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)
what ?
Trolling for who here ?
August 2014.?
Trolling for who here ?
August 2014.?
Trolling for who here ?
August 2014.?
Trolling for who here ?
August 2014.?
are you a raycess?
Rand’s just as screwed up as his old man.
Cotton called the great patriot snowden a traitor, and he is all for unlimited spying. What good is standing up against Totalitarianism in Iran if you are enabling it here.He ‘s against giving Obama unlimited power to arm Iran, good. He seems to have no problem giving Obama massive power on spying.
I agree. We can lose the battle either at home or to an external enemy like a nuclearized Iran. I am gratified when we see any progress on reducing the danger on either front. But yes, we need more progress and on both fronts
The two are not completely seperate, either.
Obama is both protecting and financing the external IslamoNazi enemy, he’s importing hundreds of thousands more people, with an unusual concentration of young males we hear, from IslamoNazi controlled countries. In some cases, he’s even using our tax money to bring them here and ‘resettle them’ in our cities and towns. In other instances, they (like anyone else) just walk across our unprotected border or just fly in on temporarly visas or student visas or work visas and conveniently forget to go home. Muslims are the only identifiable group I know of that are taught to hate the infidels, with particular attention to subjugating or killing Christians and Jews, as we see in every evening’s newscast these days. Crufixions, burning people alive in cages, mass murders, gang rapes, you name it. This all does not bode well for our ‘demestic tranquillity”.... and it seems increasingly likely that we will suffer more and more losses of our constitutional liberties as the feds decide to ‘protect us’ more
so, the two...external IslamoNazi enemies....and our internal danger of losing even more of our liberties, are related.
they BOTH need to be fought.
Eliminate the Iranian nuclear arsenal....ASAP....
and
start deporting Islamics ...send them home ASAP.
my 2 cents worth.
take or leave at your pleasure.
All the best,
fhc
John McCain will becone a nuclear power?
Hey, if Hillary said she broke all the records and security laws for convenience, Rand can claim he signed the letter to help Obama - it’s about time we started using their type lame/inane excuses as reasons against them.
Is that you, Al?
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]
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.