Paul, Cruz and Rubio debate LIVE NOW 1/25/15 11:30pm ET

[Koz]

I thought this was a domestic policy debate??

 

[William Tell]

 

[civusamericanus]

I saw a little of the stream and the few clips available online.

You'd think with all of todays technology, this would be available immediately.

I suppose we may only see clips of Rand Paul agreeing with Obama on Cuba and Iran , instead of explaining his position.

 

[specsaregood]

I saw a little of the stream and the few clips available online.

You'd think with all of todays technology, this would be available immediately.

They weren't allowed to. they only gave the full stream to selected news outlets and told them they couldn't just stream it all.

 

[libertyplz]

ABCnews clip from this morning regarding the Iran conversation:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/2016-republican-hopefuls-square-off-koch-brothers-event-28483492

 

[RabbitMan]

Wow, Rubio came off a lot more confident than I have seen him before. Equally impressive was Cruz's conviction, although it came off as a sleazy car dealer sucking up to his potential customer since he basically repeated tired phrases from 2012 that made absolutely no sense or at best seemed just pandering.

Unless Rand can make them appear absolutely insane during the debates, this is going to be a helluva primary. He will have to really wedge himself and his differences between himself and his opponents, and then point out why they sound so crazy. The ABC clip appeared to reveal a hint of the kind of powder-keg mega debate moment that could potentially erupt from a foreign policy dispute.

On Iran.
Rand, matter-of-fact: "I think we should give diplomacy a chance. War is always the last option."
Cruz, with rousing conviction: "This (nuclear talks with Iran) is the worst diplomacy in history!"
Rand, incredulously: "You want to go to war with them? Do you want to send troops into Iran?"
......
Rubio, with authority: "You just can't leave any options off the table!"

With a little goading from Rand, who comes off like a wise-ass class clown, the absolute ridiculous and unrealistic nature of their positions could become quite clear the audience. At that point in the video, even I was like, "Wait, so DOES Rubio want to go to war with Iran? When we could talk to them instead? Is he that naive?" Rand has a way of making you feel smarter than the guy standing next to him and I hope he is able to capitalize on that.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

I thought Cruz was definitely going to stay out once Jeb got in the pool. Wonder what the play is. Just drop out and sell books and increase name recognition for 2024?

I hope we get to see the full conversation at some point.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

full transcript -- http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tran...z-rand-paul/story?id=28491534&singlePage=true

 

[RabbitMan]

ThinkProgress: Rand Paul Confronts Rubio And Cruz: ‘Are You Ready To Send Ground Troops Into Iran?’

h ttp://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/26/3615298/rand-paul-confronts-rubio-cruz-ready-send-ground-troops-iran/

This is exactly what I am hoping to see.

Paul urged his fellow senators to be patient and let diplomacy run its course. “Are you ready to send ground troops into Iran? Are you ready to bomb them? Are you ready to send in 100,000 troops?” he asked. “I’m a big fan of trying to exert and trying the diplomatic option as long as we can. If it fails, I will vote to resume sanctions and I would vote to have new sanctions,” he said.
“But if you do it in the middle of negotiations, you’re ruining it.”

 

[specsaregood]

ThinkProgress: Rand Paul Confronts Rubio And Cruz: ‘Are You Ready To Send Ground Troops Into Iran?’

h ttp://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/26/3615298/rand-paul-confronts-rubio-cruz-ready-send-ground-troops-iran/

This is exactly what I am hoping to see.

Paul urged his fellow senators to be patient and let diplomacy run its course. “Are you ready to send ground troops into Iran? Are you ready to bomb them? Are you ready to send in 100,000 troops?” he asked. “I’m a big fan of trying to exert and trying the diplomatic option as long as we can. If it fails, I will vote to resume sanctions and I would vote to have new sanctions,” he said.
“But if you do it in the middle of negotiations, you’re ruining it.”

And they argue otherwise, Randal can point to mossad agreeing with him.

 

[civusamericanus]

full transcript -- http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tran...z-rand-paul/story?id=28491534&singlePage=true

Thanks... 42 pages

 

[RabbitMan]

And leave it to Rubin to turn it the other way around. What's up with her?

h ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/01/26/what-divide-in-foreign-policy/

For some time, we have argued that talk of a battle in the GOP on foreign policy is greatly overblown. If it ever existed, whatever isolationist embers remained were stamped out by a series of debacles by the Obama administration, all with a common theme: withdrawal and retreat. By the time Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, Iran snookered Obama into another extension of the interim P5+1 deal, the Islamic State rolled over a vast territory in the Middle East and the third secretary of defense under Obama warned of dangerous cuts in the defense budget, enthusiasm for a foreign policy that mimicked Obama virtually evaporated in the GOP. The exception, of course, is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), whose problem, I would suggest, is not his father but his own views.

FILE - In this Dec. 17, 2014 file photo, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., talks during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington. Rubio says a comprehensive immigration bill like the one he wrote and championed _ and then watched implode _ cannot win support in Congress. Instead, the potential 2016 Republican contender argues in his new book that incremental bills are his preferred approach to dealing with the 12 million immigrants in the United States indefinitely. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Sen. Marco Rubio (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)
After a day of hawkish speeches in Iowa, the panel discussion at the libertarian Koch brothers’ get-together should remove any doubt that the only isolationism taking part in the GOP is Rand Paul’s isolation from the rest of the field. Stephen F. Hayes reports:

Paul showed no reluctance embracing the positions of the Obama administration, even before an audience that was very skeptical of the case he made. Both at the forum here and more generally, Paul is offering a less-crazy and more politically saleable version of the non-interventionism championed by his father. While the media have long predicted an emerging non-interventionist wing of the GOP, there did not appear to be many sympathetic to Paul’s case, with audible opposition to his arguments on Cuba and, in particular, on Iran.

Most of the damage was inflicted by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who flicked aside each specious argument on Cuba and on Iran. He chastised Paul for saying, as Obama does, that loosening of trade restrictions will democratize Cuba. Rubio retorted, “The reason why I disagree with that is there isn’t a single contemporary example of that happening. For example, the example of China has been used. And it is true that we opened up diplomatically to China in the late 1970s and then gave them most favored nation status in the early 1990s. China today — is a more prosperous country but it is not a free country.” He then reeled off other examples such as Vietnam and Burma. But there is Saudi Arabia and other un-free Arab countries with whom we trade, Paul claimed. Really, that’s the argument, senator? Rubio obliterated that answer by pointing out: “I think we cannot forget that the difference between Cuba and some of those countries is a combination of we have the leverage to bring about political change and it’s 90 miles from our shores. What happens there we will feel immediately. And — and so, you know, clearly I think every country’s different in that regard. But I agree. We should condemn human rights abuses as I have tried to consistently do no matter who it is, even our allies.”

And finally, when Paul insisted the embargo had not worked, Rubio put his foot down:

I [have] heard that said before, the embargo hasn’t worked. And we have to understand, the purpose of the embargo was not to overthrow Castro. The Bay of Pigs was about overthrowing Castro. That didn’t work either. But the embargo wasn’t the– embargo was put in place to protect American companies that had had billions of dollars of property stolen, taken from them. To this very day the Cuban government actively uses equipment, machinery and– and– and real estate that once belonged to America and American companies that they basically stole and never compensated them for.

. . .t has an additional purpose in the 21st century and that is leverage. And the leverage is a successful for government after Fidel and Raul disappear, which they will because they’re both in the 80s– and still working–and– at least one of ‘em is. And– but– but the point is that you now say if you want– if you want there to be– more economic interchange between our countries then you have to make some political openings.

Cruz popped in at various times to support Rubio, but Rubio carried the assault. It is not only that Paul is out of step with his opponents, but that he is ill equipped to hold his own in discussion. (Maybe that is why he prefers snide tweets.)

On Iran it was a wipe-out as Paul clung to his position that we should not pass additional sanctions and we should let “diplomacy” run its course. Here, Rubio blew him away:

And let me tell you about negotiations, it is a tactic that Iran is using and here’s why, in 2003 the world told Iran, “You cannot have any enrichment capability.” Then it became, “Okay, you can enrich but only up to 20%.” Then it became, “Okay, you can enrich over 20% but you have to ship it overseas.” Now it’s, “Okay, you can enrich it 20% but you can only use it to a research reactor.” At this pace in five years we’re gonna build the bomb for them. I mean, that’s the direction this is going. They use negotiations as a tactic.And they– they are trying to buy as much time as possible to acquire the capability of being able to build a weapon. And once they do– once they– they don’t even have to build a weapon. They just have to prove that they have a delivery system, which they’re continuing to develop, unabated and untouched by the sanctions, a weapon design that they can easily buy from– multiple people around the world and the last is the enrichment capability. And if you can enrich at 3%, you can enrich at weapon grade. You ha– it’s the same equipment, it just takes a little longer.

Cruz added: “The legislation I filed would immediately reimpose sanctions, would strengthen them to make them more crippling. And lays out a clear path that Iran can follow to lift the sanctions. If it wants to lift the sanctions it must disassemble all 19,000 centrifuges, it must hand over the enriched uranium, it must shut down its ICBM program which exists for one reason only and that’s to carry a weapon of mass destitution to America or our allies and it must … stop being the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. If you wanna negotiate with them you need more stick and less carrot.”


I’ll posit that no one with Paul’s views is going to be the GOP presidential nominee. That was true a year ago, and as the world gets more dangerous, it becomes all the more clear today. Whether there are 20 or only a handful of Republican candidates on a debate stage, Paul will be alone in his infatuation with the Obama-Hillary Clinton-John Kerry school of diplomacy (not backed up by the credible threat of force) and his conviction that U.S. involvement makes the world more dangerous. Maybe Paul should run in the other party.

 

[Brett85]

Both at the forum here and more generally, Paul is offering a less-crazy and more politically saleable version of the non-interventionism championed by his father.

At least she admits that the foreign policy that Rand has been advocating isn't exactly the same as Ron's. I get so annoyed by people in the media who claim that Rand and Ron's foreign policy are identical when Rand has taken pretty moderate positions on foreign policy.

 

[mit26chell]

Can't believe there are people here who support Cruz. He literally said in this debate that if Iran gets a bomb they will nuke NYC. I can't stand these mofo politicians. Glad we have Rand.

 

[Crashland]

Read the transcript - not bad. Some of these same questions are guaranteed to come up during the official debates. While Rand's responses on foreign policy were thoughtful, there is room for improvement. When the real debates come around, the goal is not to convince your opponent that you are right, it is to win the audience -- and to do that you need a little more zing. I can't wait for the debate season to kick off, but I hope Rand has some diabolical debate coaching by the time we get there.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Fox is doing a story on this right now. Their Paul expert is Jamie "newsletters" Kirchik. He was nice in the first soundbite, I'm sure the second one will be an attack. Let's watch.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Most of the damage was inflicted by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who flicked aside each specious argument on Cuba and on Iran. He chastised Paul for saying, as Obama does, that loosening of trade restrictions will democratize Cuba. Rubio retorted, “The reason why I disagree with that is there isn’t a single contemporary example of that happening. For example, the example of China has been used. And it is true that we opened up diplomatically to China in the late 1970s and then gave them most favored nation status in the early 1990s. China today — is a more prosperous country but it is not a free country.”

Clearly China was more free under Chairman Mao.

He then reeled off other examples such as Vietnam and Burma. But there is Saudi Arabia and other un-free Arab countries with whom we trade, Paul claimed. Really, that’s the argument, senator? Rubio obliterated that answer by pointing out: “I think we cannot forget that the difference between Cuba and some of those countries is a combination of we have the leverage to bring about political change and it’s 90 miles from our shores. What happens there we will feel immediately. And — and so, you know, clearly I think every country’s different in that regard. But I agree. We should condemn human rights abuses as I have tried to consistently do no matter who it is, even our allies.”

Right, it's okay to ally with, finance, sell weapons to, and trade with totalitarian regimes - so long as they are a certain arbitrarily-selected geographical distance from the US.

And finally, when Paul insisted the embargo had not worked, Rubio put his foot down:

I [have] heard that said before, the embargo hasn’t worked. And we have to understand, the purpose of the embargo was not to overthrow Castro.

The Bay of Pigs was about overthrowing Castro. That didn’t work either. But the embargo wasn’t the– embargo was put in place to protect American companies that had had billions of dollars of property stolen, taken from them. To this very day the Cuban government actively uses equipment, machinery and– and– and real estate that once belonged to America and American companies that they basically stole and never compensated them for...t has an additional purpose in the 21st century and that is leverage. And the leverage is a successful for government after Fidel and Raul disappear, which they will because they’re both in the 80s– and still working–and– at least one of ‘em is. And– but– but the point is that you now say if you want– if you want there to be– more economic interchange between our countries then you have to make some political openings.

Duh, the embargo was never about ousting Castro, the idea was to wait 60 years for him to die - see - and then hope the same policy which failed to persuade him would persuade his successor. Yea! And it was also about protecting American companies from nationalizations that already occurred. But it wasn't about getting compensation for those companies, since, if it were, that would mean it failed, which it clearly didn't.

N 'Merica n jerbs n stuff too.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

He came back and said "Russia behaving the way it's been behaving, ISIS, Syria, all these things have made Rand Paul more hawkish."

Pretty weak sauce.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Rubio has a point about relating the embargo to the seized American assets. Rand should advocate opening diplomatic relations but not necessarily telling US companies to ignore the danger of doing business with Communists.

 

[Joe Jordan]

Anybody seen a link to the full video? I'd like to watch it rather than read the transcripts...