From late in the item, this excerpt:
Conservatives who embrace the party’s traditionally robust foreign policy stance have severe reservations about [Kentucky's junior Senator, Rand] Paul's quest for executive power and views that the U.S. should play a more limited role abroad. Republican donors who gathered last month at the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas, Nev., expressed concern over Paul’s rise, telling TIME Magazine that they may have to undertake concerted efforts to undermine his political ambitions over such positions as cutting off all U.S. aid to Israel and other countries. Republican mega donor and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, TIME reported, is considering spending massive sums to keep Paul from becoming the GOP nominee.
In response, Paul insists that those concerned about his foreign policy views just need more time to hear him out. Paul plans to discuss these issues with Adelson himself in the future, he said.
“When he gets to know me, he’ll like me too,” Paul told me.
I asked Paul about the time Christie called his foreign policy “dangerous” and when former U.S. ambassador to the U.N John Bolton described Republicans like Paul as “unfit to serve.” (Both men, particularly Christie, harbor presidential ambitions of their own.)
“The people who are saying that are the dangerous people,” Paul said. “The people who wake up at night thinking of which new country they want to bomb, which new country they want to be involved in, they don’t like restraint. They don’t like reluctance to go to war. They really wouldn’t like Ronald Reagan if they read anything he wrote or were introduced to it.”
[links in original]. Earlier Crabgrass noting of Rand Paul's romancing the ideologically proactive bloc of the GOP represented by Cuccinelli, here. It is unclear whether mainstream press' ignoring coverage of this questionable alliance is intentional, or inattentive negligence. What is "liberty" to mean, if attached to Cuccinelli and his peers on their desired and attempted force feeding of religious precepts upon the rest of us? Isn't freedom from religion a necessary aspect of true "liberty?"
The appearance is one of Rand Paul doing a fence-straddle attempt. One that is unbecoming and impeaching his professing certain core beliefs that simply fail to square with any force-feeding of Jesus to those not wanting the wafer or wine.
FINAL NOTE: John Bolton as a presidential hopeful? You have got to be kidding me. Neocons had their 15 minutes of fame yielding the Iraq fiasco and waterboarding becoming a too frequent addition to our public-debate vocabulary; and it's not coincidence that several oppose Condoleezza Rice as a U of Minn highly-compensated public visitor/speaker. Taxpayer money to the tune of $150,000 for the neocon retread's visit? Whatever happened to fiscal decency with public money? [here, naming the speaker's fee amount, also, here and here - interested readers can do their own web searching]
___________CORRECTION____________
The UM's Daily, here, makes it clear, the Rice speaker fee of a hundred and fifty grand is covered from private [Carlson] money and not taxpayer loot. I erred.
The Carlson Family Foundation will cover the $150,000 cost for Rice’s visit, which Stanoch said is not an unusually high price tag for this type of speaker.
Humphrey spokesman Kent Love-Ramirez said Rice will talk about overcoming adversity as an African-American woman who faced discrimination growing up in the southern U.S. The topic is consistent with the school’s yearlong series “Keeping Faith with a Legacy of Justice: The 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
“We firmly believe in [students’] right to protest and welcome it as an extension of the public discussion,” he said.
Rice in promotional posting is billed as not talking politics, but rather, "Condoleezza Rice shares her perspectives on the progress achieved and challenges ahead in efforts to promote civil rights for all Americans." That's a little easier, but if not Rice, that Carlson cash could fund somebody else, say Dennis Kucinich, another up-by-the-bootstraps theme being possible. The bet is Dennis would charge less per pop and he's done one hell of a lot more to "promote civil rights for all Americans," than Rice ever has. Better Dennis, no doubt about that.
Rice and all that neocon trash pack, they remain offensive, even with the fee covered by Carlson Family cash.
Rice has every right to speak her mind. It is paying her to show up and do so that is less than ideal. Free speech (in the other sense) would offend less. Either way, show up for a Rice event or don't, that's your choice while it is not worth my time. Dennis? Maybe. Bill or Hillary? What's different from Rice except party ties?
One striking image from the televised U.Conn. - Kentuckey college basketball final was an in-attendence shot of Clinton and Bush II sitting together. Feathers very alike. Flocking together.