Rand Paul Unveils Loud and Scary New Ad Attacking Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Refugees [Reason]

[carlton]

Rand Paul's loud and scary new ad attempts to give Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz the Willie Horton treatment, although instead of using weekend furloughs for convicted murderers to paint his opponents as soft on crime, the 90-second clip uses two men convicted of providing material support to Al-Qaeda while in the US as Iraqi refugees as a means to paint Cruz and Rubio as squishy open borders advocates.

Though none of the three Republican presidential candidates were in the Senate when Mohanad Shareef Hammadi and Waad Ramadan Alwan were arrested in 2009 (which led to a six-month moritorium on the Iraqi refugee program in 2011), Paul's struggling campaign uses them as an example to "sound the alarm" about the supposedly existential threat of terrorists entering the US through the Syrian refugee program. To drive this point home, the ad intersperses clips of Cruz and Rubio speaking favorably about allowing refugees into the country prior to last month's terror attacks in Paris, while a baritone-throated narrator intones over a dire action-movie score about Paul's intent to "protect Americans first."

It's pretty clear that Paul has decided to tack as hard as he can to the nativist rightMake America Scared Again.
Foter/DonkeyHotey
on the issue of refugees while attacking the two most viable non-Trump candidates in the process. As my colleague Brian Doherty has noted, it is simply absurd to characterize Rubio as being for open borders and Ted Cruz's extensive immigration plan calls for, among other things, "building a wall that works," tripling the number of border agents, and placing stringent new limits on visas.

Reason's Shikha Dalmia has frequently highlighted the fact that Paul would never be mistaken for a pro-immigration activist, but Doherty also recently pointed out that today's Rand Paul is decidedly "weaker" than Rubio when it comes to cracking down on immigration:

Even Paul has admitted in the past that actually detaining or tossing the already-present illegal immigrants is impossible. And in terms of "toughness," Paul has enough libertarianism in his bones that he is weaker than Rubio on actual toughness-on-immigrants in rejecting the nightmare of E-Verify, even though it's a logical conclusion if you think that it's a serious problem having people coming here to work without the proper government issues paperwork.

Paul's campaign was given a life raft by CNN today, when the network announced that it will include him on the main stage of tomorrow's GOP presidential debate, despite the fact that he failed to meet the required polling of "3.5% in approved nationwide surveys or 4% in Iowa or New Hampshire." A Fox News poll showing him at 5% in Iowa demonstrated a sufficient amount of "viability" for CNN to bend the rules in his favor.

You may remember a Rand Paul who once vaguely resembled a libertarian back in June, when Reason Editor-in-Chief Matt Welch interviewed him about his principled opposition to the Patriot Act and his ambition to present a "new kind of Republican" to the electorate. Watch below.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/14/rand-paul-cruz-rubio-anti-refugee#comment

 

[CPUd]

 

[jmdrake]

Reason sucks so bad that this attack piece might help. So what if Ted Cruz wants to build a wall? Last time I checked there was no plan to bring Syrian refugees in through the Mexican border.

 

[carlton]

Reason sucks so bad that this attack piece might help. So what if Ted Cruz wants to build a wall? Last time I checked there was no plan to bring Syrian refugees in through the Mexican border.

Pleasing the wide range of libertarians is truly like herding cats. The left, on the other hand, will rally round anyone. Its funny cause a month back Raimondo was cool on Paul and Reason was hailing him, now Raimondo is warming and Reason is running crap like this. Meanwhile, Scott Horton...

 

[CPUd]

LOL in the comment section there are:

- people bitching about getting solicitations for donations from their local GOPs
- people griping about Rand and how they are going to just vote for Gary Johnson
- bitching at the GJ voters for throwing away their vote
- moaning at the GJ voters for voting.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

It may be worth pointing out that Rand was talking about a growing Christian refugee crisis in Syria when the civil war was underway, and before our involvement officially began, as part of his opposition to toppling Assad.

Placing a ban or moratorium on refugees from Syria may prevent Christians from leaving the bloodshed.

 

[carlton]

LOL in the comment section there are:

- people bitching about getting solicitations for donations from their local GOPs
- people griping about Rand and how they are going to just vote for Gary Johnson
- bitching at the GJ voters for throwing away their vote
- moaning at the GJ voters for voting.

I'm going to assume that if Rand has another strong performance like last time, most of these gripers will be back on the Rand train... well until the following week when they nitpick some other reason not to vote for him.

 

[derek4ever]

It may be worth pointing out that Rand was talking about a growing Christian refugee crisis in Syria when the civil war was underway, and before our involvement officially began, as part of his opposition to toppling Assad.

Placing a ban or moratorium on refugees from Syria may prevent Christians from leaving the bloodshed.

You do have a valid point there. I remember seeing the other day that the Canadian Air Force was bringing in the first families of refugees. There were about 5 families, if I'm not mistaken. And I thought to myself: "Here's an idea for our refugee policy: we'll only accept those that were brought by the U.S. Air Force". Hell, I'm quite sure they'd have a much better vetting system than, say, the FBI. Just a thought, although I do understand that Rand wants us to have a proper vetting process before having them come in.

 

[Wilf]

You do have a valid point there. I remember seeing the other day that the Canadian Air Force was bringing in the first families of refugees. There were about 5 families, if I'm not mistaken. And I thought to myself: "Here's an idea for our refugee policy: we'll only accept those that were brought by the U.S. Air Force". Hell, I'm quite sure they'd have a much better vetting system than, say, the FBI. Just a thought, although I do understand that Rand wants us to have a proper vetting process before having them come in.

or having them to be sponsor from private charities and groups

 

[Matt Collins]

Another hit piece by Reason

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Another hit piece by Reason

Should I point out that Reason isn't monolithic, or should I let you quote and tell yourself that bit?

 

[Matt Collins]

Should I point out that Reason isn't monolithic, or should I let you quote and tell yourself that bit?

You're absolutely right, they aren't.

But there is a difference between not everyone there sharing the same views, and then openly attacking a pro-liberty candidate.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Another progressive libertarian over at Reason.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Reason seems to operate on the assumption that everything in politics is exactly as it appears.

That what politicians say is exactly what they believe.

That elections are university seminars.

That voters are rational.

Meanwhile, back here on Earth, this sounds like a smart ad.

 

[T.hill]

I don't know why prominent libertarians and libertarian outlets speculate so much about Rand's motivations or automatically assume that every action he takes is his ultimate position on something -- especially considering they could easily get insight from people close to Rand. When they do speculate I don't understand why they don't try to extend their speculation to the possibility that Rand's actions are simply an intermediate position that is aimed towards a libertarian end.

 

[PCKY]

Reason is being just silly here. There is no way a Milton Freidman quoting guy like Paul is going to say "open up those borders!" "Come on in and get some welfare! We've got plenty!"
Paul isn't saying ban Muslims or even ban Syrian refugees. He's saying hold on and let's figure out a way to vet them. He suggested Syrian Christians should go through Global Entry. Common sense. He targeted countries, not religions.
Stop whining, Reason. He's still the best you have!

 

[derek4ever]

Reason is being just silly here. There is no way a Milton Freidman quoting guy like Paul is going to say "open up those borders!" "Come on in and get some welfare! We've got plenty!"
Paul isn't saying ban Muslims or even ban Syrian refugees. He's saying hold on and let's figure out a way to vet them. He suggested Syrian Christians should go through Global Entry. Common sense. He targeted countries, not religions.
Stop whining, Reason. He's still the best you have!

You're right! He's not saying he will ban immigration from Muslim countries. Maybe he could've said that he favors regulating immigration from Muslim countries instead, but it's already said, so there's not much we can do.