S.E. IDIOT & Jake Tapper Rubbish Ron Paul

Gender, Neoconservatism, Republicans, Ron Paul

In the event that you’ve failed to keep track of the succession of empty headed bobbing heads called on to impart their “analysis” on the idiot’s lantern—you’ll find everything you need to know about S.E. Cupp, “commentator,” in “Just Another Mouth in the Republican Fellatio Machine.” While Cupp is not as off-putting, banal and over-the-top as Jedediah Bila, she’s up there.

In any event, here is an exchange about Ron Paul between two of CNN’s towering intellects, Jake Tapper (an OK journalist when he sticks to reporting) and Cupp:

TAPPER: S.E., let’s start with you. I know you’re not Senator Paul’s biggest fan. But removing your views on him, he could be a serious contender, I think. …

… There’s one other elephant in the room, and that is Ron Paul, his father, who is — I don’t know how to say it without ending up with nine million tweets, but has very objectionable views to many Americans, to many Republicans, and has affiliated himself with some real crackpots on the right. I think that is definitely guarantee those tweets, but…

CUPP: [smirking smugly] Incoming.

TAPPER: How do you deal with that? How do you deal with somebody like Ron Paul?

CUPP: Rand Paul?

TAPPER: Yes.

CUPP: Yes.

Rand Paul sort of I think spent the past decade watching his dad run for president, and thought to himself, I can do that better. And so I think you have seen him moderate because he understands rightly that Ron Paul’s views were completely unpalatable.

So he’s starting from that, you know, far right or left — I don’t even know what to call it — place of Ron Paul and moderating toward the center. The trick is going to be to take the Ron Paul supporters, the young folks who liked Ron Paul’s libertarianism, and also make his — again governing philosophy, which is different from his libertarian philosophy, work for the center.

That’s going to be a tough thing to pull off. I know you’re confident he can, but I think he’s going to have a tough time with that.

MORE.

Rand Paul: ‘People Shouldn’t Be So Afraid Of Freedom’

Foreign Policy, Iraq, Neoconservatism

Admirably, Sean Hannity went through the gamut of issues with Rand Paul, who announced today he would stand as a Republican presidential candidate. From Paul’s initial critique of the Civil Wrongs Act to the war against Iraq—Mr. Hannity shied away from no controversy. On toppling secular strongmen—Saddam, Assad, Mubarak, Gaddafi—Rand Paul did not, for once, let libertarians down, as is his wont. Instead, Paul condemned the disastrous toppling of all the secular strongmen of the Middle East who kept radical Islam at bay. If it were up to the neoconservative, we’d be bombing both Assad and ISIS in Syria. Cui Bono?

“Almost anyone in the Senate would have better defended the Bill of Rights than Lindsay Graham,” snorted Paul, taking a much-needed swipe at the awful Graham, evil twin of more-bombs-from-above-and-more-boots-on-the-ground John McCain.

Paul cleverly framed his plan to poach traditionally Democratic and independent voters, not by promising them stuff, but by emphasizing the entire Bill of Right and not only the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, weening people off “free” stuff and onto freedom is a good tone to strike.

Let’s see if he keeps it up.

Err, Isn’t Iran Fighting ISIS In The Middle East!?

Iran, Israel

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Meet The Press’ Chuck Todd that the deal with Iran, the details of which are still unclear, is a deal with the “preeminent terrorist state of our time.” Iran, says Bibi, is “a militant, Islamic power, built on regional corporate domination. In fact, bent on world domination.” It has as its “explicit goal first” the annihilation of Israel, “but also ultimately” the conquest of the Middle East and the threatening [of the US].”

“[E]very territory that is vacated in the Middle East,” noted Netanyahu, is “taken over by the forces of militant Islam, either those led by Iran or those led by ISIS.”

Wait a sec, isn’t Iran fighting ISIS in the Middle East!? Isn’t that a good thing? Doesn’t it mean that Arabs are finally taking out their own trash, instead of expecting Americans do die trying?

Or perhaps Netanyahu is of the position that only Muslims approved by the world superpower (the US) and the region’s superpower (Israel) are fit to fight ISIS?

Obama’s Choice: Executive Override

Barack Obama, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Iran

By default, given the president’s predilections, the agreement struck between Iran, Barack Obama and the Democrat Party must be called an executive agreement.

Here’s why:

As specified by the Constitution, there are two types of treaties. The first kind has “received the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate and has been ratified by the President.” The second is “called an executive agreement,” because it rests on the president’s “authority to create international agreements with other nations without Senate approval.”

I think it’s safe to say that of the protocols afforded him by the Constitution, Obama will opt for the executive option in finalizing the deal with Iran.

Obama’s Choice is to do executive override.