Rand Paul discusses immigration reform, Iran and Benghazi - WMAL Radio 1/31/2013

[July]

You know, Rand recently said that he did not want to project all of his foreign policy decisions to "our enemies", and he used Reagan as an example of somebody who took that stance, and I think ultimately that is the type of foreign policy he will run on.

Yeah, that's the impression I get too. Rand sounds an awful lot like Russell Kirk to me at times. Though, I hope, a more sympathetic version when it comes to libertarians. Kirk saw conservatism as being more of a state of mind, or way of looking at the world (not a strict dogma or ideology in of itself), and the conservative movement being made up of number of various distinct but overlapping groups who were aligned together for common goals. He was critical of those who approached foreign policy with zealotry. And he thought libertarians were worse than useless as political partners, because of a tendency to keep breaking away and subdividing into smaller and ever more exclusive groups.

Rand gave a speech on an amendment he was supporting recently, and I remember he said something along the lines of "we're always waiting to act until we agree on 100 millions little things first, but we never agree on a hundred million little things, and we never act on the obvious stuff that we do agree on..." He was addressing congress (and I'm paraphrasing), but I couldn't help but feel like he could have been describing libertarians and conservatives.

 

[Rocco]

This is where a voting record is tremendously helpful. Other then voting to sanction Iran's central bank, Rand has been with us on 100% of foreign policy votes that I am aware of. I think he is partially counting on libertarians ability to look past the rhetoric and look to the record when he begins to appease the neocons.

The problem is that I have no way of knowing if Rand is just saying these things because he feels like he has to "play the game," or if he actually does just believe in a hawkish and interventionist foreign policy. I don't have the power to read his mind.

 

[compromise]

One of the problems is that even if Rand can win the GOP nomination in 2016 by running on a hawkish and interventionist foreign policy, it's going to be hard for him to win a general election with that kind of foreign policy platform. Romney lost partly because he sounded so hawkish on foreign policy issues. If Rand is just going to sound like the typical hawkish Republican on foreign policy issues, he's going to have no chance to appeal to independents and Democrats and win a general election.

What? You're saying the least interventionist Senator will lose for being "hawkish"?

Rand Paul is the son of Ron Paul. Everyone knows that. No one thinks Rand is a neocon except a few morons on here.

Any of the potential Democratic nominees will be far more interventionist than Rand, so they'll probably go after him on fiscal policy instead. I can't believe you think Rand could lose an election for being "too hawkish"...this is RAND PAUL we're talking about and this is a country where George W Bush won re-election!

 

[FSP-Rebel]

This is where a voting record is tremendously helpful. Other then voting to sanction Iran's central bank, Rand has been with us on 100% of foreign policy votes that I am aware of. I think he is partially counting on libertarians ability to look past the rhetoric and look to the record when he begins to appease the neocons.

This is where I'm counting on the libertarian intelligence factor to kick in, not make oneself irrelevant.

 

[Occam's Banana]

One of the problems is that even if Rand can win the GOP nomination in 2016 by running on a hawkish and interventionist foreign policy, it's going to be hard for him to win a general election with that kind of foreign policy platform. Romney lost partly because he sounded so hawkish on foreign policy issues. If Rand is just going to sound like the typical hawkish Republican on foreign policy issues, he's going to have no chance to appeal to independents and Democrats and win a general election.

I'll repeat what I said earlier about this:

Rand is NOT being hawkish. He's simply repeating the obvious truism that "all options are on the table". (He is NOT saying that he approves of that fact - or that that is how it "should be".)

He is then following that up with an explicit insistence that we must exhaust all diplomatic and non-military avenues. What in the world is hawkish about that? That is just the opposite of hawkishness!

I dont' know which is more disturbing:
(1) the fact that some people keep insisting that Rand's foreign policy rhetoric is "hawkish" and that he is no different from the Establishment on foreign policy (when these things are demonstrably NOT the case), or
(2) the fact that some Rand "defenders" actually treat that accusation seriously and excuse it by claiming that Rand is just pandering and will change over to a "non-hawkish" stance once he is GOP POTUS nominee

People in group (1) need to just accept the facts: Rand is NOT a non-interventionist and he is NOT going to promulgate his father's non-interventionist positions.
(You need to decide whether or not this is a deal breaker for you and then move on.)

People in group (2) need to stop throwing gasoline on the fire of the "Rand is a pandering, two-faced, mealy-mouthed sunuvabitch - but it's OK, 'cause he's OUR sunuvabitch and he's just playin' politics" meme.
(You are NOT helping your guy by doing this!)

With critics like (1), Rand needs defenders. But with "defenders" like (2), Rand doesn't need critics ...

 

[Brett85]

What? You're saying the least interventionist Senator will lose for being "hawkish"?

Rand Paul is the son of Ron Paul. Everyone knows that. No one thinks Rand is a neocon except a few morons on here.

Any of the potential Democratic nominees will be far more interventionist than Rand, so they'll probably go after him on fiscal policy instead. I can't believe you think Rand could lose an election for being "too hawkish"...this is RAND PAUL we're talking about and this is a country where George W Bush won re-election!

In my opinion saying that the option of preemptively attacking another country that has never attacked us should be "on the table" is a hawkish statement. I think most Americans are opposed to a preemptive war with Iran at this point. I think that Rand would lose support from the kind of independents and Democrats Ron would get if he says that preemptive war should be an option.

 

[Rocco]

See, I don't accept your premise that Rand isn't a non interventionist. I believe that Rand is a philosophical non interventionist who has had to make at least one (and only one as far as I know) vote against his conscious for what he saw as political necessity, and has adjusted his rhetoric to throw out as much red meat as he can while sticking to a liberty message to attract as many voters to our movement as possible. If he voted against the sanctions on Iran's central bank he would have been seen as politically soft on Iran, and I believe he made the determination that the ability to preserve his political capital was more important than a 93-1 vote.

You call it mealy mouthed and two faced, I call it doing everything he can to achieve liberty in our lifetime. If he has to trick a few neocons into voting for him in order to achieve a repeal of NDAA, the Patriot act, withdraw from Afghanistan, withdraw from our bases, audit of the federal reserve or any other of our countless number of goals, I consider that a good thing, not a bad thing. At the end of the day, political cleanliness is simply NOT as important as liberty to me. I can't imagine why it is to so many of you.

I'll repeat what I said earlier about this:



I dont' know which is more disturbing:
(1) the fact that some people keep insisting that Rand's foreign policy rhetoric is "hawkish" and that he is no different from the Establishment on foreign policy (when these things are demonstrably NOT the case), or
(2) the fact that some Rand "defenders" actually treat that accusation seriously and excuse it by claiming that Rand is just pandering and will change over to a "non-hawkish" stance once he is GOP POTUS nominee

People in group (1) need to just accept the facts: Rand is NOT a non-interventionist and he is NOT going to promulgate his father's non-interventionist positions.
(You need to decide whether or not this is a deal breaker for you and then move on.)

People in group (2) need to stop throwing gasoline on the fire of the "Rand is a pandering, two-faced, mealy-mouthed sunuvabitch - but it's OK, 'cause he's OUR sunuvabitch and he's just playin' politics" meme.
(You are NOT helping your guy by doing this!)

With critics like (1), Rand needs defenders. But with "defenders" like (2), Rand doesn't need critics ...

 

[A Son of Liberty]

He's not going to repeal NDAA or the "patriot act". It's not within his power to do so.

This is why I KEEP asking how he is going to govern if he has to misrepresent himself to get into office.

He is not building upon the foundation Ron built; he's turning his back on it, and I don't see anyway he'll be able to do the things you guys think he's going to do IF the supposed strategy actually is effective.

I'm presently working under the impression that you guys are just pinning a lot of hope that he is all that you hope he is... and that is... understandable... but for me, I simply cannot vote - let alone offer financial assistance - merely on the basis of hope.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

merely on the basis of hope.

It ain't about hope it's about what I see him doing. On almost every keynote issue of the day he's leading the charge to defend the liberty position in all cases. To give an anecdotal perception of Rand's impression on virtually everyone that volunteered for Kerry's campaign or the people involved in our county's C4L group, he is as well liked by them as by me. Those people are our liberty delegates and the main activists lighting up the biggest county in MI despite the local landscape. In regards to our influence in the GOP at the state level, we have twice the amount of delegates than Kerry's alleged GOP district and believe or not, Romney got more votes in our district than Kerry's for what it's worth.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

See, I don't accept your premise that Rand isn't a non interventionist. I believe that Rand is a philosophical non interventionist who has had to make at least one (and only one as far as I know) vote against his conscious for what he saw as political necessity, and has adjusted his rhetoric to throw out as much red meat as he can while sticking to a liberty message to attract as many voters to our movement as possible. If he voted against the sanctions on Iran's central bank he would have been seen as politically soft on Iran, and I believe he made the determination that the ability to preserve his political capital was more important than a 93-1 vote.

You call it mealy mouthed and two faced, I call it doing everything he can to achieve liberty in our lifetime. If he has to trick a few neocons into voting for him in order to achieve a repeal of NDAA, the Patriot act, withdraw from Afghanistan, withdraw from our bases, audit of the federal reserve or any other of our countless number of goals, I consider that a good thing, not a bad thing. At the end of the day, political cleanliness is simply NOT as important as liberty to me. I can't imagine why it is to so many of you.

Amen, well stated and my thoughts exactly.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

It ain't about hope it's about what I see him doing. On almost every keynote issue of the day he's leading the charge to defend the liberty position in all cases. To give an anecdotal perception of Rand's impression on virtually everyone that volunteered for Kerry's campaign or the people involved in our county's C4L group, he is as well liked by them as by me. Those people are our liberty delegates and the main activists lighting up the biggest county in MI despite the local landscape. In regards to our influence in the GOP at the state level, we have twice the amount of delegates than Kerry's alleged GOP district and believe or not, Romney got more votes in our district than Kerry's for what it's worth.

Whoops! You missed the majority - and most important part - of my post!

He's not going to repeal NDAA or the "patriot act". It's not within his power to do so.

This is why I KEEP asking how he is going to govern if he has to misrepresent himself to get into office.

He is not building upon the foundation Ron built; he's turning his back on it, and I don't see anyway he'll be able to do the things you guys think he's going to do IF the supposed strategy actually is effective.

I'm presently working under the impression that you guys are just pinning a lot of hope that he is all that you hope he is... and that is... understandable... but for me, I simply cannot vote - let alone offer financial assistance -

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Whoops! You missed the majority - and most important part - of my post!

The foundation Ron built got Rand into the Senate and he's an issues advocate extraordinaire these days. He's not even misrepresenting things, he's just using the part of the message that resonates and doesn't give TMI. If Rand is voted into presidency it'll be clear that those that elected him were in favor of gutting NDAA and the PA. Him getting elected will also usher in a significant amount of Congressional members that ally with him plus during the general election he'll be campaigning along side key Senators and Congressfolk and the writing will be on the wall in terms of what the priorities of this administration will be. The Prez usually gets his way if his party controls the legislative branch.

 

[K466]

He should've flat out said that he opposes pre-emptive war. That would've been the correct answer. I don't think it's worth it for Rand to win if he has to adopt full out neo-conservative positions on foreign policy issues.

Hear, hear.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I'll just say that, though it seems a great huge pile of wishful thinking, I hope you're right.

More than a legislative shift, this country is in a desparate, life-saving need of a paradigm shift. It is not going to be "saved" by electing someone president; altering the fundamental mindset of the majority of Americans is what is needed. I understand that's a monumental task, yet it is no less the fact of the matter at hand.

 

[Occam's Banana]

See, I don't accept your premise that Rand isn't a non interventionist. I believe that Rand is a philosophical non interventionist who has had to make at least one (and only one as far as I know) vote against his conscious for what he saw as political necessity, and has adjusted his rhetoric to throw out as much red meat as he can while sticking to a liberty message to attract as many voters to our movement as possible. If he voted against the sanctions on Iran's central bank he would have been seen as politically soft on Iran, and I believe he made the determination that the ability to preserve his political capital was more important than a 93-1 vote.

A non-interventionist IS as a non-interventionist does.

A minimal interventionist IS as minimal interventionist does.

A rabid interventionist IS as rabid interventionist does.

Rand does as a minimal interventionist does.

Therefore, Rand IS a minimal interventionist. QED.

You call it mealy mouthed and two faced, I call it doing everything he can to achieve liberty in our lifetime. If he has to trick a few neocons into voting for him in order to achieve a repeal of NDAA, the Patriot act, withdraw from Afghanistan, withdraw from our bases, audit of the federal reserve or any other of our countless number of goals, I consider that a good thing, not a bad thing. At the end of the day, political cleanliness is simply NOT as important as liberty to me. I can't imagine why it is to so many of you.

No, I am NOT calling it mealy-mouthed and two-faced. I don't think Rand is being either one of those things.

You do. That is my point. You are NOT doing Rand any favors by "defending" him on that basis.

You assert that Rand is somehow "really" a non-interventionist in his secret "heart of hearts" - despite his interventionist actions in the Senate.

That is *exactly* what being "two-faced" and "mealy-mouthed" MEANS - believing/saying one thing and then doing the opposite (for whatever reason).