Hotair: Rand Paul differentiates foreign policy from his father’s brand

[Matt Collins]

Rand Paul's Chief Of Staff Clarifies Rand's Recent Israel Comments -

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...f-Of-Staff-Responds-To-Rand-s-Israel-Comments

 

[angelatc]

Rand doesn't scare them in the way Ron does because he packages himself differently. Tho, I doubt Hannity and co are stupid and don't see the route that Rand is taking it's just that they can't really out him the way they want because they'll be offering up a major conspiracy theory that will make them look stupid.

That's part of it, but the other part is that it allows them the chance to cash in on the wave without looking like total hypocrites. Ron Paul was right, we know that, and they spent years running their mouths to convince themselves and their viewers that he wasn't right. As the economy tanked, right after the primaries where all the GOP candidates except one insisted that the fundamentals of our economy were strong, America started waking up.

I think Mitt didn't win. He was not different enough to drive enough passion to get people to the polls.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That's part of it, but the other part is that it allows them the chance to cash in on the wave without looking like total hypocrites. Ron Paul was right, we know that, and they spent years running their mouths to convince themselves and their viewers that he wasn't right. As the economy tanked, right after the primaries where all the GOP candidates except one insisted that the fundamentals of our economy were strong, America started waking up.

I think Mitt didn't win. He was not different enough to drive enough passion to get people to the polls.

No, the point is Rand isn't challenging them, and is even AGREEING with them in many aspects. They're not threatened, because they literally aren't being threatened, unlike with Ron. Copernicus wasn't a threat to the Church, so they let him be. It wasn't until Galileo started to challenge their orthodoxy that things started to shift. If people think Rand is going to shift consciousness by agreeing with the very people, and principles that he 'presumably' seeks to change, that is the height of stupidity! You don't win wars, by becoming Eggs Benedict . Ron changed hearts and minds. Rand....well, he soothes and says the right things to the very people who are our adversaries. That...should be troublesome, but I suppose not if your only goal is to attain that Ring of Power at any cost. These same people really really hated when Ron spoke the truth. Well, I've seen the future, and it be the Hippies. Enjoy your road to assimilation.

 

[Pisces]

Well, almost all I should say. I would say that some house Republicans like Jones, Duncan, and Amash are slightly more non interventionist.

Amash has said he does not believe sanctions are an act of war. He has also said that he believes Iran is a threat to its neighbors. So I guess he's a neo-con too.

 

[Pisces]

The powers that be are definitely frightened by Rand. He hasn't given them any good ammunition to go after him though. Ron said things that could be easily misunderstood as anti-American and his enemies used that to turn grassroots conservatives against him. (People aren't masochists; you will never win votes by implying their country is evil. And that probably is the case in every country on earth.) Rand is making himself the leader of the anti-establishment conservatives. The neo-cons and the establishment have not yet found a way to make him look bad to this group. My prediction is they might try to make hay out of his recent comments about needing to be more socially moderate to win certain regions. They will probably try to insinuate that he's not really pro-life.

 

[Brett85]

Amash has said he does not believe sanctions are an act of war. He has also said that he believes Iran is a threat to its neighbors. So I guess he's a neo-con too.

I never said Rand is a neo-con. I'm not one of the people who just throw that term around without knowing what it means. But, Amash has at least voted against some of the harsher sanctions on Iran, while Rand has never voted against a sanctions bill as far as I know. That's why I said that overall Amash is probably slightly more of a non interventionist than Rand is.

 

[Brett85]

My prediction is they might try to make hay out of his recent comments about needing to be more socially moderate to win certain regions. They will probably try to insinuate that he's not really pro-life.

That's what I'm afraid of as well. I don't think that was a very smart comment on Rand's part.

 

[pcosmar]

Rand Paul's Chief Of Staff Clarifies Rand's Recent Israel Comments -

 

[LibertyEagle]

Why would you do this?

 

[Brett85]

You're not convinced and back on board?

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, the point is Rand isn't challenging them, and is even AGREEING with them in many aspects. They're not threatened, because they literally aren't being threatened, unlike with Ron. Copernicus wasn't a threat to the Church, so they let him be. It wasn't until Galileo started to challenge their orthodoxy that things started to shift. If people think Rand is going to shift consciousness by agreeing with the very people, and principles that he 'presumably' seeks to change, that is the height of stupidity! You don't win wars, by becoming Eggs Benedict . Ron changed hearts and minds. Rand....well, he soothes and says the right things to the very people who are our adversaries. That...should be troublesome, but I suppose not if your only goal is to attain that Ring of Power at any cost. These same people really really hated when Ron spoke the truth. Well, I've seen the future, and it be the Hippies. Enjoy your road to assimilation.

Then perhaps you should go tell all those "stupid" people on Facebook who I have personally seen are changing because of what Rand has said and done.

 

[pcosmar]

Why would you do this?

Is Rands mouth broken? or is his foot still stuck there?

You don't send someone to do damage control unless you know there was damage.

 

[Pisces]

I never said Rand is a neo-con. I'm not one of the people who just throw that term around without knowing what it means. But, Amash has at least voted against some of the harsher sanctions on Iran, while Rand has never voted against a sanctions bill as far as I know. That's why I said that overall Amash is probably slightly more of a non interventionist than Rand is.

The sanctions bills are different in the House and Senate so who knows. I guess the point I was getting at is that there seems to be an idea that if you don't agree 100% with Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo, that you are a not a non-interventionist. I think that is ridiculous. People can disagree with certain libertarian bloggers and still be principled. Who made these people gods anyway? If you don't agree with Rand, that is fine. But you shouldn't make it out as if someone is a devil just because they don't act and speak exactly the way you want them to.

Maybe some of this anger towards Rand exists because people feel they are being pressured into supporting Rand because he is Ron's son. Perhaps some of Rand's defenders should change their approach.

 

[Pisces]

That's what I'm afraid of as well. I don't think that was a very smart comment on Rand's part.

I agree. He really needs to clarify what he means by social issues. I think GOP base voters will accept ending the war on drugs, and possibly a 10th amendment approach to gay marriage. He'll lose though if he starts being perceived as not truly pro-life.

 

[Brett85]

The sanctions bills are different in the House and Senate so who knows. I guess the point I was getting at is that there seems to be an idea that if you don't agree 100% with Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo, that you are a not a non-interventionist. I think that is ridiculous. People can disagree with certain libertarian bloggers and still be principled. Who made these people gods anyway? If you don't agree with Rand, that is fine. But you shouldn't make it out as if someone is a devil just because they don't act and speak exactly the way you want them to.

I don't believe that Rand is a pure non interventionist like Ron is. He's non interventionist leaning, no doubt. But he doesn't support a 100% non interventionist foreign policy like Ron does. Honestly, I'm probably not even as pure of a non interventionist as Ron is, even though I'm probably a little bit closer to Ron on foreign policy than I am to Rand. Rand is still the most non interventionist Senator we have, but to say that he's a pure non interventionist isn't really accurate in my opinion. That's not an attack on Rand. That's just my honest observation.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

Why does it matter if Rand is an interventionalist or non-interventionalist in his rhetoric. What is important is that CONGRESS decides if we go to war. And since Rand pretty much stands for the constitution, we will go to war when congress say we do.

The problem right now is Obama is doing bad things without congress's permission or approval. That is what is bad.

If we truly want a non-interventionalist nation.. we gotta change congress.

 

[Pisces]

I don't believe that Rand is a pure non interventionist like Ron is. He's non interventionist leaning, no doubt. But he doesn't support a 100% non interventionist foreign policy like Ron does. Honestly, I'm probably not even as pure of a non interventionist as Ron is, even though I'm probably a little bit closer to Ron on foreign policy than I am to Rand. Rand is still the most non interventionist Senator we have, but to say that he's a pure non interventionist isn't really accurate in my opinion. That's not an attack on Rand. That's just my honest observation.

Yes, but you can still be a non-interventionist even if you are not 100% "pure". (Whatever the heck that really means.) Who gets to decide what is "pure" enough, though? Is Ron Paul the only standard? If so is it presidential campaign Ron Paul and not the Ron Paul of the '70's and '80's who was anti-communist?

 

[klamath]

Amash has said he does not believe sanctions are an act of war. He has also said that he believes Iran is a threat to its neighbors. So I guess he's a neo-con too.

I agree with Amash. They are not an act of war.

 

[Brett85]

Yes, but you can still be a non-interventionist even if you are not 100% "pure". (Whatever the heck that really means.) Who gets to decide what is "pure" enough, though? Is Ron Paul the only standard? If so is it presidential campaign Ron Paul and not the Ron Paul of the '70's and '80's who was anti-communist?

I would say that Ron Paul would certainly be the ideal for what a non interventionist is. He even went so far as to oppose the raid in Pakistan that killed Osama Bin Laden, saying that was a form of intervention. That's pretty hardcore. Like I said, even I'm not that hardcore on foreign policy issues. But, I think that Ron is pretty much the standard when you're talking about a non interventionist foreign policy. I don't know anything about his foreign policy views in the 70's and 80's. I just know what he's advocated in the last two Presidential campaigns.

 

[HigherVision]

I don't believe that Rand is a pure non interventionist like Ron is. He's non interventionist leaning, no doubt. But he doesn't support a 100% non interventionist foreign policy like Ron does. Honestly, I'm probably not even as pure of a non interventionist as Ron is, even though I'm probably a little bit closer to Ron on foreign policy than I am to Rand. Rand is still the most non interventionist Senator we have, but to say that he's a pure non interventionist isn't really accurate in my opinion. That's not an attack on Rand. That's just my honest observation.

Why would anyone in this age of internet and information not be for non-interventionism at this point? So many hoaxes perpetrated by the government to trick us into war have been exposed. Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq war 1 lies about babies thrown out of incubators, Iraq war 2 lies about WMDs, etc. How can you believe anything that the government says about why we need to support them in further wars at this point? If any normal person in your life lied to you that much you would never believe a word they said ever again. You don't have to believe in any conspiracy theories because just the stuff that's admitted should be enough to completely discredit them in the mind of any thinking person.