DNC Responds to Paul's WSJ Article

quote:

---

he criticized American policy to the president of another country on foreign soil

---

So Paul did it last week as a candidate for president, he is criticized by the DNC.

When a sitting president does it, is it OK? Where was the DNC then?

quote:

---

blames America for all the problems in the world

---

Jesus christ...

Replace "Paul" with "Obama" and it could have been written by the head of the RNC in 2008.

The amazing thing is that this could have been a republican response to a democrat in 2004.

I have said it once and I will say it again. Anyone who voted for Lurch in 2004, but does not vote for Rand, is a huge hypocrite.

Idiots. They think they must attack him because he has an R by his name and they don't realize how dumb and hypocritical they sound now. They'll isolate a lot of their base with that hawkish tone.

Those fat hacks have no idea how hypocrital they sound right now. They have an epic tin ear going on right now.

quote:

---

criticized American policy to the president of another country on foreign soil. This week he’s blaming the Obama Administration for another nation’s civil war. That type of “blame America” rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a conference of isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in the world. In fact, Paul’s proposals would make America less safe and less secure.

---

Obama 2.0

quote:

---

That type of “blame America” rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a conference of isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in the world. In fact, Paul’s proposals would make America less safe and less secure.

---

holy crap he's doing it, turning dems into hawkish republicans.

What's interesting about this DNC response is that it presumes that they will nominate a hawk in 2016, despite the fact that no one has even declared yet. Does Hillary already have her operatives in the DNC working to clear the path for her?

MSNBC's Ezra Klein blasted the DNC's attack on Rand.

quote:

---

But Paul's skepticism of the consequences of intervention and his focus puts him closer to Obama's outlook than to more hawkish members of both the Democratic and Republican parties. When Paul says that "only after recognizing the practical limits of our foreign policy can we pursue policies that are in the best interest of the U.S.," you can imagine the president pumping a fist.

Which makes the Democratic National Committee's response all the more telling. DNC Press Secretary Michael Czin fired back at Paul with a statement that reads as if it's been copied-and-pasted from a 2005 Republican National Committee attack on a liberal Democrat.

This is the brain-dead patriotism-baiting that Democrats used to loathe. Now they're turning it on Paul.

There are a few things worth noting here. The first is the ferocity with which the DNC responded to an attack that was, in truth, aimed more at Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama,. The second is the degree to which a Rand Paul-Hillary Clinton race would scramble the politics of national security, with Democrats running against Paul in much the way Bush ran against Kerry. And the third is that it's still the case in foreign policy, the real divide isn't left vs. right, but interventionists vs. non-interventionists.

---

LINK

I guess it's safe to say that Klein is waayyy off the reservation.