Rand Paul Is Totally Electable...If The Party Were A Lot Younger, And Less Trigger Happy

Not to suggest the real anti-war sentiment that arose within the party in recent years was a fluke or in passing, but you know [mc_name name=’Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’P000603′ ] I think easily makes the most compelling argument against this unhinged and long winded Military adventurism that has now poisoned a Democrat administration. He posed a very important question that I feel largely went over the heads of the people in the crowd, most not all but I think most of them didn’t really understand the point he was trying to make. Partly because this GOP is still fascinated with war and Military operations, things going “boom” and what not. The old hawks don’t want reason as it pertains to war because well, in simplistic school yard terms: “He hit me I’m gonna punch his face”

[mc_name name=’Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’P000603′ ] is ahead of time because he’s operating in a party that operates in a world dominated by unrealistic war mongering and this notion that controlling our Military spending is blasphemy. Of course because their god is the missile. The Kentucky Senator will never come close to sniffing the nomination because he makes too much sense on foreign policy. By the way since when is it isolationist to not want to get involved in every conflict in the Middle East, and not create enemies from once so called allies? Let’s be real about ISIS, you think we didn’t have a hand in creating that monster? We’re no Dr. Frankenstein, not even a little bit?

Do the war thirsty lot in the GOP at least want to consider the idea that perhaps whenever we go into these areas, do our thing and leave, we don’t at least, at least make it possible for something to arise from the ashes that may come back on us in the future? Is it just a matter of “War, now” and well f–k the aftermath we’ll cope when the smoke clears.

We spend more money on defense than the next ten nations combined and that isn’t enough. We have to spend ten times more than the next ten nations combined because according to [mc_name name=’Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’R000595′ ] without safety we have no economy. But if the world is dangerous despite our immaculate defense budget, and we then increase the budget which is what Rubio wants to do, and we’re still living in a dangerous world, is our defense budget the central issue or is it something else?

I’m not going to blame America for every problem in the world but in this region in particular you know look we’re going to have people who don’t like us; fine. But I wonder if most of these cases were preventable. What would the region and the world overall look like had we not gotten bogged down in such a way as we are at the present moment.

We shouldn’t dismiss Rand Paul or his critique of Marco Rubio’s poll tested proposals to increase defense spending as weak or isolationist. Rubio however is smart in that he knows this rhetoric is blood soaked red meat for the war wolves in the party whose answer to everything global is baby talk, “boom, bam, boom boom, bam bam, boom boom”.