Posted on 12/20/2014 2:53:12 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Noah already wrote a policy rebuttal to Pauls position, which Paul elaborated on this afternoon in a new op-ed at Time. (The op-ed, unlike his tweets, doesnt mention Rubio by name. Although it does approvingly cite George W. Bush?) Anyone want to make the case that the politics of attacking Rubio on this issue were smart, at least? I cant figure out why Rand would do it.
When I tweeted out my surprise a few hours ago, a dozen people tweeted back, Maybe Pauls just saying what he really believes. No doubt. But the thing that distinguishes Rand from Ron and what makes him a legit contender for the nomination is that hes willing to temper his foreign policy positions in order to make himself more appealing to mainstream conservatives. Remember when he complained earlier this year, as things got hairy in Ukraine, how certain Republicans (*cough*McCain*cough*) always seemed to want to tweak Russia? That was a fine libertarian/paleocon sentiment. A few weeks later, after Putin had gotten more aggressive and conservatives were demanding that Obama show some muscle, Paul took to Time magazine to demand strong action against Russia. Remember when he scoffed at the idea of intervening again in Iraq, with the U.S. effectively serving as Irans air force by bombing ISIS, only to decide a few months later as conservatives rallied for force that he would seek to destroy ISIS militarily as president? Last month he introduced a bill to formally declare war on the group that would even allow ground troops in certain limited circumstances. Remember when he seemingly endorsed containment of Iran on ABCs Sunday news show, only to come back the next week after the predictable uproar on the right ensued with an op-ed insisting he was unequivocally not for containing Iran? Its not just conservatives whove noticed these reversals. Members of Pauls libertarian base like Jacob Sullum and others at Reason have noticed them too. And everyone understands what its about: Rands afraid that if he takes a traditional libertarian line on hot-button foreign policy matters, itll be too easy for 2016 rivals to convince tea partiers that hes just like his old man after all and cant be trusted to protect America. Watering down his libertarian impulses may be cynical, but its smart.
So why pick a fight with Rubio, then? It would have been easy for him to oppose the embargo while hedging enough to make conservatives comfortable with his position. E.g., I believe in the liberating power of trade and support lifting sanctions on Cuba, but Im concerned that Senator Rubio is right that this will mainly be a windfall for the Castros, not the Cuban people. The president needs to do more to ensure that the benefits of trade flow to the public, not to the regime, starting with demanding democratic reforms. At the very least, he should have emphasized the point made by Noah, Michael Brendan Dougherty, and many others that tossing a bunch of capital into a corrupt, cronyistic socialist swamp with no meaningful civic institutions is likely to produce a fascist oligarchy like modern Russia, not a truly free state. But Rand didnt hedge; instead he went right at Rubio, mocking him with a too-cute-by-half crack that Rubios the real isolationist. Why? Why, with the primary campaign just weeks away from going full tilt, would he suddenly refuse to pander to a position that probably 85 percent of the right-wingers hes trying to woo hold? And not only is his position one thats disfavored by the right, however ambivalent the rest of America might be about the embargo these days, its one that righties will forever associate with Obama and his foreign policy legacy. Paul may think hes waging war on Rubio on behalf of libertarianism but I bet most conservatives will see it as him waging war on behalf of Obama. It doesnt even make sense at the micro level: As Harry Enten explains, while Cuban-Americans generally may be more conflicted about the embargo than they used to be, Cuban-American Republicans in Florida arent. And those arent the kind of voters you want to alienate if youre eyeing the GOP nomination.
These Cuban-American Republicans could easily swing a relatively close Florida Republican primary. Cuban-Americans make up a sizable 8 percent of the primary vote in Florida, which is greater than the 6 percent Cuban-Americans make up in the general election. More importantly, though, Cuban-Americans have voted in a bloc in the past two presidential primaries.
In 2008, Cuban-American voters in Florida cast 54 percent of their ballots for John McCain compared to just 32 percent for Rudy Giuliani. McCain actually lost among white voters to his nearest rival, Mitt Romney, but was able to win the primary by 5 percentage points primarily because Romney won only 9 percent of the Cuban-American vote.
In 2012, Cuban-American voters switched their allegiance to Romney. He won 57 percent of the Cuban-American vote in the primary, while Newt Gingrich won only 31 percent.
As a swing state and an early state that follows Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, Floridas arguably the single most important Republican primary in catapulting its winner to the national nomination. McCain won it in 2008, Romney won it in 2012. Whatever chance Rand Paul had to win it is smaller now, maybe considerably smaller, than it was yesterday.
So, again: Why? Why would Rand unload on Rubio knowing that hell be accused of carrying Barack Obamas water on foreign policy? He believes in his position is no answer; as Ive explained, thats never stopped Rand from moderating before. One Twitter pal theorized that maybe Paul hit hard here because he wanted to stand out in the field. But thats my point. He already stands out! He stands out so much on foreign policy that hes spent two years trying to stand out less, knowing that its a potential liability for him. Another friend speculates that Paul likes the youre the real isolationist! line so much that he couldnt resist throwing it in Rubios face, even if it means stridently opposing conservative orthodoxy in this case. When Rubio or Jeb Bush calls him an isolationist at the first presidential debate next year, Rand now has a ready comeback. The problem there, though, is that it wont just be Rubio or Bush whos calling him that; itll be the entire field, Christie, Walker, Huckabee, you name it. If mainstream conservatives watch 20 different big-name Republican pols assure them that Pauls dangerously naive on Cuba, how much counterweight will Paul saying no, youre the naive one! really have? Worst of all, perhaps, Pauls devoted the past year to building the case that, as a realist, hes actually the true heir to Ronald Reagan on foreign policy, not Rubio and the rest of the superhawks. Whats his counter now, though, when Rubio reminds him that the Reagan administration kept the embargo in place? It feels like hes blowing himself up here on what would otherwise have been a boutique issue in the primaries, except for one key primary where it really matters and Pauls bizarrely on the wrong side of it.
Anyway. Ed tells me that he put this question to Mitch McConnell in interviewing him for the Hugh Hewitt Show tonight, which should be airing within the hour after this post goes live. Thats quite a dilemma for McConnell Paul is his close ally, a guy who helped him get reelected to the Senate and whom McConnell has already said hell support for president, but Rubio represents the balance of conservative opinion. Which man did McConnell side with? Listen and find out.
Update: Some commenters are arguing that most Republican primary voters wont care much about Cuba so this doesnt hurt Paul really. Maybe true but not in Florida, which is a big problem for Rand as I explained above (and as Ian Tuttle explains here). Its not even Cuba per se thats risky for Paul; its the perception that hes so much different from other Republican candidates on foreign policy that hes more inclined to agree with gasp Barack Obama than he is with Marco Rubio and the rest of his own partys candidates. Opposing the Cuba embargo might please libertarians but it probably wont him many extra conservative votes, especially in the primaries. Being seen as simpatico with Obamas approach to international relations could hurt him, though, with exactly the sort of righties hes targeting for votes.
What he’s thinking is that he can pander to anybody.
Rand Paul is one of those Happy drunks
Sharpton/Paul 2016 - Blame America First
Both optically and rhetorically Paul is really coming across poorly in this debate.
Our government and the people that are in control of it are totally from another planet. They cannot in any way be Americans. Impossible. “As some ancient astronaut theorists believe.”
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Rand Paul's immigration speech...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]
Paul is like his father but tries to hide his agenda more.
Rand Paul is a flake. No matter how one cuts the pie, he is a flake. He is symptomatic of the underlying illness gripping our country. Everyone divided, going their own way, and thus easily conquered.
Like father like son.
Rand is thinking there are enough crazy people to make him the next president.
Summary posts like yours add substantial context and make me smarter. Thanks FRother (Freeper Brother).
Good! That helps Ted Cruz.
I will concede that I think Rand Paul is a flake. But in the case of Cuba and the general public...I don’t think too many people are going to give two hoots when 2016 roles around. So Rand Paul being dippy on Cuba may have zero impact when it comes to presidential politics. (RP has many other issues...but perhaps not Cuba).
Now it could just be my western U.S. location ... but none of my conservative friends were overly excited about what’s gone down so far w/ Cuba. I do have a few Paulinistas around (I try to be patient w/ these folks and talk real slow)....but I don’t consider those dudes conservatives. Most of my conservative brethren think RP is a flake off the old man’s shoulders.
I personally don’t think Rubio is the right guy to lead a conservative charge when it comes to foreign policy. IMO, Rubio lacks credibility w/ the general public in regards to both foreign policy and immigration policy.
Waiting for the grown ups (not John McCain or Lindsey) to lead the discussion on where the Cuba policy should be for the U.S. But the bottom line is I don’t think too many folks outside of Florida care anymore about Cuba and the Castro brothers.
The article really focuses in on Florida, where it does matter and will probably make a difference in the Republican primary.
Rand Paul is Ron Paul in camouflage.
Rand Paul is/has been exposed as a total nut case. His sleazy followers keep attacking Cruz being ineligilbe for Pres....and also keep attacking Rubio for his position on amnesty(he isnt for it)....Rand and his followers will do their best to keep the WH in RAT hands in 2016.
Bears repeating. Often.
he’s after the fuzzy headed millennial dumbsh*ts that (he thinks) got obama elected twice.
his “cool libertarianism” resonates with people that don’t know anything, and millennials have no idea why castro is bad or even why communism was a problem.
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.