Weigel: Is Rand Paul in a fight w/ Chris Christie, or w/ the entire GOP mega-donor class?

[jtstellar]

Even if he gets in there, they'll just collapse everything and blame it on him. Ron's political campaigns were great because he had no chance of winning. We don't want anyone near the helm of this titanic-like disaster at this point.

doing nothing really isn't an option.. so we can just ignore those theories for the time being, whether true or not

 

[supermario21]

It will be hard for the megadonors to get behind any America-first or libertarian who's against crony capitalism. Adelson and Koch would gladly raise taxes on everyone as long as the money went to weapons for Israel and they still got their huge tax breaks for their own business ventures. Our revolution has to be from the ground up, not top-down.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

This bit is hysterical.

No, Mr Wiegel, donors like Adelson and Singer don't want GOP politicians to merely come off pro-Israel, they actually want them to worship the Jewish state. American people by and large don't care about Israel. The mega-donors do.

This is a fact. And the likes of the Kochs would rather be allied with uber-rich Zionists who will help them get their tax cuts, as opposed to breaking away from them and risking loss of their power.

It will be hard for the megadonors to get behind any America-first or libertarian who's against crony capitalism. Adelson and Koch would gladly raise taxes on everyone as long as the money went to weapons for Israel and they still got their huge tax breaks for their own business ventures. Our revolution has to be from the ground up, not top-down.

I really don't think that Koch cares about Israel but he knows how he benefits by working with the Zionist moneybags.

 

[JCDenton0451]

To be fair, Kochs and Adelson are not the same. Adelson is a Zionist warrior, Kochs are simply corrupt oil billionares looking for personal gain. Kochs don't care about MIC or the Jewish state. They are the kind of mega-donors who might get onboard with Rand Paul candidacy.

 

[krugminator]

It will be hard for the megadonors to get behind any America-first or libertarian who's against crony capitalism. Adelson and Koch would gladly raise taxes on everyone as long as the money went to weapons for Israel and they still got their huge tax breaks for their own business ventures. Our revolution has to be from the ground up, not top-down.

The Kochs are pretty non-interventionist. I also think they are pretty big advocates of a flat tax and would be against cronyism. Charles Koch wrote an oped about cronyism. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443847404577629841476562610.html

 

[JCDenton0451]

This is a fact. And the likes of the Kochs would rather be allied with uber-rich Zionists who will help them get their tax cuts, as opposed to breaking away from them and risking loss of their power.

Koch power doesn't depend on approval of the Zionist Jews. I'd say they simply take the path of least resistance, since they don't care about US national interests anyway.

The Kochs are pretty non-interventionist. I also think they are pretty big advocates of a flat tax and would be against cronyism. Charles Koch wrote an oped about cronyism. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443847404577629841476562610.html

Oh dear. And you believe it?

 

[Anti-Neocon]

Koch power doesn't depend on approval of the Zionist Jews. I'd say they simply take the path of least resistance, since they don't care about US national interests anyway.

Well, yeah. As long as they're getting their tax cuts and less regulations on fossil fuels, they're happy.

 

[supermario21]

If we can win over the Kochs (we should be able to) we can win and be fine with regards to the nomination. I know many people here like to squabble over the whole Cato/Rothbard feud and the Mises Institute vs the Cato Institute but the younger generation of us are mostly Paulites who also like Cato and read Reason from time to time. I think we've won the feud as a whole and now it's time to fully embrace Koch and his money.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

If we can win over the Kochs (we should be able to) we can win and be fine with regards to the nomination. I know many people here like to squabble over the whole Cato/Rothbard feud and the Mises Institute vs the Cato Institute but the younger generation of us are mostly Paulites who also like Cato and read Reason from time to time. I think we've won the feud as a whole and now it's time to fully embrace Koch and his money.

We're not going to win over the Kochs on purely policy. They may already be with us on that. We need them to see that we have the best chance of winning, and that it'd be in their best interest to break away from the likes of Singer and Adelson.

 

[JCDenton0451]

If we can win over the Kochs (we should be able to) we can win and be fine with regards to the nomination. I know many people here like to squabble over the whole Cato/Rothbard feud and the Mises Institute vs the Cato Institute but the younger generation of us are mostly Paulites who also like Cato and read Reason from time to time. I think we've won the feud as a whole and now it's time to fully embrace Koch and his money.

So long as Kochs don't end up dictating our policies, I agree.

 

[PaleoPaul]

So long as Kochs don't end up dictating our policies, I agree.

The Kochs are good people. I don't get why they're hated so badly in liberty circles, especially considering they tend to err on the side of liberty and fiscal responsibility more often than not.

 

[supermario21]

The Kochs are good people. I don't get why they're hated so badly in liberty circles, especially considering they tend to err on the side of liberty and fiscal responsibility more often than not.

I feel the same way. I like CATO for example. I think even the cosmotarians are coming over to our side.

 

[PaleoPaul]

I feel the same way. I like CATO for example. I think even the cosmotarians are coming over to our side.

Well, *I'm* a cosmotarian and I supported Dr. Paul in both 2008 and 2012.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

I feel the same way. I like CATO for example. I think even the cosmotarians are coming over to our side.

Just look at what CATO is saying about nullification and NSA spying and you'll clearly see that is not the case.

 

[PaleoPaul]

Just look at what CATO is saying about nullification and NSA spying and you'll clearly see that is not the case.

Cato isn't united on any single issue. Different contributors to the site have different opinions.

People like Boaz, Palmer, etc. don't like the idea of NSA spying or drones, for example. Especially Palmer.

 

[TomtheTinker]

" Who the hell is "we?" Go freshen your drink you murderous war criminal.

He has plebs on the payroll to do his drink freshening.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The Kochs are pretty non-interventionist. I also think they are pretty big advocates of a flat tax and would be against cronyism. Charles Koch wrote an oped about cronyism. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443847404577629841476562610.html

Agree. Rand will have much more support than the neo-conservatives would like to admit.

 

[Chieppa1]

Henry. Kissinger.

 

[Lucille]

Weird How Interventionists Keep Finding Talented Politicians With Foreign-Policy Blank Slates
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/29/weird-how-interventionists-keep-finding

There's an interesting sub-theme at evidence in the interventionist battle to discredit Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) as a dangerous kook on foreign policy. Once again, it turns out, those who believe in blank-check executive-branch prosecution of global war and maintenance of American hegemony seem curiously disinterested in their surrogate politicians' actual views. On foreign policy. Here is Slate politics writer David Weigel from Friday:
[...]
So what does it say about a smallish group of foreign-policy ideologues that they spend so much energy finding empty but promising vessels with which to contest elections and hopefully carry out a robustly interventionist defense policy?

Among other things, that they're successful. It has proven a useful strategy to populate think tanks and magazines and capital-P Projects while contantly recruiting ambitious politicians into the fold in case they gain proximity to office. (You probably don't remember this, but one of the great Kristol vessels last election cycle was another inexperienced governor, Tim Pawlenty.) Imagine a powerful group of libertarian ideologues who go hunting around for charismatic politicians to whom they say "Don't worry about the ideology part, just win elections!" That this is impossible to conceive of says something about the nature of libertarianism, and of the ineptitude that libertarians usually bring to Washington power politics.

But I'd suggest two other, less flattering interpretations. Maybe they keep searching for moldable clay—or failing that, straight-to-cable true-believer attack dogs like John Bolton and Peter King—because these ideas aren't particularly saleable 12 years after 9/11. If blank-check interventionism was producing its own camera-ready talent, its proponents wouldn't have to spend so much time head-hunting.

Or maybe that's whole attraction in the first place—playing ventriloquist for hand-picked dummies who seek to wield enormous power. I'm sure it must be exhilarating to think that there is something behind the throne greater than the king himself, but what a weird way to go through life.