Graham's criticism of Paul only reason to consider him

The GOP, amazingly, has about 20 folks who have either announced, will announce, or are considering a 2016 presidential bid. One of them, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), is the most vehement war monger of the pack. He signed his colleague Tom Cotton's (R-AR) letter to the Iranian mullahs warning them not to ink an nuclear deal with President Obama because any Republican winning the 2016 presidency will likely abrogate it. ...He's pushing hard to derail this deal and he's always promoting war in the Middle East, going back to our criminal invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. He's downright obsessive about bombing Iran. But in his unrelenting criticism of President Obama's negotiating skills, he charged that any Republican candidate except Rand Paul (R-KY) could do better. That's peculiar since Paul was one of the 47 treasonous Republican senators who signed the Cotton letter. Furthermore, Rand jettisoned his formerly peacenik credentials and ties to his anti-war father Ron, to cozy up to the GOP crazies beating the war drums. He knows 'anti-war' and 'Republican candidate' is an oxy-moron, and he desperately wants to be president.

But Graham doesn't trust Paul. He fears a Paul presidency will continue Obama's drift away from war, from lockstep support for Israel's demand we bomb their bête noir Iran, and from insane, endless military spending. And he may be right.

In many ways Paul is a dreadful choice. He's shedding his more sane libertarian beliefs to have viability with the extreme right Republican primary voters, faster than you can say 'hypocrite'. He's showing a decidedly short fuse over uncomfortable questions; even shushing female interviewers like a good sexist. But when it comes to the most important issue of the election, war and peace, he's the one glimmer of hope that an unreconstructed war monger doesn't inhabit the White House should a Republican win next year.