Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Cato: Republicans Should Offer Rand Paul as a Real Alternative to Hillary Clinton

  1. #1

    Cato: Republicans Should Offer Rand Paul as a Real Alternative to Hillary Clinton

    With Democrat Hillary Clinton Likely 2016 Neoconservative Standard Bearer, Republicans Should Offer a Real Alternative — Such as Rand Paul

    By Doug Bandow
    This article appeared in Forbes on August 18, 2014.

    U.S. foreign policy is a bipartisan fiasco. George W. Bush and his neoconservative allies gave the American people Iraq, the gift that keeps on giving. Barack Obama has proved to be a slightly more reluctant warrior, but he is taking the country back into Iraq.

    Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, appears never to have met a war that he didn’t want Americans to fight. Hillary Clinton, the unannounced Democratic front-runner for 2016, supported her husband’s misbegotten attempt at nation-building in Kosovo and led the drive for war in Libya, which is violently unraveling.

    Most of Clinton’s potential GOP opponents share Washington’s bomb, invade, and occupy consensus. The only exception is Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. He stands alone advocating a foreign policy which reflects the bitter, bloody lessons of recent years.

    The Islamic State of Syria and the Levant is the latest result of Washington’s incessant and counterproductive meddling in the Middle East. Nowhere has U.S. policy been more disastrous. Indeed, what intervention, under Republican or Democratic administration, has worked well in that region in the last three or so decades?
    Read more:

    http://www.cato.org/publications/com...tandard-bearer


    ON EDIT (8/21/14):

    Apparently the article posted at Cato at above link has been modified for reasons unknown, either for brevity now that it's a few days old, or more nefariously because some beltway libertarians at Cato were displeased by it . See posts #15,16,17 below.

    hat tips to rprprs for identifying that Cato made that change, and to YesI'mALiberal for posting the link to the ORIGINAL article cited by Cato which was written by Bandow and posted at Forbes. The full article in all its glory is still posted at Forbes:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougband...-as-rand-paul/

    So go to Forbes link to see what Bandow actually said in full. Detailed, thoughtful, unsparing of criticism of TPTB of both partys, very pro-Rand. Well worth the time to read.
    Last edited by francisco; 08-21-2014 at 02:33 PM.
    Brawndo's got what plants crave. Its got electrolytes.



    H. L. Mencken said it best:


    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”


    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I agree.
    Seattle Sounders 2016 MLS Cup Champions 2019 MLS Cup Champions 2022 CONCACAF Champions League - and the [un]official football club of RPF

    just a libertarian - no caucus

  4. #3
    Cato is on board which means we all should be.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    Cato is on board which means we all should be.
    But note that changes the music. Cato has stood for top-down, beltway-based libertarianism, not the grassroots-based liberty movement rooted in upheaving the beltway. Have they jumped on our bus, or we on theirs?
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    But note that changes the music. Cato has stood for top-down, beltway-based libertarianism, not the grassroots-based liberty movement rooted in upheaving the beltway. Have they jumped on our bus, or we on theirs?
    I prefer to think of it as two buses going to the same destination.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  7. #6
    How rock-solid/objectively-accurate is the article's summation of the past 30+ years of US-MiddleEast policy?? I've never seen it all stitched together quite so concisely as this -

    Support for the brutal Shah helped trigger Islamist rule in Iran. That led Washington to support Iraq in its invasion of Iran. That encouraged Baghdad to invade Kuwait, causing the U.S. to attack Iraq. That was followed by decades of sanctions and bombing after the war nominally ended.

    Against Baghdad the U.S. also stationed troops in Saudi Arabia. That helped spur al-Qaeda. Which launched the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That caused Washington to spend some 13 years nation-building in Central Asia and served as the excuse to invade Iraq. The latter led to bloody sectarian conflict, empowered Iran, created a jihadist training ground, and spawned the precursor to ISIL. Which now threatens to destabilize much of the Middle East.


    Along the way Washington backed rebels in Syria, promoting the rise of the very same ISIL. The U.S. blew up Libya, leaving another national wreck, fueling Islamic extremism, and dispersing weapons region-wide. Decades of support for dictatorship in Egypt ended with short-lived Islamic rule and now even more brutal dictatorship. American presidents routinely embraced the Saudi royals even as Riyadh promoted radical Islamic theology around the globe and repression in next-door Bahrain. Washington demanded the Palestinian elections which brought Hamas to power in Gaza. America was identified with the most controversial Israeli government policies.

    What more could possibly have gone wrong?
    Can the above paragraphs be presented any more clearly, concisely and/or correctly??

    e.g.
    Directly:

    1. Support for the brutal Shah helped trigger Islamist rule in Iran.
    2. That led Washington to support Iraq in its invasion of Iran.
    3. That encouraged Baghdad to invade Kuwait, causing the U.S. to attack Iraq.
    4. That was followed by decades of sanctions and bombing after the war nominally ended.
    5. Against Baghdad the U.S. also stationed troops in Saudi Arabia.
    6. That helped spur al-Qaeda. Which launched the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
    7. That caused Washington to spend some 13 years nation-building in Central Asia and served as the excuse to invade Iraq.
    8. Which led to bloody sectarian conflict, empowered Iran, created a jihadist training ground, and spawned the precursor to ISIL. Which now threatens to destabilize much of the Middle East.

    More recently:

    1. ...Washington backed rebels in Syria, promoting the rise of the very same ISIL.
    2. The U.S. blew up Libya, leaving another national wreck, fueling Islamic extremism, and dispersing weapons region-wide.

    And over the long-term:

    1. Decades of support for dictatorship in Egypt ended with short-lived Islamic rule and now even more brutal dictatorship.
    2. American presidents routinely embraced the Saudi royals even as Riyadh promoted radical Islamic theology around the globe and repression in next-door Bahrain.
    3. Washington demanded the Palestinian elections which brought Hamas to power in Gaza.
    4. America was identified with the most controversial Israeli government policies.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    But note that changes the music. Cato has stood for top-down, beltway-based libertarianism, not the grassroots-based liberty movement rooted in upheaving the beltway. Have they jumped on our bus, or we on theirs?
    Considering neither has accomplished anything, I could care less what they stood for. Considering beltway libertarianism is 100% better than our current state, I could care less.

  9. #8
    Republicans (by which I mean the insiders) don't WANT an alternative. They LIKE the status quo and would rather lose to a neocon democrat than win with Rand.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    Cato is on board which means we all should be.
    This Cato?:

    A recent short piece in The Nation, “Ron Paul’s Roots,” by Christopher Hayes, has this eye-popping denunciation of Rep. Paul by the unbearably pompous Brink Lindsey, a Cato Institute “scholar” and recently appointed vice president for research,

    http://antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/07/c...ind-of-person/
    $#@! them.

    Please come up with better reasons to kiss butt in the butt-kissing forum.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by The Free Hornet View Post
    This Cato?:



    $#@! them.

    Please come up with better reasons to kiss butt in the butt-kissing forum.
    You do realize there is more than one person at cato hat is a scholar right?

  13. #11
    Is it just me or could 2016 be a reverse of 08 where the GOP has the candidate who transcends and the DNC has the old, washed up establishment next in line pick?

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by philipped View Post
    Is it just me or could 2016 be a reverse of 08 where the GOP has the candidate who transcends and the DNC has the old, washed up establishment next in line pick?
    No, it's not just you who thinks that.

    (Although in actuality, Obombya was every bit as much an "old, washed up establishment" hack as McCain. He just represented the final culmination of the so-called "progressive" movement's nanny state ideology. The fresh, new face of fascism. The progressives of one stripe or another ARE the establishment, having first coming to power in the early 1900's. Obombya is just the "D" side of the coin).
    Last edited by francisco; 08-20-2014 at 02:26 PM.
    Brawndo's got what plants crave. Its got electrolytes.



    H. L. Mencken said it best:


    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”


    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    You do realize there is more than one person at cato hat is a scholar right?
    Are you asking me or yourself?:

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    Cato is on board which means we all should be.
    You state "Cato is on board" making a statement suggestive of the whole. I point out the exception, the dead rat parts and fecal matter in the apple pie. Then you come back with this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    You do realize there is more than one person at cato hat is a scholar right?
    Come on, man! That "Cato is on board" is not a good reason (IMO) and never will be. Hiring more people with ever greater diversity (or diversion from a liberty philsophy) doesn't negate that point but reinforces it. No doubt many here have felt the frustration of Romneycare apologists bringing up old Heritage Foundation material as if the entire liberty wing were pro Romneycare... Come on, man!

    My point remains. Simply, I don't care for Cato, their judgement, their product, et cetera, or their endorsement (or whatever this is) - which I doubt is permanent or reflective of the whole. Still, $#@! 'em.

  16. #14
    Here's a concept to defuse un-necessary conflict:

    Evaluate the contents of the article by the words and ideas presented, without regard to who wrote it, or who they are affiliated with. A sensible approach?

    FWIW, since I'm the original poster, I identified Cato as the source of the article to give credit where due, not as "an appeal to authority" to lend weight to the argument. I wouldn't like it if I published an article and someone re-posted it without giving attribution.
    Brawndo's got what plants crave. Its got electrolytes.



    H. L. Mencken said it best:


    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”


    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

  17. #15
    Hmm. I just went to revisit this article today and discovered that the link in the OP will no longer get you there directly.
    As of now, THIS will.
    I also noticed there's been a title change, with Rand's name dropped.

    Edit: I see there's also been major revisions and omissions in the body of the article as it now appears, including a complete sanitation of the specifics and particulars of past U.S. interventions.

    Nor will you see this truism any longer:
    Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, appears never to have met a war that he didn’t want Americans to fight.
    Looks like somebody REALLY wasn't happy with the original piece.
    Last edited by rprprs; 08-21-2014 at 12:15 PM.
    There is only one success -- to be able to spend your life in your own way.
    -- Christopher Morley (1890 - 1957)

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by rprprs View Post
    Hmm. I just went to revisit this article today and discovered that the link in the OP will no longer get you there directly.
    As of now, THIS will.
    I also noticed there's been a title change, with Rand's name dropped.

    Edit: I see there's also been major revisions and omissions in the body of the article as it now appears, including a complete sanitation of the specifics and particulars of past U.S. interventions.

    Nor will you see this truism any longer:
    Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, appears never to have met a war that he didn’t want Americans to fight.

    Looks like somebody REALLY wasn't happy with the original piece.

    The ORIGINAL original is still intact where it's always been at Forbes - http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougband...-as-rand-paul/



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by YesI'mALiberal View Post
    The ORIGINAL original is still intact where it's always been at Forbes - http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougband...-as-rand-paul/
    Thanks. Should have thought of looking there myself. Still tells you something about CATO though. I have a feeling it wasn't revised on their site simply for brevity.
    There is only one success -- to be able to spend your life in your own way.
    -- Christopher Morley (1890 - 1957)

  21. #18
    Thanks rprprs and YesI'mALiberal for id'ing the issue and posting the Forbes link. Edit now shown on op.
    Brawndo's got what plants crave. Its got electrolytes.



    H. L. Mencken said it best:


    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”


    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

  22. #19
    Pro-War Hillary VS Rand Paul - Sure Hillary being on the far right side of Rand and demanding war all the time will produce for her some major grief at the polls. Many joined the Democratic Party to stop the wars. Plus, Hillary is a terrible campaigner and Rand is great. Nobody is going to vote for Hillary, probably even Bill Clinton will vote for Rand. Hillary has got herself between the dog and the fire hydrant. Poor thing.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by The Free Hornet View Post
    Are you asking me or yourself?:



    You state "Cato is on board" making a statement suggestive of the whole. I point out the exception, the dead rat parts and fecal matter in the apple pie. Then you come back with this:



    Come on, man! That "Cato is on board" is not a good reason (IMO) and never will be. Hiring more people with ever greater diversity (or diversion from a liberty philsophy) doesn't negate that point but reinforces it. No doubt many here have felt the frustration of Romneycare apologists bringing up old Heritage Foundation material as if the entire liberty wing were pro Romneycare... Come on, man!

    My point remains. Simply, I don't care for Cato, their judgement, their product, et cetera, or their endorsement (or whatever this is) - which I doubt is permanent or reflective of the whole. Still, $#@! 'em.
    Today is my 1st day here but I think Vanguard101 is correct. The CATO getting this beautiful piece supporting Rand Paul for President in FORBES would have cost a ton of cash but now it's FREE. That is good for all of us Rand Paul Republicans. Dr. Jose Pinera of the CATO suggests that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme and should be reformed with tax-free Personal Savings Accounts (PSA). You know, tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals. Total tax FREEDOM!

    Watch this short video of Rand from along time ago talking about the Ponzi Scheme and the "Chilean Model" and CATO's Jose Pinera:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/rand-paul-in-the-90s-medicare-is-socialism-and-social-security-is-a-ponzi-scheme-video#sthash.gH6C41XK.dpuf

    OK Free Hornet, be honest with me. If you can't trust Rand Paul who can you trust?

    Oh, and by the way. The Urban Inst. and Blue Cross Foundation wrote RomneyCare in 2004 and slapped it in front of Mitt Romney and told him to do it.

    So it's OK to use that four letter word here? What about a 14-year-old that will come to this place? Won't they see what you write?

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by R.G View Post
    OK Free Hornet, be honest with me. If you can't trust Rand Paul who can you trust?
    I didn't make a statement to the contrary (the "can't trust" part) so I will mostly disregard your question. I'm not so much anti-Rand as I am anti-Cato and anti-fallacious reasoning.

    That said, I'm waiting to see who Rand endorses heading into the 2016 primaries.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by R.G View Post
    So it's OK to use that four letter word here? What about a 14-year-old that will come to this place? Won't they see what you write?
    If they don't learn about Cato here, then they'll have to learn about it on the streets.

  26. #23
    The Free Hornet said, "My point remains. Simply, I don't care for Cato, their judgement, their product, et cetera, or their endorsement (or whatever this is) - which I doubt is permanent or reflective of the whole. Still, [$#@!] 'em.

    I'm going to fast for you aren't I Free Hornet - why should a 14-year-old have to be subjected to your foul mouth? Dr. Ron Paul doesn't talk that way. I will admit that Micheal Cannon, Director of Health Policy at the CATO, could be more clear. But so could everybody.
    Last edited by R.G; 08-21-2014 at 07:49 PM.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    But note that changes the music. Cato has stood for top-down, beltway-based libertarianism, not the grassroots-based liberty movement rooted in upheaving the beltway. Have they jumped on our bus, or we on theirs?
    At this point I'm pretty much supporting Rand regardless of what he says. Its not hardline or unconditional support, and I'll still criticize the crap out of him when needed, but I've seen enough evidence that he's more libertarian than he's letting on. Nowhere near conclusive, but enough for me to roll the dice, at least considering the crappy alternatives. The only realistic (not-awful and yet at least possible) alternative would be Ben Carson, and I don't think he's as good as Rand either. Mind you, if someone even more libertarian, like Amash, [Judge] Napolitano, or someone like that were to run, I'd support them over Rand. But I'm definitely going to support Rand over any democrat challenger, and I will be rooting for him in the primaries if the only alternatives are Ted Cruz and worse (I'm not actually joining the GOP, just like I'd never make an alliance with Satan*.) I think some of the beltwayarians still support SOME libertarian ideas, and this is probably a product of that. It doesn't mean that Rand is the next GWB, nor does it mean these people are voluntarists or even minarchists. That's probably all this is, these people are some mix between voluntarism and the GOP establishment, and so is Rand Paul. *If I were to actually run for office myself, I would probably join the GOP. But not just to vote...



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-29-2015, 05:48 PM
  2. Hillary Clinton slams Republicans on 'multiculturalism'
    By nikcers in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-23-2015, 09:32 PM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-04-2014, 10:59 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2007, 02:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •