Justin Raimondo, withdrawing support for Rand over Iran fiasco

not young, but I feel like those dudes on the roof.

i'm not sure anyone is that proud of carrying a "pro-war," tag around, but I stuck around in the R party these past 3 years hoping that I would want to deliver my delegates to an "anti-war" non-interventionist dude.

imo, the easiest and most sensible spending cuts to be found are in military offensive budgets. Rand wants to raise it (and don't blather on to me about how his increase is offset by something or whatever - I can't win people over to him when he says shit like this).

also, Raimondo not liking Bob Barr in 2008 isn't really very disappointing.
 
So a guy who thinks it should be legal to murder babies doesn't support Rand. How shocking. I'm sure that Rand will miss his support.
 
Feb 3, 2012 article from Justin that predicts really this stance on Iran.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/02/02/can-ron-paul-be-tamed/

So we have a major player in the "regime change" industry as a "senior advisor" to the Paul campaign: and not only that but a pedagogical relationship between Olson and Rand Paul. The latter has presumably learned from the former why draconian sanctions on Iran – deemed an "act of war" by his father – are a good idea and ought to be supported. Paul recently joined ninety-nine other similarly clueless US Senators in voting "aye" on what is in effect an economic blockade against Iran.

The Establishment’s strategy is clear: get to the father through the son, whose political career can be imperiled by the GOP elders, like McConnell (although that didn’t stop Paul from getting elected over McConnel’s opposition). If the Paul campaign is "infiltrating" the GOP, as Gardner puts it, then the GOP Establishment is intent on infiltrating the Paul campaign at the highest levels.

So if you wondered why the official Paul for President campaign ads devote almost no time to foreign policy issues, then perhaps now you have your answer. Of course, that hasn’t stopped several independent political action committees from making strong anti-interventionist statements on Paul’s behalf: but still, that this end run is even necessary raises all sorts of questions, one of which is surely the exact nature of Olson’s role.
 
For all of the people who are so upset about Rand's position on Iran, this is why it doesn't mean anything. Rand isn't pledging to revoke the deal if he gets elected President, and there won't be the votes in Congress to kill the deal. There's no way that they'll get a 2/3rds vote in the house to overcome Obama's veto. So Rand's vote against the deal is basically meaningless.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b4450e-3927-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html

Paul drew another distinction on the Iran deal. Two Republican rivals, Gov. Scott Walker (Wis.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), have pledged to undo it on their first days in office. Paul, who intended to vote against the deal, would give Iran a chance to prove itself.

“I think what you’d have to do, anytime you look at any international deal, is look to see if people are complying with it,” Paul said. “It would be dependent on compliance.”
 
but the neo-cons still won't vote for Rand. not when they have Rubio or Jeb. so why go against your base? Rand could have a comfortable 25% by opposing Israel as Ron did.
 
For all of the people who are so upset about Rand's position on Iran, this is why it doesn't mean anything. Rand isn't pledging to revoke the deal if he gets elected President, and there won't be the votes in Congress to kill the deal. There's no way that they'll get a 2/3rds vote in the house to overcome Obama's veto. So Rand's vote against the deal is basically meaningless.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b4450e-3927-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html
while a "no" vote won't mean anything relative to passage, a "yes" vote would be invaluable to me and my ability to recruit, rally, and perhaps win something for him.

it could, also, embolden the neocons to come out like they did the last two cycles making complete assholes of themselves. while frustrating and ultimately defeated, it was a pleasure to know that there are more non-interventionists out there than you think.
 
Back
Top