Posted on 12/20/2014 2:53:12 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Noah already wrote a policy rebuttal to Paul’s position, which Paul elaborated on this afternoon in a new op-ed at Time. (The op-ed, unlike his tweets, doesn’t 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 can’t figure out why Rand would do it.
When I tweeted out my surprise a few hours ago, a dozen people tweeted back, “Maybe Paul’s 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 he’s 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 “Iran’s 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 ABC’s 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? It’s not just conservatives who’ve noticed these reversals. Members of Paul’s libertarian base like Jacob Sullum and others at Reason have noticed them too. And everyone understands what it’s about: Rand’s afraid that if he takes a traditional libertarian line on hot-button foreign policy matters, it’ll be too easy for 2016 rivals to convince tea partiers that he’s just like his old man after all and can’t be trusted to protect America. Watering down his libertarian impulses may be cynical, but it’s 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 I’m 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 didn’t hedge; instead he went right at Rubio, mocking him with a too-cute-by-half crack that Rubio’s 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 he’s trying to woo hold? And not only is his position one that’s disfavored by the right, however ambivalent the rest of America might be about the embargo these days, it’s one that righties will forever associate with Obama and his foreign policy “legacy.” Paul may think he’s 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 doesn’t 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 aren’t. And those aren’t the kind of voters you want to alienate if you’re 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, Florida’s 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 he’ll be accused of carrying Barack Obama’s water on foreign policy? “He believes in his position” is no answer; as I’ve explained, that’s 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 … that’s my point. He already stands out! He stands out so much on foreign policy that he’s spent two years trying to stand out less, knowing that it’s a potential liability for him. Another friend speculates that Paul likes the “you’re the real isolationist!” line so much that he couldn’t resist throwing it in Rubio’s 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 won’t just be Rubio or Bush who’s calling him that; it’ll be the entire field, Christie, Walker, Huckabee, you name it. If mainstream conservatives watch 20 different big-name Republican pols assure them that Paul’s dangerously naive on Cuba, how much counterweight will Paul saying “no, you’re the naive one!” really have? Worst of all, perhaps, Paul’s devoted the past year to building the case that, as a “realist,” he’s actually the true heir to Ronald Reagan on foreign policy, not Rubio and the rest of the superhawks. What’s his counter now, though, when Rubio reminds him that the Reagan administration kept the embargo in place? It feels like he’s 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 Paul’s 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. That’s 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 he’ll 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 won’t care much about Cuba so this doesn’t 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). It’s not even Cuba per se that’s risky for Paul; it’s the perception that he’s so much different from other Republican candidates on foreign policy that he’s more inclined to agree with — gasp — Barack Obama than he is with Marco Rubio and the rest of his own party’s candidates. Opposing the Cuba embargo might please libertarians but it probably won’t him many extra conservative votes, especially in the primaries. Being seen as simpatico with Obama’s approach to international relations could hurt him, though, with exactly the sort of righties he’s targeting for votes.
No he has not been exposed as being crazy, he’s exposed himself as a libertarian, which in my opinion makes he better than crazy, but not presidential material.
At least Ron wasn’t trying to fool anybody.
Paultards being Paultards.
Gee.
A liberal takes the side of other liberals and some people are surprised.
Rand Paul and his father have never been conservative other than on fiscal policy.
The same thing some FReepers are thinking when they do the same.
The alarm bells started going off on Paul when TIME was pushing him on their front cover.
Anytime they, or any other members of the Democratic Propaganda Cabal (NY Times, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, A, etc.) promote a Republican candidate, that person is off my “can be trusted” list.
Immediately and permanently.
I forget who; but I remember someone saying that libertarians are nothing more than confused liberals.
Rand Paul left clear that he is as qualify to be president as it have proved to be Obama.
Obama have criticized the CIA over allegations of torturing those terrorists who master mind the 9/11 attack to New York towers. But Obama showed his twisted evil mind when he embrace the monsters who have murder, tortured and oppressed the Cuban people over half a century. Birds of a feather…
Cuban Communist Creed
“Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!” Ernesto Guevara from the book that became the Motorcycle Diaries.
“To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We execute from revolutionary conviction!” Ernesto “Che” Guevara.
Executions? Certainly we execute! And we will CONTINUE executing as long as it is necessary! This is a war to the DEATH against the revolution’s enemies!” Che Guevara while addressing the U.N. General Assembly on December 9, 1964.
Please note: all of Guevara’s above quotes are found in the sadist/coward’s (alas, the “acrid odor of gunpowder and blood” never reached Guevara’s nostril from actual combat. It always came from the close-range murder of bound, gagged and blindfolded men) own diaries.
According to the Black Book of Communism, published in Paris, 14,000 men and boys were executed in Cuba by that stage — the equivalent, given the relative populations, of over 3 million executions in the U.S. “VIVA CHE! VIVA FIDEL!” bellowed Jesse Jackson while arm in arm with the agent of that appalling bloodbath (Fidel Castro) at the University of Havana in 1984. Jesse Jackson, by the way, wrote a book condemning capital punishment.
Armando Valladares, is a Cuban poet released (because of international pressure) from Castro’s political dungeons in 1982 after serving 22 years of a 30 year sentence for publicly opposing the Communist take over of the Cuban Revolution. Valladares was made by president Ronald Reagan U.S. Ambassador to the United Nation’s Commission on Human Rights. His Memoirs, Against all Hope, was a best seller in the United States and around the world and has been translated to numerous languages.)
Valladares vividly expressed how much it meant the international reaction to the Cuban political martyrdom: “During those years, with the purpose of forcing us to abandon our religious beliefs and to demoralize us, the Cuban Communist indoctrinators repeatedly used the statements made by some representatives of the American Christian churches. Every time a pamphlet was published in U.S., every time a clergyman would write an article in support of Castro’s dictatorship, a translation would be given to us, and that was far worse for the Christian political prisoners than the beatings or the hunger. Incomprehensible to us, while we waited for the embrace of solidarity from our brothers in Christ, those who were embraced were our tormentors.”
Someone told me some time ago that they wanted a Paul foreign policy in the White House. I told them they already have it right now.
This incident is another proof that this is so.
Paul did me a favor by single-handedly winnowing the 2016 GOP field of acceptable candidates by one.
I used to really feel strongly about the Cuban boycott because of for no other reason the Florida Cuban community that was consistently against government over reach and so were staunch Republicans. Lately, though, that seems to have been changing with many supporting the far left democrat party. So, naturally, my concern for the boycott waned.
Wonder how they feel about the far left Democrat party now?
Maybe. But I read there was a protest about this issue in Miami and only a couple of hundred people showed up...vs the thousands that would normally protest. I’m not convinced that ‘Cuba’ will be Rand Paul’s big problem w/ conservative voters.
“The gathering at a Little Havana park drew more than 200 people, largely older Cuban exiles who chanted “Obama, traitor!” and waved U.S. and Cuban flags. Some expressed disappointment that the protest was not larger; the demonstrators filled about half the park.”
Rubio’s emotional reaction is why we as Americans don’t want natural foreigners in the White House. A natural born citizen of America has no such ties to cloud his judgment.
That said, Rand Paul would still make a better president that any number of RINO scum (Jeb Bush, Romney, Chris Christie) poised to run for the nomination as their only "ideology" is unfettered lust for power.
Rand Paul is a true libertarian. They are ONLY small government and take the side of the leftists in EVERYTHING ELSE! Wake up, America and start paying attention. I thought I was a libertarian until I started writing them, asking them to define some of their views. I realized QUICKLY that I was NOT a libertarian, but a true conservative. There is a HUGE difference! Not only that, but both Pauls change from one side to another whenever they see political gain for themselves. DISGUSTING! I could NOT vote for Rand Paul.
Paul is a libertarian. No borders and no trade restrictions.
Ron Paul foreign policy naivety was tolerable but combined with his arrogance, it became unbearable. However, RAND Paul generally has avoided his father's short comings until now.
Clearly, Cuba will have to engage the US economically to survive and for the US engagement is much better than an island evasion. But in the World economic climate of dropping oil prices and Chavistomisa on the verge of clasp, why would Obama give Cuba a free mulligan (golf lingo so Obama can understand). Worse, if Paul claims to understand the free market, why can't he understand that capitalism and by extension democracy will not come to Cuba without changes in the rule of law?
Then Ron doubles down on his mistake by throwing a temper tantrum on social media. This exposed that his father's short comings of arrogance runs in the Paul family.
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.