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

[Occam's Banana]

Well don't expect me to do anything for him except maybe show up and vote for him. (unless the LP has a candidate that is actually a libertarian; not likely)

I don't. As I have stated twice in this thread alone, I myself have no intention of doing more than voting for him.

I don't want anything to do with legitimizing these wars and acts of aggression. I don't want anything to do with starving people with sanctions.

Nor do I.

The fact that he supports sanctions, and equating Israel to the US, while saying preemptive strikes are on the table; makes me think that he thinks preemptive war should be on the table.

He supports sanctions. He is not a non-interventionist. That is a serious black mark against him in my book. It's why I won't do anything more than vote for him.

The Israel thing has been hashed over ad nauseum elsewhere. It's just more rhetoric. I don't like it, either - but I understand it (and like this "pre-emption" thing, it isn't nearly as utterly horrific as it is being made out to be by some).

I see no reason at all for thinking Rand is a "pre-emptivist". If he was, he would have more to gain by just coming right out and saying so (thereby winning the accolades of the Establishment) than he would have to gain by hiding it.

I don't trust a man that acts like this and I'd rather drag my feet than participate in the aggression.

I don't trust politicians. Trusting politicians - ANY politician - is a sucker's game. It always has been and it always will be. To HELL with trusting politicians! I look at how they actually vote ...

Ron Paul's votes were very nearly perfect. That is why I enthusiastically supported him with my votes AND my money.

Rand Paul's votes are very, very good - but NOT very nearly perfect (because of the sanctions thing). That is why I will support him with my votes - but NOT my money.

 

[Rudeman]

So it comes down to the difference between "are on the table" and "should be on the table." We're talking about a one word difference. Whatever. I just know that Ron would never say anything like this.

One word can make a huge difference.

You can smoke weed.
You should smoke weed.

Would you say there is a difference between those 2 statements?

 

[fr33]

Yeah I get it. Your not really promoting Rand 2016. I'm just using your posts to express myself.

The Israel thing has been hashed over ad nauseum elsewhere. It's just more rhetoric. I don't like it, either - but I understand it (and like this "pre-emption" thing, it isn't nearly as utterly horrific as it is being made out to be by some).

It is horrific. A senator saying things like Rand has lately lends more legitimacy to the violence carried out in Israel's name. New settlements continue to spread. It's happening now.

There's news reports about attacks on Iranian sites. Many have tried to disprove it but I don't know what to think about it since Israel is, in fact, attacking Syrian and Lebanese interests. There is right and there is wrong. Israel is in the wrong. I want a senator that does something right. I'm just not hearing anything good on foreign policy from Rand Paul.

I see no reason at all for thinking Rand is a "pre-emptivist". If he was, he would have more to gain by just coming right out and saying so (thereby winning the accolades of the Establishment) than he would have to gain by hiding it.

Sanctions are a preemptive act. It's an obvious truth that preemptive war with Iran is not needed. I'm not going to shut up about it if he won't say it. I'm tired of the media and politicians telling these lies to the public.

This appeasement method is like pouring a bucket of cold water on the liberty movement. I can only imagine just enough people are getting pissed off enough to stay home from local GOP meetings. Inspiration is much needed. We're reading about multiple states' GOP where the old guard is still trying to kick RP people out. To throw a bucket of cold water on people in this movement is not wise. We need clear signals otherwise people are going to start dropping out.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Sanctions are a preemptive act.

Technically, I suppose they are. But that's not what I was talking about, of course. I was talking about pre-emptive military strikes. That's what the interviewer in the OP video meant, and that's what Rand was responding to.

So like I said: if Rand does not oppose the idea of using pre-emptive military strikes, he'd score a hell of a lot more points if he just came out and said so. The fact that he doesn't just say so suggests that he thinks otherwise ...

 

[compromise]

So really, no one else in this thread actually wants to donate to Rand Paul.

Rand Paul is the future of the GOP. Regardless of what he says now, if he wins the presidency, we will see millions of new libertarians and anti-war conservatives, because he is more libertarian and less interventionist than every other Senator and all but 5 other members of Congress. If you aren't willing to donate to him, he will not beat Rubio or whoever else he faces in the primaries. A lot of Ron's success came from the moneybombs that meant more ads so we could reach more people. Like Ron, Rand won't have the massive corporate backing of other candidates. Do you really want Rubio, a McCain fan who thinks ending foreign aid and keeping out of Libya is far-right to be the GOP nominee? Well, he probably won't. He'll just suck conservative votes away from Rand so Rand loses to Chris Christie or someone else who's disastrous on both foreign and domestic policy. If Rand has no support from the liberty movement, who is left to support him? What if conservatives, even people who like Rand Paul are saying they won't donate to Rand because he doesn't care about Israel?

Rand Paul wants you to trust him and hang in there. He is his father's son. For years, he studied the books by the Austrian economists who originally inspired his father. He debated a sitting congressman on his father's behalf when he was only a boy and his father wanted to be Texas's next Senator. Twice, he let other commitments go in order to campaign with his father in key early primary states during the Ron Paul presidential runs. This is someone who believes in the same things we do, individual liberty and fiscal responsibility. He's been one of very few who've stood against the TSA, FISA, the Patriot Act, NDAA's infinite detention clause, foreign aid (even to Israel), the Ryan Plan, military intervention in Libya, Clinton's Benghazi lies, Kerry's war hypocrisy, a Senate pledge to use any means possible to stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon, the fiscal cliff deal, the Federal Reserve, F16s to Egypt, all forms of gun control, military intervention in Syria, military intervention in Mali and hundreds of other bills. He's introduced countless amendments and resolutions against most of the above, holding filibusters for more than 8 hours that lead to him missing even a Netanyahu address, that resulted in him being branded an anti-Semite by the MSM, all to defend our civil liberties and stop us ending up in a war...and you're saying you won't donate to him? You can't even spare $20 for this true champion of liberty?

I will vote for, donate to and enthusiastically campaign for Rand Paul.

 

[Rocco]

Could not have said it any better, compromise. There are some people in this thread who I have an enormous, enormous amount of respect for who aren't looking at the big picture here. What it really comes down to is, do you believe if Rand Paul was president he would launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon? The answer in my mind is still undoubtedly "no", and until that changes I too will vote for, donate to and enthusiastically campaign for Rand Paul.

 

[Rocco]

Here's Rand speaking on the senate floor on the subject of preemptive war.

 

[Brett85]

I generally agree with what compromise said, but I think that Rand needs to think twice about saying stuff like this if he wants the liberty movement to fund his campaign in 2016.

 

[July]

Here's Rand speaking on the senate floor on the subject of preemptive war.

Yeah, this was the speech I was talking about before, where he gives his reasoning for not taking any strategy, including containment, off the table. This is a nuanced position. But, nuance very rarely translates through the media cycle. It's clear to me that the interviewer here was looking for Rand to give a simple yes or no answer, that we should absolutely go to war with Iran or not. If he had said no, there'd probably be some headline the following day saying something like "Rand Paul Endorses Iran Nuclear Weapons" or if he had said yes, the headline would be "Rand Paul endorses military strike on Iran". The media is very black and white like that. If you don't support birth control mandates, you're in a war against women. If you want states to regulate their own drug law, you support crack. If you don't support nationalized gay marriage, you think it should be banned and all gay people should be stoned and killed. If you're not ready to jump to war yesterday, you hate America. If you don't think we should send automatic foreign aid to anyone and everyone, you hate other countries and want to ignore the world. And so on and so forth.

There are some conservatives (and I know many like this) who do not believe we should have a set foreign policy at all-- that we should take threats on a case by case basis, depending on the particular situation, and do whatever is necessary for survival and self preservation if needed, and that's it. No nation building and adventurism, but also a strong military and no obvious signs of weakness as a deterrent from aggression. That actually used to be my own position as well... Ron has since pushed me in a more real non interventionist direction and has taught me about economics and military keynesianism. But I still understand this other view.

 

[July]

I generally agree with what compromise said, but I think that Rand needs to think twice about saying stuff like this if he wants the liberty movement to fund his campaign in 2016.

Probably true. Trusting politicians is not something liberty grassroots are inclined to do anyway, so there needs to be an incentive beyond "trust me" if he wants to inspire the same kind of passion Ron had among liberty folks who were attracted to the foreign policy. He probably has a little more leeway with other conservative grassroots who are passionate about issues, like prolife, or second amendment, though...he's very very good on those issues.

 

[Brett85]

Nobody can claim that Rand wants Iran to get nukes when Rand has voted in favor of sanctions. Rand doesn't have to entertain the idea of a military strike in order to avoid having people say that he "wants Iran to get nuclear weapons."

 

[July]

Nobody can claim that Rand wants Iran to get nukes when Rand has voted in favor of sanctions. Rand doesn't have to entertain the idea of a military strike in order to avoid having people say that he "wants Iran to get nuclear weapons."

You'd think so, but even still, he had to remind the interviewer that he did vote for the sanctions, and didn't support them having nuclear weapons. I don't think the news cycle has that long of an attention span, honestly. If it did, politicians wouldn't be able to flip flop a hundred million times and so easily get away with it.

 

[itshappening]

Probably true. Trusting politicians is not something liberty grassroots are inclined to do anyway, so there needs to be an incentive beyond "trust me" if he wants to inspire the same kind of passion Ron had among liberty folks who were attracted to the foreign policy. He probably has a little more leeway with other conservative grassroots who are passionate about issues, like prolife, or second amendment, though...he's very very good on those issues.

He can't just run on a platform appealing to RPF users because he will get the same amount of votes Ron did.

Ron didn't win a single state, remember that. And he had $100 million.

 

[Brett85]

He can't just run on a platform appealing to RPF users because he will get the same amount of votes Ron did.

Ron didn't win a single state, remember that. And he had $100 million.

I wanted Rand to explain the message in a way that appeals to Republican voters, but not completely change the message.

 

[Brett85]

I'm just not going to go along with this Rubio-lite or interventionist-lite garbage.

 

[July]

He can't just run on a platform appealing to RPF users because he will get the same amount of votes Ron did.

Ron didn't win a single state, remember that. And he had $100 million.

That's also true.

I do think there are some alternative ways he could tap into Ron's activist base, which don't necessarily revolve around foreign policy. But if he wants those folks who have foreign policy as their top priority, he might struggle if he is banking on them. I guess we'll see what happens.

I'm looking forward to his Heritage speech.

 

[compromise]

I'm just not going to go along with this Rubio-lite or interventionist-lite garbage.

This is nothing like Rubio-lite.

Robert Taft wasn't a true non-interventionist either, or Pat Buchanan. For years, Ron Paul was really the only prominent politician on the political right that was a strict non-interventionist. He is now retired. We have Massie, Jones, Duncan and Amash left. None of them will ever win a presidential election in 2016. Amash is an Arab, so it will be incredibly difficult for him to get anywhere in a Republican presidential primary. Jones is somewhat moderate and will not have the support of fiscally conservative groups. Amash, Duncan and Jones also voted for one of the rounds of Iran, Syria and North Korea sanctions (Amash: "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons poses a serious threat to our country's security, and I support economic sanctions against Iran") and the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012, so really you only have Massie and no one in the wider conservative movement has actually heard of him.

I don't think this foreign policy purism is good for the movement. Rand Paul is as non-interventionist as you will realistically get in a modern American president. If he wins the presidency, he will be the least interventionist president since 1932.

 

[klamath]

Rand is not a complete noninterventionist that is pretty well established. I would still vote for him because I Know he is far better than Hillary or ANY democrat they throw out. But he has moved himself down to a level of a number of other people like Flake, Lee etc. If any of them are running they could get my vote over Rand on electablility. If Rand loses a large portion of the libertarian/republican base he has no step up on any of them. Flake would deffinately have more of the shallow voter apeal on looks and posture.

 

[Rocco]

"I don't think this foreign policy purism is good for the movement. Rand Paul is as non-interventionist as you will realistically get in a modern American president. If he wins the presidency, he will be the least interventionist president since 1932."

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to compromise again.

 

[klamath]

On the issue of how much support I would give financially to Rand I don't know. It takes a LOT to make me give up cold hard cash for politicians. I nearly maxed out to RP in 2008 but I did not have the enthusiasm to donate in 2012 due to a number of factors. The last candidate that received anything from me was debra Medina and then I watched her blow it trying to apease Truthers.