Paris

Do Paris Attacks Mean the End of Rand Paul's Presidential Hopes?

In the wake of Paris atrocities, supporting civil liberties and non-interventionism just got way less popular.

|

Have last Friday's coordinated terror attacks in Paris signaled the "tectonic plates of

The end is nigh?
Wikimedia Commons

 geopolitics to shift sharply rightward," as Michael Hirsh suggests in Politico? And if so, does that mean Rand Paul's message of libertarian-ish politics is officially dead in the water with regards to the GOP presidential nomination?

Hirsh writes, "Civil liberties, which made a comeback with the Snowden revelations of 2012, will also now fade once again as an international issue," and "This new right-wing normal will also no doubt seal the fate of less hawkish candidates—in particular the already-fading Rand Paul, whom (Marco) Rubio denounced at the last debate as a 'committed isolationist' and who can no doubt hear the tolling of political oblivion even now."

This weekend, fresh off their skirmish in last week's Republican presidential debate and refecting the fallout from the Paris attacks, Paul and Rubio took shots at each other's records on national security and immigration reform. 

Speaking in Orlando, Paul blamed Rubio and his work with the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" senators who rejected his amendment (which included some very restrictive and punitive policies) to an immigration reform bill in 2013:

"We let our guard down, but when I introduced my amendment to the immigration bill, unfortunately I got some opposition. Your senator, in fact, opposed me on this," he told the crowd.

"I tried to pass something that I think was a conservative proposition to the immigration bill, that would have more scrutiny for refugees, for visitors, for students."

Rubio's retort was reported by The Hill:

"Well, look, Rand just uses this sort of rhetoric to distract from his very weak record on national security issues," Rubio said on ABC's "This Week."

"I mean, he's been one of the leading figures trying to gut American intelligence programs," he added.

He said Paul wants to get rid of programs that would help prevent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

"Let's say that, God forbid, what happened in Paris happened in Washington. We would want to know, we would want access to these people's phone records, because it would give us clues as to who they were working with, who probably may be involved in plots themselves later on down the road," Rubio said.

"Rand Paul wants to get rid of that program."

Paul may indeed be attempting to find a way to position himself to the right of Rubio on immigration, because his relative non-interventionism and skepticism of mass surveillance by the federal government has already limited his appeal among Republican voters

The Wall Street Journal, in an op-ed mostly lambasting President Obama's foreign policy and efforts to battle Islamist terrorism, concludes with this shot at Paul:

As for the Republicans, Rand Paul's already small chance at the nomination has now vanished. Whatever his contributions on economics, his libertarian foreign-policy instincts are too similar to President Obama's. GOP voters will increasingly look to sort the other candidates by their experience and judgment, not merely tough talk. The election should be a referendum on keeping America safe.

As my colleague Ed Krayewski wrote last week, Rand Paul is not an isolationist, but Paul's fairly mild hesitance to engage in a ground war against an asymmetrical enemy in a chaotic region where we've already dumped so much blood and treasure may yet prove to be a non-starter in a Republican field that will only grow more hawkish in the wake of Paris. 

NEXT: Refugees and 'the true terrorism danger'

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. Fork is to potato, as BLANK is to Rand Paul.

    1. Baked?

      I was never good at this section on the SAT…

    2. The Match Game was never this boring.

    3. I think the answer is “Done”.

      1. Ding! Winner!

    4. Bugle!?

      Too bad the American People are such morons. Paul (Ron or Rand) has been a top choice for 4 elections now – and Americans still want to piss away blood and treasure.

      Morons.

  2. To answer the headline, no. Rand Paul would have had to have a shot at being President for these attacks to affect his chances.

    1. Pretty much.

      1. In the wake of Paris atrocities, supporting civil liberties and non-interventionism just dropped from 2% to 1% of the American population.

        FIFY

    2. I think he still has a perfectly cromulent shot at losing to hillary in the general.

      1. If anything, this will embiggen him to rise to the challenge.

  3. Exact opposite, it makes him more necessary.

    1. I would agree, but that isn’t the question.

      It’s ibvious that we have a collective renewed war boner, and by God we’re gonna stroke it.

      Paul now has no shot, even if war isn’t the answer. We’re all about the feelz, and damnit we’re gonna hit that mean bully back whether it makes a difference or not.

      1. It will make a difference in the end. Just as with so many past warlike empires that overextended themselves fighting wars in foreign lands while the economy back home collapsed, we will all suffer the collapse of the United States, who couldn’t get its damned war boner under control.

        Must… not… think… warlike… thoughts…

        1. Think about baseball.

    2. Exactly. Rubio can’t even manage his own finances, and he wants us to trust him with the whole country’s?

    3. What do George W Bush and Barack Obama have in common?
      Both ran as doves (Bush bashed Clinton’s nation building and Obama bashed Bush’s wars) and both ended up starting American involvement in multiple wars.
      Running on a platform of peace means nothing. If anything, a president who talks aggressively may be leads likely to get in a war, with the whole Nixon goes to China effect.

  4. “”””but Paul’s fairly mild hesitance to engage in a ground war against an asymmetrical enemy in a chaotic region”””

    So not wanting to repeat the failure of Iraq is a bad thing?

    1. To most “conservatives”, yes.

      1. To most conservatives, the mistake in Iraq was not trying harder.

        1. Yes, Hannity was ranting just the other day about how Obama gave up territory “paid for with American blood and treasure”. So let’s keep throwing more men and money down that hole forever!

          1. imo Hannity is the most vomitatious human on earth.

            1. Right. Chris Mattews, Chris Hayes, R Madcow, Ed Schulz, Keith Ohlberman, etc.. Are all way better, right? Seriously, get some perspective.

          2. I’ve always thought that whether a person understands the idea of a ‘sunk cost’ should be a standard test for mental retardation. Hannity just failed it I guess.

  5. Dear Mr. Rubio that’s what warrants are for.

    1. But that takes 5 extra minutes!

    2. ^This.

      What judge is going to turn down a warrant application for the phone records of a person killed in an act of terror?

      1. A liberal, hippie, progressive judge, that’s who.

        1. …an act of terror against obamacare.

          problem solved. *dusts hands*

  6. France drobe the moslems out of their country without our help last time. If they want to do it again, I dont see why they need our assistance.

    Wwcmt

    1. Typing hard

      Drove
      Wwcmd

      1. Could just as easily have been “droned”.

        1. I dont think Martel had drones.

  7. Hirsh writes, “Civil liberties, which made a comeback with the Snowden revelations of 2012, will also now fade once again as an international issue,”

    An extraordinary claim, to be sure. It would be the same as conceding anybody can be suspected of being a burglar if my neighbor’s house was burglarized. How can a person make such an assertion?

    I know I am not a person who committed or would commit such atrocities, so why would I accept scrutiny of my life as if I were someone who could commit such atrocities? If such an accusation was coming from a total stranger, I would punch his face, but since it is coming from government and right after an awful incident, well…. all bets are off??? That’s a logical contradiction.

    Come on. If someone says “I don’t mind the scrutiny,” then speak for yourself. YOU go and provide your life to the State; YOU open up your conversations and your personal papers to the State.

    1. Obviously you have something to hide.

    2. And it’s not like the government would ever do anything unscrupulous with all of your private information, anyway, right? Not a smidgeon of corruption!

      1. Especially not after all the Mizzou protester types get their government jobs. I am confident they would dnever use it against their perceived enemies.

  8. Standard WSJ, Fox News, Limbaugh, NR, etc policy of dealing with Rand. If he does well, do not mention his name. If events collude in a manner that can be politicized against him, fire away.

    1. Exactly, but why in Reason? Have they gone neocon on us?

  9. One result of the Paris goings-on is that the porcelain dolls around the world are wailing and gnashing their teeth over the possibility of EVUL RIGHT-WINGERZ who hate brown people taking over politics.

    Poor Rand is caught between being an evil right-winger and an isolationist pansy. His position is a complete non-starter.

    1. Wait, shouldn’t Rand’s anti-libertarian positions on immigration be helping him now, according to his critics’ logic?

  10. The Wall Street Journal, in an op-ed mostly lambasting President Obama’s foreign policy and efforts to battle Islamist terrorism, concludes with this shot at Paul:

    As for the Republicans, Rand Paul’s already small chance at the nomination has now vanished. Whatever his contributions on economics, his libertarian foreign-policy instincts are too similar to President Obama’s

    What a laugh. The Wall Street Journal is playing loose with the historical facts here. It was the Obama administration’s forays into Libya and Syria that created the current crisis. It was Hill-Rod’s State Department who started arming “rebels” in Syria, a project that ended up creating a much more dangerous enemy than Al-Qaeda and they still have the gall to compare Paul’s foreign policy to Obama’s? Please.

    1. Yeah, that was a head scratcher. Which part of Paul’s policy specifies destroying hospitals?

      1. Repealing Obamacare, duh!

    2. Get with the program OM.
      AmSoc just assured us in the AM links that Obumbles is totally not a war monger.

    3. It was the Obama administration’s forays into Libya and Syria that created the current crisis. It was Hill-Rod’s State Department who started arming “rebels” in Syria, a project that ended up creating a much more dangerous enemy than Al-Qaeda…

      And let’s not forget that the Journal was fully in support of the whole fiasco.

    4. This is a bizarre accusation for another reason: wasn’t the mainstream Republican position these days (among the common folk that is) that Bush wasn’t really a real conservative? Wasn’t the case that his foreign policy failures were an example of failed state intervention? Wasn’t the distinction between neo- and paleo- conservatives coming back into style (in the latter’s insistence)? Haven’t these guys been criticizing the Obama admin for the past 8 years for his intervention?

      Now what we have here is: Bush-warmongering = Obama-warmongering = bad, but Rand-realism = Obama-warmongering =bad, meaning good = Bush-warmingering !=Obama-warmingering?

      I’m not sure but I think they’re violating at least two of the basic axioms of formal logic. Pretty soon these fuckers are going to divide by 0 and thereby destroy the whole universe.

  11. The war-drums are booming and the war-boners are inflating. Time to drop bombs on brown people.

    1. Frankly I would be willing to compromise and let them keep dropping their bombs; targeted air strikes and ballistic missiles and all that; but for the love of God no land war. What is it with these people that they think ‘boots on the ground’ means we’re really punishing them? Quite the opposite, it gives them the opportunity to punish us. They have boots on the ground too, so on land is as close to an even fight as it will get. What ISIS doesn’t have is fancy computer-guided missiles. Want to punish them? Let a fat guy in a basement office in the Pentagon direct missiles at their camps with one hand while he jerks off with the other. At least that is marginally cheaper than maintaining an army of many thousands in the middle of a desert.

  12. “Let’s say that, God forbid, what happened in Paris happened in Washington. We would want to know, we would want access to these people’s phone records, because it would give us clues as to who they were working with, who probably may be involved in plots themselves later on down the road,” Rubio said.

    We would want access to these people phone records so that requires us to have access to everybody’s phone records. We would want to keep a close eye on those people so it requires us to keep a close eye on everybody. We also would want those people locked up in cages so……

    At least Rubio is doing his part to keep that terrorist-loving cheap foreign sugar out of our country, even if it does have the unfortunate cost of enriching some of his campaign donors.

    1. Time to drop bombs on brown people.

      I kinda want a CEO to step up and ask Rubio what kind of human scum does he think they are?

    2. Well would you get someone’s phone records, smart guy? It’s not like they’re being retained by companies out there, and can be provided to authorities with a simple warrant. FFS, dude.

    3. We would want access to these people phone records so that requires us to have access to everybody’s phone records. We would want to keep a close eye on those people so it requires us to keep a close eye on everybody.

      This is actually true. If you don’t want to be accused of Teh Racisam, you better be spying on everyone. Just like TSA bullshit.

  13. If you think the moanings about how PARIS CHANGES EVERYTHING are of great significance, despite zero actual evidence proving that to be the case… then sure.

    There are people out there insisting that the Paris attacks have done everything from bolster Hillary to highlight the importance of climate change jawboning.

    I think the Imminent Doom of Rand Paul is roughly the same.

    You could have made the case that he was doomed from Day 1 because of the unpopularity of his Foreign Policy view. It would have been equally valid then. I don’t think Paris changed anything on a fundamental level. Reason’s constant groaning about his inevitable failure isn’t doing much to help his case.

      1. Damned Science! and it would have all worked, too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

        1. Imagine what could happen if the temperature eventually does actually increase.

    1. You could have made the case that he was doomed from Day 1 because of the unpopularity of his Foreign Policy view.

      Nope. It’s his extreme social conservatism, which Barry Goldwater predicted (correctly) was a major threat to the GOP … and now even infected the already-comatose libertarian movement.

      1. “Nope. It’s his extreme social conservatism,”

        Which doesn’t matter in a Republican Primary. Almost everyone is to the right of Rand on the Drug War. On abortion he’s not that distinguishable from other pro-lifers like Rubio and Christie. Same goes for Gay Marriage. Meanwhile the actual “extreme” social conservative Ben Carson is one of the frontrunners for the nomination. The only “social liberal” currently running is George Pataki who is only well known among political junkies and some New Yorkers.

        “Barry Goldwater predicted (correctly) was a major threat to the GOP”

        Which is why the GOP currently have 54 Senators (including pro-life Senators like Cory Gardner in CO, Kelly Ayotte in NH, and Dean Heller in NV). Plus 31 Governors which are a mix of pro-lifers and pro-choicers (Governor Martinez (R-NM) is Pro-life, Governor Sandoval (R-NV) is pro-choice). The court has settled the marriage issue. I don’t see much evidence of the Republican Party’s down fall. Unless Trump or Carson win the nomination.

        ” … and now even infected the already-comatose libertarian movement.”

        And yet it seems that its the socially conservative libertarians who are active and still getting elected to office (Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, etc.). The last socially liberal libertarians to run for office and get elected were Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. We haven’t seen to many others since then.

        1. Trump seems wishy-washy on MJ. Ben Carson wants to double down on the WOD. Same with Rubio.

          Which leaves Ted Cruz, who’s against legal MJ himself, but would leave it up to the states if they want to legalize. He’d be my second choice behind Rand for the nomination.

          Thank God Chris “Invade The Pot-Legal States” Christie is slumming at the polls.

      2. The libertarian movement didn’t seem so comatose in 2008 when Ron Paul raised 6 million dollars in one day from small online donations, or in 2012, when Ron Paul was a top four contender for the Republican nomination. And he is as pro-life as anyone.

        1. ” It’s his extreme social conservatism,”

          Which doesn’t matter in a Republican Primary.

          Extreme socons have NEVER determined a nominee.

          ? not that distinguishable from other pro-lifers like Rubio and Christie

          Would THEY ban abortion at conception with an “intrusive” federal law?

          ..l “extreme” social conservative Ben Carson is one of the frontrunners ?

          So were Santorum and Huckabee at this point.

          Pataki .. only well known among political junkies and some New Yorkers.

          They elected him governor?

          “Barry Goldwater predicted (correctly) was a major threat to the GOP
          Which is why the GOP currently have 54 Senators ….

          Outsiders are so strong BECAUSE incumbents have done NOTHING.

          The court has settled the marriage issue.

          They just took another case.

          ? the Republican Party’s down fall. Unless Trump or Carson win the nomination.

          Extreme socons will fail (again)?

          ” … and now even infected the already-comatose libertarian movement.”
          .. s the socially conservative libertarians who are active and still getting elected to office

          Proves my point.

          socially liberal libertarians to run for office and get elected were Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.

          Also proves my point. You forget Reagan?

        2. The libertarian movement didn’t seem so comatose in 2008 when Ron Paul raised 6 million dollars in one day from small online donations

          Chicken-feed when 59% of Americans self-identify as libertarian (fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Cato.Zogby Poll) …Ron is PROOF of a comatose libertarian movement. Since he’s not one.

          , or in 2012, when Ron Paul was a top four contender for the Republican nomination. And he is as pro-life as anyone.

          That’s a massive failure when 59% of the electorate self-define as libertarian. And he’s never achieved anything. Unlike his son, Ron is incapable of. working with others to drafty and pass legislation.

          Keep in mind, the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians … after 40 years and with a majority or large plurality of the electorate. “Comatose” may be an understatement.

          1. ” 59% of Americans self-identify as libertarian”
            And probably close to 40% identify as horses. What of it? God you’re useless Michael; surveys are great for toilet paper and little else.

            The fact is, plenty of anti-gay marriage, pro-Iraq war conservatives would ‘self-identify’ as libertarians, as would plenty of full blown state-socialists (‘indeed, they often call themselves ‘libertarian socialists”; the state controls everything but you can buttfuck whoever you want I guess).

            That doesn’t illustrate some dormant libertarian majority you idiot; it demonstrates that the world ‘libertarian’ is fucking meaningless. It means whatever someone thinks it means. Everyone “supports liberty” they will say. Do you think Nazis would say on a survey that they opposed freedom? No, they’d say they supported it; just had a heterodox definition of the term.

            1. ” 59% of Americans self-identify as libertarian”

              And probably close to 40% identify as horses.

              Wait for it …

              The fact is, plenty of anti-gay marriage, pro-Iraq war conservatives would ‘self-identify’ as libertarians, as would plenty of full blown state-socialists ? [bullshit redacted] .. but you can buttfuck whoever you want I guess)

              You just attacked a survey you know NOTHING about. The 59% majority self-described as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” .

              They added “also known as libertarian” — and it lost 20%.
              For “libertarian” only, it was 5%
              In marketing, that’s a toxic brand

              That doesn’t illustrate some dormant libertarian majority you idiot; it demonstrates that the world ‘libertarian’ is fucking meaningless.

              (yawn)

              It means whatever someone thinks it means. Everyone “supports liberty” they will say. Do you think Nazis would say on a survey that they opposed freedom? No, they’d say they supported it …

              Umm, what if they were asked about “fiscally conservative and socially liberal?”

              NOW read the survey. Scroll down about 2/3 to a bold heading How Libertarians See Themselves

              http://www.cato.org/policy-rep…..-2004-2006

              (My tone is in self-defense of aggression)

              1. Yep, to Mr. Nihn. The Libertarian brand does suck pretty bad among liberty-lovers I know. As amply demonstrated by many of the Reason’s columnist and the commentators on this site libertarianism is associated with a motley clique of cynics, anarchists, and worst of all, nihilists. Pretty negative vibe overall anyway. Their anti-cop and anti-national defense meme are killers all by themselves.

                Jesus Christ in a bottle, it should have gotten traction, but it appears the self-described Libertarians themselves killed their movement.

                Oh, well.

                1. …Mr. Hihn.

                2. David, it’s mostly an internal conflict of visions. At the beginning, we’d say, “Never be anti-government; always be pro-liberty” (Salesmanship 101, duh.)

                  What you’ve seen, I suggest, is how the anti-gummint faction is united by hatred for government ? NOT love for liberty — which is why they keep failing, and may have now reached the their road’s dead-end .

                  Heck, any 20-year-old in marketing and sales knows the way to sell/persuade is to stress the positives — what your “product or service” does for the voters. How will it benefit their lives.

                  The anti-gummint crowd has no clue how to sell individual liberty .. . a nd they don’t give a shit. Their “moral purpose” is to hate government. And YOU must pass their litmus test to “prove” you too are a “true believer.”

                  Ask how we can get enough people elected to govern, they change the subject, or launch personal attacks. So 40 years later, the BRAND is a fucking failure, rejected by even libertarians. If they sold Ford automobiles, they’d be attacking Chevies. Toyotas, Hondas and the others.

                  The growing number of independents is largely driven by disgust for all the tribal partisan hatred they see ? including ant-gummint libertarians. . Some claim we’re in a libertarian moment. Their brilliant strategy STILL ignores our majority (who they also hate) and targets “independents” ? 30% of which are collectivists! Great strategy!

            2. Surveys are useful for convincing voters their ballots “weren’t really” switched. But third-party upsets of election outcomes cause politicians to rush over and read the Libertarian Party Platform in a desperate scramble to make concessions in order to keep or get their hands in the till. Libertarians caused upsets in Vermont, Virginia and Louisiana by the simple expedient of showing people how to not waste their votes on warmongering looters.

              1. Surveys are useful for convincing voters their ballots “weren’t really” switched.

                This is called “brand awareness” so your comment is meaningless.

        3. “Libertarian movement” is a meaningless meme used by Peter Schwartz to turn weak-minded objectivists into GOP puppets. This he accomplished by pointing to pederasts, communists and anarchist infiltrators and screaming “libertarian!” Libertarian party members sign a pledge written 68 years ago and offer voters a chance to vote for a platform written 43 years ago. Every election we upset so as to change the outcome works to repeal a handful of idiotic laws and tax hikes. Local governments now squander the lion’s share of money extorted at gunpoint, and in these elections the Libertarian Party has literally dragged decriminalization of marijuana into the 21st Century.
          Impostors like Ron Paul and his son are useful in causing their fellow republicans to partly abandon The Holy Inquisition of medieval religious governments, but only GOP infiltrators pretend to be fooled by impostors.

          1. “Libertarian movement” is a meaningless meme used by Peter Schwartz to turn weak-minded objectivists into GOP puppets.

            If any of that comment was true … or even made sense … how would it be relevant to anything in this thread?

  14. Do Paris Attacks Mean the End of Rand Paul’s Presidential Hopes?

    No, unfortunately I think Rand Paul is mostly responsible for the end of Paul’s presidential hopes.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul)
      No, unfortunately I think Rand Paul is mostly responsible for the end of Paul’s presidential hopes

      Amen, And several months ago.

    2. Are you a vampire or just plain old blood thirsty. How much stock to you own in the arena of the military industrial complex. Put the one who turned you through the woodchipper to free yourself.

      1. Are you a vampire or just plain old blood thirsty

        Can you make sense?

        How much stock to you own in the arena of the military industrial complex.

        Can you make sense?

        Put the one who turned you through the woodchipper to free yoursel

        Can you make sense?

  15. My suicide bomber son blew himself up because of stress, says Ibrahim Abdeslam’s mother

    Another family member said he would not have wanted to become a suicide bomber. “Maybe the explosives went off prematurely by accident. Maybe it was stress. The fact that his bomb belt exploded without killing anyone else says a lot.”

    W.T.F?

    1. Look, they were nice boys, maybe with some trouble in the past, but turning their lives around. Then racism made them do it!

    2. I’m glad people haven’t lost their sense of humor.

    3. You obviously have no empathy for the pressure to secure 72 virgins in one shot….or multiple shots and explosions as needed. Perhaps all of the migrating muslims should be forced to eat pork as a price of admission to another country. They can think of it as hazing or an initiation. Just to show they are not radical extremists of the religion of peace.

  16. Is there anything that Rubio is qualified for other than giving recommendations for a credit counselor? He makes Obama’s resume look good.

  17. “Do Paris Attacks Mean the End of Rand Paul’s Presidential Hopes?”

    Of course not.

    The Paris attacks don’t mean the end of Rand Paul’s presidential hopes.

    Rand Paul means the end of Rand Paul’s presidential hopes.

    1. Rand Paul means the end of Rand Paul’s presidential hopes.

      Amen. And quite some time ago.

      1. Amen

        Hihn’s ready for Hillary!

        1. (lol)
          kbolino believes only liberals oppose Rand Paul, thus ignoring Rand’s polling among Republicans.

          1. I’m sorry, is this NationalReview.com?

            1. I’m sorry, is this NationalReview.com?

              No, the place has long been infested with their type of reader … like the jerk who believes only liberals oppose Rand Paul (for President, not the Senate)

  18. Why must it be a Republican war-boner? What about Hillary’s own war-boner, which is more well-hung than Rubio’s?

    After all, she is the one that helped to get these asshats better-armed than they were before. Although I suppose that, at this point, that doesn’t matter.

  19. Fact: At least 4 out of 7 attackers were native
    Fact: French intel and police already had most on their watch lists
    Fact: The French already had everything they needed to keep tabs on them and failed

    Paul’s response should be that Rubio is using old thinking to try to address a new problem and it just won’t work. No amount of warrantless snooping would have prevented the attacks and they already knew most, if not all, of the connections either directly or indirectly from 3rd party foreign agencies.

    1. What we got here is a failure to communicate; however, they cannot make the failure look like they are out of power/liberty grabbing options in yet another pursuit to regain a false sense of security. You know, that small elusive privacy shred that must exist somewhere.

    2. Not importing Syrians and other undesirables would have eliminated three of those seven though. Keep them all out.

  20. The airwaves are full of Neo-Conservatives. All the candidates, including Hillary Clinton are Neo-Conservatives but here’s the thing, the rest of America is with Rand Paul on this. The American people know that bombs and troops can’t defeat an ideology and that all of our involvement over there makes us less safe. Can Rand Paul break through every other candidate and the mainstream media? We shall see when the votes are counted. I, for one, think people are going to be surprised. Rand Paul 2016!

    1. The American people know that bombs and troops can’t defeat an ideology and that all of our involvement over there makes us less safe.

      Um, do they? All of them? A majority?

    2. “The American people know that bombs and troops can’t defeat an ideology and that all of our involvement over there makes us less safe”

      I think you give the American general public way, way, way (add a few more) to much intelligence here.

      As a whole, I put our public on an I.Q. level of a cow.

    3. Actually if one exterminated all Muslims then the problem ceases to exist. So yes, it can be solved with bullets and bombs.

      1. Actually if one exterminated all Muslims then the problem ceases to exist.

        Other than your own problem..

        it can be solved with bullets and bombs.

        Why not re-open Auschwitz, build a thousand morfe, and stoke the gas chambers?

        How is that any less barbaric than the Islamist terrorists? Are you aware that the Old Testament is far more barbaric than the Quran. Yup, the OT is only sacred text which commands “killing all the infidels?” (Deut 13(

  21. Rand Paul needs to push back against this idea that his foreign policy is similar to Obama’s. He should make clear that his strategic choices are fundamentally different.

    Implicitly calling Obama an idiot for his ineffective Syria policy is a good start. And he should remind people that he called for arming the Kurds, who recaptured a city from ISIS on the same night as the massacre in Paris.

    Paul should keep pointing out that Obama/Clinton’s lack of strategy in Syria and Libya have made the rise of ISIS possible, that the hawks – and Obama – were more focused on regimechanging Assad than on ISIS.

  22. Rand Paul should also explain that throwing more money to the military will not make America stronger:

    http://www.nationalinterest.or…..tion-14349

    And he needs members of the military making that case for him, endorsing him.

  23. There are things we need to do, to defend ourselves and Rand Paul understands this. The question is, what should we stop doing, that has made us less safe, historically? Is the answer to get more involved in The Middle East or less involved? Every candidate from Hillary Clinton to everyone on the Republican side says, more involved. Most of Washington says, more involved. One thing is for certain, we NEED Rand Paul in this debate because he is the ONLY voice that says, less involved and at best (or worst, depending on your point of view) Americans are split on this issue. Rand Paul 2016!

  24. Rand’s campaign committed suicide long ago. Since
    1) He insulted those news women, presumably to delay revealing his extreme social conservatism.
    2) Wasted all the time he spent properly bending support on the left, when he babbled about religious tent revivals. (A strategy roughly akin to General George Custer)

    But ultimatelty because his campaign platform is WAY too narrow. And his tax proposal may be even wackier than his dad’s. For sheer ignorance, Rand seems blissfully unaware that the vast majority of small businesses are 100% exempt from the corporate income tax, So, presumably, Rand REALLY believes his 16% VAT is a lower percentage than 0%. — and since the average tax rate for the core middle class ($40-100K) is only 8.8%., his flat income tax and VAT combine for a hefty tax INCREASE on the middle class, (See George Custer above)

    Oh yeah, combining an income (or payroll) tax with a VAT (or consumption) tax, his tax “paln” is structurally identical to Canada and all the welfare states.

    Oh wait, this is a Libertarian Moment. Never mind.

    1. But Rand would also remove the FICA tax for individuals, so middle class taxes would go way down.

      1. But Rand would also remove the FICA tax for individuals, so middle class taxes would go way down.

        Your math sucks.

        Current
        8.8% income tax 7.65% FICA = 16.45% current with all current deductions.

        Rand
        14.5% RESTRICTED deductions + 16% VAT = 30.% on taxable consumption.

        Plus his 16% tax increase on small businesses.

        And he never pays for his tax cut for the rich.
        About as crazy as his dad’s hoax.

        1. I love how tax cuts are always portrayed as having a zero based affect. As if no one who gets the cut will reintroduce it into the economy.

          “The Clinton years present two consecutive periods as experiments of the effects of tax policy. The first period, from 1993 to 1996, began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession. The second period, from 1997 to 2000, began with a modest tax cut as the economy should have settled into a normal growth period. The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase.”

          http://www.heritage.org/resear…..1990s-boom

          1. I love how tax cuts are always portrayed as having a zero based affect. As if no one who gets the cut will reintroduce it into the economy.

            Has anyone done that? (Your second sentence makes no sense)

            “The Clinton years present two consecutive periods as experiments of the effects of tax policy. The first period, from 1993 to 1996, began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession.

            Nonsense.

            1) Clinton took office in 1993, the 22nd month of a recovery.
            2) The recession had ended March 1991.
            3) The next recession was 10 years later, March, 2001.

            These are the official dates for our business cycles since 1854,

            http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

            The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase.”

            For 3 years, then the recession. I don’t recall any claims (ever) that Clinton’s’ tax increase caused an expansion — especially when the dates you cite are bogus.

            Your Heritage source curiously ignores the SPENDING cuts.
            What’s your point? And how does it relate — in any way — to the facts on Rand Paul’s tax “plan?” There’s a MAJOR difference between arguing that tax cuts can boost the economy … and tax proposals based on bullshit.

            This feels like the wacky claim that income tax revenues “skyrocketed” after the Reagan tax cuts.

    2. Obviously, the income tax would need to be repealed. Don’t soil yourself.

      1. Obviously, the income tax would need to be repealed.

        HOW? Would it be as dumb-fuck crazy as Ron Paul’s hoax?
        Ron says “repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing.”
        What he NEVER says is that could run virtually the entire federal government on … FICA TAXES!

        He also says (laughing) that there’d be no cuts in Social Security and Medicare! See it yet?

        He leaves FICA, which now pays for Social Security and Medicare … and he won’t cut a penny of those two entitlements, which leaves … HOW MUCH to run the entire federal government? (Less than zero, keep reading)

        If that’s not dumb-fuck enough, thanks to the Bush Administration, 40% of all Medicare sending is now subsidized by nearly a quarter trillion per year in income taxes. The math is simple (Ignore the trivial revenues from tariffs and like):

        Ron Paul says Security and Medicare can be run with $250 billion less than they spend now .. with no cuts to those entitlements. PLUS the same FICA revenues can also run the entire federal government!!

        Don’t soil yourself.

        How long have you been a follower in the Cult?
        Don’t drink any Kool-Aid, It’s a trick!!

    3. Re: Michael Hindered,

      He insulted those news women[…]

      News people.

      Sexist bastard.

  25. Wow…quite an infestation of….something…we got in this thread.

    1. Yeah. It’s like someone left the door open and a bunch of street lunatics wandered in. Seems to be some RP supporters, too, and they’re generally welcome.

    2. Something seems to be Hihndering intelligent discussion…

      1. Ha! Good one, Marvin.

    3. Is this linked to Drudge or something?

    4. Be nice. Hihn was raped by Canada and social conservatism.

      1. On social conservatism, so were Goldwater and Reagan. (lol)

        1. Socially conservative ideals can be a good thing. They just shouldn’t be legislated. Rand understands that. So you’re still free to have no morals Mikey.

          1. Socially conservative ideals can be a good thing.

            (lol) HOW?
            Now shows us that you’re totally ignorant of what it even means!

            So you’re still free to have no morals

            See? Pay attention. I’ll go slowly.

            1) It has nothing top do with having morals. Never has.

            2) It’s whether one has a crypto-fascist desire to impose one’s values on everyone else through government force. A principle which traces to our founding.

            Anything else I can teach you about libertarianism … or US history?

            Mikey.

            (Does Suicidy even know that it made a total fool of itself?)

  26. Looks like the ideology of liberty is dead mates, what with Ron Paul gone, Rand Paul incompetent, and nobody to carry on the torch. Will the last man leave please turn off the lights?

    1. Neither Paul was ever “there”

      1. His father was definitely there. Doth thou protest too much, sir?

        1. His father was definitely there.

          Hardly. A big government conservative who pisses all over the Bill of Rights, rejects the 9th Amendment, and rejects the balance of power inherent in out three co-equal branches (as we learned in high school), is not supporting what you called “the ideology of liberty”

          His “federalism” is actually the perverted strain of “states rights” of southern racists. States have power which has never been delegated. And NOBODY defends individual rights in his fascist state, where he unilaterally repealed the 9th Amendment and lies about the 10th.

          Doth thou protest too much, sir?

          Doth thou protest too much the entire concept of individual liberty under our constitution? I understand the “ideology of liberty” that you only talk about.

  27. It should increase his chances. All of the other candidates will be calling for more unpopular wars. And these attacks, like all the others, are just more of the blowback Rand’s father warned us about.

    1. Muammar Gaddafi was keeping ISIS in check and their leadership is ex commanders of Saddam Hussein. Many members of ISIS are the same rebels Obama and Clinton have have been giving weapons. I think Rand would have a good chance if he would only call them out on it and keep hammering that point but I don’t think he has the same size balls as his father. I’m sure the Republicans would love to be able to blame Clinton’s and Obama’s actions for the attacks. Most Republicans didn’t support going into Syria or arming the rebels.

    2. There may be true war fatigue to tap into.

  28. i don’t think rand had it in him to be honest. you can talk about whatever else may also be true, but he just didn’t seem up to the challenge.

    1. It can be difficult when the powers that be seem to be trying to undermine/minimize him at every opportunity. He is still swinging away to his credit.

    2. Trump pushed him out of the quasi-outsider role, where he could’ve drawn contrasts to Jeb/Rubio/etc.

  29. GOP voters will increasingly look to sort the other candidates by their experience and judgment, not merely tough talk.

    If that were true, it would be the end of the Trump campaign.

    The election should be a referendum on keeping America safe.

    Aaaannnddd Chris Christie vaults (if you can picture that) to the top of the polls!!!

  30. Well, I already kind of figured that electoral politics won’t fix the U.S. But I still have hopes that it doesn’t have to be bloody, violent, and disastrous; that we might be able to ease our way around government controls and diminish their power.
    And regardless of what people in general are saying, let’s not forget that only about 25% of Americans, if that many, will turn up at the polls next November.

    1. Which bank would you use: the one that gives you a password so you can check your balance? or the one that keeps the balance their little secret, and urges you to trust them?
      Reconstruction imposed secret elections, unverifiable by definition. The LP got nearly 3% of the Texas vote in Senate elections last year. But the DemoGOP counts the votes and swears we get less than a third of that nationally. Differences of 200% to 300% in vote counts are a sign of rigged elections. Al Franken lost by a couple of hundred votes, then won on recount by over twice that many so the initial and final count of those decisive votes differed by 245%. A Reason article on how secret ballots are “counted” would do a lot more good than flailing at the Trump decoy the GOP is using as a duck blind to bleed taxpayers. They get the money back through Nixon’s campaign subsidies heavily weighted to favor incumbents. The whole point of the Nixon subsidy and the fraudulent vote counts is to keep power in the hands of the parties that ruined the economy feeding Vietnam to the military-industrial complex.

      1. Reconstruction imposed secret elections, unverifiable by definition. The LP got nearly 3% of the Texas vote in Senate elections last year. But the DemoGOP counts the votes and swears we get less than a third of that nationally.

        Can you prove otherwise?
        Do you REALLY believe a Texas Senate campaign is typical of America?
        Why do you claim 3% voted for the LP instead of the individual Senate candidate?

        Differences of 200% to 300% in vote counts are a sign of rigged elections.

        Never waste a good conspiracy!

        Are you old enough to vote? Have you ever done so? Who do you believe counts those votes?

        Nixon’s campaign subsidies?

  31. a few things….
    1. this will help RAND PAUL’S chances as he voted against arming ISIS. his foreign policy is the only correct one.

    2. RAND PAUL won EVERY single major straw poll by wide margin!!! he won cpac, he won the largest straw poll in america in michigan, he won the liberty caucus, he is winning the fox news poll right now with 44% of the vote and almost 10,000 votes. he is the ONLY candidate who beats hillary in 5 swing states. the same 5 obama won twice. his support is growing 4 times faster than any other candidate. he has the strongest ground game in iowa with 130 chairs and co-chairs and 650 precinct captains. more than any other candidate. RAND PAUL is the ONLY candidate that can actually WIN in the general election. he is the true front runner in this race.

    1. anyone who thinks he has no shot, couldn’t be more wrong and isn’t following this election. he has the BEST shot to win.

      1. So, liking the finer parts of Denver? Pro war, amerrka love it or leave it crowd is not only in charge of the the republicans but are a big part of it’s base. None of them are willing to step back and look at this with a sober mind and the politicians are using this as a club to beat the democrats with. It is a small step to label Paul as being in bed with them. He is right about military spending (to a republican, waste is not waste if it goes to the military industrial complex), he’s right about how we got here, he’s right about looking at this with a sober mind, however. The Paris attacks is the marching order to stay and increase our presence in a war and a place we have no business being in. As long as he is in the republican party, he will only be tolerated as a senator, never promoted to a viable presidential candidate. The problem is the republican party, not him, or libertarians.

      2. He has no shot at all, thanks to his own strategic blunders. Even if he got the nomination, his tax plan would be jammed down his throat, instead of mostly ignored. Tax increases on the middle class and on small business. Brilliant.

        And since the rich now subsidize nearly 40% of the entire core-middle-class income tax burden, a flat tax … who would then subsidize the middle class?

        1. Roger that. Rand Paul agreed to lead daddy’s GOP lynch mob against pregnant women having individual rights. He could have offered to repeal the individual income tax entirely and let the bloody corporations pay for their own subsidies. Instead he keeps that unconstitutional robbery of individuals, papered over with another complex and collectivised crushing of individual rights. If I were a bank or an arms corporation I could see supporting a tool of the GOP. But as an individual I recognise them as genocidal looters differing from ISIS only in degree and tactics.

          1. He could have offered to repeal the individual income tax entirely and let the bloody corporations pay for their own subsidies.

            So you want him as an emperor?
            How long until we can amend the Constitution and convert to a Monarchy?

            But as an individual I recognize them as genocidal looters differing from ISIS only in degree and tactics.

            In a free society, you must FIRST change the culture. Or pursue that dictatorship you’ve endorsed. Can we create that dictatorship without an armed revolution, since you speak for MAYBE 1% of American voters?

  32. Neither this article or the comments make any sense. Rand Paul would be the only person running who could respond in an intelligent way to the attacks in Paris. Nonintervention is the answer. The neo-con men and women never tire of seeing other peoples’ blood spill.

    1. Neo cons don’t want intelligence, they want war. They hate the idea that they may not be able to intervene at will.

    2. So, we’re lucky to have him in the Senate, where he can actually shame his confreres by voting correctly.

  33. I don’ know about that! He has been vociferous about defending the country against threats. He might be into attacking Isis with all the air power we have, hitting them without worrying about collateral damage. They have threatened the same action on us, s happened in France. It seems like a legitimate action. But attacking Assad makes no sense at all, unless we are into the demise of seven(?) countries in the Middle East, talked about, here on the Interweb!

  34. What presidential hopes?

  35. Rubio’s main shortcoming is that he fails to admit that all the security charade has not stopped ONE terror attack or attempt in the US, ever. So, if those things get taken out we are at no more risk than we were before. So Paul’s plan will not harm us.
    Further, we’ll be better off, as government’s job is to secure our liberties…. NOT to spy on us

    1. freedom demands security, but security sacrifices freedom until you’ve given up everything you were supposedly fighting for in the first place.

      but tell people that freedom should come first, and they think you don’t take their safety seriously because every politician they’ve ever met tells them they can balance the two…..just trust us. yet voters must rationalize that with those same politicians lying, cheating, and stealing as effortlessly as most people breath in order to get the job, so maybe they have a skewed definition of what balance actually means.

      anyway, we’re all screwed. it’s just a matter of how you go out.

      1. They believe security and freedom are antithetical because they avoid defining freedom. Looters also believe rights are divisible, but this too is a religious phantasy. GOP and Dem politicians are the same thing as Mohammedans. They imposed Prohibition and the Income tax–transforming the Constitution into an instrument of coercion and slavery with which to murder their own countrymen and women. Now… imagine how they treat foreigners. You who know no other languages never find out about this, but just as their cops murder your children, their surrogates murder foreigners. Small wonder so many of them want to come kill the idiots who voted for those monsters. If you export coercion (prohibition laws and asset forfeiture looting), others will export the same thing to you.

        1. They believe security and freedom are antithetical because they avoid defining freedom.

          But … but … but .. you keep endorsing a dictatorship to achieve what you claim to be freedom.

  36. A concerted effort needs to be made to push the war mongers even further. When Mark Levin and the like cry for more bombings they need to be pushed even further. They need to be convinced that all of Persia and the middle east (sans Israel) need to be turned into a sea of glass by nuclear bombardment. It would be interesting to see them clamor for prudence and moderation when presented with the notion of complete annihilation of the region. Then to follow would be to call them isolationists not SERIOUS enough to take care of business, you know for Americans’ safety and the protection of “interests.”

    1. The problem with that is it might work. The same religious fanatics that enriched the purveyors of apocalypse with “Left Behind” fantasies and “Tribulation” nonsense live for the End Times–exactly like the Mohammedans. Remarque, author of “All Quiet on the Western Front” had personal experience with Christian Germany’s nationalsocialist government. His recommendation was: “… that a declaration of war should be a kind of popular festival with entrance-tickets and bands, like a bull fight. Then in the arena the ministers and generals of the two countries, dressed in bathing-drawers and armed with clubs, can have it out among themselves. Whoever survives, his country wins. That would be much simpler and more just than this arrangement, where the wrong people do the fighting. ” This might be easier to arrange than curing them of mystical superstition. It would certainly be more entertaining.

  37. This is just the standard stuff from hawks. Of course the latest outbreak of violence proves them right and their ideological opponents irrelevant, of course it does. Following this logic, the Rand Pauls of the world will never have a chance, because there will always be another terrorist attack necessitating the dropping of more bombs somewhere and the killing of people in faraway lands.

    As I said right after the Paris attacks, amazingly, this event, like so many before, simply proves to everyone that their own beliefs were completely spot-on the whole time.

    1. True, if by “everyone” you mean Democrats, Republicans and Mohammedans. French politicians are exactly like American politicians. They import fanatics swarming with hallucinations of Armageddon and Tribulation, then stare in bovine bafflement when airplanes full of passengers are splattered into the alps and legally-disarmed concert-goers mowed down like so many prisoners at Treblinka (by a different bunch of jew-baiters).

  38. Some Republicans think you should have a declaration of war before sending in the troops. I think we should put the question to congress, and I think Paul would support that, if Congress declared war instead of war powers.

  39. War has been an integral part of the human condition. It has been that way since man picked up the first stone to kill a fellow being. It will remain so for as long as we are on this planet. The reasons we go to war with each other are as varied and complex as the human brain can make them, but the fact of the matter is that we will always be at war or preparing for some conflict. Si vis pacem, para bellum. “If you wish peace, prepare for war”.

    1. Yes, but dedication to the initiation of force–the modus vivendi of all looter parties–is exactly what begins all wars.

      1. Yes, but dedication to the initiation of force–the modus vivendi of all looter parties

        How does that differ from the one-man dictatorship you keep advocating?

  40. Um… like there was a beginning to the hopes of a libertarian impersonator getting the nomination in an antichoice mystical party? How many here expected to see Rand Paul elected leader of ISIS? Same reasoning…
    Kentucky was where Congress in the thirties installed “narcotic farms,” meaning agricultural prisons for opiate addicts, as in “Up to Lexington, one to five…” So locals have seen up close that opiate addiction is a medical affliction largely caused by prohibition of nonaddictive alternatives, not the Satanic possession with horns and furry thighs the rest of the Republican party is pleased to imagine. Paul is my favorite Republican, but that is like saying he’d smell sweet if only he weren’t a skunk. The guy is bait to lure libertarians into voting against women’s rights.

    1. The guy is bait to lure libertarians into voting against women’s rights.

      But actual libertarians know he’s an asshole. And YOU think he should seek to be our one-man dictator???

  41. Well I hope so… he would only be better than Clinton and Sanders no one else in the field of Republicans that have a real chance of winning.

    1. Brazil’s current president was a communist urban guerrilla back when she and a now-congressman kidnapped Johnson-Nixon diplomatic types and generally resisted the US-backed religious prohibitionists. Germany’s current president was likewise a uniformed communist groupie back when the only alternative were mystical prohibitionists. These are reactions to America’s officious foreign policy. People who travel abroad and can read and write the languages see this clearly, but do not count the votes in Bubbaland elections. If Americans were to vote libertarian instead of voting for more meddlesome violence, less violence will by imported to please the military-industrial complex by panicking the herd. Americans probably already DO vote at least 3% libertarian, but see only the tallies the DemoGOP wants them to see. Imagine having to explain away a 3% LP vote, or refuse to seat elected Senators and Representatives. Easier to switch the electronic ballots.

  42. Im making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,

    ———- http://www.onlinejobs100.com

  43. Unbelievable how quickly people think it’s time to abandon someone especially during tough times. Is this how you want me to treat your publication when someone makes you not look your best? Rand Paul is the single best hope for the USA . #StandWithRand

  44. This radicalization is caused in part by Europe’s restrictions on free speech including its blasphemy laws and ‘incitement’ doctrine. And unfortunately the problem will only get worse as they crack down further on civil liberties. Too bad Paul isn’t a more articulate proponent of freedom. However I will admit that Obama is doing a pretty good job, even if haters gonna hate. I would vote for him over these other warmongers like Rubio and Clinton.

  45. I don’t know where you got your info about Rand, “already-fading”. He is up in the polls since the Milwaukee debate & is currently tied for 4th place. How is that fading?

  46. 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.buzznews99.com

  47. Honeymoon in Paris is a different thing, Are you searching for the perfect honeymoon destination? If you are, you will be pleased with your options
    http://viralrang.com/5-reasons…..is-france/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.