Antiwar.com: Neocons and Obamaites Unite Against Rand Paul - Justin Raimondo

[Occam's Banana]

Raimondo has a few thousand twitter followers and some fans on here. Irrelevant. And he's been extremely rude to Rand for like 3 years.

If Raimondo is so impotent & irrelevant, why do you give a damn about what he says?

 

[acptulsa]

And he's been extremely rude to Rand for like 3 years.

The more skeptical the few honest commentators are at first, the more it means when they finally see the candidate's true colors. It's just the opposite of Matt's spin. Matt will say whatever in Rand's defense--even if it's pure and painfully obvious bull, and we all know it, so it means absolutely nothing. But when Raimondo watches the filibuster and realizes that Rand honestly gives a damn about whether we get droned in our beds or not, well, that does mean something.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The more skeptical the few honest commentators are at first, the more it means when they finally see the candidate's true colors. It's just the opposite of Matt's spin. Matt will say whatever in Rand's defense--even if it's pure and painfully obvious bull, and we all know it, so it means absolutely nothing. But when Raimondo watches the filibuster and realizes that Rand honestly gives a damn about whether we get droned in our beds or not, well, that does mean something.

Exactly. And when Rand eventually says or does something "out of line" with strict non-interventionism (as he eventually will), Raimondo will certainly resume criticizing Rand for doing so (and probably quite harshly). Likewise, Glenn Greenwald and Conor Friedersdorf will praise and defend Rand when he says and does things they regard as being "the right thing" - even though there are other issues on which they vehemently differ with Rand.

Raimondo, Greenwald, Friedersdorf, etc. are people of principle and integrity - unlike people such as Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, various "Obamabot" progressives, etc. (who are no more than partisan/opportunistic hacks).

When Levin (for example) says things in a way that might redound to Rand's benefit, I won't denounce it or complain about it - but I'll be damned if I'll praise him for it, either. And I'll take the "loyal opposition" of Raimondo, Greenwald, et al. over the erratic and self-serving pipsqueakery of Levin & Co. any day.

 

[Matt Collins]

And in regards to sanctions, if the federal government is acting to weaken Iran's central bank, how are they not intervening in Iran's affairs? You cannot make up definitions just to suit your argument.

Yeah sanctioning their Central Bank has no effect on their people at all.... Nice try at spinning it...

This has already been explained here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...aul-voted-to-sanction-Iran&highlight=epiphany

 

[acptulsa]

This has already been explained here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...aul-voted-to-sanction-Iran&highlight=epiphany

You don't even pretend to have a sleepy-headed epiphany in that post that you think for as much as three quarters of a second that it's non-interventionist. Which makes it beyond irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

And considering how you got roasted for that stuff in its own thread, one would think you wouldn't want to be further roasted for it in this thread.

 

[Todd]

It doesn't matter if he's flat out wrong half the time. It's like AJ, half of what he puts out is hyperbole, innuendo, and just factual untruths. It makes it too hard to separate the crap from the good stuff, and it prohibits any ounce of credibility.

No, Rand is not an interventionist. Where do people get these lies from?

Comparing Raimondo to Alex Jones? I think you are being a bit intellectually dishonest.

 

[itshappening]

Exactly. And when Rand eventually says or does something "out of line" with strict non-interventionism (as he eventually will), Raimondo will certainly resume criticizing Rand for doing so (and probably quite harshly). Likewise, Glenn Greenwald and Conor Friedersdorf will praise and defend Rand when he says and does things they regard as being "the right thing" - even though there are other issues on which they vehemently differ with Rand.

Raimondo, Greenwald, Friedersdorf, etc. are people of principle and integrity - unlike people such as Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, various "Obamabot" progressives, etc. (who are no more than partisan/opportunistic hacks).

When Levin (for example) says things in a way that might redound to Rand's benefit, I won't denounce it or complain about it - but I'll be damned if I'll praise him for it, either. And I'll take the "loyal opposition" of Raimondo, Greenwald, et al. over the erratic and self-serving pipsqueakery of Levin & Co. any day.

The interesting thing is Mark Levin has never said anything negative about Rand. Not that I can remember. He might respectfully disagree and he makes it clear he's being respectful on some issues but never has he called him names, mocked his hair or knocked him like Raimondo. Even when being rude about Ron he draws the line at Rand. Also, Mark Levin has 8 million listeners so yes, it matters more what he and Beck say more than others.

I would rather be in their good graces than Raimondo's and remain irrelevant for eternity. That's the whole point of Rand Paul and his slightly modified message and his more political votes. He has to keep on the right side of a lot more people if he ever wants to be president. He doesn't want to be a senator for 24 years casting the sole No votes so Raimdondo can praise him at every turn. He's a man on a mission and wants to capture the White House. He won't be around forever.

Such actions do not mean he's a neocon foaming at the mouth to go to war and intervene around the world and selling out his original supporters and the liberty movement or funnel money to defense contractors. The defense contractors who fund the neocon outfits like The Weekly Standard are well aware of the threat that Rand poses to their rackets and they regularly denounce him and remain steadfastly opposed to him.

 

[acptulsa]

Comparing Raimondo to Alex Jones? I think you are being a bit intellectually dishonest.

Oh, now, we can give the man the benefit of some doubt. It might not be that he's being intellectually dishonest. It might just be that he's being intellectually deficient.

 

[Matt Collins]

Comparing Raimondo to Alex Jones? I think you are being a bit intellectually dishonest.

Fair enough. But I guess what I am trying to say is that when you're as inaccurate as these two are, then credibility is nonexistent.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The interesting thing is Mark Levin has never said anything negative about Rand. Not that I can remember. He might respectfully disagree and he makes it clear he's being respectful on some issues but never has he called him names, mocked his hair or knocked him like Raimondo. Even when being rude about Ron he draws the line at Rand. Also, Mark Levin has 8 million listeners so yes, it matters more what he and Beck say more than others.

I would rather be in their good graces than Raimondo's and remain irrelevant for eternity. That's the whole point of Rand Paul and his slightly modified message and his more political votes. He has to keep on the right side of a lot more people if he ever wants to be president. He doesn't want to be a senator for 24 years casting the sole No votes so Raimdondo can praise him at every turn. He's a man on a mission and wants to capture the White House. He won't be around forever.

Such actions do not mean he's a neocon foaming at the mouth to go to war and intervene around the world and selling out his original supporters and the liberty movement or funnel money to defense contractors. The defense contractors who fund the neocon outfits like The Weekly Standard are well aware of the threat that Rand poses to their rackets and they regularly denounce him and remain steadfastly opposed to him.

I repeat:

If Raimondo is so impotent & irrelevant, why do you give a damn about what he says?

 

[Christian Liberty]

The interesting thing is Mark Levin has never said anything negative about Rand. Not that I can remember. He might respectfully disagree and he makes it clear he's being respectful on some issues but never has he called him names, mocked his hair or knocked him like Raimondo. Even when being rude about Ron he draws the line at Rand. Also, Mark Levin has 8 million listeners so yes, it matters more what he and Beck say more than others.

I would rather be in their good graces than Raimondo's and remain irrelevant for eternity. That's the whole point of Rand Paul and his slightly modified message and his more political votes. He has to keep on the right side of a lot more people if he ever wants to be president. He doesn't want to be a senator for 24 years casting the sole No votes so Raimdondo can praise him at every turn. He's a man on a mission and wants to capture the White House. He won't be around forever.

Such actions do not mean he's a neocon foaming at the mouth to go to war and intervene around the world and selling out his original supporters and the liberty movement or funnel money to defense contractors. The defense contractors who fund the neocon outfits like The Weekly Standard are well aware of the threat that Rand poses to their rackets and they regularly denounce him and remain steadfastly opposed to him.

There are definitely a lot of shades in between "foaming at the mouth neocon" and "Principled noninterventionist." I'd agree that Rand is closer to the latter than the former, but I don't think he's quite in the latter camp. Its possible that he is just being deceptive when he seems to support moderate interventionism, but I don't think so.

If Raimonado actually mocked Rand's hair than he's an idiot unless he was joking. Criticize his policies as much as you like, but his hair is irrelevant.

 

[itshappening]

I don't like people attacking Rand and misunderstanding what he's doing.

That said it appears he has adopted the role of "useful idiot" because it looks like to the average GOP voters that a prominent Ron Paul supporter is denouncing Rand and this makes him even more appealing to the wider base.

So I could care less but his stuff seems to get posted here and so I like to remind people of what's really going on and put things in perspective.

 

[itshappening]

There are definitely a lot of shades in between "foaming at the mouth neocon" and "Principled noninterventionist." I'd agree that Rand is closer to the latter than the former, but I don't think he's quite in the latter camp. Its possible that he is just being deceptive when he seems to support moderate interventionism, but I don't think so.

If Raimonado actually mocked Rand's hair than he's an idiot unless he was joking. Criticize his policies as much as you like, but his hair is irrelevant.

Not only has he criticized his hair he has said on EPJ podcast he looks like a teenager, just out of school. Oh they laughed about that one!

Just try and remember Rand has to stay on the right side of a lot more people if he wants to be president and that's how he operates. Being in the good graces of Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck is far more important to him than being praised by Raimondo and other puritans. Occasionally he will have to make a difficult vote like with sanctions on Iran to improve his bona fides and not look too soft to the primary voter who has been fed interventionism and propaganda for the last 14 years and who still tends to be a rabid consumer of that propaganda.

Yes, there are plenty of people who think Iran is 5 minutes away from acquiring a nuke weapon and want to aim it at the U.S. They've drank the koolaid because they're fed a diet of insidious propaganda and listen to neocon talk radio. Rand is operating within this sort of context and so has to be seen to be addressing their concerns. He's not going to educate them and try and rebuff the propaganda his job is to be a concerned senator and look as if he's addressing the issues. The Iran situation puts him in a difficult spot. He was the only vote against a resolution condemning them but he can at least tell the concerned primary voter who has drank the koolaid he supported sanctioning them. Do you get me?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't like people attacking Rand and misunderstanding what he's doing.

That said it appears he has adopted the role of "useful idiot" because it looks like to the average GOP voters that a prominent Ron Paul supporter is denouncing Rand and this makes him even more appealing to the wider base.

So I could care less but his stuff seems to get posted here and so I like to remind people of what's really going on and put things in perspective.

If Rand does indeed support all or nearly all of his father's policies, he's being a little bit deceptive. Less so than most, but still. I'm very against the sanctions as well, although I don't see why people say its an act of war.

Not only has he criticized his hair he has said on EPJ podcast he looks like a teenager, just out of school. Oh they laughed about that one!

Just try and remember Rand has to stay on the right side of a lot more people if he wants to be president and that's how he operates. Being in the good graces of Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck is far more important to him than being praised by Raimondo and other puritans. Occasionally he will have to make a difficult vote like with sanctions on Iran to improve his bona fides and not look too soft to the primary voter who has been fed interventionism and propaganda for the last 14 years and who still tends to be a rabid consumer of that propaganda.

But here's the question, is being on the good side of Levin and Limbaugh actually a good thing for liberty? Honestly, I don't truly know what to think of Beck, he may be lying but he sounds much, much more libertarian than the other talk show hosts. Not pure, of course, but he sounds like the only one who would have actually taken Ron Paul over Obama if it had come down to that. Beck does seem to support intervention sometimes, but he's not absolutely obsessed with it, or at least not from what I heard. He sounded pretty good on Napolitano's show.

I'll admit, I don't really like Rand's strategy. It might be "Working" but I still don't like it. Getting 10% or 49% is still losing, and I don't actually see it working. Honestly, in order to actually win, I think Rand would have to compromise so much that he'd no longer be worth voting for. I don't think he's compromised that much yet, but I think he's going to have to if he wants to win.

Honestly, my fear is that if Rand is willing to compromise in order to win, he won't rule very well either, the system will corrupt him. I'm not saying that that will definitely happen, but that's my fear.

All that said, as much as I don't really like it, I'm going to give him a shot, and I would encourage everyone else to do the same.

 

[itshappening]

Basically it's important to remember that Hannity, FOX news (and even Drudge) and Netanyahu are all propagating a myth when they talk about Iran's nuclear ambitions. In Netanyahu's case he's been telling the world that Iran will have a bomb in six months since 1995.

Also we know the Iranian Leader has a FATWA specifically against nuclear weapons and has said their project is for peaceful purposes and so they're not reliant on dwindling oil reserves for power. Nobody goes against the iranian leaders fatwa as it means death so he's either lying and it's an elaborate cover-up or it is their official position. International agencies and the CIA seem to suggest he's not lying and are not sounding the alarm like the war hawks are.

Now Rand isn't going to challenge this propaganda and these deeply ingrained myths. They're so ingrained because they get repeated every day on the radio and Netanyahu gets attention as PM of Israel falsely sounding the alarm. I bet it's so bad Rand probably gets calls from well meaning Kentucky residents asking him what he's going to do about it.

So Rand will not go on these shows and say "Hey, there's nothing to worry about.. the Iranian leader has a fatwa... ". No, instead he says "I'm extremely concerned. I've voted for sanctions and we're going to see how that works... I don't think we should get involved in another Iraq war. I don't think we can afford it but i'm still concerned".

Now, voting for sanctions and thus being able to maintain a semblance of concern to the many people who believe in the myth is a lot better than voting for war or actual intervention. So that's the trade off he's made. It does not mean he's an interventionist who wants war with Iran. He's just trying to address the actual concerns - even though they're misplaced and based on pure propaganda - of large swathes of the GOP.

 

[itshappening]

If Rand does indeed support all or nearly all of his father's policies, he's being a little bit deceptive. Less so than most, but still. I'm very against the sanctions as well, although I don't see why people say its an act of war.



But here's the question, is being on the good side of Levin and Limbaugh actually a good thing for liberty? Honestly, I don't truly know what to think of Beck, he may be lying but he sounds much, much more libertarian than the other talk show hosts. Not pure, of course, but he sounds like the only one who would have actually taken Ron Paul over Obama if it had come down to that. Beck does seem to support intervention sometimes, but he's not absolutely obsessed with it, or at least not from what I heard. He sounded pretty good on Napolitano's show.

I'll admit, I don't really like Rand's strategy. It might be "Working" but I still don't like it. Getting 10% or 49% is still losing, and I don't actually see it working. Honestly, in order to actually win, I think Rand would have to compromise so much that he'd no longer be worth voting for. I don't think he's compromised that much yet, but I think he's going to have to if he wants to win.

Honestly, my fear is that if Rand is willing to compromise in order to win, he won't rule very well either, the system will corrupt him. I'm not saying that that will definitely happen, but that's my fear.

All that said, as much as I don't really like it, I'm going to give him a shot, and I would encourage everyone else to do the same.

Yes it's good for liberty if you understand what Rand is doing. He's persuing the White House and has a short time frame to grab the nomination and the presidency. He might have to give up the Senate seat to do it in 2016 so he's not going to be there forever. Rand is not here to advance liberty and educate the American public over the next 25 years. He's here to grab the GOP nomination in 2016 and have a tilt at the White House. Although I hope Kentucky change the law and allow him to run for both the Senate and presidency but it might not be permissible in which case by 2017 he's either the president or an eye doctor again.

Being on the good side of Levin, Limbaugh, Beck, Ingraham, etc etc. will ensure he gets a fair hearing and fair coverage leading up to 2016. Most of them are praising him even if they dont agree with everything he stands for. They're not all controlled by Kristol and his gang and this is a way to break the Matrix.

 

[anaconda]

Basically it's important to remember that Hannity, FOX news (and even Drudge) and Netanyahu are all propagating a myth when they talk about Iran's nuclear ambitions. In Netanyahu's case he's been telling the world that Iran will have a bomb in six months since 1995.

I'm not sure why Rand can't or won't challenge the credibility of the evidence against Iran.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2007/12/10/iran-nukes-and-the-laptop-of-death/

http://www.lobelog.com/suspicions-persist-about-iranian-laptop-of-death/

 

[itshappening]

I'm not sure why Rand can't or won't challenge the credibility of the evidence against Iran.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2007/12/10/iran-nukes-and-the-laptop-of-death/

http://www.lobelog.com/suspicions-persist-about-iranian-laptop-of-death/

Because his job is to act like the concerned senator. He's never going to challenge it. There's no point as it's so prevelant and repeated daily. You won't get anywhere with trying to educate the talk hosts or their audience and probably wont get invited back. So the answer is to buy into their myth and act concerned while at the same time bein cautious about another war. Sanctions are a good bone to throw at them even though I dont support them and think it's horrible and cruel as the elite won't be affected and the children and average person will be you have to understand the power of the propaganda is intense and that there's no point in challenging it. Best to throw them a bone, sound concerned but try and caution against another trillion dollar war.

 

[supermario21]

Yeah, I don't think you'll see Rand quoting Infowars or antiwar.com on the Senate floor anytime soon.

 

[itshappening]

Yeah, I don't think you'll see Rand quoting Infowars or antiwar.com on the Senate floor anytime soon.

He quoted the MIAC report on the senate floor - released by infowars.com