McCain says he would support Rand Paul for president

[green73]

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told The New Yorker he would support Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) for president if Paul is the Republican nominee.

“I’ve seen him grow, and I’ve seen him mature, and I’ve seen him become more centrist," McCain told The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza, who wrote a long profile of Paul (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/revenge-rand-paul).

"I know that, if he were president or a nominee, I could influence him, particularly some of his views and positions on national security. He trusts me particularly on the military side of things, so I could easily work with him. It wouldn’t be a problem.”

cont.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/219156-mccain-says-he-would-support-rand-paul-for-president

[acptulsa]

LOL

Yeah, McCain, you saying that b.s. will cost him some popularity in the polls. It will.

But nowhere near enough to stop him.

[Carlybee]

Gawd....retire already

[brushfire]

You hear that, Rand?

You've got McCain's support.


http://www.essentialapparel.com/images/detailed/201cs.jpg

[economics102]

He trusts me particularly on the military side of things, so I could easily work with him. It wouldn’t be a problem.”

LOL, what a joke.

[TaftFan]

Gawd....retire already

An article came out a couple of days ago (I forget where) showing how McCain badly trails potential Republican challengers (and liberty allies) like Reps. Schwiekert and Salmon. He may be trying to save face for the base in 2016.

[satchelmcqueen]

mcshame is on acid.

[philipped]

An article came out a couple of days ago (I forget where) showing how McCain badly trails potential Republican challengers (and liberty allies) like Reps. Schwiekert and Salmon. He may be trying to save face for the base in 2016.

All for 6 more years??? Someone prominent will be losing their Senate seat...

[Brett85]

This was before Rand accused McCain of meeting with members of ISIS.

[alucard13mm]

Wouldn't McCain be a traitor to the GOP if he does not fall in line and support the GOP nominee? McCain has no choice but to support Paul if it looks like he is the nominee or looks like Paul is gonna win.

Still.. his comments are pretty disgusting.. influencing Rand lol.

Rand pretty much endorsed (or at least voiced his support) of Romney in the last election by saying he supports whoever is the GOP POTUS candidate. even though it was forced... just so he can say he went with the party. That way he can call out other politicians for not supporting him. It is a rather unfortunate, but necessary move on Rand's part.

[patriot2008]

Who even cares what a maggot like McCain thinks.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

This was before Rand accused McCain of meeting with members of ISIS.

Yeah, I figured. McCain has sent his old, loser aides (Salter) out there to bash Rand Paul in the media, why would he be supporting him?

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Context: Mccain said this around the same time of the beheadings when Rand had stronger Syria rhetoric. In that same article Mccain later back tracks a few months later and has harsher words for Rand...

I think it was Mccain using a carrot not a stick.

[VIDEODROME]

What he's really saying is "Please, please pick me for Vice President"

[mrsat_98]

What he's really saying is "Please, please pick me for Vice President"

Now that's from nny right there, I don't care who you are.

[Spikender]

The Arizona Republican criticized Paul's views on ISIS, even though Paul supports airstrikes against the group. “He said we have to destroy ISIS, and yet he has not described a strategy in order to achieve that goal," McCain said.

McCain has no strategy for defeating ISIS either. Bombing runs and doing the same thing we have been doing for the past few decades concerning the Middle East is not a viable strategy, as he should've learned by now.


A New York Times story in January, though, linked Paul to an institute that raised money with the help of his father, Ron Paul. The story reports that scholars from the institute have "championed the Confederacy."

Rand Paul told The New Yorker that he was "really disappointed" in this article.

There was a quote “from some guy who I’ve never met saying something about how slaves should have been happy singing and dancing because they got good food or something. Like, O.K., so now I’m in the New York Times and you’re associating me with some person who I don’t know.”

“It’s one thing to go back and interview my college professor or groups that I actually was with," he continued. "But I was never associated with any of these people. Ever. Only through being related to my dad, who had association with them.”

The real reason this article was written right here for all to see. Bring up issues of race with the next Paul in line.

[DevilsAdvocate]

"He trusts me on the military side of things"

Oh really????

[Christian Liberty]

McCain has no strategy for defeating ISIS either. Bombing runs and doing the same thing we have been doing for the past few decades concerning the Middle East is not a viable strategy, as he should've learned by now.



The real reason this article was written right here for all to see. Bring up issues of race with the next Paul in line.

Anyone who seriously thinks Walter Block was saying slavery "wasn't that bad" is an idiot who doesn't understand just HOW serious coercion is to a libertarian.

Mind you, Block is not without his issues. Evictionism is an understandable position but a terrible one, I'd say bad enough that Ron Paul's pro-life minarchism is superior to it, and Block's comments about NAMBLA (which were still not as bad as statists make them out to be, of course) were fairly bad. But Block is still a champion for liberty and these extreme, over the top mischaracterizations is exactly that.

[William Tell]

"He trusts me on the military side of things"

Oh really????

No, really not. McCain was delusional, and has changed his tune since that interview.

[Spikender]

Anyone who seriously thinks Walter Block was saying slavery "wasn't that bad" is an idiot who doesn't understand just HOW serious coercion is to a libertarian.

Mind you, Block is not without his issues. Evictionism is an understandable position but a terrible one, I'd say bad enough that Ron Paul's pro-life minarchism is superior to it, and Block's comments about NAMBLA (which were still not as bad as statists make them out to be, of course) were fairly bad. But Block is still a champion for liberty and these extreme, over the top mischaracterizations is exactly that.

I'm well aware of that. Walter Block himself wrote a good defense of what he was saying here that I read a while back:

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/01/walter-block-how-nyt-mischaracterized.html

He makes the point that because Rand Paul is too clean they will find any way to slander him and misusing statements by other libertarians is their way of doing it because Paul himself is too clean. They did the same thing with Ron Paul as I said, so this is nothing new. They desperately wish to paint libertarians, particularly the Pauls, as being questionable on race relations when free associate and being an individualist is the antithesis of racism because we cannot view people as collectives. They will ignore their past as doctors, they will ignore Ron's past delivering thousands of babies to black families who couldn't even afford to pay him, and they will ignore Rand's great work trying to fight the police state to help minorities all just to paint them as being bigoted or racist.

It's sick but they don't care. They are desperate and will use any tactic they can to slander good people like the Pauls or Walter Block instead of attacking them philosophically.

[Vanguard101]

Apparently people are now angry at Rand for making those comments about Walter Block.

[Spikender]

Apparently people are now angry at Rand for making those comments about Walter Block.

I wonder what Rand's motivations were when he made those comments. He acted like he didn't know who Block was at all.

[Krugminator2]

I wonder what Rand's motivations were when he made those comments. He acted like he didn't know who Block was at all.

I think Rand was trying to make the point that tying him to every remotely controversial thing that anybody remotely tied to his father was very unfair of the authors of NY Times piece. These types of articles could just as easily focus on Hayek and Friedman as influences on Rand. Instead they pick the most hardcore libertarians with the most controversial statements. I remember the Times article talked about and a had big picture of Karl Hess. How many times has Ron Paul, let alone Rand Paul, ever mentioned Karl Hess? There is only one reason to tie Rand Paul to Karl Hess. It is to make him look like a wingnut.

[Spikender]

I think Rand was trying to make the point that tying him to every remotely controversial thing that anybody remotely tied to his father was very unfair of the authors of NY Times piece. These types of articles could just as easily focus on Hayek and Friedman as influences on Rand. Instead they pick the most hardcore libertarians with the most controversial statements. I remember the Times article talked about and a had big picture of Karl Hess. How many times has Ron Paul, let alone Rand Paul, ever mentioned Karl Hess? There is only one reason to tie Rand Paul to Karl Hess. It is to make him look like a wingnut.

Walter Block himself made that same exact point in that article that I linked. Granted, it's from a while back so I'm not sure what Block thinks now, but he made the same point that they never point to good people that are tangently related to libertarians, they always pick something or someone that will get the public riled up, like Ron with the Stormfront donations or the newsletters. They're just repeating it with Rand.

[Christian Liberty]

I wonder what Rand's motivations were when he made those comments. He acted like he didn't know who Block was at all.

Because he's smart?

There's no way Rand is going to win if he fights the media on a quote like that. I like Walter Block, but there is no point in Rand associating himself with him, it benefits nothing at all. And really, Rand harms FAR LESS by not associating with Block than he has when he has compromised on foreign policy, for better or worse.

[Spikender]

Because he's smart?

There's no way Rand is going to win if he fights the media on a quote like that. I like Walter Block, but there is no point in Rand associating himself with him, it benefits nothing at all. And really, Rand harms FAR LESS by not associating with Block than he has when he has compromised on foreign policy, for better or worse.

Meh.

I get why he did it.

Just seems a bit cold is all. Anything to win, I guess.

[Christian Liberty]

Meh.

I get why he did it.

Just seems a bit cold is all. Anything to win, I guess.

I get that its cold. Its even colder to advocate bombing ISIS right now.

I'm not going to get myself upset over THIS.

[Spikender]

I get that its cold. Its even colder to advocate bombing ISIS right now.

I'm not going to get myself upset over THIS.

Word to that.

I think if someone did get a bit upset over this, it's likely just because it's another straw on the camel's back so to speak.

And no need to bring up the bombing ISIS thing. I don't share my opinion on Rand much, but he's done a lot of things I don't like. I just don't see the point in sharing that opinion on here when so many others already do it for me.

[Christian Liberty]

Word to that.

I think if someone did get a bit upset over this, it's likely just because it's another straw on the camel's back so to speak.

And no need to bring up the bombing ISIS thing. I don't share my opinion on Rand much, but he's done a lot of things I don't like. I just don't see the point in sharing that opinion on here when so many others already do it for me.

I guess my point is this:

If you can accept Rand compromising on foreign policy in order to get elected, you really shouldn't mind that much that he doesn't want to be associated with Block. And if you can't accept Rand compromising on foreign policy and thus don't support him for that reason, I'm not sure why you'd pick this relatively minor matter to criticize him over when you could be attacking him on foreign policy.

Either way, this doesn't really matter. Its either one more necessary compromise or one more intolerable compromise, depending on how you look at it. Personally, I'd like Rand to stick to Ron Paul's foreign policy, and if he did that, I wouldn't mind in the slightest if he didn't acknowledge Block. Not because I don't like Block (I do) but because Block has said a few things that only 1% of the population is even intellectually capable of reasoning with rather than just outright rejecting out of hand and which the other 99% will inevitably falsely judge Rand to be that which he strongly opposes because of them.

[Spikender]

If you can accept Rand compromising on foreign policy in order to get elected, you really shouldn't mind that much that he doesn't want to be associated with Block. And if you can't accept Rand compromising on foreign policy and thus don't support him for that reason, I'm not sure why you'd pick this relatively minor matter to criticize him over when you could be attacking him on foreign policy.

I never said I accepted Rand compromising on foreign policy. I said I just don't share my opinion on Rand that much on this site because most of what I'd say is pretty negative. When I talk in person with people about Rand Paul, I usually talk nothing but good about him while conceding that I'm not in one hundred percent agreement with him, but when I come onto this site I figure I don't need to sing Rand's praises any because most of us on here will vote for him, whether we agree with him entirely or not.

To be fair, I wasn't really criticizing Rand over this anyway, more like just sharing my thoughts on it. And if my statements were taken as criticism, so what? Should I not post in this topic because I haven't bashed Rand enough for bigger issues like his foreign policy? I will criticize anyone for anything I don't like, whether it's as minor as not associating with someone or bombing people in another country. Everything is fair game to me. That doesn't mean my opinion matters that much on the subject, but I'll share it anyway.

[green73]

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/220824-meghan-mccain-father-rand-paul-hate-each-other


Meghan McCain: My dad hates Rand Paul

Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) daughter said on Wednesday that her father and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) "hate each other."

Meghan McCain appeared on Howard Stern’s SiriusXM radio show to promote her “TakePart Live” talk show on Pivot TV. When Stern asked the 29-year-old what her father thinks of the Tea Party favorite, she quickly replied, “They hate each other.”

She repeated the sentiment before wondering aloud if it had previously been publicly disclosed.

“In a fistfight, I’m pretty sure your dad can kick [Paul’s] ass,” Stern quipped to McCain.

“Yeah,” the Vietnam War veteran’s daughter said, “My father’s 76 years old and he can still throw down.” McCain, born in 1936, is actually 78 years old.

McCain and Paul have had a notoriously prickly relationship that has included a number of public spats. The former GOP presidential candidate famously called Paul, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) “wacko birds” in 2013.

When asked last year in an interview if he would vote for Paul or Hillary Clinton if either made a White House run in 2016, McCain responded with a laugh, “It’s gonna be a tough choice.”

But any tensions appeared to have eased, at least temporarily, when McCain said last month that he would indeed support Paul if the Kentucky senator is the Republican nominee. “I’ve seen him grow, and I’ve seen him mature, and I’ve seen him become more centrist,” McCain told The New Yorker.

Paul’s office had no comment on Meghan McCain’s remarks. McCain’s office didn’t immediately respond to ITK’s request for comment.

[jllundqu]

McCain would vote for Clinton every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Clinton and McCain are bed-buddies when it comes to their favorite subject.... killing brown people.

[Christian Liberty]

I never said I accepted Rand compromising on foreign policy. I said I just don't share my opinion on Rand that much on this site because most of what I'd say is pretty negative. When I talk in person with people about Rand Paul, I usually talk nothing but good about him while conceding that I'm not in one hundred percent agreement with him, but when I come onto this site I figure I don't need to sing Rand's praises any because most of us on here will vote for him, whether we agree with him entirely or not.

To be fair, I wasn't really criticizing Rand over this anyway, more like just sharing my thoughts on it. And if my statements were taken as criticism, so what? Should I not post in this topic because I haven't bashed Rand enough for bigger issues like his foreign policy? I will criticize anyone for anything I don't like, whether it's as minor as not associating with someone or bombing people in another country. Everything is fair game to me. That doesn't mean my opinion matters that much on the subject, but I'll share it anyway.

OK, fair enough.

[Spikender]

McCain would vote for Clinton every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Clinton and McCain are bed-buddies when it comes to their favorite subject.... killing brown people.

If it comes down to Rand and Clinton in 2016, McCain's going to have a Grimes situation on his hands where he is too afraid to just admit who he voted for.

We know you're a fucking traitor, McCain, it's okay to tell us.

[alucard13mm]

McCain has no choice but to vote and/or endorse Rand or else McCain will be betraying the party lol.