PDA

View Full Version : Kristol and Neocons in Panic mode




itshappening
03-09-2013, 01:17 PM
Here come's the chief neocon spewing his hatred and trying to deal with the phenomenon that is Rand Paul

h ttp://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/sound-and-fury_706660.html?nopager=1

FSP-Rebel
03-09-2013, 01:22 PM
Since the weekly trash bin doesn't deserve traffic anyway, here's their dribble:

What to make of Rand Paul’s 12 hours and 52 minutes of fame? Was his filibuster on the floor of the Senate last Wednesday, as Charles Krauthammer said on Fox’s Special Report, though substantively misguided, “a stroke of political genius”? Was it, as Seth Lipsky suggested in a column in the New York Post, “wonderful,” signifying both that “our country is in a constitutional moment” and “the rise of a new generation of Republican constitutional conservatives”? Or was it, as William Shakespeare wrote ahead of the fact, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”?


Forced to choose among three of our favorite pundits, we incline toward Shakespeare. That’s not to say Krauthammer isn’t right to be struck by Paul’s political talent. The senator dramatically seized a moment to make a point. He made himself briefly a central figure on the national stage. He demonstrated a political entrepreneurship that’s mystifyingly lacking in many of his GOP colleagues on Capitol Hill.

On the other hand, Paul’s political genius strikes us as very much of the short-term variety. Will it ultimately serve him well to be the spokesman for the Code Pink faction of the Republican party? How much staying power is there in a political stance that requires waxing semihysterical about the imminent threat of Obama-ordered drone strikes against Americans sitting in cafés? And as for the other Republican senators who rushed to the floor to cheer Paul on, won’t they soon be entertaining second thoughts? Is patting Rand Paul on the back for his fearmongering a plausible path to the presidency for Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz? Is embracing kookiness a winning strategy for the Republican party? We doubt it.
vomit

As for Lipsky, he’s right to point out that, to the extent Paul struck a chord that resonated among listeners of good sense, it was a constitutionalist one. The Obama administration’s disdain for the Constitution and for the rule of law is startling. In reaction to that, and to the nanny state and crony government more broadly, conservatives have rediscovered constitutionalism and brought it politically to the fore. A restoration of constitutional forms and limits is a key element in the Republican vision. But the revival of constitutionalism is a serious task. Contra Lipsky, it does no favor to the cause of conservative constitutionalism to let it become identified with pseudo-constitutionalist paranoia.

After all, Lipsky himself acknowledges that “it’s hard to see where Obama has run off the constitutional rails so far in the drone warfare.” And neither Lipsky, nor others who want to give Paul the benefit of the doubt, have explained why anyone should take seriously what David Frum calls Rand Paul’s “nightmare out of a dystopian future: an evil future president shooting a missile at an American having coffee in a neighborhood café, merely on suspicion, without any due process of law.” Such an act would be illegal and unconstitutional, and if a president gave such an order, it should not and would not be obeyed. Meanwhile, there are important questions about both the efficacy and safeguards of the real, existing drone program of the U.S. government. But precisely because such issues are complicated ones and require argument, not demagoguery, Paul went out of his way not to deal with them on the Senate floor.

Frum worries that Paul’s moment of glory suggests that “the Republican party used to be the party more serious about defending America. Now it provides a home to those more doubtful that America is worth defending.” We trust that Republicans are still serious about defending America. And while Obama’s a bad president, and America’s got many problems, it isn’t, as Paul sometimes seemed to suggest, hurtling towards tyranny.

Which brings us back to Shakespeare. It would of course be unfair to compare Rand Paul to Macbeth—unfair both to Paul’s lawfulness and to Macbeth’s greatness (of a kind). It would be unfair to compare conservative talk radio to Lady Macbeth, just because both recklessly egg on their heroes. But it’s true that a Republican party that follows the path of Rand Paul will end up as thoroughly defeated at the ballot box as Macbeth was routed on the battlefield of Dunsinane. And as deservedly so.

But there is another course for Republicans. It’s increasingly clear, just two months into his second term, that President Obama has overreached on behalf of a rhetorically tired and substantively discredited agenda. “We still have judgment here.” Liberalism will be ripe for the judgment of the American people in 2014 and in 2016.

But you can’t beat something with nothing. The filibusterer from Kentucky has had “his hour upon the stage.” When will other, more serious, Republican dramatis personae step forward?
and if you've made it this far w/o slitting your wrists you're a better scholar than I

Napolitanic Wars
03-09-2013, 01:24 PM
For those who don't want to give them traffic:



Edit: never mind.

supermario21
03-09-2013, 01:24 PM
Ahh, Bill Kristol. The guy that said right after the election we should cave on taxes to save the military...

supermario21
03-09-2013, 01:27 PM
http://traffic.libsyn.com/dailystandardpodcast/3-8.mp3

This is his podcast, btw.

acptulsa
03-09-2013, 01:28 PM
We don't really want to click that crap, do we?


Sound and Fury
Mar 18, 2013, [LOL At Kristol pretending to be even ten days ahead of his time!]• By WILLIAM KRISTOL

What to make of Rand Paul’s 12 hours and 52 minutes of fame? Was his filibuster on the floor of the Senate last Wednesday, as Charles Krauthammer said on Fox’s Special Report, though substantively misguided, “a stroke of political genius”? Was it, as Seth Lipsky suggested in a column in the New York Post, “wonderful,” signifying both that “our country is in a constitutional moment” and “the rise of a new generation of Republican constitutional conservatives”? Or was it, as William Shakespeare wrote ahead of the fact, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”?

Forced to choose among three of our favorite pundits, we incline toward Shakespeare. That’s not to say Krauthammer isn’t right to be struck by Paul’s political talent. The senator dramatically seized a moment to make a point. He made himself briefly a central figure on the national stage. He demonstrated a political entrepreneurship that’s mystifyingly lacking in many of his GOP colleagues on Capitol Hill.

On the other hand, Paul’s political genius strikes us as very much of the short-term variety. Will it ultimately serve him well to be the spokesman for the Code Pink faction of the Republican party? How much staying power is there in a political stance that requires waxing semihysterical about the imminent threat of Obama-ordered drone strikes against Americans sitting in cafés? And as for the other Republican senators who rushed to the floor to cheer Paul on, won’t they soon be entertaining second thoughts? Is patting Rand Paul on the back for his fearmongering a plausible path to the presidency for Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz? Is embracing kookiness a winning strategy for the Republican party? We doubt it.

As for Lipsky, he’s right to point out that, to the extent Paul struck a chord that resonated among listeners of good sense, it was a constitutionalist one. The Obama administration’s disdain for the Constitution and for the rule of law is startling. In reaction to that, and to the nanny state and crony government more broadly, conservatives have rediscovered constitutionalism and brought it politically to the fore. A restoration of constitutional forms and limits is a key element in the Republican vision. But the revival of constitutionalism is a serious task. Contra Lipsky, it does no favor to the cause of conservative constitutionalism to let it become identified with pseudo-constitutionalist paranoia.

After all, Lipsky himself acknowledges that “it’s hard to see where Obama has run off the constitutional rails so far in the drone warfare.” And neither Lipsky, nor others who want to give Paul the benefit of the doubt, have explained why anyone should take seriously what David Frum calls Rand Paul’s “nightmare out of a dystopian future: an evil future president shooting a missile at an American having coffee in a neighborhood café, merely on suspicion, without any due process of law.” Such an act would be illegal and unconstitutional, and if a president gave such an order, it should not and would not be obeyed. Meanwhile, there are important questions about both the efficacy and safeguards of the real, existing drone program of the U.S. government. But precisely because such issues are complicated ones and require argument, not demagoguery, Paul went out of his way not to deal with them on the Senate floor.

Frum worries that Paul’s moment of glory suggests that “the Republican party used to be the party more serious about defending America. Now it provides a home to those more doubtful that America is worth defending.” We trust that Republicans are still serious about defending America. And while Obama’s a bad president, and America’s got many problems, it isn’t, as Paul sometimes seemed to suggest, hurtling towards tyranny.

Which brings us back to Shakespeare. It would of course be unfair to compare Rand Paul to Macbeth—unfair both to Paul’s lawfulness and to Macbeth’s greatness (of a kind). It would be unfair to compare conservative talk radio to Lady Macbeth, just because both recklessly egg on their heroes. But it’s true that a Republican party that follows the path of Rand Paul will end up as thoroughly defeated at the ballot box as Macbeth was routed on the battlefield of Dunsinane. And as deservedly so.

But there is another course for Republicans. It’s increasingly clear, just two months into his second term, that President Obama has overreached on behalf of a rhetorically tired and substantively discredited agenda. “We still have judgment here.” Liberalism will be ripe for the judgment of the American people in 2014 and in 2016.

But you can’t beat something with nothing. The filibusterer from Kentucky has had “his hour upon the stage.” When will other, more serious, Republican dramatis personae step forward?

Or the short short version: 'Yes, we Republicans should use defense of the Constitution to political advantage, but we should only entice the rubes with it, and should never actually take it seriously because as soon as you defend the Constitution in a serious manner I shall immediately label you a clown.'

Brian4Liberty
03-09-2013, 01:50 PM
Who wants to bet that Kristol huddled with McCain and Graham before those two did their rebuttal?

Harald
03-09-2013, 01:53 PM
Notice how they waited a few days so that their negative articles would not be completely overwhelmed by positives ones.
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday there were so many positive articles that any negative would not be noticed. Now, when the wave of positive article subsided they started putting their pieces out

RockEnds
03-09-2013, 02:01 PM
Who wants to bet that Kristol huddled with McCain and Graham before those two did their rebuttal?

I'd bet he called the play.

Article V
03-09-2013, 02:10 PM
But it’s true that a Republican party that follows the path of Rand Paul will end up as thoroughly defeated at the ballot box as Macbeth was routed on the battlefield of Dunsinane. And as deservedly so.Says the same ass who said Romney would rout Obama.

Seriously, why does anyone still pay attention to the political strategy laid about by people like Kristol, Rove, Morris, etc. who have proven themselves outrageously wrong time and again? To me, Bill's comment that Rand can't win the presidency is exactly the reason he can. I thank Bill for attacking Rand; it shows what a real threat Rand is to Kristol's wing even this far out from the 2016 primary. Neoconservatism is on the ropes. RAND PAUL 2016!

acptulsa
03-09-2013, 02:16 PM
Says the same ass who said Romney would rout Obama.

Seriously, why does anyone still pay attention to the political strategy laid about by people like Kristol, Rove, Morris, etc. who have proven themselves outrageously wrong time and again? To me, Bill's comment that Rand can't win the presidency is exactly the reason he can. I thank Bill for attacking Rand; it shows what a real threat Rand is to Kristol's wing even this far out from the 2016 primary. Neoconservatism is on the ropes. RAND PAUL 2016!

This, this and this again! This is one of the same idiots who declared Romney electable, is he not? And said just the opposite about Ron Paul? Even in the face of overwhelming, hard evidence to the contrary?


See? I told you that you can't fix stupid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ron-paul-would-best-obama-in-iowa-general-election-matchup/2012/02/18/gIQABoeUMR_blog.html

http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/09/27/ron-paul-leads-obama-in-new-poll/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318764

http://politicalnews.me/?id=12069

http://www.ibtimes.com/ron-paul-2012-rasmussen-poll-says-he-would-beat-obama-418358

http://politicalnews.me/?id=11876

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head

What part of the independents outnumber you and us combined do you not understand? Would it help you do the math if you took your cotton pickin' shoes off?

Just damn! Somebody give me a 2x4. I gotta learn a mule somethin'.

This jackass doesn't give a damn about the United States or the Constitution. How obvious does he have to be before people tune his ugly ass out once and for all?

thoughtomator
03-09-2013, 02:22 PM
We don't really want to click that crap, do we?

No, we don't.

itshappening
03-09-2013, 02:24 PM
I posted the broken link instead of the article because it's rude to post their content - no matter how odious and pathetic it is - without some sort of link.

FSP-Rebel
03-09-2013, 02:26 PM
I posted the broken link instead of the article because it's rude to post their content - no matter how odious and pathetic it is - without some sort of link.
how righteous of you

anaconda
03-09-2013, 02:56 PM
It's a potentially good time for Rand to up the meme anti to the next step with some slick, compact talking points regarding incrementalism and its constancy in the erosion of our civil liberties. And maybe the founders advice of eternal vigilance. The "paranoia" criticism should be thoroughly rebuked ASAP. From my point of view, the filibuster was more about a stand against incrementalism than even the 5th Amendment. This is where Rand could quickly silence the "Hellfire Missile On Jane Fonda" quips from people like McCain, Shepard Smith, and Bill Kristol. And in the process paint them as nefarious errand boys of the military contractors in engineering distractions and false propaganda to the American People.

Cowlesy
03-09-2013, 03:03 PM
Notice how they waited a few days so that their negative articles would not be completely overwhelmed by positives ones.
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday there were so many positive articles that any negative would not be noticed. Now, when the wave of positive article subsided they started putting their pieces out


You're absolutely right, and I bet we see a flurry of these together in the next few days. Watch to see if Sunday talkshow talking-heads have their talking-points aligned.

Occam's Banana
03-09-2013, 03:07 PM
Billy K "doth protest too much, methinks." (And I mean "protest" in both the modern and the Shakespearean senses.)

Brian4Liberty
03-09-2013, 03:13 PM
It's a potentially good time for Rand to up the meme anti to the next step with some slick, compact talking points regarding incrementalism and its constancy in the erosion of our civil liberties. And maybe the founders advice of eternal vigilance. The "paranoia" criticism should be thoroughly rebuked ASAP. From my point of view, the filibuster was more about a stand against incrementalism than even the 5th Amendment. This is where Rand could quickly silence the "Hellfire Missile On Jane Fonda" quips from people like McCain, Shepard Smith, and Bill Kristol. And in the process paint them as nefarious errand boys of the military contractors in engineering distractions and false propaganda to the American People.

I'm curious about Shep Smith. What did he say? Do you have a link?

anaconda
03-09-2013, 03:38 PM
I'm curious about Shep Smith. What did he say? Do you have a link?

Not all over at Fox are with us on this. Shep using the McCain-like argument that the filibuster was a distraction from a more serious argument.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/shep-smith-slams-stupid-rand-paul-filibuster-88597.html?hp=l7

whoisjohngalt
03-09-2013, 03:47 PM
Not all over at Fox are with us on this. Shep using the McCain-like argument that the filibuster was a distraction from a more serious argument.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/shep-smith-slams-stupid-rand-paul-filibuster-88597.html?hp=l7

Uh did you hear Shep Smith's interview of McCain? He seemed squarely on our side and to understand perfectly what was at the heart of this matter. He talked about the old school interventionists (which offended McCain greatly) and the struggle for the heart of the party. I think he nailed it. He talked about them beating the war drum. It seemed obvious that he was more of the noninterventionist persuasion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ1g-FxBios

Now I'm confused.

Origanalist
03-09-2013, 03:57 PM
Anybody who even remotely disagrees with the war machine is going to be attacked savagely by billy boy. Constitution you say? Get that suff out of here, we have people to kill!