Posted on 02/01/2014 5:57:04 AM PST by SoConPubbie
Via Think Progress, this one’s a few days old but worth noting belatedly. Skip to 4:25 for the key bit. Three weeks ago, this would have been a big deal legislatively. Rumors were swirling at the time that the Senate had 67 votes — a veto-proof majority — to slam Iran with a new round of sanctions that would, in theory, pressure them to faithfully carry out their obligations under the Geneva nuclear deal. The Iranians countered that new sanctions would be a dealbreaker; Obama threatened to veto them if they passed, but 67 votes would mean taking the pen out of his hand. The mystery, then: How would Rand Paul, potentially the 67th vote, come down on the question when his dovish libertarian fans and more hawkish conservative ones were at odds? The answer, as it turned out, was that it doesn’t matter. After the news broke about a veto-proof majority congealing in the Senate, the White House and various interest groups went into overdrive in pressuring pro-sanctions Democrats to back down. It worked. Chris Coons, one of the original sponsors of a new round of sanctions, had a change of heart, as did Richard Blumenthal. The pen is back in Obama’s hand so Paul’s vote is academic.
Academic, but still interesting and relevant to the future of Republican foreign policy. Support for new sanctions is nearly unanimous among Senate GOPers, with Paul and Jeff Flake, as far as I know, constituting a caucus of two in showing reluctance. Marco Rubio backs sanctions and thinks the Senate still has a shot at a veto-proof majority on them. Ted Cruz called Obama’s SOTU threat to veto a sanctions bill “one of the most dangerous things in the entire speech” and compared his handling of Iran to Clinton’s handling of eventual nuclear power North Korea in the 90s. This is, in other words, a glaring point of contention between Paul and his presidential rivals on a hot-button foreign policy issue. It’s bound to figure in the debates next year, maybe prominently. If negotiations break down, it’s a cinch that the field’s more hawkish candidates will use his wait-and-see approach to bludgeon him for his dovish naivete. Paul will have defenses to that — he voted for Iran sanctions in the past, and he says here that he’d prefer to keep existing sanctions in effect until there’s proof that Iran’s complying with the Geneva terms (although Iran never would have agreed to that) — but no one knows if they’ll work. The whole thrust of his opponents’ criticism on foreign policy will be that he’s too much like his father to be trusted to defend the country robustly. They’re looking around for data points to support that thesis; if negotiations collapse, this’ll be seized eagerly. And of course Paul knows it, which is why it’s safe to say he’s giving his honest opinion here. He’s already got the libertarian vote. All this can do is get hawkish voters to say “hmmmm.”
Yet Reagan did exactly that by naming the Progressive RINO Bush as his VP, sowing the seeds of the unraveling of his legacy.
The fact that anyone still considers Randmesty Paul a conservative and a GOP frontrunner in 2016....means there are a lot of Low Info Voters on our side of the fence
I wonder if people really read the articles on FR, and can comprehend them? Randmesty is no conservative...and he is the stealth version of his father
We agree completely. I had same hopes for him.
There are a lot of low info voters who think foreign policy breaks out along the line of republican versus democrat or conservative versus liberal.
The reality is that each party has foreign policy groups that don't always agree and they don't agree on this issue of imposing more sanctions on Iran before the negotiations are completed.
In the republican party there are Realists, NeoCons, and Isolationists.
In the democrat party there are Realists, Liberal Interventionists, and Antiwar Pacifists.
So what we have is a piece of Senate legislation that was written by and cosponsored by both democrats and republicans and this legislation advocates for these additional sanctions. And we can look and see exactly which republicans and which democrats have signed onto the legislation. All the democrats supporting the additional sanctions are Liberal Interventionists. All of the republicans supporting the additional sanctions are NeoCons.
Meanwhile, there is another group composed of both republicans and democrats who didn't sign on to the legislation, and some of these republicans and some of these democrats have publicly spoken out against the legislation. Rand Paul is just the latest.
With that in mind, we can say that the Realists(D's and R's) oppose the additional sanctions plus the Isolationist republicans and the Antiwar Pacifist dems oppose the additional sanctions.
The very prominent dem Realist, Diane Feinstein, and the very prominent GOP Realist, Bob Corker, have spoken out against the additional sanctions. As for Rand Paul, he is an Isolationist, but he knows an Isolationist can't get elected prez, so tries to masquerade as a Realist.
There is another interesting aspect of this. The Israeli Lobby group AIPAC, has been very out spoken in their support for the additional sanctions while the Israeli Lobby group J Street, has been very outspoken in opposing the additional sanctions.
Keep talking Rand. The more you do, the more we see that even though you are a small government (sometimes) libertarian, you are not really all that conservative. I’m sort of sick of how you take on an issue and seem to take a stand, get all the accolades, then when it comes for a vote, you vote for it, afterwards saying that it was going to pass, anyway! I’m done with you!
Coons and Blumenthal, good little Obama toadies.
What Rand Paul Doesn't Get About Intervention
The new Rand Paul vs. the old Rand Paul
Rand Paul: Swapping conservative principles for GOP acceptance
Rand Paul plays party healer after midterms, with eyes on 2016
Sharpton Says ‘Rand Paul Is Right,’(On Police Brutality), Wonders How This’ll Hurt Hillary Clinton
Rand Paul endorses Mitch McConnell in 2014 Senate race, won’t back tea party challenge
Mitch McConnell Backs Rand Paul in 2016, Giving Him the Kind of Endorsement His Father Never Won
McConnell Campaign Manager: I'm 'Holding My Nose' Until Rand Paul Campaign
Mitch McConnell's campaign manager steps down
Rand Paul: Let's Compromise on Amnesty
Rand Paul: I won’t allow you to smear me by claiming that I’m for amnesty
Rand Paul Raising Money on Opposing Amnesty Now
Rand Paul Takes On ‘Amnesty’ Opponents: ‘Do They Want Us To Put Illegals In Concentration Camps?’
Man Mozilla, that is a great list of inconvenient facts where Rand Paul is concerned!
Mind if I use it in the future?
Thanks,
SCP
Nah I don’t mind. You can go ahead and spread it around so that people can learn the truth of the guy. He is a mini Romney because of his flip flopping and confusing shifts.
It sounds to me like he is trying to appease everyone on the right to win the White House, but he not only is contradicting himself; he is doing some odd stuff.
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.