RPI and LRC Blog: Senate Votes Unanimously Toward War Against Iran

[rich34]

The "freak-out crew" is just trying to remind members of RON Paul forums of RON Paul's stance on sanctions.

And the realists are trying to convince the freak-out crew that in order to go farther in the race for president you gotta play the game... Especially when you know scumbags like Graham are trying to create snares to be used against Rand later on down the road. Ron has proved you can't win the republican nomination without the support of "traditional" republicans. Thinking you can or will is just going to leave you with the same frustrated feeling you had when Ron couldn't.

Come on folks, let the man play the game! His nay vote wouldn't have changed a damn thing except create the rope to hang his ass with!! Excuse my French..

 

[Spikender]

Yet we're still a very small percentage and can't carry elections or change policy in any meaningful way. Don't be delusional. We've accomplished a lot but we're still heavily outnumbered and outgunned. And the clock is ticking....

The clock has always been ticking, and sacrificing one's own principles is not going to work. And it's true, we're still a small percentage, but having Rand pat the neocons on the back and assure him that he's one of them goes against everything I believe in. If that's the strategy he's going to pursue, so be it, but voting for something like this is just ridiculous. He's going to lose supporters doing it, and I can only hope that he gains supporters in the process, although the integrity of those supporters is questionable.

This country is about out of time for the wake up call. In case you've missed it, the totalitarian police state is being implemented much faster than we are making progress waking people up. I bet it'll be easy to wake people up inside the FEMA camps....

Thanks for assuming I haven't noticed. Getting one man into the Oval Office isn't going to change that at all, contrary to popular belief.

That's fine but at least acknowledge that if he voted against it, today you'd have Krauthammer, Graham, and the rest of the neo-con goon squad bashing him to high heaven to millions of viewers that are not going to "wake up". That'll win elections! For them.

It's funny that Congress's approval rating is so low yet people still take what they say seriously. Regardless, I don't see anyone supporting Rand anymore than they already are due to this vote. Rand is lost in a sea of other neocons who all voted for this atrocity, and he's not going to gain votes or supporters from it, unless he goes full neocon mode and starts supporting everything the establishment supports.

And if he does that, then I know for sure one thing: he's going to lose votes.

Or at least I hope he does, because some people around here think Rand can do no wrong and criticizing his moves is tantamount to trolling.

My main issue with all this is the extreme concern with winning, and that should not be our only concern. If we're going to shed all of our principles on the way to winning, count me out. Even if Rand makes all these decisions to please the neocons and ends up in office as our next President, what happens then? Does he go back on his neocon buddies and break everything he said, like some kind of liberty Trojan Horse? This sort of strategy is only going to hurt liberty in the end. There's no way it won't.

 

[sailingaway]

some people are going to want Ron's approach. Some clearly want Rands. But to call people 'freak out crew' or 'losers' while calling more palatable names for themselves is not going to win converts to a different approach.

 

[devil21]

The clock has always been ticking, and sacrificing one's own principles is not going to work. And it's true, we're still a small percentage, but having Rand pat the neocons on the back and assure him that he's one of them goes against everything I believe in. If that's the strategy he's going to pursue, so be it, but voting for something like this is just ridiculous. He's going to lose supporters doing it, and I can only hope that he gains supporters in the process, although the integrity of those supporters is questionable.

This is where our disconnect is. Rand is not patting anyone on the back, unless you think Rand is a neocon and Ron is a liar. Rand is doing what is politically necessary to remain viable as a candidate for 2016 and thank god for that. I don't know about you but I got way too much exercise trying to explain to dullards why Ron wasn't an "anti-semite" from 2007 to 2012 and Im not signing up for that again, particularly over obvious political traps like this resolution.

Thanks for assuming I haven't noticed. Getting one man into the Oval Office isn't going to change that at all, contrary to popular belief.

Did you say that same thing about Ron in 2008 and 2012? Either way, it's play the game or we get Hillary in 2016. Face it.

It's funny that Congress's approval rating is so low yet people still take what they say seriously. Regardless, I don't see anyone supporting Rand anymore than they already are due to this vote. Rand is lost in a sea of other neocons who all voted for this atrocity, and he's not going to gain votes or supporters from it, unless he goes full neocon mode and starts supporting everything the establishment supports.

You're saying all 100 senators are neocons? It was a 100-0 vote. Im going to bet that all 100 Senators know better than to paint a target on their backs that AIPAC can zero in on.

And if he does that, then I know for sure one thing: he's going to lose votes.

Or at least I hope he does, because some people around here think Rand can do no wrong and criticizing his moves is tantamount to trolling.

He would lose mine too if he started doing that. Im not going to ignore the OBVIOUS political ramifications of voting against a meaningless resolution.

My main issue with all this is the extreme concern with winning, and that should not be our only concern. If we're going to shed all of our principles on the way to winning, count me out. Even if Rand makes all these decisions to please the neocons and ends up in office as our next President, what happens then? Does he go back on his neocon buddies and break everything he said, like some kind of liberty Trojan Horse? This sort of strategy is only going to hurt liberty in the end. There's no way it won't.

Hmm...why not win and keep principles? Again, you are looking at it the wrong way. You paint it as if Rand voting for this resolution is to be buddy-buddy with the establishment. Do you think McCain will suddenly apologize to Rand for wacko-bird comments because of votes like this? NO! Because McCain knows that Rand isn't establishment but it doesn't give them ammo to use against him.

I ask again, is Ron Paul lying when he says he and Rand are 99% together on issues?

 

[sailingaway]

This is where our disconnect is. Rand is not patting anyone on the back, unless you think Rand is a neocon and Ron is a liar. Rand is doing what is politically necessary to remain viable as a candidate for 2016 and thank god for that. I don't know about you but I got way too much exercise trying to explain to dullards why Ron wasn't an "anti-semite" from 2007 to 2012 and Im not signing up for that again, particularly over obvious political traps like this resolution.



Did you say that same thing about Ron in 2008 and 2012? Either way, it's play the game or we get Hillary in 2016. Face it.



You're saying all 100 senators are neocons? It was a 100-0 vote. Im going to bet that all 100 Senators know better than to paint a target on their backs that AIPAC can zero in on.



He would lose mine too if he started doing that. Im not going to ignore the OBVIOUS political ramifications of voting against a meaningless resolution.



Hmm...why not win and keep principles? Again, you are looking at it the wrong way. You paint it as if Rand voting for this resolution is to be buddy-buddy with the establishment. Do you think McCain will suddenly apologize to Rand for wacko-bird comments because of votes like this? NO! Because McCain knows that Rand isn't establishment but it doesn't give them ammo to use against him.

I ask again, is Ron Paul lying when he says he and Rand are 99% together on issues?

Even if they are mentally together but one fights for them and the other puts advancement first, the outcome isn't 99% the same. You think it is a better outcome others disagree, is all.

 

[cajuncocoa]

And the realists are trying to convince the freak-out crew that in order to go farther in the race for president you gotta play the game... Especially when you know scumbags like Graham are trying to create snares to be used against Rand later on down the road. Ron has proved you can't win the republican nomination without the support of "traditional" republicans. Thinking you can or will is just going to leave you with the same frustrated feeling you had when Ron couldn't.

Come on folks, let the man play the game! His nay vote wouldn't have changed a damn thing except create the rope to hang his ass with!! Excuse my French..

I'm not interested in playing a game. We don't have time for that $hit.

 

[Spikender]

I ask again, is Ron Paul lying when he says he and Rand are 99% together on issues?

Ron Paul can't know everything about his son, and it's up to Rand to make his dad a liar or not. Rand's decisions, not what Ron said about Rand, will determine whether they really are together on the issues that closely.

The resolution is not meaningless in anyway. It shows that Rand is complicit with what is said in the resolution. His vote affirms that he agrees with it. You can say he voted to "play the game", as many here have taken to calling what Rand is doing, but it can be used against him. His vote is his word that he agrees with what is in the resolution, and I certainly do not agree with the resolution, so I cannot say that I agree with Rand's decision here.

Did you say that same thing about Ron in 2008 and 2012? Either way, it's play the game or we get Hillary in 2016. Face it.

Yes, in fact, I did think the same thing in 2008 and 2012. One man is not going to change everything. But is a step in the right direction, especially if it's Ron Paul. The difference is, Ron never compromised, while Rand has. If Ron got into office, he would've had no baggage from playing the establishment game. Rand will if he keeps "playing the game". And I'd hate to see what kind of blasting he would get if he suddenly jumped out of the wooden horse and said "Guess what, I'm here for liberty not for you guys".

Stop your fear-mongering about Hillary. I've heard it enough and you're simply trying to make it seem like we have no other choice than to vote for Rand or else we get scary boogeywoman Hillary. You sound like the neoconservatives who kept telling us we had to vote for Mitt or else we'd get big scary Obama again.

You're saying all 100 senators are neocons? It was a 100-0 vote. Im going to bet that all 100 Senators know better than to paint a target on their backs that AIPAC can zero in on.

I'm willing to bet that you're right on that issue. Didn't say all the senators were neocons, simply said he was lost in a sea of neocon votes. Once again, no principles to be found in the Senate on this issue.

In the end, we're going to have to agree to disagree, because this was still a mistake to me. Whether or not it was a wise decision is yet to be seen, but to me it's just him folding to the establishment once again. I sincerely hope when 2016 swings around, all this was worth it. Playing the game may end up more costly than it seems at this point.

 

[devil21]

I'm not interested in playing a game. We don't have time for that $hit.

But you do have time to bash Rand whenever the opportunity arises.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Rand is not trying to win support of most "traditional" (read neoconned/hawkish) Republicans, but to shave enough of that vote to prevail in the early primaries of 2016. The Paul ground team in Iowa will likely be as strong or even stronger then than in '12. Given the GOP has made changes to front load the primary season to lock things up for the establishment front runner, if Rand prevails with the pragmatic strategy, he will be the one scooping up most of those key early wins and getting the momentum, as the party leadership realizes in shock they have mousetrapped themselves.

For better or worse (and I do think worse) Rand is taking the gambit route of signing off on "meaningless" votes against Iran so long as they fall short of launching direct military action. He is betting he gets enough leverage out of it to dialogue with enough reachable Republican voters to "bend" them towards realism in case war arises. When Ron Paul rejected such interventionist sabre-rattling, he was out of position to dialogue, because his stance sounded "unfriendly to Israel" and uncomprehending of "the Iranian threat." The fact we would disagree with this phrasing doesn't change the fact that the rank and file have been thoroughly conditioned to frame the discussion this way.

Rand is overdoing the compromising, and underestimating the ability of the leadership to parse his approach to make it look weak on "the Muslim threat" regardless of his gambit voting record. All the media and establishment players from the 2012 cycle who found ways to marginalize Ron, will do the same number on Rand. And this doesn't begin to touch on the vote rigging and dirty tricks issues. All this compromise may prove for naught, no matter how thoughtfully it was performed.

 

[cajuncocoa]

But you do have time to bash Rand whenever the opportunity arises.

I call it "speaking out"....and by not having time, I mean the country....not me personally. (You knew that, didn't you?)

 

[sailingaway]

Rand is overdoing the compromising, and underestimating the ability of the leadership to parse his approach to make it look weak on "the Muslim threat" regardless of his gambit voting record. All the media and establishment players from the 2012 cycle who found ways to marginalize Ron, will do the same number on Rand. And this doesn't begin to touch on the vote rigging and dirty tricks issues. All this compromise may prove for naught, no matter how thoughtfully it was performed.

I personally agree with this. All they need is one vote not going the full length, and they will spin it against Rand as much as they did against Ron. Those who really want uncritical devotion to a foreign power or foreign intervention will spin whatever they have, period.

Meanwhie, we don't have a champion to rally people. And I personally prefer Ron's approach, which gave us one. Further, I think 'our' other people take a cue from Rand, which increases the impact.

People obviously can and do come out in different places.

 

[devil21]

The resolution is not meaningless in anyway. It shows that Rand is complicit with what is said in the resolution. His vote affirms that he agrees with it. You can say he voted to "play the game", as many here have taken to calling what Rand is doing, but it can be used against him. His vote is his word that he agrees with what is in the resolution, and I certainly do not agree with the resolution, so I cannot say that I agree with Rand's decision here.

It shows that Rand isn't going to fight this battle right now. Please explain what spending, what governmental actions, what military movements, reallocation of funds, or other force of law is behind this resolution. You're fine to not agree with the vote but for the love of god please at least understand why he voted that way.

Can we at least agree that it is a politically necessary move to avoid painting that a big fat target for AIPAC and the Israel-firsters on his back?

Stop your fear-mongering about Hillary. I've heard it enough and you're simply trying to make it seem like we have no other choice than to vote for Rand or else we get scary boogeywoman Hillary. You sound like the neoconservatives who kept telling us we had to vote for Mitt or else we'd get big scary Obama again.

I would rather not end up in a FEMA camp tyvm. Comparing Mitt/Obama to Rand/Hillary is absurd.

In the end, we're going to have to agree to disagree, because this was still a mistake to me. Whether or not it was a wise decision is yet to be seen, but to me it's just him folding to the establishment once again. I sincerely hope when 2016 swings around, all this was worth it. Playing the game may end up more costly than it seems at this point.

We can agree to disagree but all I want is for people to at least recognize and understand why he voted the way he did. You may consider it sacrificing principle and that's fine. But please at least just understand the ramifications of voting on principle for every little pointless bill that comes along. It gives ammo to those that want to see you fail. Have you read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War"? If not, highly recommended.

http://ctext.org/art-of-war

 

[Spikender]

I disagree that comparing Mitt/Obama to Rand/Hillary is absurd. Stop saying that I have no choice but Rand or else we get Hillary. It's fear-mongering. Admit it.

If you seriously think that AIPAC and the Israel-firsters won't attack Rand regardless, then I have to disagree with that stance. This compromise will do nothing but hurt him and when election time swings around they'll still attack him. In fact, they might even use this vote against him if he even displays an ounce of supposed anti-Israel behavior.

So in the end, I see this as giving ammo to those who want to see him fail. I've read some of "The Art of War", but didn't finish it. If reading that somehow grants you a better understanding of this decision, then so be it, but I don't agree with this at all and I see this as being used against him the future. Sure, it won't be used now, but it will be.

 

[Brett85]

The truth to anyone who is halfway objective at all is that Rand is great when it comes to defending the civil liberties of Americans and defending the Bill of Rights, but he has a weak spot of foreign policy issues. He doesn't accept Ron's foreign policy vision. He isn't voting this way in order to "play the game" and "get more support." I don't think that Rand is nearly as unprincipled as some people here seem to be. I just think he has a foreign policy vision that strays a long way from Ron's foreign policy vision, and I just believe that he's wrong. It's disappointing for people like myself who supported Ron because of his foreign policy.

 

[Spikender]

The truth to anyone who is halfway objective at all is that Rand is great when it comes to defending the civil liberties of Americans and defending the Bill of Rights, but he has a weak spot of foreign policy issues. He doesn't accept Ron's foreign policy vision. He isn't voting this way in order to "play the game" and "get more support." I don't think that Rand is nearly as unprincipled as some people here seem to be. I just think he has a foreign policy vision that strays a long way from Ron's foreign policy vision, and I just believe that he's wrong. It's disappointing for people like myself who supported Ron because of his foreign policy.

Actually, you might be right about that when it comes to foreign policy.

If so, I do think that he and his father differ greatly, even in the presence of Ron's comment that they are 99% on most issues. Foreign policy is a whole lot more than 1% in my book.

Regardless, Rand Paul and I, if he truly does feel this way on foreign policy, will just have to disagree.

 

[devil21]

I disagree that comparing Mitt/Obama to Rand/Hillary is absurd. Stop saying that I have no choice but Rand or else we get Hillary. It's fear-mongering. Admit it.

Im fearful of Hillary, Joe, Christie, Santorum, Jeb, Marco, etc. Sue me. Why aren't you fearful?

If you seriously think that AIPAC and the Israel-firsters won't attack Rand regardless, then I have to disagree with that stance. This compromise will do nothing but hurt him and when election time swings around they'll still attack him. In fact, they might even use this vote against him if he even displays an ounce of supposed anti-Israel behavior.

They will attack him, sure, but no sense giving them ammo for Fox News to lead in with on a daily basis.

So in the end, I see this as giving ammo to those who want to see him fail. I've read some of "The Art of War", but didn't finish it. If reading that somehow grants you a better understanding of this decision, then so be it, but I don't agree with this at all and I see this as being used against him the future. Sure, it won't be used now, but it will be.

War is about strategy and not giving your opponents the opportunity to strike at you when it isn't necessary and you have nothing to gain from giving them that opportunity.

 

[devil21]

The truth to anyone who is halfway objective at all is that Rand is great when it comes to defending the civil liberties of Americans and defending the Bill of Rights, but he has a weak spot of foreign policy issues. He doesn't accept Ron's foreign policy vision. He isn't voting this way in order to "play the game" and "get more support." I don't think that Rand is nearly as unprincipled as some people here seem to be. I just think he has a foreign policy vision that strays a long way from Ron's foreign policy vision, and I just believe that he's wrong. It's disappointing for people like myself who supported Ron because of his foreign policy.

So, in other words, you're calling Ron a liar.

Maybe you missed it but most Republicans liked Ron on everything except foreign policy and that's where the "kook" stuff started up and people tuned out. Rand is blunting that line of attack.

 

[Spikender]

Im fearful of Hillary, Joe, Christie, Santorum, Jeb, Marco, etc. Sue me. Why aren't you fearful?

They will attack him, sure, but no sense giving them ammo for Fox News to lead in with on a daily basis.

War is about strategy and not giving your opponents the opportunity to strike at you when it isn't necessary and you have nothing to gain from giving them that opportunity.

I'm fearful too, but I'm not going to let that fear make me give up my principles. That's sort of how we ended up in this mess in the first place; letting politicians use our fears to get them to vote for them and give up our liberty for security.

He just did give them ammo, as I just said. Unless he truly is this way on foreign policy, they will use this yes vote against him if he even thinks about going against Israel or our policies in the Middle East.

That's the basics of war, I'm no fool. But for reasons I just explained, this was pretty much a lose-lose situation anyway, a trap if you will. Unless Rand Paul agrees with this resolution all the way through 2016 on a principled basis, it's going to come back to bite him.

 

[Spikender]

So, in other words, you're calling Ron a liar.

Ron is not omnipotent, he can't know everything his son supports. Stop trying to invoke Ron's name as if him being wrong about Rand is going to make us suddenly start agreeing with everything Rand does. If Ron was wrong about Rand being 99% with him, he was wrong, and I'll make no bones about that.

 

[devil21]

I'm fearful too, but I'm not going to let that fear make me give up my principles. That's sort of how we ended up in this mess in the first place; letting politicians use our fears to get them to vote for them and give up our liberty for security.

That's fair and I understand what you're saying. I don't think you're wrong but I also don't think this country has enough time left for us to keep playing purist while the whole thing goes into the shitter.

He just did give them ammo, as I just said. Unless he truly is this way on foreign policy, they will use this yes vote against him if he even thinks about going against Israel or our policies in the Middle East.

I don't understand what you mean here.

That's the basics of war, I'm no fool. But for reasons I just explained, this was pretty much a lose-lose situation anyway, a trap if you will. Unless Rand Paul agrees with this resolution all the way through 2016 on a principled basis, it's going to come back to bite him.

So just go balls to wall and guarantee it?