John McCain

McCain Slams Rand Paul for "Isolationism"

|

And not only that … HIS BACKGROUND IS RED!!!

Was it all just a bad dream? Feels like 1997 all over again–first David Brooks calls for a hacktacular new "National Greatness" movement in American politics, and now Sen John McCain (R-Ariz.) is snarling about "protectionism and isolationism" in the GOP.

"I think there are going to be some tensions within our party," McCain said during a conference put on by Foreign Policy Initiative, a DC-based think tank. "I worry a lot about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican Party."

A prime example, McCain continued, was Rand Paul, Kentucky's next U.S. Senator.

"I admire his victory, but … already he has talked about withdrawals [and] cuts in defense," McCain said.

A timely reminder that for a whole helluva lot of Republicans, the business of America is expanding its unipolar status as global military hegemon. Seeing Rand Paul on CNN a day or two after the election, talking cogently to Wolf Blitzer about how no serious agenda of fiscal responsibility can avoid scaling back military spending, was almost an out-of-body experience. You mean…Republican senators…can say that? Out loud and everything? Well, they used to, and they finally are again, and they may have willing partners in a weakened Democratic Party, all of which is why the National Greatness gang is trying to snuff out the GOP strain before it spreads.

McCain once told me that the United States needs to spend a good deal more than 50 percent of the world's total defense budget, an anecdote you can read about in my 2007 book, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick. Speaking of which, I was on Warren Olney's excellent public radio program To the Point yesterday, talking about McCain's opposition to repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. Read/listen here.

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.

100 responses to “McCain Slams Rand Paul for "Isolationism"

  1. McCain is just jealous of Paul’s hair.

    1. His hair was perfect.

      1. I’d like to meet his tailor.

        1. The little old lady that got mauled last night wasn’t Pelosi by any chance, was it?

    2. I must admit. Rand Paul’s hair is pretty becoming of him. Its a kind of unwashed curly hair that works. I never thought about it before.

      1. I’m gonna say it: I think Rand Paul is really cute!!!

  2. Paul looks like that expendable Star Trek crewman from the episode where McCoy’s old girlfriend is really a shape-shifting, salt-sucking alien. But I like what he’s saying about defense spending. Cleverly, McCain shifts ‘non-interventionist’ to ‘isolationist.’ Eerie parallel?

      1. No, they weren’t married…

        1. Scissorfight ++

  3. McCain generally hates Veterans. He has worked tirelessly to cut Veterans benefits and keep families in the dark about the status of their missing service members. McCain also campaigned on keeping American sons and daughters on the front lines fighting and dying for the next century. While Reason may not necessarily be sympathetic to McCain’s crusade against Veterans’ benefits, what I’m trying to point out is that McCain is a warmonger that would rather have everyone killed on the battlefield than cared for when they return. Him alleging that someone is an isolationist means they just don’t want as many brown people to die as he does.

    1. It’s true, especially about the POWs. There is a great article about his role in sweeping them under the rug once he got into politics

      1. Think he gets away with it because he’s such a prominent veteran? Or that he needs to do it to “balance” his own history? Like the way he, like so many other politicians, have to balance their own drug history by being so anti-drugs?

    2. Holy assuming the worst about our political opponents, Manbat!

      1. Know about the character Manbat? My dead friend David Lindelof thought the character was created to lock up the name to avoid confusing competition with Batman.

  4. I like that picture of Rand Paul. Which Star Trek movie was it from?

    1. Oh geez, I didn’t see davidc’s comment before I posted. My bad.

    2. 50 quatloos on the newcomer!

      1. The TSA is buying those shock collars by the truckload!

  5. they may have willing partners in a weakened Democratic Party

    I wouldn’t worry about that (or pretend to expect it, as the case may be). They might talk some shit and call a couple stunt votes to aggravate the split between the Tory and ratbagger factions of the GOP, but they won’t do anything.

    From the end of WWII to 1994, TEAM BLUE! dispensed all the gov’t’s dough, and they used it to buy wars. Has that changed since then? No. War is what they (and the respectable, electable wing of the GOP) do.

    Because it’s what their voters want.

  6. A prime example [of isolationist sentiment], McCain continued, was Rand Paul, Kentucky’s next U.S. Senator. “I admire his victory, but … already he has talked about withdrawals [and] cuts in defense,” McCain said.

    In other words, not spending money on funding endless wars is being “isolationist.” Spending money that isn’t there anymore on endless wars is being – what – cosmopolitan? Continental? Jet-set?

    The guy’s a boob. A BIG boob. And insane to boot. And he has a hot bubble-head for a daughter, as empty-headed as he is.

    1. And he has a hot bubble-head for a daughter…

      Well, we know someone likes’em chunky
      http://www.ibtimes.com/data/bl…..X9ZB42.jpg

  7. Its impossible to be an isolationist if you favor free trade you fucking moron*.

    *Directed at McCain. And assumes Paul favors at least some sort of freeish trade.

    1. It is possible to be an isolationist with regards to our military presence around the globe and at the same time support free trade.

      To some extent the two go hand in hand.

      1. Isolationists must both be non-interventionist and protectionist. That is what the word fucking means.

        If you want to deal with other people, you cant be an isolationist. So you ar as much a fucking moron as McCain.

        1. You can stop sucking my dick now.

      2. Re: Sarcasmic,

        It is possible to be an isolationist with regards to our military presence around the globe and at the same time support free trade.

        Indeed – nothing spells “isolationist” like minding your own fucking business. Right???

        To some extent the two go hand in hand.

        Yeah, we have to tell that to “isolationist” Hong Kong.

        1. “Yeah, we have to tell that to “isolationist” Hong Kong.”

          Nicely done, OM.

      3. You can have free trade and military isolationism for several minutes.

        But I doubt that Rand Paul opposes, say, the use of the Navy to combat piracy. So he’s not a military isolationist, either.

        Opposing large-scale wars that one does not perceive as absolutely necessary for the defense of the country does not make someone an isolationist. Deciding not to buy an item one doesn’t need for a price one can’t afford doesn’t make one a miser, either.

        1. I was thinking of the term “isolationist” as one who does not involve themselves in the affairs of others.

          I don’t see how combating piracy conflicts with that since the pirates are the ones who initiated force.

          1. That’s not what an “isolationist” is, in military terms. Isolationism opposes military action that isn’t direct territorial self-defense.

            That’s why it can only really exist with economic isolationism. As soon as you have worldwide trade, there are legitimate needs for military protection of that trade, outside one’s borders.

            You can’t just choose an extreme for the convenience of intellectual laziness. That’s not how the world works.

            That has nothing to do with Iraq, either.

            1. Wow dude! You sure know how to lay down the arrogance and contempt!

              By the way, you can stop sucking my dick now.

              Thanks!

              =-)

            2. Isolationism opposes military action that isn’t direct territorial self-defense.

              That’s not actually true.

              I guess your argument works, if you get to make up fake definitions.

              If Japanese subs started sinking all US shipping worldwide, even “isolationists” would favor war.

              1. All the Japanese subs have been recalled by the factory. Something about a sticking accelerator, I think.

        2. Shooting pirates in international waters does not make one an “interventionist”.

          1. No, but as soon as the pirates flee back to their ports, if you chase them, you’re not an isolationist, either.

            See Jefferson, Thomas. History.

            There’s a continuum between Isolationism and Interventionism. It takes more than bumper-sticker slogans to define one’s position. That’s just life in grown-up land.

            1. you put that magic word “if” in there.

              1. Because IF we don’t, we might as well not bother trying to stop them. Again, see American History, Thomas Jefferson.

                File under “reality, grown-up.”

                1. See Satellite Surveillance

            2. If said ports are not located in territory controlled by a sovereign state, then following pirates to those ports does not constitute military action in a foreign jurisdiction.

              If the ports are located in territory controlled by a sovereign state, but that state refuses to turn over the pirates to us, then that state is acting as an aggressor against our territory and/or our shipping, and military action against them does not contravene an isolationist stance.

        3. This is the neocon cousin of MNG/Tony’s argument yesterday that once you admit the need for taxes to finance a court system and murder/rape/theft prevention, then you have to accept the use of taxes to finance welfare programs.

          Just because one supports anti-piracy actions does not mean one must support wars against regimes that have done us no harm (Iraq) and nation building in countries that have done us harm (Afg).

          1. Tulpa, learn to read. That’s exactly what I wrote, except that my approach was that, because you don’t support the war in Iraq, you are not necessarily an “isolationist” who would oppose the use of military force away from our borders — which is what “isolationist” means.

            1. Military isolationism means not getting involved in other countries’ wars.

              Chasing pirates is not the same thing as getting in political conflicts turned violent.

              By the way, you give terrible blow jobs.

              1. That’s not what military isolationism means.

                If something isn’t blue, that doesn’t mean it’s green.

                1. That’s not what Wikipedia says military isolationism means.

                  ftfy

                2. Does your definition of military isolationism allow sending a naval convoy to intercept a bunch of approaching foreign military ships 20 miles offshore?

                  1. @Tulpa – if you want to know Barry D’s definition of isolationism look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

                    You’ll find the phrase “direct territorial self-defense” just as in Barry D’s 12:27 post.

                    1. Well if it’s on Wikipedia it must be true.

    2. I think the isolationist (or more accurately non-interventionist) has far more credibility than protectionist. As if being one makes you the other. Like no one in the Senate voted against NAFTA and for the wars.

      1. More accurately?

        One is accurate. The other is not.

    3. Not meddeling in other countries affairs doesn’t equal isolationism.

        1. I feel somewhat stupid for admitting this, but I never knew that until now (I always thought isolationism was a pejorative way of referring to not meddling in other countries’ affairs).

          On an unrelated note, I have to head to Louisville early next week for work. Anything good on tap at New Albanian, robc?

          1. Always.

            reason meet up? I can use a lame excuse to make it to NABC.

            1. I’ll shoot you an email when I know more details. Right now it looks like Sunday night and Monday night might both be options. Are there are any other Louisvillians (Louispudlians?) lurking around these parts?

    4. McDonald’s and Nike have had more success in conquering the world that the US Armed Forces have.

      1. And control more real estate.

      2. If you use a completely different meaning of “conquer” to refer to each of the two instances, yes.

  8. McCain’s opposition to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

    Speaking of DADT, does the TSA have it? The reason I ask is this: At the Pat-Down Station, male agents are assigned male passengers. Likewise with female agents. This is to thwart any possibility of “sexual assault” (to use the language of the hyperbolists). But what about the gay TSA agents? Are they as trustworthy and dedicated as gay soldiers? Will their sexual preferences prevent them from doing their duties? Should they be hounded out of the agency, just to be sure? What would Rachel Maddow say? Why am I asking you?

    1. And to prevent “sexual assult” shouldnt gay men be groped by lesbians and vice versa?

      1. I should think so. TSA agents should be forced to disclose their sexual preferences as a condition of employment. Likewise passengers as a condition of flying. Everybody wins!

      2. This works until we get to bisexuals and pedophiles.

        This is all very confusing, but I’m sure we can work things out by just saying sexual harassment and child molestation are totally cool in airports.

      3. This works until we get to bisexuals and pedophiles.

        This is all very confusing, but I’m sure we can work things out by just saying sexual harassment and child molestation are totally cool in airports.

    2. I’m thinking it’s time to bring back eunuchs.

      That’s a recognized gender, isn’t it?

      1. You could entertain the passengers in the queue with a nice a cappella, castrati group.

    3. They should hire female models to do the pat downs for men and vice versa. I bet people would be begging for a cavity search then. “Hey, you didn’t check my crotch region thoroughly enough. No, check again. Almost there, almost there, ahhhhh….”

      1. Yeah. Personally, being a heterosexual male, I’d prefer a female patdown. The TSA seems to have it all backwards. The solution: Give the passengers their choice of patter-downers. And because we are enlightened libertarians and we must strive for a gender-neutral workforce, the choice must include straights, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, hermaphrodites and, of course, man-pigs. Janet Napolitano, make it so.

        1. What about sheep?

          1. That’s just perverted.

            1. YOU LIE!!!

      2. They should hire female models to do the pat downs for men and vice versa.

        But wouldn’t vice versa mean they hire men to do the pat downs of female models? If so, can I have that job?

    4. As a heartless, selfish libertarian, it doesn’t make any difference to me whether the person in contact with my genitals is enjoying the experience.

      1. We’re not. Believe me.

      2. At least you’re honest.

        1. You should get that mole looked at.

  9. John McCain.

    Is this the best we can do?

  10. it’s time to bring back eunuchs.

    What do you mean, bring them back? Are you trying to tell me Janet Napolitano is a woman?

    1. And Kagan…we all know how Kagan was indoctrinated into the Supreme Court…

  11. The best foreign policy:

    MYOB and ask for cash.

    1. … or payment in gold/silver. Which is what the Chinese will end up asking Americans to do . . .

      1. You don’t think they learned their lesson in the Opium Wars? Or will they spend it this time?

  12. McCain believes that we need a military so large and so powerful that it can lose two wars at the same time.

    1. Nice, but don’t forget that they’re also helping out on the War on Drugs.

  13. Today’s paper: “NATO prepares to unveil a new strategy that will keep troops in combat (in Afghanistan) until at least 2014.” One hopes that Rand Paul can put together a bipartisan coalition to end this nonsense.

  14. Will this fucking turd stroke out already? And please take that cunt daughter of yours with you.

    1. What do you mean?

    2. What do you mean? And other words for the spam filter.

      1. He means that he wants John McCain to have a stroke while he’s driving on a twisty cliffside road with Meghan McCain.

  15. Hey John McCain…

    You were IN the military, right?

    I have lived in a few military towns now, and there isn’t a buck private who can’t point out SOME legitimate example of wasted money in the US Military.

    But someone who advocates trimming military expenditures must be an “isolationist”?

    That’s fucking ludicrous.

  16. McCain isn’t a patriot, it has to be said. His record has been terrible for the country, and getting the shit kicked out of you by Viet Cong, whose country we never should have invaded in the first place, only gets you so far

  17. Somewhere I would like to find a balance between isolationism and defending our country. Democrats want to leave us undefended while republicans go way the other direction. I like it that some republicans are talking about something other than war.

    1. What democrat wants to leave us “undefended”?

      You’re buying in to the two-party propaganda. There’s only one party, and it isn’t anti-war, though some cracks are starting to appear

  18. I thought Juan Sidney McCain lost his speaking privileges on any topic save getting his man-diapers changed when he ran that half-hearted, piss-poor campaign for the presidency.

  19. I don’t like Obama but when McCain speaks I still don’t like Obama, don’t like McCain, maybe can tolerate Bush and want the days of Clinton when there was government reform and I largely ignored politics because I was too young.

  20. True conservatives are coming to clean house. Non-interventionism is not isolationism, apparently McCain confuses the two.

  21. Another stupid fuck who can’t tell the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.

    Just like every other stupid fuck who can’t tell the difference.

    And Max.

  22. McCain is just gearing up to start slamming republicans again. It’s how he keeps getting invited back to the Sunday morning talk shows.
    He might as well dance wearing a tutu while Christiane Amanpour tosses snausages to him.

  23. Anyone recall The Maverick’s campaign slogan in 2008? “Country First”, it was. In other words, “Collective First”, “Commune First”, “Indivduals Disposable”, etc.

    So, it’s no wonder McCain has believed that there was nothing wrong with all the assault, battery, homicide, and malicious destruction of property that he was hired to carry out in Viet Nam. Unfortunately, since the time of the war there, few of the USA’s worst problems have changed for the better, and some of those problems have gotten worse on account of the usual suspects among whom I have no doubt are to be counted as financial supporters of The Reason Foundation.

    At any rate, McCain is a commie, even if he’s not a Marxist, a Trotskyist, a Leninist, etc. It’s only natural that he despises military isolationism, which will always find itself in conflict with the militarism that commies need to protect their paradise from the injuns outside the commune and any big, bad dissidents within it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.