Bill Kristol is hardly the only critic of Rand Paul’s 13 hour filibuster, read more here, but the political analyst had some harsh words for the Kentucky Senator in his Weekly Standard article.

“How much staying power is there in a political stance that requires waxing semihysterical about the imminent threat of Obama-ordered drone strikes against Americans sitting in cafes?”

Kristol language sounded like a warning for the other Senators who stood with Paul.

“Is patting Rand Paul on the back for his fearmongering a plausible path to the presidency for Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz? Is embracing kookiness a winning strategy for the Republican party? We doubt it.”

The author seems to not take seriously the connected dots to the assassination of the “terrorist” in Yemen which was the basis of Paul’s argument slanted her by Kristol.

“…who want to give Paul the benefit of the doubt, have explained why anyone should take seriously what David Frum calls Rand Paul’s “nightmare out of a dystopian future: an evil future president shooting a missile at an American having coffee in a neighborhood café, merely on suspicion, without any due process of law.” Such an act would be illegal and unconstitutional, and if a president gave such an order, it should not and would not be obeyed.”

While the recent losses of Republicans seem to elude the commentator who cautions of Paul’s influence on the GOP.

“…But it’s true that a Republican party that follows the path of Rand Paul will end up as thoroughly defeated at the ballot box as Macbeth was routed on the battlefield of Dunsinane. And as deservedly so.”