Perry: Rand Paul’s position on Iraq is “disheartening … curiously blind”

posted at 5:31 pm on July 12, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Rick Perry has had quite the renaissance this summer. The Texas governor lowered his profile after his unsuccessful 2012 run for the Republican presidential nomination, focusing instead on finishing his last term in Texas before deciding on his future. After the border crisis erupted, though, Perry has emerged again as a national leader in the GOP. That has buzz going about a potential second presidential run, and the Christian Science Monitor concluded that Perry won the week against Barack Obama in their border show-down in the context of 2016:

By “win,” we mean it might boost Perry’s stature within his own party. He has forced Obama to change his plans (somewhat) and will get to put himself on the US chief executive’s level with an exchange of ideas. That’s a big step up for a possible 2016 presidential candidate whose 2012 campaign ended in a pile of “oops” during a nationally televised debate. It might help Perry appear more presidential to GOP primary voters. It will certainly help him with the conservative core, many of whom want their party to stand up to Obama, particularly on the immigration issue.

“Rick Perry two-stepped his way back into the national spotlight this week, using the crisis at the border to skewer President Barack Obama while pumping up his own conservative bona fides,” reads the top of a piece by Politico’s Katie Glueck on Wednesday. 

If anyone thought that Perry’s emergence was just accidental or momentary, think again. Perry took time out from his efforts to press for better border security to address a completely different national security issue, the emergence of ISIS in Iraq, in today’s Washington Post. And Perry not only takes on the Obama administration in this broadside, but also a potential 2016 GOP rival, Senator Rand Paul. Perry calls Paul “curiously blind” to the threat of ISIS in a clear effort to align himself against the non-interventionist wing of the Republican Party:

As a veteran, and as a governor who has supported Texas National Guard deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, I can understand the emotions behind isolationism. Many people are tired of war, and the urge to pull back is a natural, human reaction. Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further.

That’s why it’s disheartening to hear fellow Republicans, such as Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), suggest that our nation should ignore what’s happening in Iraq. The main problem with this argument is that it means ignoring the profound threat that the group now calling itself the Islamic State poses to the United States and the world.

In the Islamic State, which came to prominence in Syria and now controls ample territory, weapons and cash in both that country and Iraq, the world is confronting an even more radicalized version of Islamic extremism than al-Qaeda. This group is well-trained, technologically sophisticated and adept at recruitment, with thousands of people with European passports fighting on its side, as well as some Americans.

This represents a real threat to our national security — to which Paul seems curiously blind — because any of these passport carriers can simply buy a plane ticket and show up in the United States without even a visa. It’s particularly chilling when you consider that one American has alreadycarried out a suicide bombing and a terrorist-trained European allegedlykilled four at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

The essay rebuts a column from Paul last month, in which Paul claimed that Ronald Reagan would have never gotten entangled in Iraq in the first place:

Though many claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan on foreign policy, too few look at how he really conducted it. The Iraq war is one of the best examples of where we went wrong because we ignored that.

In 1984, Reagan’s Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger developed the following criteria for war, primarily to avoid another Vietnam. His speech, “The Uses of Military Power,” boils down to this: The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the U.S. or its allies are involved and only “with the clear intention of winning.” U.S. combat troops should be committed only with “clearly defined political and military objectives” and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives and with a “reasonable assurance” of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress and only “as a last resort.”

Much of the rationale for going to war in 2003 did not measure up to the Weinberger Doctrine, and I opposed the Iraq war. I thought we needed to be more prudent about the weightiest decision a country can make. Like Reagan, I thought we should never be eager to go to war. And now, 11 years later, we are still dealing with the consequences.

Actually, the issue of Iraq doesn’t go back 11 years, but almost 24 years, and not to George W. Bush but to George H. W. Bush, Reagan’s successor. We have been caught up in the affairs of Iraq ever since that point, for better or worse. While Paul perhaps makes a good case for non-involvement in late 1990 — a signal sent by the Bush 41 administration at the time, which allowed Saddam Hussein to conclude that the US would not react to a forcible annexation of Kuwait — it’s a moot argument now. We are engaged in Iraq even without troops on the ground, and a full retreat from the region will not be a passive act.  It will leave a vacuum which will be filled by Iran, Saudi Arabia, and al-Qaeda and ISIS. A shrug has its consequences too, as we learned in late 1990. Absent that shrug, for which Paul argues now, we may not have spent the last 24 years in Iraq at all.

That doesn’t mean that Paul’s entirely wrong, or that Perry’s entirely right. The problem in the US isn’t that we don’t have the ability to make an impact — we clearly have that power in spades — but that we don’t have the political will to see these projects through to completion. And “completion,” in the context of the post-Versailles world, is at best a foggy concept anyway. That region isn’t Europe, after all, and even Europe didn’t fully settle its post-Versailles arrangement until after another World War, a Cold War, and the Balkans war — and may not yet be quite finished, either, especially in Kosovo. In the Middle East, it will probably take centuries to settle their post-Versailles tensions, whether or not the West remains actively engaged. If that’s depressing, welcome to the long expanse of history from the temporal vantage point.

We’re going to have this debate for a long, long time. The most interesting part of it for the moment is that Perry has decided to engage it in a public, national manner, and has deliberately taken on the Paulist wing of the GOP. That’s not the action of a man just looking to play out his string in Texas and head back to the ranch.


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

Rand Paul is an all around disappointment…

OmahaConservative on July 12, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Absent that shrug, for which Paul argues now, we may not have spent the last 24 years in Iraq at all.

A very important point.
A public unwillingness to use force usually leads to a need to use it later.

Count to 10 on July 12, 2014 at 5:36 PM

You know you are winning when you become a target. Ain’t that right Sarah Palin?

coolrepublica on July 12, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Good job Perry. Keep pushing Obama though.

Jindal/Perry. Either one will be a giant step in the right direction.

can_con on July 12, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Yes, yes … this Perry v. Paul rivalry should be goaded on, leading up to the inevitable “WE BOTH AGREE ON AMNESTY” make-up party.

Jedditelol on July 12, 2014 at 5:41 PM

I don’t understand where Paul is on any position from week to week. Perry did have a very good week contrasting with the Won. Don’t know if he’ll end up being the guy in ’16 or not as Walker might give it a run.

Kissmygrits on July 12, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Jindal/Perry. Either one will be a giant step in the right direction.

can_con on July 12, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Or Walker. Governors all :)

thebrokenrattle on July 12, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Rick Perry is the anti-Obama in almost every conceivable way. If for nothing else, I’m all in for his candidacy.

Sugar Land on July 12, 2014 at 5:46 PM

thebrokenrattle on July 12, 2014 at 5:44 PM

I agree but I think his lack of education is going to be a real hurdle for him.

can_con on July 12, 2014 at 5:48 PM

He’s running for President.

cat_owner on July 12, 2014 at 5:50 PM

You know you are winning when you become a target. Ain’t that right Sarah Palin?

coolrepublica on July 12, 2014 at 5:37 PM

^ someone’s obsessed..:)

idesign on July 12, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Rick Perry 2016: when you absolutely, positively must elect another compassionate conservative from Texas (but nobody from the Bush family was available).

(Yeah, I could still vote for him, but geeeeeeeesh)

Jedditelol on July 12, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Whoever runs, it’s just going to be a very long two years.

Between king zero’s crushing the country in every way he can think of and the campaigning on both sides, it’s gonna be a miserable couple of years ahead.

tru2tx on July 12, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Paul is as delusional as his dad.

Southernblogger on July 12, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Perry is spot on. I used to really like Rand Paul but his changing positions and refusal to put any blame on Obama for the Iraq disaster did it for me. Perry, Walker, Jindal are my guys now.

Jack_Burton on July 12, 2014 at 5:55 PM

I have no doubt Reagan would have had a totally different view post 9/11. His doctrine would not have remained static.

Reagan: Alpha
Paul: beta

can_con on July 12, 2014 at 5:56 PM

Rand keeps trying hard not to be directly attached to the ideology of his father and is still feeling his way (re: putting a wet finger to the political winds). He is a semi-ideologue without executive experience and with a world view that falls far short of ‘vision’. We are presented on a daily basis the results of lack of executive experience and consistent, effective foreign relations. Perry has the executive know how and a more coherent view of national security than Paul or The One, but I’m not sure that he will be able to survive the primaries and if he does, the the constant, overwhelming lies and ad hominem attacks from the likes of Hairy reed, aided and abetted by the msm.

vnvet on July 12, 2014 at 6:01 PM

but that we don’t have the political will to see these projects through to completion. And “completion,” in the context of the post-Versailles world, is at best a foggy concept anyway.

What exactly is the “project”?

That seems like an important point.

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 6:02 PM

I love this guy. The only one man enough to tell it like it is about Obama.

clnurnberg on July 12, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Neither one of these guys are particularly good candidates.

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Yeah, Perry’s been making some shrewd moves of late. But until he severs ties with Grover Norquist and Prince Shah Karim Al-Husayni, I have no time for him.

And it’s kind of silly for him to counter Paul’s isolationism with an argument that we need to be engaged in Iraq because of threats posed by various specific jihadist groups (ISIS, al-Qaeda) while holding hands with Norquist (married to a Muslima, possibly a convert himself) and Al-Husayni.

Kabuki theatre

WhatSlushfund on July 12, 2014 at 6:05 PM

What a big fat nothing burger that article was. Lots of platitudes and zero specifics and plenty of condescension towards Paul. So does Perry want to invade Iraq or what?

iwasbornwithit on July 12, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Oh, and no way did he write that.

iwasbornwithit on July 12, 2014 at 6:13 PM

I like Perry. He’s a real man and he’s been a governor and knows how to run things. But he’s also a politician and he picks his positions that way. Still, I think I would vote for him if he was nominated.

crankyoldlady on July 12, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Even as Christie narrowly edged out Kentucky Senator Rand Paul for the number two slot in the poll of 14 potential candidates, the New Jersey Governor also topped the list of candidates who respondents said they definitely would not vote for.

The poll found that Christie and Paul were neck-and-neck in the running each with seven percent. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush came in a point behind them. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal garnered fifth place, followed by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, Texas Governor Rick Perry, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, and Ohio Senator Rob Portman.

But topping them all was Mitt Romney coming in at a whopping 39 percent of respondents.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/11/Romney-Ahead-in-New-Hampshire-Presidential-Poll-Chris-Christie-Close-Behind

Not that there will actually be an election.

davidk on July 12, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Neither one of these guys are particularly good candidates.

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Agree 100%. Plus after his unfortunate 2012 run, Rick Perry needs to “unconvince” America that he’s an idiot.

bw222 on July 12, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Agree 100%. Plus after his unfortunate 2012 run, Rick Perry needs to “unconvince” America that he’s an idiot.

bw222 on July 12, 2014 at 6:19 PM

He also has to convince ‘heartless’ conservatives. With the border being flooded with 300,000+ illegals he had better step carefully.

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 6:22 PM

LOL! More GOPer on GOPer fighting. Love it!!

Rick “I now wear glasses so I am no longer dumb” Perry taking it to Aqua Budda.

Rick “Oops” Perry thought he’d let it be known:
Thou shalt not take the name of Saint Ronnie in vain.
First Rule of GOP Fight Club.

However, he forgot Saint Ronnie’s 11th Commandment in the process…
Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.
OOoops.

Ned Pepper on July 12, 2014 at 6:29 PM

“The problem in the US isn’t that we don’t have the ability to make an impact — we clearly have that power in spades — but that we don’t have the political will to see these projects through to completion.”

Fortunately we have a great deal of political will to demagogue endlessly in search of political power to replace it.

I guess the good news is that a “war weary electorate” is getting a face full of real world effects on their security and that of other countries when America withdraws and follows the Paul/Obama fp doctrines. I sincerely hope it doesn’t really take another 9/11 or the beginnings of WW111 before they figure out that there are no perfect happy endings to global affairs. It’s an ongoing effort with no end.
You don’t get to pack up and pout because you’re tired and it’s “hard”, any more than all the troops did. They did their part amazingly well.

We, otoh, elected this jerk.

Recon5 on July 12, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Rand Paul is an all around disappointment…

OmahaConservative on July 12, 2014 at 5:34 PM

LOL! No one is good enough for Tea People!

It was only 4 short years ago that Rand Paul was a Tea Party darling.

It was only 4 short years ago that Marco Rubio was a Tea Party darling.

Now the same Teas will tear into Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. LOL!! I am loving this!!

Ned Pepper on July 12, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Certainly has been a big week for the Governor. I am not his biggest fan. Another big government Texas moderate.

But I could probably vote for him if he was nominated.

Jaibones on July 12, 2014 at 6:33 PM

trollcott

davidk on July 12, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Perry: GOP’s position on not giving instate tuition to Illegals is “Heartless … curiously blind”

Ned Pepper on July 12, 2014 at 6:40 PM

I’m discouraged by how many of the commenters here are impressed with mere words.

Is the border secure? No.

That’s the measure by which we measure effectiveness – not by who had the best optics.

beatcanvas on July 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM

My wish list:
1. Jim DeMint
2. Sarah Palin
3. jeff Sessions
4. Ted Cruz

ncjetsfan on July 12, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Perry, the glasses won’t make you any smarter than you are. We don’t need another Bush Texan in the White House.

rickv404 on July 12, 2014 at 6:47 PM

I don’t care what Rand Paul’s position is on Iraq, or what is classified as a hawk or isolationist. Let me make this clear: Those that advocate a strong U.S. response in Iraq are going to put America is a bad strategic spot and get another Obama type elected president. Lets look at the situation:

(1) Iraq is not a country anymore, and never really was a country. You cannot keep it together but with massive American military forces on the ground and massive amounts of American money. This country will have to be willing to sacrifice lot of brave troops, and you will have to hope the Muslims come to their senses or our troops will be their fighting and dying there for the rest of our lives. To me that goal is crazy and insane.

(2) If we Americans are really worried about ISIS fighters returning home, maybe we should end our generous immigration policies toward Muslims. Everytime we fight them over there, we bring them back home with us to America…no thanks to people like McCain, Boehner, Bush, Obama, Clinton, and yes even Perry.

(3)I cannot stress what a dangerous situation we have in Asia right now, but the business elite in this country, including some conservatives, are blind to the fact that China is now a threat, yes a military one. I don’t want this country’s armed forces stuck in another Islamic “fix it project” when all heck breaks out in Asia.

(4) ISIS, or whatever they call themselves now, is going to keep the Islamic tied up for some time, heck they are now talking about attacking Mecca. I don’t understand the need by some of our politicians to prevent that Islamic civil war. It is madness!

(5) It is political suicide right now.

Last…I know ISIS is a threat. They are psychopaths, but so is every other Islamist group on earth. The majority of Muslims have sympathesis of one kind or another for one or several of these crazy groups, because like it or not Jihadist groups are traditional Muslims as Muhammad practiced the religion back in the day. You are not going to “fix” the Islamic world with democracy or American money. The best you can do is occasionally bomb some part of Islamic world into rubble to send a message, and arm non-Muslim groups within or surrounding the Islamic world.

I hope one day certain conservatives (and RINOs for that matter) in this country will actually pick up a book or two on basic strategy, and read the Quran (so we can come up with a realistic strategy to contain Islam), or maybe just learn from our last mistake.

Is that possible?

William Eaton on July 12, 2014 at 6:55 PM

I really liked what Perry said in 2011 about taking “a wrecking ball” to Washington:

“There are those who believe, as I do, that Washington is too broken to be fixed by tinkering on the margins,” Perry said in his speech. “I do not believe Washington needs a new coat of paint; it needs a complete overhaul. We need to uproot, tear down, and rebuild Washington, D.C. and our federal institutions.”

Perry also wants to cut congressional staff budgets, make it a criminal activity for congressional members to make stock trades on insider information they have access to, and — as debate-watchers may recall — eliminate the Departments of Commerce, Education, and Energy. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be privatized, and Perry would back legislation requiring all federal regulations would need to be renewed by a congressional vote periodically. On the budget front, Perry’s goals include instituting a Balanced Budget Amendment, passing a law mandating a two-thirds majority for tax hikes, and cutting congressional salaries in half (again) if there was no proposed long-term balanced budget. More details here.

“This is the season for tearing down and rebuilding again, for uprooting the broken branches of government in Washington, and building a new government that is smaller and more humble, so America can be stronger and freer again,” Perry said.

So if Perry can get back to talking about taking a wrecking ball to D.C. then maybe he can win.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Perry has decided to engage it in a public, national manner, and has deliberately taken on the Paulist wing of the GOP. That’s not the action of a man just looking to play out his string in Texas and head back to the ranch.

I agree..Looks like Perry is wading a little deeper in the pool..:)

Dire Straits on July 12, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Rand Paul is an all around disappointment…

OmahaConservative on July 12, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Not for me. I’ve always considered him just like his daddy. He can say brilliant things about smaller government and fiscal responsibility. But then he destroys it all by making insane statements about what we should do when it comes to foreign policy.

Put simply Rand Paul’s views on foreign policy have never been all that different than what Obama has done.

Happy Nomad on July 12, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Governor Perry, you need to spend less time concerning yourself with ridiculous Muslim Iraq and more time concerning yourself with the not very sovereign southern border of your own state and it’s being further invaded by the lowest of the third world. What the hell are you doing spending your time pontificating about Iraq? So far when it comes to your own state’s defense you have been pretty much all hat and no cattle. Lots of bark but not much bite.

VorDaj on July 12, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Democrats eliminate infighting because they will not allow anyone to run for president who is pro life, pro choice with schools, who is anti EPA excesses, and numerous other choices. Demos must follow exactly the party or they will now allow anyone to run. The communists would call anyone looking to be a little different a Trotskeyite or parting from the truth of the communist party. The GOP has differences and they show them in the public. Looks like the demos are not diverse at all. Demos are also allowed to have scandals and gaffes because the state media will cover it for them.

garydt on July 12, 2014 at 7:16 PM

So if Perry can get back to talking about taking a wrecking ball to D.C. then maybe he can win.

And Perry was going to win last time, EASILY, he had jumped out to a double digit lead over the double-talking self-described “non-partisan progressive” Mitt Rommney when he suffered the double blow of his back-medication caused “oops” and his immigration problems.

Now, Perry can rise again unless he starts trying to shy away from his previous “wrecking ball” boldness. Republicans and the American people desperately want a wrecking ball type solution, NOT the putz Romney’s equivocation and “cut Big Bird” answer. Go for it, Perry. Explain immmigration though. And if he can explain his Social Security position in a convincing and non-threatening way (to Seniors), he can win it all.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 7:25 PM

I’m thinking now that I’ve come around to actually believing in Perry again.

First, I should note that the Romneybots etc gave Perry a raw deal on amnesty. He never said he was for amnesty, he did say that immigration reform cannot even be discussed until after the border is secure and an effective e-verify is in there, and people said that saying even that he would be open to discussing it after the border was secure etc was proof that he’s an amnesty shill. But that’s just the position most of us have: secure the border, and then we can talk about amnesty. And the “tuition for illegals” thing, remember he’s from Texas, that’s overplayed. Don’t let perfection be the enemy of the good great.

But Perry’s got to be bold like he was before. And I don’t like his apparently softening his opposition to gay marriage. There’s a hidden backlash to benefit us in the gay marriage issue. Don’t run and hide from gay marriage like the lily-fingered “paid 13% in taxes” Romney did. Be Texas bold.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Perry on Immigration: Worse Than You Think

Perry came out strongly against the fence at the border, he came out against E-verify, not even allowing state employers to use it.

Further, he proposed a plan to give ‘guest worker’ visas to millions of illegal aliens to “take them off of the black market” and legitimize them.

thatsafactjack on July 12, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Neither are good candidates..NEXT!

celt on July 12, 2014 at 8:04 PM

What exactly is the “project”?

That seems like an important point.

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 6:02 PM

According to GWB’s Second Inaugural, it is the democratization of the ME, and ridding the world of tyranny.

I mean, that’s what y’all signed up for, right…?

JohnGalt23 on July 12, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Paul is as delusional as his dad.

Southernblogger on July 12, 2014 at 5:52 PM

His dad? You mean Dr. Ron Paul? The guy who crushed Rick Pery last time?

I mean, all Rick needs to do is perform as well as he did last time, and we can all have another laugh over Governor Oops…

JohnGalt23 on July 12, 2014 at 8:07 PM

According to GWB’s Second Inaugural, it is the democratization of the ME, and ridding the world of tyranny.

JohnGalt23 on July 12, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Then its pretty much doomed to failure…which is likely why its never made clear what the “project” actually is.

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 8:11 PM

I like Perry, but he needs to can it with the war hawk speak.

Aizen on July 12, 2014 at 8:14 PM

If he loses the glasses, the compassion for law breaking invaders, is willing to call out his opponents for what they really are, and can manage to not blow an entire campaign with a single flop in a debate, I’d support him.

Diluculo on July 12, 2014 at 8:18 PM

We are looking at a sooner than later war with mexico, again, and maybe central america by proxy of mexico. He’s the one I’d want orchestrating that mess, not someone like romney, hillary, or mccain that’s for sure.

Diluculo on July 12, 2014 at 8:20 PM

thatsafactjack on July 12, 2014 at 7:56 PM

That author of your link from September 2011 was a Romney supporter. Now thatsafact I am not saying that you may be 100% right, but on a helicopter tour with Hannity on Fox a few days ago he described why he didn’t think a full fence was the best answer, but he seemed to have a detailed answer for a fully secure border which is obviously his desire. Plus he said this on e-verify:

“But just because it [e-verify] has problems doesn’t mean we should throw employee verification out,” Perry continued. “It means we should make it work. Employee verification needs to be accurate so American citizens aren’t denied jobs based on bad data and undocumented immigrants don’t slip through the system.”

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/perry-addresses-conservatives-concerns-about-his-immigration-stance/

I think he wants an effective “e-verify” type system, not necessarily the brand “e-verify.” Lets give him a chance to explain. And btw, if Perry is getting a false appraisal on amnesty or immigration, I ask all of us here to try to correct the record here.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Perry on Immigration: Worse Than You Think

Perry came out strongly against the fence at the border, he came out against E-verify, not even allowing state employers to use it.

Further, he proposed a plan to give ‘guest worker’ visas to millions of illegal aliens to “take them off of the black market” and legitimize them.

thatsafactjack on July 12, 2014 at 7:56 PM

If someone is against mandatory E-Verify, he is for Big Amnesty/Big Rewards for Tens of Millions of Third World Invaders no matter what manner of lies he might say to the contrary. And I might add, these Third World Invaders are not exactly even the Third World’s cream of the crop.

VorDaj on July 12, 2014 at 8:23 PM

I think that Rand Paul would just like to stop seeing brave Americans die securing a country whose inhabitants wish to live in the Stone Age. I have no problem with that. I can’t wait to actually see live debates between him and all of his detractors.

DontDroneMeBro on July 12, 2014 at 8:23 PM

-William Eaton

Very insightful post. I enjoy reading your comments on this site.

DontDroneMeBro on July 12, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Rand Paul is an all around disappointment…
OmahaConservative on July 12, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Amen.

Conservative media pushes him as a great candidate for 2016. Despite people like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity praising him, Rand Paul is a isolationist (sorry) non-interventionist libertarian (I mean) conservative.

He’s revealed himself to be a wishy washy politician who is trying to do what ever politician does and that is say what what he thinks will make him popular.

Conservative Samizdat on July 12, 2014 at 8:27 PM

thatsafactjack on July 12, 2014 at 7:56 PM

He also supports Sheldon Adelson’s cause to ban internet gambling since Adelson is a casino magnate and internet gambling would hurt his business. This is the same billionaire Sheldon Adelson who has bought off several of the GOP to support open borders. Perry’s taken money from him and is now opposing a bill to legalize it. I don’t trust him no matter what kind of glasses he wears.

TxAnn56 on July 12, 2014 at 8:31 PM

I think he wants an effective “e-verify” type system

And what system has he proposed?

he described why he didn’t think a full fence was the best answer

And what did he say was wrong with a fence?

It works for the Israeli’s, the White House, the military, and everyone who has tried it.

a fully secure border which is obviously his desire.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 8:22 PM

It honestly doesn’t seem that obvious.

How exactly does he propose that desire other than wishful thinking?

He is against E-Verify, against a fence, and then there is this…

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/10688/

Legislation authored by border legislators Pat Haggerty and Eddie Lucio establishes an important study that will look at the feasibility of bi-national health insurance.

That’s why I am also excited that Texas Secretary of State Henry Cuellar is working on an initiative that could extend the benefits of telemedicine to individuals living on the Mexican side of the border.

And that vision must include the children of undocumented workers. That’s why Texas took the national lead in allowing such deserving young minds to attend a Texas college at a resident rate.

President Fox’s vision for an open border is a vision I embrace

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 8:38 PM

If someone is against mandatory E-Verify, he is for Big Amnesty..

VorDaj on July 12, 2014 at 8:23 PM

See my 8:22pm comment.

Apparently Rick Perry is FOR E-VERIFY. What we saw was a Romney led misinformation campaign against Perry that helped lead to Romney as our nominee instead of Perry who probably would have won the presidency and at this very moment Perry would have been taking “a wrecking ball” to the Washington establishment.

And I reiterate, we need to immediately counter misinformation given about Perry & amnesty.

Chiefly by siting and quoting from this link as I did above: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/perry-addresses-conservatives-concerns-about-his-immigration-stance/

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 8:40 PM

You people stupid. All of you. Unfortunately we are all going to pay dearly for your nitpicking stupidity. You are the allies of the lefty drool cupped trolls, MSM whores and eunuchs and the Obama regime because you are stupidly looking for someone who is “purer than Caesar’s wife” which is as stupid as waiting for that unicorn Obama promised you.

During the civil war Lincoln had to find a general who could win that war. He had gone through all the ones favored by the cognoscenti of the time and all of them were miserable failures. All of them. The he chose a general who was roundly bashed by the cognoscenti because he was not as ‘pure as Caesar’s wife’ — he drank too much, he had failed at everything he did, etc. Lincoln finally ignored the nitpicking cognoscenti and put him in charge. Why did he do this? it is best summed up in a quote from him “I can’t spare this man; he fights!”

Now…

You can pine away for Jim “Milquetoast” DeMint, Sarah “Gone Hollywood” Palin or any of the rest of the ‘purer than Caesar’s wife’ weaklings who play the inside the beltway/MSM game you pine away for like a teenaged girl for Justin Bieber. Or you can choose someone who fights. During the last six years the state that has led the fight against the Obama regime has been Texas which is why Obama is now trying to punish Texas with a flood of the dregs of central America — bought and paid for by the Democratic party and its oligarch allies.

As for me I’ll take someone who fights. I will take someone who fights because the next two years will decide whether this country lives or dies. Keep nitpicking and whining and all will be lost and it will be your worst nightmares come true.

Nahanni on July 12, 2014 at 8:44 PM

PERRY

http://polipundit.com/?p=33933

E-Verify is a federal government created and run program, and as a result there have been a number of problems with it so far. The Department of Homeland Security estimated the system could fail to identify more than half of all illegal immigrants.

But just because it has problems doesn’t mean we should throw employee verification out. It means we should make it work. Employee verification needs to be accurate so American citizens aren’t denied jobs based on bad data and undocumented immigrants don’t slip through the system. And it needs to be less cumbersome for employers to use, so it’s not costing them money they could be using to create jobs.

OBAMA

President Obama Says E-Verify is an Effective Tool, but Needs to be Perfected

“E-Verify can be an important enforcement tool if it’s not riddled with errors, if U.S. citizens are protected – because what I don’t want is a situation in which employers are forced to set up a system that they can’t be certain works,” Obama said.

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 8:55 PM

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 8:38 PM

sharrukin, you are taking my comments apart line by line again! How can I win then? Lol. Anyway, on the face it it seems Perry was given a raw deal on amnesty and e-verify, and as I explained before, he explained the fence. But I could be wrong, I’m chiefly going on the basis of this link: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/perry-addresses-conservatives-concerns-about-his-immigration-stance/

Bi-national health insurance?? Sounds iffy, but that’s not amnesty. Who knows what he’s taking about, if that is in fact his words. And if Perry said he shared a vision of “an open border,” that sounds horrible, though perhaps he was talking about products and commerce, not gang members. But I don’t know. I know Perry has been given a raw deal in some ways, but he better defend himself on the points you make, or he will fall.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 8:59 PM

You people stupid. All of you. Unfortunately we are all going to pay dearly for your nitpicking stupidity. You are the allies of the lefty drool cupped trolls, MSM whores and eunuchs and the Obama regime because you are stupidly looking for someone who is “purer than Caesar’s wife” which is as stupid as waiting for that unicorn Obama promised you.

Nahanni on July 12, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Are you drunk again?

VorDaj on July 12, 2014 at 9:01 PM

Bi-national health insurance?? Sounds iffy, but that’s not amnesty.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 8:59 PM

What about amnesty?

Is amnesty, amnesty?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-perry-letters/2011/03/29/gIQARee3rJ_blog.html

“I take strong issue with a news report in the Dallas Morning News mischaracterizing my position on amnesty for undocumented immigrants from Mexico. The truth is, I am intrigued and open to the Bush administration’s amnesty proposal. Most Texans would agree that it’s better to have legal, taxpaying immigrants from Mexico working in the United States than illegal immigrants living in fear of the law and afraid to access basic services.”

I am intrigued and open to the Bush administration’s amnesty proposal.

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Not that there will actually be an election.

davidk on July 12, 2014 at 6:18 PM

This. Do you really think this SCOAMF will turn over the “reigns” to Hillary? Or, miracle of Miracles, the GOP?

The next two years will be constant, accelerating crises until something hits hard enough for Obama’s puppet-masters to “delay” or cancel the 2016 elections.

Who is John Galt on July 12, 2014 at 9:05 PM

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Look sharrukin you better get over to qotd because Perry is being crowned as the anti-amnesty king!

But lols aside, I used the same quote you did to support Perry’s position on e-verify, and semantic similarities to Obama’s words is an inconclusive point. Chiefly Perry admits e-very has problems but says this:

Perry on E-Verify:

But just because it has problems doesn’t mean we should throw employee verification out. It means we should make it work.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 9:10 PM

I am intrigued and open to the Bush administration’s amnesty proposal.

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 9:04 PM

You very well may be right. You are convincing me. So get over to qotd. Maybe it’s Cruz we should champion. I really like Perry’s “wrecking ball” thing though. Drat.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 9:13 PM

But lols aside, I used the same quote you did to support Perry’s position on e-verify, and semantic similarities to Obama’s words is an inconclusive point.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 9:10 PM

The guy who says he fine with amnesty, is against E-verify for the same reasons Obama is, is against a fence, and supports Mexico’s President Fox’s vision for open-borders, and wants a bi-national insurance with Mexico is NOT a border hawk.

He’s an amnesty shill.

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 9:16 PM

I really like Perry’s “wrecking ball” thing though. Drat.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 9:13 PM

I say we nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Nahanni on July 12, 2014 at 8:44 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv5c2YR1lVE

WhatSlushfund on July 12, 2014 at 9:20 PM

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Not only that, but “undocumented immigrant.” If he was as bad a$$ as people say, he wouldn’t enable liberal euphemisms. Maybe he’s gone to “illegal aliens” in the interim. I don’t know.

Dongemaharu on July 12, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Look sharrukin you better get over to qotd because Perry is being crowned as the anti-amnesty king!

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 9:10 PM

I posted what he said as did you.

They don’t care.

Those who support Perry are fine with amnesty as long as its their guy doing it.

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 9:36 PM

Not only that, but “undocumented immigrant.” If he was as bad a$$ as people say, he wouldn’t enable liberal euphemisms. Maybe he’s gone to “illegal aliens” in the interim. I don’t know.

Dongemaharu on July 12, 2014 at 9:25 PM

That’s a good indicator of who you can trust and who you can’t. Not perfect, but not bad either.

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 9:40 PM

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 9:36 PM

Right. But you definitely changed my view… completely. Maybe you should keep at it, reiterating in different ways, on qotd. And btw I appreciate our civil discussion earlier, and you made a possible good point about Portugal, but I’ll have to look into that some more later.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Right. But you definitely changed my view… completely. Maybe you should keep at it, reiterating in different ways, on qotd. And btw I appreciate our civil discussion earlier, and you made a possible good point about Portugal, but I’ll have to look into that some more later.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Its refreshing to run into someone who lets the facts convince them. That is more rare than you might think.

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. – Winston Churchill

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 10:02 PM

LOL! No one is good enough for Tea People!

Ned Pepper o

Libtards on the other hand will bend over and take it from anybody. They even let old Thad Cochran take a turn, lol.

xblade on July 12, 2014 at 10:02 PM

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 10:02 PM

Thanks. Though you’re not likely to get me to switch on that other issue. So we are likely to have more arguments civil discussions about that in the future. That’s fine, though.

Oh, btw, in qotd someone gave a link in support of Perry’s bi-national health insurance thing. But that still doesn’t explain his explicit support for Bush’s amnesty. There just doesn’t seem to be any way around that, except for if Perry would say he no longer holds those views, but we couldn’t trust that, just like we couldn’t trust McCain, or Romney (who was for amnesty in 2005 and is now for amnesty again), and we should have known about Rubio who had the immigration lawyer and amnesty pusher Cesar Conda as his Chief of Staff.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 10:18 PM

All the finger-wagging in the world won’t change the fact that ISIS is engaged in a fight with Shia muslims primarily aligned with Iran. These are not nice people and we should keep an eye on them. But choosing sides or attempting to referee is going to bring the target on us more surely than any other action. We should be coordinating with the Saudis, Jordanians and Turks to let THEM taking the leading role in this. I’m done with the knee-jerk interventionism. It has long since become counter-productive.

hamiltmc on July 12, 2014 at 10:24 PM

Oh, btw, in qotd someone gave a link in support of Perry’s bi-national health insurance thing. But that still doesn’t explain his explicit support for Bush’s amnesty. There just doesn’t seem to be any way around that, except for if Perry would say he no longer holds those views, but we couldn’t trust that, just like we couldn’t trust McCain, or Romney (who was for amnesty in 2005 and is now for amnesty again), and we should have known about Rubio who had the immigration lawyer and amnesty pusher Cesar Conda as his Chief of Staff.

anotherJoe on July 12, 2014 at 10:18 PM

The excuse making train rolls on.

It was just a youthful indiscretion.
He’s changed.
Its out of context.
He is just dealing with the reality on the ground.
The bad men made him do it (Romney loved that one).

They have a lot in common with the teenage girl explaining away the creep she is dating.

sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 10:24 PM

Sharrukin: I don’t agree with you on everything (I like Rand Paul), but you are on FIRE in this thread kid.

iwasbornwithit on July 12, 2014 at 11:25 PM

That’s a good indicator of who you can trust and who you can’t. Not perfect, but not bad either.
sharrukin on July 12, 2014 at 9:40 PM

Yep. I noticed Rand has been doing this recently too. Thankfully, Palin hasn’t fallen for it yet.

Finally, they have won me over. I actually agree with the liberals’ war whoop. I, too, demand that this issue of young illegal aliens flooding across our border into horrendous conditions be taken care of. Now! Uncompassionate people, wake up! Though it’s claimed by Democrats ad nauseam to justify more spending to pile on our $17 trillion debt, and it’s applied to every single “crisis” their policies conjure up, and no matter the cause you’re labeled a racist if you disagree with their policies, well, this time it really IS for the children.

Dongemaharu on July 12, 2014 at 11:33 PM

-William Eaton

Very insightful post. I enjoy reading your comments on this site.

DontDroneMeBro on July 12, 2014 at 8:26 PM

A belated Thank You…

William Eaton on July 12, 2014 at 11:41 PM

You people stupid. All of you.

“Are” you missing a word? Or twas this an effort at Ebonics?

Unfortunately we are all going to pay dearly for your nitpicking stupidity.

Because vetting of candidates is never intelligent, much less on the largest topics in an election.

You are the allies of the lefty drool cupped trolls…“purer than Caesar’s wife”…blargh blargh

Because ad hominem against the individuals you are attempting to get to vote for your candidate so direct endears him to them.

During the civil war Lincoln had to find a general who could win that war.

This is like being aghast that a plumber has to fix pipes in order to resolve a leak: it is, indeed, one of the primary purposes of the job.

…gone through all….cognoscenti of the time…miserable failures. All of them.

Scott designed the battle plan that would, in the end, be directly used by Grant, whom we’ll get to, to secure victory. Scott’s advanced age, 74 years, in 1861, sickly and overweight condition was his disqualifier, not incompetence. Much less, the “miserable failure” moniker. Scott’s mistake was not allowing Lee to stay out of the fight. Telling him that he would have to fight Virginia if he wished to retain his commission is how the South would end up with one of its finest generals.

McClellan was the sole reason the Army of the Potomac even became a relevant fighting force in short order; his being outmaneuvered into the belief of superior forces, resulting in slow engagement and mustering of forces, is far more a testament to the maneuvers of outstanding Rebel commanders than his own ego. That said, McClellan’s ability to derive character traits in opponents, strategically or politically, was disturbingly ego driven. In the end, he was the reason the Army was effective to begin with; he was a competent battle leader during the Mexican war and initial outset of the Civil War, securing Western Virginia, until meeting some of the most effective strategists/tacticians on any battlefield during that period as General in Chief.

Halleck is a testament to Lincoln’s incompetence and wish to get the war out of his hands, along with the war cabinets. Halleck’s superior officers, some of those cognoscenti you keep whining about, disapproved of him almost wholeheartedly; he had never once command troops in battle, lacked the respect of his subordinate on a very obvious level, yet Lincoln promoted him anyhow. That’s Lincoln’s bust, not some “cognoscenti” plot for global domination through rampant stupidity. Which brings us to…..

The he chose a general….bashed by the cognoscenti….‘pure as Caesar’s wife’…he had failed at everything he did…. Lincoln finally ignored the nitpicking cognoscenti…

Grant was never a failure as a commander and the implication that he was is absurd. He kicked ass during the Mexican, receiving multiple citations for gallantry; during the Civil War his actions led to a rapid rise from Captain to his own District Command as a Brigadier General within the first year of the war. The “he failed at everything” bit is derived from his poor performance in the civilian sector, which he entered late in life, as well as not being a top graduate, basically ever. The impetus that he was somehow a miracle story is a joke. The assertion that Lincoln simply ignored the advice of both commands and advisors is far better laid at the feet choosing Halleck, not Grant.

Why did he do this? it is best summed up in a quote from him “I can’t spare this man; he fights!”

You’re using this as some sort of Lincoln imperative; in actuality the context of this quote comes from Shiloh, some two years and a month before his being promoted to General-in-Chief. Grant were caught completely off guard and, between himself and reinforcements from Buell, managed to accrue thirteen thousand casualties, three thousand more than the Rebels, with a twenty thousand man advantage over Johnston and Beauregard’s forces. If not for inclement weather stopping Johnston and Beauregard from attacking Grant two days before, Grant would have been defeated. This is a bad precedent for what you’re trying to get across….or maybe it’s perfect.

You can pine away for….‘purer than Caesar’s wife’ weaklings….Justin Bieber. Or you can choose someone who fights….

Essentially, your logic appears to be that as long as someone puts forth effort, they should be voted for: that’s very Participation Award of you. The people you are accusing, haphazardly, of being idiots, are largely saying that the GOP needs an effective leader, who, by want of being a necessity of effectiveness, also fights. A lot of them are simply saying the GOP is missing a candidate who meets the necessary cumulative capability in criteria for foreign policy, sovereignty and leadership.

As for me I’ll take someone who fights. I will take someone who fights because the next two years will decide whether this country lives or dies. Keep nitpicking and whining and all will be lost and it will be your worst nightmares come true.

That “I voted” sticker will obviously be a treasure to you. My only nightmare? People voting for someone based on participation and “fight”, rather than results and composite knowledge, planning and capability in requisite areas.

Ebola on July 12, 2014 at 11:45 PM

Rand can’t separate himself from Ron’s policies because there is no difference between them at all, as Rand said repeatedly for years and years. He is just a younger, hipper salesman, but libertarian foreign policy boils down to responding to direct attacks and nothing else. They pay the doobies around and stay laid back and uninvolved in the world.

~~

Had the Paul/LP foreign policy of no foreign bases or actions except in case of direct attack been our policy after WWII, we would be living in Soviet America today. There would have been no one to stop the Soviets from rolling over Western Europe or grabbing the coveted warm water ports on the Persian Gulf. No resistance to the subversion of governments in Central and South America.

The Pauls figured we could always wait until they started coming up the Mississippi in rowboats and take pot-shots at them from the banks.

Rand Paul will never be on a national Republican ticket – and thank God for that!

Adjoran on July 13, 2014 at 1:54 AM

Plus after his unfortunate 2012 run, Rick Perry needs to “unconvince” America that he’s an idiot. – bw222 at 6:19 PM

Hence the switch to heavy black glasses to make him look much more intelleckshul.

Toocon on July 13, 2014 at 7:18 AM

Adjoran on July 13, 2014 at 1:54 AM

and no US Marines guarding embassies either.

Kermit on July 13, 2014 at 3:01 PM