We must continue spending to supply our military with Tomahawk missiles, says … Rand Paul?

posted at 8:01 pm on March 25, 2014 by Allahpundit

This ain’t your daddy’s libertarian. More to the point, this ain’t his daddy’s libertarian.

First he went after Ted Cruz for trying to characterize him as a dove, now this. By the end of the year, he and McCain will be holding joint filibusters on the Senate floor demanding that America build the biggest nuclear bomb evah. Rand Paul, hawk?

In the current budget, the Obama Administration called for the elimination of the Tomahawk missile. This missile protects our troops and allows us to avoid much direct person-to-person combat. Our navy has depended heavily on them…

Nobody wants to cut spending, including Pentagon waste and abuse, more than me. I agree with former Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen who has said that the greatest threat to our national security is the national debt.

But I don’t want to cut weapons that have been integral to maintaining a strong military…

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has identified nearly $70 billion in waste–everything from studying flying dinosaurs to making beef jerky–that somehow qualifies as Department of Defense spending. The $128 million President Obama plans to cut next year from the Tomahawk program could easily be replaced by cutting some of this $70 billion we are wasting right now…

America should be a country that is always reluctant to go to war and that only goes to war constitutionally through a declaration by Congress. But if the time comes when our security or interests are threatened, the United States must always be ready to fight and win, decisively and quickly.

I’d pay cash money to watch him and Ron debate defense. They could make it happen at any time on Fox News; presumably Rand, who’s peevish about being pressed by the media on his father’s views (isn’t he the same guy who’s constantly bringing up Bill Clinton’s sins as an indirect attack on Hillary?), has decided that that’s too risky. There are potential benefits in doing it — there’s no better way to draw a contrast with Paul 1.0 than by challenging him in front of a camera — but holding on to Ron’s libertarian base (especially in Iowa) is a core part of his strategy. The contrast helps him with grassroots conservatives but hurts him potentially with old-school Paulites, which is why today’s Tomahawk op-ed ran at Breitbart rather than Reason. And a joint appearance opens each of them up to awkward questions. Would Ron be comfortable with Rand as commander-in-chief knowing that he’s taken a line on Russia after the Crimean invasion that’s basically as hawkish as any other prominent Republican’s? Would Rand feel comfortable with a commander-in-chief like Ron who’s willing to look the other way at Russian interventionism and defend an obviously crooked Crimean referendum? Does Ron agree that Tomahawks are a vital defense measure worth protecting or are they just another enticement to “warmongering”? There must be some derivative of the “starve the beast” approach among isolationist libertarians that says it’s better to have fewer weapons lying around lest the Pentagon be tempted to use them abroad. How about that idea, Rand?

But maybe I’m overestimating Rand’s fear of alienating the Ron Paul voters of 2012. Could be that there are more hawks (or moderate hawks) among them than we think and that those differences with doves were papered over in the name of advancing Ron’s candidacy. Now he’s retired and Rand’s the man so the hawks can assert themselves a bit more. This statement yesterday by one of the founders of Students for Liberty condemning Ron’s approach to Russia caught my eye as a reminder that libertarians aren’t uniform on foreign policy. They have their centrists and hardliners too, like any political movement, and Rand’s emergence as a more hawkish mainstream candidate may be emboldening some of the centrists to speak up. He talks a lot about needing to change the Republican Party but maybe he’s changing some parts of Paulworld too. Or maybe they’re going to turn on him viciously now that he’s extolling the virtues of missiles at the top of Breitbart. They don’t call him the most interesting man in the Senate for nothing!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

To be fair, costs alot less to launch a flock of Tomahawks than send in hundreds of troops.

Zaggs on March 25, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Will we see Rand Paul clicking his handlebar bell as he rides his bike in sissy clothing…?

Electrongod on March 25, 2014 at 8:08 PM

National defense is an actual constitutional duty. Dear Liar getting rid of these effective missiles is proof of his anti-Americanism

But hey surfer dude has to have food stamps to work on his music rather than work.

rbj on March 25, 2014 at 8:08 PM

You know, this might actually pique my interest if it wasn’t such a transparent attempt to distance himself from his father.

gryphon202 on March 25, 2014 at 8:10 PM

AP, sometimes I question your intelligence – or rather, your simplicity. “Libertarian” does not equal “isolationist.” “Strong defense” does not equal “nation building.” “Protecting America’s interests” does not equal “boots on the ground.”

Rand is promoting a prudent, pragmatic, strong American foreign policy. This should have started with a missile defense shield for our NATO allies, which he supports deploying, and should definitely include Tomahawk missiles and other strong deterrents.

It’s almost as if you believe that possessing firearms means you want to shoot people, not that you want to deter others from shooting you, or your friends and family.

John McCain never seen a deployment he didn’t support. Rand Paul is no John McCain.

notropis on March 25, 2014 at 8:11 PM

This is a promising sign. Rand’s foreign policy is still an utter mystery to me, maybe even to him. But Putin is changing people’s minds.

John the Libertarian on March 25, 2014 at 8:11 PM

“seen” = “saw”

But McCain never seen one, either :-/

notropis on March 25, 2014 at 8:12 PM

To be fair, costs alot less to launch a flock of Tomahawks than send in hundreds of troops.

Zaggs on March 25, 2014 at 8:03 PM

To be even more fair, we could probably buy hundreds of Tomahawks for the cost of just one vacation for the 0bama family. And how many vacations do they take every year?

UltimateBob on March 25, 2014 at 8:13 PM

or rather, your simplicity

notropis on March 25, 2014 at 8:11 PM

Hey, it’s a HUGE step forward from people like astonerii, who smear all libertarians as engaging in furious ghey sex on heroin.

John the Libertarian on March 25, 2014 at 8:14 PM

John the Libertarian on March 25, 2014 at 8:14 PM

I know. I don’t do ghey sex…. ;-)

(NTTAWWT)

notropis on March 25, 2014 at 8:17 PM

waste–everything from studying flying dinosaurs to making beef jerky

I’m going to bet that’s really about improving next-generation drones and MREs, respectively. Bombers need to fly and soldiers need to eat, so let’s not use semantic tricks in place of actual cost-benefit analysis of programs in order to determine what’s waste and what’s not.

calbear on March 25, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Rand Paul is also willing to side with the establishment and support illegal alien amnesty.

VIDEO: Rand Paul shows his contempt for amnesty opponents:
http://youtu.be/pxQjlS7JwMo

Sorry, but I’ll take Cruz any day over Rand Paul.

I wouldn’t feel very enthusiastic about working to help elect Rand if he got the nomination, but I would be VERY enthusiastic about a Cruz candidacy.

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:18 PM

isn’t he the same guy who’s constantly bringing up Bill Clinton’s sins as an indirect attack on Hillary?

I don’t understand this .
Has Rand ever been an enabler and enforcer of his daddy’s perversion ?
Has Rand ever destroyed the lives of women who his daddy
sexually harassed ?

burrata on March 25, 2014 at 8:20 PM

But if the time comes when our security or interests are threatened, the United States must always be ready to fight and win, decisively and quickly.

Well we do have a 70 year old weapon that takes care of that, but somehow we declared it too immoral to use.

nobar on March 25, 2014 at 8:21 PM

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Of course, you also support federal agents reading our email and listening to our phone conversations. Thank God Cruz doesn’t share those views with you.

Cruz is also, sadly, completely unelectable, but if he’s the nominee, I’ll do my damnedest to prove myself wrong.

If Paul’s the nominee, what will you do?

notropis on March 25, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Rand Paul would create 10 to 20 million net new Democratic voters with his amnesty ideals. I do not care if he is 100% perfect on every other aspect of conservatism, which he is far from, but even if his amnesty position disqualifies him as a potential President.

astonerii on March 25, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Yeah sure Rand.

Wigglesworth on March 25, 2014 at 8:23 PM

How does it go…….si vis pacem parabellum

8 weight on March 25, 2014 at 8:23 PM

This ain’t your daddy’s libertarian. More to the point, this ain’t his daddy’s libertarian.

Much as I like Rand Paul (seems to be a decent sort for a politician)…He’ll never win a general because of his Daddy….Unless he gags and ties his Daddy up on some isolated farm somewhere

There I said it.

workingclass artist on March 25, 2014 at 8:23 PM

burrata on March 25, 2014 at 8:20 PM

Well said.

notropis on March 25, 2014 at 8:23 PM

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

What’s interesting is that there is a basis for the Federal govt in protecting the US. General welfare of the US is protecting our interests.
It really isn’t hard to understand.
There’s nothing mysterious about any of this meaning here.

Badger40 on March 25, 2014 at 8:25 PM

What’s the point of tomahawks if you don’t have an Air Force or Navy?

The way thing are going, you’ll be down to slingshots soon.

OldEnglish on March 25, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Mo money for the Military Industrial Complex. He’s becoming more and indistinguishable from mainstream conservatives.

I’d pay cash money to watch him and Ron debate defense

I would pay cash money to watch AP continue to justify the US $1T war machine when $8.5T is unaccounted for.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Rand has a way of bringing out the ignorant fool in Obama doesn’t he….

tractah on March 25, 2014 at 8:27 PM

OT…But encouraging…

78% Favor Proof of Citizenship Before Being Allowed to Vote

“A federal judge last week upheld the right of states to require proof of citizenship before allowing someone to register to vote. Voters continue to overwhelmingly support such a requirement.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 78% of Likely U.S. Voters believe everyone should be required to prove his or her citizenship before being allowed to register to vote. That’s up from 71% a year ago. Just 19% oppose that requirement. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2014/78_favor_proof_of_citizenship_before_being_allowed_to_vote

workingclass artist on March 25, 2014 at 8:28 PM

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 8:26 PM

It is difficult to plough a field without a tractor.

OldEnglish on March 25, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Explain to me again why conservatives should prefer Rand Paul to Ted Cruz?

Rand Paul is for amnesty, goes out of his way to support establishment candidates and says we should surrender on social issues.

If you want an establishment-friendly amnesty squish, you might as well go for a tested governor like Walker, who is also open to a special pathway to mass legalization for illegal aliens.

However, I greatly prefer Cruz. I so hope he runs. Cruz would demolish not-ready-for-primetime Rand in the primaries.

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:30 PM

My estimation of Rand Paul’s position on foreign affairs is that it’s a lot like mine. Foreign dalliances require the following conditions to be met:

1. Do we have a strategic interest there, and in the outcome?
2. If we ‘engage’, what is the goal?
3. Is that goal achievable?
4. What is the plan to achieve that goal?
5. What is the plan for AFTER the goal has been achieved?
6. Do the American people support it.

In short, no more American blood is spilled without a damn good reason.

It follows then that when we DO decide to engage we must have the capacity to do so.

AtTheRubicon on March 25, 2014 at 8:31 PM

I’m betting that a core component of the Tomahawk brings money into the state of Kentucky.

ButterflyDragon on March 25, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Both China and Russia have stepped up efforts to upgrade their navies.

“China to have nuclear missiles on subs soon: US admiral”

http://news.yahoo.com/china-nuclear-missiles-subs-soon-us-admiral-174708006.html;_ylt=AwrBEiTSxzFT7QYAZ_vQtDMD

Our Navy seems pre-occupied with building a ship that runs on Poop…

workingclass artist on March 25, 2014 at 8:32 PM

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Spot on

UltimateBob on March 25, 2014 at 8:32 PM

blink on March 25, 2014 at 8:24 PM

No, I wasn’t and am not.

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Tactical Tomahawk – When you want the ‘message’ delivered with unmatched accuracy. A real attention getter.

Missilengr on March 25, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Explain to me again why conservatives should prefer Rand Paul to Ted Cruz?

Rand Paul is for amnesty, goes out of his way to support establishment candidates and says we should surrender on social issues.

If you want an establishment-friendly amnesty squish, you might as well go for a tested governor like Walker, who is also open to a special pathway to mass legalization for illegal aliens.

However, I greatly prefer Cruz. I so hope he runs. Cruz would demolish not-ready-for-primetime Rand in the primaries.

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:30 PM

I think an experienced successful conservative Governor is better than freshman senators….We have plenty of those.

workingclass artist on March 25, 2014 at 8:34 PM

You can’t have libertarianism without liberty.

You can’t keep liberty without guns.

I’m not a Rand P. fan, but I appreciate the way he has been taking it to obama.

davidk on March 25, 2014 at 8:35 PM

Mo money for the Military Industrial Complex. He’s becoming more and indistinguishable from mainstream conservatives.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 8:26 PM

And the more and more his base (guys like you) start to break away from supporting him…

thebrokenrattle on March 25, 2014 at 8:36 PM

notropis on March 25, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Not sure.

And who decides who is electable? Why don’t we select the candidate who best represents our views this time and who has demonstrated a willingness to actually fight and take the left head-on?

Why do you say Cruz is unelectable? But Rand is electable? That is all hogwash and you are letting others select our candidates for us.

With a sane electorate, Cruz would win in a landslide. Now, I understand the kind of voters we are dealing with, but at least someone like Cruz would fight like hell to win.

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:38 PM

I think an experienced successful conservative Governor is better than freshman senators….We have plenty of those.

workingclass artist on March 25, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Agreed. I really like Walker except for his amnesty position. That may be a deal-killer for me.

Kaffa on March 25, 2014 at 8:39 PM

I think an experienced successful conservative Governor is better than freshman senators….We have plenty of those.
workingclass artist on March 25, 2014 at 8:34 PM

And I think a conservative candidate who won’t cave on amnesty is best. I look forward to seeing who runs, but the amnesty issue is absolutely nonnegotiable.

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:41 PM

In the current budget, the Obama Administration called for the elimination of the Tomahawk missile. This missile protects our troops and allows us to avoid much direct person-to-person combat. Our navy has depended heavily on them…

Okay Rand, go the next step. Where exactly would those missiles be protecting the troops? Overseas as part of a policy of international engagement or on garrison duty in Detroit like your crazy daddy and (until recently) you were advocating.

Happy Nomad on March 25, 2014 at 8:44 PM

I can’t believe how many people have fallen for Rand Paul’s BS. He’ll say anything.

Connie on March 25, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Seems to me that the rise in the number of ‘hawks’ in the country is directly proportional to the militaristic shenanigans carried out by our erstwhile ‘enemies’. Tomahawks and drone missiles (ask O’ ’bout those) have served us well and should continue to do so. The few libs Rand may lose with his ‘hawkish’ noises will be counterbalanced by all the dopers that love him…

vnvet on March 25, 2014 at 8:44 PM

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:18 PM

…I’m glad you can make statements!…the hour glass is still running…you haven’t answered Duh’s several requests…to prove just one of them ….for a couple of days now!…don’t you think you have to back up any of your statements….or do you just like to keep prattling???

KOOLAID2 on March 25, 2014 at 8:50 PM

To be fair, costs alot less to launch a flock of Tomahawks than send in hundreds of troops.

Zaggs on March 25, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Billy-boy favored them for hitting camels in the butt and empty tents in the desert.

slickwillie2001 on March 25, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Sorry but I’m not buying what Rand is selling..:)

Dire Straits on March 25, 2014 at 8:51 PM

He says the right words. Has he voted that way too?

Lance Corvette on March 25, 2014 at 8:52 PM

And the more and more his base (guys like you) start to break away from supporting him…

thebrokenrattle on March 25, 2014 at 8:36 PM

You would think so. But there are a lot of, excuse the term, Paultards who are such followers of Ron that they will follow Rand off cliff because his last name is Paul.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Rand Paul has no real foreign policy or national security experience. He’s a first term Senator in his first electoral job. On balance, he’s less qualified for higher office than Hillary Clinton or the rat-eared wonder.

That’s not to say he’s a bad guy or as crazy as his daddy. But the GOP has others with more serious credentials who should be considered first.

Happy Nomad on March 25, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Allah – you need to differentiate Libertarian Left and Right.

L-Left is the Noam Chomsky faction, and the ass-clown who runs the Libertarian College whoevers. They’re the guys who have been pushing the hyper-Pro drugs/LGB social issues above all. As Rand suggested a few weeks ago, they’re more libertine bleeding into progressive.

L-Right is Rand and others who believe a much more wild west philosophy. Protect your own. Take care of what’s yours. Intervene as a last resort and do it with purpose. Patriot missles fit that description.

Ron is the bridge between the two because of his foreign policy views, not his social. Rand’s decided to invert that model with the NSA and jail time. Neither has changed their position on gay marriage or abortion, which is runs afoul of Liber-Left.

It’s better for Rand to stake out these positions. Not just as straight tactic, but because he can thread the logic.

budfox on March 25, 2014 at 8:59 PM

That’s not to say he’s a bad guy or as crazy as his daddy. But the GOP has others with more serious credentials who should be considered first.

Happy Nomad on March 25, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Who other than Cruz who is also a first termer?

sharrukin on March 25, 2014 at 9:00 PM

By the end of the year, he and McCain will be holding joint filibusters on the Senate floor demanding that America build the biggest nuclear bomb evah. Rand Paul, hawk?

McCain is on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood and Jabhat al Nusra. I don’t think Rand will be holding any joint filibusters with McInsane.

VorDaj on March 25, 2014 at 9:00 PM

1. Do we have a strategic interest there, and in the outcome?
2. If we ‘engage’, what is the goal?
3. Is that goal achievable?
4. What is the plan to achieve that goal?
5. What is the plan for AFTER the goal has been achieved?
6. Do the American people support it.

In short, no more American blood is spilled without a damn good reason.

It follows then that when we DO decide to engage we must have the capacity to do so.

AtTheRubicon on March 25, 2014 at 8:31 PM

This is the short version of Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy principles. McCain’s foreign policy principles are a short version of those of Adolf Hitler.

VorDaj on March 25, 2014 at 9:03 PM

And who decides who is electable?

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Cruz would demolish not-ready-for-primetime Rand

I guess you do….

notropis on March 25, 2014 at 9:06 PM

But the GOP has others with more serious credentials who should be considered first.

Happy Nomad on March 25, 2014 at 8:55 PM

I’m guessing you were in a coma for the 2012 election. I can’t think of another reason you would still believe credentials carry weight.

If resume = victory, we would be in the nadir of President McCain’s second term, or President Romney’s mid-term report. Hell, where was Pres nominee Gingrich? He was more qualified than anyone since Bush 41.

And Hillary?

Her qualifications to be Senator was her hubby, and she had to do it form the safest location possible. No qualifications to be a Presidential nominee, hence the tears when she started losing. And a blowout as State.

She’s the poster girl for failing upward.

budfox on March 25, 2014 at 9:07 PM

The demented George Bush’s foreign policy principles were based on his following beliefs.

“Islam brings hope and comfort to millions of people in my country, and to more than a billion people worldwide. Ramadan is also an occasion to remember that Islam gave birth to a rich civilization of learning that has benefited mankind. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It’s a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It’s a faith based upon love, not hate. Mohammad’s word has guided billions of believers across the centuries, and those believers built a culture of learning and literature and science. All the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements. The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship of one God, as revealed through The Holy Qur’an. It teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy, and peace. George W. Bush !!!

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.html

VorDaj on March 25, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Rand’s not a libertarian, or a conservative, or a moderate. He’s just a Teahadi, and a clueless schmuck.

BrianJ on March 25, 2014 at 9:10 PM

You would think so. But there are a lot of, excuse the term, Paultards who are such followers of Ron that they will follow Rand off cliff because his last name is Paul.

antifederalist on March 25, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Afraid so, but Im glad you’re stepping away.

thebrokenrattle on March 25, 2014 at 9:12 PM

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:38 PM

…just as I thought…you prattled ‘it’ again!

KOOLAID2 on March 25, 2014 at 9:14 PM

AP, sometimes I question your intelligence – or rather, your simplicity. “Libertarian” does not equal “isolationist.” “Strong defense” does not equal “nation building.” “Protecting America’s interests” does not equal “boots on the ground.”

Rand is promoting a prudent, pragmatic, strong American foreign policy. This should have started with a missile defense shield for our NATO allies, which he supports deploying, and should definitely include Tomahawk missiles and other strong deterrents.

It’s almost as if you believe that possessing firearms means you want to shoot people, not that you want to deter others from shooting you, or your friends and family.

John McCain never seen a deployment he didn’t support. Rand Paul is no John McCain.

notropis on March 25, 2014 at 8:11 PM

Good comeback to AP’s nonsense.

Amjean on March 25, 2014 at 9:20 PM

BrianJ on March 25, 2014 at 9:10 PM

And you are a troll.

notropis on March 25, 2014 at 9:20 PM

While I don’t think we need to spend more on defense I would not say that Rand is hawkish by wanting to. He is not advocating a more aggressive foreign policy. He is advocating more strength and preparedness to deter aggression.

I am with him in valuing deterrence and just feel that it can be achieved by reforming and better allocating money that we are already spending.

MJBrutus on March 25, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Rand’s not a libertarian, or a conservative, or a moderate. He’s just a Teahadi, and a clueless schmuck.

BrianJ on March 25, 2014 at 9:10 PM

Ladies and gentlement, Bandit13 is alive and well:

You don’t REALLY think a hard core socon like Paul

Bandit13 on November 6, 2013 at 9:01 PM

nobar on March 25, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Rand Paul is a smart guy.

rrpjr on March 25, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Explain to me again why conservatives should prefer Rand Paul to Ted Cruz?

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:30 PM

While Cruz is great in an interview, his speech delivery is pure melodrama.

It’s great for college debate because, as I can attest to, you’re given a position whether you believe in it or not. So you develop a trait to sell bullshite with conviction, hence why so many in debaters go into politics or be liawyers.

So outside interviews, Ted lacks sincerity. Same problem Paul Ryan had as veep, same problem Rubio brought on himself.

Sincerity is about trust, which is a gut instinct. Most people let their emotions override their instincts, hence 2012. Ted has to drop the closing argument shtick and lose the 50′s gel combover, or he can forget it.

budfox on March 25, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Tomorrow he’ll be say’n “They Hate Us For Our Freedom”

roflmmfao

donabernathy on March 25, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Explain to me again why conservatives should prefer Rand Paul to Ted Cruz?

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:30 PM

For the same reason conservatives should prefer Rand to Krusty.

MJBrutus on March 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Rand doesn’t know anything except that whatever the black man is for, he’s against it. Between his constantly changing attitudes on foreign policy, his social conservatism, and his obvious lack of knowledge on any subject (there’s a reason he’s known as Senator Wikipedia), he has no real credentials. He regularly lets himself get humiliated by college underclassmen when he demonstrates his lack of knowledge, so I can’t really give him any credit for going to Howard and Berkeley.

If the GOP had real leaders, they’d tell Randy Rand to sit down, shut up and listen until he’s absorbed enough information to fill a post-it note. Say, ten or fifteen years.

Of course, he’s still light-years ahead of Rafael “BURN THE WORLD!” Cruz.

BrianJ on March 25, 2014 at 9:28 PM

BrianJ on March 25, 2014 at 9:10 PM

And you are a troll.

notropis on March 25, 2014 at 9:20 PM

…BJ has been sucking on it…since he first came in!

KOOLAID2 on March 25, 2014 at 9:28 PM

While Cruz is great in an interview, his speech delivery is pure melodrama.

budfox on March 25, 2014 at 9:24 PM

He’s really not that great in an interview setting either. I’ve seen him do serious interviews, and also lighthearted ones like the one with Leno. Sometimes, it’s almost more painful to watch. Even Romney has more of a personality than Cruz.

Gimme Rand over Cruz any day.

GOPRanknFile on March 25, 2014 at 9:30 PM

his social conservatism
BrianJ on March 25, 2014 at 9:28 PM

And that’s a confirmed sockpuppet. Banhammer is in order.

nobar on March 25, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Racism from the fever swamp. I don’t understand why the hosts put up with this degenerate moron Brianj. Totally worthless.

Murphy9 on March 25, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Because they know I’m right. Senators Cornyn (weren’t you Teahadis going to blow him up?) and Kirk just said so. We’re tired of people like you claiming to be conservatives or Republicans.

And I’m pretty sure the moderators agree with me, not you.

And I’ve never used any other login name. You know it. So atop your other failings, you’re a liar. You should be banned for howling hatred at your betters.

BrianJ on March 25, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Commit suicide first, Rafael, than maybe we can take you seriously.

BrianJ on March 11, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Bonus bannable material.

nobar on March 25, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Rand Paul getting smarter by the minute.

And again with injecting Ted Cruz into every single rand Paul post. Lol hot air is turning Ted Cruz into a rand Paul parasite. Lol. It’s not a good place to be.

coolrepublica on March 25, 2014 at 9:34 PM

Well, I was always a conservatarian. I don’t know how Reason will react to this.

But, okay, it’s defensible. What did Reagan do? Kept us out of wars. How useful has the Tomahawk been? Hard to call that weapons system a boondoggle. This isn’t the Crusader.

Obviously Rand is getting serious about the GOP primaries, which I’m starting to think he may actually win.

TallDave on March 25, 2014 at 9:38 PM

He hasn’t a prayer, TallDave. The first vaguely hostile question finishes him.

BrianJ on March 25, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Explain to me again why conservatives should prefer Rand Paul to Ted Cruz?

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:30 PM

I can’t speak for everyone, but I like rand Paul better because every time I hear Ted Cruz speak he reminds me of every backstabbing, showboater, name dropper, out for himself men I have ever met. Literally, there was a time when I heard him open his mouth I got PTSD. Now I am cured, I just remind myself that mist people can see through his bs. The short version, he doesn’t have a trust worthy face.

coolrepublica on March 25, 2014 at 9:40 PM

And I’ve never used any other login name. You know it. So atop your other failings, you’re a liar. You should be banned for howling hatred at your betters.

BrianJ on March 25, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Commit suicide first, Rafael, than maybe we can take you seriously.

BrianJ on March 11, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Nicely done (lets also not forget the countless “Teahadis”). But as long as you claim not to be bandit, you’ll be happy to tell us how exactly Rand Paul is a social conservative.

nobar on March 25, 2014 at 9:44 PM

The interventionist or Wilsonian faction within the conservatives obviously are going to try and paint Paul as weak on defense. So he has to show that he is supporting the various weapons systems required to defend the country. He has to really stay on top of this argument.

cimbri on March 25, 2014 at 9:47 PM

BrianJ,

You must be thinking of a Rand Paul that doesn’t already get intense criticism, and isn’t a Tea Partier.

TallDave on March 25, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Oops sorry, I inadvertently spilled troll food on the thread. Apologies!

BTW I disagreed with about 99% of Jesse Walker’s Iraq coverage, so his evenhanded take is interesting.

TallDave on March 25, 2014 at 9:52 PM

Look the real policy debate is not so much do we need a strong military or not, but what kind of strong military?

One view says the military is wasting a lot of money (like every other government run program) and we need to cut all the non-essential stuff the military has managed to get into.

Also it is almost impossible historically for any country to maintain both the biggest and strongest army and navy at the same time for an extended period of time. The British never did when they were in their prime as an empire. The reason is it will bankrupt you. The argument goes (and I agree with that argument) that considering our geographical location as a country we need to put an emphasis on the navy and air force, and ensure that we have the biggest and best.

The army should be cut to something more reasonable. The reason is armies can be built fairly fast. This is due to the fact they are not as technologically sophisticated. In other words it is easier to design lots of tanks and build them, than it is to design and build warships and warplanes. Maintaining big armies eats up lots of money that could be used for next generation weapon systems. Also politicians have a bad habit of using those big armies for costly nation building and peacekeeping missions the U.S. has no business getting involved in, like the Balkans and the Middle East.

I suspect Paul pointing out that the tomahawk program is mostly supported by the Navy and Air Force means that he probably subscribes to this view as well.

William Eaton on March 25, 2014 at 9:55 PM

I guess we’ll never know how Rand is a socon.

nobar on March 25, 2014 at 9:57 PM

BrianJ on March 25, 2014 at 9:10 PM

Oh lookie here, the nitwit BrianJ and hit “Teahadi” circus.

captnjoe on March 25, 2014 at 10:00 PM

hit his

captnjoe on March 25, 2014 at 10:00 PM

I don’t see anything wrong in his viewpoint… Equating him to his dad’s views is pure nonsense. Good blend of libertaniarism with conservatism is what he is doing… Anything wrong with that??

vr2014 on March 25, 2014 at 10:03 PM

He’s really not that great in an interview setting either. I’ve seen him do serious interviews, and also lighthearted ones like the one with Leno. Sometimes, it’s almost more painful to watch. Even Romney has more of a personality than Cruz.

Gimme Rand over Cruz any day.

GOPRanknFile on March 25, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Yes, because it is all about coolness and likeability and style. Hows that articulate black man working out for you?

This country does not need a prom king, it needs an intelligent leader who follows the Constitution.

captnjoe on March 25, 2014 at 10:06 PM

The FUDpuppies are going to be prohibitively irritating this election cycle…

Murphy9 on March 25, 2014 at 10:14 PM

The interventionist or Wilsonian faction within the conservatives obviously are going to try and paint Paul as weak on defense. So he has to show that he is supporting the various weapons systems required to defend the country. He has to really stay on top of this argument.

cimbri on March 25, 2014 at 9:47 PM

Basically I think most conservatives, and most Americans for that matter, would prefer more of a Jacksonian foreign policy. Which is don’t go looking for a war, but when you do fight them…make them decisive and quick (even if extremely violent) as possible.

Walter Russell Mead describes Jacksonians below…

Then finally, you’ve got a group called the Jacksonians, for Andrew Jackson. One way I describe them is to talk about an incident in American history that illustrates a lot of that school’s values. When Andrew Jackson was a general in 1818, he was fighting a war against the Creek Indians in Georgia. Because Florida at the time was still under Spanish rule and there were two Englishmen in Florida selling arms to the Indians, who were then attacking U.S. forces in Georgia. Jackson took the U.S. Army across the international frontier into Spanish territory without any permissions or any U.N. resolutions. He went in there, arrested the two Brits, brought them back to the United States, tried them before a military tribunal and hanged them. And this did cause outrage in Europe. They said “These people have no respect for international law.” But it made Jackson so popular in the U.S. that his election to the presidency was just a matter of time after 1818. [The idea is]: “Don’t bother with people abroad, unless they bother you. But if they attack you, then do everything you can.”

So in the 1930s, Hitler takes over Paris; we don’t move an inch. He starts exterminating the Jews; we don’t move an inch. Japan is [carrying out aggression] all over Asia. And on December 6, 1941, any opinion poll in the country would have said that most Americans wanted to stay out of World War II. Then December 7th, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and suddenly the polls change. Jacksonians: when somebody attacks the hive, you come swarming out of the hive and you sting them to death. And Jacksonians, when it comes to war, don’t believe in limited wars. They don’t believe, particularly, in the laws of war. War is about fighting, killing, and winning with as few casualties as possible on your side. But you don’t worry about casualties on the other side. That’s their problem. They shouldn’t have started the war if they didn’t want casualties.

For more read here.

That pretty much sums up my views as well..

William Eaton on March 25, 2014 at 10:18 PM

Stupid article by AP that assumes that Ron Paul would automatically be against Tomahawk missiles. Some of you people (some intentionally) misinterpret Ron’s anti-interventionism as wanting no defense spending whatsoever. But therein lies the difference…DEFENSE. Not starting Trillion $ wars all over the place.

Of course Ron’s always said this very thing. He has acknowledged that one of the few Constitutional powers conferred on the federal government is defense. He just doesn’t see pre-emptive wars overseas as having anything to do with national defense. Somehow, that means that he wants NO defense.

iwasbornwithit on March 25, 2014 at 10:20 PM

Yes, because it is all about coolness and likeability and style. Hows that articulate black man working out for you?

This country does not need a prom king, it needs an intelligent leader who follows the Constitution.

captnjoe on March 25, 2014 at 10:06 PM

I’m not so naive as to believe that one can win without having an iota of personality. Your straw-man argument is of no use to me. Did I once say that you only need a personality? It’s possible to be an intelligent leader who follows the Constitution and still have a personality.

It’s not like Rand “is all about coolness” either, but I did say that I would take him over Cruz. Reagan won for many reasons, but his personality was a major reason why.

GOPRanknFile on March 25, 2014 at 10:27 PM

If you want an establishment-friendly amnesty squish, you might as well go for a tested governor like Walker, who is also open to a special pathway to mass legalization for illegal aliens.

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:30 PM

Bannon noted that “Amnesty is about the sovereignty of the country.” But, he asked Walker, “the Washington Post said earlier that you’re pro-pathway to citizenship.”

“See now that’s where they take it out of context,” Walker said in response. “I’ve not said there should be amnesty in this country. I don’t believe that. I don’t support the legislation being kicked around. What I’ve said repeatedly is we need to fix the immigration system, but fix the legal system.” Source

When it comes to immigration reform, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has made it abundantly clear what he opposes: giving citizenship to people who broke the law to come here.

What has not been as evident is what he supports: legal status for millions of people here already, while making it easier for immigrants to come here through the front door.

“I have said many times that I want to see common-sense immigration reform pass,” he said. “I think most Americans want to see the problem fixed.” Source

#WAR

Flora Duh on March 25, 2014 at 10:45 PM

This story is obviously getting pushed.

What they don’t mention is the money being invested in much better successors to the older weapons.

lexhamfox on March 25, 2014 at 11:04 PM

Then finally, you’ve got a group called the Jacksonians, for Andrew Jackson. One way I describe them is to talk about an incident in American history that illustrates a lot of that school’s values. When Andrew Jackson was a general in 1818, he was fighting a war against the Creek Indians in Georgia. Because Florida at the time was still under Spanish rule and there were two Englishmen in Florida selling arms to the Indians, who were then attacking U.S. forces in Georgia. Jackson took the U.S. Army across the international frontier into Spanish territory without any permissions or any U.N. resolutions. He went in there, arrested the two Brits, brought them back to the United States, tried them before a military tribunal and hanged them. And this did cause outrage in Europe. They said “These people have no respect for international law.” But it made Jackson so popular in the U.S. that his election to the presidency was just a matter of time after 1818. [The idea is]: “Don’t bother with people abroad, unless they bother you. But if they attack you, then do everything you can.”

So in the 1930s, Hitler takes over Paris; we don’t move an inch. He starts exterminating the Jews; we don’t move an inch. Japan is [carrying out aggression] all over Asia. And on December 6, 1941, any opinion poll in the country would have said that most Americans wanted to stay out of World War II. Then December 7th, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and suddenly the polls change. Jacksonians: when somebody attacks the hive, you come swarming out of the hive and you sting them to death. And Jacksonians, when it comes to war, don’t believe in limited wars. They don’t believe, particularly, in the laws of war. War is about fighting, killing, and winning with as few casualties as possible on your side. But you don’t worry about casualties on the other side. That’s their problem. They shouldn’t have started the war if they didn’t want casualties.

For more read here.

That pretty much sums up my views as well..

William Eaton on March 25, 2014 at 10:18 PM

Hmm..that means I’m at least part…Jacksonian.

Thanks for the history lesson and a prudent path of pragmatic pro-America points.

KirknBurker on March 25, 2014 at 11:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2