Rand Paul votes NO on Hagel cloture (update: votes YES on confirmation)

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/02/26/go-filibuster-on-hagel-fails-confirmation-expected/


But even some of Hagel’s harshest, right-wing opponents voted in favor of cloture, including John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelley Ayotte.

Senator Rand Paul, however, who has tried to portray himself as a realist who favors restraint and prudence in foreign policy, voted against Hagel, despite the fact that the GOP’s distaste for Hagel largely centered on the reputation as a realist that Paul is trying to build for himself.

[AJ Antimony]

He voted against cloture.

[FrankRep]

Yes, that was a cloture vote. Not the nomination vote.


On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Charles T. Hagel, of Nebraska, to be Secretary of Defense )
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00023

[FSP-Rebel]

They are always so quick to draw on Rand.

[supermario21]

Brian Doherty with some actual logic here...

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/26/rand-paul-continues-attempt-to-block-chu


This morning, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) voted no on cloture on the Chuck Hagel appointment for Secretary of Defense--meaning he's voting to continue to block a vote on the nomination. Paul was in the minority of a 71-27 vote, and the actual vote on Hagel's nomination might happen as early as this afternoon.


A portion of the old Ron Paul-supporting conservative/libertarian non-intervention foreign policy intelligentsia believed very passionately that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) should have supported Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary all the way, not tried to block him. Paul said as recently as yesterday that he wasn't sure whether he would actually vote for Hagel's nomination when the vote comes up, and that he generally respects the president's ability to pick his cabinet, as Politico reported.

Some of the reasons why a portion of the anti-intervention right is peeved at Paul over this, as expressed by Daniel Larison at the American Conservative, here and here. To sum up those objections to Paul's obstructionism on Hagel: Roughly. since Hagel is opposed by those who seem to want a more interventionist U.S. presence in the Middle East (for his supposedly being insufficiently passionate about fighting for Israel, and for later on having doubts about the Iraq War he at first supported), Paul needs to support him to prove his bonafides.

This belief that Paul needs to unambiguously be for Hagel to prove he will be a decent foreign policy voice seems to go beyond any firm belief that Hagel as Defense Secretary in the Obama administration will actually be an effective noninterventionist. That he will be is questionable, as Ed Krayewski blogged here at Hit and Run.

The belief that Rand Paul must support Hagel seems rooted rather in a sort of team-politics belief that being for Hagel unequivocally shows you can't be pushed around by the larger politico-cultural forces of interventionism. Paul, to this reading, won't satisfy such critics if he misses any chance to wage politico-cultural war against anyone seen as for interventionism, whether or not the action has a substantive connection to any real bad actions in the world, from a non-interventionist perspective.

For his part, Paul says he thinks the more important thing he's doing is obstructing John Brennan for CIA, over his thoughts on domestic drones, as discussed in Daily Caller and Business Insider.

My earlier blogging on Paul and Hagel. Recall that Paul's stated reasons for opposition have nothing to do with Hagel being insufficiently raring to fight in the Middle East--they were a belief that he's been insufficiently transparent about possible appearance-of-impropriety issues of who he'd taken money from in his career.

Deciding that one of the few Republicans making a concerted effort to talk about containment rather than war as a strategy to deal with any threats from a nuclear Iran or radical Islam (the anti-interventionists mad at Paul would rather he talk about how there really isn't any such threat at all) is now a villain over a Hagel cloture vote strikes me as premature. This cloture vote is not a simple vote for or against intervention; treating it as such may well underestimate how good a foreign policy Senator (or eventual presidential candidate) Rand Paul will be.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes, because McCain's dislike of Hagel is the only reason on the planet to oppose the man. :rolleyes:

[supermario21]

Raimondo now on the offensive against Doherty. This is going to be hilarious by the end of the day. (4:30 PM confimation vote)



Justin Raimondo ‏@JustinRaimondo
@brianmdoherty Tortured prose = tortured logic. I thought "containment" was Hagel's big sin, yet Rand Paul is supposedly for it.

[compromise]

If Rand voted for Hagel, people like Cruz, Coburn and Johnson would just let Brennan through. Brennan is an extremely dangerous nominee. Rand understands this threat and is trying to do everything he can to slow him down and get his word that he will not kill off US citizens within the United States, even if that means opposing Hagel. Rand will need all the help he can get to do this. If his fellow conservative Senators think of Rand as the guy who sold them out on Hagel, they won't give him that help and Brennan will pass the Senate almost unanimously.

Unlike some of you guys, Rand is both principled and practical and that's what makes him such a great Senator.

[FSP-Rebel]

Raimondo now on the offensive against Doherty. This is going to be hilarious by the end of the day. (4:30 PM confimation vote)
Reminds me of how Mish and Denninger were trying to ride Schiff's coattails to notoriety.

[supermario21]

Here's another...


Justin Raimondo ‏@JustinRaimondo
@daveweigel Rand Paul is Ted Cruz in a toupee

[GunnyFreedom]

Sometimes the entire liberty movement just needs to be smacked in the head.

[COpatriot]

Raimondo is kind of a prick.

As for the Hagel vote, I understand why Rand voted against him. He would be eaten alive by the AM radio buffoons. Hagel will almost certainly be confirmed today and while I understand some of the opposition to him, it will be very satisfying to see Kristol, Beck, Hannity, and Levin all get it stuck to them.

[supermario21]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/cloture-for-hagel-and-what-it-means-for-israel-policy/

I hate AmCon's lumping of the Tea Party as all in with the war party. I just don't understand that magazine. They seem so liberal on domestic policy and treat Hagel as if he's one of their own...

[ronaldo23]

If Rand voted for Hagel, people like Cruz, Coburn and Johnson would just let Brennan through. Brennan is an extremely dangerous nominee. Rand understands this threat and is trying to do everything he can to slow him down and get his word that he will not kill off US citizens within the United States, even if that means opposing Hagel. Rand will need all the help he can get to do this. If his fellow conservative Senators think of Rand as the guy who sold them out on Hagel, they won't give him that help and Brennan will pass the Senate almost unanimously.

Unlike some of you guys, Rand is both principled and practical and that's what makes him such a great Senator.

Has cruz made any public statements about drones? I can't seem to find any votes or videos about his foreign policy views, other than the Hagel hearings.

[jmdrake]

I neither care that Rand voted to block cloture or Hagel nor that antiwar.com criticized Rand for the vote.

[supermario21]

And Paul just voted for confirmation. Will be among maybe only 3 or 4 Republicans to do so.

[eleganz]

anti-war.com being FOR Hagel for the sake of being AGAINST Rand Paul is just so ironic.

They need to give it up.

[Brett85]

And Paul just voted for confirmation. Will be among maybe only 3 or 4 Republicans to do so.

Wow. That's bad news to me. He's going to receive huge criticism for that vote.

[supermario21]

Dave Weigel will have a story up shortly. He interviewed Rand about the Hagel drama.

[Brett85]

I guess Rand just felt that it was the right thing to do even though it will hurt him politically.

[JK/SEA]

Wow. That's bad news to me. He's going to receive huge criticism for that vote.


why?

[supermario21]

Here come the neocons...



LilMissErinGoBragh ‏@LilMissRightie
@randpaul just voted for Hagel? Oh. *checks Paul's name off of...well everything* #BiteMe



LilMissErinGoBragh ‏@LilMissRightie
What a disappointment. Apparently he has some of that Jew hatred in him like his Dad. What other possibly explanation could there be?



LilMissErinGoBragh ‏@LilMissRightie
Hagel gave the most disastrous confirmation in the history of appointments. That alone should have disqualified.



LilMissErinGoBragh ‏@LilMissRightie
Very telling where his mind his. #DaJoooooooos


People these days....

[Brett85]

why?

Because the Red State, free republic, hot air crowd absolutely hate Hagel.

[Brett85]

Here come the neocons.

Yep. Extremely damaging vote by Rand.

[supermario21]

Yeah, but if they start spewing anti-Jewish stuff they just look ridiculous.

[supermario21]

And it's also the same losers....



Ken Gardner ‏@kesgardner
Rand Paul voted to CONFIRM Hagel? So. much. FAIL.



Ken Gardner ‏@kesgardner
You can't be for individual liberty on domestic policy while effectively supporting some of the worst regimes on Earth. #glasshouserules



Ken Gardner ‏@kesgardner
It's one thing to vote for someone even if you disagree with his policies. It's another thing to support an unqualified fringe nominee.

[supermario21]

Bill Kristol chimes in.
http://www.committeeforisrael.com/our_statement_on_hagel_s_confirmation_as_secretary _of_defense


"We fought the good fight, and are proud to have done so. We salute all those -- Democrats and Republicans, Christians and Jews -- who joined with us in the effort to secure a better Secretary of Defense. We are heartened that the overwhelming majority of senators from one of the two major parties voted against confirming Mr. Hagel. We take some comfort in Mr. Hagel's confirmation conversions on the issues of Israel and Iran, and do believe that, as a result of this battle, Mr. Hagel will be less free to pursue dangerous policies at the Defense Department and less inclined to advocate them within the administration. And since hope is an American characteristic and a Jewish virtue, we will also say that we hope Mr. Hagel will rise to the occasion and successfully discharge his weighty duties. In this task we wish him well.

"This battle against Chuck Hagel is over. The fight for a principled, pro-Israel foreign policy goes on."

[Brett85]

I'm just afraid that there are going to be non stop commercials run against Rand for this vote in 2016. Oh well. Maybe Rand is just more principled than I thought.

[sailingaway]

OK, I wasn't going to pitch in that this is the first time I've seen Rand trend on twitter, but Raimondo taking credit for his vote is just too hilarious: https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/306525838814367745

[supermario21]

Raimondo is claiming credit lol

[compromise]

What's the roll call?

This was an unwise vote, but undoubtedly a result of the pressure put on Rand by the hardcore guys to vote for Hagel.

[supermario21]

58-41. Here is some cover from the Daily Caller.



Jim Antle ‏@jimantle
Paul's votes today do track what he told me on the 15th. http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/15/rand-paul-brennan-drones-are-more-important-than-hagel/ …


I think Rand was supporting the party line in calling for more debate, and was frustrated with the move to filibuster more or less for the sake of just doing so. I think he always planned to vote for him.

[juleswin]

I'm just afraid that there are going to be non stop commercials run against Rand for this vote in 2016. Oh well. Maybe Rand is just more principled than I thought.

Sorry m8 but Rand is more like a party politics sprinkled with a hint of principle not a principled guy like his father. He had no problem whatsoever letting John Kerry nomination go through but now he was to grandstand with Hagel? I seriously doubt principle has anything to do with his qualm with Hagel. No saying I dont understand why he is doing what he is doing but I just dont like it.

[dskalkowski]

It's funny, because Lindsay Graham was on FOX the other night talking about delaying Brennan's nomination.

I wonder who worked on that.

[supermario21]

daveweigel ‏@daveweigel
Short version: Paul was mostly using Hagel filibuster as lever to get more drone/targeted killing info


Here we go. Story should be a good read when it's up.

[juleswin]

What's the roll call?

This was an unwise vote, but undoubtedly a result of the pressure put on Rand by the hardcore guys to vote for Hagel.

More like pressure by the wingnut Israeli first wing of the republican party. He have always said that he would let the president have his nomination so how exactly do you figure he was pressured to do what he always said he wanted to do?

[Brett85]

Sorry m8 but Rand is more like a party politics sprinkled with a hint of principle not a principled guy like his father. He had no problem whatsoever letting John Kerry nomination go through but now he was to grandstand with Hagel? I seriously doubt principle has anything to do with his qualm with Hagel. No saying I dont understand why he is doing what he is doing but I just dont like it.

Huh? He voted to confirm Hagel.

[tsai3904]

I wonder if this means Rand will vote for Brennan and even Bernanke if he is nominated again.

Edit: Actually, Rand gives the President leeway on his choice for cabinet and Rand probably wouldn't give the Fed Chairman that leeway.

[Rudeman]

Sorry m8 but Rand is more like a party politics sprinkled with a hint of principle not a principled guy like his father. He had no problem whatsoever letting John Kerry nomination go through but now he was to grandstand with Hagel? I seriously doubt principle has anything to do with his qualm with Hagel. No saying I dont understand why he is doing what he is doing but I just dont like it.


He held up Hagel so he would get support in holding up Brennan.

[Brett85]

So can this at least finally put an end to all of the ridiculous "Rand is a neocon" comments?

[juleswin]

Huh? He voted to confirm Hagel.

Yes but not after going along with the Israeli firsters in his party

[Rudeman]

Yes but not after going along with the Israeli firsters in his party

Because he needs those Israeli firsters' support if he has any hopes in holding up Brennan. Jeez even when Rand votes the way you guys want you still bitch.

[Brett85]

Yes but not after going along with the Israeli firsters in his party

Lol. I guess Rand should've just voted against confirming Hagel as well since he isn't going to get any credit from you and others for voting the way he did. I knew that the anti Israel people wouldn't give Rand any credit at all for voting to confirm Hagel. This was just a stupid vote politically by Rand.

[juleswin]

He held up Hagel so he would get support in holding up Brennan.

I know that, it is seeing the sausage making that is Washington pay4play I dont like, rolling around with the likes of Ted Cruz just to get time for drone question makes my skin crawl

[supermario21]

The problem is this is how you make deals in Washington. And if it gets us some info about drone policy, then it works.

[tsai3904]

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said his support for a filibuster against Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel never meant that he would vote against Hagel's confirmation.

"I voted no because I wanted more information and I think that part of what the Senate does is try to get information about the nominees," Paul told reporters in the basement of the Capitol after Hagel's confirmation Tuesday. "I've said all along that I give the president some prerogative in choosing his political appointees."

"There are many things I disagree with Chuck Hagel on, there are many things I disagree with John Kerry on, there are very few things I agree with the president on, but the president gets to choose political appointees," Paul said.

Asked if he ever got the information he wanted about Hagel, Paul said that he hadn't.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rand-paul-explains-his-surprise-vote-for-chuck-hagel

[Rudeman]

The problem is this is how you make deals in Washington. And if it gets us some info about drone policy, then it works.

Yup, the only problem is if the Republicans were willing to give up this easily on the fight against Hagel, then I doubt they'll put up that much of a fight against Brennan. Which means it's unlikely Rand gets his answer. I think Rand realizes this and it's probably why he was a little peeved about the Hagel stuff.

[supermario21]

Yeah, because most Republicans support the drone policy sadly. Here's a good piece from AmCon.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/rand-paul-votes-to-confirm-hagel/



Rand Paul joined Mike Johanns, Richard Shelby, and Thad Cochran as the four Republicans voting to confirm Hagel, who is now secretary of defense by a vote of 58-41. Senator Paul had said he believes in giving the president a fair amount of leeway in choosing his cabinet, and this vote is certainly consistent with that. Needless to say, one should not read it as suggesting that there’s no daylight between Hagel’s views and Paul’s, but it’s not just a gesture of reasonable deference to the president, either: this is a vote that may come with some real costs for Paul. It’s brave—and right.

I think Paul will continue to surprise doubters and admirers alike: he has his own way of doing things, and while it’s not a way I’m in agreement with on every point, I like the fact that he’s nobody’s robot. Surprises like these are a sign of actual reflection, not just checking boxes on somebody’s ideological list. Bravo.

[Rothbardian Girl]

anti-war.com being FOR Hagel for the sake of being AGAINST Rand Paul is just so ironic.

They need to give it up.

Raimondo has supported Hagel ever since the buzz surrounding his nomination began.

[FrankRep]

Rand Paul will likely lose support from the conservatives over this vote.

Such a shame.

[supermario21]

RINO! (sadly, he's being branded one)

[FrankRep]

RINO! (sadly, he's being branded one)

Yeah well, he was warned. Prepare for the backlach.

[DrHendricks]

My favorite tweets so far.

"Rand Paul has lost his damn mind. I don't want to hear his crap explanation, he turned his back on the American people today. "

"Very disappointed Rand! You caved to dictator Obama. Are all the GOP cowards ??"

"Let us all remember that Rand Paul, like everyone else in Washington is both a politician AND human. He's far from perfect."

"Not one more word with Rand Paul & 2016 in a sentence Conservatives. #PrinciplesMatter"

'I was liking Rand Paul too :( but now we gotta look to Ted Cruz or Rubio"

[Brett85]

Rand just managed to make everyone mad at him by voting against ending debate and then voting for final confirmation.

[matt0611]

Why do people on both sides of this care so much?

All these appointments are simply Obama's puppets anyway. They do what he says.

Its not worth getting so bent out of shape no matter what IMO.

Of course, people from anti-war.com won't give Rand any credit for this anyway.

[AdamL]

Where was the "conservative" backlash when Rand voted to confirm John Kerry?

These mouth-breathing neo-communist idiots are absolutely ridiculous...

[DrHendricks]

False quoting of Rand Paul by neo-con media. They are leading the story with Rand quoted as saying "Obama Won".

[supermario21]

This is going to make Rand Paul popular with Scarborough and his moderate crowd.

[Brett85]

Of course, people from anti-war.com won't give Rand any credit for this anyway.

That's why I don't think Rand will get any benefit from this vote at all.

[FrankRep]

Where was the "conservative" backlash when Rand voted to confirm John Kerry?

These mouth-breathing neo-communist idiots are absolutely ridiculous...

There IS a backlash against Rand Paul right now. Just wait for the anti-Rand articles to hit the media. They will punish him.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

There IS a backlash against Rand Paul right now. Just wait for the anti-Rand articles to hit the media. They will punish him.

Yup, stupid vote on Rand's part.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Why do people on both sides of this care so much?

All these appointments are simply Obama's puppets anyway. They do what he says.

Its not worth getting so bent out of shape no matter what IMO.

Of course, people from anti-war.com won't give Rand any credit for this anyway.
The people who are upset are the extremist clown faction, the other 330 million people don't really care.

[AdamL]

There IS a backlash against Rand Paul right now. Just wait for the anti-Rand articles to hit the media. They will punish him.

So? Liberals HATE Rand Paul. I'm not surprised they're getting worked up about this...

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

So? Liberals HATE Rand Paul. I'm not surprised they're getting worked up about this...

The backlash isn't coming from liberals. It's coming from Republicans.

[AdamL]

The backlash isn't coming from liberals. It's coming from Republicans.

Yeah, like I said - Liberals.

[FrankRep]

So? Liberals HATE Rand Paul. I'm not surprised they're getting worked up about this...

The bulk of the people that would have supported Rand Paul's GOP nomination, now hate him. I hope Hagel was worth it.

[Brett85]

The bulk of the people that would have supported Rand Paul's GOP nomination, now hate him. I hope Hagel was worth it.

Yeah. I was never anti Hagel like you are, but it certainly doesn't seem to me like Chuck Hagel is worth Rand throwing his 2016 chances away.

[Rudeman]

There IS a backlash against Rand Paul right now. Just wait for the anti-Rand articles to hit the media. They will punish him.

Should be interesting to see how Rand responds to the backlash. There's no doubt he knew there would be backlash for the vote. Honestly if it were me I would tell them to shove it. McCain and company folded on the fight against Hagel and they're getting pissed at Rand for doing what he said he'd do?

[klamath]

Rand voted for an enlisted, wounded, REPUBLICAN, combat vet to lead the military. Right on Rand. Tired of the chicken hawk or silver spoon officers that order other people childrens into war. This may make the nomination a little harder but the general election easier. One thing is certain, the american people are tired of war and Romney might have won had he positioned himself as less of a war monger than obama in the last debate.

[wormyguy]

To borrow a turn of phrase from Jim Baker, f**k the neocons, they don't vote for us anyway.

The interventionist fringe demand that you be with them 100% of the time, or else you're against them. If not this they would come up with some other ridiculous litmus test issue. Rand Paul voted the right way, and it would impossible for him to support the cause of liberty while also acceding to every neocon ideological purity test ever devised now or in the future.

[Brett85]

Rand is getting absolutely hammered for this vote on his Facebook page.

[TheGrinch]

I mean fuck, Rand happens to side with the neocons, in his words not because he's playing politics, but because he wants more information about concerns... Antiwar.com gets butthurt and claims he's playing politics, rather than trying to hold someone in a position of power accountable like he should.

Turns out that he appears to have been honest, since he now is doing what he also said, respecting the president's right to choose his own appointees, and subsequently gets no credit and only attacks from both sides for not being lock step with their agendas.

If you think he's working for anyone but his own principles here, you're clearly trying to validate your bias against him. No, Rand's not perfect, but he sure is acting like a much more reasonable human being than those just flinging crap at him to see what will stick. I feel sorry for the way he's scrutinized no matter what he does, with even many of us refusing to view his actions objectively.

[No Free Beer]

set up.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Rand is getting absolutely hammered for this vote on his Facebook page.

He got "hammered" on Facebook after opposing cloture too. You can't win on the internet. There's always an angry mob of people saying "I'll never support you again!" to just about every politician.

[supermario21]

Judging by twitter comments, it seems that Levin said Rand destroyed his future political career. These guys are nuts.

[Brett85]

Judging by twitter comments, it seems that Levin said Rand destroyed his future political career. These guys are nuts.

I hope that he's not right about that, but he probably is. Rand has alienated all of the people who he tried so hard to win over to his side.

[supermario21]

I'm glad Rand made the brave vote. Better to piss off the Israel-firsters now rather than in a debate in the form of a truth bomb.

[FrankRep]

Judging by twitter comments, it seems that Levin said Rand destroyed his future political career. These guys are nuts.

Actually, Rand Paul did destroy his future political career.

[Rudeman]

I hope that he's not right about that, but he probably is. Rand has alienated all of the people who he tried so hard to win over to his side.


I wouldn't be so quick to give up on Rand's chances. The hate will be strong for a while but like the hate on this forum it dissipates over time.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Actually, Rand Paul did destroy his future political career.

Sorry, but that is nuts. Anyone who thinks GOP primary voters in 2016 will care one iota about Hagel is off their rocker.

[Spoa]

I really don't care. There are bad things about Hagel (like his support for the U.N. and the Law of the Sea Treaty) and good things (like his opposition to the war).

Everyone needs to stop screaming bloody murder and move on. Hagel is the Sec of Defense and it doesn't matter what he says because Obama makes the final decision.

[supermario21]

Actually, Rand Paul did destroy his future political career.

People will bash Rand Paul for voting for Chuck Hagel, and Rand Paul will bash people for supporting things such as gun control, excessive spending, etc. Which one is going to stand out more?

[FrankRep]

People will bash Rand Paul for voting for Chuck Hagel, and Rand Paul will bash people for supporting things such as gun control, excessive spending, etc. Which one is going to stand out more?
Rand Paul being an "Israel hater" will stand out more.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Rand Paul being an "Israel hater" will stand out more.

By all means, bookmark this thread and bump it up in 2015/2016 when there is an article from a legit news source (not some nameless blog) citing Rand Paul's support of Hagel as a detriment to his chances of winning the GOP's presidential nomination. Or even an opposing candidate running a campaign commercial on television or radio citing Paul's vote for Hagel as a reason to not support him.

Won't happen.

[Rudeman]

Rand Paul being an "Israel hater" will stand out more.

Rand isn't an "Israel hater", just like he wasn't a "neocon" when a bunch of people on this forum were freaking out.

[TheGrinch]

Actually, Rand Paul did destroy his future political career.

LOL, thanks for the insight Bill Kristol. I'm sure a few years from now that all the voters will say, "well, I really like that Rand Paul, but can't get over how he opposed, but then allowed the president to have his nomination like virtually every congress before him" :rolleyes:

Sometimes I wonder about some of your intentions here, wonder why that is...

[FrankRep]

LOL, thanks for the insight Bill Kristol. I'm sure a few years from now that all the voters will say, "well, I really like that Rand Paul, but can't get over how he opposed, but then allowed the president to have his nomination like virtually every congress before him" :rolleyes:

Sometimes I wonder about some of your intentions here, wonder why that is...
My intention is to get Rand Paul in the White House, but I can't do that if he keeps shooting himself in the foot.

[supermario21]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/02/chuck_hagel_confirmed_as_secretary_of_defense_rand _paul_s_flip_flop_on_the.single.html

Here is the full article from Weigel. A good read. Here's an excerpt.



To him, delaying Hagel was in keeping with the actual goals of the realists and libertarians. “I wanted to get more information not only on Hagel but more information on [CIA nominee John] Brennan,” he said, after leaving the post-vote Republican luncheon. “That didn’t work because we didn’t stick together on it. Last week’s vote was useless. If you don’t stick together, you won’t have leverage.” And Paul will now turn his attention to the Brennan nomination, to demand and get more answers on the legality of the drone program and whether Americans, on American soil, could be targeted for killing. “It’s blatantly illegal—we have probably a dozen laws saying the CIA can’t operate in the United States, and neither can the Department of Defense.”
That wasn’t obvious to libertarians and paleo-conservatives. One year ago, Sen. Paul was criss-crossing key Republican primary and caucus states to whip up support for presidential candidate Ron Paul. I remember cranking the speedometer of a rental car, and parking illegally near the University of Northern Iowa, to see the Pauls work a fire-hazard-crowded ballroom. Ron Paul would go on to win that county. Rand Paul would go on to filibuster Chuck Hagel.
“Speaking for myself only, I do not support Rand Paul and have not for quite some time now,” said Ryan Langer, who leads the University of Northern Iowa’s Young Americans for Liberty chapter, a pro-Ron Paul organization. “In my opinion, while he may share his father's last name, he certainly doesn't share his principles, the Hagel vote just being further evidence of that.”
Rand Paul flat-out rejected that characterization. “I will say to anybody from the libertarian side who wants to believe that Hagel is the next coming of Harry Browne that they need to read a little more about his past,” he said. (Browne, the two-time Libertarian Party nominee for president, blamed 9/11 on an “insane” American foreign policy.) “Hagel’s been a promoter of the draft. Not a very libertarian idea. He’s been a promoter of U.N. peacekeeping troops around the world, and intervention. He doesn’t like unilateral intervention, but he’s fine with group intervention around the world. He voted for the PATRIOT Act. He voted for the Iraq War.”
But neither the Hagel campaign nor the Dump Hagel campaign really ever got to those issues. The Dump Hagel movement had no grand strategy larger than “Let’s see if this sticks to him.” Challenging his philosophy wouldn’t slow him down, so the Washington Free Beacon and Hagel skeptics scoured public and private records for damaging quotes. Sen. Lindsey Graham personally sent Hagel three letters asking him to explain speeches—did he really call the State Department an “adjunct” of Israel’s foreign ministry?—and asking him to let reporters check out his Senate papers, locked up at the University of Nebraska-Omaha. Sen. John Cornyn went after Hagel with a gambit that probably backfired: A letter from 15 senators asking the president to withdraw the nomination, for the tautological reason that “no Secretary of Defense has been confirmed and taken office with more than three Senators voting against him.”

[Rudeman]

Well I decided to check his facebook page to see if he's getting a backlash from the vote and it doesn't appear like he is. Likes have gone up

http://pagedata.appdata.com/pages/facebook/rand-paul/54172246106

They had Rand at +3,779 likes today when it was back at 644,205 likes

As of this post Rand just broke 647k (was under at the start of this post and over when I refreshed the page): 647,027 likes


So that's +2822 likes since they last checked (not sure when).


In comparison Marco Rubio:
http://pagedata.appdata.com/pages/facebook/marco-rubio/58736997707

They had Rubio at +2,101 likes today when it was back at 420,306 likes.

Since then he's gone up to 421,719 likes. So +1413 likes


So since the last update by pagedata Rand has gained likes 2x faster than Rubio (a faster rate than they had for today's update).

[BamaAla]

Hyperbole much folks? About 12 people will remember this confirmation vote in 2016. To boot, we got a halfway decent guy to head up the military - win win!

[TheGrinch]

My intention is to get Rand Paul in the White House, but I can't do that if he keeps shooting himself in the foot.

Shooting himself it the foot?

You mean by first opposing and filibustering the nomination, but then conceding later on a battle he couldn't win (like he said he ultimately probably would, since it's the president's choice of his appointments), all so he could get a cheap pat on the back from the neocons who will stab him in it later anyway?

Ummm okay, if you haven't noticed, most people are fed up with the establishment and neocon republicans, even most republicans, with the party's approval at a whopping 19%. Rand will stand apart by being different in wanting to bring the country back to true conservatism, and in fact his previous Isreal rhetoric (that was largely meaningless as he'd require congress to declare war anyway) may actually show that he's far more "realistic" about the obligations they've made to Israel than us non-interventionalists would like.

Moreover, if you think stuff like this is how effective smear attacks work, you aren't paying enough attention. No one will be able to make a ripple over this after a month, maybe even a week from now.

Finally, if Rand standing by his word to hold them accountable (but let the president ultimately make the choice on his appointees like every Congress does) is shooting himself in the foot, then I wish we had more shooting themselves in the foot over towing the party line for political gain. I realize he does have to tip-toe that line sometimes to not give them ammo, but if you're looking for him to sell out completely to get into the White House, I just don't think there's evidence that's gonna happen.

[supermario21]

I honestly weep for the state of our party when I read the comments of the Israel-firsters. I was neutral on this, but after the neocon outrage, I'm glad Rand stood with principle and voted for Hagel.

[Bastiat's The Law]

LOL, thanks for the insight Bill Kristol. I'm sure a few years from now that all the voters will say, "well, I really like that Rand Paul, but can't get over how he opposed, but then allowed the president to have his nomination like virtually every congress before him" :rolleyes:

Sometimes I wonder about some of your intentions here, wonder why that is...
Spot on. This manufactured outrage is very transparent. The people that perpetuate it are not Rand supporters.

[EBounding]

Yes, the rank-and-file Republican voter will hate Rand for voting to confirm another Republican for some position 3 years ago.

[FrankRep]

Yes, the rank-and-file Republican voter will hate Rand for voting to confirm another Republican for some position 3 years ago.
Rank-and-file Republican voter will listen to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, National Review, and etc.. for how they should vote. Guess what the talking heads will say?

[Bastiat's The Law]

My intention is to get Rand Paul in the White House, but I can't do that if he keeps shooting himself in the foot.
What are you talking about? Rand wrote the book on how liberty candidates should successfully run for office and take their ideals to Washington without being assimilated by the borg.

[EBounding]

Rank-and-file Republican voter will listen to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, National Review, and etc.. for how they should vote. Guess what the talking heads will say?

I really don't think they're going to bother to bring this up though. And even if they do, the voter is going to say, "Why am I still unemployed?"

This is the same party that nominated the architect of Obamacare to be its savior against Obama after-all.

[TheGrinch]

Rank-and-file Republican voter will listen to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, National Review, and etc.. for how they should vote. Guess what the talking heads will say?

The same chit they'll say anyway?

It's bizarre some of the belief here that the media whores will go to bat for us when the going gets tough. IMO, this is the exact reason Beck is pandering to us as Tea Party 2.0 emerges. He knows which way the wind is blowing, and will gladly go to bat for their co-opting interests to also help himself make dough.

They'll co-opt, lie, tell their viewers that they need to go with the "electable" guy, it's what they do... They work for gigantic media conglomerates, they're not independent journalists, they're mouthpieces for a massive amount of conflicts of interests who love their current gravy train.

So yes, don't give them ammo on relatively meaningless stuff, but on matters like this, more power to Rand to stand beyond partisanship and politics, and do what he thought was the right way to handle the Hagel nomination. If I actually have to defend Rand outside of here over it (which I doubt), I'll say it was downright presidential for him to stick by his guns, but be fair and bipartisan.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rank-and-file Republican voter will listen to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, National Review, and etc.. for how they should vote. Guess what the talking heads will say?
Rand isn't Kristol's hand puppet, sorry to disappoint you. Screw kowtowing to talking heads.

[FrankRep]

I really don't think they're going to bother to bring this up though. And even if they do, the voter is going to say, "Why am I still unemployed?"

This is the same party that nominated the architect of Obamacare to be its savior against Obama after-all.
I wish I could believe that, but Israel is involved and you know how worked up Conservatives get about Israel.

[FrankRep]

Rand isn't Kristol's hand puppet, sorry to disappoint you. Screw kowtowing to talking heads.
Seeing Rand Paul get denied the GOP nomination will disappoint me.

[TheGrinch]

Seeing Rand Paul get denied the GOP nomination will disappoint me.

Well then we better keep working, and stop with the "sky is falling" routine, because this always has and will be an uphill battle that only grassroots can win.

Rand may do what he can to not make life hard on himself against the establishment waiting to quash him and other true conservatives, but even he knows that the media and establishment are not going to be his friend when it comes time for the primaries. The positive is he may be too big to ignore by then, but they'll sure try whatever they can like they did to Ron. Make no mistake. They didn't "not get" Ron, they got exactly what it meant: accountability.

It will be up to us to do what we always do, only this time it appears with an easier job of changing more minds with more of us (if there's even a country left then, that is...)

[twomp]

Hagel will just be another Obama puppet. With that said, Good Job Rand Paul. At least he is consistent, he voted for Kerry (whom I consider worse) and now he voted for Hagel. The only reason people are upset is because Israel said no and that is NOT a valid reason. This is FKING AMERICA!

[supermario21]

Someone tried starting the hashtag #PurgePaul. You should see how far it got. :D

[Brett85]

Rand has actually gained likes on Facebook since this vote, so perhaps this vote won't hurt Rand as badly as I thought it would.

[Rudeman]

Rand has actually gained likes on Facebook since this vote, so perhaps this vote won't hurt Rand as badly as I thought it would.

Yeah, I posted the numbers in this post:


Well I decided to check his facebook page to see if he's getting a backlash from the vote and it doesn't appear like he is. Likes have gone up

http://pagedata.appdata.com/pages/facebook/rand-paul/54172246106

They had Rand at +3,779 likes today when it was back at 644,205 likes

As of this post Rand just broke 647k (was under at the start of this post and over when I refreshed the page): 647,027 likes


So that's +2822 likes since they last checked (not sure when).


In comparison Marco Rubio:
http://pagedata.appdata.com/pages/facebook/marco-rubio/58736997707

They had Rubio at +2,101 likes today when it was back at 420,306 likes.

Since then he's gone up to 421,719 likes. So +1413 likes


So since the last update by pagedata Rand has gained likes 2x faster than Rubio (a faster rate than they had for today's update).


Since that post (50 mins ago) Rand has picked up 160 likes (647,187) and Rubio has picked up 100 likes (421,819)

[FrankRep]

Rand has actually gained likes on Facebook since this vote, so perhaps this vote won't hurt Rand as badly as I thought it would.

My stomach is in knots. This will be a pretty bold move if he can come out ahead. I just know the forces he'll be up against.

[Brett85]

Yeah, I posted the numbers in this post:

How do Rand's increase in "likes" today compare with a normal day?

[Bastiat's The Law]

Well then we better keep working, and stop with the "sky is falling" routine, because this always has and will be an uphill battle that only grassroots can win.
Agreed. Nobody wants a hysterical person in their foxhole.

[fr33]

It's really not a bold move. There's just some really crazy people that are victims of the Neocon propaganda machine.

[FrankRep]

Okay, I'm done complaining about it. These are the cards we are dealt.

I'm willing to fight the uphill battle against Rand's new opposition.

[Rudeman]

How do Rand's increase in "likes" today compare with a normal day?

Rand gets about 3,000 to 5,000 likes a day. He's already picked up 3,081 likes since pagedata last updated (I assume they update every morning) so at worst it's another normal day.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rand gets about 3,000 to 5,000 likes a day. He's already picked up 3,081 likes since pagedata last updated (I assume they update every morning) so at worst it's another normal day.
When do you think Rand will break a million?

[Brett85]

The one thing you can say for sure about Rand after this vote is that he has some balls.

[Rudeman]

When do you think Rand will break a million?


If he keeps up the pace he's had since inauguration then he should get there by summer (3-4 months).

[georgiaboy]

yawn.

[EBounding]

The facebook activity is...amusing.

[thequietkid10]

Rand Paul 2016 is going to half to walk a fine line between not completely pissing off the Israel firsters, and not caving into their demands, with or without this Hagel vote. I would have prefered he remained consitant and voted to end cloture and for Hagel, or voted again cloture and against Hagel, but oh well.

Besides, a well timed endorsement from Hagel might do him so good with establishment types and the "whoever is most electable" majority that backed Romney.

[Jon311]

I posted this in the other thread as well.

Wow, reading some of the comments on his FB. Some people are just really messed up. I knew AIPAC had our politicians in their pockets, but they have seemed to efficiently brainwashed the masses as well.

"Rand, you let us down. You screwed Israel, God's people, our fine folks in the military, the Tea Party, The Constitutionalists, and all Conservatives. No more trusting you, ever."

"Sen Rand, the only reason I stay "liked" to your page is to really see how much you lie. I am a fiscal conservative. And YOU SIR, are a CELEBRITY. You voted to confirm Hagel. WRONG! I am glad that your father has retired and will no longer "pretend" in the dog and pony show that he is to represent my home district."

"YOU DIDN"T STAND UP FOR ISRAEL!! voting for this evil man"

"I was considering supporting you in '16 Mr Paul....not now....off with Mr Christie you go sir."

[Bastiat's The Law]

I posted this in the other thread as well.

Wow, reading some of the comments on his FB. Some people are just really messed up. I knew AIPAC had our politicians in their pockets, but they have seemed to efficiently brainwashed the masses as well.

"Rand, you let us down. You screwed Israel, God's people, our fine folks in the military, the Tea Party, The Constitutionalists, and all Conservatives. No more trusting you, ever."

"Sen Rand, the only reason I stay "liked" to your page is to really see how much you lie. I am a fiscal conservative. And YOU SIR, are a CELEBRITY. You voted to confirm Hagel. WRONG! I am glad that your father has retired and will no longer "pretend" in the dog and pony show that he is to represent my home district."

"YOU DIDN"T STAND UP FOR ISRAEL!! voting for this evil man"

"I was considering supporting you in '16 Mr Paul....not now....off with Mr Christie you go sir."
Why would you post negative comments from his page again?

[Brett85]

Why would you post negative comments from his page again?

I think he just wants us to realize the mindset these people have.

[garyallen59]

This will not matter to many come election time. Sure the dissenters are loud but that's all they will be in the end. Don't let this get to ya. You'll be all the healthier for it.

[Jon311]

I think he just wants us to realize the mindset these people have.

This.

I meant no harm.

[Brett85]

Some people were wondering whether Rand voted for sanctions against Iran to help him politically, or whether he voted for them because he supports them ideologically. I think this vote proves that Rand just supports sanctions ideologically, because he's obviously not afraid to take a vote that makes the neocons mad. That's just an issue that we're going to disagree with him on.

[Brett85]

So does this mean that Rand will vote for Brennan and Jack Jew as well?

[sailingaway]

So does this mean that Rand will vote for Brennan and Jack Jew as well?

I'm thinking he'll vote no on Brennan, he's been setting up that vote for a while.

[Brett85]

I'm thinking he'll vote no on Brennan, he's been setting up that vote for a while.

But hasn't he basically said that the President has leeway to nominate who he wants, unless there's some conflict of interest or ethical problem the nominee has?

[sailingaway]

But hasn't he basically said that the President has leeway to vote for who he wants, unless there's some conflict of interest or ethical problem the nominee has?

Yeah, but he's been making a lot of posturing moves about Brennan's statements on drones. That is a clear cut reason to oppose. I could be wrong, but I'd bet you a quarter on it.

[supermario21]

I don't know about the actual confirmation vote, but Rand will probably pull every parliamentary trick out of the bag to hold up the nomination until he gets his answer. Of course Graham and McCain will probably come out in support of drone warfare and Rand will be hung out to dry once again...

[Brett85]

Yeah, but he's been making a lot of posturing moves about Brennan's statements on drones. That is a clear cut reason to oppose. I could be wrong, but I'd bet you a quarter on it.

In the interview with Fox he made it sound like he would vote against closure on Brennan's nomination to get more information, but he would ultimately vote to confirm him since the President should have leeway on cabinet picks.

[sailingaway]

In the interview with Fox he made it sound like he would vote against closure on Brennan's nomination to get more information, but he would ultimately vote to confirm him since the President should have leeway on cabinet picks.

That would be a shame. Well, we'll see.

[Brian4Liberty]

But hasn't he basically said that the President has leeway to nominate who he wants, unless there's some conflict of interest or ethical problem the nominee has?


Yeah, but he's been making a lot of posturing moves about Brennan's statements on drones. That is a clear cut reason to oppose. I could be wrong, but I'd bet you a quarter on it.

Killing people with drones (absent a constitutional war) is unconstitutional. Supporting unconstitutional actions would be a valid reason to oppose a nomination.

[Brett85]

That would be a shame. Well, we'll see.

Why? It's consistent with him voting to confirm Hagel and Kerry, which is that the President gets to pick his cabinet members.

[sailingaway]

Why? It's consistent with him voting to confirm Hagel and Kerry, which is that the President gets to pick his cabinet members.

for the reason B4L just said. This is an extraordinary reason.

[Brett85]

for the reason B4L just said. This is an extraordinary reason.

It would still make him look inconsistent if he says that he voted for Hagel because the President should have leeway, and then votes against Brennan. This is what Rand said:

"“I’m the same way on Brennan. I want more information on drone strikes in America. On final passage though I take the position that the president does have some leeway and some prerogative in who he appoints to political appointees."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/27/why-did-sen-rand-paul-vote-to-confirm-chuck-hagel-heres-his-answer/

[sailingaway]

Voting for everyone is one way to be consistent, but standing on principle consistently is better, imho. We'll see what happens.

[FrankRep]

Voting for everyone is one way to be consistent, but standing on principle consistently is better, imho. We'll see what happens.

If Chuck Hagel, who supported the Patriot Act and Homeland Security, can be supported for the nomination, you might as well let all of them get nominated.

[sailingaway]

If Chuck Hagel, who supported the Patriot Act and Homeland Security, can be supported for the nomination, you might as well let all of them get nominated.


No, because all Obama nominated would have that. Maybe all WOULDN'T have refused to answer if the President has the power to unilaterally take out American Citizens without due process, using drones, on American soil, however.

[Brett85]

No, because all Obama nominated would have that. Maybe all WOULDN'T have refused to answer if the President has the power to unilaterally take out American Citizens without due process, using drones, on American soil, however.

Hagel is a huge fan of drones as well. If you asked him that question he probably wouldn't give an answer either.

[Brett85]

Voting for everyone is one way to be consistent, but standing on principle consistently is better, imho. We'll see what happens.

Rand has voted for every single one of Obama's cabinet appointees so far, hasn't he?

[sailingaway]

Hagel is a huge fan of drones as well. If you asked him that question he probably wouldn't give an answer either.

but it didn't happen. There is good reason with Brennan.

[sailingaway]

Rand has voted for every single one of Obama's cabinet appointees so far, hasn't he?

As far as I know, but none of them said what Brennan said.

I don't know for sure what he will do, I hadn't seen the quote you posted. But what I WANT is for him to not stick his finger in the political winds and, instead, to follow his convictions, whatever they are, and let those who would agree with him support him. He isn't getting 'both sides' with the Hagel thing, he pissed off 'both sides.' If he votes his convictions at least he'll have people to defend him.

[tsai3904]

Rand has voted for every single one of Obama's cabinet appointees so far, hasn't he?

Yea but Brennan isn't a Cabinet level appointee.

[Brett85]

As far as I know, but none of them said what Brennan said.

I don't know for sure what he will do, I hadn't seen the quote you posted. But what I WANT is for him to not stick his finger in the political winds and, instead, to follow his convictions, whatever they are, and let those who would agree with him support him. He isn't getting 'both sides' with the Hagel thing, he pissed off 'both sides.' If he votes his convictions at least he'll have people to defend him.

I think he followed his convictions when he voted to confirm Hagel. He knew that wouldn't be a popular move. I think his principles are that the President should get to pick his cabinet, unless the cabinet nominee has some kind of ethical problem or conflict of interest. Rand doesn't believe in voting against cabinet nominees based on ideology, regardless of how dangerous and how bad the cabinet nominee's ideology is.

[Brett85]

Yea but Brennan isn't a Cabinet level appointee.

The CIA director isn't a cabinet appointee? If not, it's still the same concept. The CIA director works for the President just like the rest of the cabinet.

[tsai3904]

The CIA leader isn't a cabinet appointee? If not, it's still the same concept. The CIA leader works for the President just like the rest of the cabinet.

He's not. There have been many appointees that Rand has voted against but as far as Cabinet level appointees, Rand is two for two in confirming them.

[tsai3904]

I mentioned that Rand is 2 for 2 in confirming Cabinet members but that's only for this year.

I did some research and found that Rand voted against John Bryson to be Secretary of Commerce, which is a Cabinet position, in 2011.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00176

[Brian4Liberty]

Aren't the drone programs run under the CIA?

[Brett85]

I mentioned that Rand is 2 for 2 in confirming Cabinet members but that's only for this year.

I did some research and found that Rand voted against John Bryson to be Secretary of Commerce, which is a Cabinet position, in 2011.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00176

It doesn't seem like he's very consistent on that then.

[Brian4Liberty]

Killing people with drones (absent a constitutional war) is unconstitutional. Supporting unconstitutional actions would be a valid reason to oppose a nomination.

Rand confirmed that this is his reasoning during his filibuster of Brennan today.

[ronaldo23]

Pleasantly surprised by cruz supporting rand on this

[sylcfh]

Rand was right about Hagel.



Hagel said the U.S. would also shift some "resources," which he didn't specify, from the delayed Aegis anti-missile program in Europe to U.S.-based defenses, saying the Aegis program was "lagging" because of reduced congressional funding. And he reiterated previously announced plans to add a second U.S. anti-ballistic missile radar installation in Japan.

[BamaAla]

LOL @ this thread. Those cries of woe for Rand's vote didn't last long. There were some folks saying that his vote would cost him any legitimacy amongst Republicans for years to come. How'd that work out? One filibuster later and Rand Paul is on the tip of almost every GOP tongue.

[Tinnuhana]

Rand was right about Hagel.

Hagel said the U.S. would also shift some "resources," which he didn't specify, from the delayed Aegis anti-missile program in Europe to U.S.-based defenses, saying the Aegis program was "lagging" because of reduced congressional funding. And he reiterated previously announced plans to add a second U.S. anti-ballistic missile radar installation in Japan.

Oh PLEEEASE don't put it here!

[Brett85]

LOL @ this thread. Those cries of woe for Rand's vote didn't last long. There were some folks saying that his vote would cost him any legitimacy amongst Republicans for years to come. How'd that work out? One filibuster later and Rand Paul is on the tip of almost every GOP tongue.

Yeah, I'm glad that I was wrong about that.