Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: The most important word in Rand Paul’s attack on Hillary Clinton

  1. #1

    The most important word in Rand Paul’s attack on Hillary Clinton

    The most important word in Rand Paul’s attack on Hillary Clinton

    By Aaron Blake
    August 28 at 11:42 AM

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is really good at making news, and he did it again Wednesday night with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that, in part, attacked Hillary Clinton for being too hawkish on Syria.

    ...

    A few things here:

    1) The use of the i-word -- "interventionist" -- is what struck us most. This is a pretty clear indication that Paul intends to run in 2016, especially in a potential matchup with Clinton, on a more actively dovish foreign policy platform. It's also a pretty clear effort to differentiate her approach from his, which is often labeled "non-interventionist."

    "Interventionist" is also used in the title of the column, and it doesn't strike us as having particularly positive connotations. Indeed, we're not aware of too many foreign policy hawks who use that word to describe themselves.

    This might seem much ado about nothing, given that Paul is known to be less hawkish. He has also been critical of Rick Perry and Chris Christie on that count. But Paul has also long toed the line between the kind of non-interventionism championed by his father, Ron Paul, and a more middle-ground approach to foreign policy. And straying too far down the non-interventionist road risks folks invoking another i-word: "isolationism." It's a constant balancing act for Paul.

    ...
    read more:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rd-stands-out/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is really good at making news
    This is right. The dudes hogging more news cycles than the President and is rapidly becoming the de facto spokesman for the GOP.

    The use of the i-word -- "interventionist" -- is what struck us most.
    We perhaps need to look at describing the Neo-cons as Tepid interventionists or similar.

    Clumsy, half-hearted... somethine like that.

    We need to be for interventions, when they are mandate by Congress and there are no rules of engagement beyond crush the enemy till the is nothing left; Otherwise stay out of it.

    The US needs to carry a big stick, a turn your cities to rubble if you threaten us stick. Then America won't have to use it.
    Last edited by idiom; 08-28-2014 at 06:01 PM.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't a thing
    Prostitution is legal
    We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    The US needs to carry a big stick, a turn your cities to rubble if you threaten us stick. Then America won't have to use it.
    More than once, anyway.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    More than once, anyway.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't a thing
    Prostitution is legal
    We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    This is right. The dudes hogging more news cycles than the President and is rapidly becoming the de facto spokesman for the GOP.



    We perhaps need to look at describing the Neo-cons as Tepid interventionists or similar.

    Clumsy, half-hearted... somethine like that.

    We need to be for interventions, when they are mandate by Congress and there are no rules of engagement beyond crush the enemy till the is nothing left; Otherwise stay out of it.

    The US needs to carry a big stick, a turn your cities to rubble if you threaten us stick. Then America won't have to use it.

    To describe neo-con style of interventionism, I wouldn't really say tepid or half-hearted. I would use words like "reckless", "irresponsible", "impulsive", "hasty", "short-sighted", "expensive", and definitely "unconstitutional"
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    This is right. The dudes hogging more news cycles than the President and is rapidly becoming the de facto spokesman for the GOP.
    It will be this that I hope will make it easier for the Team Redders to accept him into being the nominee. Anyone else should start to be easy to paint as a different type of Republican, one that wouldn't work out for most GOPers. It'll be Rand that is the Republican that represents the minds of the American people at the time and give him an advantage to anybody the Democrats put up with him being the only anti-war candidate in the discussion so far. The real question for Rand today will be, with all this cross-over appeal he has in General election scenario, will conservatives sign on to this or stomp for whoever is seen to be next in line by the Establishment...polls seem to say Rand has a STRONG but still fighting chance. I AM SO READY 4 THIS.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    This is right. The dudes hogging more news cycles than the President and is rapidly becoming the de facto spokesman for the GOP.

    We perhaps need to look at describing the Neo-cons as Tepid interventionists or similar.

    Clumsy, half-hearted... somethine like that.

    We need to be for interventions, when they are mandate by Congress and there are no rules of engagement beyond crush the enemy till the is nothing left; Otherwise stay out of it.

    The US needs to carry a big stick, a turn your cities to rubble if you threaten us stick. Then America won't have to use it.
    THIS.

    And I think that's exactly how Rand Is going to frame it. (Which is the same way Ron did in that uber BOSS interview he did just before Iowa in which he said something to the effect of "If we do it, we get a declaration of war, fight it, win it and come home" - I believe this is the interview: http://youtu.be/WgfznrBd5N8

    Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) describes the Tea Party foreign policy as "Jacksonian" in a blog post quoted below - I think Rand would agree with most of his framing no? (Of course each situation is different, but for the purposes of positioning, this would play incredibly well with every segment of the population save neocon & Establishment interventionists like HRC).

    DAVID ADESNIK: The Tea Party’s Surprisingly Hawkish Foreign Policy.

    *Glenn Reynolds' response to Adesnik:

    Two things: First, it’s not so much “hawkish” as Jacksonian, in Walter Russell Mead’s formulation. As Mead put it: “For the first Jacksonian rule of war is that wars must be fought with all available force. The use of limited force is deeply repugnant. Jacksonians see war as a switch that is either “on” or “off.” They do not like the idea of violence on a dimmer switch. Either the stakes are important enough to fight for—in which case you should fight with everything you have—or they are not, in which case you should mind your own business and stay home. . . .

    The second key concept in Jacksonian thought about war is that the strategic and tactical objective of American forces is to impose our will on the enemy with as few American casualties as possible. The Jacksonian code of military honor does not turn war into sport. It is a deadly and earnest business.

    Second, the Tea Party is about restricting the federal government to its constitutionally-defined roles. Defense of the nation is a constitutionally defined role.
    That's about as close to Ron Paul's FP as one could get without quoting him directly.
    Last edited by WD-NY; 08-28-2014 at 07:59 PM.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    To describe neo-con style of interventionism, I wouldn't really say tepid or half-hearted. I would use words like "reckless", "irresponsible", "impulsive", "hasty", "short-sighted", "expensive", and definitely "unconstitutional"
    That is how they decide to intervene, yes, but once they do its with rules of engagement like, 'shoot only if shot at, only if can identify the target, and only if its Tuesday'.

    War should be prosecuted in such a way as to make everyone want to avoid it.

    In a Congressional debate, one of the questions should be:

    "How many more B-52's will we need to buy in order to defeat ISIS? How many months of round the clock carpet bombing will it take?

    How many million civilians are likely to be killed accidentally?

    What will the two decades of reconstruction cost?

    Should we be going to war with Jihadi's in Libya and other countries at the same time?"
    Last edited by idiom; 08-28-2014 at 08:01 PM.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't a thing
    Prostitution is legal
    We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    To describe neo-con style of interventionism, I wouldn't really say tepid or half-hearted. I would use words like "reckless", "irresponsible", "impulsive", "hasty", "short-sighted", "expensive", and definitely "unconstitutional"
    ^^^This.^^^

    +rep
    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."

  12. #10
    1) The use of the i-word -- "interventionist" -- is what struck us most. This is a pretty clear indication that Paul intends to run in 2016, especially in a potential matchup with Clinton, on a more actively dovish foreign policy platform. It's also a pretty clear effort to differentiate her approach from his, which is often labeled "non-interventionist."

    "Interventionist" is also used in the title of the column, and it doesn't strike us as having particularly positive connotations. Indeed, we're not aware of too many foreign policy hawks who use that word to describe themselves.
    LOL. The douche-bag neoconservatives at the Washington Compost have a well refined sense of irony. Or maybe not. Maybe they are just writing blatant propaganda hoping that no one notices their obvious bias and contradictions.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by jct74 View Post
    But we should all keep in mind that these words really have one thing in common - they start with the letter "i"

    "isolationism" is a term referring to trade . . . pundit talking heads have misused it up the yin-yang

    Ron Paul was never an isolationist - it was a misnomer propagated by the MIC very effectively - they won the war of words (so far).

    RP recognizes clearly and has said as much along the philosophy of
    French economist/philosopher of the 19th century Frederic Bastiat . . .
    "If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

    RP promotes trade instead of weapons trade though.




    .

  14. #12
    "straying too far down the non-interventionist road risks folks invoking another i-word: "isolationism.""

    As if that could be avoided by taking any policy short of policing the world, and as if it hasn't already been invoked against Rand ad nauseam.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    That is how they decide to intervene, yes, but once they do its with rules of engagement like, 'shoot only if shot at, only if can identify the target, and only if its Tuesday'.

    War should be prosecuted in such a way as to make everyone want to avoid it.

    In a Congressional debate, one of the questions should be:

    "How many more B-52's will we need to buy in order to defeat ISIS? How many months of round the clock carpet bombing will it take?

    How many million civilians are likely to be killed accidentally?

    What will the two decades of reconstruction cost?

    Should we be going to war with Jihadi's in Libya and other countries at the same time?"
    Agreed.

  16. #14
    He should just call her a warmonger



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-29-2015, 05:48 PM
  2. Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Seem to Notice Making Major Word Mix-Up During Speech
    By timosman in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-05-2015, 04:21 PM
  3. Rand Paul: Hillary Clinton 'Clearly Broke the Law'
    By Virgil in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-17-2015, 01:11 PM
  4. Why Rand Paul Is Attacking Hillary Clinton
    By jct74 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-09-2014, 04:09 PM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-14-2010, 10:56 PM

Posting Permissions

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