Bring on the Hillary Clinton–Rand Paul smackdown

[jct74]

Bring on the Hillary Clinton–Rand Paul smackdown!
If you want an election that clarifies the choices facing voters, then you can't do better than a matchup between the centrist and the libertarian

By Damon Linker | September 9, 2014

I'll be honest: The prospect of Hillary Clinton winning her party's nomination without even trying and then coasting to victory in the general election against a lame Republican opponent leaves me feeling depressed, and not only because I'm paid to write about politics.

Our political system ought to do better than that — by giving the American people a genuine choice. But most of the likely matchups wouldn't do that.

Clinton is a centrist Democrat all the way down. She's spent the past 22 years near the peak of power inside the Beltway. If she ends up squaring off against Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or (God help us) Mitt Romney, it will be a contest played out from deep within the reigning Washington consensus.

...

There is only one realistic way to break out of this tired state of affairs. And no, it doesn't involve a run by Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, or any other candidate from the GOP's delusional there-are-more-general-election-votes-on-the-far-right-than-in-the-center caucus. If someone from that faction manages to land the nomination, I fully expect the median-voter theorem to be vindicated and Clinton to win in a historic landslide.

No, the only scenario that promises to deliver a genuine contest and spark a serious, important debate is one that involves an electoral smackdown between Clinton and Rand Paul. That is the presidential matchup America needs.

...

read more:
http://theweek.com/article/index/267...paul-smackdown

[Rond]

Strange picture.

[Brett85]

Hillary Clinton is a "centrist Democrat?" Lol. She might be an establishment Democrat, but certainly not a centrist Democrat.

[ctiger2]

Bummer that Rand isn't running on pure libertarian principles.

He's potentially gonna ruin/blur what libertarian really is for many sheeple. Bah!

[jct74]

Bummer that Rand isn't running on pure libertarian principles.

He's potentially gonna ruin/blur what libertarian really is for many sheeple. Bah!

I look at it completely differently. If anything, Rand running for president and being a frontrunner is going to greatly increase exposure for libertarianism, and bring Ron back into the spotlight to millions of people as well. It will be very exciting, even though a lot of that media attention will of course be negative. Bring it on!

[dannno]

Bummer that Rand isn't running on pure libertarian principles.

He's potentially gonna ruin/blur what libertarian really is for many sheeple. Bah!

But on the bright side he actually might be elected.

[jllundqu]

Bummer that Rand isn't running on pure libertarian principles.

He's potentially gonna ruin/blur what libertarian really is for many sheeple. Bah!

Rand Paul is a Republican, period. He may hold some views that lean libertarian, but he is first, and foremost, a Republican.... let's not forget that.

[WD-NY]

I look at it completely differently. If anything, Rand running for president and being a frontrunner is going to greatly increase exposure for libertarianism, and bring Ron back into the spotlight to millions of people as well. It will be very exciting, even though a lot of that media attention will of course be negative. Bring it on!

JCT, for the record, your positivity is both awesome and infectious! If a majority of folks in the Liberty/Rand+Ron movement looked at things the way you do, there'd be nothing or noone that could stop us! I'm sure we'll get there eventually, but until then, thanks for being so positive (and posting all Rand-related articles )

[jct74]

JCT, for the record, your positivity is both awesome and infectious! If a majority of folks in the Liberty/Rand+Ron movement looked at things the way you do, there'd be nothing or noone that could stop us! I'm sure we'll get there eventually, but until then, thanks for being so positive (and posting all Rand-related articles )

haha, thanks man. I do have negative thoughts, but try to keep to myself if they're not constructive.

[T.hill]

Rand Paul is a Republican, period. He may hold some views that lean libertarian, but he is first, and foremost, a Republican.... let's not forget that.

He has some libertarian-leaning views? Let's not kid ourselves into believing that Rand doesn't hold a libertarian position on almost every issue.

Rand's stance on ISIS is disheartening, but before he, in my view, wrongly determined that the group was a threat I could always point out the obvious libertarian motives being pursued with Rand's previous controversial actions. I'll admit there could be defensive arguments made for attacking ISIS, I just believe they're all weak.

[Vanguard101]

Bummer that Rand isn't running on pure libertarian principles.

He's potentially gonna ruin/blur what libertarian really is for many sheeple. Bah!

This is 100% wrong.

Rand Paul is a Republican, period. He may hold some views that lean libertarian, but he is first, and foremost, a Republican.... let's not forget that.

You mean like Ron and Amash? Massie as well?

[r3volution 3.0]

He has some libertarian-leaning views? Let's not kid ourselves into believing that Rand doesn't hold a libertarian position on almost every issue.

I'd go further and say he's a libertarian on every issue. Rand's alleged deviations concern foreign policy and immigration. On immigration, Rand's position is to move policy in a libertarian direction (fewer restrictions on immigration); his critics, though part of the liberty movement, are the one's advocating policies inconsistent with libertarianism. As for foreign policy, non-intervention is not a requirement of libertarianism. One can be a libertarian and an interventionist. Military intervention overseas does not necessarily violate libertarian principles; it depends entirely on the circumstances. In the same way, shooting somebody in the head does not necessarily violate libertarian principle; it depends entirely on the situation. The crux of the ethical issue is the fine line between aggression and self-defense. I think we would all agree that violence is justified only if there is an imminent threat. The trouble lies in defining exactly what "imminent" means. Good libertarians can disagree on whether a particular military adventure is self-defense or aggression, just as we could disagree on whether a defendant in a particular court case had acted in self-defense or acted aggressively. Of course, even if a proposed intervention is ethically justifiable, that doesn't mean it's wise: and good libertarians can disagree about that as well. There are good practical reasons to be a pure non-interventionist, but it is not the case that one has to be a pure non-interventionist to be a libertarian.

[osan]

read more:
http://theweek.com/article/index/267...paul-smackdown

Hillary Clinton is a "cenrtrist"? I must obviously not know what that means in this context because it makes me think "moderate" and that bat$#@! crazy monster is anything but.

[anaconda]

Hillary Clinton is a "centrist Democrat?" Lol. She might be an establishment Democrat, but certainly not a centrist Democrat.

I think of Billary as centrist. National health care, Wall Street friendly, goes to war in a limited and strategic manner, if often. Much less dramatic than Truman or Johnson or Wilson. She's Council On Foreign Relations all the way. The protracted multi-decade methodical erosion of the U.S.

[jmdrake]

Hillary Clinton is a "centrist Democrat?" Lol. She might be an establishment Democrat, but certainly not a centrist Democrat.

She's playing Bill Clinton's triangulation strategy brilliantly. Adopt enough positions from the "other side" to appear moderate. In this case the "other side" is the John McCain hawk republicans. Some idiot republicans are pushing the line that Obama just "didn't do enough" in Iraq and Syria. Hillary will (honestly for once) say "I tried to get him to intervene more" thus taking that line of attack off the table. But she would have a hard time doing that against Rand Paul when he will say "Your interventionism is what caused the problem in the first place. ISIS didn't exist until you intervened in Syria."

[jmdrake]

I think of Billary as centrist. National health care, Wall Street friendly, goes to war in a limited and strategic manner, if often. Much less dramatic than Truman or Johnson or Wilson. She's Council On Foreign Relations all the way. The protracted multi-decade methodical erosion of the U.S.

Well I'm not sure how you're including national healthcare in with "centrist" positions, unless your point is her positions on Wall Street and going to war may "balance" out against her health care agenda in the mind of many voters. Anyway, the OP is correct. If the GOP nominates another McCain or Romney "centrist" they will lose and deserve to lose. And if they nominate a rabid right winger without a clue like Rick Santorum they will lose and deserve to lose. I'm not sure about Ted Cruz. One minute I think he has sense and another minute I'm not sure.

[osan]

Rand's stance on ISIS is disheartening, but before he, in my view, wrongly determined that the group was a threat I could always point out the obvious libertarian motives being pursued with Rand's previous controversial actions. I'll admit there could be defensive arguments made for attacking ISIS, I just believe they're all weak.

We have no idea what ISIS really is or who is pulling their strings. European media were reporting a week or so ago that the leadership was trained in Israel by Mossad. I would say that this leaves the doors of possibility wide open in terms of the nature of this threat. If the threat is real, we probably need to stop them lest they start in on US targets. That is a $#@!ty truth that may prove inescapable.

As for Rand Paul, my jury remains out. I often wonder whether he is using the Oprah Winfrey strategy of doing what he must to achieve the office, thereafter letting his hair down. I am not sure it is a great strategy from a "purist" standpoint, but it does get the job done. Only time and an election to office will tell.

I know many here get all giddy about "President Rand Paul" and I understand why. However, we must also be keenly cognizant of the fact that if he becomes president and he attempts to clean things up beyond a point, he will either be frozen out by the combination of media, Congress, and other propagandizing elements (unions and such), or if in the unlikely case he sparks a fire in people, his brains may be used to butter a sidewalk. You know nearly half of the American people are going to hate him simply because he is not a Democrat. Those people will be tireless in their efforts to paint him the racist, establishment shill, and so on. That is how we do politics in America precisely because American politics is all about robbing people to the benefit of the parasites, whether the poor trash variety or the corporate. We no longer have any concept of proper governance, which is nothing more than guaranty and protection of human rights. It is all about handouts and the endless parade of bull$#@! required to justify the means to those ends. This nation is lost, so much so that there is little that will shake people loose from the kamikaze death-grip with which they cleave to their particular versions of political myopia. No more Golden Rule. No more respect. Nothing but wanting what is wanted and the devil with the rest. Any sense of morality in the meaner is so twisted as to be unrecognizable to anyone with the least sense remaining to them.

On the so-called "left" we have the trash parasites who want their bi-weekly checks and Bammy-phones. They don't give a $#@! about anyone or anything so long as someone is paying their way through life and they care not a whit about how that payment is made possible. They are morally bankrupt both economically and "socially", believing not just that doing anything is permissible, but that it is perforce all praiseworthy, except criticism. For that, the only fitting fate is to be drawn and quartered for "intolerance".

On the so-called "right" are the almost equally bankrupt views that somehow corporate welfare is even marginally better, tossing one's hard earned but easily expropriated fruits at IBM and GM. But far worse are the "social conservatives" who are often religious nitwits who scream "freedom" from one side of their mouths while yelping "burn the ****" from the other because "the Baahble says". We have our very own homegrown version of sharia right here in America and to be frank I understand why the equally, if differently, mad lefties are terrified by it.

Today in America there are far more bad guys than good. The worst of it is that none of them see themselves a bad, but rather as having the solution for one and all. That should scare the color right out of you. I am truly sorry to put it this way, but a vast span of our population is wildly insane and the logjam of raving pathology is not likely to be broken by any conventional means. That leaves little besides extremity and that in itself is pretty scary, too. Other than "keep on keeping on", I have no idea what to suggest here anymore.

I woke up this morning with my stomach in a knot because I realized today is 9/11 and my wife will be on a plane to Europe and my biggest fear you should have no trouble guessing. That is part of our daily reality. I remember a time when such thoughts never entered into one's mind. Trouble is deep and everywhere, and while we may know what is needed to abate, the rest of the nation and the world does not and will not be dissuaded from its course, neither by reason nor gentle persuasion. Need I say the rest?

I am going to go finish the greenhouse and try not to think about any of this today, lest my head explode. You all have a safe one and let us hope nothing blows up today.

[jmdrake]

He has some libertarian-leaning views? Let's not kid ourselves into believing that Rand doesn't hold a libertarian position on almost every issue.

Rand's stance on ISIS is disheartening, but before he, in my view, wrongly determined that the group was a threat I could always point out the obvious libertarian motives being pursued with Rand's previous controversial actions. I'll admit there could be defensive arguments made for attacking ISIS, I just believe they're all weak.

Rand Paul has recently indicated that toppling dictators (including Saddam) is what has foolishly led to the ISIS threat and he has come out against Obama's plan to arm the "moderate" rebels. I fully concur with that position. As for bombing ISIS? As long as we can be sure only ISIS is bombed and as long as it is done in coordination with the "governments" of Syria and Iraq, I have no problem with that. If ISIS really is a threat, even a contrived one, and Rand says "leave them alone" and then they set off a nerve gas attack on a U.S. subway (or someone else sets off the attack and ISIS is blamed) Rand's political aspirations, and indeed this entire movement, will be toast. It's like a doctor practicing defensive medicine. It's as much for the doctor as it is for the patient.

[Nathan Hale]

I was amazed at how nice that writer was. Damon Linker admits early on that he is likely going to vote for Clinton, and he then offers up an incredibly well-written fair-and-balanced rundown of the Rand's legislative agenda that would conceivably cause a reader to walk away from the article supporting Rand. Much respect.