“Wacko birds”: McCain and staff keep dumping on Rand Paul
posted at 10:39 am on March 8, 2013 by Allahpundit
At this point, you’d think he’d tone it down if for no other reason than that he’s doing Paul an incredible favor by continuing to pound on him. The optics simply couldn’t be better. An unsuccessful former party nominee who’s pushing 80 and known for being the most enthusiastic interventionist in American government, tearing a guy apart for making a basic constitutional point about not assassinating American citizens? What?
Don’t forget to send him a thank-you card, Rand. First, from BuzzFeed:
“Either they were drinking a lot at the Obama party or they’re just completely dismissive of what was going on,” said one senior Republican strategist. “They’re living in an alternative universe. I don’t get it at all. You have a party where there’s all this talk about how divided the establishment is from the grassroots, and then you have John McCain and Lindsey Graham come out of left field with this. People are just scratching their heads.”…
Another GOP operative called Graham and McCain “just completely out of touch.”…
“Senator McCain is obviously well aware of the politics of this – he just doesn’t care,” said one McCain aide. “He’s doing what he thinks is right. Unlike many of these guys, he’s actually been involved in a few national security debates over the years. He knows that jumping on the Rand Paul black helicopters crazytrain isn’t good for our Party or our country, no matter what Twitter says.”
Next, via HuffPo, sweet thoughts from the man himself:
“They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else,” McCain said. “But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone.”
“I think it can be harmful if there is a belief among the American people that those people are reflective of the views of the majority of Republicans. They’re not,” he continued.
I asked McCain to clarify who, specifically, he was talking about.
“Rand Paul, Cruz, Amash, whoever,” McCain said…
“On some issues [McCain] sees him as a fellow maverick, but on some issues I think that pisses [McCain] off, having a maverick against John McCain,” said the Paul adviser, who asked to speak frankly in exchange that he not be identified. “I think he thinks Rand wants his way too much, like on [National Defense Authorization Act] … but I don’t think he thinks he’s doing it just to do it.”
It’s only the “wacko birds” who get the media megaphone? McCain, famously, has been the most ubiquitous guest on Sunday morning political talk shows for years. But wait, one more. This one’s my favorite just because it’s so revealingly petty:
McCain was quick to dismiss Paul’s nearly 13-hour effort since other Republican senators also came to speechify, giving Paul a slight break, even if the Kentucky Republican was unable to excuse himself to even use the restroom.
“Usually, traditionally it’s been one person, makes it a lot easier if you have other people talking for him,” McCain said.
He stood there for 13 hours without a bathroom break and spoke for the vast majority of it — on topic too, not by reading the phone book — but because Ted Cruz chewed up a little bit of time, the whole thing’s illegitimate.
Needless to say, if you want to marginalize Paul and the libertarians, the worst possible moment to do it is when he’s asking for a simple acknowledgment that the president can’t liquidate American citizens suspected of plotting terrorism on American soil without some sort of due process. Of all the civil-libertarian positions one could take on drones, that’s the most modest — no doubt deliberately so, as Paul knows that Obama’s refusal to grant even that much makes him look like Cheney on steroids and reduces his anti-Bush counterterror rhetoric circa 2007 to a joke. You would think Maverick might at least seize the opportunity to note that the guy who beat him five years ago did so in part by campaigning on a lie, but that would mean giving an inch of ground to the isolationists on his own side. So instead he sides with O even though everyone from Reince Priebus to Fox News to the Ron Paul fan base to Jon Stewart is patting Paul on the back, and inexplicably he insists on being nasty about it just in case anyone who enjoyed Paul’s performance hasn’t been completely alienated by McCain yet. Question for my fellow hawks: Is this really the hill to die on vis-a-vis paleocon/libertarian foreign policy? Arguing in favor of a president’s power to fire missiles at an enemy combatant on U.S. soil even if he’s a U.S. citizen and isn’t engaged in terrorism at the time when the FBI could just as easily go in and grab him? If that’s a “wacko bird” position, then a lot of people who agree with it will be left wondering whether the entire mainstream rap on libertarians and paleocons as being “fringe” and “extreme” is a lie. Maverick and Graham need to learn to pick their battles. Exit quotation via Newt: ““What I find sad about Sen. McCain’s recent comments both to Ted Cruz, when Ted Cruz was frankly raising legitimate questions [about Benghazi] and with Rand Paul, is, you know, when I first knew John McCain in the House — he was a maverick. In the Senate, for years, he was a maverick.” Yep. He’s not the maverick here anymore. That’s why he’s being so petty.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Bobby Jindal: Paternalistic, big-government liberalism is the biggest loser here
Super Nannies: EU bans olive oils, Germany ponders Autobahn speed limit
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
The SC will not touch this with a 10 feet pole. It would have to nullify all which Obama decided.
Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:12 PM
Sorry, forgot the link.
Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:14 PM
This is simply NOT true, good one.
This is just opinion, which is fine, but it’s NOT true. Good one, the sooner you get over this, the better.
Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:16 PM
Don’t know why some folks are arguing about this.
VegasRick on May 12, 2013 at 2:16 PM
A dear departed special ops friend of mine used to tell me how the clintons hated the military….there was no love lost between them and those that served during their reign of terror…nothing has changed with the current admin….fubar…..
crosshugger on May 12, 2013 at 2:17 PM
Don’t know either.
1. It’s one thing to see all the liberal media, who called the righties all sorts of names for even questioning O’s background/eligibility, including “racists”, type each time “Cruz, Canadian born”; to see HAL make an incredible fool of himself, just on topic…
2. It’s highly disappointing to see some of the best on the other side fall for it, without carefully reading the law. Just the law. The SC will not touch it, for NO price. It would have to decide on Obama’s mother’s years lived in the US, bef. he was born. The law as it is now is all there is and Cruz is eligible.
Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:20 PM
Yes, it’s my opinion on the interpretation of natural born citizen. I have given this issue much thought and investigation and this is the position that I have come to.
I hate to break it to you, but I will not get over this. As I said, we will just have to be in (serious) disagreement on this. That’s okay. We’ll have this debate in full if, and when, the issue becomes a real consideration. For now, Cruz isn’t talking about a Presidential run. When he does then we can duke it out. I’ll still respect you, regardless :)
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 12, 2013 at 2:22 PM
Yep. And I think the “birther” movement coming from the other side will be hilarious.
VegasRick on May 12, 2013 at 2:25 PM
LMAO. So, now the media and political parties are supposed hunt down the terrorists instead of the branch of the government charged with doing so and which happens to be run by a Chief Executive names Barack Obama?
Funny that Barry didn’t get around to putting out photos of the terrorists you think the Media and the Republican party need to hunt down until a few days prior to the committee meeting Wednesday.
Dusty on May 12, 2013 at 2:27 PM
I hold Petraeus personally responsible for this crapola getting out of hand.
He was guilty of dereliction of duty by washing his hands of his agency’s talking points and letting Obama LIE to the world for weeks on end. He let his agency’s name be used as a cover for LIES, LIES, and more LIES.
Sad to say, I believe he betrayed the trust Americans rely on for the Director of the CIA.
And Romney and his advisors blew it — BIG TIME.
At the debate Obama used the excuse of his generic mention of terror in his next day Rose Garden speech (with the coordination of Crowley) but Romney should have IMMEDIATELY said, “Mr. President, you can’t have it both ways. If you thought it was “terror” the next day, why did you send your spokesperson out the next week and thereafter to say it was only the video and call Libya’s president a liar?”
fred5678 on May 12, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Same here, but you are wrong, my friend. I hope he runs. The left going nuts over this makes me incredibly schadenfreudig. I live for it.
Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:32 PM
How come Obama and his Libyan friends haven’t found them?
Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:33 PM
fred5678 on May 12, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Excellent points! +1
Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 2:34 PM
THAT is exactly what I thought when it happened during the debate. Romney was trained by his handlers to debate a gentleman,
he was not prepared for a down and dirty feces-fling fest with a a Chicago thug.
burrata on May 12, 2013 at 2:36 PM
In an Administration so rife with crooks, creeps, weasels, liars, fools, hypocrites, CYA pros, scumbags and complete incompetents surely their is at least one turncoat against Obama, Hillary and the crew who will spill the festering beans.
profitsbeard on May 12, 2013 at 2:38 PM
Google “Political Question Doctrine”. SCOTUS wants no part in such things, nor should they…
JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2013 at 2:42 PM
Hussein is waiting for instructions from OJ on how to find killers of those you kill yourself. Why else do you think Hussein is golfing so much ?
burrata on May 12, 2013 at 2:42 PM
Google “Political Question Doctrine”. SCOTUS wants no part in such things, nor should they…
JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2013 at 2:42 PM
Okay. My final, final word on this:
This is not a political question, it’s a question of the definition of first-level Constitutional language. There are only two venues for resolving such issues – in the SCOTUS or by Constitutional amendment. Neither the Executive branch nor Congress have the power to determine first-level Constitutional definitions. The times that the Constitution wants Congress to make definitions for first-level terms it specifically delegates Congress that power and responsibility to do so, as with Art I, Sec8:
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;”
Outside of such explicit delegations the appropriate manners of defining/interpreting such lie where I stated. These first-level terms were understood at the time of the writing (just as the word “year” was understood by all to be the Christian year – not the Jewish year and certainly not the barbaric, backward islamic lunar year, which would allow younger people than intended since the islamic year is 11 days longer). The SCOTUS is the body responsible for elucidating these first-level Constitutional terms while the amendment process can be used to merely explain it or can also be used to redefine a term (as is necessary, or favored, at times).
It’s a shame that none of our courts had the brains or guts to take Barky’s case and make a ruling one way or the other. This is an issue that should have been resolved (even if the SCOTUS made a mockery of it as it did with BarkyCare and the not-tax/tax federal mandate) years ago and should be established at this point. But, it wasn’t, so it still hangs.
To call this question political, though, is about as incorrect as one can get. There is nothing political about it. It is Constitutional. Period.
Okay. Now, I’m really done.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 12, 2013 at 3:02 PM
I was wondering when it would get bumped up to Top Picks.
Jeff Weimer on May 12, 2013 at 3:06 PM
We still have Libyan friends? Oh, you mean the terrorists.
txhsmom on May 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM
High crimes and Misdemeanors. Political or Constitutional? Declaration of War. Political or Constitutional?
Do you really want SCOTUS having a say in these things? Because SCOTUS has demonstrated a history of not wanting to get involved in them. And on that point, I trust them.
Congress has to sign off on the slates of electors of anyone elected to POTUS. If they get it wrong, the people can
punish themremedy the situation. That, combined with the inherently political nature of elections, makes this a clear cut case of a political question…JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2013 at 3:11 PM
The House is given the sole power of impeachment and so the Constitution clearly delegates to Congress the power to decide what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors”, especially as the language is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” There is nothing unclear about this delegation of power. Just the “other” on its own should tell you that.
As to war, Congress is given the sole power to declare war. It is not to anyone else to tell Congress what they have or haven’t declared – though Barky thinks that he can tell the Senate when it’s in session or not, no matter what the Senate says about it.
My point clearly stands. If one doesn’t want the SCOTUS doing something in the area of first-level Constitutional language that was written as understood then a Constitutional amendment explicitly detailing it is the remedy. Otherwise, it sits with the SCOTUS, like it or not.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 12, 2013 at 3:21 PM
Clearly the terrorists were hiding in Las Vegas.
EnglishRogue on May 12, 2013 at 3:32 PM
No. The Constitution gives them the authority to impeach for high crimes and Misdemeanors. But by your logic, Bill Clinton would have standing to go to SCOTUS and argue that, on “Constitutional” grounds, Congress improperly defined HC&M, and that their impeachment was, therefore, invalid.
JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2013 at 3:36 PM
And they will NOT touch it.
Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 3:36 PM
So , since it’s Mother’s Day,
is Planned Parenthood having a parking lot sale today ?
burrata on May 12, 2013 at 3:41 PM
This thread has gotten really stale. Where’s HAL? He didn’t turn over with libfree? Or is Bayam in the barrel next?
Getting sloppy, trolls.
Jeff Weimer on May 12, 2013 at 4:03 PM
EWWWWW!!!
(backs away, slapping at crotch)
katy the mean old lady on May 12, 2013 at 4:11 PM
FWIW, here’s a nice primer on the Meaning of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Dusty on May 12, 2013 at 4:19 PM
I would have to watch the clip again but I saw Mitt Romney sandbagged by Candy Crowley. He could have done more but he would have had to be very aggressive. It also seemed that the Dem’s side was waiting for Candy’s foray and really ran with it. Of course, the media never really followed up.
The media corruption is the continued, and continuing, problem in this country.
As for our debates being between gentlemen, the only limits seem to be what the voters will swallow.
If the GOP did not have congress, all this would be under a rug somewhere.
IlikedAUH2O on May 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM
Nice recap. Sorry I disappeared for a while. It’s mother’s day, after all.
dogsoldier on May 12, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Saw this on the web today…..6 minutes of awesome palate cleansing!!
http://vimeo.com/66017973
PappyD61 on May 12, 2013 at 5:33 PM
Bottom line:
A.) Obama admin sacrificed 4 Americans for political considerations due to an election 2 months away. It’s a fact that there should have been more security, that State and WH refused that security. It’s also a fact that there was a myriad of responses available once the event had begun. State and WH chose no response. This is a situation where you have to be deluded to the point of insanity in order to not see how every piece aligns perfectly to them wanting to downplay the event.
B.) This admin is so beyond incompetent, so unbelievably unable to take a situation (sacking of consulate, murdering of amb.) and identify it for what it is (ie: not a protest) that it has reached the level of national emergency. If people like HAL and so on wanna try and use that ‘mistakes were made’ sort of defense then really, it’s to the point that right minded folks need to call in the U.N. and ask for a provisional government to be setup to just manage day to day things like waking up in the morning.
preallocated on May 12, 2013 at 6:04 PM
Diana West: “Spontaneous protest, unplanned attack: That was Petraeus’ testimony as CIA director three days after U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, Libya.
Within 24 hours of the attack, however, the White House and top officials at the State Department, the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies knew that no protest, spontaneous or other, had taken place. They knew the U.S. had been hit on the 9/11 anniversary by a planned attack by al-Qaida affiliates. Ruppersberger’s account, then, indicates Petraeus deceived the committee. When committed knowingly, as former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy recently pointed out, such deception is a felony.
This same phony story — that “extreme groups” took advantage of a “spontaneous” protest over a YouTube video to mount an “unplanned” attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi — would be repeated by the Obama White House for two weeks, climaxing in the president’s U.N. address on Sept. 25. There, President Obama cited the video six times and declared to the world body, dominated by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (an Islamic bloc of 56 nations plus the Palestinian Authority): “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Blaming the YouTube video for the violence was, in effect, blaming free speech, which is also OIC policy. Additionally, it denied the reality of the planned jihad attack, which, by extension, denied that al-Qaida-style jihad terrorism still exists at the vanguard of expansionist Islam.
To date, the media haven’t asked President Obama and his top officials, why? Why the administration-wide cover-up? Why didn’t military help get to Battleground Benghazi? Without coming clean, President Obama has been re-elected, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentioned as a 2016 presidential candidate, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice floated as the next secretary of state.
And Petraeus? On Nov. 12, Fox News reported that “congressional leaders,” believing Petraeus lied to them in September, had “already considered charging Petraeus with perjury, but said they planned to withhold judgment until he testified this week.” (Under oath or not, it is a crime to lie to federal officials.) We have heard no such tough talk since.”
And BTW – Diana West: “Even though it appears the former CIA director lied to the House Intelligence Committee on Sept. 14, and may have lied again to the same committee on Nov. 16, he is starting to slip out of the inner ring of Benghazi cover-up suspects. We are losing sight of his official role in the deception as the media lens ossifies over a tawdry love triangle. For this, he must be thankful. Maybe to ensure the good fortune continues, Petraeus has hired Bob Barnett, the $975-per-hour Washington superlawyer to officials with issues and/or big book deals, to manage what reports call Petraeus’ “transition to civilian life.”
VorDaj on May 12, 2013 at 6:26 PM
Do you want to try another card? You’ve long since exceeded the credibility limit on the Iraq Card.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 12, 2013 at 6:37 PM
All right, maybe this was covered, but other than Hayes reporting, does it say anywhere that Petreus was referring to the White House when he said “but it’s their call”?
How do we know he wasn’t referring to State alone? I personally suspect it was Mills and Bill McDonough, who has been O’Destroyer’s puppet since 2007: (apologies for the direct wiki-lift)
His main gig was NSC head of Strategic Communication (liar’s liar). He has been in charge of making stuff up for Obama since the old days, and got the WH Chief of Staff job when Lew left in the middle of the night for his good work and for his silence.
He lives right under Obama’s desk, and he’s subject to subpoena, I’ll bet.
Having said that, context is needed for Petreus’ comment. There’s nothing there that says it was the White House. He could simply have meant State in the plural sense. More from Petreaus, please.
winoceros on May 12, 2013 at 7:21 PM
It’s not like Watergate……I mean nobody died in Watergate right?
PappyD61 on May 12, 2013 at 7:24 PM
Oh Lord…Denis McDonough. Long day.
winoceros on May 12, 2013 at 7:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=urkBqOoL3n4
VorDaj on May 12, 2013 at 7:48 PM
We’ve tracked McDonough’s bootlicking Muslim outreach for years.
Here are some of my favorite Dhimmi McDonough moments:
Speaking with ISNA, preparing to receive them into the White House for a tour and a meeting with Obama. (Muslim Brotherhood in USA)
In his attempts to bring the Muslim vote [read: protection racket] from the local sycophantic level to a nationwide submission:
In March of 2011, he gives one of a billion patronizing tropes to a speech at the ADAMS Center, an organization devoted to pacifying faiths resistant to Muslim invasion.
Read the full remarks to understand the depths of slavishness that Obama’s throng of submissives willing engage in. It’s disgusting.
He’s used to following orders on even the most banal decisions.
The speech had already been written for the Muslim outreach event he was scheduled to speak at for the night of 9/12/12, and you can see they had to hurriedly insert remarks about the Benghazi attack, and he talks about the video, but doesn’t say it was a terrorist attack.
He was fingered for this back in January. There’s no way he’s not the one. This was a group that was used to working with each other as a unit focused on achieving the goals of the hive. They knew their words would be music to Obama’s ears.
winoceros on May 12, 2013 at 8:41 PM
Benghazi is just the tip of the iceberg. Essentially the same thing happened to 30 US soldiers including US Navy SEALS. Please research the Extortion 17 helicopter shoot down in Afghanistan. There is at least one video that runs 3 hours and features family members of those US Navy SEALS killed. I will apologize to the moderator and all those I might offend here. I wouldn’t pizz on Obama’s ass if it was on fire. This sweet old boy and his whole damned corrupt administration needs to be impeached. My anger over what took place at Benghazi was amplified 10 fold when I found this video at YouTube. Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqtJrJ40Cio&hd=1
hamradio on May 12, 2013 at 10:01 PM
You’re more and more lame.
itsspideyman on May 12, 2013 at 10:22 PM
.
Yes it is, Pappy’ !
Thanks for sharing that. : )
listens2glenn on May 12, 2013 at 10:48 PM
Douglas Macgregor (retired Army colonel and author of “Breaking the Phalanx): “Petraeus is a remarkable piece of fiction created and promoted by neocons in government, the media and academia, How does an officer with no personal experience of direct fire combat in Panama or Desert Storm become a division CDR in 2003, a man who for 35 years shamelessly reinforced whatever dumb idea his superiors advanced regardless of its impact on soldiers, let alone the nation, a man who served repeatedly as a sycophantic aide-de-camp, military assistant and executive officer to four stars get so far?
How does the same man who balked at closing with and destroying the enemy in 2003 in front of Baghdad agree to sacrifice more than a thousand American lives and destroy thousands of others installing Iranian national power in Baghdad with a surge that many in and out of uniform warned against? Then, how does this same man repeat the self-defeating tactics one more time in Afghanistan? The answer is simple: Petraeus was always a useful fool in the Leninist sense for his political superiors and that is precisely how history will judge him.”
VorDaj on May 13, 2013 at 2:35 AM
This troll is either stupid or has big balls.
Your president has wasted the entire time since it occurred. A story about a spontaneous demonstration. A lie about an online video. All to cover a failure to respond. All because they couldn’t admit we were still targets of terrorism.
smoothsailing on May 13, 2013 at 7:38 AM
Too funny. I guess when you have nothing but lies and incompetence, you resort to this kind of pathetic defense.
Monkeytoe on May 13, 2013 at 8:02 AM
I’m no fan of Patreaus, but what does this mean? The surge was unsuccessful? It was self-defeating?
And, I don’t think you can blame Patreaus for “installing Iranian national power in Baghdad” to the extent that is what happened. Policy regarding Iraq and what to do with it after Saddam was made by civilian leadership, not the military.
And, I would guess that 80% of generals, if not more, fit the description of Patreaus. One doesn’t rise to the rank of general without being a politician. They system isn’t set up to reward “mavericks” who buck superiors and don’t play nice with others. You don’t become a general by arguing with your superiors and refusing orders.
Monkeytoe on May 13, 2013 at 8:12 AM
If Patreaus thought they were “useless” he should have said so back THEN.
He has no honor.
mmcnamer1 on May 13, 2013 at 7:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4