Quoted:
Senator Rubio made his case on Mark Levin today

http://therightscoop.com/listen-to-marco-rubios-fantastic-interview-with-mark-levin-on-cuba/

Quoted:
Yup, Rand Paul's documented predeliction for pandering Herp a Derp is as funny as hell.

Sucking up to Sharpton .

Reaching across the aisle RINO bullshit.

Funny, funny stuff.

Quoted:
I still stand with Rand.  He matches my views on most issues.  

Quoted:
Senator Rubio made his case on Mark Levin today

http://therightscoop.com/listen-to-marco-rubios-fantastic-interview-with-mark-levin-on-cuba/

Quoted:
I'm torn about ending the embargo.

I think Congress should vote on it.

Rand Paul simply has the good sense to see it as pretty much a non-issue (we support commie countries every day with our trade) while Rubio's pandering to his old-assed moneyed Cuban American supporters is plain for all to see.

Quoted:
2) Increased voting by felons.

Quoted:
The real point is that the substance of these arguments becomes irrelevant, as soon as one realizes that it's part of a larger pattern of pandering to different audiences.

It is unfortunate that he puts his diehard supporters and defenders of the "Paul" brand into such a position of having to defend such fecklessness.

Quoted:
I spent about an hour with Senator Joe Manchin a couple of weeks ago.   He seemed to be of the impression that being a Moderate "reach across the aisle" kind of guy was a virtue, in and of itself. He made this point again and again.

On substance, however, he was either ill-informed or holding the Leftist position (while insisting it was Moderate).

Not impressive.

Quoted:
Given that the Embargo is largely Statuatory in form, shouldn't Congress be involved in the elimination?

Do good Conservatives cheer for Obama's usurpation of power from Congress?

Senator Rand Paul has an op-ed in Time magazine making the case for normalizing diplomatic relations with Cuba as Barack Obama has proposed. It’s a reasonable objective for U.S. policy and there’s a good case to be made that the embargo on Cuba is anachronistic.

But Paul doesn’t make that case.

Instead, he offers comforting bromides about the wonders of engagement and relies on examples that suggest he may not have been paying much attention to national security over the past three decades. It’s worth taking the time to read the entire piece, particularly as Paul considers presenting himself as a candidate for the presidency in 2016.

It’s a striking claim. Paul cites the examples of Iran and North Korea to make his point that diplomacy doesn’t make the United States less safe. But U.S. diplomacy in those places has failed repeatedly and left us unquestionably less safe. On Iran, the U.S. reengagement began under George W. Bush, and despite our willing diplomacy the Iranian regime: accelerated its nuclear weapons program; expanded its support for regional terrorist groups; harbored senior al Qaeda figures and their families; and funded, trained, and equipped jihadists responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In North Korea, despite our on-and-off discussions “stretching back to the Clinton administration,” the unstable, belligerent regime in North Korea became a nuclear power. Soon after, North Korea was caught, red-handed, sharing nuclear technology with Syria, a rogue state that like North Korea was listed on the U.S. State Department’s list of state sponsors of terror.

These are Rand Paul’s examples of good diplomacy.

Quoted:
Haha, Rand Paul and Barack Shitstain, two peas in a pod.