Yes, you hear that from a lot of deep thinkers.
Posted on 03/11/2015 5:40:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I … guess this makes sense? Paul’s got the same problem here as he has on most issues not related to cutting spending, trying to find a spot on the Venn diagram where libertarians and conservatives overlap. He signed Cotton’s letter, obviously, because he knows he’ll be attacked in the primaries as a squish who can’t be trusted as commander-in-chief and he can’t hand any more ammo to the competition on that point. Now, when Rubio or Ted Cruz or whoever slams him for being dovish, he can point to the Cotton letter as rebuttal. Having pandered to conservatives, though, he needs to atone to libertarians by finding a way to make the letter seem like a pander to them too. They expect a very different foreign policy from the son and heir to the rEVOLution than partnering with neo-neocons like Tom Cotton on Iran. So here’s Paul’s solution, from this morning’s “Today” show: He signed the letter to help Obama by giving him more leverage to make a deal, not to undermine Obama by signaling to Tehran that any agreement is going right down the toilet once a Republican’s back in the White House. The theory, presumably, is that Iran will feel more pressure to make concessions now that it knows Republicans in Congress mean business about rejecting the agreement under its current terms. Rand, by joining the hardliners, is actually trying to avert war by scaring Iran into making a deal that’ll please both parties and therefore will stand a better chance of enduring. He’s not sabotaging diplomacy, he’s enabling it!
Think libertarians are buying it? Matt Purple seems dubious:
American policy, at the very least, should be to not do anything that will empower [Iran's] hardliners and undermine the moderates. Yet that’s exactly what Cotton’s letter does. It’s another pound of leverage that Iran’s most intransigent traditionalists can bring to bear against Rouhani, Zarif, and the United States—and given Cotton’s desire to kill the Iran talks outright, that may have been its intent…
And what if my nightmare scenario does come true? Paul will have to stand up at a GOP candidates debate and make the case for both an Iranian nuclear deal and his being party to a letter that helped squash an Iranian nuclear deal. Doing that without tripping over one’s shoelaces is an impossible task…
But even from the perspective of a coldhearted political realist, it’s hard to see what advantage Paul gains here. Nothing less than full-throated bloodlust against Iran will stop hawks from calling him a squish. Meanwhile he’s spooked his base of anti-war conservatives and fed the developing narrative that he’s a opportunist willing to mortgage his principles.
What makes it doubly weird is that, by pitching his assent to the letter as helpful to Obama, Paul risks alienating some of the same hawkish conservatives he was trying to impress by signing it to begin with. Great, they’ll say, Rand signed the letter — but only because he wanted to preserve O’s ability to sell out American interests in a sham deal with Tehran. He did the right thing for the wrong reason. How can you trust a guy with instincts like that to draw sound, meaningful red lines as C-in-C?
Rand’s other pander to libertarians on the letter, which you’ll find at the start of the second clip below, is smarter and enjoys more of an overlap on the Venn diagram I mentioned. This wasn’t really a letter to Iran, says Paul, it was a letter to the White House that they’re trampling on Congress’s constitutional prerogatives again. Any deal with Iran should need to be approved by the Senate; that’s Con Law 101, especially when we’re talking about lifting sanctions that were imposed by a congressional vote to begin with. That spin has the multiple advantages of being correct on the merits, pleasing to conservatives in simultaneously rebuking Obama and Iran, and pleasing to libertarians in attempting to restore constitutional power to the legislature at the executive’s expense. Contra what Purple says, I think Paul could easily defend signing the letter while also defending his support for negotiations with Iran. It all comes down to separation of powers: He supports handling this diplomatically, if and only if Obama follows the Constitution’s protocols for diplomacy. No self-respecting libertarian would settle for less.
(VIDEOS-AT-LINK)
Dr. Paul is surging to the lead. He is our man.
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, & Jeff Sessions are the only ‘Pubs on the national stage who have grit. The rest are worthless, linguine-spined DBs.
You forgot the “sarcasm” tag. I hope.
That’s really dumb! But even without that dumb statement, I won’t be voting for Paul. The NUT doesn’t fall far from the tree!
Especially, do not reference the fact that it basically guarantees that the number one supporter of Islamic terrorism worldwide will be a nuclear power in ten years, worst case. Don't say anything about it not requiring they dismantle anything, and that the west gets nothing in return.
Instead, simply refer to the agreement as "diplomacy" as if diplomacy is a desirable ends unto itself.
He might be yours, but he sure isn’t mine!
You need to lay off the ethanol.
but you will vote for senator Paul over Hillary?
Why?
I definitely won’t be voting for Hillary ... :-) ... or anyone on the Democrat side ...
iowacornman
Since Aug 22, 2014
I don’t like his stance on Israel, including the “waffling” and more recent denials.
I applaud Paul for signing the letter but his explanation reveals an appalling misunderstanding of the problem. The problem is O, not that he’s too weak but rather that’s he’s too strong in getting what he wants - iranian islamoNazi expansion into all the other countries over there plus nukes and ICBM’s capable of hitting America hard.
Paul has no shot because he and his father and the PAULBOTS are effin nuts.
Once in a while, they say or do something useful to the cause.
The “Cause” is the annihilation of the CPUSA, CBC,CPC, and the DSA.
Useful is good, and Patriotic.
Insanity is not good.
Rand seems more confused than ever...
Yes, you hear that from a lot of deep thinkers.
He’s not mine either.
You're looking especially lovely today, Mr. President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.