Rand Paul

Rand Paul: Is Explicitly Threatening Nuclear War Necessary to Run for President?

|

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) , some say, is crippling his presidential prospects by not loudly announcing that he'd do anything, anyway, anywhere, anytime, to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons:.

Jennifer Rubin at Washington Post thinks the not preannouncing war on Iran thing will be political death for the younger Paul:

No GOP elected leader or 2016 contender would agree with him. In fact, no elected Democrat probably would, either. It has been the position of three presidents that a nuclear-armed Iran is intolerable. It is an existential threat to Israel. It is not simply that it is "not a good idea" for Iran to get the bomb. He is far, far outside the mainstream on this — and far to the left of President Obama.

• Hillary Clinton would eviscerate him on that point and win over a chunk of Republicans…. It reveals that he listens to no competent adviser. No knowledgeable foreign policy adviser would urge him to say such things. 

What it reveals is that so far, Paul is still at least slightly serious about offering a fresh perspective on our willingness to threaten and use mass-murderous force. Whether she's right about the electoral effects remains to be seen. (I'm afraid she might be. Americans don't care much about foreign policy when it isn't hitting them where they live, but can be all too easily roused to bloodlust by politicans and media in the short term.)

Rand Paul himself has tried to defend not letting every foreign threat real or perceived as sufficient to trigger a full-on war, a policy he's been trying to rebrand as a fiscally conservative, constitutional, and sane alternative GOP foreign policy for a while now, apparently with little success with the old school pundit class.

Paul tried to explain his current position at greater length in the Washington Post yesterday.

While many, including me, interpreted his comments before the Heritage Foundation last year, in which he praised George Kennan's attitude toward international communism as a viable foreign policy approach to radical Islam in which words like "contain" and "containment" were often quoted approvingly, as meaning Paul believed it was better to contain a nuclear Iran that start a war over it.

Paul now insists loudly he is not for containment.

Hm. Yet he is also not announcing he is for war. He's promoting mysterious inscrutability as a non-negotiable foreign policy plus, and bringing Ronald Reagan into it to boot. Not terribly satisfying to this libertarian, but at least better than an unequivocal "we will absolutely start a war to stop Iran from getting nukes" statement.

Real foreign policy is made in the middle; with nuance; in the gray area of diplomacy, engagement and reluctantly, if necessary, military action.

If necessary? And when is it necessary? A real presidential candidate, Paul implies, like a gentleman, never tells. Like Kenny Rogers' titular gambler, he will tell us that when it comes to foreign policy, we gotta know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em; but he cannot and will not tell us when that might be.

Daniel Larison on how the real problem Rand Paul faces, if he actually wants to avoid war with Iran, is reframing the debate so people realize that a non-nuclear-weaponed Iran can be achieved with means like negotiation and diplomacy, not necessarily threats and/or war.

Reason on Rand Paul and foreign policy.

Advertisement

NEXT: Vermont Poised to Become First State to Demand GMO Labeling

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. Repeat after me Randall: Iranium delenda est

    1. Iranium ante portas?

    2. Iranium? Is that the new nuclear energy fuel invented by the Iranaians?

      1. Mahmoud Imagonagetya change the name of Uranium inside Iran before he left office.

  2. You don’t have to threaten to nuke somebody, Rand. Just say you’ll never let Iran have a bomb, and then promise to wage a war on the terrorists, forever, and something for the children.

    Then all of the establishment and their cronies will declare ‘He’s our boy, that Rand, he finally came around.’

    1. “We fixed you up real good, now, didn’t we boy?!”

      /Forrest Gump’s Childhood Doctor

    2. And no internet gambling. You’ll need Adelson’s hundred million.

    3. If you do the opposite of what Rubin advises, you are assured of standing with the people of America.

  3. Hillary Clinton would eviscerate him on that point and win over a chunk of Republicans

    Umm, those aren’t Republicans, they’re John McCain NeoCons. Let them go Dem, let the Dems own the war mongering. What’s wrong with that?

  4. I heard someone this morning say that Iran was developing EMP devices to cripple the U.S. economy. I thought about that for a moment and then came to the conclusion that we’d definitely nuke them if they did that, so why would they do that? I mean, sure, they’re rogue and quite a bit unpredictable, but I don’t think they’re totally suicidal.

    The Russians, who are not our biggest fans right now, wouldn’t attempt something like this, either, not wanting to be a giant radioactive swamp and everything.

    1. In speech they are rogue and unpredictable, but in actions they are much less so. They act the way they do because they DON’T have The Bomb.
      I say let ’em join the club; a little mutually assured destruction might just have a calming effect on their rhetoric and will take care of some of their insecurity issues.

      1. Getting the bomb didn’t really work for North Korea. Iran isn’t North Korea, but having an insurance policy against invasion could make them more bold.

        1. Bold against us – the Israelis will still bomb them back to the stone age if they so much as look at ’em funny.

          1. Bold in the region. As others have pointed out below, Iran’s list of rivals does not begin and end with Israel and the U.S.

            1. well, maybe they will thank us for getting rid of Saddam for them…

        2. Could. Or an even playing field w/ Israel might mean they don’t have to.
          Also, NK is a pretty special case. Iran is more like an insecure schoolyard bully that occasionally is put in his place. NK is the like the crazy retard with a gun pointed at his brother that was just offered cake. You can’t put him in place ’cause he’ll likely pull the trigger.

    2. I think all the Islamist and Israel bashing rhetoric from Iran is just that, rhetoric. Ain’t nobody stupid enough to try a mass emp assault on the North American mainland. Except maybeeee the North Koreans. And what if Canada is also affected? We all know what happens when Canadians get pissed off.

      1. It’s all rhetoric if you ignore the bodies.

      2. They won’t sell you maple syrup?

        1. And then, they’ll ban us from their side of the falls.

          1. I mean they’ll ban the Iranians.

              1. US statehood for Quebec.

        2. Don’t make us angry. You won’t like us when we’re angry. 1812.

          1. 1812? You mean the war that happened before Canada was its own country, and therefor all the blustery nationalist rhetoric Canadians have built up around it is kinda like the Americans trying to take credit for the win against the French in the French and Indian Wars, and as such is somewhat pathetic?

            1. before Canada was its own country

              Isn’t Canada still under British rule? Don’t they pledge fealty to the queen, or some such?

              This country don’t need no queens whatsoever, I reckon.

              1. But a president? *chuckles* Why not shoot a president?

              2. It’s not even a real country, anyway.

              3. Isn’t Canada still under British rule?

                Not exactly. Queen Elizabeth II is still sovereign, but since the passing of the Statute of Westminster (1931), Canada is legislatively independent from the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Canada Act 1982 “patriated” the Constitution to Canada; since then, there’s no need for Canada to request the British parliament to pass certain Canadian constitutional amendments.

              4. we don’t need that kind of LGBT bigotry around here

          2. Yeah, 1812, a rather pointless war that helped propel a genocial maniac from the Carolinas to the presidency. Damn Limeys, and damn those provincial Brits who resided in the province of Canada.

          3. Or 1914 & 1939

          4. We kicked your ass on Lake Erie and burned down your provincial capitol during that conflict!

        3. The syrup I can’t live without, but the bacon? Meh.

        4. Three words – drunken hockey fans.

    3. To be fair, wouldn’t they be more of a giant radioactive steppe?

  5. Clearly he’s an anti-Semite

    /The JOOOS

  6. Serious politicians draw red lines with big crayons, then let their bumbling underlings accidentally get them out of it.

  7. The amazing thing about all this is that Rand Paul has united scorn among the usual suspects of insane neo-cons but also among liberals that are incapable of acknowledging anything good about the Evil One.

    They think holding a perfectly nuanced and reasonable position is just Rand flip-flopping or talking out of both sides of his mouth.

    1. He has an R next to his name. Nothing else matters, especially not his actions (or statements about hypothetical actions).

      Partisanship is designed to cause people not to think. It actually makes people stupid. Or stupider, if you want. And those who most enthusiastically engage in it are the ones who want to think as little as possible.

      1. It’s a mental disorder.

      2. It’s like a brain virus. The team thing, that is. It gets into your brain and rewires it to make you believe that politicians who steal your money to share with their cronies and oppress you, are actually your friends, if they are on YOUR team. We won, you lost, woohooo!

        Thinking you won because the guys stealing from you and oppressing you are wearing your team emblem, has to be a brain disease.

        1. Yup. That’s the most amazing part of TEAM. Most members don’t “win” anything when their TEAM wins; just the politicians and bigwigs do. Yet they will go to the mat, hate the other TEAM, completely absorb talking points, falsehoods, you name it, all to help the TEAM win. And all they get out of it is…uh…what do they get out of it? Because whatever feeling it is, I must not be wired that way because I sure don’t get it.

          1. There’s millions of government employees, and millions more on the dole, who sure as hell benefit when government gets bigger.

  8. Putting aside religious nutbaggery, why on earth would the Iranians not be moving heaven and earth to build a nuclear weapon? Why would they negotiate the only trump card against invasion away? I’m sure some bright boy in the Iranian government watched what happened to Iraq, what’s going on in Ukraine figured out that ultimately the only real way not to get steamrolled by places like the US and Russia is to have that card available to play. I’m not advocating any action against Iran here, just thinking that short of war or regime change (which is probably much of a muchness) that there is no way to avoid the eventual reality of Iran + nukes.

    1. You bring up a good point about Ukraine and lack of nukes. I’m not really convinced that nukes would have really changed the outcome and haven’t really seen a solid argument that they would have, just a lot of ‘I’ll bet they wished they had their nukes now’ snide remarks. When I don’t think there’s been a point in the past few months where they’d even be considered for use. The whole thing hasn’t involved hardly any conventional fighting at all. Deterrence (nuclear) only works when their use is actually feasible.
      Thoughts?

      1. That argument also works in reverse.

        Your argument: Even if Ukraine had nuclear weapons, it might not be a deterrent because the Russians have invaded with a sort of proxy civilian army and act as though they’re simply acquiescing to a home grown secession movement. Namely, plausible deniability.

        Alternatively, a country like Iran could theoretically risk use of a nuclear bomb by simply providing the weapon to a non-state actor like a Hamas/Hezbollah that then detonates it. Voila, plausible deniability.

        1. Sneaky fucking Russians.

        2. As far as Ukraine goes, it wasn’t even denied by Russia. It was in Russia’s national interest to annex Crimea…the population “voted” to become part of Russia…Russia does what needed to be done from their standpoint. Ukraine didn’t even put up much of a conventional fight, so back to my original question, would nukes have made any difference in such a low intensity, part-secession land grab?
          As for the Iran-Hamas scenario, I do think that’s what a lot of folks fear, but there again I think that’s an extension of their rhetoric and not a viable course of action for Iran. For one thing, I’m not convinced it’s all that deniable.

      2. I think that the leadership of Iran is a big enough question mark that no one is going to want to roll the dice on them not using a nuclear weapon in response to invasion.

        I see it as a shield to hide behind more than a weapon to decide any conflict. If something broke out between Iran and Iraq it would be extremely useful for Iran to have a nuclear deterrent to intervention from the west. They don’t have to be MAD capable to prevent it, just able to do enough damage to convince those that might be inclined to interfere out of it.

        Iran wants to be top dog in the ME, and this is the obvious step to take for them. I think it’s about Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. more than the US or even Israel.

        1. Yep

          in response to invasion

          There’s an easy solution to that risk

        2. Damn it, who would not use nuclear weapons in response to invasion? If they’re no good then, what are they good for? If you got ’em, what else you got to lose when you’re about to lose everything?

      3. If they had nukes, they could nuke their own country.

    2. Well, after they have seen what we have done to their neighbors and are non-stop threatening to do to them, they would have to be pretty stupid not to try to get the one thing that can stop that seeming inevitability.

  9. I was young, but IIRC Reagan held his cards very close to his vest regarding Iran in 1980.

  10. Who fucking cares if Iran has a nuke? What are they gonna do, use it?

    What the neocons are really pissed about it if Iran gets a nuke, that’s just one more country they won’t be able to invade on a whim.

    Fucking baby-killing bastards.

    1. Preach it, bro!

    2. Who fucking cares if Iran has a nuke? What are they gonna do, use it?

      Maybe. They’re pretty insane to varying degrees. Maybe a 12th Imam cultist in the IRGC gets a hold of it. Don’t try to fool me with your faux-certainty it only works for you.

      What the neocons are really pissed about it if Iran gets a nuke, that’s just one more country they won’t be able to invade on a whim.

      America’s not invading anyway. Seeding insurrection and rebellion however…

      1. They are no more insane than the Norks. The Souks are still around, last I checked.

        1. I’m going to say they are less insane that the Norks, along with pretty much every other country on the planet. The Norks really are bat shit crazy and if there is any country that would maybe try actually using a nuke, it would be them.

          1. Eritrea might actually be worse. Only country behind NK on media freedom. They sponsor all kinds of regional terrorist groups like Al-Shabbab.

        2. Oh how reassuring. Survivorship of 100% based on N=1. And that survivor is subject to regular terrorism by that crazy ass regime. You make a good case for Israel to pre-emptively nuke Iran right now.

          1. Except, you see, you don’t get to initiate force. They’ve got to be the bad guys. That’s how it works.

            Most we’d lose is NYC, DC, LA or some such, before they are no longer a problem anymore. What are you bitching about? Win-win.

      2. “Who fucking cares if Iran has a nuke? What are they gonna do, use it?”

        The house of Saud, who incidentally we are far more concerned about acquiring one… are many *cough* Pakistan *cough*

        1. Pakistan has been bombed sporadically by America for years now. And they’ve got nukes.

          1. The Saudis have been eager to shop Paki-mart discount nuclear wholesalers for years, but had little justification to do so in the past. The Saudis do much to keep the Pakistani economy afloat, keep the Punjabis in power, and see to the “spiritual needs” of the malignant Wahhabist populace. The ISI would be tripping and falling all over themselves to deliver a complete nuclear package to the house of Saud, on a whim…

            1. Yeah, they renamed a city after the Saudi king. Giving them some weapons help would seem minor in comparison.

          2. Pakistan supports us bombing in Pakistan. They just publically say they don’t to save face. It’s more complicated than that really, but we’re not at war with Pakistan , but people within Pakistan.

  11. What I love about the Rubin column is the sense of desperation and fear its purple prose and shrill tone betray. That’s there because deep down she knows she’s full of shit and that Rand’s position is eminently reasonable and harmonious with the vast majority of Americans. If Hillary criticizes him for his stance on Iran, Rand can just respond with ‘So what did the administration you were a part of do about it? Aside from lift sanction as part of a laughable ‘deal’?’

    Americans don’t care much about foreign policy when it isn’t hitting them where they live, but can be all too easily roused to bloodlust by politicans and media in the short term.

    Fuck off Dopeherty. America has time and again let terrorists kill its citizens and get away with it. The ’90s was nothing but ‘lets be nice to them’ internationalism and it got us bodies and terror.

    1. Rubin desperate? Check out this guy at the Wall St Journal:

      No, what we need as the Republican nominee in 2016 is a man of more glaring disqualifications. Someone so nakedly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of sane Americans that only the GOP could think of nominating him.

      This man is Rand Paul, the junior senator from a state with eight electoral votes. The man who, as of this writing, has three years worth of experience in elected office. Barack Obama had more political experience when he ran for president. That’s worked out well.

      http://online.wsj.com/news/art…..1,641,1009

      1. Beat ya. I posted that puerile spew yesterday.

        1. Well, it will be fun watching these nuts baste Rand Paul in the primaries. Of course he doesn’t deserve it either. He can’t win but he should take a few of them out for spite.

          1. Yes, Shillary is long overdue for her coronation…

            1. It’s Hillary’s turn. Both teams agree.

              1. – “In the place of a Dark Lord Chicago Jesus? you would have your righteous Queen! Not dark like that “other guy”, but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth constitutional authority! All the DNC and their media lackeys shall love me and despair!”

                ? (The references to “Dark” correspond to teabigot dog-whistles…)

                1. + One Ring

  12. No knowledgeable foreign policy adviser would urge him to say such things.

    Bullshit. Plenty of *knowledgeable* foreign policy advisors would urge him to say such things.

    No adviser who cared more for the internal politics of the US over actual, you know, *good* foreign policy would do that – but there’s no guarantee that such an adviser would be ‘knowledgeable’ about foreign affairs in the first place.

    1. I guess what I should say, without all the snark, is that there’s a difference between the foreign policy you need to advocate to get elected and the foreign policy that is actually *good* for the US.

  13. All of the blustering over Iran is somewhat irrelevant in the sense that Israel isn’t going to let Iran get a nuke. If Iran ever test fires one you can count on there being an immediate response from the IDF that will cripple whatever progress they’ve made.

    Iran wants to nuke Israel and Israel knows this. They aren’t waiting for fickle American politics to protect them.

    1. ” They aren’t waiting for fickle American politics to protect them.”

      Yeah, I can see where that would be somewhat antithetical to that whole “Never Again” ideology that permeates the post holocaust Jews of Israel…

  14. Of course the word “Israel” appear in the article. That wouldn’t be politically correct. We can oppose war, but we aren’t allowed to mention the people who are trying to push us into war.

  15. I think the US should just give the Iranians an ICBM or two. Then tell them they have 1 month to either use it or give it back.

    1. I like.

      Just remind them that, if they nuke Israel, they can expect either Israeli or American nukes in return.

  16. Perhaps Reason editors (and certainly that Rubin cu*t) will be shocked that not everybody gives a rat if Iran does “gets” a nuclear weapon. Or that the Israeli lobby and Likud politicians see it as an existential threat to Israel. Or that there are actually people tired of taking it up the ass for Israel because of some sense of guilt for things not done by the grups in 1940.

    In fact, I think it far more likely that Israel uses a nuke against another country before than Iran.

    1. I can’t imagine the levels of naivety it would take in an adult to think that if we just threw Israel to the wolves, all would be fine. It’s like an adult still believing in the tooth fairy.

      1. You know who else tried to convince people it would all be fine if they threw Jewish people to the wolves?

      2. How exactly do you throw someone with a stockpile of nuclear weapons to the wolves exactly? The wolves don’t stand a chance. Israel finds itself in a precarious situation those wolves would quickly become lint blowing in the radioactive wind.

      3. As pointed out by another commenter – Israel has a rather large stockpile of nuclear weapons (and who knows, maybe they round out the BC in NBC?)

        So really, who is being naive? And you fail to answer the more salient point – why exaclty should the US give a rats ass about Israel? Have we not been on the bad end of this relationship for a few decades too long?

        I am all for letting any American send money and enlist in the IDF if that will end once and for all official USG support of Israel. But I’m sick of our wasting money and suffering the negative consequences of “defending” Israel.

  17. I could see a statement of support or opposition to current US policy on NBC weapons as being kind of important. My vague recollection is that it is something like “If you use any NBC weapons against us or our allies, we will nuke you into oblivion.” Or words that effect.

    From the Department of Unintended (but not Unforeseeable!) Consequences, its funny that by foregoing two of the three NBC weapons (Biological and Chemical), we have to escalate immediately all the way to Nuclear to respond “in kind” to an NBC attack.

  18. If anybody uses a nuclear weapon on the United States, the Earth will burn. I don’t think even Iranian clerics are so insane as to instigate the extinction of the human race.

    1. Iran would burn, anyway. I doubt they’d acquire enough of an arsenal to take out many of our cities, while we could turn their entire nation into glass, and I don’t think anyone would try to stop us with their own nukes if Iran struck first.

      1. Basically, any nuclear extange between Iran and the US would likely remain limited to those two countries, so it’s unlikely to escalate to the point of human extinction.

        1. I think you’re forgetting Skynet here. Have you not been warned of this danger?

      2. Iran would burn, anyway. I doubt they’d acquire enough of an arsenal to take out many of our cities, while we could turn their entire nation into glass, and I don’t think anyone would try to stop us with their own nukes if Iran struck first.

        It’s not just building a nuke, it’s the ability to deliver it.

        Nuke tech is actually pretty fucking simple. Rocketry, not so much.

        Currently 4 countries (maybe 5 with the Chinese, though I seriously doubt the capabilities of their ballistic missiles) have the ability to deliver nuclear weapons at intercontinental ranges. 2 of them are on one side, one is a loaner but would side with us before any one else, and the other is backward and chauvinist, but not suicidal.

        The Iranians will develop an ICBM precisely never. At absolute worst they could give a nuke to some ‘slamist group who could attempt to smuggle it into the US to detonate it (which itself is a whole lot more complex an operation than many fevered imaginations would believe). Of course, if they did that we’d turn Iran into a self-lighting glass parking lot. A nuke makes them a regional power, and that’s about it.

        1. making a device small enough to deliver on a MRBM with any kind of yield is not trivial. The concepts may be well known but the details and engineering/implementation are another story.

          As to delivery – some may find it surprising but for relatively low yield nukes (below a few 100KT) accuracy is actually necessary. Missing the target by even a mile or two can result in vastly different results.

  19. I have to say, this:

    people realize that a non-nuclear-weaponed Iran can be achieved with means like negotiation and diplomacy

    has to be the very pinnacle of delusional naivete. By now, we should realize, based on years if not decades of experience, that “negotation and diplomcy” is how Iran buys time to finish their nukes.

    By now, there should be no question that there are only two ways to stop their nuclear program; (1) regime change, which you may recall the Obama administration is opposed to in Iran, or (2) a truly comprehensive military pounding of their entire nuclear operation, of a scale that Israel can’t dish out alone with conventional weapons. That’s it.

    Iran’s gonna get their nukes. Then we’ll learn if they only want them to parade through the streets, or if they mean to leverage them into regional hegemony. I know which way I’m betting.

    1. I disagree that Israel couldn’t seriously degrade their capabilities with conventional weapons. Iran as far as I know has never done a nuclear test. If they did we will find out what Israel is capable of.

  20. The situation, and what Iran ultimately became is because of the intervention of Britain and the US. Folks fogey that prior to the 1953 overthrow of Mosadegh, who was elected by the people…women had rights, and Iran even had a constitution. After the CIA and MI6 (the benefactor being BP -British petroleum- intervention, overthrow and installation of a dictator did Iran’s problems begin. The Savok (Iranian secret police) , which was trained by the CIA and mi6, tortured, raped and even murdered any dissenters as they pleased. They’ve been going through hell ever since. The individuals residing in Iran could have had a much greater chance at freedom had there been no intervention, and Iran could have been an excellent place to engage in trade.

    Imagine if the tables were reversed, how would folks here feel if the constitution were thrown out (it’s almost as if it is now anyway) and their families were raped, tortured, or murdered for expressing their feelings, desires to be free, or for wearing certain clothes? Damn right they would want nuclear weapons.

    These politicians can’t even protect our freedoms here, yet they throw around the excuse that they are defending freedom around the world…and these neocons lap it up.

    1. We must never forget the Prime Derprective: Each culture must be allowed to develop its own derp without interference.

  21. Wow – that Shriek and CytoTuffGai interlude was….a waste of time.

    Too bad Botard couldn’t have joined in and made it a trifecta.

    BACK TO REAL LIFE!

  22. Not all conservatives are Bible thumping pro-Zionists who are looking forward to starting the nuclear Apocalypse so Jesus can come back. I think that this argument of invading a foreign country based on what they might do rather than what they’ve actually done is immoral and irrational. It makes us the terrorists. I’m not voting for anyone who advocates invading Iran for no good reason. Good for Rand Paul for not throwing the ugly ‘n’ word around likes a nuclear holocaust is the only way to resolve problems.

  23. Come on dude, lets roll with it man, OK.

    http://www.GotsDatAnon.tk

  24. Regarding TEAM loyalty:

    The plight of the middle class in cities like Chicago can’t be blamed entirely on liberal policies. The global economy has clearly benefited the talented, the educated, and the already wealthy, often at the expense of those in formerly middle-class occupations, like manufacturing. And it’s unlikely that the forces unleashed by globalization will diminish. One might expect, then, that big-city Democratic leaders like Emanuel or de Blasio would make a strong appeal to middle-class constituents.

    They haven’t, because for liberal mayors, middle-class decline is convenient and politically advantageous. Much of America’s moneyed elite has already shifted its allegiance to the Left, especially in cities. Wealthy, educated urbanites hold generally liberal social values and can afford the higher taxes “blue” cities like Chicago impose?especially when those taxes help pay for the upscale amenities they desire. Even when the mayoral administration is less friendly, the urban elite tends to get its needs met. At the same time, the urban poor have remained loyal to the Democrats, no matter how little tangible improvement liberal policies make in their lives. And the various unions, community organizers, and activist groups that advocate for the poor profit handsomely from the moneys directed toward liberal antipoverty programs.

    1. I work in manufacturing. It pays very well. This author is full of shit.

      Manufacturing hasn’t died in America, it’s alive and well, just not in the Rust Belt.

      Much of America’s moneyed elite has already shifted its allegiance to the Left, especially in cities.

      The “moneyed elite” have been major bankrollers of the Progressive Movement since its very inception.

      1. Dick Morley, the inventor of the PLC (programmable logic controller) quipped something to the effect of ‘In the future, a factory will be staffed by a man and his dog. The dog is required to distract the man so he doesn’t break the factory’.

        1. The future is essentially now.

          I work for a manufacturer of box stackers during the week, but I own/operate a two-man job shop machining/welding/cutting all sorts of shit, mostly for larger industrial outfits (including my own employer).

          I live in a fairly rural area, but I know of at least a half dozen other small job shops that all have some niche or another and are usually operated by a retired or weekender machinist/welder.

        2. Also, because of PLCs I basically set-up my machines in the evening, go into my shop in the morning before work, make sure enough stock is loaded to perform all the cycles, push the start button and monitor function for a couple cycles, and then leave for work.

          When I come home I clean up the components, package for delivery, and then reset for the next day.

          The biggest hassle for me was getting the loan for the machines and building. Now that I have the loan paid off I actually make a little bit more than I do at my full-time job and only work maybe 10-12 hours extra a week.

          So really, the man and his dog don’t even really need to be there. He can come in the morning, process the previous day’s work, setup for the day, push a button, and then take his dog fishing for the day.

          1. Or talk to the web developer/salesperson/accountant.

  25. Jennifer Rubi is the token right-winger at the WaPo. Her opinions of Rand Paul are of no consequence, whatsoever.

    -jcr

  26. I am so fucking sick of J-Rub. She is a worthless neocon bitch end of story.

  27. Rand Paul’s foreign policy seems quite a bit more sane and reasonable to me than that which has been pursued by both parties since 9/11. The neocons constantly clamoring gleefully for war, indifferent or oblivious to the human and financial cost even after the bloodbaths of Iraq and Afghanistan, are the ones who truly seem to be in denial and living in a Gothic fantasy land on a completely separate continent from reality.

  28. I always find it a sad day when each candidate for president gets up in front of the media and pledges allegence to Israel. I would love for Rand to get and say yes Israel is our friend but they already have a president. I’m running fir president of the U.S. not Israel. Thing is that while the media may eviserate him for that I think most Israelis would applaude him for it. On android so apologize in advance for any typos.

    1. If someone is so worried about spelling, it’s because they are ignoring the message. Fluff dem fis dey wannata bodda yuu bout da shpelling. Fluffing squagaly dastarbs.

  29. It is an existential threat to Israel.

    Great, let Israel off the leash so THEY can do what they gotta do. We’ll stand over here and whistle. It’s job security for cartographers. Jobs!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.