The Genius of Rand

[carlton]

Saw the thread on Rands latest oped, a lot of negative comments but for the most part it seems everyone sees the strategy in play. In this last year foreign policy has become front and center and the populace is, for the time being, more supportive of intervention.

What Rand has said in the oped is a play to both his libertarian/constitutionalist base as well as to the growing swell demanding action. Rand throws his support for some sort of military action against ISIS but only hypothetically, so long as congress approves of such action, as is constitutional. With this move he thwarts those neocon town criers who would label him an isolationalist, while limiting the power of making war for those who hold power.

Now, I don't think we should get militarily involved in this conflict, however its not Rands position of being for or against it which is important in this oped (i think he's just throwing a political bone to the dogs). What is important is the constitutional process he is advocating. This is the genius of his move, to appear to support a popular move toward action while concurrently thwarting unconstitutional executive power for making war... It's like having your cake, and eating it too.

By the way, I went on the daily Paul and was surprised to find the majority of posters there completely understood this play.

[puppetmaster]

Follow the constitution. ..wow a novel concept

[carlton]

You wouldn't think so, but with our government...

[cindy25]

it could be a brilliant ploy, forcing his opponents farther and farther to the right. but there is a risk. by 2016 the war will be unpopular. all wars, except WWII, were unpopular within 18 months. and for Rand to oppose it early could be harder if he is too hawkish.

the key will come when Rand votes yes or no for boots on the ground, and that vote will come this month.

[twomp]

I think Rand Paul saw how well Ted Cruz was polling so he decided to be more like him.

[cajuncocoa]

I think Rand Paul saw how well Ted Cruz was polling so he decided to be more like him.

We all saw how well it worked when Coke decided to be more like Pepsi. Why not?

[KingNothing]

the key will come when Rand votes yes or no for boots on the ground, and that vote will come this month.

I'll be surprised if there is ever actually a vote.

[KingNothing]

I think Rand Paul saw how well Ted Cruz was polling so he decided to be more like him.

I think Rand genuinely believes that ISIS is filled with bad guys, and that he'd be open to killing them if the proper Constitutional channels were followed and an effective, reasonable, strategy developed. We have a military for a reason. Killing people who want to kill us, and are currently lopping the heads off of Americans, is that reason. The devil, though, is in the details. The rule of law must be followed, and a good game-plan has to be created. Without EACH of those things, we shouldn't act. That is basically what Rand is saying. This should be entirely non-controversial.

[Brett85]

the key will come when Rand votes yes or no for boots on the ground, and that vote will come this month.

Nobody is proposing that, and there won't be a vote on it. The only thing that there might be a vote on is whether or not to authorize air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

[JohnGalt23g]

Nobody is proposing that, and there won't be a vote on it. The only thing that there might be a vote on is whether or not to authorize air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

I would hope there would be a vote on whether to authorize funds to send hardware to the Kurds...

[carlton]

I think Rand Paul saw how well Ted Cruz was polling so he decided to be more like him.

We all saw how well it worked when Coke decided to be more like Pepsi. Why not?

Not this at all. He's simply trying to shuck the toxic "isolationist" moniker but doing it in a way that boosts his constitutionalist bona fides. I think he's doing what he has to do politically but is far from selling his soul to the neocons (a LA Ted Cruz).

[GunnyFreedom]

He's not really enhancing his 'constitutionalist bona fides' if he's talking about an unconstitutional AUMF.

[William Tell]

It would be nice if he brought up letters of marque, but I know Rand likes to stay away from things most don't understand. Ron loved doing that sort of thing though, I know he introduced letters of marque.

[RabbitMan]

He's not really enhancing his 'constitutionalist bona fides' if he's talking about an unconstitutional AUMF.

I the the reason AUMF is mentioned is because you can't declare war on a non-state actor with the end goal being their official surrender.

[GunnyFreedom]

I the the reason AUMF is mentioned is because you can't declare war on a non-state actor with the end goal being their official surrender.

I don't care why an AUMF is being mentioned, it is not Constitutional. Period. The Constitution already provides a tool to address this problem that is 100x more effective than an AUMF anyway. He wants to violate the Constitution in order to make us less effective in combating the threat? Why?

An AUMF is unconstitutional. No amount of hemming and hawing will change that.

[GunnyFreedom]

It would be nice if he brought up letters of marque, but I know Rand likes to stay away from things most don't understand. Ron loved doing that sort of thing though, I know he introduced letters of marque.

If I'm walking into a gunfight, I don't carry a knife just because people will understand it better. I'm carrying a bigger, badder gun than everyone else, and I don't rightly give a damn what some third party thinks.

[kylejack]

Saw the thread on Rands latest oped, a lot of negative comments but for the most part it seems everyone sees the strategy in play. In this last year foreign policy has become front and center and the populace is, for the time being, more supportive of intervention.

What Rand has said in the oped is a play to both his libertarian/constitutionalist base as well as to the growing swell demanding action. Rand throws his support for some sort of military action against ISIS but only hypothetically, so long as congress approves of such action, as is constitutional. With this move he thwarts those neocon town criers who would label him an isolationalist, while limiting the power of making war for those who hold power.

Now, I don't think we should get militarily involved in this conflict, however its not Rands position of being for or against it which is important in this oped (i think he's just throwing a political bone to the dogs).

Not correct. Rand is endorsing military action against ISIS. It's good that he would do it the Constitutional way, but just because it is done Constitutionally does not mean it is a good war. Ron would disagree.

[helmuth_hubener]

Rand is an exceptionally intelligent man, from what I can tell.

He has been spending a lot of time and ink trying to outsmart himself. I fear he's succeeding.

[GunnyFreedom]

Not correct. Rand is endorsing military action against ISIS. It's good that he would do it the Constitutional way, but just because it is done Constitutionally does not mean it is a good war. Ron would disagree.

Exactly what part of an AUMF is 'Constitutional' in any way, shape, or form?

[kylejack]

Exactly what part of an AUMF is 'Constitutional' in any way, shape, or form?

I didn't see AUMF in Rand's op-ed. I assume he is talking about a declaration of war.

[GunnyFreedom]

I didn't see AUMF in Rand's op-ed. I assume he is talking about a declaration of war.

I didn't see anything about declaring war, and if so against whom?

I suppose if you really really really stretched it, you could argue that M&R could be shoe-horned into his statement, but the way he said it dioe not sound like he is talking about that.

[William Tell]

If I'm walking into a gunfight, I don't carry a knife just because people will understand it better. I'm carrying a bigger, badder gun than everyone else, and I don't rightly give a damn what some third party thinks.

Yeah, but Rand ain't you, Rand ain't me. He knows better than any of us how his dad campaigned.

[kylejack]

Still not seeing where Rand mentioned an AUMF in that op-ed. So I don't understand your question to me: "Exactly what part of an AUMF is 'Constitutional' in any way, shape, or form?"

[William Tell]

I didn't see anything about declaring war, and if so against whom?

I suppose if you really really really stretched it, you could argue that M&R could be shoe-horned into his statement, but the way he said it dioe not sound like he is talking about that.

He is really good at sounding mainstream, when he is really not. Just like he often has little technical excuses for voting against hawkish things, rather than raw principle like Ron did. I'm not trying to be wishful or anything, but I would not put it past him that he would actually be going before Congress to suggest M&R. Of course, he would first have to find evidence that any action is justifiable, which is another topic.

[GunnyFreedom]

Still not seeing where Rand mentioned an AUMF in that op-ed. So I don't understand your question to me: "Exactly what part of an AUMF is 'Constitutional' in any way, shape, or form?"

Because Rand insinuated it directly in all but the acronym itself. Go to Congress and get an

"... seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily,”

Is there any difference between an 'Authorization to Use of Military Force and an Authorization to Destroy ISIS (Enemy) Militarily?

So he proposed an ADEM over an AUMF. This is supposed to make me feel better about the Constitution?

He doesn't even have to scare the pantaloons off of people talking about Marque, he could focus on the "Reprisal" aspect and sound like a bad-ass warrior. I have been one of the chief proponents of the Rand Strategy since day 1, ask ANYBODY here, but he's missing the boat on this one.

[Brett85]

Amash has said that he thinks that the AUMF is sufficient and is Constitutional. So not every libertarian is in agreement on that.

[helmuth_hubener]

Amash has said that he thinks that the AUMF is sufficient and is Constitutional. So not every libertarian is in agreement on that.

Jimmy Duncan has said that he thinks we should ignore ISIS, save our money, and let the Middle Easterners deal with Middle Eastern problems. So not every conservative is in agreement on that.

[twomp]

Jimmy Duncan has said that he thinks we should ignore ISIS, save our money, and let the Middle Easterners deal with Middle Eastern problems. So not every conservative is in agreement on that.

The neo-conservatives on the other hand are in lockstep with each other regarding our latest war in Iraq.

[cajuncocoa]

Well, this is encouraging:

[Warlord]

Well, this is encouraging:

Ignore the troll cajun.