Rand Paul

Rand Paul Opposes Iran Deal, David Frum Declares His Candidacy Dead (Again)

Mindless anti-libertarianism

|

Rand Paul
Gage Skidmore

Sen. Rand Paul opposes the current version of the Iran nuclear agreement. He explains on Twitter:

The proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable and I will vote against the agreement. ½

The deal is bad because 1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity 2/2

It also lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran. Better to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal.

Earlier today, The Atlantic's David Frum declared Paul's candidacy finished irrespective of whatever position the libertarian-leaning senator takes on the Iran deal:

In the middle of Obama's tenure, Rand Paul achieved for himself a standing within the GOP that eluded his father by focusing less on international security and much more on domestic surveillance. So long as as Congress was debating NSA and TSA, rather than Russia and Iran, Paul found a considerable constituency inside the party for his distinctive ideology. Now the spotlight shifts to Iran, Russia, and nuclear proliferation. Paul will either find himself isolated with the old Ron Paul constituency—or he'll have to find some nimble way to jump to the "anti" side of the Iran deal. (Perhaps he will emphasize the slight to Congress it represents?) If he opts for the latter approach, however, he becomes just another Republican voice among many competing to voice their opposition, and one less powerful and credible than, for example, Ted Cruz will be.

Frum is a deluded anti-libertarian who hates Paul almost as much as he loves warmongering and marijuana prohibition and spying on American citizens. He is cheering—loudly—for Paul to fail, and is constantly predicting that the Paul campaign is on the verge of capsizing in troubled waters. So it's really no surprise that he thinks there's nothing Paul could do to put himself in okay political shape with respect to the nuclear deal. There's never anything Paul can do, in the eyes of Frum. The entire country is always poised to reject libertarianism in all its incarnations.

This isn't true, of course. And anyway, Paul opposes the deal. He will have plenty of opportunities to explain to the American people—Republican primary voters, among them—why his rejection of the deal is consistent with his own national security principles, and why a more restrained foreign policy approach consistent with his libertarian-leaning views would actually make the country safer. In a Republican field that pits him against extremists like Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum, there's no reason to automatically assume that Paul will fail to make a comparatively appealing case.

For more on the Iran deal—which Reason's Shikha Dalmia has hailed as "the worst option, except for all the others"—go 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.

62 responses to “Rand Paul Opposes Iran Deal, David Frum Declares His Candidacy Dead (Again)

  1. What does ANY of this have to do with The Donald? Trump’s candidacy.

    For a magazine called REASON, I am disappoint

    1. Is it too meta to complain about people making the same stupid derivative comment ad nauseum complaining about H&R publishing multiple posts on the same topic?

    2. Drink!
      Okay, okay, I got a head start here.

  2. Why do people even listen to Frum? He wrote a book on the new majority and sold less than 5000 hardback copies. He thinks he has the pulse of the American people, yet he couldn’t fill a small classroom . No one would pay attention to him if it weren’t for outfits like Reason making him better known by commenting on him.

    1. Frum is suitable for greasing the gears in your woodchipper.

      1. Don’t forget that he has the most punchable face.

    2. His book on the 1970s was actually pretty good.

    3. Here’s the pulse. Here’s your finger, far from the pulse, jammed straight up your ass. Say, would you like a chocolate covered pretzel?

    4. Isn’t there some saying comparing him to masturbating with a cheese grater?

      No? Well, there should be.

      1. If we can’t have our chippers, can we at least use single shot cheese graters? Just for shredding food, an American tradition, you know…..

    5. He also got fired from the heritage foundation for not producing any work of note. I have no idea why anyone listens to him

    6. He also got fired from the heritage foundation for not producing any work of note. I have no idea why anyone listens to him

      1. He’s like Brooks. He’s conveniently retarded enough that they can use him to ridicule opposing viewpoints. It would kinda be like inserting Tony’s opinions into a bunch of articles.

        1. Professional concern troll

  3. The Iran deal is nothing but another healthcare law. It is horrible for the country, a victory for Obama, and a political disaster for the Democrats. What is going to happen is this deal is going to be enactedwithout a single Republican vote. That will leave the Democrats holding the bag. Understand there is no upside to that. If the deal actually works, the voters won’t care. If it goes south, The Democrats will get all of the blame since not a single Republican voted for. The Democrats are insane if they approve this deal. And of course they well and continue Obamas destruction of their party.

    1. In theory you are right. But in reality, Democrats never hold the party accountable for anything. This year they’ve loved blaming Republicans for not stopping Obama enough when he does something dumb. Like he’s their child and it’s their fault he played in the road when they weren’t paying attention. Except unlike Obama’s real parents, no Republican is a piece of shit drunk or a piece of shit who couldn’t wait to abandon her kids so she could go get some more third world cock.

  4. Sir, it’s a memo from Frum.

    From Who?

    No sir. From Frum.

    1. I thought a “frum” was some kind of metrosexual manscaping.

      1. Frum sounds like it would be a synonym of merkin.

        1. I had Taco Bell for lunch, you should smell the Frum in my office.

          1. +1

      2. I thought we had all agreed that it was the fringe of public hairs poking out from the edges of tighty whities?

        1. These kinds of threads are why I come to Reason and lurk.

  5. What a joke Rand Paul is. So much for faith in the free markets, and how that is the way to overcome tyrannical regimes. Instead, let’s rely on failed neo-con military posturing. Just as phony a libertarian as all the commenters here. Because, you know…Obama!

    1. Shut up Joe. No one cares

      1. Thanks for your continued reading John….alas , you care! Very much!

        1. Someone has to tell you. You are mentally challenged midget. It’s not like you are going to figure it out on your own

          1. Speaking of phony libertarians, John checks in.

            1. no true scotsman would never check in.

              1. Your clan?

                1. Your Klan. Robert Byrd is calling you from hell.

    2. Do you own stock in a straw man factory?? Who the fuck is arguing for military intervention? Even the Israelis DON’T want to have to try to use military force to weaken Iran’s nuclear development. What most of us are saying is keep the sanctions in place. Iran is the one that needs the change, we don’t.
      And free-markets are the best way to win friends and influence people. The problem is the money that would come in to Iran would mostly go to the regime, not Iranian citizens, business owners, etc.

  6. As a rule,I ignore David Frum,think I’ll have another beer.

    1. On my second Red Hare IPA as I post….

  7. Frum is a deluded anti-libertarian

    No, he’s a gadfly. I’m sure he’s against radical libertarianism, but nearly everybody is, so that’s like saying he doesn’t have an extra finger. He’s not anti-liberty generally, & I assure you he’s not deluded, just posturing.

    1. “He’s not anti-liberty”

      False. He worked for George W. Bush writing his speeches. And he was fired, according to Robert Novak. So how much of a fuck up did you have to be for Bush to dismiss you?

  8. What a knob David Frum is!!!!

  9. David Frum should be declared over! Deport the prick back to Canada!

    1. Cruz too, eh?

  10. I’m prepared to reject libertarianism from a one-term senator or any other political philosophy from any other one-term senator. Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Obama, Kennedy: I’ve never seen anything but disaster coming from one-term senators. What the heck is their hurry? I want to see real executive experience, period. Someone who has battled against all the BS and survived. Someone who has a bite, not a bark. Frankly, I only see one in the field. He isn’t libertarian but he’s the best that’s gonna come along: Scott Walker’s the only unintimidated dog who’s proven himself. Trump has stood tall against intimidation but that’s just talk. Even that has made him wildly more popular than anyone would have thought at this nearly insignificant stage. Paul’s problem is his message requires too much explanation: a whole course on political theory. Unfortunately a president is a toothpaste. That’s why their speeches sound the same: I will freshen breath! My scent is longer lasting! I will fight cavities in this great country of ours! I will make you appeal to the opposite sex! You will have beautiful children and grandchildren under me! Paul has a lot of well-considered positions and has more content per minute by far than anyone but so did Lyndon Larouche.

    1. So make him retarded, you’re saying?

      Hey, that wrestling parody video was pretty popular. Maybe he can hire Vince McMahon to be his campaign manager to teach him how to speak the language of mouthbreathers.

      1. Also, why everybody wants to run is because Dems have put up the most beatable candidate since Michael Dukakis. Nobody could beat Bill, Gore should have won on paper just because he was associated with a very popular President ala Bush sr. and Reagan, and if Kerry didn’t come off so snobby he probably would have beat Dubya. But even most Democrats don’t really like Hillary. She won’t have any excitement, nails on a chalk board are more pleasing to the ear than her speeches, and she can’t even give a straight answer in a softball CNN interview. I still think she’ll win, since Republicans are very talented at ruining things in the end (they’re the Cowboys in the playoffs). But I can see why Rubio, who has over 20 years left where he can run for President, is rushing out there.

  11. “Better to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal.”

    I wrote something like that earlier today.

    Yeah, the status quo is better for American security than Obama’s deal.

    Have I mentioned that I’m voting for Rand Paul?

    Well I am.

  12. I cannot take the opinions of a man who doesn’t even know how to direct message on Twitter seriously. And he has a massive inferiority complex because he’s obsessed with why the Williams sisters have muscles. Answer: good genetics from a father who is in his 70s and still kind of bulky. While his useless parents made a completely useless baby 55 years ago.

  13. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  14. So what’s Rand Paul’s alternative? “Better to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal”

    But that ignores the word “interim”. The only reason that “interim agreement” exists is as means to an end: the production of a final agreement. That final agreement is now on the table. If that final agreement is rejected, why makes anybody think that the interim agreement which preceded it is going to be around much longer itself?

    America cannot impose sanctions on Iran all by itself. It needs the support of Western Europe, Russia, China, and others to play ball and keep their own sanctions in place. If any of them break ranks then that interim agreement will be as good as dead as well. Then what?

    1. Well, I doubt he’s against them being allowed to sell oil again for any other reason than for the primaries so it gives Lindsey Graham one less thing to wag his finger at him about. Who gives a shit if they sell oil, lots of horrible people run countries that sell oil. But giving them 24 days before you go there to inspect is completely useless. Why not give them 6 months notice? If they wanted their 100 billion dollars unfrozen and the right to sell oil that bad, they should have agreed to random inspections. If you’re only doing this because you want nuclear energy, what do you have to hide?

  15. Does ANYONE in their right mind honestly believe Iran will honor ANY sort of deal? This entire topic of discussion is only relevant to the extent it helps/hurts presidential campaigns. Iran will not honor a deal.

    1. Moridin wrote: “Does ANYONE in their right mind honestly believe Iran will honor ANY sort of deal?”

      In other words, you are saying that not only is the PRESENT proposed agreement bad, the entire idea of negotiating with Iran is wrong because no matter sort of deal you negotiate Iran will cheat.

      OK, so what your alternative?

      After all, having no deal at all would simply allow Iran to proceed down the nuclear bomb making path anyway.

      Nor can you keep other countries–and especially Russia & China–from breaking ranks and junking Iranian sanctions UNLESS you have an agreement. And that means an agreement which everyone, including Iran itself, will agree to.

      So if no agreement would mean an end to sanctions and a full-speed ahead for Iranian bomb makers, just what is your alternative that would avoid such an outcome?

      1. The deal is useless. You have to give them notice and they can exercise a 24 day waiting period before letting inspectors in. You can hide a lot of things in 24 days.

        1. So what’s your alternative? No deal at all? That would simply hand the Iranians carte blanche!

          1. So? They have it anyway. So giving them a terrible deal means we’d be responsible if they do something to Israel. If Obama wants his legacy erased and to only be known as “the dumbshit who believed they were just kidding about all those threats to Israel”, then he should hope congress rubber stamps it. If he has any doubts, I hope he’s just trying to make Republicans look like the bad guys so he can say “I tried.”

            1. DoubleC: “So giving them a terrible deal means we’d be responsible if they do something to Israel””

              Are you suggesting that having NO deal would mean the US would NOT be responsible if Israel were to “do something” by Iran?

              Oh and BTW, hasn’t it been Israel which has been “do[ing] something” against Iran, from Stuxnet to Netanyahu’s attempt to skewer the agreement even before there WAS an agreement.

              It would be more true to say that Israel does not want the US to have ANY agreement with Iran. No matter what the agreement had said and no matter who had negotiated it Netanyahu would have opposed it.

              DoubleC: “I hope he’s just trying to make Republicans look like the bad guys so he can say ‘I tried.'”

              The Republicans in the US Congress are basically nothing more than Netanyahu’s tools. They showed that during the speech the Israel PM gave to them a few months back. Whatever Netanyahu wants they will deliver.

              Ergo the agreement is doomed.

  16. Rand Paul is a fraud. The entire US government is a fraud. The entire Iranian government is a fraud.

    Any “deal” struck between criminally fraudulent organizations like governments is likewise a fraud- a bad joke at best. It will, as always, be violated before the ink even dries, “you know, this much is true”.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    Personal Freedom Consultant:
    http://www.freedominunfreeworld.blogspot.com

  17. As Jewish Iranian American who has steadfastly supported Ron and Rand Paul, financially and morally and as an activist, this anti-negotiation/deal of Rand is very disappointing. If Rand continues to act like Ted Cruz, Rand will loose the support of libertarian/republicans, like me. Everyone else who I know, who likes Ted Cruz better than Rand Paul, because Ted has more charisma (they are right on that one) will stick with Ted and not go with Rand, who is supported to be differnt thatn these warmonger Republikcans. I have known since the early 1970’s that Israel had nuclear weapons. Rand knows that too. Let’ stand for peace, despite the immense political/financial power of the Zionist warmongers and their leader Netanyahoo, who are the true threat to peace, not Iran. Peymon Mottahedeh, President, Freedom Law School http://www.LiveFreeNow.Org

    1. Thank you, come again.

    2. How are you making the leap from “don’t lift sanctions and don’t allow weapons sales” to “supports war”? He’s not Tom Cotton. What Paul wants is nothing to change with the current situation unless they cut the crap on the 24 days notice for undeclared site inspections.

      And I don’t think he’s losing much support over this. If you don’t know that he’s not just a Ron Paul clone by now, you haven’t been paying attention. He’s not Ron. Not even close. But just because he isn’t Ron Jr. doesn’t mean he doesn’t have his good qualities. Nobody else in the race comes close to him on civil liberties, the drug war, drones, ect.

  18. Frum is the most salient issue about Paul’s disgusting warmonger position on the Iran deal? Look to The American Conservative for a more mature critique.

    1. I agree with Rand Paul on this and don’t think ‘warmongering’ is an accurate descriptor of his position. He is correctly stating that the deal has critical flaws in guaranteeing the ability to assure compliance and that we appear weak by lifting sanctions before seeing some movement by Iran….and that perception of weakness could further compromise our diplomatic ability in ME negotiations. It would have been better to walk away temporarily and continue back channel negotiations until all parties could return to the table to seal a better deal. It is frankly silly to interpret such a position as ‘warmongering’.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.