paul guy (0+ / 0-)

    Is he the "best" they have ... cuz I think he seems rather weenie-ish. Does he have some sort of stratospheric general election poll numbers or something?

  •  Rand versus one or more Clintons... (5+ / 0-)

    The point that Rand totally misses is that Bill Clinton is still a lot more popular than he is.  

    Bill Clinton isn't just more popular with Democratic voters, he's a lot more popular with all voters than Rand is.  Rand is just a particularly unlikeable guy.  

    You have this interesting dynamic in Congress right now where the established Republicans like John McCain and John Boehner are getting eclipsed by young, inexperienced hotshots like Rand and Ted Cruz, who have no legislation under their belts, and no negotiation skills.  And this is the result;  these jackasses say something stupid on national TV and then can't backtrack.

    Rand is clearly hoping to do some damage to Hillary with this, but trying to make her respond to her husband's now-decades-old peccadillo doesn't seem like a winner to me.

    And as a response to the Republicans ongoing misogynistic War On Women, it's pathetic.  I may have forgotten the exact details, but was it a cigar or a forced vaginal ultrasound in the Oval Office?  

    I can never remember...

  •  He knows Bill Clinton is a formidable campaigner. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheChocolateChips, teresab, sidnora

    He is trying to create a situation where Hillary doesn't want to be seen with him.

    It won't work.  It's old.  Nobody cares.  Not even Hillary.

    Bill is well-liked and is a cheerful and positive fellow.  He will be a great asset in the campaign.

    Ted Cruz president? Pardon my Vietnamese, but Ngo Pho King Way.

    by ZedMont on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:51:33 PM PST

    •  Bill Clinton is not only (0+ / 0-)

      cheerful, positive and genuinely well-liked by a majority of people, he is also extremely smart, as is Hillary. Someone like Rand doesn't stand a chance. Rand is smarmy, a proven liar, a plagiarist, and a phony. He also has done nothing of note during his time in politics (except plagiarize from Wikipedia).

  •  So if Rand Paul is talking about Slick (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dagnome, TKO333, Be Skeptical, OldDragon

    then that means it is okay for normals to talk about the disaster named George W. Bush?

  •  Randy never read the part where (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, TKO333

    Monica bragged that she was going to Washington to earn her "presidential kneepads"... such a sweet, innocent thing, brutally deflowered under the watchful eye of Linda Tripp.

    Does the dumbfuck think NOBODY was paying attention?

    Republicanism is a mental illness, and it's spreading.

  •  I think I have figured out Rince & Dry (0+ / 0-)

    He is not a real person. Instead, he is an AI constructed avatar, with enhanced Input controlled output circuitry which uses the latest 256 bit Chip technology. (this was formerly reserved for use by the NSA, but backwards engineering and a couple of good guesses, especially about the nanotube cooling technology worked out)

    With the enhanced input analysis, you can have a responsive conversation with the avatar. Unfortunately, due to a minor programing flaw two problems have cropped up. 1, his CPU gathers the loudest GOP voices, and uses those as the template for his output, or rather, verbal responses and prepared speech text. Given the fact that Teabaggers are the loudest apes in the GOP jungle, his CPU gathers those opinions and statements first and relies on them to the exclusion of everything else.
    2. Because of a coding failure, changing subjects is almost impossible for Reince. Therefore, anytime some newsie brings up a new issue, he defaults into the same answer: "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi."  

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 06:24:29 AM PST

  •  Rand's view of women remains consistent (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TKO333, gardnerhill

    He thinks he can shore up his "women vote" by attacking a woman whose husband cheated on her and humiliated her in front of the whole world for the fact that her husband cheated on her.   It's like "forcing vaginal ultrasounds" is his world view of his pro-woman medical bona fides.

    Where women are concerned, Rand blames the victims, and then blesses himself for being so clever and so sensitive.

    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:02:06 AM PST

  •  The real question is, will Hillary run? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Be Skeptical

    If so, great, but if not, then who will carry the Democratic banner in 2016? It's quite possible that she will decide not to run.

    The reason why so many Teapugs are beating up on her may be in part because there isn't anyone else at her level who has been proposed to run. Other possible Democratic candidates are probably below Paul, Rubio, and Cruz's level of name recognition.

    This element of the situation is undoubtedly known to them, because even if they are hopeless morally, GOPers actually have a high degree of squirrelly cleverness. Could it simply be about trying to dissuade HRC from throwing her distaff into the ring?

  •  Unfortuantely, Karl Rove is anything but dumb. (0+ / 0-)

    Evil, yes.  Dumb, not in the least.

  •  Blind Squirrel (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry, maybe it is me who is blind but I can't find the squirrel story and I am a total squirrel lady!!

  •  Nuts (0+ / 0-)

    I guess if your party has no plans, and seems unable to formulate anything much more that that excellent, and intelligent Romney quote - " I'll tell you my plans after I'm elected, " they feel a need to say something to prevent being forgotten about altogether , so they come up with what Bill Clinton did sometime 20-25 years ago. They should have mentioned he presided over the best economy without having wars, of any president we have elected.
    Second thought, that wouldn't be too good either since a Republican doesn't really feel like a president , until he's declared war someplace. Never mind  if it was a war that needed to be fought. Just any war, any place, and even if for personal reasons. Then if it doesn't seem to end on time, you can do as Bush did, and look directly into the camera with that trademark smirk, and state" that's for the next guy to worry about." That was said when the nation had no clue as to whom, or which party , would be elected next. Throwing his own under the bus ???

  •  Dumber & dumber...... (0+ / 0-)

    What is it about politicos like Rand Paul that they seem to get "dumber & dumber" as they gain in prestige & power?  What stops them from "stepping out" of their overblown egos & arrogance to use just a modicum of compassion & understanding towards their fellow human beings?

  •  Wrong Vibrations (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gardnerhill

    Nothing shows the man's ability to serve the interests of American women than his attack on the wife of a man who cheated on her.  This stance will certain strike a chord with all women, although they will probably want to use it to strangle Sen. Paul, rather than have it resonate with them.  His position does reflect current GOP thinking,  "Whenever something is wrong in society, blame the women.  Don't want to fund birth control- women who use birth control are sluts.  Don't want freedom of choice, women are at the mercy of their libidos and should be punished for their lack of restraint; as should anyone even remotely connected to the issue- boycott Girl Scout cookies because "Abortion Barbie Davis" supports the organization.  Don't like food stamps or Wics programs-woman need to know their actions have consequences and "Uncle Sugar " won't support their refusal to work.  Want to cut funding for education- if more women stayed home with their children, the schools would not be forced to teach things best left to parents.  Hate Obamacare-it is women who are driving up the cost of medicine with sex specific diseases, like pregnancy.  The list goes on and on.  Paul is positioning himself to appeal to this large GOP demographic, at least, until after the primaries.

  •  Rand Paul attacks Bill Clinton (0+ / 0-)

    "I'm not certain again that beating up on Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky is a particularly good thing to strengthen your skills for the 2016 contest," he said.

    No it isn't.

  •  Dang, I can't remember… (0+ / 0-)

    Is it Karl Ham or Ham Rove?

    I'm damaged and I like it, it made me what I am!

    by Damaged262 on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 06:57:11 PM PST

  •  Both of them are (0+ / 0-)

    squirrels; both are blind; and both of them are nuts.

    It doesn't matter which is which in this story, because neither of them matter.

  •  correction (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ecolady

    Karl Rove is not dumb.  He is evil.  It is dangerous to believe otherwise.

    •  Never underestimate Karl Rove. (0+ / 0-)

      He may have helped Mittens lose the election, and he may have been Bush's Brain, but he is not stupid. In fact, underestimating Rove is foolhardy. He still has plenty of clout, and he is totally without a moral compass. This makes him dangerous.

  •  JEEZ... JEALOUS MUCH? (0+ / 0-)

    I think a lot of conservatives are prurient, closeted perverts, with as much stink as they raise over sex scandals and such. I for one think that Tea Party Republicans like Senator Rand Paul constantly bring up the subject of the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair because THEY secretly wish that THEY TOO could get an after-hours hummer from an attractive young page in the Oval Office. Dream on, Rand...

  •  Squirrel? (0+ / 0-)

    Squirrel goes quack? Hack goes quack? totally quackers? disappointed, actual squirrel finding large nut would have had more meaningful content.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site