Posted on 06/10/2015 1:16:49 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Are there libertarian-leaning Republicans who think Rand Paul is too soft on ISIS?
At National Review, Joel Gehrke reports that the Ted Cruz campaign "thinks it has identified a way to begin" to "pick off enough libertarian votes to hobble Rand Paul." How? By running to the right of Paul on national security:
Perhaps surprisingly, Cruz's [analytics] team discovered that national security is a prominent and growing concern among libertarian voters. "There is a plurality of libertarians whose top issue is national security today," [Cruz campaign director of research and analytics Chris] Wilson says, pegging the figure in the mid-30s. "Now, I doubt that was the case in 2008. It may not have been even in 2012. But today it is." Consequently, he believes that Cruz's support for the USA Freedom Act, which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell backed begrudgingly after failing to pass a bill reauthorizing the Patriot Act, hit the sweet spot in terms of appealing to libertarians who dislike the NSA but fear ISIS.
Are libertarian-leaning Republicans really worried that Rand Paul is too soft on ISIS? Color me doubtful. While there's no doubt that Americans as a whole, Republicans especially, are more anxious about national security and more willing to send out American bombers than they were in 2013, hawks in my estimation have been wishful in their thinking that those numbers has made re-palatable notions like pre-emptive war and American boots on the ground in the Middle East. Being worried about ISIS is not the same as endorsing whatever Marco Rubio thinks we should do about the Islamic State. If interventionism was really back in vogue GOP candidates wouldn't have spend a week in mid-May stumbling over the Iraq War.
It's more likely here that analytics are being bent to fit a strategic reality and imperative. Which is to say, Ted Cruz is going after the libertarian vote (in addition to the overlapping Tea Party vote and especially the social conservative bloc), and he is more hawkish than Paul, so he's going to continue heightening the contrasts while looking for positions and rhetoric that don't totally alienate people who distrust the National Security Agency. I'm no Cruz fan, but I'd rather have two of the party's top five or six candidates vying for the libertarian vote than just one.
Rand Paul has already called for shrinking our military and capabilities.
He does this as Russia is invading up to NATO’s borders, and threatening the world, and america, and China is moving to threaten everyone in the Pacific.
...after some of the supporters finding out you knew that there was more in the TTP than what you said....
...because your no better than bambaboy...and because when you open your mouth your lying also...
...I see all your support going down the toilet....
So you haven’t read his reasons for supporting free trade that have been posted here umpteen times?
I’ve seen it....I just decided to comment now....
Why do we bother reading liberals’ theory on why we do things?
Their heads are right up their asses just as much as their are over anything else they allegedly ‘think’ (like the goodness of government programs)
Better yet, why does the Stupid Party listen to them analyzing us?
What did you think of his reasoning?
This is wishful thinking. Most libertarians view "national security" as newspeak for increased NSA surveillance and hegemony. Which incidentally is how most of our politicians use it too.
>>How? By running to the right of Paul on national security:
This strikes me as not-very-difficult.
I have never really felt that he was any different than any of the other RINO’s running....my problem is this:
IF he read this ttp bill then he would know about the immigration part being in there....if he was working as a servant to his people in Texas that voted for him, he would have talked about it openly...
I don't trust anyone of the candidates running, I feel they are all there for themselves, sure they say they are doing this and that and they tell you anything to get elected or reelected, but they all lie....
I want someone who will do this:
“I have read the ttp (or any other bill) and this is what I found, there are things that should not be passed. It hurts the economy, it hurts our people with job growth, etc. etc. I will not vote for this bill because it isn't what you people that elected me want me to vote yes on”
If they would just come out and tell us what WE need to know, there wouldn't be all this mistrust with our government, but they are (1) afraid the lobbyists won't give them kick backs, (2) their peers won't like them or (3) they won't get the chairmanships that make news.....and to hell with the people that elected them....
In response to people who are afraid that he voted to give more power to Obama, he said that he didn't trust Obama at all. Obama won't be in the office in 19 months. He looked into the future for the next president to have an authority to negotiate. Hopefully, the next president will be a Republican, especially him. Now is the time to get it passed with Democrats. If we wait for the next administration (Republican), Democrats in Congress will vote it down no matter what.
For TPP, he said it was stupid to have the text classified. He READ the TPP. It was relatively a straightforward trade agreement. He didn’t have weeks to study each paragraph closely. Unfortunately, from the past history of the administration’s abuse of power, the secrecy gives the impression that they are hiding something horrible in the bill. Fortunately, under TPA they have to make any trade agreement, including TPP, public for 60 days before the Congress can vote on it. People can study closely at this time. But personally he wanted the text public right now.
1. He doesn't trust giving Obama more power but is willing to compromise here. 2. He doesn't believe TPP should be secret but will compromise this too.
I don't have an issue with free trade per se. But I also realize it doesn't require 700+ pages to codify free trade. I suspect this has about as much to do with free trade as the freedom act has to do with freedom. In fact it has been commonly reported that only 5 of the 29 chapters deal with trade.
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.