Ted Cruz seeks to make peace with Rand Paul

[tsai3904]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) on Monday night sought to put to bed an emerging rift with his tea party compatriot Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), issuing a statement saying he will "stand with Rand."

Cruz on Sunday differentiated himself from Paul on foreign policy and likened himself more to Ronald Reagan. Paul appeared to take exception to that Monday and, in an op-ed in Time magazine, attacked those who misappropriate and misunderstand Reagan's legacy.

Cruz's office declined to comment earlier Monday, but in a just-released statement, Cruz praises Paul effusively while also emphasizing they do have differences.

"Although some would like to play up divisions among Republicans, I have no desire to play their game," Cruz said. "Rand Paul is a courageous voice for liberty, and I’m honored to call him my friend. We do not agree on everything, especially regarding foreign policy, but we have agreed on the vast majority of issues, and I am sure we will continue to do so. Substantive policy disagreements are a positive aspect of the political discourse, but in the fight for liberty, I am proud to stand with Rand."

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/10/ted-cruz-seeks-to-make-peace-with-rand-paul/

[mosquitobite]

A sane foreign policy, non-interventionism, is the ROOT of the tree of liberty. Neo-cons cause it to rot.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444599-Which-one-issue-matters-most-to-you-when-judging-someone-to-be-a-Liberty-candidate

[Crashland]

You started it, Ted. Don't go around saying you disagree with Rand on foreign policy to score political points when you actually have basically the exact same position. If you disagree with Rand then tell us what specifically it is that you disagree with. Unless you actually want us sending soldiers into Ukraine, say so or STFU

[philipped]

HAHAHAHAHAHA TED SOMEHOW REALIZED HE LOOKS STUPID ARGUING WITH RAND SINCE THEY'RE SO CLOSE IDEOLOGICALLY.

I swear if he runs in 2016, Rand has to mop this guy up. Non-interventionism > Whatever Ted Cruz is on.

[Brett85]

Ted Cruz doesn't understand that foreign policy issues are directly related to liberty.

[phill4paul]

Politics. I don't know that Rand and Cruz haven't talked with each other and decided on a pincer movement. No idea. Guess we'll see in 2015.

[Crashland]

Politics. I don't know that Rand and Cruz haven't talked with each other and decided on a pincer movement. No idea. Guess we'll see in 2015.

You can't have a pincer movement if you're both charging up the middle a la General Robert E Lee.

[phill4paul]

You can't have a pincer movement if you're both charging up the middle a la General Robert E Lee.

Charging up the middle to you or I. Not the GOP.

[Warlord]

Cruz is full of himself isnt he?

[mosquitobite]

Cruz is full of himself isnt he?

Yes, and he projects that. Ego.

For starters, Rand has had a 2 year lead on him and yet Ted thinks after a year in the Senate he should go for President?

I could see him as attorney general, Ted has too much ego to be in the WH.

[sl7yz0r]

Jesus, I was the BIGGEST Cruz fan in the world,
I even donated to his campaign, But this means war.

Cruz is the enemy now.
That apology SUCKED

[phill4paul]

Can someone photoshop Ted Cruz's face to the front of a Cruise missile? Worth a +rep.

http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/GH_Mtns.jpg

OK,ok..close enough and it looks like a phallus.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/files/2013/07/2013-06-20T195641Z_01_WAS917_RTRIDSP_3_USA-IMMIGRATION-SENATE_image_982w.jpg

[Jamesiv1]

Rand Paul/Ted Cruz ticket?

Cruz might attract the hard right wing. Does anybody really care about the vice-president's view on foreign policy?

They do seem to be good friends.

[jjdoyle]

Can someone photoshop Ted Cruz's face to the front of a Cruise missile? Worth a +rep.



OK,ok..close enough and it looks like a phallus.......



You want it on the missile, or the drone? A drone, does seem more fitting....programmed, controlled from afar, often makes mistakes. Attacks the wrong groups.

[torchbearer]

Ted Cruz doesn't understand that foreign policy issues are directly related to liberty.


and this is why he isn't a friend of liberty.

[cajuncocoa]

Rand Paul/Ted Cruz ticket?

Cruz might attract the hard right wing. Does anybody really care about the vice-president's view on foreign policy?

They do seem to be good friends.Please, no.

[phill4paul]

You want it on the missile, or the drone? A drone, does seem more fitting....programmed, controlled from afar, often makes mistakes. Attacks the wrong groups.

Yep, even better.

[MichaelDavis]

HAHAHAHAHAHA TED SOMEHOW REALIZED HE LOOKS STUPID ARGUING WITH RAND SINCE THEY'RE SO CLOSE IDEOLOGICALLY.

I swear if he runs in 2016, Rand has to mop this guy up. Non-interventionism > Whatever Ted Cruz is on.

I've been thinking the same thing. Cruz knows that libertarians are already on team Paul, so he has to try to create his own constituency. He's decided to shut down the government, act neo-con, and shout "Ronald Reagan!". I almost sorry for him. Almost.

[specsaregood]

HAHAHAHAHAHA TED SOMEHOW REALIZED HE LOOKS STUPID ARGUING WITH RAND SINCE THEY'RE SO CLOSE IDEOLOGICALLY.

I swear if he runs in 2016, Rand has to mop this guy up. Non-interventionism > Whatever Ted Cruz is on.

No, what happened was that Rand out-Reagan'd him. He used the eleventh commandment without specifically referring to it.

[eduardo89]

Rand Paul/Ted Cruz ticket?

Cruz might attract the hard right wing. Does anybody really care about the vice-president's view on foreign policy?

They do seem to be good friends.

As much as I like Ted Cruz, he's toxic in a general election. He not only turns off most 'moderate' Republicans, independents and conservative Democrats hate him and you can't win without them.

[erowe1]

All it comes down to is Cruz not running for president and endorsing Rand. As long as he does that, peace has been made.

[erowe1]

Rand Paul/Ted Cruz ticket?

Cruz might attract the hard right wing. Does anybody really care about the vice-president's view on foreign policy?

They do seem to be good friends.

Politically speaking, what could Rand gain by attracting the hard right wing for a general election when he'll already have won the GOP nomination?

I'm not saying I want him to pick a liberal running mate. But if you want to expand his support for the general, I sure don't see how Cruz would do that.

[rprprs]

Can someone photoshop Ted Cruz's face to the front of a Cruise missile? Worth a +rep.

Didn't have time to do it pixel by pixel, so kinda quick and dirty. I'm sure others can do better. But until then...

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm139/rprprs/cruzmissle_zps43ebe798.jpg

[jjdoyle]

Didn't have time to do it pixel by pixel, so kinda quick and dirty. I'm sure others can do better. But until then...

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm139/rprprs/cruzmissle_zps43ebe798.jpg

Haha! I have two versions at the moment. One like this, and one more pronounced...
Well, here it is:
http://i.imgur.com/OhyIMC6.jpg?1

You might notice a little "text" work as well. The other one should be done in a bit, trying to get some other work finished first.

[rprprs]

lol. I was going for realism, but yours is just too funny. I concede defeat. Looking forward to the other one.

[Crashland]

Those planes are loaded with Cruz missiles!

[TaftFan]

Can I steal that picture?

[jjdoyle]

Can I steal that picture?

If you're asking about my edit, feel free to use it. I don't know where the original pictures came from though, and just used the ones that were provided by phill4paul.

If you're not asking about my edited one, you can ignore this post! :)

[TaftFan]

If you're asking about my edit, feel free to use it. I don't know where the original pictures came from though, and just used the ones that were provided by phill4paul.

If you're not asking about my edited one, you can ignore this post! :)
I was talking about the one with his head on the front. I want to post it on a Facebook page I run.

[William Tell]

I was talking about the one with his head on the front. I want to post it on a Facebook page I run.
I want to steal them two

[jjdoyle]

I was talking about the one with his head on the front. I want to post it on a Facebook page I run.

If you're talking about the one I posted, I don't care if it's used.

Here's another:
http://i.imgur.com/FO4aY9n.jpg?1

Because a lens flare makes everything better, right?!

[unknown]

"Although some would like to play up divisions among Republicans, I have no desire to play their game," Cruz said.

Their game?

[unknown]

Haha! I have two versions at the moment. One like this, and one more pronounced...
Well, here it is:
http://i.imgur.com/OhyIMC6.jpg?1

You might notice a little "text" work as well. The other one should be done in a bit, trying to get some other work finished first.

Hahaha

[specsaregood]

No, what happened was that Rand out-Reagan'd him. He used the eleventh commandment without specifically referring to it.

Ah, well Rand specifically referred to the 11th commandment later in the Hannity interview.

[phill4paul]

If you're talking about the one I posted, I don't care if it's used.

Here's another:
http://i.imgur.com/FO4aY9n.jpg?1

Because a lens flare makes everything better, right?!

Absolutely outstanding! +rep LMAO!

[mit26chell]

I'm sick of this asshat. Someone needs to explain to him that we have lost most of our liberties during times of war. He is a neocon in disguise!

[AuH20]

Both sides love creating drama between Paul and Cruz when there isn't any.

[menciusmoldbug]

Both sides love creating drama between Paul and Cruz when there isn't any.

Don't be a fool. Paul and Cruz are competing for pretty much the exact same slice of primary voters, and Cruz is trying to win them over by presenting himself as "tougher" and more hawkish on foreign policy than Rand. To pretend that there's no tension between them is insane.

[Warlord]

I'm sick of this asshat. Someone needs to explain to him that we have lost most of our liberties during times of war. He is a neocon in disguise!

Absolutely....

[AuH20]

Don't be a fool. Paul and Cruz are competing for pretty much the exact same slice of primary voters, and Cruz is trying to win them over by presenting himself as "tougher" and more hawkish on foreign policy than Rand. To pretend that there's no tension between them is insane.

1 is running and the other isn't. This is largely fabricated by the neocons on one side and libertarians on the other. Do you think the establishment wants Cruz anywhere near 1600 Penn? Give me a break. He is just as villified if not more than Rand. My advice would be to save your energy for the coming battle against the real threats, namely Rubio, Huckabee and Bush.

[erowe1]

Both sides love creating drama between Paul and Cruz when there isn't any.

It's not that there isn't any. It's just that the crucial factor remains to be determined: Will both of them run for president? If they do, then the drama will be palpable. If not, then you're right, there isn't any.

[Warlord]

1 is running and the other isn't. This is largely fabricated by the neocons on one side and libertarians on the other. Do you think the establishment wants Cruz anywhere near 1600 Penn? Give me a break. He is just as villified if not more than Rand. My advice would be to save your energy for the coming battle against the real threats, namely Rubio, Huckabee and Bush.

You keep insisting Cruz isnt running when he's visiting Iowa and New Hampshire and bigging himself up certainly suggests to anyone with a brain he's running

[rprprs]

< snip>..My advice would be to save your energy for the coming battle against the real threats, namely Rubio, Huckabee and Bush.

Just this morning I had a (neocon) neighbor speak glowingly about Ben Carson. Does anyone foresee problems there?

[Bastiat's The Law]

As much as I like Ted Cruz, he's toxic in a general election. He not only turns off most 'moderate' Republicans, independents and conservative Democrats hate him and you can't win without them.

He's a pretty polarizing figure.

[Bastiat's The Law]

You keep insisting Cruz isnt running when he's visiting Iowa and New Hampshire and bigging himself up certainly suggests to anyone with a brain he's running

So did Donald Trump. He didn't run.

[erowe1]

So did Donald Trump. He didn't run.

If Cruz makes as much of a pseudo-run for president as Trump did, that would still undermine Rand. If he doesn't want there to be a rift, then he can't do that unless Rand decides not to.

[TheTyke]

Just this morning I had a (neocon) neighbor speak glowingly about Ben Carson. Does anyone foresee problems there?

When Hannity asked who Ben Carson liked for president, he said Rand Paul. So I'm trying to be optimistic. I wonder who the groups pushing him to run are run by. They apparently bused people to CPAC.

[menciusmoldbug]

1 is running and the other isn't.

How much money would you be willing to bet, and at what odds, on this proposition? I'm pretty confident that he is running.

If he isn't running/doesn't run, then I agree with you that there ought not be any drama between Paul and Cruz. However, I believe the flip side of this is that if he is running/does run (as I expect he is/will), then there is drama/hostility between Paul/Cruz of exactly the sort that I've described. Would you agree with this?


This is largely fabricated by the neocons on one side and libertarians on the other.

No, this is the result of Ted Cruz taking steps to position himself as a slightly more hawkish version of Rand Paul in order to win more votes than Rand in the primary.


Do you think the establishment wants Cruz anywhere near 1600 Penn?

Do you think the establishment wants Paul anywhere near 1600 Penn? Of course they don't want Cruz or Paul. But Cruz isn't competing with Paul for establishment votes, he's competing with Paul for Tea Party votes. Much of the Tea Party is more pro-intervention than Paul, so Cruz's positioning himself as he has is actually a very good strategy; he's forced Rand to take a more pro-interventionist stance on Russia, which is pissing off his libertarian/non-interventionist base and is unlikely to win much new support amongst the rest of the Republican party, but if he didn't, it'd be tantamount to committing electoral suicide and becoming another Ron Paul. He's being forced to play defense, basically. At the same time, Cruz is trying to highlight a wedge between Rand and the establishment so that if it comes down to Paul/Cruz in the primary, they'll be more inclined to support Cruz, due to his support for a more hawkish foreign policy than Rand's.


Give me a break. He is just as villified if not more than Rand.

Correct. And he realizes this, and he's trying to fix it. Rand is way ahead of Cruz on this front; he's been taking steps for a long time now to make himself more palatable to establishment Republicans - endorsing McConnell, doing minority outreach, emphasizing his ability to peel off votes amongst the youth that have become disillusioned with Obama, etc. Above all else, establishment Republicans want nothing more than to win. They'd prefer to do so with Chris Christie/Paul Ryan/Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio (as a last resort), but they'll support a Tea Party candidate - so long as he isn't too far "out there" - if they have to.

Paul knows he won't be the establishment's first choice in the primary, but he also knows that he'll need its support if he wants to have a prayer in the general. The establishment cannot win without the Tea Party, but the Tea Party cannot win without the establishment (recall that the reason Goldwater lost in a landslide is that the establishment abandoned him). It's an uneasy alliance he's attempting to forge, to be sure, but he has absolutely been having some success.

Cruz, by way of contrast, has not, and his recent comments are an attempt to halt Rand's increasing success at consolidating support from Tea Partiers/libertarians/social conservatives/establishment Republicans. Pure defense hawks will never support him, of course, but there are a ton of hawkish-leaning members of the aforementioned groups who are willing to support Rand because he's gone to such lengths to demonstrate that he's not his dad (whose foreign policy positions - which I share 100%, btw - created a hard cap on his electoral potential in the primary). Cruz hopes to replace Paul's position in the party, and in order to do that he'll have to whack Paul first, which is what he is attempting/will attempt to do. These recent comments of his were just the first volley in what will prove to be a long and vicious conflict.


My advice would be to save your energy for the coming battle against the real threats, namely Rubio, Huckabee and Bush.

Don't kid yourself. Rubio's immigration bill has created what will probably prove to be an insurmountable handicap amongst the conservative base. Huckabee may run (he certainly looks more likely to than he did in 2012, when I was ~99% sure he wouldn't), but he may not (edit: Just listened to a radio interview with him; he's almost definitely running, and I agree that we'll need to fight hard to beat him), and even if he does, his supporters won't have as much overlap with ours as Cruz's. Bush probably won't run for the simple reason that Christie and Rubio almost certainly will, and he doesn't want to split the establishment vote. He also wants his son to have a future in presidential politics, and if you think the anti-dynasty crowd is peeved now at the possibility of a third Bush running, imagine how loud they'd howl if GPB became the fourth. By staying out, Jeb improves George P's future chances.

My advice would be to expend some energy preparing for the battle against the real threat, Ted Cruz. And when it comes, don't you dare say that you weren't warned.

[erowe1]

When Hannity asked who Ben Carson liked for president, he said Rand Paul.

I didn't know that. That's encouraging.

[IndianaPolitico]

When Hannity asked who Ben Carson liked for president, he said Rand Paul. So I'm trying to be optimistic. I wonder who the groups pushing him to run are run by. They apparently bused people to CPAC.

He spoke here in Indiana a while back, and I asked him about it. He kind of danced around the question, but I would be very surprised if he actually made the jump.

[menciusmoldbug]

Just this morning I had a (neocon) neighbor speak glowingly about Ben Carson. Does anyone foresee problems there?

None whatsoever. Carson is extremely unlikely to run and is more likely to become an ally than competition - he spoke glowingly of Rand Paul early on during his time in the political spotlight, and if Rand's people could pick up an endorsement from him, it'd be huge. Carson is a nice guy who enjoys being part of the national conversation and having some influence/admirers, but he has no concrete political ambition at all. If he runs for president, I'll eat my shoe.

[69360]

Rand Paul/Ted Cruz ticket?

Cruz might attract the hard right wing. Does anybody really care about the vice-president's view on foreign policy?

They do seem to be good friends.

Depends. Nobody cares what Biden's is but Cheney's was rather important in the early years of Bush's presidency. LBJ's turned out to be rather important as well.

[jjdoyle]

1 is running and the other isn't. This is largely fabricated by the neocons on one side and libertarians on the other. Do you think the establishment wants Cruz anywhere near 1600 Penn? Give me a break. He is just as villified if not more than Rand. My advice would be to save your energy for the coming battle against the real threats, namely Rubio, Huckabee and Bush.

Well, even if one of them isn't running, this is the exact way others will hit him. If it isn't already obvious. And this is exactly why I have beat the same drums about a waste of a certain campaign, and getting out in front of this. Controlling the topic.

Now, perhaps this is really like wrestling. Maybe Rand and Cruz are on the same team, using the same script writer. Maybe Cruz will "shock" the audience by helping Rand win by "seeing the light" and knocking the ref out, or interring in the match somehow that is beneficial to Rand?

Both sides here have had pretty weak arguments/counter-arguments (not really arguments, but points) though:
1) Ted Cruz says he doesn't agree with Rand on foreign policy, but FAILED/FAILS to explain how Rand is any different. So, he's creating an unnecessary rift, for no reason other than political points with some? The ones (idiot voters) that can't think? Your typical Republican voter.
2) Rand's response hasn't exactly been all that great, especially to those voters already leery of him on this very topic. Rand could easily be wiping the floor with this topic, and possibly changing the outlook of many (Democrats included), with very simple talking points on it. Instead, we get the "11th Commandment" and saying that other Republicans should focus on their ideas?

I mean, if Rand is thinking he will waltz into the White House without a single attack ad that might need to be addressed in an actual manner, not with just the 11th Commandment, I think that's pretty bizarre. Does this also mean Rand isn't going to run a single attack ad, against any Republican candidate that starts polling better than him and maybe gets ahead of him?

But, until this all settles out in the wash, I'll be happy to Photoshop images/ideas as they come up. :)

[menciusmoldbug]

Now, perhaps this is really like wrestling. Maybe Rand and Cruz are on the same team, using the same script writer. Maybe Cruz will "shock" the audience by helping Rand win by "seeing the light" and knocking the ref out, or interring in the match somehow that is beneficial to Rand?

No, this is not what Cruz has planned. Cruz is not about playing for a "team," as his actions in forcing the government shutdown and forcing Republican Senators to vote for the debt ceiling increase demonstrated. There are lots of conservatives who hate the establishment and are hungry for any opportunity to poke it in the eye (many of them post on this forum), and Cruz feeds these people the red meat they want. These actions served his interests while harming the rest of his party. Cruz is only interested in promoting himself and increasing his chances of winning the nomination.

Rand has sought and is seeking to distinguish himself from Cruz by promoting party unity, minimizing the importance of internal rifts, and reaching out to minorities/young voters to demonstrate that he wants to grow the party so that it can win in 2016.


Both sides here have had pretty weak arguments/counter-arguments (not really arguments, but points) though:
1) Ted Cruz says he doesn't agree with Rand on foreign policy, but FAILED/FAILS to explain how Rand is any different.

Not so. Cruz's comment came in response to this interview of Rand's:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTzcZIlR534

Is there any doubt that Rand was trying to lay the groundwork here for presenting a slightly watered-down version of non-interventionism (what he calls "realism") in the 2016 elections? Unfortunately, the escalation of the situation in Ukraine occurred very shortly after this interview, and Ted Cruz took the opportunity to distance himself from Rand's (now unpopular) position on how we should deal with Russia and the Ukraine. Rand successfully ran to the right, supporting economic sanctions and all the other measures proposed by Cruz and others, but if he hadn't, the support he's been building amongst establishment Republicans and hawkish Tea Partiers would have been seriously undermined. Cruz took a shot at Rand here and forced Rand to play defense, alienating his libertarian/anti-interventionist base in the process.


So, he's creating an unnecessary rift, for no reason other than political points with some? The ones (idiot voters) that can't think? Your typical Republican voter.

Correct.


2) Rand's response hasn't exactly been all that great, especially to those voters already leery of him on this very topic.

Incorrect. Rand's response has been perfect, especially to those voters already leery of him on this very topic. What you're forgetting is that we - that is, libertarians/non-interventionists - are a minority in the party, and Rand is already the only candidate anywhere close to our corner on this issue.

EVERYONE is leery of Rand Paul on foreign policy, because there is a huge array of views amongst people in the party, and Rand needs the support of them all in order to win both the nomination and a general election. Any time a candidate tries to play both sides of an issue like this, he engenders distrust, and that's a dangerous thing, but there really isn't any other option available to him if he wants to win.


Rand could easily be wiping the floor with this topic, and possibly changing the outlook of many (Democrats included), with very simple talking points on it.

No he couldn't, you are being naively optimistic. Ron Paul was not successful using this strategy, and Rand Paul would not be either. The fact that an idea, position, or outlook is correct does not mean that it will be popular. People are stupid and they think stupid things.


Instead, we get the "11th Commandment" and saying that other Republicans should focus on their ideas?

I loved this, and you can bet that Republican bigwigs - the money men - loved it as well. As I've said elsewhere, what they care about more than anything else is winning, and they know the way to do that is not to divide the party and alienate any part of it. Remember Mitt Romney? He was hardly one of us, and yet he refused to take any vicious stabs at Ron Paul in the 2012 primary, because Romney and his supporters realized that they couldn't win in November without the support of people who were voting for RP. Rand is doing the same thing, only in the opposite direction.


I mean, if Rand is thinking he will waltz into the White House without a single attack ad that might need to be addressed in an actual manner, not with just the 11th Commandment, I think that's pretty bizarre. Does this also mean Rand isn't going to run a single attack ad, against any Republican candidate that starts polling better than him and maybe gets ahead of him?

No, of course not. If there are threats, he'll attack. What do you think this editorial (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/03/10/Rand-Paul-Reagans-Foreign-Policy) and this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD84sRtAtSA) were all about? He's hitting back at Cruz in a subtle way that threatens the possibility of more if Cruz doesn't back off. As the 2016 race heats up, things will get nastier if they need to, but what we're hoping to accomplish is a rallying of the entire party behind Rand so early that there's no need for negative ads at all. The goal is to win Iowa, then win New Hampshire, and hell - possibly even have enough momentum behind us going in to win South Carolina. It probably won't be that easy, but this is the goal.


But, until this all settles out in the wash, I'll be happy to Photoshop images/ideas as they come up. :)

+rep (can't actually provide any just yet, so it'll have to be symbolic for now)

[jjdoyle]

No he couldn't, you are being naively optimistic. Ron Paul was not successful using this strategy, and Rand Paul would not be either. The fact that an idea, position, or outlook is correct does not mean that it will be popular. People are stupid and they think stupid things.

First, thanks for the reply! (I'll try to address some other points to you, maybe in a PM?)

But on the portion above, you failed to ask "What talking points?". Ron didn't use a speech coach, didn't care for one, didn't want one. Ron was Ron. Ron was not necessarily good at articulating and controlling certain points and issues, with talking points. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it depends on the topic and venue, and how you are controlling it. Just one area that could have used improvement though. Idiot voters don't care much about history though, and presidential "debates" aren't exactly a great venue for giving a history lesson. But if you phrase things that SPEAK to their programmed minds, they may listen, even hear.

You sometimes need to use phrases they are used to hearing, and connect the dots for them.

Rand could be controlling this topic, very easily, with talking points that the "majority" of the idiot Republican base could understand, and perhaps even wake up some of them even more. Maybe I should send him some of the talking points...but I don't think this is something that should need to even be explained at this point.

On the drone picture, I have another one in the works. Might be done later tonight, but I thought about it after posting the other ones.

[LibertyEagle]

Rand could be controlling this topic, very easily, with talking points that the "majority" of the idiot Republican base could understand, and perhaps even wake up some of them even more. Maybe I should send him some of the talking points...but I don't think this is something that should need to even be explained at this point.


Clearly, Rand does not agree with you and his way has been working pretty darned well so far.

[menciusmoldbug]

First, thanks for the reply! (I'll try to address some other points to you, maybe in a PM?)

You're welcome to send a PM if you want, but I think public dialogue would be more beneficial so that others on the forum can observe and critique our exchange.


But on the portion above, you failed to ask "What talking points?". Ron didn't use a speech coach, didn't care for one, didn't want one. Ron was Ron. Ron was not necessarily good at articulating and controlling certain points and issues, with talking points. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it depends on the topic and venue, and how you are controlling it. Just one area that could have used improvement though. Idiot voters don't care much about history though, and presidential "debates" aren't exactly a great venue for giving a history lesson. But if you phrase things that SPEAK to their programmed minds, they may listen, even hear.

You sometimes need to use phrases they are used to hearing, and connect the dots for them.

Rand could be controlling this topic, very easily, with talking points that the "majority" of the idiot Republican base could understand, and perhaps even wake up some of them even more. Maybe I should send him some of the talking points...but I don't think this is something that should need to even be explained at this point.

Did you watch the interview that I posted above? Here, I'll post it again:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTzcZIlR534

Rand was preparing to do EXACTLY what you are suggesting. He was laying the groundwork to take precisely this approach in 2016, but then the situation in Ukraine went to hell, and people were no longer in a mental state to accept this position or these talking points. Now, Rand could very well have chosen to stick to his guns on the issue and make the argument like you wish he would . . . until, that is, Ted Cruz chose to very publicly announce that he does not "stand with Rand" on foreign policy. That was an opening shot, and it was a very dangerous one. Cruz wants to take the mantle that Rand is building for himself as the anti-establishment/Tea Party candidate in 2016. Because the base is not yet on our side on these issues, that sort of splintering and realignment could very easily happen if Rand lets his guard down, which is why Rand was forced to do what he did (support sanctions and other measures to "rebuke" Russia's "aggression"). It pisses me off just as much as it does you, believe me. The difference is, apparently, that I understand why it was necessary.

Politics is hardball, and succeeding at it requires thinking strategically at all times.


On the drone picture, I have another one in the works. Might be done later tonight, but I thought about it after posting the other ones.

Cool, well post it here when you get a chance.

[jjdoyle]

Clearly, Rand does not agree with you and his way has been working pretty darned well so far.

Neither did Ron, and yet he got fewer votes than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. And was in the race longer than them, and in more primary/caucuses. What you say, and how you say it, is important. This is a very huge issue, and probably one of the biggest issues that held RP back from the basic, general, idiot Republican voter.

And how do you know Rand doesn't agree with this point, unless someone has said Rand isn't looking at what he says, and how he says it? Maybe Rand just hasn't heard the simple talking points (that I think are obvious), or maybe he already has them and is just saving them for another opportunity?


You're welcome to send a PM if you want, but I think public dialogue would be more beneficial so that others on the forum can observe and critique our exchange.

Some around here, like LibertyEagle, don't even want me posting in this forum. I had a post deleted just 2 days ago, because I questioned why something wasn't being addressed. Critiquing/questioning strategies and actions is apparently viewed by some around here as "not supporting", which I find very odd.

So, while I agree with you 100% that a public dialogue on these things could be very good for others (and even myself), it's apparently not wanted:
http://i.imgur.com/F9qkriV.jpg?1

Which is why I said I may PM you the stuff. I'm 100% for public dialogue, and addressing the points as you did in your reply, and I thank you for it!

But yes, I did watch the video, even back when it was originally posted. I knew that was the piece they used for the Ted Cruz interview, but Ted Cruz was talking very broad with the "foreign policy" term, not specifically just about this one particular incident. He pretty much said he doesn't agree with Rand on foreign policy, but failed to specify what specifically other than "spreading/protecting America's ideas" (or, whatever the garbage was spewed at that moment).

[serenityrick]

People here seriously need to get their hate boner checked in regards to Ted Cruz. Jesus Christ.

I love Rand Paul too but the double standard you guys are employing is nauseating.

When Rand Paul goes with the establishment or sounds hawkish it's "part of the grand plan!" When Cruz does it, he's a "snake".

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Do you think the establishment wants Cruz anywhere near 1600 Penn?

Did that stop Santorum, Perry, & Cain from not only entering the race but stealing the spotlight away from Ron Paul by playing the "anti-Romney" role?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

but then the situation in Ukraine went to hell, and people were no longer in a mental state to accept this position or these talking points. Now, Rand could very well have chosen to stick to his guns on the issue and make the argument like you wish he would . . . until, that is, Ted Cruz chose to very publicly announce that he does not "stand with Rand" on foreign policy. That was an opening shot, and it was a very dangerous one. Cruz wants to take the mantle that Rand is building for himself as the anti-establishment/Tea Party candidate in 2016. Because the base is not yet on our side on these issues, that sort of splintering and realignment could very easily happen if Rand lets his guard down, which is why Rand was forced to do what he did (support sanctions and other measures to "rebuke" Russia's "aggression").

Then Cruz has already won. If that's all it takes for Rand to bend under pressure and start backtracking on the non-interventionist message he already watered down, there is really not a whole lot to be excited about come 2016.