Krauthammer: Christie’s Remarks on Paul ‘Electrifying,’ ‘Extremely Important Moment’

[Dr.3D]

If dear old Charlie doesn't understand the rather significant difference between isolationism and non-interventionism he really ought not to be on a panel discussing politics at all.

I suspect he knows the difference but would rather use the incorrect term so as to make the person he is talking about look bad in the eyes of those he is talking to.

 

[muh_roads]

Krauthammer. The ultimate neocon fuckstick.

majority of the GOP, which is interventionist.

Keeping the sheep dumb means more metal for us and less for the retards before realizing it is too late.

 

[georgiaboy]

thread of win.

Charles doth hyperbole too much.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well the majority of GOP might very well be interventionist, but they can't win without our votes. If they go down the McCain/Romney road again with some liberal Republican like Christie, they will again suffer defeat to the liberal Democrats.

NOTICE TO NEOCONS:
We have you and your party by the balls. If you want to win the White House, you will need to give us what we want. We will throw the baby out with the bath water because liberal Republicans and not better than liberal Democrats to us. In fact we will kick your liberal baby right out of the fucking tub and toss his naked ass out into the street crying like the little bitch that he is! If you doubt us, just ask crazy old RINO Juan McCain or east coast RINO Mitt Flopney.

But... but Obama is the antichrist and Romney could save the party from the Kenyan Marxist!

This is the logical equivalent of the arguments I get against refusing to condone the GOP as the "lesser of two evils."

I wouldn't even say that the majority of the GOP is interventionist, at least not among Republican voters, and probably not even in the house of reps. Didn't the house of reps pass two amendments by voice vote that deny funding for intervention in Syria and Egypt?

Define "Interventionist." I don't think the average Republican is as bad as Lindsey Graham, but I do think they are worried about "radical Islam" to way too great a degree, and most of them are afraid of Iran. I'd say they probably have more in common with Ted Cruz than Rand Paul, but could probably be convinced to vote for Rand.

Cruz's numbers would likely be very high if people knew who he was. Rand Paul people need to make sure people either don't know about Cruz, or know that he wasn't born in the US.

No worries, we will all unite behind Rand. The typical Republican voter that did not get on board with Ron like Rand much better. He will destroy candidates like Christie.

Hopefully, but then there's the media crap, and the false belief that Rubio is actually a tea party conservative.

Rand isn't going to nominate a regular, typical Republican to be his VP nominee if he wins the GOP nomination. That simply wouldn't work as their views would be so different. He's going to pick someone along the lines of Lee, Cruz, or Amash if he ends up winning the nomination.

If Rand nominated Cruz, I would seriously consider going LP. In fact, I'd almost certainly considering I live in NYS.

I don't trust Cruz. If its Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, mark my works, Cruz will be President within a year.

And while I freely acknowledge he's not quite as much of a hawk as Lindsey Graham, I view him as a different grade on the same scale. I don't view him as an actual liberty, constitutional candidate like I do admittedly flawed people like Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and (First instinct, with reservations) Mike Lee.