What on earth is Rand Paul thinking in taking Obama’s side against Rubio on Cuba?

Loading

Allah:

Noah already wrote a policy rebuttal to Paul’s position, which Paul elaborated on this afternoon in a new op-ed at Time. (The op-ed, unlike his tweets, doesn’t mention Rubio by name. Although it does approvingly cite … George W. Bush?) Anyone want to make the case that thepolitics of attacking Rubio on this issue were smart, at least? I can’t figure out why Rand would do it.

When I tweeted out my surprise a few hours ago, a dozen people tweeted back, “Maybe Paul’s just saying what he really believes.” No doubt. But the thing that distinguishes Rand from Ron and what makes him a legit contender for the nomination is that he’s willing to temper his foreign policy positions in order to make himself more appealing to mainstream conservatives. Remember when he complained earlier this year, as things got hairy in Ukraine, how certain Republicans (*cough*McCain*cough*) always seemed to want to “tweak” Russia? That was a fine libertarian/paleocon sentiment. A few weeks later, after Putin had gotten more aggressive and conservatives were demanding that Obama show some muscle, Paul took to Time magazine to demand “strong action” against Russia. Remember when he scoffed at the idea of intervening again in Iraq, with the U.S. effectively serving as “Iran’s air force” by bombing ISIS, only to decide a few months later as conservatives rallied for force that he would seek to destroy ISIS militarily as president? Last month he introduced a bill to formally declare war on the group that would even allow ground troops in certain limited circumstances. Remember when he seemingly endorsed containment of Iran on ABC’s Sunday news show, only to come back the next week after the predictable uproar on the right ensued with an op-ed insisting he was “unequivocally” not for containing Iran? It’s not just conservatives who’ve noticed these reversals. Members of Paul’s libertarian base like Jacob Sullum and others at Reason have noticed them too. And everyone understands what it’s about: Rand’s afraid that if he takes a traditional libertarian line on hot-button foreign policy matters, it’ll be too easy for 2016 rivals to convince tea partiers that he’s just like his old man after all and can’t be trusted to protect America. Watering down his libertarian impulses may be cynical, but it’s smart.

So … why pick a fight with Rubio, then? It would have been easy for him to oppose the embargo while hedging enough to make conservatives comfortable with his position. E.g., “I believe in the liberating power of trade and support lifting sanctions on Cuba, but I’m concerned that Senator Rubio is right that this will mainly be a windfall for the Castros, not the Cuban people. The president needs to do more to ensure that the benefits of trade flow to the public, not to the regime, starting with demanding democratic reforms.” At the very least, he should have emphasized the point made by Noah, Michael Brendan Dougherty, and many others that tossing a bunch of capital into a corrupt, cronyistic socialist swamp with no meaningful civic institutions is likely to produce a fascist oligarchy like modern Russia, not a truly free state. But Rand didn’t hedge; instead he went right at Rubio, mocking him with a too-cute-by-half crack that Rubio’s the real isolationist. Why? Why, with the primary campaign just weeks away from going full tilt, would he suddenly refuse to pander to a position that probably 85 percent of the right-wingers he’s trying to woo hold?

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Earth to Curt, Earth to Curt, come in Curt! Paul’s like, uh, trying to win the Oval Office! You can’t do that by catering solely to the batshit crazies. Paul, like, knows this?

Rubio, like Cruz and like many of the other Koch funded bagger ilk, cannot possibly appeal to enough factions and cannot possibly withstand those “establishment Republicans” if they’re still stuck in a mindset of that 2010 wave which was, oh so 4 years ago. Too many variables my friend including the fact the Obama isn’t running. Paul, as looney as he is, sees the bigger, long range picture. He gets this.

Simply hating Obama because he’s Obama, albeit advantageous in the 2014 election, is a card already played. That well has run dry. That low hanging fruit has been picked. You might say McConnell cleverly sliced the heart out of that watermelon.

To use what I’m sure is now a dilapidated phrase that my kids use t0 say as teenagers, DUH!

@Ronald J. Ward:

Earth to Curt, Earth to Curt, come in Curt! Paul’s like, uh, trying to win the Oval Office! You can’t do that by catering solely to the batshit crazies. Paul, like, knows this?

And Rand doesn’t have a chance in Hell if he continues to emulate his dad, which he seems to do with more and more frequency.

Rubio, like Cruz and like many of the other Koch funded bagger ilk, cannot possibly appeal to enough factions and cannot possibly withstand those “establishment Republicans” if they’re still stuck in a mindset of that 2010 wave which was, oh so 4 years ago.

Funny how you leftists love to rail on about the Koch Brothers but golly, gee; you never seem to want to talk about George Soros, Peter Lewis or any of the other big money players who dump more money into the Democratic Party than the Koch Brothers ever thought about giving to Republicans. And of course, you added the obligatory “bagger” comment, for effect, I’m sure. No surprise that you would favor the OWS bunch.

Too many variables my friend including the fact the Obama isn’t running. Paul, as looney as he is, sees the bigger, long range picture. He gets this.

No, but when Obama finally leaves office, which can come none too soon, we as a nation will still be dealing with the disaster that has been his presidency. The next president will have to deal with the harm Obama has created.

Simply hating Obama because he’s Obama,

What? Did you forget your usual claim that conservatives only dislike Obama because he’s, well you know, black? Funny, I dislike Obama’s white side just as much.

albeit advantageous in the 2014 election, is a card already played. That well has run dry. That low hanging fruit has been picked. You might say McConnell cleverly sliced the heart out of that watermelon.

I seem to remember Democrats, and radical left wingers like yourself, saying the same thing after the elections in November, 2010. The conservative movement had seen its better days, you (your ilk) claimed. Novemember, 2014 kinds threw a monkey wrench into that claim, didn’t it?

To use what I’m sure is now a dilapidated phrase that my kids use t0 say as teenagers, DUH!

You have children? Just goes to show that even a cur can reproduce.

@retire05:
To be clear, I’ve never made the claim that Republicans hate Obama “only” because he’s black.

You again impute opinions of me that I do not have or you could not know I have as I’ve never expressed one of OWS. Regardless, in light of the recent bagger open lynch mob admission, you throw stones rather loosely.

As for the rest of your nonsensical and off topic gibberish, well, it was expected.

@Ronald+J.+Ward:

Talking Points Memo, RJW? You really seem to subscribe to gutter journalism, since your article links to RightWingWatch, another bottom feeder. Color me not surprised.

@retire05: Two points. 1) The likes of Fox News runs from such events that conflicts with their right wing brainwashing agenda so you’re not likely to find it there. 2) You cowardly and expectedly ran from the reality by attacking the messenger.

Is the story true? Yes.

You are an argumentive fraud, a charlaton trying to play political pundit which is obviously out of your league or is impossible for your deep seeded hatred to allow you to respond coherently.

@Ronald+J.+Ward:

Let me tell you a little story about your left wing gutter media’s practice of bashing anything that has to do with the Tea Party: There was a Tea Party rally held a couple of years ago outside of Houston. A man showed up in a Texas shirt holding a sign about Obama that was racially insensitive, not to mention disgusting. The organizers of the rally asked the police department to remove him from their rally, but because we have First Amendment rights, the PD simply ask him to go across the street with his disruptive sign.

Did the lame stream media ever jump on that while the organizers of the rally continued to tell the press they didn’t know who the fool was that was holding the sign. The lame stream press was having none of it. He was at a Tea Party rally, he had to be a Tea Party supporter. Only………………………………

Turns out the guy was one of the officers of a local Democratic Party chapter. He wanted to create a stir, and try to reflect badly on the Tea Party, which he did. He was also a BIG Obama supporter and had even campaigned for him. He was what is known as a spoiler.

Did the lame stream media ever let people know that the guy was really a Democrat trying to reflect badly on the Tea Party? Hell, no. So you will have to excuse me if I give your sources a less than Grade A for honesty.

You are an argumentive fraud, a charlaton trying to play political pundit which is obviously out of your league or is impossible for your deep seeded hatred to allow you to respond coherently.

And you, RJW? You are an articulate radical left winger who has no argument but to slander others. While you seem to be able to speak in cogent sentences, the amount of empty space in your head, caused by a lack of fact or knowledge, is monumental.

@Ronald+J.+Ward:

Thought you might be interested in this article from a left wing site:

“But the scene outside Woodhull Hospital wasn’t entirely supportive. “You’re a bunch of killers,” a passerby told cops standing sentry there, according to one police source. And short distance from the crime scene—where a crowd was backed up by the police tape—a few members of the crowd repeated “fuck the cops” within earshot of a Daily Beast reporter.

One 30-year-old local who gave his first name only as Carlos, didn’t hear the fatal gunfire but saw the hysteria aftewards and walked to the police tape.

“A lot of people were clapping and laughing,” he said.

“Some were saying, ‘They deserved it,’ and another was shouting at the cops, ‘Serves them right because you mistreat people!’” he said.”

What do you want to bet that those cretins who were saying the police deserved to die vote Democrat?

So Obama has gutted Putin’s ruble and now is taking Cuba from him
He will also be taking away Castro’s best excuse for the shortcomings of his policies, the US embargo
Polls show about 70% of Americans like Obama’s bold move 30% doesn’t cut it in a two way election

@retire05: I’ll entertain your silliness for a bit only because I have an idle time window prior to a Christmas engagement.

As I’ve repeatedly proven and you’ve repeatedly demonstrated, you are no more than a contrarily stubborn troll with no intention of a constructive debate with anyone that doesn’t kowtow to your undefined mindset. What precisely you believe or don’t believe is unclear as I’ve pointed out in the past how you will deny your very own arguments when they are in black and white text right in front of us. You share the exact characteristics of your obviously cloned sockpuppets of lying and then lying about the very lie that’s right before our eyes. I have no idea how to rationalize with such blatant and intentional intellectual laziness and intellectual dishonesty.

Let’s review the conversation and my original rebuttal to Curt.

Earth to Curt, Earth to Curt, come in Curt! Paul’s like, uh, trying to win the Oval Office! You can’t do that by catering solely to the batshit crazies. Paul, like, knows this?

Rubio, like Cruz and like many of the other Koch funded bagger ilk, cannot possibly appeal to enough factions and cannot possibly withstand those “establishment Republicans” if they’re still stuck in a mindset of that 2010 wave which was, oh so 4 years ago. Too many variables my friend including the fact the Obama isn’t running. Paul, as looney as he is, sees the bigger, long range picture. He gets this.

Simply hating Obama because he’s Obama, albeit advantageous in the 2014 election, is a card already played. That well has run dry. That low hanging fruit has been picked. You might say McConnell cleverly sliced the heart out of that watermelon.

To use what I’m sure is now a dilapidated phrase that my kids use t0 say as teenagers, DUH!

Simply put, my argument is that Rand Paul is strategically positioning himself for the White House, trying to appeal to a broader base, tapping into other factions, or perhaps not alienating himself from potential voting groups. I realize I didn’t draw you a picture but perhaps an adult discussion of my argument could have brought to light that Paul already has the Koch funded Tea Party in his pocket, that they will vote for him regardless or for certain, would never under any circumstances vote for the likes of Hillary, Warren, or just about any imaginable Democrat. Paul simply has to reach further and that’s precisely what he’s doing and has been doing on other issues. Again, Obama will not be running and as I’ve argued above, political winds change and serious contenders will have to adapt, that previous strategies may not apply, or that at least it’s going to be a hell of a fight. I think, if you can possibly conduct a non-bias analysis of today’s political environment, the 2016 electoral vote isn’t exactly wrapped up for the GOP.

So from my argument, you conclude that I’m a ” radical left winger who has no argument but to slander others”!
You somehow arrive at that I suppose from your rebuttals that I “never seem to want to talk about George Soros, Peter Lewis or any of the other big money players”. I’m searching for relevance. Somehow you interpret from my argument that I “favor the OWS bunch” which not only is irrational and irrelevant but something you just arrived at out of thin air. You counter my argument how bashing Obama will not be as effective as he isn’t running by, well, bashing Obama. What the hell are you talking about and how does when “Obama finally leaves office, which can come none too soon” and the “dealing with the disaster that has been his presidency” and “the harm Obama has created” constructively rebut my argument? It’s just the usual diatribe, the expected rant, a troll simply trying to derail my argument by distraction rather than an attempt of honest discussion. You even close your hostile response by actually attacking my family, at Christmas! Yet in your heads-you-win/tails-I-lose diatribe(which again, we can all read as it’s in text), I’m the “radical left winger who has no argument but to slander others”.

But your silly distraction doesn’t just stop there. You not only refuse to acknowledge bad behavior of certain Tea Partiers because you dislike the messenger, you actually turn it around to somehow associate me as an advocate of hating and ambushing police officers. Yet, somehow in all of this we’re somehow to take you seriously as someone who promptly debunked my argument on political strategies of the 2016 Presidential race? And somehow in that victory, you’ve proven me to be the “radical left winger who has no argument but to slander others”.

I’m sure you can’t phantom the fact that you actually validated my claim that “you are an argumentative fraud, a charlatan trying to play political pundit which is obviously out of your league or is impossible for your deep seeded hatred to allow you to respond coherently” but, like so many times before, it’s right here in text for all to read.

Regardless, I hope you and your family the very best Christmas and a prosperous and healthy New Year. I’m sure you have beliefs that even I could agree with. You simply need to really try to put your deep festered hatred aside and try to focus on what’s actually said rather than being in full throttle anger mode all the time.

@Ronald+J.+Ward:

Perhaps it would behoove you to learn exactly what a “troll” is when it comes to the internet and blogs. This is basically a conservative website, with a measure of libertarianism thrown in, so that would make YOU, a radical left winger, the troll.

I realize I didn’t draw you a picture but perhaps an adult discussion of my argument could have brought to light that Paul already has the Koch funded Tea Party in his pocket, that they will vote for him regardless or for certain, would never under any circumstances vote for the likes of Hillary, Warren, or just about any imaginable Democrat.

Ah, our resident asshole throws another barb trying to let the rest of those who frequent this blog that you are attempting to assume the higher ground. But I think you know so little about the Tea Party you have no clue who those who support Tea Party philosophy really support. I can assure you, it’s not Rand Paul.

You somehow arrive at that I suppose from your rebuttals that I “never seem to want to talk about George Soros, Peter Lewis or any of the other big money players”. I’m searching for relevance.

Ironic, that in your lengthy response to me, attempting to show you are the better man, you cannot find the relevance in my comment. You, like Harry Reid, want to slander those who disagree with you, pointing your bony finger at the Koch Brothers and Tea Partiers, but totally ignore the money men who support the Democrats. George Soros and Peter Lewis are just two. I have more if you wish.

But your silly distraction doesn’t just stop there. You not only refuse to acknowledge bad behavior of certain Tea Partiers because you dislike the messenger, you actually turn it around to somehow associate me as an advocate of hating and ambushing police officers.

If I knew of a real case of bad behavior on the part of a Tea Party supporter, I would be the first to speak out against them. But like those who truly understand the tactics of Saul Alinsky, I have to question if all those examples of badly behaving Tea Partiers on the part of the gutter media are REALLY Tea Partiers or just spoilers like the example I gave. So while there is never any example of how Tea Party rallies are unruly, leaving mountains of trash behind for cities to pick up, nor any case of rape or murder during such rallies, we cannot say the same for the OWS crowd that Democrats supported fully.

You simply need to really try to put your deep festered hatred aside and try to focus on what’s actually said rather than being in full throttle anger mode all the time.

Ah, see, that’s where you go wrong. You are of the opinion that if someone disagrees with you, it is only out of a “deep festered hatred.” It is impossible for someone like you to understand that a person can have a political disagreement, not supporting the Democrats and their march to Socialism, unless there is “hate” involved.

But cheer up; maybe next Christmas you can spent it in Havana.

#10:
“This is basically a conservative website, with a measure of libertarianism thrown in…”

What an odd concept, and one that surfaces here repeatedly as if to shoo away people whose opinions are not consistent with traditional conservative orthodoxy. What end would be served by excluding opposing ideas? Without the benefit of the comparative analysis of alternative views, Republican “ideology” quickly spirals into an abyss of Machiavellian extremism. Yet you prefer to preach to the choir. Doesn’t that get old?