Rand Paul, seriously, as a presidential candidate? Well, sure, yeah I guess with the blind fools who followed after his father guaranteed to follow after him, suppose it makes sense - but I heard him this morning on Fox repeating his idiotic opinions viz Egypt and when the moderator pointed out just a few of the problems associated with cutting ties with Egypt, serious problems, strategic peril problems, foreign policy complications of the first order, Paul just repeated his 'coup' law nonsense as if that was an inspired answer - hey Rand, maybe you should consider the idea that the law is stupid and deserves to be ignored, after all you are the one running high profile campaigns against laws you consider to be stupid, Obamacare, the Patriot Act - how is it the 'coup law' passes muster with you? I'm guessing it's because as a foreign policy president this guy would be worse than Obama. Sorry, as it stands now, may change but as it stands now it has to be Christie in 2016, with a female VP, Ayotte or Haley or Martinez - conservatives have to figure out that in a hostile media environment nominating an ideologue is not a winning formula, especially one who will be running to the left of Hillary on foreign policy. What, is the thinking here Paul will siphon far left votes from Hillary and steal a win? C'mon, people. You need someone who can play the media game, which Christie can do and Romney most decidedly could not, and someone with executive experience and a proven ability to make strategically nuanced compromises, to reach across the aisle and work deals, which is something Reagan did and is what the average voter is looking for and again is something Christie can do and has done.
[I see Ayotte yesterday with some reluctance threw support behind notion of cutting ties or at least funds, which probably amounts to same thing, to Egypt - and since I've just mentioned her as possible VP choice in 2016 I guess I now have to criticize her, which I will - this is stupid, I understand where people are coming from, and I understand should it start to look like the military is trying to exterminate the Muslim Brotherhood it will look real bad - but cutting ties is not the way to go, certainly at least not yet. Do you really think if we cut ties that someone won't rush in to fill that vacuum, like maybe China? China has big plans for Africa, imagine they'd love a shot at Egypt and probably wouldn't think twice about doubling, hell tripling the amount of aid Egypt currently gets from us - and they're not gonna make a fuss about who's 'governing'. Cutting ties with Egypt could set off a chain of events that could be catastrophic and it's more than a little troubling how many US lawmakers and so called experts are calling for it. See the mess from the Egyptian military's point of view - like Israel, they don't trust Obama, they like Israel think he's either clueless when it comes to the problems plaguing the region or is wedded to ideological prejudices which render his policy choices reality deprived. It was clear at rise of Arab Spring that Obama had no clue how to respond and when he finally did he did so in a way that made it clear to the leaders in Israel and the Egyptian military that this guy is in way over his head - remember, the Egyptian military enabled the original Tahir square protests, one imagines because they wanted to get rid of Mubarak - so there was a point there for the US to keep the faith of the Egyptian military while still supporting the calls for democracy, but that would have required us advocating the obvious, democratic governance must be secular - but of course that was never gonna happen under Obama's benighted rule - both Israel and the Egyptian military knew that if you had faux democratic elections in Egypt that didn't forswear Islamism and promote secularism that it would lead to the rise of the Brotherhood and all kinds of very bad stuff, which is exactly what happened. This was all predictable so before you throw baby out with the bathwater consider that some pretty foolish American policy choices are at least partially responsible for the situation - and saying partially may be a gross understatement]
