Yes, Rand Paul made a mistake in blaming the GOP for ISIS

[radiofriendly]

This week has been an object lesson for Rand Paul and his followers in framing the foreign policy debate. I would argue that Rand Paul made a tactical and political error in failing to frame his attack against President Obama and Hillary Clinton rather than the GOP. Here’s what I imagine Rand Paul’s advisers would coach him to say. Something along the lines of:

(In response to the ridiculous accusation from Lindsey Graham that Sen. Paul’s ideas helped ISIS grow.) I would say it’s exactly the opposite. ISIS exists and grew stronger because of Hillary Clinton and her lap dogs in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS. Hillary and her supporters also wanted to bomb Assad, which would have made ISIS’ job even easier. They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because the same hawks in my party loved Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya, they just wanted more of it.

More: http://iroots.org/2015/05/28/yes-ran...-gop-for-isis/

[jj-]

wow, you're a genius

like the time he said cheney went to war for profits
or that he would nullify all executive orders
etc
etc
etc

nothing new here
big deal

definitely not deserving anything like an article devoted to it

[nikcers]

This is not a response to what he said its a talking point that they would of pushed regardless, they were just waiting for momentum just like when he announced. He just needs to retaliate and he can make this a strength.

[dannno]

Rand is playing a game of chess, he knows what he is doing.

What do you do when you are trying to reel in a big fish? You yank on the fishing pole to get it closer, then slowly wind in, wind in, wind in, then you yank again, then wind in wind in wind in.

You have to change it up. He's been attacking Hillary for weeks. The media needs a different story to keep him in the news, they can't go on the same story over and over. But you can switch it back and forth. Having his opponents keep putting his name out there isn't a bad thing. People will wonder why he isn't listed in the polls.

[Galileo Galilei]

This week has been an object lesson for Rand Paul and his followers in framing the foreign policy debate. I would argue that Rand Paul made a tactical and political error in failing to frame his attack against President Obama and Hillary Clinton rather than the GOP. Here’s what I imagine Rand Paul’s advisers would coach him to say. Something along the lines of:



More: http://iroots.org/2015/05/28/yes-ran...-gop-for-isis/

The majority of GOP voters will NEVER support nation building.

[Sola_Fide]

This was one of Rand's best weeks so far. He's not going to inspire support by towing the standard war party line.

[anaconda]

He didn't blame the GOP. He only blamed certain of its treasonous members whose foreign policy runs against the grain of many decades Republican nonintervention. Part of Rand's job is to show conservative American voters that these hawks are neither traditional Republicans nor patriotic, but rather something quite different. I prefer to let Rand and his staff fill in the blanks.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand should start calling the hawks out for being progressives. Making a contrast between him being a traditional Republican and them being progressives would resonate with average Republican voters.

[hells_unicorn]

I wouldn't call Rand's attack a tactical error, I would call it getting the ugly stuff out of the way well before it can really hurt him. Sooner or later Frothy, ***** Lindsey or one of the other chicken-hawks would have starting whining about Rand being pro-terrorism, might as well bloody their noses while they are within punching distance.

[Matt Collins]

It is also forcing everyone to have a discussion the GOP must have if it is to take back the White House. The American electorate will not vote for the GOP until they will admit their mistakes.

[Legend1104]

So, these Neo-cons and other "republicans" can attack him with falsehoods and deride him with mean spirited remarks left and right yet he is supposed to not retaliate? There is nothng false about what he said and they won't stop incorrectly framing him as out of step with the party, an isolationist, a democrat, etc. no matter what he says because they hate what he stands for. He might as well fight back and hit em with some real truth. At least he will have facts to back up his claims.

[jaymur]

He needs to stay away from that and focus instead on ISIS being strengthened by acquiring those weapons we sent. "Exists" is a tricky word. Rand Paul could have meant ISIS could have been eliminated by now if not for the strengthening with those weapons and the weakening of Asad, but his opponents are rephrasing what he said to mean "brought into existence" and then it makes Rand's comment look wrong to the viewers.

This week has been an object lesson for Rand Paul and his followers in framing the foreign policy debate. I would argue that Rand Paul made a tactical and political error in failing to frame his attack against President Obama and Hillary Clinton rather than the GOP. Here’s what I imagine Rand Paul’s advisers would coach him to say. Something along the lines of:



More: http://iroots.org/2015/05/28/yes-ran...-gop-for-isis/

[Warlord]

He never blamed the GOP> he blamed hawks

[Jan2017]

This week has been an object lesson for Rand Paul and his followers in framing the foreign policy debate.
. . .

pretty simple to get the blinders off John and Jane Q. Public . . . if the US media were to allow it, imho.

The US media is hardly covering how often Rand brings up Libya . . .
the future implications now from the trash left behind by the O'Bomber administration - the global results are
felt global - whether or not the US media tycoons want their USA audience to know.

Foreign entanglements . . . and . . . arming ISIL, John McCain . . .







.

[EBounding]

What he said wasn't any different than what he said before. The only difference is his opponents got a quick soundbite so they can feign outrage.

The context was never "the GOP created ISIS" it was "Warhawks inadvertently strengthened ISIS to what it is today because of their careless foreign policy".

Maybe Rand should have been more careful about giving them a soundbite, but it was going to happen eventually. No matter how he worded it, he was going to be attacked for it.

[squirl22]

Rand should start calling the hawks out for being progressives. Making a contrast between him being a traditional Republican and them being progressives would resonate with average Republican voters.

That's a good idea; maybe you should send it on to his team (not joking). They seem pretty sharp so maybe they are heading in that direction anyway. Who knows...worth emailing him.

[Sam I am]

Rand's comments about ISIS this week make him stand out from the rest of the crowd.

All of the "attacks" made against him this week only work for voters who already believe that the US needs to be spreading it's influence everywhere.


What these attacks really do is they make clear the difference between Rand an the other republican candidates. The other candidates are want to spread the US's influence in the middle east with war, and the other candidates would rather continue doing the same bad foreign policy than admit that the foreign policy is bad.

If it turns out that a non-aggressive foreign policy doesn't have enough support in the Republican party, than they all probably correct that Rand really isn't that much of a Republican.

[Working Poor]

The majority of GOP voters will NEVER support nation building.

Are you accidentally leaving off the sarc tag?

[Brian4Liberty]

He never blamed the GOP> he blamed hawks

Yep. It would be better not to use the word "hawks" though. It's too broad, and too many people, especially in the GOP, will think it applies to them. That's the problem with any generalization. People who were not included in the intent of the statement might take offense. For all we know, "hawks" was a substitute for "neocons", which has been demonized by the cultural Marxist neocons.

Probably best to stick with specific attacks on Graham and McCain, whom he was really talking about. Most of the GOP does not relate to Lindsey, and will not take offense. Talk about McCain with the Jihadists in Syria. Throw in secret Benghazi arms dealings. Group them with Hillary. Point out the poor ratings of Graham and McCain by every conservative organization.