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

[Brett85]

How anyone can possibly look at Rand's statements on Iran (rhetorical devices and all) and claim that his position is no different than the Establishment's is beyond me.

His position is that he supports sanctions on Iran and that the military option should be on the table. That's the exact same position that the GOP establishment has.

 

[Brett85]

And I agree with Sola Fide. I've been a huge Rand supporter from the beginning, but I'm reconsidering my support for him based on his recent foreign policy rhetoric.

 

[fr33]

Ugh he doubled up on his support for sanctions on Iran and wants China and Russia to sanction them as well.

I know how I feel about that and I know how somebody else thinks about that subject...

"The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders."

 

[Sola_Fide]

And I agree with Sola Fide. I've been a huge Rand supporter from the beginning, but I'm reconsidering my support for him based on his recent foreign policy rhetoric.

My question is: What is Rand thinking? Does he have advisors around him saying "Alright Rand, we have GOT to be as hawkish as the neocons if we want to win in 2016."??? If he does, he needs to fire them immediately, and listen to the grassroots again.

I'm going to warn Rand in advance...he is going to get booed by every liberty crowd he speaks to if he keeps it up. There will be 0% interest in his campaign. He has got to know this. I have no idea where his head is...

 

[Occam's Banana]

His position is that he supports sanctions on Iran and that the military option should be on the table. That's the exact same position that the GOP establishment has.

Yes, he does support sanctions. He is NOT a non-interventionist. Rand Paul is at least minimally interventionist. That is a serious black mark in my book.

(But then, to my knowledge he has never claimed to actually be a non-interventionist - so at least he has not been dishonest).

I have already addressed the "military option SHOULD BE on the table" issue (post #30). He did NOT say any such thing.

I identified the most obvious difference between Rand's views and the Establishment's position in post #33. But if you want to plug your fingers in your ears and insist that Rand is no different from the likes of Santorum, Bachmann & McCain, then go ahead. There is nothing I can do to stop you. But you are wrong - and simply repeating that Rand has the "exact same position as the GOP establishment" over and over (instead of addressing the evidence that this is not the case) does not change that fact.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I identified the most obvious difference between Rand's views and the Establishment's position in post #33. But if you want to plug your fingers in your ears and insist that Rand is no different from the likes of Santorum, Bachmann & McCain, then go ahead. There is nothing I can do to stop you. But you are wrong - and simply repeating that Rand has the "exact same position as the GOP establishment" over and over (instead of addressing the evidence that this is not the case) does not change that fact.

Now, I'm not saying that. Anyone who says that Rand's position is the same as Rubio's position is either ignorant or lying. I'm looking at it from an electoral persepective. I'm trying to understand how Rand thinks this hawkishness is going to help his campaign. I am sure that talk like this is going to be a detriment, not an asset. This is not helping him at all.

 

[fr33]

Now, I'm not saying that. Anyone who says that Rand's position is the same as Rubio's position is either ignorant or lying. I'm looking at it from an electoral persepective. I'm trying to understand how Rand thinks this hawkishness is going to help his campaign. I am sure that talk like this is going to be a detriment, not an asset. This is not helping him at all.

It's interesting to think about. With this tactical approach he probably won't draw the crowds at rallies or have the sign wavers. The question is will he be able to get more votes rather than just excitement. I don't know. He'll need the establishment behind him probably.

 

[tsai3904]

I'm looking at it from an electoral persepective. I'm trying to understand how Rand thinks this hawkishness is going to help his campaign. I am sure that talk like this is going to be a detriment, not an asset. This is not helping him at all.

He said the same thing before he was elected and the liberty movement was still behind him. Again, his rhetoric hasn't changed one bit.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Paul-Won-t-Rule-Out-Preemptive-Strike-on-Iran

If you think his desire to preemptively attack Iran has increased based on his votes, then that's a fair point but I don't understand how what he said in the interview is anything new.

 

[Brett85]

He said the same thing before he was elected and the liberty movement was still behind him. Again, his rhetoric hasn't changed one bit.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Paul-Won-t-Rule-Out-Preemptive-Strike-on-Iran

If you think his desire to preemptively attack Iran has increased based on his votes, then that's a fair point but I don't understand how what he said in the interview is anything new.

I thought he was just saying that in order to get elected. I've seen several interviews and speeches Rand has given since then where he's spoken out against a pre-emptive strike with Iran. That's why it's extremely disappointing that he's starting to talk like he did in the campaign again.

 

[Sola_Fide]

He said the same thing before he was elected and the liberty movement was still behind him. Again, his rhetoric hasn't changed one bit.

That's a fair point. But I think some of that support in 2010 was the novelty of having Ron Paul's son in the Senate. At least some of that support was predicated on the thinking that Rand was going to be a carbon-copy of Ron. A few years later, much of that perception has changed in the liberty community.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Now, I'm not saying that. Anyone who says that Rand's position is the same as Rubio's position is either ignorant or lying. I'm looking at it from an electoral persepective. I'm trying to understand how Rand thinks this hawkishness is going to help his campaign. I am sure that talk like this is going to be a detriment, not an asset. This is not helping him at all.

But that's just it. 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!

And here's another thing: if, as Traditional Conservative claims, Rand's position is "just the same" as the Establishment's, then why wouldn't he just come right out and say, "Yes, I support a pre-emptive strike against Iran"? After all, that is what all the other Establishment GOPers say - so why wouldn't Rand say it, too?

The only explanation is that he does NOT, in fact, support a pre-emptive strike against Iran. But if he comes right out and says that (like Ron did), no one but members of the Liberty Movement are going to want to hear it. By refusing to paint himself into that corner, he gets a hearing for the pro-peace-and-diplomacy position from people who otherwise would not have bothered listening to him (they would just dismiss him as a "kook" who is "soft on Iran", like they did to Ron).

 

[Brett85]

And here's another thing: if, as Traditional Conservative claims, Rand's position is "just the same" as the Establishment's, then why wouldn't he just come right out and say, "Yes, I support a pre-emptive strike against Iran"? After all, that is what all the other Establishment GOPers say - so why wouldn't Rand say it, too?

No, that is absolutely not what they say. The GOP establishment says that the military option against Iran should "be on the table." Even the most hawkish neo-cons don't say, "let's go bomb Iran tomorrow."

 

[Brett85]

The only explanation is that he does NOT, in fact, support a pre-emptive strike against Iran. But if he comes right out and says that (like Ron did), no one but members of the Liberty Movement are going to want to hear it. By refusing to paint himself into that corner, he gets a hearing for the pro-peace-and-diplomacy position from people who otherwise would not have bothered listening to him (they would just dismiss him as a "kook" who is "soft on Iran", like they did to Ron).

Right, because every Republican voter is just some crazy neo-con who thinks that the war in Iraq was a great idea and that we should repeat that again in Iran.

 

[Occam's Banana]

No, that is absolutely not what they say.

Allow me to amend for clarity: in what I said before, replace "Yes, I support a pre-emptive strike against Iran" with "Yes, I support the idea of a pre-emptive strike against Iran".

The point I made remains. If Rand's position is is the same as the Establishment's, then why doesn't he come right out and say "Yes, I support the idea of a pre-emptive strike against Iran."?

The GOP establishment says that the military option against Iran should "be on the table."

For the umpteenth time: Rand has not said that the military option "should" be on the table. Hence, he disagrees with the GOP establishment. Their positions are NOT the same.

Even the most hawkish neo-cons don't say, "let's go bomb Iran tomorrow."

You are indulging in sophistry. No one but you has framed this issue in terms of whether anyone has said, "let's go bomb Iran tomorrow."

However, it *has* been pointed out to you that several prominent representatives of the GOP establishment have made it abundantly clear that they not only think that (pre-emptive) military force should be on the list of options for dealing with Iran, but that it should be at or very near the top of that list.

Rand has made it abundantly clear that he does not agree.

 

[Brett85]

About every Republican I hear basically says that the military option should only be used as a last resort after all other options have been exhausted. That's exactly the same view as what Rand just said.

 

[Brett85]

Also, the people who supported the war in Iraq said that we were only going in there "as a last resort" since all of the sanctions and all of the UN resolutions had failed.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Right, because every Republican voter is just some crazy neo-con who thinks that the war in Iraq was a great idea and that we should repeat that again in Iran.

Now you are not only ignoring the points I am making, but you are putting sneery-sarcasty words in my mouth.

Stop it. I haven't done that shit to you - you've been given no cause to do it to me.

 

[Dystopian]

It's interesting to think about. With this tactical approach he probably won't draw the crowds at rallies or have the sign wavers. The question is will he be able to get more votes rather than just excitement. I don't know. He'll need the establishment behind him probably.

He won't have the money to win; there is going to be no passion for huge grassroots money-bombs.

 

[tsai3904]

Also, the people who supported the war in Iraq said that we were only going in there "as a last resort" since all of the sanctions and all of the UN resolutions had failed.

Yea, people have different opinions of when everything else has been tried. Lindsey Graham thinks a pre-emptive war should be the last resort but the big difference is that he thinks we are at that point in time where we need to go to our last resort. Rand isn't there and probably would never get there. Rand has made no indication that he supports pre-emptive war even if he hasn't categorically denied that option.

 

[Brett85]

Now you are not only ignoring the points I am making, but you are putting sneery-sarcasty words in my mouth.

Stop it. I haven't done that shit to you - you've been given no cause to do it to me.

My comment was in response to this comment from you.

The only explanation is that he does NOT, in fact, support a pre-emptive strike against Iran. But if he comes right out and says that (like Ron did), no one but members of the Liberty Movement are going to want to hear it.

You seemed to be implying that only people in the liberty movement oppose a pre-emptive strike against Iran. That's why I made the comment I did.