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

“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

You’re not alone, even the commentary over at Reason.com is about 50-50 on whether the nation’s rights trump the individual’s in that situation. I’m with you, I think nations should be able to define borders and enforce them. But then again, I’m an educated white man and US citizen with a pile of technical certs and experience.

Borders already don’t exist for me in any real way, I’m a hot commodity for immigration to almost every developed country in the world (I’ve looked into this quite a bit).

Not sure how I’d feel if I were ‘trapped’ in a less-than-savory country with no way out.

nullrouted on March 31, 2014 at 4:35 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

I’d like for all that to happen too. Problem is, the lawsuits would be virtually inevitable, and the states still recognize the authority of federal courts in matters like this.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Not sure how I’d feel if I were ‘trapped’ in a less-than-savory country with no way out.

nullrouted on March 31, 2014 at 4:35 PM

If you’re genuinely worried about prosecution, there is a process by which you can apply for Asylum. If you wish to become an American citizen, anyone may apply for naturalization, though I understand that is a long and difficult process. I am of the opinion that naturalization should be a long and difficult process if citizenship is to have any meaning or value.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:38 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

Rand Paul is a Paleolibertarian as opposed to a libertarian purist who doesn’t recognize sovereignty.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:40 PM

If you’re genuinely worried about prosecution persecution, there is a process by which you can apply for Asylum. If you wish to become an American citizen, anyone may apply for naturalization, though I understand that is a long and difficult process. I am of the opinion that naturalization should be a long and difficult process if citizenship is to have any meaning or value.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:38 PM

Wow. Must be this funky weather up here.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:42 PM

Rand Paul is a Paleolibertarian as opposed to a libertarian purist who doesn’t recognize sovereignty.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:40 PM

…or so he says. What office is he running for again?

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:42 PM

…or so he says. What office is he running for again?

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:42 PM

I’m telling you what he is. He is not as radical as his Dad. Rand is far more utilitarian in his views.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:44 PM

I’m telling you what he is. He is not as radical as his Dad. Rand is far more utilitarian in his views.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:44 PM

No, you’re telling me what he says. And I don’t believe it.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:45 PM

No, you’re telling me what he says. And I don’t believe it.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Go purchase his book and read it. All your questions will be answered. Rand Paul is not a Murray Rothbard clone. He’s actually a hybrid of Taft and Goldwater.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Go purchase his book and read it. All your questions will be answered. Rand Paul is not a Murray Rothbard clone. He’s actually a hybrid of Taft and Goldwater.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Yeah. I feel so good about Rand Paul being compared to Barry Goldwater. LOLOL Why would I purchase his book and take it as gospel if I don’t trust him to begin with? Politicians that don’t lie don’t last long in the business.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:56 PM

Yeah. I feel so good about Rand Paul being compared to Barry Goldwater. LOLOL Why would I purchase his book and take it as gospel if I don’t trust him to begin with? Politicians that don’t lie don’t last long in the business.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 4:56 PM

In what areas don’t you trust him? Foreign policy? For one, he’s not going to continue waste billions on foreign aid. Secondly, he’s going to actually focus on National Defense (see Monroe Doctrine) as opposed to wasteful Global Defense that has given the Euros carte blanche for too long. Who here wants to subsidize western Euros so they can attend University free and work 30 hours a week on our dime?

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 5:01 PM

We’ve got what? A year plus until the primaries begin. I don’t think Rand or the other candidates need to panic just yet. Nor do their rivals have much cause to celebrate yet.

MJBrutus on March 31, 2014 at 5:02 PM

The extreme hawks are one reason we have Obama in the WH. I dont expect the GOP establishment to ever understand that though.

DisneyFan on March 31, 2014 at 5:04 PM

In what areas don’t you trust him? Foreign policy? For one, he’s not going to continue waste billions on foreign aid. Secondly, he’s going to actually focus on National Defense (see Monroe Doctrine) as opposed to wasteful Global Defense that has given the Euros carte blanche for too long. Who here wants to subsidize western Euros so they can attend University free and work 30 hours a week on our dime?

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 5:01 PM

He’s a politician with more baggage than a jetliner from Dear Ole Dad alone. He could tell me that the sky is blue and I would have to go outside and check. Politics is not an honorable profession.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 5:05 PM

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

It’s hard to take anything Rubin writes seriously because of her history.

Rubin has always had an obsessive compulsion to go after potential Republican candidates that she doesn’t support. By go after, I mean spending weeks penning articles on every negative thought that pops in her head about that politician.

Link

Jennifer Rubin mentioned Senator Rand Paul’s name 143 times in the first three weeks of March (March 1-21) on her Right Turn blog. The only other political figure mentioned more often than Paul was President Obama at 206 times (not including “Obamacare,” but just President Obama specifically).

It’s not just with Paul, she resorted to this with Rick Perry in 2011 when she was a big Romneybot.

Link

The Washington Post’s official conservative blogger, Jennifer Rubin, has written 60 columns on the would-be conservative favorite, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, eight of them Tuesday.

Rubin tends to write long, for a blogger, and those columns add up to 38,722 words, among them “sleepy,” “hostile,” “dreadful,” “provincial,” “cloying,” and “buffoon.”

midgeorgian on March 31, 2014 at 5:05 PM

We’ve got what? A year plus until the primaries begin. I don’t think Rand or the other candidates need to panic just yet. Nor do their rivals have much cause to celebrate yet.

MJBrutus on March 31, 2014 at 5:02 PM

On that, you and I absolutely agree. I wish we could hang fire and not get all orgasmic about what a “great bench” we have until we get through this midterm cycle first.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 5:06 PM

Oh boy…if we’re going to start judging Republican candidates on whether Jennifer Rubin likes them or not, I don’t see any end in sight to what ails America.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 5:09 PM

It’s not just with Paul, she resorted to this with Rick Perry in 2011 when she was a big Romneybot.

The Washington Post’s official conservative blogger, Jennifer Rubin, has written 60 columns on the would-be conservative favorite, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, eight of them Tuesday.

Rubin tends to write long, for a blogger, and those columns add up to 38,722 words, among them “sleepy,” “hostile,” “dreadful,” “provincial,” “cloying,” and “buffoon.”

midgeorgian on March 31, 2014 at 5:05 PM

Rubin is deranged.

Punchenko on March 31, 2014 at 5:10 PM

The extreme hawks are one reason we have Obama in the WH. I dont expect the GOP establishment to ever understand that though.

DisneyFan on March 31, 2014 at 5:04 PM

…but then…you are here to educate everybody!

KOOLAID2 on March 31, 2014 at 5:19 PM

Rubin is deranged.

Punchenko on March 31, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Ergo Rand Paul is deserving of our support.

/Paulbots

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Ergo Rand Paul is deserving of our support.

/Paulbots

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 5:25 PM

I wouldn’t go that far.

However, quoting Jennifer Rubin or linking to her while discussing any politician comes with that desire. It’s like a John McCain endorsement. You have to question yourself if you’re agreeing with a John McCain endorsement. It doesn’t mean he’s wrong, just because he’s John McCain.

Well, Hot Air quotes her, presumably, because she is someone with something to say. She isn’t. She ought to be ignored by Conservatives everywhere.

Baggi on March 31, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Rand will try to fight back in a different way: Since his candidacy will be framed as an insurgency against the establishment

Rand had better change his tune on McConnell and open-borders, then.

FloatingRock on March 31, 2014 at 5:38 PM

I don’t give a shi!t about Ruben’s opinions, but I do care what Paul actually said and my criticism of Paul comes from that, not a WaPo/NYT fake conservative journalist.

Wigglesworth on March 31, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Rand had better change his tune on McConnell and open-borders, then.

FloatingRock on March 31, 2014 at 5:38 PM

The McConnell thing sours everyone. Don’t forget free-enterprise zones, goes right along with supporting a crony crapitalist like Turtle.

nobar on March 31, 2014 at 5:43 PM

Ergo Rand Paul is deserving of our support.

/Paulbots

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 5:25 PM

He certainly has my support. He’s the only candidate in the running giving all of the wrong people the vapors — including Jennifer Rubin and David Frum.

Punchenko on March 31, 2014 at 6:04 PM

The extreme hawks are one reason we have Obama in the WH. I dont expect the GOP establishment to ever understand that though.

DisneyFan on March 31, 2014 at 5:04 PM

Because when sub-human islamisrt scum flies aircraft full of people into buildings full of people we should just give them Israel and blame the USA for the “root causes”…
Ron Paul was a scumbag and his son isn’t enough generations removed from the crazy.

V7_Sport on March 31, 2014 at 6:06 PM

A nuclear-armed Iran wouldn’t necessarily constitute a threat to Israel’s continued existence….

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Sure, the country that invented the suicide bomber can be trusted with a doomsday device. The country that believes that the hidden Imam will return after all the Jews are killed off wouldn’t “necessarily” constitute a threat to Israel’s “continued existence”.
Oh wait, that’s bat s#it crazy.

V7_Sport on March 31, 2014 at 6:14 PM

He certainly has my support. He’s the only candidate in the running giving all of the wrong people the vapors — including Jennifer Rubin and David Frum.

Punchenko on March 31, 2014 at 6:04 PM

This is why we can’t have nice things, America.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Yup, gotta have that ‘Big Tent’!

Just keep those riff-raff Libertarians and conservative base outside of it because, really, it can’t be too big a tent in that direction… must be bigger towards the Progressive side of the tent! Until it falls into the Progressive cesspit. Have to stifle those strange ideas of helping others to defend themselves first.

Yup! Can’t have that.

ajacksonian on March 31, 2014 at 6:28 PM

“but if not, we’ll be ready to take Paul down.”
Which is exactly the kind of thinking from the party mainstream that resulted in the Tea Party. The Tea Party would not exist if there were not a large bloc of Republicans that felt disenfranchised by the party elite.

pgrossjr on March 31, 2014 at 6:30 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

Yep!

His Daddy will tank him cause he can’t resist the lure of the media spotlight.

workingclass artist on March 31, 2014 at 6:30 PM

A nuclear-armed Iran wouldn’t necessarily constitute a threat to Israel’s continued existence….

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 3:28 PM
Sure, the country that invented the suicide bomber can be trusted with a doomsday device. The country that believes that the hidden Imam will return after all the Jews are killed off wouldn’t “necessarily” constitute a threat to Israel’s “continued existence”.
Oh wait, that’s bat s#it crazy.

V7_Sport on March 31, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Well then, you might want to have a talk with the Knesset over their choice to head up their intelligence services. Because that was his opinion.

Since you clearly missed the link the first time around:

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.

I highlighted the pertinent part for the reading comprehension impaired…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 6:30 PM

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

I highlighted the pertinent part for the reading comprehension impaired…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Yeah. Because the head of an international intelligence outfit would have no reason whatsoever to lie to the public./

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Establishment: We need Jeb Bush or Mark (amnesty) Rubio…those that don’t tow the RINO line are doomed…

er, F/O establishment..

celt on March 31, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Rand had better change his tune on McConnell and open-borders, then.

FloatingRock on March 31, 2014 at 5:38 PM

Perhaps. One thing Rand needs to change straight away is spamming my email accounts. Now he is sending multiple spam through alias’s. That won’t cut it. It will just piss off those that may have supported him. You listening Rand? Knock it off!!!

Bmore on March 31, 2014 at 6:36 PM

There are very few Jewish Republican elected officials and the ones in the last 100 years have been nothing to write home about: Eric Cantor, Warren Rudman (who wrote that he conned Bush41 into appointing David Souter to the Supreme Court claiming Souter would be a conservative when Rudman knew he was a lib), Jacob Javitz, Norm Coleman, Linda Lingel and I’m just about out of names.

For those who mention Barry Goldwater, while he was of Jewish stock, he was a practicing Episcopalian.

Even though Obama is anti-Israel, he received 69% of the Jewish vote, according to the 2012 exit polls and a less anti-Israel Dem will probably pull 80% in 2016.

The Republican Jewish Coalition has two goals: 1) support Israel and 2) move the GOP to the left on other issues.

bw222 on March 31, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Yeah. Because the head of an international intelligence outfit would have no reason whatsoever to lie to the public./

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Really??? A sitting Israeli intelligence chief is soft-selling potential dangers to the Knesset and the Israeli public?

Really???

Well, let’s see what former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy has to say:

“Whatever else they say, the Iranians are dead scared of the Israelis and hide their fear behind their bravado.” Even more so the United States, he added.

“I was at a conference in Europe where a retired U.S. Air Force colonel presented a PowerPoint discussion of how an attack on Iran might look,” Halevy recalled. “Nothing was classified. I looked at the Iranians, and their faces were bleaching.

There’s no doubt whatsoever: They are coming to the table because there is no other option.”

Some existential threat…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 6:54 PM

While Potential RINO candidates were bowing and scraping before the Republican Jewish Coalition, the Main Street Partnership was meeting at a posh resort on Amelia Island over the weekend plotting to destroy the Tea Party. Boehner was in attendance, but Cantor and McCarthy were in attendance.

bw222 on March 31, 2014 at 7:03 PM

He certainly has my support. He’s the only candidate in the running giving all of the wrong people the vapors — including Jennifer Rubin and David Frum.

Punchenko on March 31, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Jennifer Rubin is taller than David Frum, but Frum looks better in a dress. Rubin is so fugly that she couldn’t use her fuglyness up in five lifetimes.

bw222 on March 31, 2014 at 7:07 PM

What is a synonym for “evolving?

Answer: Admission of a bold faced lie–either with the earlier position held or with the latter position.

Sample: Have you noticed how the pond scum is evolving?

Don L on March 31, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Rand Paul is more of a nutjob than his Dad. Rand just lies about it while Ron would be very open about it.

MrX on March 31, 2014 at 7:44 PM

If someone is a “hawkish donor” who doesn’t like the idea of a strong defense while minding our own business, what do they really support?

Is this another way of saying that bloody warmongers are going to dominate our foreign policy for their own profit?

Another Libertarian on March 31, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Some existential threat…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Right. Because I’m sure the Knesset never gets confidential briefings from the intelligence arm of the Israeli government at all. Man, for someone who named himself after an Ayn Rand character, you sure are quick to trust foreign governments, aren’t you?

Rand Paul’s a kook. Even assuming it’s sincere, current and former Mossad officials’ opinions don’t sway my opinions. In order to get elected in America, one absolutely has to be able to do two things: Fundraise, which is a fancy way of saying “beg for money,” and spin, which is a fancy way of saying “lie.” Rand Paul does both expertly, which I’m sure he picked up from Dear Ole Dad.

As an aside, I know Ted Cruz can do the former, but I doubt his ability to do the latter, which is why I believe he won’t run and know he won’t make it through the primaries if he does.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 8:06 PM

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

I highlighted the pertinent part for the reading comprehension impaired…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 6:30 PM

And yet nobody whines and cries about a nuclear armed Korea. Nobody is worried about a (massively) nuclear armed Pakistan.

This BS about Iran just makes them all look silly and hypocritical. Maybe these chickenhawks should pick up a gun and fight their own wars, instead of profit taking with the lives of American soldiers.

Another Libertarian on March 31, 2014 at 8:07 PM

If someone is a “hawkish donor” who doesn’t like the idea of a strong defense while minding our own business, what do they really support?

Is this another way of saying that bloody warmongers are going to dominate our foreign policy for their own profit?

Another Libertarian on March 31, 2014 at 8:03 PM

I didn’t think libertarians disparaged profit motive. Funny how politics gets so many people to “evolve” in their principles, isn’t it?

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Ha ha. Rand Paul a liar!!! This meme is rich. The man was a private citizen as a ophthalmologist before his recent foray into politics. He’s on the record stating that S.S. is a Ponzi scheme and that titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional (just like Goldwater). So he’s certainly fibbing his way all to the White House!! ROFL

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Ha ha. Rand Paul a liar!!! This meme is rich. The man was a private citizen as a ophthalmologist before his recent foray into politics. He’s on the record stating that S.S. is a Ponzi scheme and that titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional (just like Goldwater). So he’s certainly fibbing his way all to the White House!! ROFL

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Watch him evolve, Pitch. You can not be a politician in America without being a liar and begging for money. It’s called “spin” and “fundraising.”

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Yup, gotta have that ‘Big Tent’!

Just keep those riff-raff Libertarians and conservative base outside of it because, really, it can’t be too big a tent in that direction…

ajacksonian on March 31, 2014 at 6:28 PM

You do have to have a big tent. However, for the paranoiacs, jew haters and blame America firsters you need a big net.

V7_Sport on March 31, 2014 at 8:31 PM

FUDpuppies!

Murphy9 on March 31, 2014 at 8:46 PM

JohnGalt23

Well then, you might want to have a talk with the Knesset over their choice to head up their intelligence services. Because that was his opinion.

What his opinion was is:
“Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That’s not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely.”
Congratulations, you twisted a quote of him basically saying “even if they do get a bomb we aren’t leaving” into something that reads like he doesn’t care. That he said something that could be used like this wasn’t smart. It’s not a smart statement for anyone who lives in what the iranians call a “one bomb state”. It’s not a smart for anyone who lives in a country that is referred to as the “great Stain” in their weekly “death to America” rallies to believe. Especially since the Iranians, through Hizbullah and the quids force in Iraq have arguably killed as many Americans as Al-Qaeda has. Either way, he wasn’t indicating that they would be fine with an Iranian bomb. Neither would the Arab states surrounding Iran who would all go after their own bomb.

Since you clearly missed the link the first time around:

No, I didn’t, that you found someone who said something that can be twisted into something stupid doesn’t make it smart.

I highlighted the pertinent part for the reading comprehension impaired…

And you repeated it down thread. It’s disingenuous of you. It’s like voting a million times in a Ron Paul straw poll.. but none of you would ever do anything like that.

V7_Sport on March 31, 2014 at 8:51 PM

You could see this coming (certain factions of GOP distrust of Paul) from miles away..:)

Dire Straits on March 31, 2014 at 9:31 PM

*The “great stain” should read “Great Satan”.

V7_Sport on March 31, 2014 at 9:50 PM

I didn’t think libertarians disparaged profit motive. Funny how politics gets so many people to “evolve” in their principles, isn’t it?

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Would you care to explain that insult?

Another Libertarian on March 31, 2014 at 10:11 PM

I didn’t think libertarians disparaged profit motive. Funny how politics gets so many people to “evolve” in their principles, isn’t it?

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Would you care to explain that insult?

Another Libertarian on March 31, 2014 at 10:11 PM

Really? You’re that slow that you can’t recognize when you’re accused of throwing away your principles, such as they are, for political expediency?

I used to buy into that “civic duty” bullshit. I really thought that the more people that voted the better. I’ve evolved in my principles to where I now believe we are a confederacy of dunces, and only smart people should be allowed to vote.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 10:35 PM

plotting to destroy the Tea Party. Boehner was in attendance, but Cantor and McCarthy were in attendance.

bw222 on March 31, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Were they plotting to destroy the tea party or the lobbyists in DC claiming to represent the tea parties?

cimbri on March 31, 2014 at 10:36 PM

V7_Sport on March 31, 2014 at 8:51 PM

I think you need to contact teh EPA. That load of “Fail” you are bearing needs a Hazardous Waste label.

What his opinion was is:
“Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That’s not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely.”

Once again, highlighted passages for those whose reading comp failed them.

Congratulations, you twisted a quote of him basically saying “even if they do get a bomb we aren’t leaving” into something that reads like he doesn’t care.

I made no such characterization. That characterization was made by Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper. And, I’m pretty sure they didn’t say anything about him not caring.

That he said something that could be used like this wasn’t smart.

Yes. I forgot how much smarter pseudonymous members of the commentariat are than heads of the Mossad…

JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2014 at 10:48 PM

Man oh man…it’s Ron Paul redux. Seems to me like a good number of Rand fans rooted for Dear Ole Dad over the years. He’ll need more support than that.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 11:02 PM

Man oh man…it’s Ron Paul redux. Seems to me like a good number of Rand fans rooted for Dear Ole Dad over the years. He’ll need more support than that.

gryphon202 on March 31, 2014 at 11:02 PM

He’s already moved far beyond the small RP contingent. Why do you think he’s getting attacked so heavily. Largely because of focus groups like this:

Ron was the punchline to a joke, so he was never taken seriously. Rand was always the real threat. To all the detractors, be very afraid. When he gets on TV, he’s going to steal votes by the truckful. He may not win, but he will tighten the sphincters of many of the Republican establishment as well as members of the Deep State.

Pitchforker on March 31, 2014 at 11:35 PM

Mr.23

think you need to contact teh EPA. That load of “Fail” you are bearing needs a Hazardous Waste label.
What his opinion was is:

You mean the one I quoted? Why don’t we quote it again, maybe it will signafy something closer to him being fine with Iran getting an atomic bomb this time:

“Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That’s not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely.”

Shall we link to it or quote it again? This is Ed’s dime. He’s been cool so far…

Once again, highlighted passages for those whose reading comp failed them.

OK, I’ll go along: Once again, highlighted passages for those whose reading comp failed them:

Congratulations, you twisted a quote of him basically saying “even if they do get a bomb we aren’t leaving” into something that reads like he doesn’t care.

Second verse, same as the first.

I made no such characterization

Implication, not characterization.. you know, for those whose reading comp… yada yada. If you were not trying to make that implication there would be no need for you to post this (repeatedly) as it would run counter to your assertion that (in this case) “Jen Rubin is a duplicitous, unpatriotic, verminous liar”.

I forgot how much smarter pseudonymous members of the commentariat….

Because your name is actually John Galt 23. Well Mr.23, I could post you a looooong laundry list of Iran crimes against civilization and decency since 1979, somehow I don’t think it would matter much to you. I suspect we would find a way to blame the States for their every action, like Dr.Paul used to do. (Operation ajax, the excuse for 61 years of islamist thuggery, one wonders what the excuse was for the other 1340 years.)

are than heads of the Mossad…

He didn’t say that it wasn’t a serious threat. The other thing is; a ground based uranium bomb (the most basic) detonated in mid town New York at ground level from a truck during mid day on a work day would kill about 6 million people and render Manhattan uninhabitable. It would destroy our financial institutions and plunge the world into a recession not seen since the ’30s. It would end the USA as you know it. Want to risk that? Even if it’s a small risk?

V7_Sport on April 1, 2014 at 12:12 AM

V7_Sport on April 1, 2014 at 12:12 AM

Congratulations, you twisted a quote of him basically saying “even if they do get a bomb we aren’t leaving” into something that reads like he doesn’t care.

Once again, reading comp fail. Let’s go back to the original quote:

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:

Which has been proven demonstrably false, thus making Jen Rubin a filthy verminous liar. In fact, a very high official in the Israeli government has said a nuclear Iran would not be an existential threat.

Filthy

Verminous

Liar Jen Rubin is

Now, you can disagree with A current and former head of Mossad regarding Iran-Israel relations. But it makes you look like a blowhole. Not that anyone here is surprised

But that hardly changes the fact that he said it, contrary to what a filthy verminous liar or her blowhole acolyte say

Implication, not characterization you know, for those whose reading comp… yada yada.

Pretty sure you never used the word “imply”. Which would make your statement both a reading comp and writing fail. Once again, no surprise coming from the knuckle dragging Right

If you were not trying to make that implication there would be no need for you to post this (repeatedly) as it would run counter to your assertion that (in this case) “Jen Rubin is a duplicitous, unpatriotic, verminous liar”.

See above. Regarding your heroine, the filthy verminous liar

He didn’t say that it wasn’t a serious threat.

Nobody claimed they weren’t a threat. Just that they weren’t an existential threat.

Which if your local public school didn’t do such a poor job teaching you English, I wouldn’t have to explain to you

JohnGalt23 on April 1, 2014 at 1:04 AM

“Evolving”.Code word for-”just another unprincipled political opportunist”.The libertarian loons will be frothing at the mouth.LOL!

redware on April 1, 2014 at 5:05 AM

You do have to have a big tent. However, for the paranoiacs, jew haters and blame America firsters you need a big net.

V7_Sport on March 31, 2014 at 8:31 PM

What exactly is a “jew hater” these days? I’ve lost track. I’ve been called a hater when I support Israel’s right to exist and even control their immigration. Then told I’m a hater for supporting those same types of policies here in America (from both sides of the aisle ironically, I expect it from the left). Then if I mention that the interests of the USA might not be the same as Israel all the time, that I’m just a hater.

oryguncon on April 1, 2014 at 10:03 AM

This brings up 2 questions. If Paul is ‘evolving’ on foreign policy, then where will he land if elected ? If getting funds from GOP donors causes him to ‘evolve’ on foreign policy, how do we know he will not evolve on other issues?

Brock Robamney on April 1, 2014 at 10:52 AM

This brings up 2 questions. If Paul is ‘evolving’ on foreign policy, then where will he land if elected ? If getting funds from GOP donors causes him to ‘evolve’ on foreign policy, how do we know he will not evolve on other issues?

Brock Robamney on April 1, 2014 at 10:52 AM

We don’t. Which is why the Paulbots are so heavily invested in convincing us that all evidence to the contrary, Rand AND Ron are both principled individuals.

gryphon202 on April 1, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Sorry, no sale.

Let Rand “evolve” for a few decades, we would still have to keep him out of any foreign policy role.

He isn’t REMOTELY qualified to be President now, anyway, so he has time to “evolve” a lot.

Adjoran on April 1, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Rand blew it.

His chance at becoming the GOP nominee depended on him keeping the perception of his persona completely seperate from that of his father, who would never win a GOP nomination primarily because of his crazy foreign policy views.

But his initial statement on Ukraine sounded like a carbon copy of something his fatherw would say. The damage has hence been done, no amount of backtracking will change that.

He has subsequently made a series of additional. missteps, but they don’t really matter. He will never be the GOP nominee.

Norwegian on April 1, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Rand Paul would sell out Israel? Like re-sell out Israel? Hate to break it to these jerks – Barry doesn’t have any ally’s back, and I’m pretty sure Iran isn’t quaking in fear of the US at the moment…and appears to have 3 years of green lights.

John_G on April 1, 2014 at 4:28 PM

The only primary that counts now is the Republican Jewish Coalition primary. Specifically, what Sheldon Adelson says goes.

That makes reading the tea-leaves regarding the attitudes of Republican candidates toward Israel and liberalism moot. Anyone who gets the Republican Jewish Coalition nod is going to be vetted as thoroughly as possible, and in office would in all probability prove to be a reliable supporter of both.

If Rand hasn’t convinced experts that his heart is in the right place on Israel and the social issues, he’ll never get started against heavily-funded and establishment-backed rivals, or he’ll be wiped out by a storm of attack ads.

David Blue on April 2, 2014 at 5:44 AM

Rand Paul would sell out Israel?

John_G on April 1, 2014 at 4:28 PM

If he would, he won’t be nominated. This is like gravity. It just is.

David Blue on April 2, 2014 at 5:49 AM

Rand Paul, too liberal on too many topics.

Bleed_thelizard on April 2, 2014 at 12:23 PM

JohnGalt23

Which has been proven demonstrably false, thus making Jen Rubin a filthy verminous liar. In fact, a very high official in the Israeli government has said a nuclear Iran would not be an existential threat.

Yeah, I addressed that. Try again, Evelyn Wood…

Now, you can disagree with A current and former head of Mossad regarding Iran-Israel relations. But it makes you look like a blowhole. Not that anyone here is surprised

I disagree with both what he said and what you disingenuously implied that it meant, but I stated that already.

But that hardly changes the fact that he said it, contrary to what a filthy verminous liar or her blowhole acolyte say

Seeing as you have been caught stretching the truth and you are apparently an accolade for the whole Ron Paul cult that would put you in a glass house throwing stones. It would also make you wrong.

Pretty sure you never used the word “imply”

I implied it. Seriously, I gave you credit for being able to take meaning away from a subject and a predicate. Overestimation is where I went wrong.

no surprise coming from the knuckle dragging Right

LOL, Flak from both sides, just where I want to be. Yeah, for the record, you and the rest of your cult of personality who are one step away from selling flowers at the airport for dear leader can all go straight to heIl. Paulbots are a malleable, easily lead people. You think you are clever for hopping on a bandwagon.

“Jen Rubin is a duplicitous, unpatriotic, verminous liar”.

Ron Paul makes her look like George Washington… But she doesn’t have a blimp, soooo

Nobody claimed they weren’t a threat. Just that they weren’t an existential threat.

That’s a stupid claim.

Which if your local public school didn’t do such a poor job teaching you English,

Wrong again, paulbot. :-D

V7_Sport on April 3, 2014 at 4:59 PM

What exactly is a “jew hater” these days?
oryguncon on April 1, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Someone who hates Jews.

.

Glad to be of service.

V7_Sport on April 3, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2