The GOP Presidential Race--Nutshell Version Part 2

Last night I commented on the other candidates, today I'll focus on Rubio, Fiorina, Christie and Paul.

Christie: I wanted the guy to be president at one time. He's bombastic, smart, from my home state and was not afraid of a fight. That was four years ago. he had every opportunity to do what Scott Walker did in Wisconsin. he could have gotten spending back in line, reformed education, reduced taxes (I currently pay nearly $12,000 annually) and made New Jersey a destination for business. He then went soft on all these things. But if I could point out a single event that turned me against him it was him hugging Obama when Hurricane Sandy slammed into North Jersey. He could have easily asked Obama to stay away and not given him the photo op a week before the election against Romney. Even pseudo Republican Michael Bloomberg denied Obama the opportunity to show his leadership in a crisis. Christie claimed he did it because he had to work with Obama to get the funds to get the state back up and running again but he gave the man something that hurt his party and he handled the Sandy recovery horribly. Plus he's fat and fat people never win major elections.

Rubio: I like Rubio; he's young, charismatic and is smart. He is not afraid to buck the conservative wing of the party, which I don't agree with but admire. His stance on immigration is hurting him...badly. He's walked it back this week in the aftermath of the Paris attacks but he's a an open borders dude and that ain't going to win the GOP nomination. The guy has a great story and would make a good president in 12 years.

Fiorina: I like Carly. She also has a good story and is not afraid to go against anyone. but she failed at HP regardless of what she says and that hurts her. It gives the media a soundbite they would never use with Hillary. Fiorina has done more in her life than Hillary ever will but the stigma of failure is a tough one to break. I think she would make a great president and leader and would not feel like I was holding my nose when I voted for her but there's just something missing I can't quite put my finger on. Of all the candidates, I think she's the one who can get hot and break out of the pack and maybe (and a big maybe) challenge Trump. She's a free thinker and not from the beltway. I imagine she will be high on the list of running mates.

Paul: Rand Paul is a brilliant and good man. A physician who donates a lot of time to help those who could never afford the service he provides. Unfortunately he was raised by Ron Paul and if you search this blog, me and the Paulistinians go way back and have had some epic battles. Rand is way to much like his old man--he is an isolationist in world where America cannot be. He has a mean libertarian streak, which i like in a lot of respects but he's a libertarian on issues I'm not. He could break out if he would show more support for the military, legalization of marijuana and the overall revamping of the the war on drugs--the worst remnant of the Reagan years.

Rand Paul: How About We Stop Sending Money to Those Who Hate Us?

It's funny, as much as I despise Ron Paul and his wild band of zealots, I like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Sen. Paul is a man of vision and common sense, the kind of man that probably only could have gotten elected in a state like Kentucky during a Tea Party revolution.

Rand Paul gets it. He gets that we spend too much money and it's not just a Democratic ailment. He gets that socialized medicine will destroy the greatest health care system ever and he is one who has had to negotiate that system as an MD.

But more importantly, he knows right from wrong and opts for right all the time. He is not afraid to tussle with anyone if he believes he's in the right and has threatened to bring the Senate to a standstill if he isn't at the very least heard out.

Today, he pens a piece in the Washington Times advocating that we shut off the spigot to Egypt, Libya and Pakistan because, well, they hate us and have been playing us for decades. Here's a portion but of course read the entire essay:

Last week, I requested that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, provide a brief amount of time for debate and a vote on my amendment to end U.S. aid to Pakistan, Egypt and Libya. Yet, Senate Democrat leadership blocked it. I will continue my effort this week and have announced my intentions to stop all Senate business with a filibuster. 

You and I have been reminded that our enemies are relentless, but we were also reminded that our so-called allies are often not acting like allies at all. We send billions of taxpayer dollars abroad and what do we get in return? Disrespect, disdain and, ultimately, violence.  

American taxpayer dollars should not go to Libya until the murderers are delivered to justice. Nor should they go to Egypt until the Egyptians prove that they are willing and able to protect our embassy. Finally, not one more penny of American taxpayer dollars should go to Pakistan until the doctor who helped us get bin Laden is freed.

Amen, brother.

Let's start with Egypt. The Egyptians signed a peace treaty while being lead by Anwar Sadat. Sadat risked a lot and ultimately died for his actions at the hands of Egyptian Islamic Jihad or Muslim Brotherhood gunmen. As a thank you to Sadat who suffered condemnation throughout the Middle East, the US gave about a billion dollars to Egypt. This continued during the time Hosni Mubarak was in power.

Mubarak was overthrown last year and "elections' saw the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power. They have set Egypt back decades instituting sharia law and curtailing the rights of women. They also did nothing while our embassy was overrun last week and an al-Qaeda flag was hoisted where ours once had been before it was burned.

Libya is another animal. In the aftermath of the NATO victory over Gadaffi, money was pledged and money was sent. Last week on 9/11, armed militants murdered the ambassador and three other people in a RPG and machine gun attack.

But Pakistan is the real problem. We needed Pakistan to aid us in the War on Terror and our decade-plus conflict against the Taliban. We expected them to be straight shooters but of all the nations in that region, Pakistan is the shadiest character of all. The Pakistani intelligence service ISI was simultaneously smiling at us while hiding bin-Laden. They pledged to be nice and were allegedly behind the deadly attacks in Mumbai. Reports say they've been supporting the Taliban while cashing our checks and, as Sen. Paul notes, have tortured and jailed the doctor who helped us capture bin-Laden (partially because of leaks within the Obama administration).

So yes, as Paul notes, it's time to shut the tap off. If you can't play nice, we won';t support you. Let's see how long the Muslim Brotherhood survives without American largess.

Of course the Russians will step in and try to reclaim their place on the world stage but the Russians will not abide Chechnyan's training in terror camps in Libya or Pakistani's exporting weapons to Dagestan.

China may try to step in but they have no where near the global reach militarily that we have and it would be a difficult task to offer protection.

I agree with Sen. Paul, it's high time we offer the carrot and whack the hell out of them with the stick if they don't play nice. President Bush needed Pakistan, we don't anymore. Bring the boys home and redirect the funds we give the three nations above into our military resources at home.

More here.