Will Ted Cruz and Rand Paul split on Iran? Americans back Iran deal

[libertarian101]

Though Pro-Zionist Christian conservatives are becoming extinct by the day, Zionist Rubin has realised that Rand wrongly believes GOP primary is populated by many pro-Zionist Christian conservatives, so she trying her best trying to scare him into denouncing the Iran deal and vote for more sanction. The only thing Rand need to change is his stance of containing Iran as Iran them self has said they don't want it. The vast majority of American public support the new Iran deal. It would be disaster for Rand to move to the neocon side while the public opinion shift to his side. The American public are walking away from neo-con plantation and are having liberty movement mind-set. I hope Rand shortly comes with statement saying " I support the diplomatic effort and we should not impose any new sanction for the next 6 month but if we don't get no deal i'll vote for more sanction "

Will Ted Cruz and Rand Paul split on Iran?

Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have often been joined at the hip.... Now, for the first time, we see a dramatic departure for Ted Cruz from his ideological comrade — that is, unless Rand Paul decides once again to mimic the position of a probable rival in 2016. Cruz has gone all in on Iran.. So what will Rand Paul do? Will his “containment” musing go down the memory hole, or will he be the sole pro-Obama voice in the GOP when it comes to our most dangerous security threat? Now, one might conclude that he is as unfit to govern as Obama is — and would not have approached Iran any differently. But going forward he’ll now have to choose whether he is his father’s son when it comes to Iran or a plausible voice on foreign policy.If, like Cruz, Rand Paul makes a stand against an Iran with a nuclear-weapons capability, he’ll have to stare down his most rapid libertarian fans. Moreover, some of his previous positions will prove to be highly inconsistent with newfound appreciation for the Iranian menace. He may discover we actually have interests in Syria. He might ruminate about the size and capability of our navy and air force. He might even want to make sure we’re gathering all the information necessary in case Hezbollah or Hamas pick up some fissile material. Once you pull on the thread of isolationist folly, it tends to unravel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...27/will-ted-cruz-and-rand-paul-split-on-iran/

Americans back Iran deal and oppose war

Americans support the nuclear deal with Iran brokered in Geneva by a two to one margin, according to a new poll.
The Reuter/Ipsos survey shows that 44 percent of Americans are in favor of the six-month interim agreement reached in Geneva on Saturday, while 22 percent are opposed to it.
Meanwhile, the same poll shows a strong apprehension to becoming entangled in another war, with 65 percent of Americans saying the United States should not become involved militarily in the Middle East “unless America is directly threatened.”
The online poll of 591 respondents was conducted Nov. 24 to Nov. 26 and has a credibility interval of plus-or-minus 4.9 percentage points.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/iran-deal-american-support-poll-100426.html#ixzz2lvUxXQDO

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This is the litmus test. Who is still a neo-conservative on foreign policy, and who has learned from Iraq.

 

[mz10]

This is the litmus test. Who is still a neo-conservative on foreign policy, and who has learned from Iraq.

Unfortunately, I think it's politically impossible for Republicans to come out in favor of this. Even Greg Brannon came out against it. So I wouldn't get your expectations too high.

 

[jmdrake]

Thank you for posting this, espcially the poll. The republican party is extremely stupid. They think they are losing elections because Americans and addicted to handouts. Bollocks! Republicans lost the house and senate in 2006 because Americans hate their foreign policy! And now that Obamacare is dragging Obama's poll numbers down, Obama pulls a foreign policy rabbit out of his hat. It's one guaranteed to be supported by most Americans and detested by most Republicans. And Republicans are stupidly going to fall for it! Really, if the economy hadn't been in the toilet in 2008 a Democrat still would have won. It's the foreign policy stupid.

 

[AlexAmore]

This poll shows 57% of Republicans in favor of diplomacy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/20/americans-support-an-iran-nuclear-deal-2-to-1-thats-a-big-deal/

I saw a poll where Republicans were split with just a little more favoring war. Let's say 44% were in favor of diplomacy, if Rand courted their vote, he could have it and everyone else would split the 56%. Of course, this only works at the beginning when there are many candidates.

EDIT: Rand has already talked about foreign policy on prime time recently, and he was all for diplomacy and lifting sanctions while negotiating. So there's your answer.

 

[Brett85]

Unfortunately, I think it's politically impossible for Republicans to come out in favor of this. Even Greg Brannon came out against it. So I wouldn't get your expectations too high.

Then what exactly is the point of even trying to get people like that elected?

 

[jmdrake]

This poll shows 57% of Republicans in favor of diplomacy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/20/americans-support-an-iran-nuclear-deal-2-to-1-thats-a-big-deal/

I saw a poll where Republicans were split with just a little more favoring war. Let's say 44% were in favor of diplomacy, if Rand courted their vote, he could have it and everyone else would split the 56%. Of course, this only works at the beginning when there are many candidates.

EDIT: Rand has already talked about foreign policy on prime time recently, and he was all for diplomacy and lifting sanctions while negotiating. So there's your answer.

Thanks for pointing that out! That shows that even Republicans are getting war weary. And I'm glad Rand picked the obvious right position on this. If someone attacks him in the GOP primary in 2016, he can bring up Reagan's negotiations with the "evil empire" and that there were some hawks that thought Reagan went to far.

 

[Brett85]

EDIT: Rand has already talked about foreign policy on prime time recently, and he was all for diplomacy and lifting sanctions while negotiating. So there's your answer.

But he hasn't commented on this particular deal yet, whether he thinks we got enough from it to justify lifting sanctions or not.

 

[erowe1]

The OP is missing something major.

The source for the pressure GOP presidential candidates have to back war with Iran is not Christian conservatives. It's big money coming from people who don't give a rip about either conservatism or Christianity.

They know it's not a winning popular issue. They knew that with Iraq. They always know it. They also know that money trumps popular opinion in politics.

And that incentive for war is still there and just as powerful as ever. Any GOP presidential candidate who has the secular, neoconservative, Republican establishment gunning to take him down will be at a huge disadvantage. Rand knows this. I hope that he stands up to them. But there's no use in pretending the advantage will be his when he does.

 

[klamath]

It might hurt Rand a bit in Iowa by breaking with the rest of the republicans but if he gets a good amount of press over it he will bring in a lot of independent voters. If he starts beating Hillary in the polls the "we want a winner" republicans will support Rand. Christy is way up in the polls for this VERY reason.

 

[dinosaur]

It might hurt Rand a bit in Iowa by breaking with the rest of the republicans but if he gets a good amount of press over it he will bring in a lot of independent voters. If he starts beating Hillary in the polls the "we want a winner" republicans will support Rand. Christy is way up in the polls for this VERY reason.

He will be marginalized by the press if he doesn't win in Iowa. There would still be a slim chance, but not a good one.

 

[klamath]

He will be marginalized by the press if he doesn't win in Iowa. There would still be a slim chance, but not a good one.

Actually Iowa is Not the make or break state. NH is far more important. There has been MANY winners of Iowa that lost the primary season. Santorum is the latest example.

 

[jmdrake]

The OP is missing something major.

The source for the pressure GOP presidential candidates have to back war with Iran is not Christian conservatives. It's big money coming from people who don't give a rip about either conservatism or Christianity.

They know it's not a winning popular issue. They knew that with Iraq. They always know it. They also know that money trumps popular opinion in politics.

And that incentive for war is still there and just as powerful as ever. Any GOP presidential candidate who has the secular, neoconservative, Republican establishment gunning to take him down will be at a huge disadvantage. Rand knows this. I hope that he stands up to them. But there's no use in pretending the advantage will be his when he does.

The Iraq war initially had 70% support. That's because Americans still were pissed over 9/11 and were willing and ready to strike out at somebody.

http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/

By 2006 support had dropped dramatically and that's why Republicans lost both houses in 2006. By 2008 more people were against the Iraq war than for it. The Iraq war was once a winning issue, at least for GOP primary elections. Yes big money pushed the war. Big money pushes Obamacare. In a democracy, big money has to find a willing audience of suckers to get what they want. In the Bush years the suckers tended to be white conservative Christians. In the Obama years the suckers tend to be blacks and liberals. (Some blacks are conservative Christians but still go along with Obama and discount the fact that they disagree with him on social issues like gay marriage.)

 

[erowe1]

I believe the starting point on those polls is after the war started. Am I mistaken about that?

If so, that makes a big difference. Once troops are committed, people have a way of convincing themselves they're the good guys. But what about in the lead up to the war? Was it the American people demanding war with Iraq, and their congressmen following the lead of the people? Or did the government have to expend great effort in selling the idea to the populace?

 

[libertarian101]

What some of you are missing is that, Iran nuke program won't be an issue in 2016 election because of two possibility. One of the possibility is that Obama admin can't find an agreement with Iran in the next two year and if that occurred Obama has said again and again that he will go to war, therefore the question in presidential debate will be weather one wants to continue the war or end it. The other bigger possibility is that Obama admin could get an agreement with Iran within the next two year. Like Syria war, Rand can affect the outcome in this issue if he smartly supports peaceful negotiation and give Obama cover from republican side. If Rand become hawkish on Iran, all the politicians will become hawkish and will wreck Obama peace plan because Ron and Rand are the symbol of non-interventionism and if they buckled under pressure, everybody will buckle. If Obama finds agreement with Iran within the next two year ( he will mostly get one in 6 month) , there won't any talk about sanction and wars in presidential debate and Rand won't have to worry about anything.

 

[jmdrake]

I believe the starting point on those polls is after the war started. Am I mistaken about that?

If so, that makes a big difference. Once troops are committed, people have a way of convincing themselves they're the good guys. But what about in the lead up to the war? Was it the American people demanding war with Iraq, and their congressmen following the lead of the people? Or did the government have to expend great effort in selling the idea to the populace?

Well the graph from the link I posted started in March 2003 and the invasion was in March 2003. But by Feburary 10, 2003, a CNN poll reported that more than 50% of Americans supported going to war with Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/10/sprj.irq.iraq.poll/

That means that the percentage of Republcan (conservative white Christian) support was likely much higher than 50%. And don't forget that Colin Powell infamous U.N. snow job didn't happen until Feburary 19, 2003. So a month before the Iraq invasion, Bush had majority support that was growing. And also remember that the previous war against Iraq had been a cakewalk. Rightly, or wrongly, American support for war is inversely proportional to how difficult the war is perceived to be more so than how righteous the cause is percevied to be.

 

[dinosaur]

Actually Iowa is Not the make or break state. NH is far more important. There has been MANY winners of Iowa that lost the primary season. Santorum is the latest example.

Right, a close second in Iowa with a win in NH could be good enough. But I don't think that making historical comparisons takes into account the fact that Rand is non-establishment and his first hurdle is getting past the press blockade. Also, he needs to be able to win in the conservative (religious) states, and to do so he has to not be vulnerable to fear-mongering about non-interventionism. Buchanan won New Hampshire, and he was non-establishment. But Rand has more time and more exposure than Buchanan did to make a preemptive strike against the isolationist label. Once the racist, isolationist, and weak on foreign policy labels are neutralized, they don't have much ammo left, other than relegating him to second-tier unelectable status.

 

[libertarian101]

The OP is missing something major.

The source for the pressure GOP presidential candidates have to back war with Iran is not Christian conservatives. It's big money coming from people who don't give a rip about either conservatism or Christianity.

You are 100% right of course but the op-ed writer (Rubin) has reason why she used Christians conservative as a stick to hit Rand. For some unknown baffling reason, Rand has come into the conclusion that his biggest opponent for having non-intervention policy will come from the dangerously extinct Pro-Zionist Christian conservatives not the most powerful lobby AIPAC or big Jewish donors like Adilson who spent well over 100 million $ in financing mitt Romney.

 

[libertarian101]

Right, a close second in Iowa with a win in NH could be good enough. But I don't think that making historical comparisons takes into account the fact that Rand is non-establishment and his first hurdle is getting past the press blockade. Also, he needs to be able to win in the conservative (religious) states, and to do so he has to not be vulnerable to fear-mongering about non-interventionism. Buchanan won New Hampshire, and he was non-establishment. But Rand has more time and more exposure than Buchanan did to make a preemptive strike against the isolationist label. Once the racist, isolationist, and weak on foreign policy labels are neutralized, they don't have much ammo left, other than relegating him to second-tier unelectable status.

Rand don't have to worry about Iowa and New Hampshire. Ron Paul who is much less social conservative and much more anti-interventionist than Rand did got amazing result in Iowa and new Hampshire . Ron came second in New Hampshire and very close 3rd in Iowa with 21%( Romney & Santorum both got 25%)

 

[klamath]

Right, a close second in Iowa with a win in NH could be good enough. But I don't think that making historical comparisons takes into account the fact that Rand is non-establishment and his first hurdle is getting past the press blockade. Also, he needs to be able to win in the conservative (religious) states, and to do so he has to not be vulnerable to fear-mongering about non-interventionism. Buchanan won New Hampshire, and he was non-establishment. But Rand has more time and more exposure than Buchanan did to make a preemptive strike against the isolationist label. Once the racist, isolationist, and weak on foreign policy labels are neutralized, they don't have much ammo left, other than relegating him to second-tier unelectable status.

It is a hard balancing act. The biggest block of voters are the "wanna win voters" Huge blocks of them swallowed Mccain and Romney just for the reason they thought those two could win. Polling showed this. It is really a dumb block because what the polls show in the spring mean nothing in the fall. When the republicans ignored this (Reagan was losing bad against Carter in the spring) they won their largest victory in the fall. You can still find the archived news articles stating how the Republicans were committing suicide by not electing Ford in the primaries. The media tries to reinforce the moderates with this and it usually works with those "wanna win voters"