Michael Scheuer goes after Rand

[Todd]

Sooooo.... your prescription for success is for a candidate to 'play the game' and pander to whatever base(s) he/she needs to win and to even not be entirely truthful at times, just so long as the ends justify the means and they get elected, then hope they do what YOU think the MIGHT do?

No thanks.

I'd rather support someone who speaks truth to power and puts a premium on personal integrity. Did not the Ron Paul campaigns change the freaking world?? Do you remember how fired up the country was when he was out there TELLING IT LIKE IT IS? Rand may fare better in the polls by 'playing their game' but he will never fire up the support his father did because of it. No one will be standing in freezing temps holding "RAND PAUL CURED MY APATHY" signs. No one will be making youtube vids of Rand that inspire millions of activists. No one will be making movies and documentaries about the "Rand Paul r3v0lution"....

Catch my drift?

Don't misunderstand.... if he's the nominee, I will vote for Rand. I'm just making a point.

People tend to forget why so many were energized here in the first place. What Matt misses is that Ron didn't get elected not because he was too principled. It was because the 2012 game was rigged and the Establishment knew how much of a threat he was at making an impact and blacked Ron out and played shenanigans in NH and Iowa. Mistaking Ron's principled stances for weakness is a complete mistake.

[Feeding the Abscess]

What you see is what you are going to get, unless the Presidency corrupts him (which I think is a realistic possibility, considering how badly he seems to want it.) Look, I don't doubt that Rand may personally believe that Ron is right on the issues, but it doesn't actually matter. As President, he isn't actually going to bring all the troops home and end all foreign interventions.

Actually, when it comes to the presidency, the action never matches the rhetoric. It always falls well short of the candidate's stated aims. Rhetoric also gets much worse after getting into the office. A Ron Paul presidency probably wouldn't even achieve what Rand's rhetoric is; it would only be fruitful for vetoes and the chance to preach Austrian econ and libertarian ethics from the white house.

[dannno]

People tend to forget why so many were energized here in the first place. What Matt misses is that Ron didn't get elected not because he was too principled. It was because the 2012 game was rigged and the Establishment knew how much of a threat he was at making an impact and blacked Ron out and played shenanigans in NH and Iowa. Mistaking Ron's principled stances for weakness is a complete mistake.

Eh?

Ron Paul got blacked out because of his principled stances.. That was his weakness..

Truth is treason in the empire of lies.

[TomtheTinker]

Are you saying he is wrong? I understand what Rand is doing as does Scheurer. The fact is that Rand is selling out to his actual beliefs for political gain.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yeah. What I find interesting is that the the actual words and phrases that have inflamed many people were spoken by the interviewer in the questions, and not by Rand. Rand's answers were much more "moderate", and tended to change the subject away from the actual meaning of the questions.

We must have watched different interviews.

[TomtheTinker]

Is Rand going up against his original intentions when he first got into the senate? Is he leaving no room for true believers as he himself explains Henry Clay did. Listen to his maiden speech above..I am a supporter of Rand and appreciate much of what he does but sometimes toeing the line is very uninspiring.

Edit:great speech btw

[mad cow]

No one will be standing in freezing temps holding "RAND PAUL CURED MY APATHY" signs.

So Ron Paul cured y'alls apathy?I think Ron Paul might have disguised your apathy temporarily.

There was a money bomb here for Tom McMillin yesterday,by any measure an excellent Liberty candidate.
It raised a grand total of $45 from two donations and got 13 posts.
Pretty pathetic IMHO.

[devil21]

So Ron Paul cured y'alls apathy?I think Ron Paul might have disguised your apathy temporarily.

There was a money bomb here for Tom McMillin yesterday,by any measure an excellent Liberty candidate.
It raised a grand total of $45 from two donations and got 13 posts.
Pretty pathetic IMHO.

Don't blame the 'consumer' for the company's 'bad marketing', if you catch my drift. Plus, there's so many good candidates now compared to 2008 that it's becoming very expensive trying to support every one running for office. Most candidates will just have to learn to fundraise without money bombs from RPF.

[jllundqu]

So Ron Paul cured y'alls apathy?I think Ron Paul might have disguised your apathy temporarily.

There was a money bomb here for Tom McMillin yesterday,by any measure an excellent Liberty candidate.
It raised a grand total of $45 from two donations and got 13 posts.
Pretty pathetic IMHO.

Who cares?

jk.... see what I did there?

[dannno]

The only reason I voted for Ron Paul is PRECISELY because he didn't play the game, and he changed the nation because of it. Rand is obviously different, but I don't expect Rand to get nearly the support from the Liberty movement as Ron for exactly this reason. We don't want a politician, we want a statesman and someone who will tell the truth AT ALL COSTS.

And I want more voters like you. Until then, Rand may be onto something.

[dannno]

The fact is that Rand is selling out to his actual beliefs for political gain.

A more important question is why does Rand want political gain? There is more than one possible answer, some are good, some are bad. I tend to think his reason(s) is/are "good".

[jllundqu]

It all boils down to:

With Ron Paul, I knew EXACTLY where he stood and what he believed and he backed it up with logical, principled arguments.
With Rand, he's all over the map on many issues trying to hold together some coalition that he hopes can win him the presidency andit makes me question his truthiness

//

Edit: Truthiness is a real word thanks to Stephen Colbert... look it up

[jllundqu]

Merriam-Webster's #1 Word of the Year for 2006:

1. truthiness (noun)

1 : "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005)

lol

[dannno]

I think trolliness is a better word than truthiness in this case. I think a lot of times Rand Paul is trolling, a lot of adults over 30 or so don't really understand that concept very well.

[Christian Liberty]

Actually, when it comes to the presidency, the action never matches the rhetoric. It always falls well short of the candidate's stated aims. Rhetoric also gets much worse after getting into the office. A Ron Paul presidency probably wouldn't even achieve what Rand's rhetoric is; it would only be fruitful for vetoes and the chance to preach Austrian econ and libertarian ethics from the white house.

Yeah, this is only enhancing my skepticism of Rand.

I think Ron himself would have stayed the same had he got elected: no he obviously wouldn't have accomplished everything he wanted to, but his rhetoric would have almost certainly stayed the same.

Rand I am much less certain of.

[T.hill]

Are you saying he is wrong? I understand what Rand is doing as does Scheurer. The fact is that Rand is selling out to his actual beliefs for political gain.

I already addressed this criticism earlier in the thread.

[dillo]

Scheuer is right as far as I am concerned, the only question is whether Rand is just "playing the game" or actually holds these views.

[Natural Citizen]

We don't want a politician, we want a statesman and someone who will tell the truth AT ALL COSTS.

There you go. That's the ticket right there.

[LibertyEsq]

I don't understand how people can be so unreasonable about Rand. Just think about the "bully pulpit" he will wield if he wins...he can literally talk about anything he wants, and once elected, will no longer be reliant on the media for at-least-neutral coverage. Yes, Ron was good at changing hearts and minds. But guess who's better at changing the hearts and minds of at least 75% of the voters in America? The media. At some point we need to wield real political power so we can start setting policy back on the right path.

Obviously its partially about Rand's personal ambitions too. Quite frankly, I don't care much about his ambitions if they coincide with advancing the liberty movement.

[TheTexan]

I don't understand how people can be so unreasonable about Rand. Just think about the "bully pulpit" he will wield if he wins...he can literally talk about anything he wants, and once elected, will no longer be reliant on the media for at-least-neutral coverage. Yes, Ron was good at changing hearts and minds. But guess who's better at changing the hearts and minds of at least 75% of the voters in America? The media. At some point we need to wield real political power so we can start setting policy back on the right path.

Obviously its partially about Rand's personal ambitions too. Quite frankly, I don't care much about his ambitions if they coincide with advancing the liberty movement.

If rand talks freely as President the media wont report what hes saying. Theyll report 2 things, that he lied about his positions during campaign, and that hes a nutcase. Wait, 3 things... third being impeachment

[jjdoyle]

Eh?

Ron Paul got blacked out because of his principled stances.. That was his weakness..

Truth is treason in the empire of lies.

When you say "blacked out", don't forget the campaign/Ron were turning down interview requests to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and others.
Yes, the media is to blame for much, but when you have a campaign ignoring interview requests on some of the biggest shows, it becomes a two way street.
Should we use/show how the media was corrupt in some of their coverage? Absolutey.
Should we forget/excuse a campaign turning down interview requests? Absolutely not.

At this point, it seems Rand is only wanting to entertain the Israeli firsters crowd (removing a booklist because somebody was upset?), which won't vote for Rand in the primaries if a Huckabee type candidate runs anyway. So, by pandering to that crowd now, with poorly worded and unprepared interviews, without a clear path to the nomination anyway, what good is it doing? Splitting/fracturing the base that his father gave him?

Again, there needs to be a clear path to the nomination, and instead of using the path his father started for him, he has now apparently left it and found the neocons' bread trail crumbs on the other path?

[anaconda]

Scheuer is playing bad israeli cop. Rand is playing good israeli cop.

This may be a real possibility. I'm sure Scheuer has seen much in the ways of disinformation in his life and career.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't understand how people can be so unreasonable about Rand. Just think about the "bully pulpit" he will wield if he wins...he can literally talk about anything he wants, and once elected, will no longer be reliant on the media for at-least-neutral coverage. Yes, Ron was good at changing hearts and minds. But guess who's better at changing the hearts and minds of at least 75% of the voters in America? The media. At some point we need to wield real political power so we can start setting policy back on the right path.

Obviously its partially about Rand's personal ambitions too. Quite frankly, I don't care much about his ambitions if they coincide with advancing the liberty movement.

I actually think this thread is very reasonable, on all sides.

[Todd]

When you say "blacked out", don't forget the campaign/Ron were turning down interview requests to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and others.
Yes, the media is to blame for much, but when you have a campaign ignoring interview requests on some of the biggest shows, it becomes a two way street.
Should we use/show how the media was corrupt in some of their coverage? Absolutey.
Should we forget/excuse a campaign turning down interview requests? Absolutely not.

At this point, it seems Rand is only wanting to entertain the Israeli firsters crowd (removing a booklist because somebody was upset?), which won't vote for Rand in the primaries if a Huckabee type candidate runs anyway. So, by pandering to that crowd now, with poorly worded and unprepared interviews, without a clear path to the nomination anyway, what good is it doing? Splitting/fracturing the base that his father gave him?

Again, there needs to be a clear path to the nomination, and instead of using the path his father started for him, he has now apparently left it and found the neocons' bread trail crumbs on the other path?

I wouldn't go that far. I doubt he will carry the Neocons water on any issue. As many have said here, it's most likely rhetoric. But that is the difference between him and his father. He will play the game and his dad didn't.

[jjdoyle]

I wouldn't go that far. I doubt he will carry the Neocons water on any issue. As many have said here, it's most likely rhetoric. But that is the difference between him and his father. He will play the game and his dad didn't.

Except, he's playing the game for voters that won't vote for him in a primary, if a Huckabee candidate is running. As he is now simply "one of them", with little/no difference on this issue as most will see it.
It might be rhetoric, but instead of using excellent constitutional rhetoric, we're now talking about aid to Ukraine? The Iron Dome is a good joint effort with Israel (almost HALF A BILLION in funds for that project alone)?

I understand going after voters you don't have, but unless you're talking to them in terms they know/understand, it's probably not going to do you much good.
I think Rand could/should be going after those voters, not only in terms they would understand, but in a way that would remain 100% true to Ron's foreign policy and that of the Constitution, and set him apart from the other candidates on it.

I mean, didn't Rand get up in the Senate, and use the murders of the three Israeli teens as one reason (among others) to defund Hamas, but now we know Hamas didn't order it? And it was used as a big propaganda spin by the Israeli government? By playing into that "idea" of Israel is our ally, let's not question them and only give them money, it sets up for mistakes like what happened in his proposal for the bill.
It also is apparently giving Israel a pass on spying, and maybe even knowing about 9/11 beforehand, but not warning us.

It's no surprise to see someone like Michael Scheuer, to be a little irate over pandering on this issue and not addressing the issue of our foreign policy. And on removing a reading list, because somebody was offended by a book on it?

[Anti-Neocon]

Michael Scheuer is a great man. Let's not eat our own. Maybe Scheuer doesn't believe it's worth a Rand presidency would bring anything good unless we hold his feet to the fire. I trust him more than Rand.

[P3ter_Griffin]

I'm surprised the 3d chess players haven't deciphered this move yet. In order for Rand to distance himself from the non-interventionist he needs them to attack his foreign policy. My guess is that Rand asked Scheuer to write this piece so when the inevitable "you recommended a book by an author who is critical of Israel and blames US policy for blowback" he can say-- look, he attacked my foreign policy, we don't agree. If Ron comes out saying he disagrees with Rand's FP we will know for sure Ron agrees with Rand's FP. You know, obfuscation and all that jazz.

[Matt Collins]

A more important question is why does Rand want political gain?

Because you can't accomplish anything without political power.

[Matt Collins]

I think Ron himself would have stayed the same had he got elected: no he obviously wouldn't have accomplished everything he wanted to, but his rhetoric would have almost certainly stayed the same.

Rand I am much less certain of.

It was impossible for Ron to have gotten elected because he would not say and do the things it takes to get elected.

[Matt Collins]

Scheuer is right as far as I am concerned, the only question is whether Rand is just "playing the game" or actually holds these views.

Well, you know who is father is, and you know what his moves in the Senate have been... so try thinking for yourself on this one...