[Video] Rand Paul on Hannity 3/10/14

[tsai3904]

Monday on 'Hannity'

Tonight Sen. Rand Paul responds to Ted Cruz's criticism after CPAC 2014. Plus exclusive analysis of the Crimean crisis by former Vice President Dick Cheney. And James Carville surveys the 2016 field

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html


update:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7ZUflSazXY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7ZUflSazXY

[specsaregood]

So Rand followed by darth neocon to dispute everything Rand previously says; followed by a democrat spinmeister to talk down Rand and promote an unwinnable GOP candidate.

[jct74]

bump

[phill4paul]

So Rand followed by darth neocon to dispute everything Rand previously says; followed by a democrat spinmeister to talk down Rand and promote an unwinnable GOP candidate.

Lol. perfect synopsis.

[Jamesiv1]

So Rand followed by darth neocon to dispute everything Rand previously says; followed by a democrat spinmeister to talk down Rand and promote an unwinnable GOP candidate.
$10 bucks says Carville brings up the newsletters.

who's in?

[phill4paul]

$10 bucks says Carville brings up the newsletters.

who's in?

I'd place a bet on Carville bringing up Rand's "Nutty" "conspiracy theorist" views on drones and how we need them to watch the world.

[Jamesiv1]

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html
will there be a live stream?

[Crashland]

Wow, that interview. Rand is CLEARLY not happy with Cruz. He slammed him pretty hard on TV just like his Breitbart op-ed.

[G8orballboy]

Did anyone see that spineless piece of fecal matter with the beard in the round table said he HOPED that the missing plane is terror related???? Said he wants people to wake up to the dangers of radical Islam and hopes that this potential tragic loss of life was due to terror??? Unbelievable. I'm so mad I can't even see straight. These neocons have to go!

[Feeding the Abscess]

So Rand followed by darth neocon to dispute everything Rand previously says; followed by a democrat spinmeister to talk down Rand and promote an unwinnable GOP candidate.

Cheney stated the positions Rand has staked out on Ukraine/Russia, actually.

[eduardo89]

Tube:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7ZUflSazXY

[specsaregood]

"I'd rather come in 1st than 2nd." -- Rand

Take that Cruz and Rubio.

[AlexAmore]

"I'd rather come in 1st than 2nd." -- Rand

Take that Cruz and Rubio.

I didn't take that as a jab at Cruz. It seemed more of a condescendingly and overtly obvious answer to the very elementary "How does this obviously good event make you feel?" question. Now I'm not so sure...Ted is pissing Rand off.

[ctiger2]

Sanctions on Russia Rand? C'mon, you're not that dumb... BARF!

[cajuncocoa]

Cheney stated the positions Rand has staked out on Ukraine/Russia, actually.http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t270/cajuncocoa/Emoticons/aFu_BangingYourHead.gif

[surf]

missile defense for Europe? boy, that won't invoke Russia.... was happy he added that Europe would have to pay for it.

[menciusmoldbug]

Sanctions on Russia Rand? C'mon, you're not that dumb... BARF!

Supporting sanctions isn't dumb. Failing to support them would be.

You're analyzing this on the object level and ignoring the strategic level. Obviously, I agree with you that sanctions against Russia are a bad idea. However, most of the Republican party supports this particular bad idea, and if you want to win votes in a democracy, you give voice to what the people want.

[JK/SEA]

Hey Cruz, you're either with us or against us. We now have an axis of evil. Graham, McCain and Cruz.

We can no longer afford these boyhood fantasies of cowboy's and indian's play time of 'i kill you' and i win bullshit. Either figure it out, or get the hell out of politics and let the big boys and girls get this mess fixed. Fuckin' idiot.

[surf]

Supporting sanctions isn't dumb. Failing to support them would be.

You're analyzing this on the object level and ignoring the strategic level. Obviously, I agree with you that sanctions against Russia are a bad idea. However, most of the Republican party supports this particular bad idea, and if you want to win votes in a democracy, you give voice to what the people want.

supporting sanctions is immoral and bad policy all around (as well as an act of war). I disagree with you here. if I were wanting to play a "political" game with this i'd certainly recognize that all in this country, save a dwindling few republicans, are war weary and put the emphasis on Europe solving this matter.

[Brett85]

supporting sanctions is immoral and bad policy all around (as well as an act of war). I disagree with you here. if I were wanting to play a "political" game with this i'd certainly recognize that all in this country, save a dwindling few republicans, are war weary and put the emphasis on Europe solving this matter.

Yeah, Rand is actually more hawkish and interventionist than the average American.

[menciusmoldbug]

Obviously, I agree with you that sanctions against Russia are a bad idea.


supporting sanctions is immoral and bad policy all around (as well as an act of war). I disagree with you here.

http://www.lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

[menciusmoldbug]

Yeah, Rand is actually more hawkish and interventionist than the average American.

This is 100% false. Rand is less hawkish/interventionist than the average American. What you no doubt meant to say is that the position he's staked out on Russia as of this moment is more hawkish/interventionist than the average American. The thing you fail to understand is that this position is not more hawkish/interventionist than the average Republican primary voter, which is a demographic that Rand must win first if he's to have any chance of taking the Presidency. By failing to agree with Ted Cruz on this issue, Rand would have allowed Cruz to create daylight between them and thereby vacuum up support from every single (R) primary voter who agrees with Rand/Cruz on domestic policy (where they march in lockstep) but is even the slightest bit more hawkish than Rand on foreign policy - and this represents a large number of voters who support Rand for the time being but would leap to the Cruz bandwagon in a heartbeat if they saw this sort of separation occur.

[Brett85]

This is 100% false. Rand is less hawkish/interventionist than the average American. What you no doubt meant to say is that the position he's staked out on Russia as of this moment is more hawkish/interventionist than the average American. The thing you fail to understand is that this position is not more hawkish/interventionist than the average Republican primary voter, which is a demographic that Rand must win first if he's to have any chance of taking the Presidency. By failing to agree with Ted Cruz on this issue, Rand would have allowed Cruz to create daylight between them and thereby vacuum up support from every single (R) primary voter who agrees with Rand/Cruz on domestic policy (where they march in lockstep) but is even the slightest bit more hawkish than Rand on foreign policy - and this represents a large number of voters who support Rand for the time being but would leap to the Cruz bandwagon in a heartbeat if they saw this sort of separation occur.

If everything has to be based on politics, is Rand going to have to come out strongly in favor of bombing or invading Iran in order to win the GOP nomination? If that's what it takes to win, is that something Rand should do?

[menciusmoldbug]

If everything has to be based on politics

Everything doesn't have to be based on politics, but politics has to be based on politics. Politicians taking political positions on foreign or domestic political issues is politics. Thus, the positions a politician takes, if they are to further the politician's electoral success, must be rooted in and stem from the beliefs of the majority of his or her (potential) constituents.


is Rand going to have to come out strongly in favor of bombing or invading Iran in order to win the GOP nomination?

Probably not, no. I think he'll be able to take the nomination while walking a fine line between opposition to war and "defending American values" or whatever nonsense phrase the neoconservative wing comes up with to describe their non-stop warmongering. But it will be tough, and it will often involve supporting some of the less extreme measures that the neocons are in favor of. This will likely involve saying something to the effect that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is "unacceptable" and will be prevented by any means necessary; then he'll probably propose some method for ensuring Iran won't get a nuke that doesn't involve war, such as dropping economic sanctions in exchange for allowing the UN to confirm they aren't pursuing nuclear capabilities. He'll get hit by other candidates who'll claim that this is what Obama did (is doing now) and that it didn't work, Rand will argue that he's going to be "tougher" than Obama in enforcing the inspections, perhaps demanding a larger role for US inspectors, etc.

It would not surprise me if he were forced to say that as a last resort he would support bombing/invading Iran to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but it would definitely disappoint me. The most likely scenario that would force him to do so would be if Ted Cruz ran. If Cruz stays out, he can probably avoid needing to take this line, but Cruz's presence forces Rand to run to the right on foreign policy issues, lest he get flanked and overtaken.

Also, to repeat myself - economic sanctions on Russia are a terrible idea, send the wrong message, and raise the likelihood of military conflict. Unfortunately, Republican primary voters either don't realize this or don't care, and Rand is being forced to take a stupid stance on this issue because Republican primary voters are stupid on this issue.


If that's what it takes to win, is that something Rand should do?

Ultimately, I think it depends on whether you adhere to a deontological or consequentialist moral system. Being a consequentialist, I would say yes without hesitation. I would much rather have Rand be deceptive in order to shore up political support and then govern consistent with his actual values while in office than have him be perfectly open and honest about his beliefs, lose the nomination, and have a war with Iran break out because someone who truly wanted it was in office. The important thing, in my view, is to prevent a war with Iran. If, ironically, the most effective way to accomplish this end were to claim that he was in favor of such a war, I would support this tactic. But as I said, I don't think it will prove necessary.

[Brett85]

I'm not necessarily sure if Rand is just pandering to get support and will do whatever it takes to win. He definitely won't give an inch on the civil liberties issues like the NSA and the Patriot Act, even though Republicans traditionally support those kinds of programs. That seems to just show that the civil liberties issues are what he really cares about and what he's not willing to compromise on no matter what, even if it causes him to lose. On the other hand, he's willing to shift on foreign policy issues and basically take whatever position he thinks is popular at the moment. So for whatever reason, it seems like he doesn't view foreign policy as being as important as civil liberties and is much more willing to compromise his views on that. I guess the civil liberties issues are just where he draws the line and won't compromise. Personally, I view foreign policy as being just as important and wouldn't be willing to compromise my beliefs on that either.

[menciusmoldbug]

I'm not necessarily sure if Rand is just pandering to get support and will do whatever it takes to win. He definitely won't give an inch on the civil liberties issues like the NSA and the Patriot Act, even though Republicans traditionally support those kinds of programs. That seems to just show that the civil liberties issues are what he really cares about and what he's not willing to compromise on no matter what, even if it causes him to lose.

Excuse me? Do you not recall Rand Paul doing an interview with Hannity in the aftermath of his filibuster where he was at pains to emphasize that his opposition was NOT to drone strikes per se but was instead limited to the use of drone strikes on Americans in the absence of due process? Indeed, many on this very forum criticized him A LOT for these comments, which he has since repeated.

The reason he has privilege of standing firm on civil liberties issues like the NSA and the Patriot Act is that the majority of the country - and the majority of Republican primary voters - stand with him. However, have you heard his comments on Edward Snowden? To me, it seems obvious that he supports the guy 100% but is constrained for political reasons from being completely forthright about it. He has called for clemency, but not amnesty, because while most (R) primary voters are anti-NSA, they are also anti-Snowden, and so Rand is forced to walk a fine line here as well.

In short, what you've said is completely wrong. Rand is ABSOLUTELY willing to compromise on civil liberties issues if failing to do so causes him to lose. Recall that in his Senate primary in 2010, he refused to support the closing of Guantanamo Bay. He still refuses to support ending the drug war (but is instead supporting marginal reforms designed to minimize the harms it causes). He came out in favor of an electrified border fence in his 2010 Senate primary, but when he began to seriously look at running for President, he made multiple motions indicating support for immigration reform, because establishment/big money Republicans support it and he wanted to make nice with them. Then, when the base rebelled with furious passion against Rubio's bill, he stopped doing that sort of outreach and instead repeated over and over again in interviews that he could not support immigration reform that did not secure the border.

Rand Paul is not Ron Paul. Rand is a savvy and skilled politician - with all the negative implications that this label comes with. Ron was not. Rand and his team will do and say what they think is necessary to win enough political support to put Rand in the White House. If you're a die-hard fanatic who views compromise as evil, this will alienate you. If you're a pragmatic realist who lives in the world as it is, this will encourage you. Either way, I'd encourage everyone here to remember that at heart, Rand really is one of us. Ron has said that he and Rand are alike 99% of the time because to say that they were alike 100% of the time would cast suspicion and prevent Rand from re-positioning himself as necessary to win.

Your goal as an activist should be to talk to your friends and neighbors, persuading them to support issue positions that are in line with where we'd like to see the country go. When public opinion shifts in our direction, we provide political cover for our elected leaders to move in our direction as well. Rand simply can't take positions that are opposed by 70% of the (Republican primary) electorate and expect to win.


On the other hand, he's willing to shift on foreign policy issues and basically take whatever position he thinks is popular at the moment. So for whatever reason, it seems like he doesn't view foreign policy as being as important as civil liberties and is much more willing to compromise his views on that.

I completely understand why it seems this way to you, but I hope I've successfully made the case that it isn't.


I guess the civil liberties issues are just where he draws the line and won't compromise. Personally, I view foreign policy as being just as important and wouldn't be willing to compromise my beliefs on that either.

What does it mean to compromise one's beliefs? Is spouting rhetorical talking points compromising your beliefs? Is casting the 99th vote for a policy you don't agree with compromising your beliefs? Is voting for and supporting a candidate who does either of these things compromising your beliefs?

[Brett85]

I guess you have a different definition of "civil liberties issues." I'm talking about issues dealing directly with the Bill of Rights. Rand would strongly oppose the NSA and the Patriot Act even if those things were popular with voters. Defending the Bill of Rights seems to be his passion, and something that he's not willing to compromise on. Something like Gitmo doesn't have anything to do with protecting the Bill of Rights for American citizens. It seems like he's much less willing to compromise on civil liberties issues that directly affect the Bill of Rights than on foreign policy. He seems to be more willing to compromise on issues that he doesn't believe directly relate to the Constitution.

[menciusmoldbug]

I guess you have a different definition of "civil liberties issues." I'm talking about issues dealing directly with the Bill of Rights. Rand would strongly oppose the NSA and the Patriot Act even if those things were popular with voters. Defending the Bill of Rights seems to be his passion, and something that he's not willing to compromise on. Something like Gitmo doesn't have anything to do with protecting the Bill of Rights for American citizens. It seems like he's much less willing to compromise on civil liberties issues that directly affect the Bill of Rights than on foreign policy. He seems to be more willing to compromise on issues that he doesn't believe directly relate to the Constitution.

Please provide evidence that "Rand would strongly oppose the NSA and the Patriot Act even if those things were popular with voters." They're not popular with voters, and they haven't been popular with voters since Rand has held elected office, so you have no support for this proposition and hence no real reason to believe it.

Personally, I consider the right to free association (included in the First Amendment) to be pretty damned important, and yet Rand has now spoken out in support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, despite the fact that this bill crapped all over the right to free association. I don't hold this decision against him at all, because as we all saw, failing to support the 1964 CRA with sufficient fervor is suicide.

Defending the Bill of Rights seems to be his passion because that position is wildly popular with all segments of the electorate, regardless of political party or ideology. For obvious reasons, he wants to focus on an issue that brings people together rather than one that drives them apart, as foreign policy is wont to do in the GOP.

I maintain that his convictions on foreign policy are just as strong as his convictions on civil liberties. The only difference between them is that his position on one is way more popular than his position on the other, so that's the one he chooses to focus on, and it's where he can afford not to compromise.

[tommyrp12]

Does the bill of rights not pertain to NSA and the patriot act? like crapping on it ,and if you are right and the public does not care then there are people like Cruz who already have a neocon message. What would set rand apart from the rest to get him into the white house ? political ninja stunts that he's already getting called out on and make's him look un principled ? I think he just needs to pick a message and stand with it, that way there is no room for misinterpretation.

[Brett85]

Please provide evidence that "Rand would strongly oppose the NSA and the Patriot Act even if those things were popular with voters." They're not popular with voters, and they haven't been popular with voters since Rand has held elected office, so you have no support for this proposition and hence no real reason to believe it.

Personally, I consider the right to free association (included in the First Amendment) to be pretty damned important, and yet Rand has now spoken out in support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, despite the fact that this bill crapped all over the right to free association. I don't hold this decision against him at all, because as we all saw, failing to support the 1964 CRA with sufficient fervor is suicide.

Defending the Bill of Rights seems to be his passion because that position is wildly popular with all segments of the electorate, regardless of political party or ideology. For obvious reasons, he wants to focus on an issue that brings people together rather than one that drives them apart, as foreign policy is wont to do in the GOP.

I maintain that his convictions on foreign policy are just as strong as his convictions on civil liberties. The only difference between them is that his position on one is way more popular than his position on the other, so that's the one he chooses to focus on, and it's where he can afford not to compromise.

I just disagree. I think that defending the Bill of Rights is his passion, and he would do that even if it were unpopular. His position on government surveillance wasn't all that popular with Republicans when he first came to Congress in 2010. He's brought rank and file Republican voters to his side on that issue by doing a good job of explaining to them the dangers of violating the 4th amendment.

[Crashland]

Personally, I consider the right to free association (included in the First Amendment) to be pretty damned important, and yet Rand has now spoken out in support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, despite the fact that this bill crapped all over the right to free association. I don't hold this decision against him at all, because as we all saw, failing to support the 1964 CRA with sufficient fervor is suicide.

Opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be a political death sentence. Personally I do identify with libertarianism, but I think we need to learn from history about what happens when businesses can lawfully refuse a service to individuals (a service that is otherwise offered to the general public), for a reason that is not related to a legitimate business interest. If you maintain that we can rely on public shunning of such a business, or that doing this creates a competitive disadvantage, then again I would just point to history to speak for itself. Private clubs, fine. But if there developed a widespread culture where it is acceptable for businesses to refuse service to libertarians, for example? When majority groups all exercise their liberty to discriminate in the same manner, that is a systemic oppression and the Civil Rights Act is a safeguard against that. Opposing this or any part of the Civil Rights Act is tremendously unpopular and would be political suicide, as you said, but I do agree with the CRA

[Rudeman]

Yeah, Rand is actually more hawkish and interventionist than the average American.

I disagree, but that's besides the point. The question is he more or less hawkish than the average Republican voter, and I would say it is less. Rand isn't really that hawkish, but he does phrase things to appear more hawkish. Like the missile defense in Europe issue, Barrex mentioned it in the other thread, Rand knows Europe will never pay for it so in effect he's basically saying no but appearing to be a hawk.


How you say something can have a huge impact. If you don't believe me then try being blunt with people all the time and see how that works out for you. You may be saying the truth but sometimes you just have to soften it up.