Backstabbing Republicans Publish Open Letter To Iran Undermining Negotiations

[r3volution 3.0]

IIRC, Rand's position all along has been:

(a) We should give negotiation a real chance (more or less in line with the POTUS)

but (b) Any agreement must have congressional approval (as a constitutional matter).

So what about the letter? It has a couple purposes; (1) undermine the negotiations (though not really - the Iranians already knew full well of the neocon opposition), (2) chest-pounding for the base, and (3) assert congressional prerogatives per the constitution. Different signers of the letter presumably signed it for different reasons. The necons signed it for purpose 1 and, mostly, purpose 2. Rand signed it for purpose 3, I would think.

I don't see any reason to get excited about this, one way or the other. It's a peculiar action but it doesn't represent any meaningful change in either the ongoing Iran saga, nor in the domestic political situation, nor in Rand's public persona, nor in his actual policy position.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

At what point will the Rand supporters on this forum say "enough?" Or is there even a limit to be reached if the end goal is the presidency? If he signed onto a war resolution granting limited strikes against Iran would it still be excused because of the need to win at all costs?
Had Ron won there would be no end to the condemnation for the neocons that would pull this move during negotiations by his administrations. SMDH. Seems the "liberty movement" motto has become "the presidency over all else, at any cost."

And who is the alternative Senator you would like to support? Mike Lee? Gary Johnson? Oh yeah, he tossed aside his chance to get elected to the US Senate, and even if he had been elected, I'd give it 20 to 1 odds that Gary Johnson would have signed this letter too.

 

[jkob]

It's disgusting, I wish Rand was his father but he's not. Having the same last name doesn't mean anything to me, I want a leader that will stand up for liberty not one that will suck Fox New's balls.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

At what point will the Rand supporters on this forum say "enough?" Or is there even a limit to be reached if the end goal is the presidency? If he signed onto a war resolution granting limited strikes against Iran would it still be excused because of the need to win at all costs?
Had Ron won there would be no end to the condemnation for the neocons that would pull this move during negotiations by his administrations. SMDH. Seems the "liberty movement" motto has become "the presidency over all else, at any cost."

Politically this letter was a big deal. It spoke directly to an alleged Enemy of the State, to tell them that this President does not have the support of Congress. Legislatively it was meaningless. I think you will find in Rand's history, that he makes a habit of pandering to Republicans on almost anything that is legislatively meaningless. That's the pattern I've observed, anyway. If Congress did something that was "all talk," you could expect Rand to line up with the Ted Cruz wing, but if Congress did something that was "actual law," then he was 85%-90% more likely to end up where Ron came from. I may be slightly disappointed, but I'm not surprised that Rand is on this, it fits his pattern. It's "all talk and no law" so he's going to act out with Cruz and company. That's not an excuse, that's just Rand. Go back and look for 5 years and tell me it doesn't match up.

I don't like it, I'll say again that it's unprecedented, but if I try hard enough I can think of a couple (highly unlikely) scenarios where I might legitimately sign the thing too. This President has done some pretty stunning things. If I believed the President was about to do something extraordinarily reckless, I might be tempted to torpedo his negotiations too. That doesn't mean that any such thing was happening, only that it's plausible.

Wake me up when Rand authorizes the President to send bombers and troops or whatever. This is just his same pattern for the last 5 years. Anything that's legislatively meaningless, then chorus with the Republican hard right. Anything that's legislatively meaningful, stick as close as you can to the Paulian Base. Some exceptions, but largely this pattern since he got elected. It's why I don't worry about him.

Seriously though, chart every vote he's ever taken for X "Delta Effect on Actual Law" against Y "Rand's staked position on the vote as a function of our philosophy" and with the odd outlier, you will get a neat stack to the left, where the greater impact on actual legal liberty issues returns a higher chance of his staking with us, while a lesser legislative impact on actual law returns a higher chance of him staking with the intractable right line.

Take any given bill and if it has a profound impact on actual law expect him to stick with us, but if it has no, or only a glancing effect on actual law, then expect him to sound like a neocon. That's neither judgement nor support, that's just the path Rand has chosen in an attempt to bring our philosophy to power. He strides in the front door like a neocon, and then cracks open the back door to let the liberty in. Good bad or indifferent, this has been his way for 5 years. As big of a deal as the letter is politically, I'm not sure how it would change the minds of his supporters.

I support Rand because I can see the pattern. I see what he's trying to do, and while it's not what I would do it is a legitimate strategy for the promotion of a common ideal. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but he the closest of us with a shot at the White House, so it's his play. I'll get worried when he starts voting wrong on stuff that has real legislative meaning rather than mere political balderdash.

 

[phill4paul]

And who is the alternative Senator you would like to support? Mike Lee? Gary Johnson? Oh yeah, he tossed aside his chance to get elected to the US Senate, and even if he had been elected, I'd give it 20 to 1 odds that Gary Johnson would have signed this letter too.

So you are fine with this? You feel that it is alright for Rand to have signed on to this as long as he achieves the presidency?

 

[phill4paul]

Politically this letter was a big deal. It spoke directly to an alleged Enemy of the State, to tell them that this President does not have the support of Congress. Legislatively it was meaningless. I think you will find in Rand's history, that he makes a habit of pandering to Republicans on almost anything that is legislatively meaningless. That's the pattern I've observed, anyway. If Congress did something that was "all talk," you could expect Rand to line up with the Ted Cruz wing, but if Congress did something that was "actual law," then he was 85%-90% more likely to end up where Ron came from. I may be slightly disappointed, but I'm not surprised that Rand is on this, it fits his pattern. It's "all talk and no law" so he's going to act out with Cruz and company. That's not an excuse, that's just Rand. Go back and look for 5 years and tell me it doesn't match up.

I don't like it, I'll say again that it's unprecedented, but if I try hard enough I can think of a couple (highly unlikely) scenarios where I might legitimately sign the thing too. This President has done some pretty stunning things. If I believed the President was about to do something extraordinarily reckless, I might be tempted to torpedo his negotiations too. That doesn't mean that any such thing was happening, only that it's plausible.

Wake me up when Rand authorizes the President to send bombers and troops or whatever. This is just his same pattern for the last 5 years. Anything that's legislatively meaningless, then chorus with the Republican hard right. Anything that's legislatively meaningful, stick as close as you can to the Paulian Base. Some exceptions, but largely this pattern since he got elected. It's why I don't worry about him.

Seriously though, chart every vote he's ever taken for X "Delta Effect on Actual Law" against Y "Rand's staked position on the vote as a function of our philosophy" and with the odd outlier, you will get a neat stack to the left, where the greater impact on actual legal liberty issues returns a higher chance of his staking with us, while a lesser legislative impact on actual law returns a higher chance of him staking with the intractable right line.

Take any given bill and if it has a profound impact on actual law expect him to stick with us, but if it has no, or only a glancing effect on actual law, then expect him to sound like a neocon. That's neither judgement nor support, that's just the path Rand has chosen in an attempt to bring our philosophy to power. He strides in the front door like a neocon, and then cracks open the back door to let the liberty in. Good bad or indifferent, this has been his way for 5 years. As big of a deal as the letter is politically, I'm not sure how it would change the minds of his supporters.

I support Rand because I can see the pattern. I see what he's trying to do, and while it's not what I would do it is a legitimate strategy for the promotion of a common ideal. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but he the closest of us with a shot at the White House, so it's his play. I'll get worried when he starts voting wrong on stuff that has real legislative meaning rather than mere political balderdash.

Yes, but if, if, he attains the presidency then a precedent is set to thwart any negotiations his administration is in deals with. He can't come back to the neocons and say "Look guys. We are in the middle of negotiations. Why don't we just see how this plays out before undermining my administration."

 

[jkob]

Is Rand supporting liberty or is Rand supporting himself? I know we are to believe that he is in a some long con to trick Neocons but how do we know it isn't the other way around? The Junior Senator from Illinois circa 2008 was all about hope and change, a constitutional scholar that would stand up for civil liberties and oppose war, what did we get? Matthew 6:24 comes to mind when I think of Rand now, there might not be an alternative but that doesn't mean I support what Rand is doing. He should tread lightly.

 

[69360]

What is your opinion on the fact that Rand Paul is aligning himself with the likes of Tom Cotton and signing letters such as these?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...ran-open-letter-nuclear-agreement-115888.html

I don't have a problem with it. It was factual. Obama is trying to bypass congress. I would have signed it.

But on the other hand I support diplomacy with Iran and don't have a problem with Iran getting a nuke.

Thoughts on this?

Honestly, I don't know enough about the Logan Act to have an opinion yet. I posted it looking for input from someone more knowledgeable.




There's also a petition to charge the Senators on WhiteHouse.gov.

They are fine legally. They didn't negotiate anything. They informed.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

So you are fine with this? You feel that it is alright for Rand to have signed on to this as long as he achieves the presidency?

Not asking me, but I'll answer anyway. Even if this were a betrayel of Rand's or our principles (which it isn't, at all: see my post above), yes - I for one would still vastly prefer Rand to all other candidates even if he got on TV and did a rendition of "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." There are other issues besides foreign policy, and there's also a lot more to foreign policy than the Middle East (which is messy but fairly trivial in comparison to things like, say, global nuclear war with Russia).

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes, but if, if, he attains the presidency then a precedent is set to thwart any negotiations his administration is in deals with. He can't come back to the neocons and say "Look guys. We are in the middle of negotiations. Why don't we just see how this plays out before undermining my administration."

I never said it was a good idea, just that it fits his 5 year pattern. I did say that I could envision a highly unlikely scenario where I would sign the thing myself, but that doesn't mean that's what I believe happened. I think he was just doing his old "pander to the hard right on anything that doesn't affect real legislation" thing. If anything leads me to the belief that Obama was in the process of doing something really, really stupid, it's the surprising large number of Senators who signed the thing.

So my thinking is, "Rand did this because he always does this when it doesn't write actual law, but look how many of them signed on, and this thing is really unprecedented. This (the quantity of support, NOT whether Rand was on it) makes me wonder if Obama wasn't about to do something really reckless and the Senators caught wind of it ahead of time."

The difference is when Ron did something we could count on him as our compass. Rand has never been a compass, I figure him for a sailboat, trying to tack against the wind. Catching the wind in full bluster when it's going nowhere, and then pushing ahead to the goal in the lees. I get it. I get what he's trying to do, so maybe it's just easier for me. I'm not a sailboat, I'm a compass, but I am willing to let the sailor sail, while I will keep pointing north. If he carries us into the rocks, oh well, I tried, and I did my part. If he doesn't then, well, we will have won the day.

Is this the kind of mess I would put up with normally? No, but 'normally' the United States is not on the very brink of imminent total devastation. So...............

I mean this is it, right? Last call. Throw your chips in for one last battle before we all go over the cliff together. So I'll put up with a lot of stuff I don't put up with even if it's just to mark history that we didn't go down without a fight. For what it's worth, I don't think Rand wants to tack this hard, but, well, the opinion-makers they have lost their minds. What can you really do in the face of such madness?

Bad decision. Signing it was the wrong call, but it fits his long established pattern of processing legislation. Could also be something going on we are not privy to.

 

[phill4paul]

I never said it was a good idea, just that it fits his 5 year pattern. I did say that I could envision a highly unlikely scenario where I would sign the thing myself, but that doesn't mean that's what I believe happened. I think he was just doing his old "pander to the hard right on anything that doesn't affect real legislation" thing. If anything leads me to the belief that Obama was in the process of doing something really, really stupid, it's the surprising large number of Senators who signed the thing.

So my thinking is, "Rand did this because he always does this when it doesn't write actual law, but look how many of them signed on, and this thing is really unprecedented. This (the quantity of support, NOT whether Rand was on it) makes me wonder if Obama wasn't about to do something really reckless and the Senators caught wind of it ahead of time."

The difference is when Ron did something we could count on him as our compass. Rand has never been a compass, I figure him for a sailboat, trying to tack against the wind. Catching the wind in full bluster when it's going nowhere, and then pushing ahead to the goal in the lees. I get it. I get what he's trying to do, so maybe it's just easier for me. I'm not a sailboat, I'm a compass, but I am willing to let the sailor sail, while I will keep pointing north. If he carries us into the rocks, oh well, I tried, and I did my part. If he doesn't then, well, we will have won the day.

Is this the kind of mess I would put up with normally? No, but 'normally' the United States is not on the very brink of imminent total devastation. So...............

I mean this is it, right? Last call. Throw your chips in for one last battle before we all go over the cliff together. So I'll put up with a lot of stuff I don't put up with even if it's just to mark history that we didn't go down without a fight. For what it's worth, I don't think Rand wants to tack this hard, but, well, the opinion-makers they have lost their minds. What can you really do in the face of such madness?

Bad decision. Signing it was the wrong call, but it fits his long established pattern of processing legislation. Could also be something going on we are not privy to.

As a Navy vet I get your nautical comparisons to the game that many here believe is being played. That game is not an easy one to play. But, there does come a time when one has to step back. This, I believe, was one of those times. I'm not believing that the neocons were privy to certain information. It was a partisan (neocon) shot to undermine the administration in its negotiations. It's purpose was to bolster the political bank accounts by the very industrial complex that we abhor. And it will do so. Not for Rand in my estimation.

 

[Brett85]

I think that Rand's moving towards the mainstream of the GOP on foreign policy issues in general is probably going to dampen enthusiasm among the liberty movement and make it harder for him to raise a lot of money in the money bombs. He's probably going to have to figure out ways to raise a lot of money outside of the liberty movement if he wants to have any chance to win the GOP nomination.

 

[specsaregood]

So you are fine with this? You feel that it is alright for Rand to have signed on to this as long as he achieves the presidency?

I have no problem with the letter whatsoever, no matter who signed it or any presidential aspirations. it was factual, promoted constitutional government and a weaker executive branch. what exactly is the problem with it? I just don't get it, I agree with it.

 

[phill4paul]

I have no problem with the letter whatsoever, no matter who signed it or any presidential aspirations. it was factual, promoted constitutional government and a weaker executive branch. what exactly is the problem with it? I just don't get it, I agree with it.

The problem with it is the point of it. Neocons signed on to undermine negotiations with Iran. Rand joined them. As Gunny pointed out it is unprecedented. On the heels of the Netenyahoo speech do you not think that this is not a play for further involvement in military action in the middle east? Is that what you want? This letter wasn't just sent out as a missive to every other government. It targeted Iran. Is that what we really have come to on the "Liberty" forums?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

So you are fine with this? You feel that it is alright for Rand to have signed on to this as long as he achieves the presidency?

Whether I like it or not does not matter. I don't have to like every single thing that a politician does.

 

[mosquitobite]

This was a catch-22 gotcha thing for Rand. And the neo-cons KNEW it.

 

[cajuncocoa]

The problem with it is the point of it. Neocons signed on to undermine negotiations with Iran. Rand joined them. As Gunny pointed out it is unprecedented. On the heels of the Netenyahoo speech do you not think that this is not a play for further involvement in military action in the middle east? Is that what you want? This letter wasn't just sent out as a missive to every other government. It targeted Iran. Is that what we really have come to on the "Liberty" forums?

I owe you another rep. If there's anyone else around with the principles we used to stand for, could you please cover Phil for me?

 

[phill4paul]

Whether I like it or not does not matter. I don't have to like every single thing that a politician does.

You should. When it gives power and impetus to those that would keep us at war. We used to believe in that on "Liberty" forums. Guess not anymore.

 

[specsaregood]

The problem with it is the point of it. Neocons signed on to undermine negotiations with Iran. Rand joined them. As Gunny pointed out it is unprecedented. On the heels of the Netenyahoo speech do you not think that this is not a play for further involvement in military action in the middle east? Is that what you want? This letter wasn't just sent out as a missive to every other government. It targeted Iran. Is that what we really have come to on the "Liberty" forums?

So your problem isn't the content that Randal signed; but the supposed "intent". meh to that. He undermined negotiations that were pointless anyways exactly because of the issues addressed in the letter? meh to that. Obama has been running the govt by executive fiat for years now, if any president needed to be kneecapped publically it is him. so meh to the unprecedented bit. I see nothing in that letter that says anything about further military involvement in the middle east, Randal certainly didn't sign something promoting that. In fact, much of his legislation and positions have been the exact opposite.

So pardon me for not getting upset about him signing some letter that actually promotes positions that I support!

As for Randal losing my support or our support. I am infinitely more disappointed in his vote to renew the terrorism risk insurance act which is pure crony capitalism so much so that CATO even called it that than I am this silly letter. More votes like that one and he would lose my support. But nobody around here really seemed to care about that one which was actually a vote that affects our pocket books. no instead people want to handwring and bitch and moan about this letter promoting a weak executive branch. meh.

edit: hell you guys should cheer the neocons for the positions they agreed to in this letter.

 

[phill4paul]

So your problem isn't the content that Randal signed; but the supposed "intent". meh to that. He undermined negotiations that were pointless anyways exactly because of the issues addressed in the letter? meh to that. Obama has been running the govt by executive fiat for years now, if any president needed to be kneecapped publically it is him. so meh to the unprecedented bit. I see nothing in that letter that says anything about further military involvement in the middle east, Randal certainly didn't sign something promoting that. In fact, much of his legislation and positions have been the exact opposite.

So pardon me for not getting upset about him signing some letter that actually promotes positions that I support!

As for Randal losing my support or our support. I am infinitely more disappointed in his vote to renew the terrorism risk insurance act which is pure crony capitalism so much so that CATO even called it that than I am this silly letter. More votes like that one and he would lose my support. But nobody around here really seemed to care about that one which was actually a vote that affects our pocket books. no instead people want to handwring and bitch and moan about this letter promoting a weak executive branch. meh.

edit: hell you guys should cheer the neocons for the positions they agreed to in this letter.

OK. meh.