Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on February 13, 2013, 07:45:28 AM
-
Hereby gets his own thread:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/12/full-text-of-rand-pauls-tea-party-response-to-state-of-the-union
-
Copying my comment to the new thread.
Glenn Beck is saying it is Rand Paul who hit it out of the park last night. He was far more specific. Rand Paul has also been shaping up his foreign policy views to be acceptable to conservatives, to be prudent in our support of allies, unlike his father's extreme refusal to project force.
Full text of the speech, 4 internet pages:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/12/full-text-of-rand-pauls-tea-party-response-to-state-of-the-union
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination-cia-direc/
I'm not a particular fan, but I LOVE that he is in a verbal filibuster.
-
Though there are areas where I lack confidence in his judgment, there are many where we are in strong agreement. He appears to be a man of genuine conviction for our Founding Fathers and our Constitution and possesses the spine, testicles, and heart to stand strong. This is a quite rare; the man bears close watching for greater things.
-
Rand Paul brought a great deal of attention to the issue of using drones on American soil to kill Americans without due process; he also brought some Republicans together that were really fired up on the net and liking his leadership. The hash tag #StandWithRand was trending number one both nationally and world on Twitter so he's going to get some name recognition out of it. I think he put a little mark on Obama's dictatorship.
P.C.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-rand-paul-going-mainstream-or-vice-versa/2013/06/19/71b2bb12-d83d-11e2-9df4-895344c13c30_story.html
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/22/aides-resignation-heightens-sen-rand-pauls-feud-ne/
-
Rand Paul is the anti-neo-con of our time and he has made some good points in that regard. One point he made that I liked was pointing out that Reagan saying 'Peace through Strength' meant peace through deterrence, not (necessarily) peace through war.
This tough critique of Rand Paul, link below, is from the Washington Post, but it is written by Jennifer Rubin who is their resident conservative. She brings up quite a few points, one is his use of Eisenhower as a model:
"Ironically, Paul cites President Dwight D. Eisenhower as a model. His knowledge must be tissue-paper thin. Let’s skip over Ike’s leadership in WWII and NATO for the moment. (I don’t know whether Paul was in favor of WWII, but someone should ask.) Eisenhower wasn’t shy about using the CIA to further our national interests, including attempting to subvert governments. He kept the defense budget at about half of the federal budget. He funded Middle East allies as part of his Cold War strategy. He sent troops to Lebanon. He maintained our defense of Taiwan and amply funded NATO. If this is Paul’s model, perhaps he isn’t so bad, you say. But in fact Eisenhower is good for a quote, as far as Paul is concerned, but the strategy that kept the peace and advanced U.S. interests is of little interest to him."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/07/22/rand-pauls-dangerous-demagoguery/
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/03/its-explicit-rand-paul-battles-john-kerry-over-the-constitution-syria-in-tense-senate-showdown/
-
I'm not sure he gets it right with regard to the implications of the War Powers Act, but nonetheless , , ,
http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/04/sen-rand-paul-why-im-voting-no-on-syria/#ixzz2dyT9dFfe
-
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/428994/september-11-2013/america-s-got-serious-reservations-about-this---syria---rand-paul
Paul's inconsistencies. Interesting, and pretty funny.
-
Coincidentally I happen to have caught this one. FWIW IMHO Rand has evolved considerably from his father's simplistic isolationism, but in one of the segments I saw with him recently he badly flubbed the key question-- what would a President Rand do?
-
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-paul-finally-admits-he-has-problem
-
I caught a snippet of an interview with Ron Paul yesterday in which his vision for the Rep Party winning elections impressed me in its vision for reaching voter blocks currently cold to the Rep Party e.g. he saw Privacy issues as being a good natural fit for the Reps and that it would appeal to all, including the young.
-
I caught a snippet of an interview with Ron Paul yesterday in which his vision for the Rep Party winning elections impressed me in its vision for reaching voter blocks currently cold to the Rep Party e.g. he saw Privacy issues as being a good natural fit for the Reps and that it would appeal to all, including the young.
Agree that people should be ready to embrace a right of privacy. Who knows about the young as they put everything out there on Facebook and Twitter. Still, it is they who decide what to broadcast and what to keep private, not a mandate out of Washington. ObamaCare is the most bold, egregious and obvious violation of privacy this nation has ever seen (IMHO). I have no idea how to convince anyone of the dangers of that if they don't already see it. NSA is another privacy problem. Security is necessary in a time of terror but combine that with the dishonesty and abuse witnessed in the IRS targeting scandal, Benghazi, Obamacare, Merkel spying etc., and the trust is gone.
-
I caught Rand Paul on one of the FOX shows last night talking about "Enterprise Zones on Steroids" as a solution for Detroit. He was articulate not only about the particulars, but in a big picture way too for the future of freedom and the Rep Party. Definitely someone to watch for!
-
Reps need to be leading with stuff like this. Good for Rand Paul!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/6/rand-paul-pushes-economic-freedom-zones-detroit/
Sen. Rand Paul vowed Friday to push a proposal to create “economic freedom zones” in Detroit that would slash taxes and regulatory red tape in an attempt to revive the city’s economy.
Speaking at the Detroit Economic Club, Mr. Paul, a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said that the model could be used in cities and counties across the nation and said that it would allow Detroit to hang onto $1.3 billion in tax revenue that otherwise would have been sent to the federal government.
“What Detroit needs to thrive is not Washington’s domineering hand, but freedom from big government’s mastery,” the Kentucky Republican said. “The answer to poverty and unemployment is not another government stimulus. It is simply leaving more money in the hands of those who earn it.”
Detroit recently became the largest municipality in the history of the nation to enter Chapter 9 bankruptcy. The city faces an $18 billion in debt and long-term liabilities. Conservatives have pointed to Detroit as an example of what can go wrong when elected leaders pursue liberal policies and bow to the demands of labor unions. Mr. Paul, though, said that both parties share some of the blame for Detroit’s economic woes and said that it is time to for Congress to try a new approach to getting the city back on its feet. Mr. Paul promised to introduce the “Economic Freedom Zone Act of 2013” next week and said it expands upon ideas that former Republican Rep. Jack Kemp introduced decades ago.
“This is Jack Kemp’s enterprise zones on steroids,” he said.
The proposal would lower personal and corporate incomes taxes in Detroit to five percent and lower the payroll tax to two percent for employees and employers. It also would suspend the capital gains tax, in an attempt to spur greater investment in businesses and real estate.
“These zones free up Detroit to bail themselves out,” Mr. Paul said, adding that they also could help struggling communities across the country, including 20 counties in his home state. “Right now any community with 12 percent [unemployment] or more would be eligible for these freedom zones.”
Mr. Paul said his proposal is an example of how the nation can start moving away from big government bailouts that have not worked and start thinking differently about how best to tackle the nation’s most pressing problems.
He also said lawmakers should rethink the war on drugs and reshape the drug laws and court system that disproportionately punishes minority communities. He said that that voting rights of some convicted felons who have completed their sentences should be restored and there should be a bigger push toward more school choice.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/6/rand-paul-pushes-economic-freedom-zones-detroit/#ixzz2mnSZkEt7
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
My thought is that he can be (already is) a GREAT Senator. Why screw that up with unsuccessful and divisive Presidential run.
If R's should somehow take the White House, and the post-filibuster Senate while holding the House, they will need strong voices and consciences like those of Rand Paul to keep them honest and on track.
Rand Paul: My wife says 'no' to presidential bid
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/1208/Rand-Paul-My-wife-says-no-to-presidential-bid
-
Well, if not Paul, then who?
I respect Cruz, but I do not see him as a vote getter.
I saw Paul on Chris Wallace's Sunday AM FOX show yesterday and thought he was very good. He defends his Detroit plan well and handled other penetrating questions by Chris Wallace, who can be a very tough questioner, well too.
Some of those questions concerned NSA spying. Paul answered that yes there are bad people of whom we need to keep track, but within the 4th Amendment. He made what I thought was a simple, comprehensible, intelligent, reassuring to American values, voter attractive point: Treat third party records as requiring a warrant e.g. reject that argument that the privacy of whom you call has been surrendered because the phone company has the records of it.
-
Obviously this could go under the Privacy thread on the SCH forum as well, but I feel here is a slightly better fit.
This is the sort of issue AND ACTION by RP that could help him be seen as different, younger, and hipper than the stereotypical Reps. I wonder how Gov. Christie stands on this issue , , ,
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2014/01/03/rand-paul-announces-antisnooping-lawsuit-against-obama-n1771719?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
-
Yesterday RP brought up Spermgate in the context of an interview about Hillary. Error in my opinion.
As far as most people are concerned the issue has been presented to the American people and settled and bringing it up now is going to play poorly.
When hit with the "Rep War on Women" meme, a fair rejoinder could certainly include reference to Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick (wasn't she the one Bill groped against her will in the WH when she came to ask for a job? on the very day that her husband, also a loyal Clintonite, was committing suicide? or something like that?) but in this moment RP displayed a serious tin ear on an issue that is usually a seriously weak link politically for Reps.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/13/rand-pauls-prediction-about-future-presidential-elections-may-frighten-half-the-country/
-
National Review writer and former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy rips Rand Paul pretty badly on this. Contrary opinions encouraged.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371201/rand-pauls-frivolous-nsa-lawsuit-andrew-c-mccarthy
February 15, 2014 4:00 AM
Rand Paul’s Frivolous NSA Lawsuit
The claim that metadata collection runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment is specious.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
...
let’s say Senator Paul and I rob a bank together and we stash the money in my house. If the police break down my door without a warrant and seize the cash, prosecutors will not be permitted to use it as evidence against me because their trespass on my property violates my Fourth Amendment rights. But the courts will allow prosecutors to use the money as evidence against Senator Paul. The Fourth Amendment, even as expanded, gives him no property interest and no expectation of privacy in my home and the items located there, even if he has a significant personal interest in those items.
-
"let’s say Senator Paul and I rob a bank together and we stash the money in my house. If the police break down my door without a warrant and seize the cash, prosecutors will not be permitted to use it as evidence against me because their trespass on my property violates my Fourth Amendment rights. But the courts will allow prosecutors to use the money as evidence against Senator Paul"
I often thought about the crimes the NSA must be discovering even incidently that they will and can do nothing about. If only they would uncover organized criminals in the entertainment industry..... :cry:
I know I walk into a minefield on this one.
As for Paul. I like the guy. Crafty pointed out we need someone who can speak well, concisely, and with emotion. Paul can do the first two but so far he definitely lacks the latter. I see him as a eye doctor who is so totally clinical. Yes, you have macular degeneration and you may go blind but there is little or only a few things we can do. No real emotion. No warm and fuzzy sympathy or empathy. Just the facts.
Unless he corrects this he will never cross over. Ever. That is why he gets tepid to no applause when he does not speak to conservative audiences.
-
ccp, I like Rand Paul too. I disagree with him in two important issue areas but he is a great champion of liberty and smaller government. His willingness to stand up to his own party is a good trait. I don't see him as the President / Commander in Chief, but he most certainly is a leader. Personally I hope he puts most of his energy into the issues that unite us. Same for the others.
-
Doug:
The piece criticizing Paul's NSA lawsuit makes reasonable points, albeit in a somewhat hyperventilated manner IMHO. I get the point over who owns the phone company records, but it seems to me a reasoned argument can be that the understanding of the fourth included the notion that people's mail and to whom it was mailed was private-- the possibility of keeping track was not even on the radar screen (because , , , radar screens did not exist :lol:)
-
Doug:
The piece criticizing Paul's NSA lawsuit makes reasonable points, albeit in a somewhat hyperventilated manner IMHO. I get the point over who owns the phone company records, but it seems to me a reasoned argument can be that the understanding of the fourth included the notion that people's mail and to whom it was mailed was private-- the possibility of keeping track was not even on the radar screen (because , , , radar screens did not exist :lol:)
Agree.
There is a point to be made for privacy, and there is a point to be made for security. I am a huge advocate and defender of privacy (as are you!). I have asked on the forum for words that describe the accepted, unenumerated right of privacy. I don't believe that has been answered. I think this is more a question for public policy than for a constitutional, judicial challenge. As you say, it involves things not contemplated at the framing. As Bigdog says, there are examples where conservatives also want to expand the words and meaning of the framers to fit their needs; this is one. Instead of doing that, why not fully contemplate it now and write and pass an amendment, instead of pretending the words and meaning already address this.
-
RP continues to hit on the Monica Lewinsky meme.
This, IMO, shows major tin ear. Of course I get the point, but it is NOT going to play well with most women. On top of that, lot's of people will wonder WTF Bill's dalliances have to do with Hillary being president or not and more people will say "We've been through this quite a bit already-- including impeachment. Is this the best you've got?"
Major tactical mistake here by RP.
-
RP continues to hit on the Monica Lewinsky meme.
This, IMO, shows major tin ear. Of course I get the point, but it is NOT going to play well with most women. On top of that, lot's of people will wonder WTF Bill's dalliances have to do with Hillary being president or not and more people will say "We've been through this quite a bit already-- including impeachment. Is this the best you've got?"
Major tactical mistake here by RP.
I think it's exactly the opposite. Dems want to push their bs "war on women" meme, someone needs to remind everyone exactly how dem icons really treat women.
-
RP continues to hit on the Monica Lewinsky meme.
This, IMO, shows major tin ear. Of course I get the point, but it is NOT going to play well with most women. On top of that, lot's of people will wonder WTF Bill's dalliances have to do with Hillary being president or not and more people will say "We've been through this quite a bit already-- including impeachment. Is this the best you've got?"
Major tactical mistake here by RP.
I think it's exactly the opposite. Dems want to push their bs "war on women" meme, someone needs to remind everyone exactly how dem icons really treat women.
I agree with GM. Bill needs to have his baggage pinned to him. Hillary was the enabler and the leader of the smear campaign against the women. Neither of them has ever acknowledged the predatory nature of the 'relationships' or the enabler role that she played.
Rand Paul has no insecurity about lack of substance. I'm sure he would love to debate Hillary anytime on any issue. The best we've got is that Hillary supported the policies that are taking down this nation. She logged a zillion miles as Sec State and has no accomplishment to show for it.
How many young people know Bill Clinton was impeached, shamed the Oval Office, lied under oath, was disbarred? How many young women know Hillary was conspiring to smear each of Bill's accusers and victims? Dropping drawers, groping, fondling rape, it wasn't all consensual! People should know and the media isn't going to tell them.
BTW Hillary is writing a book about her time as Secretary of State. I wonder how the chapter on Benghazi is going. I'll suggest a title - in a shrill tone: AT THIS POINT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!
-
There you go again being logical GM.
The Lewinsky thing reminds women of all the stories they have heard about their girlfriends (or themselves) putting up with their husbands' shenanigans-- why, they will wonder-- should that hurt Hillary's chance to be president? Bill is not running she is, blah blah.
-
I think the question for Paul, at least as it relates to the 2016 presidential election, should be: will this attract voters. It might play a part in a win in the primary, but I suspect (but don't know) that it will not attract the "average" voter. Moreover, I suspect that the stance will likely repel that voter. And if you can't appeal to the average, you can win the general.
-
Crafty and Bigdog may be right here about the negative effect for Republicans with independents and centrists. Still I think it is important that someone keep pointing out truths about both Clintons. On one hand we are saying that Ted Nugent can't be used to rev up a crowd because of association of a candidate or official with statements Nugent made or words he has used. Then on the other hand, in a most crucial Senate race we see a pretty, married, 35 year old woman (Grimes of Kentucky) use a serial sexual predator to rev up a crowd for her, while running against the 'Republican war on women'. Why does this not shine badly on her judgment? The hypocrisy should go unmentioned?
As it applies to 2016, I don't see Rand Paul as the nominee. Typically it is the VP who does this type of hatchet work. I do see Rand Paul as an excellent tactician. Maybe he is not running, as he has implied, and this type of work is just taking one for the team. Or maybe he is acting like a VP candidate now with a plan of elevating in time for 2016. If he is running, this is not the general election, it is the fight for the nomination, and what counts is his standing with people who vote in Republican caucuses and primaries.
The Bill Clinton behavior was not run of the mill unfaithfulness. It was a conspiracy run with the power of the Governor's office and then the power of the Presidency, putting demands on everyone from highway Patrol and Secret Service to executive staff. The 'shenanigans' were not all consensual. Upon learning about it, attacking Republicans is not the normal wife/girlfriend response. The anger she expressed was about him being stupid and getting caught. Has Hillary ever called him out for the abuse of his executive power? No, instead she attacked ALL the people who did that.
SHE was a crook. If Rand Paul is making a strategy of going after the Clintons and he seems to have done his homework, I doubt if we have seen all he has to say. When people have heard enough about the Clinton scandals of the 70s, 80s and 90s, Rand Paul can move right over to Benghazi:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/12/rand-paul-suggests-benghazi-disqualifies-clinton-in-2016/
Washington Post, November 12, 2013: Rand Paul suggests Benghazi disqualifies Clinton in 2016
-
What has RP said about the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/07/rand-paul-warns-putin-over-ukraine-if-hes-going-to-act-like-a-rogue-nation-he-will-be-isolated-video/
Fox News interview video.
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul warned Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday over the occupation of southern Ukraine, with the libertarian-leaning Republican claiming that “if he’s going to act like a rogue nation, he will be isolated.”
Paul spoke to Fox News’ Greta van Susteren at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where he delivered a speech on Friday. “What will you do about Putin and Ukraine?” the reporter asked the prospective 2016 presidential candidate.
Often criticized by right-wing hawks for his push to limit American involvement overseas Paul’s response indicated a willingness to articulate clear consequences to aggression without resorting to military confrontation. “We have to tell him that his behavior is unacceptable. He needs to be isolated,” the senator said. “And if he’s going to act like a rogue nation, he will be isolated.”
“I don’t think that involves a military option,” Paul continued, “and I think that most of the party has come to my way of thinking on this, that there really isn’t a military option for us there. That doesn’t mean that we don’t react, and that we don’t let Putin know in clear and uncertain terms that what he’s done is unacceptable.”
The senator also noted that if Russia pushes beyond Crimea and invades the rest of the country, an international response may be the least of Putin’s problems. “If he tries to further occupy Ukraine, my prediction is Ukraine becomes Syria,” he said, referencing the bloody 3-year civil war ravaging that country. “If Ukraine becomes Syria it’ll be a disaster for Russia, and he better think twice about it. Because one Ukrainian teenager with $200 of explosives could disrupt his pipelines.”
“So they’re not going to submit to the will of Russia,” he concluded. “They’re not going to submit to subjugation. So I think this hand is not yet over.”
------------------------------------
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/09/rand-paul-my-ukraine-foreign-policy-is-drilling-every-possible-conceivable-place/
Libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said on Sunday that he would have responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by “drilling every possible conceivable place” in the U.S. if he were president.
Following his Saturday win in the Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll, Paul was asked by Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday if he was willing to let Russian President Vladimir Putin have the Ukraine peninsula of Crimea.
“If they annex Crimea, Ukraine will almost certainly come within the Western orbit,” Paul explained. “So, it will backfire on them. Because you will be taking Russian-speaking voters that have been speaking for Russian-speaking presidents of Ukraine, you’ll be taking them out of the population.”
“The other thing I’ve said is, that I would do something differently from the president,” the Kentucky Republican added. “I would immediately get every obstacle out of the way for our export of oil and gas.”
“And I would begin drilling in every possible conceivable place within our territories in order to have production we can supply Europe with if it’s interrupted from Ukraine.”
-
Drilling and exporting gas to Europe is part of an intelligent and reasonable response.
-
Rand Paul won the CPAC straw poll. His speech made quite an impact with his extended quote of and reference by name of Roger Waters, Pink Floyd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz_zF6Wz784
Paul continued an assault on Obama's record, getting laughs when he asked how history will remember the president, and later quoting Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters in asking whether former supporters of the president now believed they had "trade[d] your heroes for your ghosts? … Did they get you to exchange a walk-on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"
http://www.dailypaul.com/313910/1st-politician-ever-to-quote-a-roger-waters-song-awesome
Great line except Paul must not know Roger Waters is an unapologetic anti-Israeli, Anti-Semite (?), and Rand Paul's father had some controversies with comments and newsletter writings on that topic.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dgreenfield/ron-paul-not-anti-foreign-aid-anti-israel/
Waters supports "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" against Israel, opposes the policies of Israel, but explains that he is not anti-Jew: "To peacefully protest against Israel’s racist domestic and foreign policies is NOT ANTI-SEMITIC." https://www.facebook.com/notes/roger-waters-the-wall/an-open-letter-from-roger-waters/688037331210720
The actual lyrics quoted were quite appropriate to his speech. I love Pink Floyd music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j8mr-gcgoI), but this is a controversy Rand Paul did not need to step in.
----------------------------
Nice piece on Rand Paul here by Roger L Simon, proprietor of PJ Media:
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/03/09/why-rand-paul-is-winning/?singlepage=true
"You could almost say that Paul is the ONLY interesting candidate on the immediate horizon — Republican or Democrat." ... "He seems future oriented, unlike the rest of the potential candidates who mouth platitudes, liberal and conservative, bashing each other in the most tedious manner imaginable."
----------------------------
Other CPAC winners: Jack Kemp (won in 1986, 1987, and 1993), Phil Gramm (1995), Steve Forbes (1998), Gary Bauer (1999), Rudy Giuliani (2005) George Allen (2006)... the all-time winner with four CPAC straw poll wins is Mitt Romney (2007-2009), and again in 2012.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/10/youre-never-going-to-believe-whos-won-the-most-cpac-straw-polls-in-history/
(Not too many Presidential winners on that list.)
-
http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/03/20/senator-rand-paul-receives-warm-standing-ovation-during-uc-berkeley-speech/
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/us/politics/at-derby-day-with-murdoch-rand-paul-goes-through-his-paces.html?emc=edit_th_20140505&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378518/rand-wrong-again-andrew-c-mccarthy
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378518/rand-wrong-again-andrew-c-mccarthy
Agreed.
-
IMHO this is a politically astute piece as well as a matter of foreign affairs. With it, Paul articulates a perspective which reaches out to Jews and supporters of Israel:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380165/no-aid-our-enemies-rand-paul
-
http://online.wsj.com/articles/dan-henninger-rand-pauls-reagan-1403738065?tesla=y
Rand Paul's Reagan
How much of Reagan's foreign policy would Rand Paul have supported?
By DANIEL HENNINGER
June 25, 2014 7:14 p.m. ET
Senator Rand Paul wrote an essay for The Wall Street Journal last week, "America Shouldn't Choose Sides in Iraq's Civil War," in which he associated his attitude toward overseas interventions with the foreign-policy principles of Ronald Reagan. "Though many claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan on foreign policy," Sen. Paul wrote, "too few look at how he really conducted it." Essentially what this means, Sen. Paul continued, is that "Like Reagan . . . we should never be eager to go to war."
The Kentucky Republican doubts that Reagan would have committed U.S. troops to driving out Saddam Hussein, as President George W. Bush did. And he strongly implies that Ronald Reagan, like the senator, would not want to involve the U.S. in Iraq's current catastrophe.
To support the similarity between his views and Reagan's, Sen. Paul cites the Weinberger Doctrine as a summary of the 40th president's views on foreign interventions. Caspar Weinberger, Reagan's secretary of defense, articulated what came to be known as the Weinberger Doctrine in a November 1984 speech at the National Press Club.
As accurately summarized by Sen. Paul, Weinberger said the U.S. shouldn't commit combat forces unless America's vital interests are involved, should do so only if we intend to win, have clear political and military goals, the capacity to achieve them, the support of Congress and the U.S. public, and act only as a last resort. Sen. Paul wants his readers to believe that Weinberger's view was Reagan's view.
As he prepares for his all-but-certain presidential run in 2016, Sen. Paul seems to have decided that he needs to refine his—and his father's—reputation for non-interventionist absolutism. A Washington Post-ABC poll this week suggests that U.S. attitudes toward intervention are in flux, and a center may be re-forming over how much global disintegration the public is willing to accept.
Though most oppose ground troops, about 54% of men want the U.S. to bomb ISIS, the al Qaeda affiliate overrunning much of Iraq. More striking, 44% of Democrats want to hit them. Women are opposed by a slim 52%. Let us posit that Ronald Reagan did not wake up each day from 1981 through 1988 and read opinion polls before figuring out what to do about the world's realities.
As to the Gipper's principles, Sen. Paul overstates reality when he suggests that the Weinberger Doctrine was Reagan's doctrine. The Weinberger Doctrine described in Mr. Paul's piece was Caspar Weinberger's personal opinion. His speech occurred amid an internal Reagan administration debate about how to deal with a new and murderous global threat: terrorism flowing out of the Middle East.
Reagan's secretary of state, George Shultz, describes the disagreements with Weinberger over the use of force in his 1993 memoir, "Turmoil and Triumph."
"Cap's doctrine," Sec. Shultz wrote, "bore relevance to a major, conventional war between adversarial armed forces. In the face of terrorism, or any of the wide variety of complex, unclear, gray-area dangers facing us in the contemporary world, however, his was a counsel of inaction bordering on paralysis."
While there was never a formal Reagan Doctrine, Ronald Reagan himself said enough and did enough to know where he stood. In his 1985 State of the Union, Reagan said, "We cannot play innocents abroad in a world that's not innocent."
Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire," aligned his own policy toward Soviet Communism with the idea of "rollback," stood at the Brandenburg Gate and cried, " Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," increased U.S. defense spending, deployed Pershing 2 ballistic missiles and cruise missiles in Europe amid world-wide protests in 1983, invaded Grenada the same year, and gave U.S. support to anticommunist movements in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Angola and Latin America—with many congressional Democrats in a towering rage of eight-year opposition to nearly all of it. The words Reagan used most to support all this were "freedom" and "democracy." He ended four decades of Cold War.
That is the Reagan mantle. Which parts of it would Rand Paul have taken on?
The experiences of the U.S. during the past five years with Barack Obama has led to one clear, nonpartisan conclusion: The risks of a rookie presidency are too big.Barack Obama created a wondrous presidential campaign machine. His experience to govern a nation was zero. More than any time in memory, whoever is president in January 2017 will have to hit the ground running with a plan—from day one.
Conservatives or candidates who think it should be possible to ride charisma or even ideology to victory, and then figure out the details of a great nation's policies once in power should read Martin Anderson's detailed 1988 account of Ronald Reagan's path to the White House, "Revolution." And specifically, the chapter "Reagan's Advisers." It is a blueprint for at least the chance of a successful presidency, which the U.S. desperately needs.
Reagan's was a remarkable presidency. But Ronald Reagan was no rookie. And there is no such thing as a presidential prodigy. We know that now.
Write to henninger@wsj.com
-
I think it wil be interested to see how Paul straddles this fence (FP). As a 'good' conservative in my eyes, I am actually quite hopeful about his ability to serve the pro-Constitutional movement; and actually went to a RNC luncheon just to watch him speak once last year (first time, that). However, as regards his father, I could not have supported, precisely becuase of his apparent ideology of Non-interventionism at (what apepars to be) almost any cost-- basically that's the same polciy we have right now and it's clearly not working. So, Rand has his work cut out for him in eclipsing that legacy, (or rather, maybe I should say in 'not allowing it to eclipse him'.) Personally I appreciate, however, his apparent ability to possibly appeal to the left, and his focus on privacy/ Fourth Amendment issues. So I think whehether as president or something else, his future contributions to the conservative movement wil be strong.
-
I have similar thoughts Mike.
Good to see you posting.
-
Disappointed he includes voter ID in this , , , :roll: but I do like that he is thinking outside the box.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s resistance to military intervention abroad is likely to be viewed as his biggest break from Republican tradition if he seeks his party’s nomination in 2016.
But Mr. Paul is also challenging his own party by increasingly embracing issues dear to the African-American voters who have overwhelmingly rejected the GOP for decades.
Mr. Paul is championing the restoration of voting rights to felons, wants to ease sentencing of nonviolent drug offenders and says he disagrees with Republican-led efforts in several states to curtail early voting and require voters to show photo ID at the polls.
On Friday, Mr. Paul is scheduled to speak to the National Urban League conference in Cincinnati, a mostly African American audience that’s often bypassed by potential Republican presidential candidates.
“I want to be known as a Republican who got more people to vote, not less,” Mr. Paul said in an interview.
Mr. Paul is sponsoring a bill that would allow non-violent felons to regain their voting rights after serving time. Mr. Paul also wants to downgrade some non-violent drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors to make it easier for those offenders to get jobs when they get out of jail. Minorities, he said, are disproportionately charged with drug crimes.
“The biggest impediment to both voting and getting a job is having a criminal record,” Mr. Paul said. “I’ve always felt like the war on drugs had gotten out of control, and as I’ve met different people in our cities I’ve become more aware there’s a racial element to the war on drugs.”
At a Senate hearing earlier this week on his bill, Mr. Paul said some drug offenders “are people who just made youthful mistakes.”
Some African American leaders say they welcome Mr. Paul’s outreach and ideas. But they also point to significant hurdles faced by a Republican, particularly a leader in the tea party movement, which has vigorously opposed President Barack Obama.
“It’s fascinating that on some issues like felon re-enfranchisement and criminal justice reform that his libertarian philosophy has brought him to some policies in common with the thinking of civil rights organizations,” said Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League. “Certainly some of the rhetoric associated with the tea party is anathema to many of us in the civil rights community, but I don’t like to paint with a broad brush.”
Mr. Paul’s plans to headline an Aug. 4 fundraiser for Rep. Steve King, an Iowa congressman backed by the tea party, illustrate the challenges.
Mr. King recently said of Mr. Obama: “His vision of America isn’t like our version of America. That we know. Now I don’t assert where he was born, I will just tell you that we are all certain that he was not raised with an American experience. So these things that beat in our hearts when we hear the National Anthem and when we say the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t beat the same for him.”
Mr. Paul declined to say whether he disagreed with Mr. King. “I’d like to be judged on what I do and say and not what everybody else does,” he said. “I don’t think that’s a fair standard.”
A policy issue that could also divide Mr. Paul from black voters is the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, aimed at protecting minorities from discrimination. The Supreme Court struck down parts of the law last year.
“I’m a supporter of the Voting Rights Act and trying to figure out a way it can be done that is constitutional and in a fashion that only goes after perpetrators of discrimination, but not so much that the federal government is always involved in state elections,” Mr. Paul said.
Even if Mr. Paul is unsuccessful in garnering much support in the African American community, he may win over other Republican voters and even Democrats who approve of his outreach at a time when the electorate is become increasingly diverse.
“People will be paying attention who think the Republican Party needs to grow and evolve and speak to a broader audience, and if you can’t do that you can’t be a leader of a national party,” said Doug Stafford, Mr. Paul’s top political adviser. “He’s one of the few Republicans who can go in [to the black community] and say that some of their main issues are things he is a sponsor of. Not a whole lot of Republicans can have that conversation.”
Some of Mr. Paul’s potential rivals in 2016, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, have also talked about easing sentences on drug offenders and emphasizing treatment programs. But on the issues of allowing felons to vote again and requiring voters to show ID at the polls, Mr. Paul has little company among potential 2016 candidates. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have both defended the state’s rules stripping felons of their right to vote without a pardon from the governor, while Govs. Perry and Scott Walker of Wisconsin have backed voter ID laws.
Correction: Mr. Paul is sponsoring a bill that would allow non-violent felons to regain their voting rights after serving time. The initial version of this post incorrectly said Democratic Sen. Cory Booker was also a sponsor.
-
Rand Paul said in June he would not rule out air strikes in Iraq, but still it would seem that he is to the isolationist side and to the left of Pres Obama and potential foe Hillary Clinton on Libya, Iraq, Syria and foreign policy in general.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/06/14/rand-paul-on-iraq-would-not-rule-out-air-strikes/
http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/15/why-the-rand-paul-rick-perry-feud-over-i
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/06/20/Rand-Paul-Urges-Congressional-Vote-Before-Air-Strikes-on-Iraq
-
His outreach efforts could/should play well across the political spectrum, but he seems to be hemmed in by his previous isolationism. There does seem to be a way around this given ISIL's threats to the US homeland, but he's just not there.
-
His outreach efforts could/should play well across the political spectrum, but he seems to be hemmed in by his previous isolationism. There does seem to be a way around this given ISIL's threats to the US homeland, but he's just not there.
It will come back here sooner or later.
-
"...he seems to be hemmed in by his previous isolationism"
Yes. Also, so far he has always been able to avoid explaining and distancing himself from a long record of controversial remarks by his dad. As he rises in stature, the need to clarify will become greater.
For better or for worse, he would be slowest to respond to these situations as they arise, such as the bonfire once called the Middle East. If these two were the nominees, Hillary sadly would win the peace through strength argument.
-
:cry:
-
I've not heard anything from Rand about ISIL and what, if anything, to do about it.
-
http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/why-washington-should-declare-war-on-isis-20140820
but,
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140708/CONGRESSWATCH/307080028/Sen-Rand-Paul-Warnings-ISIL-Threat-US-Conjecture- and http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidadesnik/2014/06/20/rand-paul-sees-no-threat-from-terrorist-safe-havens-in-iraq/
-
As usual, good work BD.
Worth noting that there are six weeks between those two pieces.
-
Sen. Paul yesterday called Hillary a "war hawk" and called for a new coalition in American politics.
-
There are some fairly made points in here IMHO.
=========================================
How U.S. Interventionists Abetted the Rise of ISIS
Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act against next, with little regard to consequences.
By Rand Paul
connect
Aug. 27, 2014 6:35 p.m. ET
As the murderous, terrorist Islamic State continues to threaten Iraq, the region and potentially the United States, it is vitally important that we examine how this problem arose. Any actions we take today must be informed by what we've already done in the past, and how effective our actions have been.
Shooting first and asking questions later has never been a good foreign policy. The past year has been a perfect example.
In September President Obama and many in Washington were eager for a U.S. intervention in Syria to assist the rebel groups fighting President Bashar Assad's government. Arguing against military strikes, I wrote that "Bashar Assad is clearly not an American ally. But does his ouster encourage stability in the Middle East, or would his ouster actually encourage instability?"
The administration's goal has been to degrade Assad's power, forcing him to negotiate with the rebels. But degrading Assad's military capacity also degrades his ability to fend off the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. Assad's government recently bombed the self-proclaimed capital of ISIS in Raqqa, Syria.
U.S. President Barack Obama Getty Images
To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS.
This is not to say the U.S. should ally with Assad. But we should recognize how regime change in Syria could have helped and emboldened the Islamic State, and recognize that those now calling for war against ISIS are still calling for arms to factions allied with ISIS in the Syrian civil war. We should realize that the interventionists are calling for Islamic rebels to win in Syria and for the same Islamic rebels to lose in Iraq. While no one in the West supports Assad, replacing him with ISIS would be a disaster.
Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act against next, with little thought to the consequences. This is not a foreign policy.
Those who say we should have done more to arm the Syrian rebel groups have it backward. Mrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria before asking some important questions. Her successor John Kerry was no better, calling the failure to strike Syria a "Munich moment."
Some now speculate Mr. Kerry and the administration might have to walk back or at least mute their critiques of Assad in the interest of defeating the Islamic State.
A reasonable degree of foresight should be a prerequisite for holding high office. So should basic hindsight. This administration has neither.
But the same is true of hawkish members of my own party. Some said it would be "catastrophic" if we failed to strike Syria. What they were advocating for then—striking down Assad's regime—would have made our current situation even worse, as it would have eliminated the only regional counterweight to the ISIS threat.
Our so-called foreign policy experts are failing us miserably. The Obama administration's feckless veering is making it worse. It seems the only thing both sides of this flawed debate agree on is that "something" must be done. It is the only thing they ever agree on.
But the problem is, we did do something. We aided those who've contributed to the rise of the Islamic State. The CIA delivered arms and other equipment to Syrian rebels, strengthening the side of the ISIS jihadists. Some even traveled to Syria from America to give moral and material support to these rebels even though there had been multiple reports some were allied with al Qaeda.
Patrick Cockburn, Middle East correspondent for the London newspaper, the Independent, recently reported something disturbing about these rebel groups in Syria. In his new book, "The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising," Mr. Cockburn writes that he traveled to southeast Turkey earlier in the year where "a source told me that 'without exception' they all expressed enthusiasm for the 9/11 attacks and hoped the same thing would happen in Europe as well as the U.S." It's safe to say these rebels are probably not friends of the United States.
"If American interests are at stake," I said in September, "then it is incumbent upon those advocating for military action to convince Congress and the American people of that threat. Too often, the debate begins and ends with an assertion that our national interest is at stake without any evidence of that assertion. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to engage in war."
Those wanting a U.S. war in Syria could not clearly show a U.S. national interest then, and they have been proven foolish now. A more realistic foreign policy would recognize that there are evil people and tyrannical regimes in this world, but also that America cannot police or solve every problem across the globe. Only after recognizing the practical limits of our foreign policy can we pursue policies that are in the best interest of the U.S.
The Islamic State represents a threat that should be taken seriously. But we should also recall how recent foreign-policy decisions have helped these extremists so that we don't make the same mistake of potentially aiding our enemies again.
Mr. Paul, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Kentucky.
-
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/08/28/ron-paul-government-had-foreknowledge-of-911-attacks/
So much for that.
-
What do we think of Rand's article?
-
What do we think of Rand's article?
If we had taken out Assad like Buraq like wanted to before Putin linked him out, IS would own all of Syria by now.
-
So, you are agreeing with Rand?
-
So, you are agreeing with Rand?
In that case, yes.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/27/Exclusive-Rand-Paul-Hillary-Clinton-s-War-Hawk-Style-Policies-Destabilized-Libya-Syria-Leading-To-Benghazi-Terrorist-Attack-Rise-Of-ISIS
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) certainly has a knack for boldness. On Sunday's Meet the Press, he dubbed U.S. military engagement in Libya “Hillary’s war” and stated the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) is not a result of President Obama's inaction in the Middle East but the unintended consequence of the U.S. military engagement in Libya.
The comments predictably caused heads in the GOP's foreign policy establishment to explode. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin called the rhetorical gambit “ludicrous” and said Paul holds the same views as his father, the libertarian former-Rep. Ron Paul. In an email to me, John Yoo, the former top Justice Department official in the Bush administration, said Paul is the Republicans' “own version of George McGovern.”
In a phone interview, Paul expanded on his remarks and offered a detailed rendering of his views on foreign policy that, regardless of their merits, are undoubtedly innovative for a man likely to seek the GOP's presidential nomination in 2016. Paul told Breitbart News:
I would say the objective evidence shows that Libya is a less safe place and less secure place, a more chaotic place with more jihadist groups—and really, we’ve had two really bad things happen because of Hillary’s push for this war. One is that our ambassador was killed as a consequence of not having adequate security and really as a consequence of having a really unstable situation there because of the Libyan war, and then most recently our embassy having to flee by land because they couldn’t leave via the airport because of such a disaster in Libya. So I think it’s hard to argue that the Libyan war was a success in any way. From my perspective, the first mistake they made was not asking the American people and Congress for authority to go to war.
While Muammar Gaddafi, or Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein—deposed during the George W. Bush administration—were certainly bad actors, Paul wants to know: who takes their place?
Sometimes people are trying to say I don’t have enough concern for this. Well, actually, I have a great deal of concern—and not thinking through the consequences of intervention has caused Islamism and radical jihadist groups to proliferate. So I think Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein were both secular dictators who were awful, and did terrible things to their people, but at the same time were also enemies of the jihadists. Assad is the same way. What we’ve done in Libya, and now what we’re doing in Syria, is we have armed groups that are commingled with jihadists.
For instance, in Syria, Paul says, by arming the “rebels” against Assad, America “degraded Assad’s capacity to wipe out the rebel groups in his country.”
A year ago, Obama sought approval from Congress to engage militarily in Syria, as Paul urges, but Congress balked. Facing stiff resistance from lawmakers of both parties, the matter never even came up for a vote.
According to Paul, that's how the system is supposed to work.
“Think what would have happened had we seriously degraded Assad to the point where he was overrun, think who would be in charge of Syria right now?” Paul asked before answering his own rhetorical question: ”ISIS.” In conclusion, Paul said:
So we are very lucky that the American people are much wiser than Hillary Clinton, and much wiser than the president. We got the president and Hillary Clinton to slow down, but Hillary Clinton was widely reported to be the chief person proposing that we get involved in Syria. But really the only person directly involved in bombing ISIS’s bases right now is the Syrian government—so for all their wrongs, we’re actually quite lucky we didn’t have regime change, because I think it is a very realistic prediction that, had we had that happen, that ISIS would be in charge of Syria. Really, Syria, with Assad and all this war, is somewhat of a counter to the power of ISIS.
Paul's critics in the GOP are increasingly agitated by his stances, especially what they see as him positioning himself to the left of Clinton on foreign policy, even while the Middle East is becoming ever more volatile.
“The last thing the Republican Party needs is its own version of George McGovern,” Yoo told me. “More than 50 percent of the American people now disapprove of Obama's isolationist foreign policy, whose disastrous effects we now see in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Asia. Paul's views will have the same bad consequences, both for the Republican Party, the United States, and the world.”
On a panel on Meet The Press that followed Paul's interview, Michael Gerson, the former Geroge W. Bush speechwriter and one of the architects of “compassionate conservatism,” criticized Paul for opposing foreign aid.
“He’s called for the gradual elimination of all foreign aid,” Gerson said. “I’ve seen its effect in sub-Saharan Africa and other places. This would cause misery for millions of people on AIDS treatment. It would betray hundreds of thousands of children receiving malaria treatment. These are things you can’t ignore in a presidential candidate. This is a perfect case of how a person can have good intentions, but how an ideology can cause terrible misery. He will need to explain that.”
However, James Carafano, a generally hawkish foreign policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, said Paul is tapping into real currents of discontent with the American public.
Paul is “onto something,” in that “in a sense that people are looking for something other than reflexively send in the bombs or reflexively do nothing,” Carafano told this reporter.
“It’s not just Sen. Paul, but I’ve heard several of the people who might be Republican candidates offer different versions of the same thing,” Carafano said. “Rick Perry was here the other day and was a little more aggressive on Iraq than Paul, but in their own way, what everybody is trying to say is we need to be prudent as opposed to somebody who just says we’re going to go do this.”
Paul describes himself as “a foreign policy realist like the first George Bush, like Reagan, like Eisenhower.” He elaborates:
They did intervene on occasion. It was not their first choice—but they did intervene when there were American interests involved, and I think really it’s not one extreme or the other. I often tell people in speeches one extreme goes nowhere all the time and that’s isolationism. The other extreme goes everywhere all the time. Many of the foreign policy sort of establishment in Washington, they're so used to being everywhere all of the time, that anyone who backs away from everywhere all of the time is considered to be an isolationist.
Paul said that in many cases, “there is no good alternative”—and that much of the time, each foreign policy choice by a president has negative consequences and positive ones. But the best decision, he said, is the one that acts in the best interest of America and her allies like Israel—even if that means a bad dictator remains in power.
“I think one of the biggest threats to our country is radical Islam and these radical Islamist groups—they are a threat,” Paul said.
Paul is currently leading the GOP field in 2016 GOP primary polls a few months out from the 2014 midterm elections. He said Americans are looking for someone they can trust to do the right thing when a foreign policy crisis arises. Paul went on:
When people are looking at choosing someone to be commander-in-chief, I think first and foremost they’re looking at whether that person has the wisdom and judgment to defend the country and make those decisions—when that 3 a.m. phone call came for Hillary, she didn’t bother to pick up the phone. In Libya, they were calling—they needed reinforcements for six months. It wasn’t just the night of the attack; for six months leading up to the attack there were repeated calls for reinforcements, for security teams, for a DC-3 to fly people on a plane to be able to leave the country. So I think the compilation of mistakes leading up to Benghazi really do preclude her from consideration to become commander-in-chief.
Regarding ISIS, the Islamic State terrorist organization that has grown a foothold in Syria and Iraq, Paul said he supports airstrikes. But if he were the president in this situation, unlike Obama, he would have called Congress back from recess to sell both chambers on action—and seek authorization before using America’s armed forces there. Paul said of ISIS:
We need to do what it takes to make sure they’re not strong enough to attack us. That means sometimes perhaps continuing the alliance with the new Iraqi government. Perhaps it means armaments, or perhaps it means air support, but frankly if I were in President Obama’s shoes at this time, I would have called Congress back, I would have had a joint session of Congress, and I would have said ‘this is why ISIS is a threat to the United States, to the stability of the region, to our embassy, to our diplomats, and this is why I’m asking you today to authorize air attacks.’ I’m betting if he would have done that to a joint session of Congress, he would have gotten approval. When you don’t do it through Congress, and you do it yourself, then you really have not galvanized the will of the nation. As a true leader, what I think we need to do is galvanize the nation when we go to war.
But since Clinton and Obama have “a disregard for the rule of law,” which generally requires congressional authorization for such military action while giving the president considerable latitude for short-term action, the administration did not seek congressional authorization for action in Libya—and probably won’t for action against ISIS, if it’s taken. Paul concluded:
Americans do want strong leadership from the president. They do think that President Obama is not being a strong leader. They do want a strong leader, something more akin to the public persona of Reagan. But they also don’t want somebody who is reckless in engaging in war; they don’t want somebody to put troops back in the Middle East. That was my point with Hillary Clinton—her eagerness to be involved in Libya and to be involved in Syria, in Libya led to very bad, probably unintended consequences and in Syria unintended consequences also. But I think you have less unintended consequences if you come to the American people through Congress and have a full-throated debate. It’s frankly difficult to convince Congress to do things—and that way, if you do it that way, you’re unlikely to go to war unless there is a consensus among the American people.
-
What do we think of Rand's article?
[How U.S. Interventionists Abetted the Rise of ISIS]
The timing of the rise of ISIS matches the timing of the election of Barack Obama, and the start of a new US policy of non-intervention, along with the abandonment of all gains made at great cost before him. It was built by prisoners released instead of being sent to the closing of Guantanamo. 9/11 (and WWII too) arose out of a period and policy of non-intervention and reduced preparedness. Both Pres. Obama and Rand Paul need to stand up and recognize evil and the threat of letting it grow, spread and prosper.
"Al Baghdadi even served four years in a U.S. prison camp for insurgents, at Bucca in southern Iraq -- a time in which he almost certainly developed a network of contacts and honed his ideology."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/
Rand Paul will not make us safer. And he will not be electable (IMO) running on the foreign policy of Barack Obama. He says that will bring independents and liberals to him, which I doubt, but it certainly will distance him from much of the conservative base. The world is not going to be safer, nor are the threats going to get smaller in the last two years of this administration coming into the next election, and facing the next President.
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/08/28/ron-paul-government-had-foreknowledge-of-911-attacks/
So much for that.
Rand Paul needs a Sister Souljah moment pretty soon with his father to tell him publicly he is wrong, it is not helpful, so stop it.
-
Rand Paul: 'I Am Not an Isolationist'
By SEN. RAND PAUL
Some pundits are surprised that I support destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) militarily. They shouldn’t be. I’ve said since I began public life that I am not an isolationist, nor am I an interventionist. I look at the world, and consider war, realistically and constitutionally.
I still see war as the last resort. But I agree with Reagan’s idea that no country should mistake U.S. reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.
As Commander-in-Chief, I would not allow our enemies to kill our citizens or our ambassadors. "Peace through Strength" only works if you have and show strength.
Our recent foreign policy has allowed radical jihadists to proliferate.
Today, there are more terrorists groups than there were before 9/11, most notably ISIS.
After all the sacrifice in Afghanistan and Iraq, why do we find ourselves in a more dangerous world?
And why, after six years, does President Obama lack a strategy to deal with threats like ISIS?
This administration’s dereliction of duty has both sins of action and inaction, which is what happens when you are flailing around wildly, without careful strategic thinking.
And while my predisposition is to less intervention, I do support intervention when our vital interests are threatened.
If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session—even during recess.
This is what President Obama should have done. He should have been prepared with a strategic vision, a plan for victory and extricating ourselves. He should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it.
Once we have decided that we have an enemy that requires destruction, we must have a comprehensive strategy—a realistic policy applying military power and skillful diplomacy to protect our national interests.
The immediate challenge is to define the national interest to determine the form of intervention we might pursue. I was repeatedly asked if I supported airstrikes. I do—if it makes sense as part of a larger strategy.
There’s no point in taking military action just for the sake of it, something Washington leaders can’t seem to understand. America has an interest in protecting more than 5,000 personnel serving at the largest American embassy in the world in northern Iraq. I am also persuaded by the plight of massacred Christians and Muslim minorities.
The long-term challenge is debilitating and ultimately eradicating a strong and growing ISIS, whose growth poses a significant terrorist threat to U.S. allies and enemies in the region, Europe, and our homeland.
The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage.
We should arm and aid capable and allied Kurdish fighters whose territory includes areas now under siege by the ISIS.
Since Syrian jihadists are also a threat to Israel, we should help reinforce Israel’s Iron Dome protection against missiles.
We must also secure our own borders and immigration policy from ISIS infiltration. Our border is porous, and the administration, rather than acting to protect it, instead ponders unconstitutional executive action, legalizing millions of illegal immigrants.
Our immigration system, especially the administration of student visas, requires a full-scale examination. Recently, it was estimated that as many as 6,000 possibly dangerous foreign students are unaccounted for.
This is inexcusable over a decade after we were attacked on 9/11 by hijackers including one Saudi student who overstayed his student visa.
We should revoke passports from any Americans or dual citizens who are fighting with ISIS.
Important to the long-term stability in the region is the reengagement diplomatically with allies in the region and in Europe to recognize the shared nature of the threat of Radical Islam and the growing influence of jihadists. That is what will make this a comprehensive strategy.
ISIS is a global threat; we should treat it accordingly and build a coalition of nations who are also threatened by the rise of the Islamic State. Important partners such as Turkey, a NATO ally, Israel, and Jordan face an immediate threat, and unchecked growth endangers Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Gulf countries such as Qatar, and even Europe. Several potential partners—notably, the Turks, Qataris, and Saudis—have been reckless in their financial support of ISIS, which must cease immediately.
This is one set of principles. Any strategy, though, should be presented to the American people through Congress. If war is necessary, we should act as a nation. We should do so properly and constitutionally and with a real strategy and a plan for both victory and exit.
To develop a realistic strategy, we need to understand why the threat of ISIS exists. Jihadist Islam is festering in the region. But in order for it to grow, prosper, and conquer, it needs chaos.
Three years after President Obama waged war in Libya without Congressional approval, Libya is a sanctuary and safe haven for training and arms for terrorists from Northern Africa to Syria. Our deserted Embassy in Tripoli is controlled by militants. Jihadists today swim in our embassy pool.
Syria, likewise, has become a jihadist wonderland. In Syria, Obama’s plan just one year ago—and apparently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s desire—was to aid rebels against Assad, despite the fact that many of these groups are al-Qaeda- and ISIS-affiliated. Until we acknowledge that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria allowed ISIS a safe haven, no amount of military might will extricate us from a flawed foreign policy.
Unfortunately, Obama’s decisions—from disengaging diplomatically in Iraq and the region and fomenting chaos in Libya and Syria—leave few good options. A more realistic and effective foreign policy would protect the vital interests of the nation without the unrealistic notion of nation-building.
-
http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/09/17/rand-paul-responds-to-critics-my-position-is-the-same-as-it-always-has-been/
Rand is making some sense here , , ,
-
John Hinderacker at Powerline (excerpted, link below):
Rand Paul and the Foreign Policy delusions of libertarianism
...
Rand Paul began his speech today by saying that “there is one theme that connects the dots in the Middle East.” He was wrong. The Middle East, and more broadly the Islamic world, are complex places. There are many causes of their dysfunction, but the most important one is the cultural heritage of Islam. ... In that region, as elsewhere, different situations call for different remedies. The idea that there is only “one theme”–that terrorism is the result of chaos, which is the result of overthrowing otherwise-stable and benign secular dictators–is false.
...
The number one sponsor of terrorism over the last thirty years has been Iran. Did the mullahs take control because of an ill-advised American intervention? No. The Shah was, perhaps, the paradigm of the benign Middle Eastern dictator, and he was our ally. While one can argue–I certainly do–that the Carter administration should have done more to support him, it wasn’t U.S. intervention that overthrew the Shah, it was a fundamentalist Muslim revolt.
How about the Taliban, which took over Afghanistan and harbored al Qaeda? Was the Taliban’s takeover the result of America’s toppling of a secular dictator? No, not unless the dictator was the Soviet Union, back in the 1980s.
No groups have contributed more to chaos in the Middle East than Hezbollah and Hamas. Does either organization owe its existence to some foreign policy mistake on the part of the U.S.? No.
A great deal of chaos in sub-Saharan Africa, especially Somalia and Nigeria, has been caused by radical Muslim groups (including, in Somalia’s case, al Qaeda). In either instance, was the cause of the chaos or the rise of terrorist groups, American intervention? No.
Rand Paul offers Iraq as an instance where the “prime source” of chaos that breeds terrorism was our “intervention to topple [a] secular dictator.” But is that really what happened in Iraq? Put aside for a moment the assumption that Saddam–who had a Koran written in his own blood and sponsored terrorism by Muslim extremists–was “secular.” Likewise, forget that Saddam was a bitter enemy of the United States, so that, when George W. Bush took office as president, there was one place on Earth where American servicemen were routinely being shot at–Iraq. We certainly did topple Saddam, a feat of which, in my view, we should be proud. Was chaos the necessary result? No. As of last year, Barack Obama and Joe Biden were hailing a stable, prosperous Iraq as one of their administration’s greatest achievements. Chaos and the ascendancy of ISIS in Iraq was the result of our needless abandonment of that country.
And where did ISIS come from? Syria. Here, Paul’s words are mystifying. He includes Assad as a secular dictator who was mistakenly “toppled” by U.S. intervention. But that is ridiculous: rightly or wrongly, America hasn’t intervened to overthrow Assad, nor has any other Western nation. The rebellion against Assad arose from two distinct sources: popular dissatisfaction with his dictatorial rule, largely on behalf of the Alawite minority, and radical Islam as embodied in ISIS. Syria disproves Rand’s implicit assumption that “secular dictators” will be secure and will maintain the sort of order that precludes terrorism, if only we leave them alone or support them. Saddam, ruling on behalf of a Sunni minority, would not have been able to preserve order (such as it was) indefinitely in Iraq, for the same reasons that Assad couldn’t in Syria.
...
The second major problem with Paul’s approach is the way he characterizes those who disagree with him. ... completely over the top. No one wants “perpetual war,” no one wants “boots on the ground everywhere,” no one believes that “war is the answer for every problem.” To the extent he is talking about members of his own party, Paul is choosing a peculiar path to the presidential nomination.
Much of what Rand Paul said today was sensible. ... But Paul could have made those points without asserting his overarching claim that the “prime source” of Middle Eastern turmoil and terrorism is America’s actions.
...
Paul is right, I think, about Libya. That is a case where the West overthrew a dictator that, while once a sponsor of terrorism, had been de-fanged, and what followed was much worse. The Libyan venture was a serious mistake by the Obama administration.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/09/rand-paul-and-the-foreign-policy-delusions-of-libertarianism.php
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/29/rand-pauls-become-acceptably-hawkish-for-a-prospective-gop-nominee-says-john-mccain/
-
McCain is definitely a hawk, but not a steady indicator of anything, especially judging Republican nominees.
The source of that is Ryan Lizza at The New Yorker with an extensive background piece on Rand Paul, a very worthwhile read IMO:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/revenge-rand-paul
-
I'm intrigued , , ,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBRlpzT5soc&list=UUy6kyFxaMqGtpE3pQTflK8A
-
I'm intrigued , , ,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBRlpzT5soc&list=UUy6kyFxaMqGtpE3pQTflK8A
Rand Paul is a very talented and thoughtful guy. However, I don't agree him on these points in question nor do I like the way he frames his arguments on them. See the current Oval Office occupant, any bozo can have opposed the Iraq war from the start and be consistent in that now. But then what? Do nothing in Iraq in light of the 23 reasons given in the military authorization in Iraq? Allow a rogue regime to gas its own people, support terrorism, shoot at American planes and attack 4 neighbors with no consequence? Stick with the failed consequences of sanctions that empower the regime and weaken the people? There is a burden is on opponents of war at this level to say what is the other way. Open dialogues with murderous dictators to change their ways? Just hope for the best? At the least we could have toppled Saddam and left the place in chaos a lot earlier with more of our own resources intact. Or we could have greatly weakened Saddam, without toppling his regime, if leaving regimes like this in place is the policy. But to say no consequence for complete violation of Iraq's surrender terms a decade earlier is to make the word of the US, UN and coalition utterly meaningless.
Dropping the entire 'war on drugs' is not a of action from here. We haven't yet digested the data coming from cannabis edibles and we want to legalize meth? What else, wouldn't we also end FDA and the entire prescription and pharmacy process if illegal drugs are legalized? End medoical licensing too, let people be responsible for their own choices. I might prefer all of that, but it would be last on the list of basic freedoms lost that I want back first. Keeping the fruits of our labor, dismantling coercive government and ending the welfare state would come first. You need to bring back personal responsibility before making all dangerous choices legal. On those points with Bill Maher and the reachout to the left, Rand Paul is silent.
Federal decriminalization of personal quantities of pot is what can be done right now with majority support and then expressly leave that jurisdiction to the states. If you favor full legalization, that is your first step. If you favor keeping laws in line with acceptable behavior of the times, that is the logical step. If you favor moving power out of Washington, that is one move you can make right now in the right direction.
Releasing all non-violent criminals is not the best course or the best rhetoric for a politician. See posts by our ccp, perhaps we are imprisoning too few of our white collar criminals, not too many. Laws need teeth, and enforcement. Laws we don'[t want to enforce should be repealed. Aren't theft and fraud non-violent crimes, and bilking the public and taxpayers? We want no meaningful consequence for those? Repeal the unhelpful laws and release the people being held on those repealed laws, but to trade reckless rhetoric for popularity is what sank so many other up and coming politicians - like Obama.
-
Intelligent, thoughtful comments Doug.
-
I tried to read this carefully to see if it is a spoof.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-demands-obama-go-to-war-with-isis/article/2556587
Rand Paul demands Obama go to war with ISIS
BY PAUL BEDARD | NOVEMBER 24, 2014 | 4:52 AM
TOPICS: CONGRESS WASHINGTON SECRETS BARACK OBAMA NATIONAL SECURITY RAND PAUL CHUCK HAGEL ISIS
Likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul today released his draft of a “declaration of war” resolution against ISIS, expanding his foreign policy efforts.
“When Congress comes back into session in December, I will introduce a resolution to declare war against ISIS. I believe the president must come to Congress to begin a war and that Congress has a duty to act. Right now, this war is illegal until Congress acts pursuant to the Constitution and authorizes it,“ Paul said.
The release came as news leaked that President Obama was firing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in part for a weak effort against ISIS.
TEXT OF RESOLUTION:
Whereas Article I, section 8, of the United States Constitution provides, ‘‘The Congress shall have the Power to . . . declare war’’;
Whereas President George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, lectured: ‘‘The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress. Therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.’’;
Sign Up for the Washington Secrets newsletter!
More Stories
Obama's 203rd round, 7 hours at 'one of the most exclusive golf courses in the world'
BY PAUL BEDARD | 11/23/14 7:51 AM
President Obama in Las Vegas played his 203rd round of golf at one of the top course in the world.
Zogby Report Card: Score two for Obama, immigration, Keystone XL
BY PAUL BEDARD | 11/21/14 1:52 PM
John Zogby: Give Obama credit for showing leadership on immigration and the Keystone XL pipeline.
Obama fundraises off immigration speech, seeks $1,000 contributions
BY PAUL BEDARD | 11/21/14 12:53 PM
President Obama is using his immigration speech to seek donations up to $1,000.
Bill Gates joins bid to promote, restore House page
BY PAUL BEDARD | 11/21/14 8:21 AM
New effort to promote, restore House page program features Bill Gates, a former page.
TV ad: Obama finally builds Reagan's 'shining city on a hill'
BY PAUL BEDARD | 11/21/14 8:10 AM
A new TV ad says President Obama is fulfilling Ronald Reagan's pro-immigration agenda.
WEX TV
Rand Paul demands Obama go to war with ISIS
Whereas James Madison, father of the Constitution, elaborated in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: ‘‘The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.’’;
Whereas James Madison wrote in his Letters of Helvidius: ‘‘In this case, the constitution has decided what shall not be deemed an executive authority; though it may not have clearly decided in every case what shall be so deemed. The declaring of war is expressly made a legislative function.’’;
Whereas the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State has declared war on the United States and its allies; And
Whereas the Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and
Whereas the Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and consulate in Erbil, Iraq:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Declaration of War against the Organization known as the Islamic State’’.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF A STATE OF WAR BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE ISLAMIC STATE.
(a) DECLARATION.—The state of war between the United States and the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the United States Constitution.
(b) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is hereby authorized and directed to use the Armed Forces of the United States to protect the people and facilities of the United States in Iraq and Syria against the threats posed thereto by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
RELATED: Obama extends U.S. combat role in Afghanistan
(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—
(1) SCOPE OF AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as declaring war or authorizing force against any organization—
(A) other than the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); or
(B) based on affiliation with the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
(2) LIMITATION ON USE OF GROUND COMBAT FORCES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the use of ground combat forces except—
(A) as necessary for the protection or rescue of members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens from imminent danger posed by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS);
(B) for limited operations against high value targets; or
(C) as necessary for advisory and intelligence gathering operations.
(d) WAR POWER RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—
Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)).
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).
RELATED: Attention: 105 admirals, two generals warn that U.S. safety threatened by spending cuts
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ.
The authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107–243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.
SEC. 4. NO EXISTING AUTHORITY.
The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) does not provide any authority for the use of military force against the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, and shall not be construed as providing such authority.
SEC. 5. SUNSET OF 2001 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) shall terminate on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.
SEC. 6. EXPIRATION.
The declaration and authorization in this joint resolution shall expire on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/18/rand-paul-opening-up-cuba-probably-a-good-idea/
-
Having large national issues decided by one man (or 5 justices) is not what the founders intended.
That said, we have tried opposite policies in different places, a trade embargo against Cuba for 50+ years and a trade opening with China since 1972 to end oppression in both places and neither worked. Shaking up a failed policy is tempting, but this is not the answer.
What is Rand Paul's answer to Rubio's point? If this is the policy that the regime of Cuba has wanted and needed all these years, what did President Obama get in return for surrendering our principles? As usual, nothing.
This isn't surrendering principles to Obama; it is the gaining of a new friend. Coercive, oppressive government that uses the agencies of power like the IRS and DOJ to shut down opposition is not offensive to this administration.
Libertarians including Rand Paul have a foreign policy history of not giving a rip about liberty outside our borders. They forget that at least a couple of foreign powers helped us gain ours.
-
Would love to have your thoughts on the Cuba thread on the Noonan piece I posted there.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/can-rand-paul-win-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
http://www.randpac.com/response/
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/19/rand-paul-doubles-down-on-anti-isis-strikes.html
-
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/03/rand-pauls-alex-jones-problem-vaccines-and-mart/202396
-
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/03/rand-pauls-alex-jones-problem-vaccines-and-mart/202396
He is his father's son.
-
It will be interesting to see how Rand plays Baraq's request for AUMF.
-
It will be interesting to see how Rand plays Baraq's request for AUMF.
Didn't Rand propose this? However, it is written in a way to offend both sides. I assume Rand will be out front and active in the amendment process in the Senate. As will Rubio and Cruz in a different direction. The Senate debate and process, while ISIS keeps expanding, could be a defining moment for the Presidential campaign.
-
Rand most certainly, and quite correctly, said that to war or not should be brought to the Congress.
My first impression is that what Obama is looking to do here is to have the Reps sign on to his incompetent dithering. My first impression is that the Reps should give him far more than he asks so that he cannot later stain them with his not doing what needs to be done to win. Also, front and center is the matter of Iran's nukes and what to do about them (e.g. hardcore sanctions). Reps and Dems alike are letting ISIS distract them from this-- and in the big picture in the long term I suspect that this is more important. Rand seems quite willing to try to evade this issue..
-
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/13/rand_paul_caught_lying_about_his_college_record/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
-
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152868860841107
-
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/rand_paul_on_why_republicans_s.html
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/10/rand-paul-slams-voter-id-its-offending-people/
-
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/rand_paul_on_why_republicans_s.html
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/10/rand-paul-slams-voter-id-its-offending-people/
The dead and illegal aliens are deeply offended at being denied their right to vote.
-
WSJ
Partnership
By
Janet Hook
March 8, 2015 7:18 p.m. ET
50 COMMENTS
When Rand Paul first ran for the Senate, he faced a powerful home-state antagonist in Sen. Mitch McConnell. Now, as Mr. Paul prepares to run for president, a five-year effort to bury the hatchet has forged an odd-couple partnership that is an unseen force in both the 2016 presidential campaign and the U.S. Senate.
Mr. Paul used his clout among conservatives to help Mr. McConnell, his fellow Kentucky Republican, win re-election last year and fulfill a long-held goal of becoming Senate majority leader.
Now Mr. McConnell is helping to advance Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, and contributed to an important victory for him Saturday. The state GOP’s executive committee endorsed Mr. Paul’s request, backed by Mr. McConnell, to establish a presidential caucus, despite concerns about financial and political costs. This would allow Mr. Paul to circumvent state law that bars him from appearing on the primary ballot both for the White House and re-election to the Senate.
“I thought it was important to show my support,’’ Mr. McConnell said in an interview. “We’ve developed over the last four years a very close and good working relationship.”
Political couples don’t get much odder. Mr. Paul is a maverick and tea-party champion who last year derided “Chamber of Commerce” Republicans. The disciplined, buttoned-up Mr. McConnell is beloved by that business group, whose Kentucky chapter last month held a banquet to honor him.
Mr. Paul, a physician with a libertarian streak, has said that—although he believes vaccination is a good thing—parents should have the freedom to not vaccinate their children. For Mr. McConnell, a polio victim as a child, vaccination is a no-brainer. On foreign policy, Mr. McConnell is a hawk; Mr. Paul, about as dovish as any Republican in the Senate.
“Sen. McConnell and I are not exactly alike: He’s a little more Henry Clay, and sometimes I’m a little more Cassius Clay,” Mr. Paul said recently, referring to the 19th century U.S. statesman known as the “Great Compromiser” and his cousin, an uncompromising abolitionist.
Their close relationship masks some very different goals. Mr. McConnell’s priorities are to hold on to the Republicans’ Senate majority and show the GOP can govern in an orderly fashion. Mr. Paul is laying the groundwork for 2016, taking potshots at potential GOP opponents and taking more provocative positions. In the latest round of budget brinkmanship, Mr. Paul opposed Mr. McConnell’s plan to keep the Department of Homeland Security funded, siding with those who wanted the bill to block the Obama administration’s immigration policy.
Their alliance has been tested by Mr. Paul’s desire to run for both president and for Senate re-election next year, which is driving his proposal to have a March presidential caucus, separate from the state’s May primary. Some Republicans have worried his dual-track plans could make it harder for the party to hold the Senate seat.
“Now that McConnell has become majority leader, his next objective is to keep the Senate majority,” said Al Cross, director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky. “Rand Paul is a complicating factor, because his running for president runs the risk of losing the Senate seat.”
Mr. McConnell, whose initial reaction was described by an aide as “respectful skepticism,” met with Mr. Paul in Washington and agreed to back the caucus after winning assurances that it would be a one-shot deal and that Mr. Paul would help raise money to cover its cost.
“I had a good conversation with him,” said Mr. McConnell. “I want to help him as much as I can.”
That helped overcome the reservations of others, and the GOP executive committee endorsed the idea Saturday after meeting with Mr. Paul. Details of the caucus will be worked out in the coming months.
Speaking about their relationship at the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce tribute, Mr. Paul commented on how far the pair had come since they first met in 2010, after Mr. Paul beat the GOP primary candidate whom Mr. McConnell had backed.
“I don’t think he knew what to make of me—or me of him at that point,” Mr. Paul said. Now, he calls Mr. McConnell a “great partner.”
Mr. McConnell worked to help secure Mr. Paul’s election that November. Four years later, Mr. Paul returned the favor and helped Mr. McConnell win his primary and a tough general election.
What is more, Mr. Paul, a son of libertarian hero and former presidential candidate Ron Paul , threw his weight behind Senate candidates in other states where Republicans were in danger of losing support to libertarian, third-party candidates. “He was a big asset to everyone in 2014,” said Scott Reed, senior political adviser for the Chamber of Commerce.
For Mr. Paul, the alliance with Mr. McConnell now is helping him win trust, backing and financial support from establishment figures.
Mr. McConnell’s former national finance director, Laura Sequeira, is working for Mr. Paul. Mr. McConnell himself last month dropped by a Paul fundraising dinner of insurance industry officials, sending a message of support to a group that knew him better than Mr. Paul.
“He’s very much putting his hand on Rand’s shoulder and telling the vast financial network that supported him in the past, ‘Rand is OK. He should be taken seriously,’ ” said Jesse Benton, a longtime Paul family friend and political aide who also worked on Mr. McConnell’s 2014 campaign.
The partnership with Mr. McConnell, however, carries a political downside for Mr. Paul among his base voters. Some activists were enraged when Mr. Paul supported Mr. McConnell last year over his tea-party primary challenger, Matt Bevin.
“He seems a little too comfortable with the establishment,” said Heather Stancil, co-chairman of the Madison County GOP in Iowa.
Mr. Paul could regain favor with those voters, however, were Mr. McConnell to bring to a Senate vote the “Audit the Fed” legislation that is a marquee issue for libertarians. Many Federal Reserve officials worry the measure could undermine the central bank’s independence.
Mr. McConnell said he hadn’t yet decided whether to bring the bill to a vote but noted that it could easily be brought up as an amendment.
Write to Janet Hook at janet.hook@wsj.com
Popular on WSJ
-
Of course with the snarkiness of CNN worked in , , ,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/11/politics/rand-paul-kurds-kurdistan-country/index.html
Washington (CNN)Sen. Rand Paul wants to give the Kurds their own country.
The Kentucky Republican, who is inching closer to a bid for president, said Tuesday in an interview with Breitbart that he believes the U.S. should not only directly arm Kurdish fighters, but also promise the Kurds "a country." Paul acknowledged that turning the Kurdistan region into a country would be easier said than done, but touted the benefits of his proposal.
"I think they would fight like hell if we promised them a country," Paul said, adding that a Kurdish country would also end the longstanding feud between the Kurds and Turkey.
The Kurds are an ethnic minority who primarily live in a region that spans Iraq, Turkey and Syria and various Kurdish factions have called for -- and sometimes fought for -- an independent, sovereign Kurdistan for more than 100 years.
The rise of ISIS in the region has also bolstered the Kurds' stature on the international stage as Kurdish fighters proved to be the most effective ground force in repelling ISIS's advance as Iraqi government forces collapsed in the north. With air support from the U.S.-led coalition and American weapons funneled through the Iraqi government, the Kurds retook the city of Kobani in Syria, which was nearly entirely under ISIS's control at one point.
Paul has joined the chorus of Republicans calling for the U.S. to directly arm the Kurds without passing through the Iraqi government, but he has now taken a step further by calling for Kurdish independence. It's a move that would certainly upset Iraq's government in Baghdad, which is struggling to hold together a fractious and complex coalition of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds to keep the country in one piece.
But Paul's call for the Kurds to get their own country also comes two weeks after the the libertarian-leaning senator called at CPAC for a U.S. foreign policy "unencumbered by nation-building" -- indicating a departure from the neoconservative foreign policy that defined George W. Bush's presidency.
It's just another sign Paul is still trying to find his footing in his high-wire act of foreign policy.
Paul began distancing himself from his more isolationist foreign policy positions as 2016 neared and as a reinvigorated security and terrorism threat emerged in the guise of ISIS. Now, Paul is pushing a more stronghanded foreign policy that would rely on a robust military and project strength abroad.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/15/rand-paul-amasses-influence-at-south-by-southwest-in-austin/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/14/standing-ovation-rand-paul-blows-away-liberal-black-audience-with-conservative-message-at-bowie-state/
-
The Rand Paul Difference
He’s sound on domestic reform, but worrying on national security.
Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) formally announces his presidential campaign at the Galt House hotel in Louisville, Ky., on Tuesday. Photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News
April 7, 2015 7:17 p.m. ET
Rand Paul on Tuesday became the latest GOP candidate to formally announce his campaign for President, promising to be “a different kind of Republican.” That can be a good or bad difference, depending on whether the first-term Kentucky Senate is talking about smaller government or some of his nostrums about national security.
In virtually every area of domestic policy, Mr. Paul is a fresh, energetic voice enriching the public debate. Most corners of the Republican Party these days have an appetite for “a return to a government restrained by the Constitution,” as the first-term Kentucky Senator put it in Louisville Tuesday.
That is a much-needed message after two terms of an Obama Presidency that has bent or broken traditional restraints on the raw use of executive power. With his libertarian pedigree, Mr. Paul brings more credibility than some of his competitors to this cause.
Mr. Paul also understands that Republicans can’t regain the White House without doing better among young voters and minorities. His instincts on such things as criminal-justice reform are a good start.
But his decision to court the race-baiting Rev. Al Sharpton, as he did with a meeting in the Senate dining room, is counterproductive. Mr. Sharpton is invested in the old politics of racial division and will knee-cap Mr. Paul when it serves his purposes. Mr. Paul would do better to engage and elevate a new generation of black leaders.
Senator Paul says he will run on a flat tax, a good idea that could also set him apart from some of his competitors who will be more cautious. The flat tax isn’t a new idea but it is a good one that would increase economic growth and reduce the sort of favoritism that lets the rich and powerful use politicians to game the tax code.
Mr. Paul’s views on national security aren’t nearly as consistent. He began his Senate tenure arguing for cuts in defense spending, but these days he’s promising “a national defense robust enough to defend against all attack, modern enough to deter all enemies, and nimble enough to defend our vital interests.” For those generalizations to mean anything, it takes money.
Senator Paul’s turnaround on defense spending no doubt reflects a recognition that President Obama is likely to bequeath his successor a world of disorder. If so, the Senator needs to tell voters how he would handle the world differently than Mr. Obama.
His public statements suggest strongly that he has an a priori aversion to U.S. intervention, a belief independent of what is happening in the world. At times some U.S. intervention is essential when no other option exists to quell growing threats.
It isn’t clear the Senator understands this, as when he distorts the history of Syria as an example of intervention gone awry. He said in a Senate floor speech last September that U.S. support for anti-Assad rebels was responsible for arming Islamic State and the al Qaeda offshoot al Nusrah. The truth is that the Syrian civil war exploded into a regional and global threat after Mr. Obama chose not to intervene while also leaving Iraq.
On surveillance by the National Security Agency, Mr. Paul is to the left of Mr. Obama. In his announcement Tuesday, he said as President he would end Mr. Obama’s “vast dragnet by executive order” and “on day one” end “this unconstitutional surveillance.” But the surveillance is constitutional and the “dragnet” is a myth, as we assume his competitors will point out in Super PAC ads.
Senator Paul has real political skills and an interesting mind that have helped him gain a hearing from voters. We expect he’ll enliven the debate and force his competition to sharpen their own views, and we’ll see how much difference GOP voters want in their 2016 nominee.
-
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/09/why-rand-paul-is-unwelcome-at-nra-gun-rights-convention/?mod=capitaljournalrelatedbox
-
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/09/why-rand-paul-is-unwelcome-at-nra-gun-rights-convention/?mod=capitaljournalrelatedbox
Rand belongs to a groups that is more supportive of second amendment rights than the NRA and the NRA doesn't like the competition to their monopoly over money, members and power. (?) He isn't going to lose gun owner votes based on that.
His standoff with this powerful group of mostly men refutes the false narrative that he only stands up to females.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/10/chris_hayes_rand_pauls_beef_with_nra_cuts_against_narrative_that_hes_a_jerk_to_female_journalists.html
-----------------------------------------
The way Rand Paul turned the abortion question back on the liberals was brilliant. Do you support killing a 7 pound, 8 pound, 9 pound baby that happens to still be in the uterus?
A subtle difference, but the old lingo of talking weeks and trimesters is too abstract where the weight of the baby is something every mother, father and reader of a successful birth announcement can relate to. My daughter was 7 pounds. The average in the US is 7.5 pounds. Yes, she had a beating heart, pain receptors and all those things in place when she was born, and also had all that the moment before she was born.
The left has had this debate framed on other extreme, what to do with pregnancies from rape and incest which are not national issues in any way. They won some key elections by watching conservatives slip and fall in that. Yet the left supports policies on the other extreme far beyond what voters support. Not just this but support for killing the baby after a botched abortion.
The 7 pound baby question hits that head on. If we are going to find middle ground for public policy, it will not come by either forcing rape victims to carry the rapist's child or by striking down all protections for innocent, unborn human life.
-
http://aattp.org/ron-paul-black-lawmakers-oppose-war-because-theyd-rather-spend-the-money-on-food-stamps/
Note that the interviewer was long time associate and sometimes bigot Lew Rockwell.
-
I agree with Paul on Kurdistan. The Turks can go pound sand.
-
While Rand Paul was blaming Republicans for ISIS and shutting down the NSA, somehow we let his thread drift down to page 2.
Rand Paul has made himself a niche player, using NSA grandstanding for his Presidential fundraising. Further, acting like an establishment politician, he got his own election rules changed so that he could run for both President and reelection - unlike a competitor I have mentioned from Fla.
The federal government over-reach on NSA has not been egregious. They know what phone numbers have connected and have use for that only when one of them is connected with terrorism. There have been no abuses of the program that we know of so far. They are not listening to your conversations.
Meanwhile, this God-awful administration used the IRS to put down opposition groups to get reelected in ways that would make Richard Nixon blush. WHERE IS RAND PAUL'S OUTRAGE ON THAT?
I get sick and tired of these Republicans who try to advance themselves by attacking other Republicans. Who is your adversary here Rand, the Republicans whose vote you will need to win or the Democrats who you will run against if you win the nomination you say you are seeking.
Taking the Obama administration down a notch based on their own lies, corruption and failures is necessary to win the next election along with taking down their nomine. His approval rating is a key factor in the outcome of the election of his successor - according to every election expert.
If you are serious about running for President as a Republican defeating Democrats - then start acting like it.
-
https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine/videos/10152902809244117/
-
https://www.facebook.com/RandPaul/videos/10153136164121107/
-
By
Rand Paul
June 17, 2015 7:09 p.m. ET
862 COMMENTS
Some of my fellow Republican candidates for the presidency have proposed plans to fix the tax system. These proposals are a step in the right direction, but the tax code has grown so corrupt, complicated, intrusive and antigrowth that I’ve concluded the system isn’t fixable.
So on Thursday I am announcing an over $2 trillion tax cut that would repeal the entire IRS tax code—more than 70,000 pages—and replace it with a low, broad-based tax of 14.5% on individuals and businesses. I would eliminate nearly every special-interest loophole. The plan also eliminates the payroll tax on workers and several federal taxes outright, including gift and estate taxes, telephone taxes, and all duties and tariffs. I call this “The Fair and Flat Tax.”
Assistant Editorial Page Editor James Freeman compares presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Rand Paul’s tax proposals. Plus, the Fed’s latest fumble. Photo credit: Getty Images.
President Obama talks about “middle-class economics,” but his redistribution policies have led to rising income inequality and negative income gains for families. Here’s what I propose for the middle class: The Fair and Flat Tax eliminates payroll taxes, which are seized by the IRS from a worker’s paychecks before a family ever sees the money. This will boost the incentive for employers to hire more workers, and raise after-tax income by at least 15% over 10 years.
Here’s why we have to start over with the tax code. From 2001 until 2010, there were at least 4,430 changes to tax laws—an average of one “fix” a day—always promising more fairness, more simplicity or more growth stimulants. And every year the Internal Revenue Code grows absurdly more incomprehensible, as if it were designed as a jobs program for accountants, IRS agents and tax attorneys.
Polls show that “fairness” is a top goal for Americans in our tax system. I envision a traditionally All-American solution: Everyone plays by the same rules. This means no one of privilege, wealth or with an arsenal of lobbyists can game the system to pay a lower rate than working Americans.
Most important, a smart tax system must turbocharge the economy and pull America out of the slow-growth rut of the past decade. We are already at least $2 trillion behind where we should be with a normal recovery; the growth gap widens every month. Even Mr. Obama’s economic advisers tell him that the U.S. corporate tax code, which has the highest rates in the world (35%), is an economic drag. When an iconic American company like Burger King wants to renounce its citizenship for Canada because that country’s tax rates are so much lower, there’s a fundamental problem.
Another increasingly obvious danger of our current tax code is the empowerment of a rogue agency, the IRS, to examine the most private financial and lifestyle information of every American citizen. We now know that the IRS, through political hacks like former IRS official Lois Lerner, routinely abused its auditing power to build an enemies list and harass anyone who might be adversarial to President Obama’s policies. A convoluted tax code enables these corrupt tactics.
My tax plan would blow up the tax code and start over. In consultation with some of the top tax experts in the country, including the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, former presidential candidate Steve Forbes and Reagan economist Arthur Laffer, I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated. The first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be taxed. For low-income working families, the plan would retain the earned-income tax credit.
Opinion Journal Video
Assistant Editorial Page Editor James Freeman compares presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Rand Paul’s tax proposals. Plus, the Fed’s latest fumble. Photo credit: Getty Images.
I would also apply this uniform 14.5% business-activity tax on all companies—down from as high as nearly 40% for small businesses and 35% for corporations. This tax would be levied on revenues minus allowable expenses, such as the purchase of parts, computers and office equipment. All capital purchases would be immediately expensed, ending complicated depreciation schedules.
The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit? As a senator, I have proposed balanced budgets and I pledge to balance the budget as president.
Here’s why this plan would balance the budget: We asked the experts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs.
And because the best way to balance the budget and pay down government debt is to put Americans back to work, my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts.
The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy. But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and politically connected. Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%.
The challenge to this plan will be to overcome special-interest groups in Washington who will muster all of their political muscle to save corporate welfare. That’s what happened to my friend Steve Forbes when he ran for president in 1996 on the idea of the flat tax. Though the flat tax was surprisingly popular with voters for its simplicity and its capacity to boost the economy, crony capitalists and lobbyists exploded his noble crusade.
Today, the American people see the rot in the system that is degrading our economy day after day and want it to end. That is exactly what the Fair and Flat Tax will do through a plan that’s the boldest restoration of fairness to American taxpayers in over a century.
Sen. Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, is running for his party’s presidential nomination.
-
Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether
Sen. Rand Paul @RandPaul
June 28, 2015
Rand Paul Carlos Barria—Reuters Republican presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul waits before addressing a legislative luncheon held as part of the "Road to Majority" conference in Washington on June 18, 2015.
Paul is the junior U.S. Senator for Kentucky.
While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.
The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.
I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.
Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.
Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.
It seems some rights are more equal than others.
Marriage, though a contract, is also more than just a simple contract.
I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.
Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals.
This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.
Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when he says: “In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”
The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.
Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.
Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do — taxed it, regulated it, and now redefined it. It is hard to argue that government’s involvement in marriage has made it better, a fact also not surprising to those who believe government does little right.
So now, states such as Alabama are beginning to understand this as they begin to get out of the marriage licensing business altogether. Will others follow?
Thomas goes on to say:
To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a natural right to marriage that fell within the broader definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would have included a right to engage in the very same activities that petitioners have been left free to engage in — making vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of one’s spouse — without governmental interference.
The 14th Amendment does not command the government endorsement that is conveyed by the word “marriage.” State legislatures are entitled to express their preference for traditional marriage, so long as the equal rights of same-sex couples are protected.
So the questions now before us are: What are those rights? What does government convey along with marriage, and should it do so? Should the government care, or allocate any benefits based on marital status?
And can the government do its main job in the aftermath of this ruling — the protection of liberty, particularly religious liberty and free speech?
We shall see. I will fight to ensure it does both, along with taking part in a discussion on the role of government in our lives.
Perhaps it is time to be more careful what we ask government to do, and where we allow it to become part of our lives.
The Constitution was written by wise men who were raised up by God for that very purpose. There is a reason ours was the first where rights came from our creator and therefore could not be taken away by government. Government was instituted to protect them.
We have gotten away from that idea. Too far away. We must turn back. To protect our rights we must understand who granted them and who can help us restore them.
-
I think you want your marriage recognized at least until estate taxes are repealed. You would otherwise have to expressly designate someone on a whole host of topics, giving up even more privacy. Does the surgeon want spousal privilege in criminal matters ended - or extended to all witnesses who have the perp's confidence? This is Rand drifting back to his fringe roots, attracting no one new. Accept gay marriage or attack it. Ending marriage is not a winning Presidential platform. MHO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul is doing some kind of a radio ad for an investment company selling the idea of preparing for economic collapse. Not too far out of message for the elder Paul, but not helpful to son Rand either. Take a lesson from what Bill Clinton does (wrong), get out of the limelight.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/ron-paul-radio-and-internet-ads-watch-out-for-the-coming-eco#.gho39Qxo1n
-
https://www.facebook.com/RandPaul/videos/10153262524826107/
-
Two Cheers for Rand Paul: The Kentucky Senator Brought the Libertarian in Debate
On foreign policy and drug policy, he staked out distinct and forward-looking policies.
Nick Gillespie|Sep. 17, 2015 8:49 am
At last night's GOP debate hosted by CNN (full transcript here), the Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul brought consistently brought libertarian—or at least libertarianish—perspectives on major policy debates. Whether that jumpstarts his presidential campaign is anybody's guess, but it was a bracing and welcome development.
On foreign policy and drug policy (including criminal justice reform), the senator stood out as the one Republican candidate who championed new directions rather than doubling or tripling down on failed policy after failed policy.
On foreign policy, Paul was essentially the only one advancing any sort of vision distinct from the failed interventionist thinking that has coursed through D.C. politics under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Despite a dubious claim by Donald Trump that he was the "only one on the dais" who was opposed to invading Iraq in 2003, Paul could say with conviction
I’ve made my career as being an opponent of the Iraq War. I was opposed to the Syria war. I was opposed to arming people who are our enemies.
Iran is now stronger because Hussein is gone. Hussein was the great bulwark and counterbalance to the Iranians. So when we complain about the Iranians, you need to remember that the Iraq War made it worse.
More important, Paul, who early on in his senatorial career talked forthrightly about the need to reduce not just the Pentagon's budget (U.S. defense spending continues to essentially equal that of all other countries), stressed that we need to rethink military interventions in the same way we think about domestic policy:
We have to learn sometimes the interventions backfire. The Iraq War backfired and did not help us. We’re still paying the repercussions of a bad decision....
We have make the decision now in Syria, should we topple Assad? Many up here wanted to topple Assad, and it’s like — I said no, because if you do…ISIS will now be in charge of Syria…
It's a damning insight that after two major wars that have failed either to advance U.S. interests or stabilize the countries in which they were waged that "we have to learn sometimes [that] interventions backfire."
Even liberal critics of Paul specifically and GOP hawkishness generally give Paul props. Writing at Slate, Fred Kaplan notes, "It’s a strange debate where Sen. Rand Paul comes off as the most sensible contender on the stage." Where Carly Fiorina said she wouldn't even talk with Vladimir Putin or other world leaders who are despots and a number of GOP contenders insisted they would tear up the Iran deal like some circus strongman tearing up a phone book upon entering the White House, Paul actually made sense:
Contrary to almost all of his rivals (and his fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill), Paul said that he would not “tear up” the Iran nuclear deal upon entering the White House. “Let’s see if the Iranians comply with it,” he said, in a tone suggesting that he was making an obvious point—which, indeed, he was.
Einstein once suggested that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. He might have been thinking about 21st century foreign policy, whether conducted by Republicans or Democrats. For all the folks who think President Obama is a shrinking violet when it comes to what he once called "dumb wars," the Nobel Peace Prize winner tripled troop strength in Afghanistan, tried to keep troops in Iraq after the withdrawal date negotiated by the Bush administration, intensified drone strikes in countries with whom we are not at war, bombed Libya without constitutional authority, has sent troops back to Iraq, maintained he has the right to kill even U.S. citizens without judicial review, and more.
Obama stupidly drew a "red line" in Syria that he was unwilling to defend and he may have actually urged Ukraine to stand down at Russian forces took Crimea, but such missteps don't mean he isn't essentially an extension of failed Bush foreign policy. Six years after leaving the White House, it's easy to forget what a colossal failure George W. Bush was in the foreign policy arena. Indeed, his abject failure on that score was among the reasons Obama was able to beat interventionist John McCain so handily.
Since entering the Senate in 2011, Rand Paul at his best has forcefully and directly counseled that America needs a different style of engagement with the world, one predicated less upon dropping bombs and more upon trade, cultural presence, and other forms of soft power. Last night, he rightly urged that regional players in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia (the indirect source of so much jihadism in the world), step up in their own corners of the world.
The other moment in which Paul flew his libertarian freak flag had to do with drug policy and criminal justice reform. Paul stopped short of endorsing the end of federal prohibition against marijuana, an idea that both enjoys majority support from Americans and is an obvious move after decades of a failed drug war. Instead, Paul couched his argument in 10th Amendment terms, saying that states should be allowed to experiment with different approaches to medical and recreational pot legalization, a radical idea among the Republicans on stage and drug warriors such as Hillary Clinton:
The bottom line is the states. We say we like the 10th Amendment, until we start talking about this. And I think the federal government has gone too far, I think that the war on drugs has had a racial outcome, and really has been something that has really damaged our inner cities.
Not only do the drugs damage them, we damage them again by incarcerating them and then preventing them from getting employment over time.
So I don’t think that the federal government should override the states. I believe in the 10th Amendment and I really will say that the states are left to themselves.
Paul was alone among last night's participants in touching on the racial disparities visited like a plague upon the country by the drug war. It's of a piece with his ongoing efforts to reach out to new constituencies for the GOP, especially lower-income minorities who bear the brunt of drug laws that are not only odious by themselves but are used much more intensely against blacks and Hispanics. Indeed, one of the most electrifying moments in the debate for me came when Paul told Jeb Bush, the son and brother of presidents and an argent drug warrior, to check his privilege:
Under the current circumstances, kids who had privilege like you [Jeb Bush, who has admitted to smoking pot in high school] do, don’t go to jail, but the poor kids in our inner cities go to jail. I don’t think that’s fair. And I think we need to acknowledge it, and it is hypocritical to still want to put poor people in jail.
Despite the drug war losing ground at the state level—a couple of dozen states allow medical marijuana and three allow for recreational pot with more sure to follow—it's a brave stance to embrace the idea that people might be free to choose their intoxicants. People seeking national office are far more likely to fall back on the cliches peddled by Carly Fiorina, who invoked her daughter who died from substance abuse and denounced pot legalization via the discredited gateway-drug theory.
As an independent voter and a small-L libertarian, I don't have a strong interest in partisan politics. That's probably because there's never really been a moment in my lifetime when either of the major parties came within a thousand miles of championing policies that line up with my beliefs and predilections. I remain far more interested in all the ways that the libertarian moment is proceeding despite pushback by Democrats and Republicans. The cultural and political forces of decentralization and the empowerment of individuals to live lives of their own choosing will continue to grow whomever gets elected in 2016. Having champions in one or both of the major parties pushing libertarian ideas about limiting the size, scope, and spending of government at all levels could speed up the timing, but the move toward increased human freedom and flourishing won't be denied over the long haul.
But Rand Paul's performance last night, which included a pitch-perfect take on the minor issue of vaccines ("I’m all for vaccines. But I’m also for freedom) reminded me of why Reason dubbed him "the most interesting man in the Senate" when he took office. He is by no means without problems from my perspective (his muddled immigration policy, for instance, is longer on nativism than it is on a consistent embrace of individual rights and minimal government). Still, he was talking a different game than the others on the stage last night and whether he ends up as president is besides the larger point: His ideas and policy prescriptions reflect where the country is headed, whether establishment politicians want to go there or not.
-
https://www.facebook.com/Rand2016/videos/873977232717476/
-
https://www.facebook.com/Rand2016/videos/873977232717476/
He points to failure and concludes his policy of doing nothing would have led to success. Rand Paul is a master of oversimplifying foreign policy. He draws all foreign policy questions into being one and the same. He points to everything that went wrong and concludes that therefore that everything was fine before and doing nothing was the only alternative to failed, partial measures.
We have stayed out of Syria and the mess we didn't create is destroying Europe and the United States.
We need smarter, wiser leadership that thinks through questions like the ones he raises. Yes, all others have made mistakes. His answers to it are worse.
American strength didn't cause ISIS to take Iraq. Leaving irresponsibly is what preceded the ISIS takeover.
Leaving Saddam in power in 2003 wasn't some great, wise solution. By all measures, even the deniers, Saddam's Iraq would be nuclear by now. Rand Paul would rather deal with that problem? And then do nothing.
Rqand Paul's form of appeasement and non-intervention is our policy with Iran today, and they will be nuclear soon with our agreement. Putin and Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are filling the voids.
ISIS controlling territory in Iraq and Syria today is a global threat, not some faraway problem that doesn't affect us.
Yes, sending arms blindly into a very complicated war zone without a force or a serious plan is a bad idea. That doesn't mean the right answer on foreign policy always is do nothing.
-
Rand is out of the next main stage debate and thinks the undercard is beneath him. He is polling 7th in Iowa and 7th in NH.
It's time to ask what went wrong. He squandered his opportunity; what does that tell us?
He started with his Dad's base of a small number of really energized activists. He went mainstream with it, winning a US Senate seat and buddying up with Mitch McConnell to have some voice in important matters. He looked to become a real force in the campaign and became more of an annoyance.
In the Senate he laid it all on the line for boogieman libertarian issues and never effectively made the case for the real ones, from my point of view. He took his strongest stand against government drones targeting innocent US citizens on American soil. I don't know what to think about that question except to say it isn't among my top one thousand concerns about liberties lost. I don't want to be gunned down in my yard by an American government drone but see it as far less likely than being hit by a tornado. More importantly I've lost other liberties that hurt me every minute of the day.
Rand Paul was leader of the movement for opposing so called 'metadata', a fight he won, but ending that 'threat' didn't get our privacy or liberties back, didn't make us safer and didn't win him anything with the electorate.
Rand Paul stood up with a Republican alternative foreign policy to the left of Barack Obama. He removed some of the nuttiness from his Dad's positions, didn't rule out all interventions or conceivable foreign wars, but was by far the most anti-interventionist on the stage. That did not connect with GOP voters. When you combine it with cutting domestic spending by a trillion, it doesn't bring in crossover votes either. Americans don't want another Iraq war but we also know that a world not led by America is a world headed to disaster. Cutting defense spending isn't how you respond to ia world of increasing threats either. Nor is arguing that those threats are way over there.
Cutting social spending is great but it isn't realistic unless you grow the economy first and grow it so widely and vigorously in a sustained way that people see that government is not their best engine of economic security. Many things go into growing the economy, all starting with winning elections by spreading the message of economic liberty and growth. Rand Paul's 17% flat tax might have been the best plan for economic growth, but had no chance of winning and you heard him promote it when? He didn't have the focus to win. Also, we have never grown the economy by neglecting national security. The threats we ignore keep coming back to bite us.
Credit is due to Rand for attacking Trump on takings, and credit is due to our Pat for knowing that isn't enough to derail Trump.
Choose your battles. Drone attacks weren't it, nor was the fight against metadata. I've already ranted on my view of liberties lost. But at this point it is more likely a Democrat who will connect with voters on some of those issues. It will sadly become a case for the government interventionists to put limits the capture and storage of our personal data. If Apple and Google weren't such reliable leftist supporters, the left would already be all over this. Every app you download wants access to your contacts and everything else.
Obamacare became a word that we fight instead of the real invasion that it is. So many things went wrong with it that we lost our focus on why the concept is so fundamentally wrong, the government knowing and controlling your most personal decisions. Wickard Filburn comes to mind, where the government prosecuted the man for growing food for his own animals on his own property and the government locked in the authority to control everything else since then. Like Kelo, that is too obscure for prime time perhaps but somewhere in there is a fight that Rand Paul and others lost sight of in the clash of the personalities of all the people who want to be President.
-
I'm very glad he is in the Senate and sincerely hope he wins re-election there.
Some of his criticisms of our ME policy have considerable merit. In practice arming and training this group and that, which we often do when we don't want to do something serious, often means we wind up fighting those guns and that training. This is worthy of serious consideration IMHO.
-
I'm very glad he is in the Senate and sincerely hope he wins re-election there.
Some of his criticisms of our ME policy have considerable merit. In practice arming and training this group and that, which we often do when we don't want to do something serious, often means we wind up fighting those guns and that training. This is worthy of serious consideration IMHO.
Agree. In that sense he is like Trump, great at pointing out what has gone wrong and a bit lacking on coming up with the solutions.
-
Rand Paul is great on some tax and spend issues. John Bolton is one of the best picks Pres-elect Trump could ever make for any foreign policy or diplomatic job in my view and for many other conservatives. That Rand Paul would block a John Bolton nomination should disqualify Rand Paul from conservative consideration for any future position where any part of the job is foreign policy, President for example. MHO.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-group-john-bolton-in-state-dep-would-damage-us/
-
I watched Rand Paul on Fox News Sunday. He made perfect sense - if we were arguing this in theory or in a college debate. But we aren't. I wish we had 51 or 100 Senators like him on tax and spend issues. But we don't. Senator Paul, if you have a better plan, put it on the table and name your other 50 votes. This isn't a play or a skit or a rehearsal we're working on here. It's the future of the country and we're deciding it RIGHT NOW. If you can't roll back all of the government's power you had better start right now rolling back some of it. Or else we will very soon and very suddenly be turning in the other direction - on policy and in the elections. Trump already said he's going to work with Democrats on healthcare if he can't work with Republicans. He is a deal maker and you, apparently, are not.
-
Agreed
despite my post in congressional race thread
even Ted Cruz has made a practical compromise
as for Susan Collins what can I say
-
pain specialist inflicts pain on ophthalmologist:
https://www.spartareport.com/2017/11/breaking-rand-paul-attacked-at-his-kentucky-home/
-
pain specialist inflicts pain on ophthalmologist:
https://www.spartareport.com/2017/11/breaking-rand-paul-attacked-at-his-kentucky-home/
Another violent Bernie supporter. Rand Paul also survived the baseball practice shooting committed by another Bern-out.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/05/neighbors-say-rand-pauls-attacker-was-an-avowed-socialist/
Neighbors Say Rand Paul’s Attacker Was An Avowed Socialist
Photo of Chris White
CHRIS WHITE
Energy Reporter
9:30 PM 11/05/2017
1171
The man responsible for attacking Sen. Rand Paul Friday afternoon was an avowed liberal who frequently fought with his neighbors about politics, according to a report Sunday from The Washington Post.
Local citizens say Rene Boucher, the 59-year-old man who assaulted Paul, was a socialist who frequently fought with neighbors about health care policies and other liberal issues. Boucher and Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, are on the opposite end of the political spectrum, they told reporters.
Jeff Jones, a registered nurse who worked with Boucher at the Bowling Green Medical Center, described Paul’s attacker’s politics as “liberal.”
“He was active on social media and said some negative things about the Republican agenda,” Jones said of Boucher, a Bowling Green, Ky., citizen who lives in the same gated community as Paul. “I think it was unfortunate that they lived so close together.”
Boucher is a divorced socialist who is “pretty much the opposite of Rand Paul in every way,” Jim Bullington, a former member of the city commission who knows both men well, told reporters Sunday.
A Facebook account Boucher maintained before the attack contains numerous anti-Republican postings.
Boucher wrote “May Robert Mueller fry Trump’s gonads” in a May post referencing the former FBI director’s investigation into possible collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russian government.
Paul is an ophthalmologist who has practiced in Bowling Green since moving there with his wife in the early 1990s. Boucher, meanwhile, is an anesthesiologist and the inventor of the Therm-a-Vest, a vest designed to help with back pain.
Paul had staff privileges at the hospital where Boucher worked, so Paul and Boucher “must have worked together at some point,” David Ciochetty, a doctor with Interventional Pain Specialists in Bowling Green, told reporters.
Paul’s injuries were far worse than initially reported. He has lung contusions, or bruises, caused by the broken ribs, Doug Stafford, Paul’s chief of staff, said in a statement Sunday. The type of fractures the senator sustained can cause other significant medical problems, including internal bleeding and pneumonia.
“This type of injury is caused by high velocity severe force. It is not clear exactly how soon he will return to work, as the pain is considerable as is the difficulty in getting around, including flying,” Stafford said.
Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter.
-
"Rene Boucher, the 59-year-old man who assaulted Paul, was a socialist"
very interesting
most anesthesiologists move over to pain medicine for the very high incomes
I don't know what they make now but in the late 80s they were pulling in half a million a year
unless of course this socialist was in to pain medicine to help his fellow man. And sell an invention for back pain (another one ? !?!?)
to ease suffering and I am sure he donated the proceeds to good causes
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23220/sen-rand-paul-will-have-extended-absence-senate-he-emily-zanotti
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23220/sen-rand-paul-will-have-extended-absence-senate-he-emily-zanotti
Looks like the left has found a way to shift the balance of power in congress without winning elections.
-
"Looks like the left has found a way to shift the balance of power in congress without winning elections."
Which side was Rand Paul on?
[Rand Paul] has lung contusions, or bruises, caused by the broken ribs, ...
- How is that not felony assault? Hate crime.
Pain doctor inflicts pain. He is a high-income, income-inequality warrior. Open borders guy living in a gated community. With central air conditioning powered by coal. And let me guess, against using force to resolve conflicts. Wouldn't authorize water boarding a convicted terrorist to save his own family. But HATES his neighbor for peacefully favoring individual liberty. Do leftists ever see their own hypocrisy.
-
" Pain doctor inflicts pain. He is a high-income, income-inequality warrior. Open borders guy living in a gated community. With central air conditioning powered by coal. And let me guess, against using force to resolve conflicts. Wouldn't authorize water boarding a convicted terrorist to save his own family. But HATES his neighbor for peacefully favoring individual liberty. Do leftists ever see their own hypocrisy. "
He is almost certainly for gun control.
-
"He is almost certainly for gun control."
Maybe he should be for self control.
-
"He is almost certainly for gun control."
Maybe he should be for self control.
The left has no interest in self control, only controlling others.
-
A 59 yo small frame guy who claims permanent disability from an MVA induced neck injury is able to tackle another adult smashing a quarter of his ribcage ?
Maybe the insurance (almost certainly private ) paying his monthly payments should investigate his disability claim again:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5078805/Rene-Boucher-assaulted-Rand-Paul-devaluing-home.html
-
He makes the point that this is a step forward. If it is successful in growing the economy, more tax rate cut bills can follow in future years.
The bill could pass as early as this Thurs and as late as never. If they fail to pass anything this year, they will lose their majorities and their ability to do anything helpful for pretty much the rest of our lives.
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/defused/556934/
-
He voted for John Kerry. Will vote against Mike Pompeo. Good grief.
Question: R.P., which team are you on?
Answer: Neither, none, he follows his own principles.
Great, except sometimes his principles are wrong, such as peace through wishful thinking.
I wonder if he preferred Mondale over Reagan on foreign policy?
Did he prefer Soviet Union to no Soviet Union? Nazi Europe over needless American interventionism?
His main thrust is smaller government. How is THAT going, having no team, no friends and no followers.
Under his foreign policy we will all need to learn a foreign language and we'll have all the liberties and limited government benefits of a third reich Germany.
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article209497454.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-two-non-interventionists_us_594f1cdde4b0326c0a8d0918
-
Did I hear correctly that after a phone call from the President that he backed off opposing Pompeo's nomination?
-
Did I hear correctly that after a phone call from the President that he backed off opposing Pompeo's nomination?
He voted yes. It became a free vote once a few Democrats flipped.
But this was a very current and telling glimpse into his thinking on foreign policy. He is an opponent of people like Tom Cotton, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Gen. Mattis, Reagan, ... and me.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=117&v=yOEJGKusJb8
-
Paul the junior has a new book out exposing Fauci & other Covid bad actors:
https://pjmedia.com/columns/john-stossel/2023/10/25/covid-deception-n1737712