Hawkish GOP donors to Time mag: We’ll stop Rand Paul in the primaries

posted at 3:21 pm on March 31, 2014 by Allahpundit

Nothing surprising here but the quotes are oh so tasty. Including one that comes, secondhand, from Paul himself.

Is that what the last month of Russia-bashing and Tomahawk-praising was all about? Is Rand … “evolving” on foreign policy?

The [Republican Jewish Coalition] conference brings together some of the biggest names — and wallets — in Republican politics, most notably billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. At a private dinner for VIP donors in an Adelson-owned aircraft hangar holding one of his pair of Boeing 747s, Bush was asked about the growing isolationist wing of the Republican Party and replied there was no such thing — effectively casting Paul out of the fold, according to attendees…

Rand Paul has told top GOP donors that he is “evolving” on foreign policy, particularly when it comes to his positions on Israel, according to several people who have had conversations with him. In recent months he has toned down his opposition to foreign aid — a red flag for most at the RJC — replacing it with a call to end foreign aid to countries that are unfriendly to the U.S. He has also increased his outreach to prominent pro-Israel and neoconservative thinkers and donors to show he is interested in having a dialogue. The U.S. gives more than $3 billion in foreign aid to Israel every year, almost entirely in the form of grants for Israel’s military and defense services…

On the margins of the conference, where attendees heard from four potential 2016 candidates who advocated for a strong American foreign policy and support for Israel, five donors huddled with a reporter pledged to reach into their deep pockets to ensure Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination.

“The best thing that could happen is Ted Cruz and Rand Paul run and steal each other’s support,” says one of the donors, “but if not, we’ll be ready to take Paul down.”

Adelson is expected to spend untold millions against Paul in the primaries. Those millions didn’t help Newt stop Romney two years ago, but Romney’s team had more financial firepower than Rand’s will to fight back. Rand will try to fight back in a different way: Since his candidacy will be framed as an insurgency against the establishment, he can point to big donors on the other side as a vindication of his “me against the fatcats” populist message. How do you beam that message out to undecided low-information “somewhat conservative” voters, though, when TV and the Internet are full of “Paul will sell out Israel!” attack ads from the other side? As much as I think a Paul run will be fascinating, I worry that we’re going to end up with one of two outcomes. Either he wins the nomination despite it all and some crucial core of GOP hawks, having been convinced that he’s his father’s son on foreign policy, crosses the aisle for Hillary or he loses the nomination and his libertarian base, disgruntled over the attacks on him, decides to stay home. Makes me wonder if Rand is destined to end up on the ticket as VP even if he doesn’t win, and whether that arrangement would be acceptable to anyone. How can a guy who’ll be attacked as a new Charles Lindbergh end up one heartbeat away with the approval of his critics?

The only way to save this marriage, as I said last week, is for Rand to convince his enemies that he’d be acceptable as nominee even if they end up supporting someone else in the primaries. Sounds like that’s … not working out so far. Gulp. Here he is in a video shot two years ago and showcased this weekend by Jen Rubin warning about the perils of different approaches on Iran. Rubin treats his point near the end as Paul “blaming” the U.S. partially for World War II. I think he’s saying merely that sanctions are a form of escalation which can lead to war. If you want to knock him for something about this vid, knock him for the fact that he seems to believe (albeit without explicitly saying so) that war is the absolute worst-case nightmare scenario when it comes to Iran rather than the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran throwing its weight around the Middle East and beyond. We’ll have that debate next year, I guess.


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

Politicians gonna politic. Just don’t expect politicians to fix what politicians broke.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:25 PM

The elites against the citizenry.

vityas on March 31, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Sounds like that’s … not working out so far. Gulp. Here he is in a video shot two years ago and showcased this weekend by Jen Rubin warning about the perils of different approaches on Iran.

From the WaPo piece:

he minimizes the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapons, saying merely “It is not a good idea” and claims an Israeli official doesn’t think an Iranian bomb is an existential threat to Israel, something no Israeli government official or Obama administration appointee has ever agreed with:

Mossad chief: Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel

A nuclear-armed Iran wouldn’t necessarily constitute a threat to Israel’s continued existence, Mossad chief Tamir Pardo reportedly hinted earlier this week.

On Tuesday evening, Pardo addressed an audience of about 100 Israeli ambassadors. According to three ambassadors present at the briefing, the intelligence chief said that Israel was using various means to foil Iran’s nuclear program and would continue to do so, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean the destruction of the State of Israel.

Jen Rubin is a duplicitous, unpatriotic, verminous liar…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Principles vs Politics…
Principles vs Presidentin’…
Hmmm, what will win?

Marcola on March 31, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Jen Rubin is a duplicitous, unpatriotic, verminous liar…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:28 PM

But then again, anyone who questions Rand Paul’s movtives must necessarily be, amiright?/

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:30 PM

I hope the apple fell far from the tree, but I can never know for certain what is in his heart.

Raquel Pinkbullet on March 31, 2014 at 3:30 PM

How do you beam that message out to undecided low-information “somewhat conservative” voters, though, when TV and the Internet are full of “Paul will sell out Israel!” attack ads from the other side?

I don’t think Paul has to worry much about support on the internet.

Also, I don’t think anybody who would be open to Paul gives a rat’s behind about Jen Rubin.

Overall, this is just more proof that money runs politics and as long as donors feel they have this much influence the process will always be corrupt. Politicians changing their tune just because of a threat of donors leaving is a serious blow to our process (whatever is left of it, anyway).

JQA on March 31, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Again – will Rand Paul stay inside the GOP, and support it’s candidate if he loses – or if he feels “run off”?

jake-the-goose on March 31, 2014 at 3:31 PM

…TIME MAGAZINE!…there’s a Republican periodical tampon…with a monthly progressive periodic flow!

KOOLAID2 on March 31, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Well, Rand is going to have to carefully shape his foreign policy message from here on out. Same thing with the NSA. Carefully, Rand, carefully.

butch on March 31, 2014 at 3:32 PM

But then again, anyone who questions Rand Paul’s movtives must necessarily be, amiright?/

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Rubin made a statement of fact that is demonstrably untrue, and has done so in the past with people pointing out her innacuracy..

I repeat: Filthy, Verminous Liar…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:32 PM

obama scrooming the USA and Israel, in order to get any ‘glory’, along with horse Kerry.

Schadenfreude on March 31, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Rand Paul is squishy – and exudes weakness – he has made himself an easy target.

Pork-Chop on March 31, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Amusing how no ‘conservative’ here bats an eye that support for a foreign country (no matter how lovely and friendly) is the lynchpin for support for an American presidential nominee. Hehehe.

flawedskull on March 31, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Again – will Rand Paul stay inside the GOP, and support it’s candidate if he loses – or if he feels “run off”?

jake-the-goose on March 31, 2014 at 3:31 PM

And, once again, I point out that he supported the GOP’s candidate last time around, even while his father was (technically) still contesting the nomination.

Why would there be any doubt about him backing the nominee this time…?

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Personally, I wish these Establishment “Big Donor” Republicans who support people like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie and hope Ted Cruz and Rand Paul beat each other up in the primaries so their guy can win would just quit the GOP and become Democrats already. You know that’s what they really are.

We are quickly approaching the point where a divorce between the base and the Establishment GOP & its big money supporters. These elites better figure out which side their bread is buttered on, because they will ALL be out of power when that happens.

As I said, however, maybe they’d prefer that. They’re called “Democrat Lite” for a reason.

DRayRaven on March 31, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Either he wins the nomination despite it all and some crucial core of GOP hawks, having been convinced that he’s his father’s son on foreign policy, crosses the aisle for Hillary…

Hillary — and by extension, the Democrats — becoming the War Party would be wonderful.

Hillary is just John McCain in a pantsuit: Old, pasty, for sale, and ready for some serious nation-building.

Oh, and I can see Sheldon Adelson now at the DNC convention. You know, the same DNC convention that booed Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel back in 2012.

Seriously, the neoconservatives need to grow up and realize, like the rest of us do, that the country is somewhere else now and the GOP has to, er, evolve away from the disastrous Bush years.

The Supreme Court is at stake here, people.

Punchenko on March 31, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Interesting. So who would they support – Jeb Bush?

gophergirl on March 31, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Why would there be any doubt about him backing the nominee this time…?

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:34 PM

No doubt from me – just expressing a common concern – history aside

jake-the-goose on March 31, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Since when was “Invade the World” conservative foreign policy?

ConstantineXI on March 31, 2014 at 3:37 PM

But then again, anyone who questions Rand Paul’s movtives must necessarily be, amiright?/

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Rubin made a statement of fact that is demonstrably untrue, and has done so in the past with people pointing out her innacuracy..

I repeat: Filthy, Verminous Liar…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Jennifer Rubin isn’t the source of the information from which I derive my distaste of Rand Paul. But I’ll wait with bated breath for the day someone says something negative about Rand Paul and you’re there to say “That’s true, but…”

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:37 PM

I will never vote for ANYONE with the last name of Paul PERIOD.

Here is the deal, they are isolationists no matter how they try to spin it. The world abhors a vacuum of military power being projected globally. Free Trade does not really exist without a good global projection of military power.

This morning it was confirmed that American made modular skidded plant for ease of installation overseas, backed by Eastern European investors has been cancelled due Russia’s invasion of the Crimea.

I personally lose out now on a very small commission of the better part of $1 million. The U.S. loses out on the first of a potential series of $100 million in export of a finished product. I can almost guarantee that there are many more like this.

This is where those with Libertarian streak lose ALL of my support. I don’t mind their arguments on the floor of the House and Senate to temper things, but NEVER in the Whitehouse, NEVER.

Kermit on March 31, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Pro-amnesty Rand Paul should also be stopped by those of us who oppose illegal alien amnesty.

VIDEO: Watch Rand Paul show his utter contempt for amnesty opponents and those who believe immigration standards should be enforced:
http://youtu.be/pxQjlS7JwMo

There is no bigger issue than amnesty, since, eventually, it would irreversibly transform the electorate, affecting all other issues.

bluegill on March 31, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Ask Rand Paul what the capitol of Israel is.

Then go ask the other candidates for POTUS what the capital of Israel is.

Then tell me who stands with Israel…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:39 PM

We are quickly approaching the point where a divorce between the base and the Establishment GOP & its big money supporters. These elites better figure out which side their bread is buttered on, because they will ALL be out of power when that happens.

As I said, however, maybe they’d prefer that. They’re called “Democrat Lite” for a reason.

DRayRaven on March 31, 2014 at 3:34 PM

It’s not all the big $$$ donors and not all of the Establishment. It’s just the neoconservatives, like Jennifer Rubin or David Frum, who are being extremists and denouncing anyone who breaks away from their election-losing orthodoxy.

Punchenko on March 31, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Rand Paul can’t be as much of a danger to Israel as Obama.

crankyoldlady on March 31, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Here’s some video proof of what a scumbag Rand Paul is. But I’m sure this puts Caleb Howe squarely in “verminous liar” territory./

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Jen Rubin is a duplicitous, unpatriotic, verminous liar…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:28 PM

I don’t have an opinion on aid to Israel. It’s not much compared to the trillions we are throwing out to wall street and the rest of the R&Dem cronies. Also, theyare required to use the aid to buy American produced arms(I read).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_military_relations
In terms of total money received, Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of military assistance from the United States since World War II,[24] followed by Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, and Pakistan.[citation needed] However, between 2002 and 2011 Iraq and Afghanistan received a total of $64.4 billion and $60 billion respectively, placing Israel third with $30 billion of US foreign aid,[25] of which nearly 75% was used to purchase U.S. defense equipment from American companies.[26]

BUT I loathe j.rubin. She is definitely a fake. She seems to thrill in getting over on conservatives as the token “conservative” at WP. Sort of like all the fake conservatives that comment at HA.
She loves mcain.
And this is going to be mean of me and I’ll have to repent — but she looks and talks like a person with bad breath. I’m not kidding. I feel sure that her breath smells very bad.
I saw her once on TV. On the M.Kelly show. And was so obnoxious and her voice was so unbearable that even Kelly(no conservative) stopped calling on her.

BoxHead1 on March 31, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Kermit on March 31, 2014 at 3:37 PM

I’m sure there will be a “Republicans for Hillary!” bumper-sticker you can affix to your Prius, Kermit.

Punchenko on March 31, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Punchenko on March 31, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Without so called Neocons there is NO SUCH THING as Free Trade.

Kermit on March 31, 2014 at 3:43 PM

I like Rand Paul. I don’t think he is nutty like his father. He’s a libertarian though….and I’m not. So in the primaries I won’t vote for him but he makes to the general election…..I probably will.

terryannonline on March 31, 2014 at 3:43 PM

I’m sure there will be a “Republicans for Hillary!” bumper-sticker you can affix to your Prius, Kermit.

Punchenko on March 31, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Rand’s gotta make it through the primaries first. Can we discuss presidential politics after the 2014 midterms, please?

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:43 PM

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:43 PM

The nutter was getting a little punchy about his boy. He ain’t going to be nominated.

Kermit on March 31, 2014 at 3:44 PM

I like Rand Paul. I don’t think he is nutty like his father. He’s a libertarian though….and I’m not. So in the primaries I won’t vote for him but he makes to the general election…..I probably will.

terryannonline on March 31, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Perfectly reasonable position. More should follow your example.

jake-the-goose on March 31, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Here’s some video proof of what a scumbag Rand Paul is. But I’m sure this puts Caleb Howe squarely in “verminous liar” territory./
gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:41 PM

I don’t think you posted the link right. I am interested in seeing the video.

bluegill on March 31, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Jennifer Rubin isn’t the source of the information from which I derive my distaste of Rand Paul. But I’ll wait with bated breath for the day someone says something negative about Rand Paul and you’re there to say “That’s true, but…”

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:37 PM

By all appearances, the source of your distaste for Sen Paul is some convoluted belief that one can stand above politics while trying to solve political and policy problems, expressed in a credo approximately: “Politicians can’t fix what politicians broke”.

Which amounts to trying to take the politics out of politics.

So, I’ll wish you good luck in the priesthood, and remind you we are, or at least were, talking about a man looking to head up one of the two major political parties in the US. Which, by definition, is a role for a politician…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Free-enterpries zones hurt Rand more than most suspect.

nobar on March 31, 2014 at 3:46 PM

The nutter was getting a little punchy about his boy. He ain’t going to be nominated.

Kermit on March 31, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Everything Rand Paul has ever said in his life that might be even a little suspect will be used against him. Every effort to distance himself from Dear Ole Dad will be seen as an “evolution,” for better or for worse. I’m not ready to say that Rand won’t make it yet, but it’ll be a tough row to hoe.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:46 PM

I’m ok with them taking Rand out. Not for the reasons given, although I think they are good ones. His pro-amnesty open borders philosophy makes him destructive to conservatism.
10 to 20 million net new democrat voters on the rolls will keep conservatives out of national politics for generations if there will ever be a recovery.

Like everyone else, he thinks he can sell you the illegal aliens by claiming them as new tax payers. They already pay taxes, they just generally skip filing taxes. This is a good thing, they make little money, report even less, and in the end would be collecting huge payments in the form of refundable tax credits. They can claim all of their family members back in Mexico as dependents. All they have to do is say they pay for half or more of their living expenses. Mexico is one of the few countries you are allowed to do this. Imagine 5 or 10 years of back taxes for all the illegal immigrants in this nation. Imagine them getting back around $5000 for each of those years and then being eligible for even more with welfare. Now think about what Rand Paul means when he is telling you to imagine 11 million new tax payers. PAYERS?

astonerii on March 31, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Here’s some video proof of what a scumbag Rand Paul is. But I’m sure this puts Caleb Howe squarely in “verminous liar” territory./

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:41 PM

about:blank

Powerful stuff, right there…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Rand’s gotta make it through the primaries first. Can we discuss presidential politics after the 2014 midterms, please?

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:43 PM

And disappoint AP who went out of his way to lay out some Neocons Hate Rand Paul comment bait? I think not, sir. I think not. AP even went out of his way to dig out that fevered Jennifer Rubin hit-piece.

Punchenko on March 31, 2014 at 3:48 PM

By all appearances, the source of your distaste for Sen Paul is some convoluted belief that one can stand above politics while trying to solve political and policy problems, expressed in a credo approximately: “Politicians can’t fix what politicians broke”.

Which amounts to trying to take the politics out of politics.

So, I’ll wish you good luck in the priesthood, and remind you we are, or at least were, talking about a man looking to head up one of the two major political parties in the US. Which, by definition, is a role for a politician…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Are you kidding me?! I’ve been saying for months that politicians ain’t gonna fix what politicians broke, and I’m trying to take the politics out of politics?!

Look, if you wanna excuse Rand Paul for pretending to be something that he’s not because you want to see him in the White House that bad, be my guest. All your carping and moaning about the vetting process only makes you sound like a progressive whining about the “unfairness” of income inequality, and I really don’t think you’re going to win a lot of converts that way.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:50 PM

http://therightscoop.com/rand-paul-america-partly-to-blame-for-pearl-harbor-world-war-ii/

There we go. There’s your video proof of what a swell upstanding guy and all-around savvy politician Rand Paul is/

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:52 PM

…five donors huddled with a reporter pledged to reach into their deep pockets to ensure Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination.

“Is this a dagger I see before me, or are you just glad to see me?”

cbenoistd on March 31, 2014 at 3:53 PM

There isn’t a bigger establishment cheerleader than Jennifer Rubin. If I were a candidate for the Republican Primary, i’d work hard to get Jennifer Rubin on the other guys team.

You can be assured that whoever she is cheerleading for, we don’t want as our next Presidential candidate.

Baggi on March 31, 2014 at 3:54 PM

I personally lose out now on a very small commission of the better part of $1 million. The U.S. loses out on the first of a potential series of $100 million in export of a finished product. I can almost guarantee that there are many more like this.

This is where those with Libertarian streak lose ALL of my support. I don’t mind their arguments on the floor of the House and Senate to temper things, but NEVER in the Whitehouse, NEVER.

Kermit on March 31, 2014 at 3:37 PM

hahahhahaha….points for honesty.

You don’t give an F about what’s right or wrong, just what fills your bank account.

Holy shite..I’m still laughing..don’t vote for Paul. Please. Go vote for Hillary.

budfox on March 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Neocons Strike Again!

thebrokenrattle on March 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Are you kidding me?! I’ve been saying for months that politicians ain’t gonna fix what politicians broke, and I’m trying to take the politics out of politics?!

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Uh… yeah. That’s pretty much what that amounts to…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM

There isn’t a bigger establishment cheerleader than Jennifer Rubin. If I were a candidate for the Republican Primary, i’d work hard to get Jennifer Rubin on the other guys team.

You can be assured that whoever she is cheerleading for, we don’t want as our next Presidential candidate.

Baggi on March 31, 2014 at 3:54 PM

I’m not aware that she’s cheerleading for anyone, though one might reasonably suspect she thinks of Rand Paul as the guy to beat at this point.

I’m no Jennifer Rubin fan, but principles are far more important to me than who she likes or dislikes.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:56 PM

I love Rand Paul threads. Almost as fun as Rick Perry threads.

gophergirl on March 31, 2014 at 3:57 PM

“The best thing that could happen is Ted Cruz and Rand Paul run and steal each other’s support,” says one of the donors, “but if not, we’ll be ready to take Paul down.”

Oh, please. That quote is just total bullshit. I don’t believe for one second that “five donors huddled with a reporter,” and one of the “donors” gave that pitch perfect quote. I laughed out loud reading it. A high school journalism teacher would say, “Dude, you can’t just make shit up like this.”

But, yeah, let’s just take Time magazine’s word for it. They wouldn’t have an interest in anything but the truth, would they?

Rational Thought on March 31, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Uh… yeah. That’s pretty much what that amounts to…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Oh sure. You got me. My support for nullification and invoking Article V has everything to do with politics and nothing at all to do with my principles. I am soooooooooo busted./

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:57 PM

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:43 PM

The nutter was getting a little punchy about his boy. He ain’t going to be nominated.

Kermit on March 31, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Yup… probably not.

But then again, none of your watered-down has-been jackasses like Jeb Bush, Huckabee, Christie…you-name-it are going to win the presidency either.

McCain? lol…
Romney? derp…
Jeb? Hello Hillary!

nullrouted on March 31, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Who cares? AP, bring on the WD grumble thread. Dance, monkey, DANCE!

EricW on March 31, 2014 at 3:59 PM

hahahhahaha….points for honesty.

You don’t give an F about what’s right or wrong, just what fills your bank account.

Holy shite..I’m still laughing..don’t vote for Paul. Please. Go vote for Hillary.

budfox on March 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Are you telling me that you would vote against putting more money in your own pocket? Really?! That’s rather bizarre.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Are you telling me that you would vote against putting more money in your own pocket? Really?! That’s rather bizarre.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:59 PM

You enjoy taking blood money earned through the death of others?

astonerii on March 31, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Yup… probably not.

But then again, none of your watered-down has-been jackasses like Jeb Bush, Huckabee, Christie…you-name-it are going to win the presidency either.

McCain? lol…
Romney? derp…
Jeb? Hello Hillary!

nullrouted on March 31, 2014 at 3:58 PM

If that is true, and I’d say it certainly seems plausible, then that just speaks to how fundamentally broken the system is. We just go to the voting booth over and over and over, each time keeping our fingers crossed and doing little more than hoping for better results. And we get them so rarely, we’re happy for whatever crumbs the DC oligarchs throw our way before they go back to business as usual.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:02 PM

There isn’t a bigger establishment cheerleader than Jennifer Rubin. If I were a candidate for the Republican Primary, i’d work hard to get Jennifer Rubin on the other guys team.

You can be assured that whoever she is cheerleading for, we don’t want as our next Presidential candidate.

Baggi on March 31, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Hopefully we can get John McCain, Jennifer Rubin, David Frum, Elliot Abrams, etc. etc. to all deliver speeches for Hillary Clinton at the DNC.

Punchenko on March 31, 2014 at 4:02 PM

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:52 PM

There are times when sanctions have made it worse. I mean, there are times .. leading up to World War II we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily. We also had a blockade on Germany after World War I, which may have encouraged them … some of their anger.

Is there any doubt, any at all, that American sanctions on Japanese imports? Well, let’s see what The US Navy has to say on the matter:

Because Japan was poor in natural resources, its government viewed these steps, especially the embargo on oil as a threat to the nation’s survival. Japan’s leaders responded by resolving to seize the resource-rich territories of Southeast Asia, even though that move would certainly result in war with the United States.

Boy, those scumbags in the US Navy, agreeing with that scumbag, Sen Paul…

/hopefullyidontneedthesarctag

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Mission Accomplished, Time Magazine.

rhombus on March 31, 2014 at 4:03 PM

There we go. There’s your video proof of what a swell upstanding guy and all-around savvy politician Rand Paul is/

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Do you even understand that’s historically accurate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABCD_line

The Japanese political wing tried to secretly open talks through the Dutch and FDR wouldn’t hear it. The Imperial Army decided on its own to attack because Hirohito was a puppet.

We had starved their military of all major products to the point where they were rationing food oil to lubricate weapons.

FDR may have never thought Pearl Harbor was possible, but the old goat was more than anticipating a naval attack.

So yeah, Rand is right about sanctions propelling us into war with Japan. That was partly FDR’s damn motivation.

budfox on March 31, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Progressive GOP donors go to Progressive Time magazine to voice concerns about Rand Paul not being Progressive.

Shock.

Horror.

How about these Progressive Hawks making a case for their views, instead?

ajacksonian on March 31, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Are you telling me that you would vote against putting more money in your own pocket? Really?! That’s rather bizarre.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:59 PM

You enjoy taking blood money earned through the death of others?

astonerii on March 31, 2014 at 4:02 PM

I’m a conservative. “Greed” is not a dirty word to me. I’d love nothing more than to see the 16th amendment repealed, but not simply for the sake of my fellow Americans. If it’s legal and doesn’t violate my conscience, why the hell not think about the financial ramifications of my decisions (political and otherwise)?

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:05 PM

If that is true, and I’d say it certainly seems plausible, then that just speaks to how fundamentally broken the system is. We just go to the voting booth over and over and over, each time keeping our fingers crossed and doing little more than hoping for better results. And we get them so rarely, we’re happy for whatever crumbs the DC oligarchs throw our way before they go back to business as usual.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:02 PM

The problem started with FDR and the New Deal of course… but it’s really reached a fever pitch now with 21st century Democrats. They’ve figured out that you can just give each constituency you want to vote for you some subsidies, and you’re golden, 99% of the time. People like to talk about the GOP and their ‘corporate welfare’ subsidies to big oil, etc… but those costs pale in comparison to the countless transfer payments to individuals, which is something that primarily originates with Democrats.

The way I see it, the only way this cycle of Democrats ends, maybe not in 5 or even 10 years… but the only way it ends, is with the US dollar collapsing, and the country plunged into anarchy.

nullrouted on March 31, 2014 at 4:06 PM

My beliefs are close to what Mary Matalin said of herself: “Fiscal conservative, social libertarian, and defense hawk”. Rand Paul’s views on defense excludes him from my consideration as POTUS.

Kaffa on March 31, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Do you even understand that’s historically accurate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABCD_line

The Japanese political wing tried to secretly open talks through the Dutch and FDR wouldn’t hear it. The Imperial Army decided on its own to attack because Hirohito was a puppet.

We had starved their military of all major products to the point where they were rationing food oil to lubricate weapons.

FDR may have never thought Pearl Harbor was possible, but the old goat was more than anticipating a naval attack.

So yeah, Rand is right about sanctions propelling us into war with Japan. That was partly FDR’s damn motivation.

budfox on March 31, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Historically accurate or not, shit like that could torpedo any hope Rand Paul has of surviving presidential primaries.

I mean, it’s also technically true that the Treaty of Versailles greatly aided Hitler in inflaming the passions of the German people, though if not for Japan bombing American soil and Hitler directly threatening western Europe in the blitzkrieg, there would have been no cassus belli at all. But I noticed you glossed over that part of Rand’s little speechification there.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:09 PM

ChickenHawkish GOP donors

VorDaj on March 31, 2014 at 4:09 PM

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 4:02 PM

So, your argument is that the United States must supply our enemies and our allies enemies with things or we deserve to be attacked?

astonerii on March 31, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Hawkish GOP donors ready to take Paul down, tells me they believe elections is not about vote but about money. People don’t elect presidents. Dollars do.

Let’s hope that American democracy can withstand the onlslaught that will come his way if he wins the nomination.

God speed Rand Paul. Fighting!

coolrepublica on March 31, 2014 at 4:10 PM

The problem started with FDR and the New Deal of course… but it’s really reached a fever pitch now with 21st century Democrats. They’ve figured out that you can just give each constituency you want to vote for you some subsidies, and you’re golden, 99% of the time. People like to talk about the GOP and their ‘corporate welfare’ subsidies to big oil, etc… but those costs pale in comparison to the countless transfer payments to individuals, which is something that primarily originates with Democrats.

The way I see it, the only way this cycle of Democrats ends, maybe not in 5 or even 10 years… but the only way it ends, is with the US dollar collapsing, and the country plunged into anarchy.

nullrouted on March 31, 2014 at 4:06 PM

The problem goes back farther than FDR. The beginning of the end of America goes back to the ratification of the 16th and 17th amendments, both of which I would like to see repealed.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:10 PM

So they are threatening to completely destroy the GOP? Really? Let’s just swear in Hillary and get it over with. I refuse to vote for another Progressive Republican. I refuse to endorse rabid socialism domestically or abroad. It’s time to throw down the gauntlet. It’s either Paul or Cruz.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:11 PM

I’m a conservative. “Greed” is not a dirty word to me. I’d love nothing more than to see the 16th amendment repealed, but not simply for the sake of my fellow Americans. If it’s legal and doesn’t violate my conscience, why the hell not think about the financial ramifications of my decisions (political and otherwise)?

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:05 PM

So, sending goods to our enemies does not violate your conscience. I will remember that when reading your post.

astonerii on March 31, 2014 at 4:12 PM

The problem goes back farther than FDR. The beginning of the end of America goes back to the ratification of the 16th and 17th amendments, both of which I would like to see repealed.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:10 PM

I wholeheartedly agree, want to go picket with me?

I think we might die of old age before someone takes us seriously though, just to warn you.

nullrouted on March 31, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Are you telling me that you would vote against putting more money in your own pocket? Really?! That’s rather bizarre.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:59 PM

So you admit he’s conflated what’s best for him as also being what’s best for country.

Says alot about your stance on Rand.

budfox on March 31, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Hawkish GOP donors ready to take Paul down, tells me they believe elections is not about vote but about money. People don’t elect presidents. Dollars do.

coolrepublica on March 31, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Heh, do we need campaign fiance reform to get all that dirty money out of politics (that always manages to find its way back in)?

thebrokenrattle on March 31, 2014 at 4:12 PM

It’s time to throw down the gauntlet. It’s either Paul or Cruz.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Given the large field we’re sure to have for 2016, and that it probably won’t include Cruz, all I can say to that is good luck.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Read up on the Tojo Doctrine. Rand Paul was dead on. Rubin is a real piece of work.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:13 PM

It’s either Paul or Cruz.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Paul is pro amnesty. With that you are guaranteeing that socialism becomes even more entrenched in the nation.

astonerii on March 31, 2014 at 4:13 PM

So they are threatening to completely destroy the GOP? Really? Let’s just swear in Hillary and get it over with. I refuse to vote for another Progressive Republican. I refuse to endorse rabid socialism domestically or abroad. It’s time to throw down the gauntlet. It’s either Paul or Cruz.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:11 PM

This is pretty much where I’m at as well. Any other candidate will surely lose to Hillary. Those two may lose catastrophically, to be sure, but at least we, as GOP voters, would have tried something new for a change.

nullrouted on March 31, 2014 at 4:14 PM

So you admit he’s conflated what’s best for him as also being what’s best for country.

Says alot about your stance on Rand.

budfox on March 31, 2014 at 4:12 PM

What’s best for the country should be what’s best for us all. That’s what “equality under the law” was all about before the 16th and 17th amendments torpedoed the concept.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:14 PM

I don’t think Rand Paul will need to be “stopped”. Being the son of Ron Paul and a freshman senator will stop him pretty easily.

thebrokenrattle on March 31, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Read up on the Tojo Doctrine. Rand Paul was dead on. Rubin is a real piece of work.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:13 PM

They bombed us, douchebag. If that’s not a cassus belli, I dunno what the hell is. Japan had a long history of war crimes predating WWII that it still refuses to acknowledge.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:15 PM

So, your argument is that the United States must supply our enemies and our allies enemies with things or we deserve to be attacked?

astonerii on March 31, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Much like Eastwood said in Unforgiven: Deservin’s got nothin’ to do with it. Just that some actions have predictable consequences. And that cutting off an industrial nation from an oil supply might lead to war is hardly an unpredictable consequence. But if you disagree, take it up with the “scumbags” at the US Navy, who, once again, happen to agree with Rand Paul.

I’m pretty sure Rand Paul didn’t say the US deserved anything. If you can quote him doing so, please do so. Else, admit that you cannot…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 4:16 PM

I’m not aware that she’s cheerleading for anyone, though one might reasonably suspect she thinks of Rand Paul as the guy to beat at this point.

I’m no Jennifer Rubin fan, but principles are far more important to me than who she likes or dislikes.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 3:56 PM

I’m with you on the principles. But anything written in a Jennifer Rubin column ought to be laughed at for what it is. An attempt to get her prefered establishment candidate elected and that’s it. Any quotes she puts in there, any supposed opinions a candidate may or may not have, as voiced by Rubin, is suspect.

I’d rather go to the horses mouth than believe her. It’d be like believing the New York Times reporting on such a thing.

Baggi on March 31, 2014 at 4:17 PM

You are making a lot of hay out of Rand Paul lately. This is interesting only for its proverbial drama.

Rand Paul will never be president. Period. We’ve spent an endless number of words lamenting a president whose real issue is his lack of experience and adherence to ideology instead of common sense, republican principle. There is no way following that disaster, this party or this general electorate for that matter, will place another person in office with a similar dearth of experience.

Overwhelming straw polls and playing tricky games with polls this early in the cycle is indicative of…nothing.

And just to be clear: nobody wants another Bush in office. Or Clinton for that matter. We need some new blood in the race. Anything less is a waste of both Adelson’s time and money. People like Sheldon have forgotten that in the end citizens have to vote for a candidate for him to win. The money bag-men and palace whisperers only get one vote each.

Marcus Traianus on March 31, 2014 at 4:17 PM

I don’t think Rand Paul will need to be “stopped”. Being the son of Ron Paul and a freshman senator will stop him pretty easily.

thebrokenrattle on March 31, 2014 at 4:14 PM

The freshman senator argument…really? I can think of at least one person that did not stop…

nullrouted on March 31, 2014 at 4:18 PM

So, your argument is that the United States must supply our enemies and our allies enemies with things or we deserve to be attacked?

astonerii on March 31, 2014 at 4:09 PM

If you can show me where Rand Paul said the US deserved to be attacked, then he’s done in my book.

However, I will not accept another person’s characterization of what he said, especially not Jennifer Rubins.

Baggi on March 31, 2014 at 4:19 PM

The freshman senator argument…really? I can think of at least one person that did not stop…

nullrouted on March 31, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Yes, and it worked out so well :P

thebrokenrattle on March 31, 2014 at 4:20 PM

People like Sheldon [Adelson] have forgotten that in the end citizens have to vote for a candidate for him to win. The money bag-men and palace whisperers only get one vote each.

Marcus Traianus on March 31, 2014 at 4:17 PM

That’s what I’m afraid of, Marcus. Obama got elected twice, both times by a healthy margin that left no doubt of his victory. Personally, I’ve always felt like the influence of money in politics has been vastly overstated for at least my entire adult life. Buying votes with taxpayer dollars and peddling influence for favors seems to be the preferred way of doing things in DC. It’s much harder to trace that way.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:20 PM

The ‘pub circular firing squad begins anew…

vnvet on March 31, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Paul is pro amnesty. With that you are guaranteeing that socialism becomes even more entrenched in the nation.

astonerii on March 31, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Paul isn’t pro-amnesty. He’s staked a middle position for political purposes. Hell, his dad wants to nullify the 14th amendment (ending birthright citizenship) for Christ’s sake.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:22 PM

You are making a lot of hay out of Rand Paul lately. This is interesting only for its proverbial drama.

Rand Paul will never be president. Period. We’ve spent an endless number of words lamenting a president whose real issue is his lack of experience and adherence to ideology instead of common sense, republican principle. There is no way following that disaster, this party or this general electorate for that matter, will place another person in office with a similar dearth of experience.

Overwhelming straw polls and playing tricky games with polls this early in the cycle is indicative of…nothing.

And just to be clear: nobody wants another Bush in office. Or Clinton for that matter. We need some new blood in the race. Anything less is a waste of both Adelson’s time and money. People like Sheldon have forgotten that in the end citizens have to vote for a candidate for him to win. The money bag-men and palace whisperers only get one vote each.

Marcus Traianus on March 31, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Nobody wants another Bush or Clinton… you’re only half-right.

People love the Clintons, blowjobs and all. If they didn’t do you think Obama would have paraded Bill around as much as he did before the election? Can you imagine Romney inviting GW to speak at the RNC? Your analysis is fatally flawed.

I could care less about Adelson’s money, he’s got less than Soros anyway. Romney had plenty of money (he out-spent Obama, actually) — A lot of good that did.

nullrouted on March 31, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Paul isn’t pro-amnesty. He’s staked a middle position for political purposes. Hell, his dad wants to nullify the 14th amendment (ending birthright citizenship) for Christ’s sake.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:22 PM

The cynic in me would note that Ron Paul didn’t stake that position out until he left the Republican party for the Libertarian Party, and his principles didn’t keep him from rejoining the Republican Party not long after that. Oh yes, Rand has learned a few things from Dear Ole Dad.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Marcus Traianus on March 31, 2014 at 4:17 PM

You got it right. No matter how much their backers want it, Rand Paul or Jeb Bush are not going to be president, so they should save their money and our time.

thebrokenrattle on March 31, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:22 PM

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Also, the libertarian position on amnesty doesn’t seem to be fully understood by most cons. Amnesty to libertarians is basically predicated upon all their other ideals coming true. Their version of amnesty doesn’t include the ability to sit on welfare, or collect any transfer payments (because it/they would be gone/greatly reduced).

Amnesty to them represents freedom to move, etc… it’s ideologically pure.

The question is just how pragmatic is a Rand Paul (or similar modern libertarian) going to be on that issue. To me, until the welfare system has been largely nuked, amnesty should be out of the question.

nullrouted on March 31, 2014 at 4:28 PM

We don’t elect presidents on their foreign policy cred, and good grief, Rand would be infinitely better than Killary.

John the Libertarian on March 31, 2014 at 4:29 PM

They bombed us, douchebag. If that’s not a cassus belli, I dunno what the hell is. Japan had a long history of war crimes predating WWII that it still refuses to acknowledge.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Who the hell is excusing the Japanese for being belligerent animals? Not I. With that said, FDR expedited the inevitable grudge match between U.S. and Japan by abruptly turning off their oil. What would happen if the Saudis suddenly shut off our oil after a geopolitical standoff? LOL FDR wanted an entrance into the war and he certainly got one.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:30 PM

The question is just how pragmatic is a Rand Paul (or similar modern libertarian) going to be on that issue. To me, until the welfare system has been largely nuked, amnesty should be out of the question.

nullrouted on March 31, 2014 at 4:28 PM

“Freedom to move” does not supersede the right of a sovereign entity to control its own borders. On principle, this is one of the few things I disagree with libertarians on.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Who the hell is excusing the Japanese for being belligerent animals? Not I. With that said, FDR expedited the inevitable grudge match between U.S. and Japan by abruptly turning off their oil. What would happen if the Saudis suddenly shut off our oil after a geopolitical standoff? LOL FDR wanted an entrance into the war and he certainly got one.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Well, I’d hope we’d start drilling some of those deposits of our own damn oil. The only thing keeping us from being completely energy-independent from the entire rest of the world is the enviro-nazis who think it’s okay to drill for oil anyplace except on US soil. I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet we wouldn’t go and bomb an Arabian naval base (if there actually were any. HA!).

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:32 PM

The question is just how pragmatic is a Rand Paul (or similar modern libertarian) going to be on that issue. To me, until the welfare system has been largely nuked, amnesty should be out of the question.

nullrouted on March 31, 2014 at 4:28 PM

I would be perfectly happy for the US Congress to say states are free to deny any and all state and federal benefits to illegal aliens, and to end birthright citizenship, and, if necessary, limit court jurisdiction on those matters.

If we were to do that, I really don’t think we would need a wall. Because the ones riding in the wagon would go home, and I have little problem letting those who help pull the wagon stay…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2