Tea Party

National Security Republicans Go Gunning for Senate Front-Runner Rand Paul


So, a Tea Party-favored candidate for the U.S. Senate is leading in his primary race to replace a sitting Republican senator who is stepping down. Sounds like a win-win for the wannabe TP co-opters of the GOP, right? Not if the candidate in question is Ron Paul's son Rand. Politico has the story:

Alarming radical

A win by Paul, a Bowling Green ophthalmologist, would represent the first true electoral success of the tea party movement. Equally important, it would embarrass Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose political organization is running [Trey] Grayson's campaign, thrust onto the national stage a Republican with foreign policy views out of the conservative mainstream and, strategists in both parties believe, imperil the GOP's hold on the seat now held by retiring Sen. Jim Bunning.

Recognizing the threat, a well-connected former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney convened a conference call last week between Grayson and a group of leading national security conservatives to sound the alarm about Paul.

"On foreign policy, [global war on terror], Gitmo, Afghanistan, Rand Paul is NOT one of us," Cesar Conda wrote in an e-mail to figures such as Liz Cheney, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Dan Senor and Marc Thiessen.

With an attached memo on Paul's noninterventionist positions, Conda concluded: "It is our hope that you can help us get the word out about Rand Paul's troubling and dangerous views on foreign policy."

In an interview, Conda noted that Paul once advocated for closing down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and sending some suspected terrorists to the front lines in Afghanistan.

"This guy could become our Republican senator from Kentucky?" he exclaimed. "It's very alarming."

As our upcoming magazine feature on the Rand Paul campaign makes clear, the son is not the father when it comes both to foreign policy and the politics thereof; he's less of a principled non-interventionist, and that aspect is less central to his philosophy. Which makes it all the more galling that the militarist dead-enders in the GOP would go after arguably the most promising Tea Partyish candidate yet from within their own ranks. Especially with tactics like these:

Part of the strategy is to portray Paul as just plain weird.

Grayson has launched a website, www.randpaulstrangeideas.com, that features a picture of a turtleneck-clad Paul against a quasi-psychedelic background and that details his positions on national security as well as cultural matters such as marriage, abortion and marijuana (as a libertarian-leaning Republican, Paul tends to want such matters decided on the state level).

One of the best scare-tabs at the website is "Funded by Out Of State Libertarians"….

NEXT: Halfway to Freedom in New Hampshire

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If Mitch McConnell think he can scare people by showing that Rand Paul isn’t an establishment Republican, he’s in fucking outer space.

    1. Reminiscent of the tactics used against Bob Smither. Texas Republicans preferred to give Tom Delay’s seat away to a Democrat, rather than let a libertarian win.

      1. Good Morning reason!

        Hi TLG!

        1. Mornin’, Suki! Having a government-approved day?

        2. Why do you keep doing this? Why don’t you grow up, shut up, and get off my lawn?

          1. Shut up, old man! Heh heh.

            1. He’s, like, old and stuff.

  2. Please if you want any semblance of sanity in foriegn policy consider making a donation to Rand Paul. He will need every penny to fight back against the onslaught of discredited Cheney neoconservatives.

    Please pledge for the March 23rd “Give Me Liberty” moneybomb @ http://www.WinRandWin.com

  3. Is it just me or does Rand Paul look like the guy from the B-52’s?

    Love shack baby!!!

    1. Tiiiiiin Roof.


    2. Fred Schneider!! One of the nicest guys in the biz supposedly.

      1. He comes across as very sweet in the old videos.

      2. Extremely nice guy. I had the pleasure of meeting them a few years ago after a performance (my MIL went to high school with Kate Peirson).

  4. Turtlenecks were perfectly respectable apparel when worn in moderation, before Carl Sagan and his astrobabble sullied their reputation by wearing them on every freaking TV show he was on.

    1. What, may I ask, is wrong with Carl Sagan or his astrobabble?

      1. They’re elitist.

        It’s unfair that scientists get to use words that nobody else use or understand, and the gap between the haves and have-nots is only growing.

        I ask you, Audrey the Liberal: how can you live with such injustice?

        1. The word “elitist” is a bigoted slur against people who think they know how to run your life better than you do.

      2. Well for one thing he was ALWAYS wearing a turtleneck.

    2. I can’t remember if it was Mitch Hedburg or Patton Oswalt who said wearing a turtleneck and a backpack was like being strangled by a really weak midget.

  5. We still don’t know who wrote the racist newsletters…hmmm, or do we?? They were full of a lot of strange ideas too.

    1. That has, what to do with Rand Paul, exactly?

      1. Well, it’s not impossible for him to have written them. He would have been 21 when the first ones came out.

    2. People that weren’t Ron Paul wrote them. Find another idiotic conspiracy to tout.

    3. I read this as sarcasm. But I’m an idiot, so who knows.

  6. Oh, noes! Out-of-state contributors!

    “It’s only wrong if the other side does it!”ism strikes again.

    1. Not simply out-of-state contributors, but out-of-state liberatarians. Lock up your daughters, gentlemen (and your sons and coonhounds too, just to be safe.)

      1. Maybe there oughta be a law preventing libertarians from running for office, or contributing to candidates.

        I’ve heard liberals and conservatives espouse both ideas, so it’s not entirely impossible…

        1. I live in Oklahoma–you have to get 3% of the state to sign a petition to allow a non-traditional party on the ballot….. every year.

          Not surprisingly, the Republicans or Democrats don’t have such restrictions. So, we might as well have a law preventing libertarians from running for office.

          I think it’s the Republicans that keep that law on the books, because a populist libertarian could definitely clean their clocks every time.

      2. More like lock up your Fleshlights, from my admittedly skewed sample of libertarian romance.

        1. Don’t own one. I have a female accomplice for that task.

          Good thing I don’t live in Alabamastan, where sex toys are forbidden. But I still don’t need one.

          The female accomplice, however, has an impressive array of devices. Yup.

          1. They’re not forbidden to own, just sell. We still have the “interTubes” and UPS delivers here as well.

            1. Is the ban still in place, though? Haven’t checked since Boortz talked about it some time back.

              If I recall rightly, the ban was on sex toys for the ladies, because – as we all know – women don’t have a right to an orgasm.

              Now, I don’t buy that, but the Alabamastan government does/did…

  7. You know what? I still have an emotional connection to Republicans, courtesy of my parents, whom I love wholeheartedly, and for good reason because they are/were wonderful people…but it’s like an appendix at this point. Not really necessary, not a necessary part of me. I still tend to favor Team R over Team D at this particular point, only because Team D has been SO FUCKING INCREDIBLY WORSE THAN I EVER IMAGINED IT COULD BE EVEN IN MY MOST FEVERED IMAGINATION, but…if the Republican Establishment doesn’t like Rand Paul then yeah, fuck the Republican Establishment. Actually, fuck the RE anyway, but you know what I mean…

    I think Rand’s prospects are excellent, and the Republican Establishment still doesn’t get that the TP’ers aren’t beholden to them. At all.

    And Rand is an awesome name, and I need more wine.

    I’m not a TP’er, BTW….

    1. As soon as my term in the central committee is over, I’ll probably leave the GOP. They speak a good speak when out of power, but I’m still catching government-loving odors from them.

      Not sure if I’ll go back to the Silly Party (LP) or be a decline to state.

    2. Just for the record, it’s short for Randall. Ron didn’t actually name him Rand.

      1. When I met him during his dad’s LP run for prez he went by Randy which is fine for a young med school grad just getting ready to start his residency in opthalmology. Not so much for the middle aged owner of an established practice.

  8. Grayson has also struck with a “Rand Paul went to Duke Medical School, so he’s probably a Blue Devil fan” ad. That might actually get some votes in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

    1. I just had a vision of Rand Paul’s face imposed on Christian Laettner’s body as he scores the game winner against Kentucky in 1992. That would be a pretty funny commercial actually.

    2. McConnell went to the ville, that is even worse, and he keeps winning.

      1. Well, maybe the NCAA tournament was a precursor…as much as hate to think about the positives of Duke winning.

  9. Cesar Conda is a goon – watch him carefully. He’s on the board for Freedom Works. He’s called Bernanke “the John Roberts of the economics profession”, which John Roberts probably wants to punch Conda in the face for saying that.

    1. Did you notice that “[global war on terror]” is bracketed in the article? Obviously, in his e-mail, Conda wrote GWOT. Anyone who uses that phrase so often that they causally drop it as an acronym is a dangerous man.

      To put this to the best possible use, I propose we arm Conda to the teeth and airdrop him into the Swat Valley.

      1. I prefer to call it The War Against Terror

        1. I prefer to call it The War Against Us.

  10. I could have told you that the GOP is no friend of liberty or libertarians; hell, I’ve known that since the days of Tricky Dick’s first term.

  11. My god, look at those “strange ideas”

    1. Opposing the Iraq War
    2. Opposing the War on Drugs
    3. Opposes “surge” in Afghanistan

    Yeah, what a nutjob, opposing wars and all.

    1. It’s unAmerican, is what it is.

    2. The irritating thing about ‘conservatives’ is their incessant insistance that they are pro-small government… when each of those three things you listed are decidedly very statis big government.

  12. The silly website was…funded by outta-state libertarians. Or Rand Paul was…

    What a fucked site. Typical Cheney-Bush.


    1. Typical FreeRepublic types, more like it. They hates libertarians.

      But then, big-government types of either Brand X Party, hates libertarians.

  13. I put forth the opinion that most Republicans were ‘cunts’ on a previous thread and people jumped down my throat. Isn’t that basically what everyone on here is saying now????

    1. The problem is that he’s leading in the primary race, so it looks like “most Republicans” are leaning towards voting for him. So if you mean “most Republican establishment politicians” you’d get a different answer.

      1. Im voting for him. Admittedly, Im only allowed in the primary because I joined them to vote for his Dad.

    2. cunts with candida

  14. And personally I don’t think the ideas they highlight are strange- they are just the ones that make him look liberal, even progressive…

    1. Liberal like all the democrats who are also pro-war, pro-war on drugs and radically *against* state’s rights?

      1. Any democrat who is pro-war and anti-drug clearly has CONSERVATIVE points of view that I don’t agree with. Certainly Nancy Pelosi’s view on the war and on drugs are much closer to Rand Paul’s than

        State’s rights??? WTF????

        …what if the state wants to be pro war and pro war on drugs?

        State’s rights is a separate issue, nothing to do with liberal/conservative, you cretin.

        1. Certainly Nancy Pelosi’s view on the war and on drugs are much closer to Rand Paul’s

          Are you serious?

          1. Nancy Pelosi’s view on the war on drugs…

            Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.

            Amendment to set up a task force on counter-terrorism and drug interdiction and allow military personnel to help patrol U.S. borders.
            Bill HR 2586 ; vote number 2001-356 on Sep 25, 2001
            Voted NO on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC.

            Vote to pass a bill that provides $429.1 million in funds for the District of Columbia and approves the District’s $6.8 billion budget. Among other provisions, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds for needle exchange programs, prohibits implementing an approved ballot initiative to legalize the medicinal use of marijuana.
            Reference: Bill sponsored by Istook, R-OK; Bill HR 3064 ; vote number 1999-504 on Oct 14, 1999
            Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests.

            Drug Demand Reduction Act: Vote on an amendment to require that anyone hired by the Federal Government is subject to random, unannounced drug testing.
            Reference: Amendment by Taylor, D-MS; bill by Portman, R-OH.; Bill HR 4550 ; vote number 1998-443 on Sep 16, 1998
            Legalize medical marijuana.

            Pelosi co-sponsored the States’ Rights to Medical Marijuana Act:

            Pelosi scores +20 by the NORML on drug reform

            1. Voting/supporting correctly on something because of the wrong reasons does not make you right – or of having similar views of someone who voted the same way for a completely opposite reason.

              1. Where did I say anyone was ‘right’, dumbass?

                Give me an example of Nancy Pelosi’s views on the war on drugs, being different than Rand Paul’s. Except perhaps, that Paul might be willing to drop all his principles in this category if his state decided that the war on drugs was important.

                1. That’s asinine. Rand, much like his father, has a pretty clear and principled position on people’s right to decide for themselves what they want to put in their own bodies.

                  Pelosi, however, seems to have never even heard of such a concept as individual sovereignty.

        2. State’s rights isn’t really a separate issue at all, since you can’t actually be a “pro war” state, given that states don’t do any international activities, nor can you be for the FEDERAL war on drugs if you’re interested in a local approach to drug laws.

          I don’t support any drug laws at all, but I can at least recognize that having local communities set their own standards on drug use and legalization is immensely preferable to the situation now.

          Note that the Federal raids on California Marijuana dispensaries is COMPLETELY a state’s rights issue! CA made it legal, and the Federal government is still prosecuting. You get where the conflict is right? You do understand that it’s the State vs. Federal governments in that case, yes?

          So, fail on that one Fatty.

          Also, Pelosi is a complete moron… Her stance on the war on drugs doesn’t have anything at all to do with increasing freedom. So no, I don’t think her position is that similar to Rands.

          In either case – I’m not sure what you’re arguing as the left/right divide since you basically just label any view you don’t like as “conservative”, even if historically – reality doesn’t bear that out.

          1. Sean Malone,

            You seem to think I am criticizing Rand Paul for having ideas which appeal to liberals. I am merely arguing that your comments are the comments of a stupid cunt.

            One would think Paul’s ‘crossover’ appeal and willingness to look past traditional definitions of left and right (i.e. hippies smoke pot therefore legalizing pot is leftist) would be a benefit in anyones eyes. Except of course for a total dick like you,.

          2. Oh and Sean, it’s hilarious how you didn’t comprehend what I said about state’s rights, giving an example which proves my point, you stupid motherfucker.

            Christ, it’s cunts like you who give cunts a bad name.

  15. “…a Republican with foreign policy views out of the conservative mainstream…”

    During the Bush Administration!

    You know? Just because George W. Bush didn’t believe in something doesn’t mean it’s out of the Republican mainstream.

    They used to call those kinds of views “isolationist”, and those views–generally speaking–were not out of the mainstream during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan or Bush the Greater regimes.

    Yeah, I know, the purity cops are ready to pipe up that none of those other presidents were pure isolationists–to which I’ll respond that that bunch of trees taken together over there? That’s called a forest.

    Carter and Clinton used to represent what people thought of as the engagement side of the fence–where our primary focus was making peace in the world in no small part through engagement via the UN, peace treaties, etc…

    Regardless, an isolationist stance is still not outside the Republican mainstream. There’s no such thing as a paleoliberal in foreign policy, and paleoconservative was a BS term neocon hacks hurled at everybody that didn’t want to jump on board with their agenda… Please tell me nobody’s really taking that seriously anymore!

    An “isolationist” stance is hardly outside the mainstream of Republican foreign policy! The Administration of Bush the Lesser, so far, is the outlier–not the let’s put America First and let the rest of the world worry about itself Republicans.

    I’ve been saying this for years, right here at Hit & Run–if the liberals didn’t hate Bush the Lesser so much for cultural reasons, they would have loved him for his foreign policy.

    George W. Bush has been the only President to run a truly liberal foreign policy since Jimmy Carter. Remember–they called ’em “neocons” ’cause they used to be liberals back during the Carter Administration.

    If domestic liberalism is the attempt to use state power to correct domestic wrongs through democracy, then a liberal foreign policy is one that doesn’t shy away from using the power of the state to correct wrongs beyond our borders by way of democracy–it’s all the same thing…

    And the antithesis of that is not outside mainstream Republican politics, certainly not just because George W. Bush engaged in it. From expanding the Great Society (via prescription drug benefits) to trying to spread democracy by engaging in his own version of the Vietnam War, George W. Bush was the most liberal president since Lyndon Johnson, and just because he engaged in it, doesn’t make it conservative or Republican.

    Quite the opposite, for goodness’ sake.

    1. Yeah, how dare Paul be in agreement with Reagan. No GOPer can stand for that.

    2. Why go back to previous Republican presidents? The “conservative mainstream” were still happy with isolationist policies less than 10 years ago, back when George W. Bush was espousing them during the debates vs. Gore. Remember Bush, talking about how the American military shouldn’t be involved in nation-building? It’s just that after 9/11 Bush needed to explain how thousands of Americans got killed on his watch, and “we weren’t paying attention” wasn’t politically acceptable, to “we must have been too isolationist!” got picked instead.

      And where the leader moves, the followers follow. Most people, liberal or conservative, seem to be more comfortable cheering for a person than for a principle.

  16. Which makes it all the more galling that the militarist dead-enders in the GOP would go after arguably the most promising Tea Partyish candidate yet from within their own ranks.

    I’d support Rand Paul, but it’s not particularly “galling” that Grayson is attempting to win the primary of the race he’s running for. Of course he’s going to talk about the areas where they disagree. Other than basketball.

    1. Yeah, but if the poll numbers were reversed, wouldn’t the meetings be about “party unity” instead of “how do we stop this guy”?

  17. Unbelievable..

    Who the hell does Liz Cheney think she is??? and those rest of those Neoconservatives. I get sick and tired of hearing the Neo cons and there bull shit opinions. They are all a bunch of Trotskyites that have stolen the Democratic and republican party’s. Wake up America don’t be fooled by the bullshit media. Question everything be rebellious that is what this country was founded on.

    1. If everyone questioned everything and was rebellious how did we ever unite into a single country?

      1. Alcohol

      2. Didn’t the Founding Fathers have a discount card program or something?

  18. has anyone been paying attention at what the NeoCons have been doing to Adam Kokesh? It is unreal they are extremely
    scared of the liberty candidates..

    1. How about a link or two?

  19. Find out the truth about Trey Grayson: http://treygrayson.info

  20. What’s most impressive is that that’s the worst picture they could dig up of Rand.

    Oh, yeah: fuck you, Team R.

    1. No Warty: fuck you, Team Anything.

      “Danzig, mother fucker! I got a question: can you make the blood flow up the walls?”

      (that episode is on right now, and I was at work until 11PM, so I’m a little loopy right now)

      1. Don’t make me eat my fuckin’ cereal out of your hollowed-out skull.

      2. I secretly hoped that Glenn got cast as Wolverine in the X-men movies. Then I realized that you can’t have a 3 ft tall Wolverine.

  21. Of all the lame attacks I’ve ever seen, that site is far and away the lamest.


  22. This peckerhead tries to label Paul a “career politician” because he’s helped in his father’s campaigns. Yeah. Heaven forbid, someone who’s politically active run for office. It doesn’t make him a career politician though.

    1. Especially considering Grayson is a career politician.

  23. Isn’t that guy The Mentalist?

    1. You insult me.

    2. Isn’t that guy The Mentalist?

      I had the same thought.

  24. So now they are going to attack Rand on foreign policy?

    So just how in the world does any thinking person justify keeping our troops scattered around the world in over 700 bases and in over 130 countries??? HOW????

    Especially when we have declared war on NONE of them, as demanded by the Constitution?

    1. Because the constitution was written centuries ago and we live in the modern world? The present isn’t the result of a “sin” against our Founding Fathers, it’s the result of history.

    2. Because the Founders lived in a time when there was no credible threat to the continued existence of the US. They could not have foreseen the existential threat posed by Islamic terrorists with boxcutters and underwear bombs. If they had, they would have explicitly given more unilateral power to the president, and added more exceptions to the Bill of Rights in times of crisis.

      1. If the Founders had been able to see the future, they definitely would have kicked Hobie Hanson and underzog in the nuts.

      2. Hobie, you are being sarcastic, right? My meter must be malfunctioning becaue I really can’t tell this morning.

      3. Y’know, you could make the case that there’s no credible threat to the continued existence of the US now. Box cutters and underwear bombs are not really much of a threat, existential or otherwise to America’s 300 million people and its sovereign territory.

        1. I have a vision of Hobie, on September 11th, running in circles shouting, “Oh my god! The United States is ending! The United States is ending!”

  25. He’ll leave us naked before Islamic terror. Just like his old man.

    But that is okay with you R?hmites as you support islamic terror — even when they shoot one of your own in the DC area (John Muhammed).

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here!”

    1. you’re really boring, underzog.

    2. Troll harder.

      1. Piss off, underzog.

  26. Liked this quote from Paul in TFA:

    “People who would say that aren’t paying any attention because all the polls show me beating the Democrats to a greater degree than my Republican opponent,” Paul said, noting that his support for term limits and a balanced budget amendment and his opposition to financial bailouts resonates across party lines. ”

    It’s not about beating the Democrats. The neocons are freaked about not having the hold over the party (and the people) that they thought they had.

  27. I think I’ll donate to Rand Paul’s campaign. It will consist of…..a comb.

    Come to think of it, his old man could probably use one too.

  28. Sadly, Rand Paul is not nearly ugly enough to succeed in politics.

  29. Rand Paul is NOT one of us,” Cesar Conda wrote in an e-mail to figures such as Liz Cheney, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Dan Senor and Marc Thiessen.

    Wait- isn’t it *good* to not be a loathesome cunt?

  30. “On foreign policy, [global war on terror], Gitmo, Afghanistan, Rand Paul is NOT one of us,” Cesar Conda wrote in an e-mail to figures such as Liz Cheney, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Dan Senor and Marc Thiessen.

    I have this image in my head of all these people sitting around a table with Grayson, chanting “Gabba, gabba, gabba! You are one of us!”

  31. He’ll leave us naked before Islamic terror.

    Keep your sick fetishes to yourself, you fucking pervert.

  32. Anyone who runs on a “balanced budget amendment” doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Sadly, that would include Rand Paul. We don’t have a hard currency, so we’re not running out of gold when we have budget deficits. In fact, continuing budget deficits are necessary in a growing economy (which hopefully ours will always be), in order to increase the money supply in step with the increasing economy.

    What Paul should say is that government should be limited to its constitutional role, and that the monies appropriated through taxation will not be used to transfer wealth between individuals, but instead used only to discharge the constitutional obligations of government.

    The income tax has only one legitimate role in a fiat currency economy: to prevent inflation by destroying dollars (which closes the loop on the creation of dollars by the Fed). Unfortunately, and predictably, that role has been entirely supplanted by the desire to effect social engineering and the redistribution of income.

  33. That role, Draco, was always what the income tax was really about. Power over others. Fostering INequality with that power. “The power to tax is the power to destroy”, and control, thru manipulation, redistribution and social engineering.

  34. Neocon whores don’t always get what they want. The People intend to reclaim the Republic. Rand Paul will be the first Statesman and Patriot elected to the Senate in a hundred years. The banking elites are getting very nervous indeed.

  35. NeoCons are not the only Republicans who are full of shit. I was looking at the 4 most ‘conservative’ Senators (Kyl, ENsign, Enzi and Barasso.) Every single one of them claims on their website to be for ‘limited government,’ and ‘anti-pork.’

    However, all 4 voted to spend $50 million a year on ‘Abstinence Education Programs.’

    50 million dollars to teach people NOT to fuck! Sounds like they are more anti-porking than anti-pork!

    1. I totally CLEP-ed out of the Abstinence Education Program. How much of that $50-million do I get?

  36. They are going after another Ron Paul inspired candidate too in NM–Adam Kokesh


    1. If a sorority girl neocon like Malkin is against him, I’m sending him some money…

  37. With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.