Inevitably a preview of what a match-up between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton would look like if both candidates end up as their party’s nominee. In 2008, Barack Obama outflanked Hillary Clinton to her left and Rand Paul seems to have taken that lesson to heart, at least when it comes to foreign policy.

Report from Russia Today:

The US Senator from Kentucky has warned that if Hillary Clinton, the former US Secretary of State, becomes the next American president, she could get the United States bogged down in yet another conflict in the Middle East.

Following in the footsteps of his Libertarian father, Ron Paul, who spent much of his lengthy political career demanding a more isolationist US foreign policy, Rand Paul told NBC’s Meet the Press that the 2016 presidential election could be “transformational” if a “war hawk” like Hillary Rodham Clinton gets into the Oval Office.

“We’re worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war, because she’s so gung-ho,” Paul added.

Indeed, Clinton has acquired a reputation for being quick to jump on the war wagon – even when it has been the neoconservative faction of the Republican Party demanding a call to arms.

Quite and interesting set of circumstances when a Republican is attacking a Democrat as the “war hawk,” usually these roles are reversed as of the past few decades. Clearly this is part of Paul’s strategy to broaden his base of support with the hopes of attracting centrist and even left-leaning voters inclined to support a more scaled back foreign policy in the future.


  1. Gutsy move. On the upside, it will send Hillary’s people into a tizzy, since they have no idea how to handle unexpected attacks.

    But while it might be good for the election, it could be death for the primary. His Republican opponents have already labeled him an “isolationist.”

    If I were with Hillary’s people, I’d tell her to say “consider the source,” and say we need to “defend our country.” That’s NeoCon BS, of course, but it plays well. Although we’re sick of war, the 24/7 news cycle is always looking for any possible trouble in any corner of the globe.

    And his GOP opponents should say, it’s “just another crazy idea from the guy who wanted to cut off funding to Israel.”

    • You say death in the primary, but look at the recent primaries where Dems + independents in open primary states pushed a candidate over the top. Think Thad Cochran and the guy who beat Eric Cantor to name a couple. They both relied on support outside the party to cross the finish line.

      Rand could harness a similar model in some primary states. That too would be fodder for his primary opponents but what does it matter if he wins?

      • Nate: I think you’re being altruistic. In most elections these days, people don’t vote FOR anybody. They vote against the candidate they’ve been told is a monster.

        But things are even worse in a primary. I’ve actually heard calls for one party to vote in the other party’s primary–not because they like the guy, and not even that they hate his opponent–they are told to vote for candidate A because he’s so bad that the other party thinks he can be beat in the general election.

        And I thought Thad Cochran was shameless in fairly openly telling Democrats to slap down the Tea Party. He won largely on African-American votes. Do we really think Cochran suddenly became beloved among Blacks?

        There were claims of “irregularities,” but I wasn’t able to find what that meant. Politico says that Mississippi says it’s illegal to vote for someone in the primary if you do not intend to vote for that person in the general election. So the Dem votes should have been challenged.

        The challenge was thrown out ONLY because it was filed 41 days after the election, and election law says it should have been filed in 20 days.

        So imagine open primaries in which Dems cross over to vote for, say, Rick Perry; and Reps cross over to vote for Bernie Sanders–just because they think that person could be beat later.

  2. LOL…..Well Hillary sure isn’t going to get the “Strong defense” vote from Republicans nor can she say “I’m no war hawk didn’t I stand down on Benghazi? But lets not look to far down the road because with talking points like Sen. Paul is spouting he won’t get neither the establishment Republican vote nor their support. He keeps attacking Sec. Clinton he will be on the hot seat 24/7 answering allegations from both Democrats and Republicans. It’s a long primary season and Sen. Paul has a habit of modifying his views to fit his audience so lets wait and see how it plays out. In my opinion America today is looking inward and unfortunately while appalled by the ISIS are more concerned with domestic issues.
    Question : Out of all the sources given if one Google’s “Rand Paul Calls Hillary War Hawk” why did you use “Russia Today”?

      • Yes. I have a problem with that, too. I google something and the link is from a “propaganda” site, so I try to find the same article published by a “reputable” source.

        But the thing about propaganda is that it’s usually opinion based on facts, and do they begin with good facts.

        I used to read Pravda and Izvestia articles that were republished in “Atlas–World Press Review.” Three fourths of the article would be very impressive, verifiable details. Then, they’d spin it. But you could still rely on the details.

  3. This also goes back to a former thread we had entitled “2016; Year of The Libertarian?” where I stated I didn’t see any indication of a Libertarian movement.

    From University of Virginias Conservative Professor Larry Sabato on why the Libertarian vote WON’T HELP REPUBLICANS. Are you listening Sen. Paul?

    The article entitled : “False Hope: Why Libertarians Won’t Help Republicans Win The Youth Vote”

  4. Lets take a quick look at Mrs. Clintons record over the years;

    She presented a “RESET BUTTON” (which was misspelt) to the Russians symbolizing a reset of our foreign policy. Seeing how that worked out in the Ukraine that probably can be listed as a failure. She apologized for a video blaming it as the cause of 4 American diplomats being killed in Benghazi. Oh yeah she has more travel miles than any other Secretary of State……..if that curls your toes.

    Which makes you wonder why did she take the Secretary of State position anyway? Will she will have as much success separating her views from President Obama as Hubert Humphrey had in 1968 separating his from LBJ…..very little? She hasn’t really criticized President Obama foreign policy except to say “Don’t do stupid stuff” isn’t a policy nor gave any indication what she would have done differently. Painting Mrs. Clinton a “War Hawk”? That would be a tough road to travel.

  5. At some point, Rand is going to have to deal with his dad, regarding foreign policy.

    (1) Former Rep. Ron Paul believes that the government knew beforehand, in detail, about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and that the information has been kept from the public in a classified section of the 9/11 commission report.

    (2) Paul has defended Putin’s role in the Ukraine conflict and said that the U.S. is “every bit as involved and who knows, maybe more involved than Putin is.”

    (3) He has also questioned the emerging narrative about who is responsible for the attack on [Malaysian airliner] MH17, saying that the media “will not report that neither Russia nor the separatists in eastern Ukraine have anything to gain but everything to lose by shooting down a passenger liner full of civilians.”

    (4) “However, despite State Department claims to the contrary, it can no longer be stated that Assad enjoys no popularity in his country. Even former CIA chief Michael Hayden not longago envisioned Assad winning a fair election in Syria,” he added.

    (5) Ron Paul: US Should Get Out Iraq and ‘Let Them Deal’ with ISIS

    And, there’s more, of course. How is Rand going to straddle the divide between Ron Paul supporters and the NeoCons??

    • Goethe;
      Good point ! Amazing how little connection is made between father and son isn’t it? Maybe he’ll put Ron on the ticket with him. Perhaps our resident “Paul” expert Surfisher can explain why.

      P.S. This reminds me of a quote by President Truman when someone asked him about Jack Kennedy’s religion being an influence if he’s elected. “I’m not afraid of the Pope I’m afraid of the POP”

      • Bob: That is an interesting thought. The Constitution disallows two candidates on the ticket from the same state, BUT it doesn’t say anything about blood relation. Since they are now residents of different states, it would be legal to have a Paul-Paul ticket, wouldn’t it?

        Of course, they don’t agree on much of anything. . . .

Comments are closed.