How to respond to Rubio's fearmongering

[Crashland]

Any republican can say these things to get big applause lines:

- This is the most dangerous time and we face the greatest threats in American history
- They are beheading Christians in the middle east
- Our military needs to be second to none
- America needs to be the world's leader
...etc

Rand did very well for himself at the debate, but this is not over. The same lines will be used over and over again against Rand, on top of calling him an isolationist.

What are the best ways to rip these people to shreds and expose their arguments as giant straw men? He needs to somehow get it through people's skulls that he doesn't even disagree with those points, but it doesn't mean we should give the military a blank check.

The point about spending more than the next 10 countries is good. Rand has also mentioned outside of the debate, the televised cricket league and the multimillion dollar gas station in Afghanistan. Anything else he can bring in to show what happens when you give the government a blank check for anything? Why not talk about the F-35 program. 1.3 TRILLION dollars spent on it since 2006, only 162 planes have been built and the project still isn't even out of the testing stage. How can anyone say there is not massive waste in that, and that's just one program. With 1.3 trillion dollars you could give every US citizen a check for $4000 and still have money leftover. That's how much the big government and establishment republicans are taking away from us just from that. And Marco wants yet another 1 trillion added?

We need as much ammo as possible to wreck these arguments using fearmongering to justify unlimited irresponsible spending. The fear mongering straw man arguments against Rand are very powerful. Rand took some steps last night but we need even more effective ways of dismantling them.

[CaptUSA]

"I will give you a military that is stronger than the next 5 countries combined - and it will be sustainable."

Shift the topic to foreign aid which is always a winner for Rand.

"I will support the troops better than anyone else running since I won't be using the power of the military so liberally."

"I grew up in a military family. I know the hardships that come with taking parents away from their families. If you really care about family values, you wouldn't be so careless about getting involved in all the world's problems."

"If we declared war as our Founders intended we wouldn't have to worry about running out of money for our military."

Just my real quick input...

[Todd]

When Rubio started the isolationism bull and started using dem Mooslim terrorists, Rand should have said "Marco, why don't you stop helping Hillary Clinton, Obama and the Democrats send ISIS American military equipment"

[Indy Vidual]

Learn from history.

[georgiaboy]

Good thread. It's true, Rand has smashed the hornet nest wide open, and now they're flying all over the place.

We need to proactively use every tool available to kill them suckers, especially the queen.

Rand & his campaign need to respond strongly to every attack being levied, and go on offense with some well-written editorials and even introduce a bill or two.

Hit the airwaves and social media by storm, and take advantage of the earned media.

[Influenza]

I really wish Rand called Rubio out for being the true isolationist for not wanting to talk to other countries, while Rand always favors diplomatic solutions, which is the opposite of isolationism.

[timosman]

We need to proactively use every tool available to kill them suckers, especially the queen.

The queen of the superficial.

[CaptUSA]

I really wish Rand called Rubio out for being the true isolationist for not wanting to talk to other countries, while Rand always favors diplomatic solutions, which is the opposite of isolationism.

I think his laugh kinda said just that.

[Influenza]

I think his laugh kinda said just that.

Maybe, but not every debate viewer can put two and two together to know that

[dusman]

My fellow candidates believe in going to war one foot in/one foot out, toeing a legal line they know limits that authority.. playing games with words and definitions to usurp the Constitution's mandate for a declaration of war. It's not a war, it's a peacekeeping mission. It's not military action, it's humanitarian aid. We are either at war or not at war. So which is it?

We need a strong president who isn't afraid to put the question of war before the people and, if they vote yes, will eliminate our enemy... not over decades, but immediately. It is time we stop weighing geopolitical gains with dealing effectively with existential threats. Some say I'm an isolationist here because I believe you go to war with the full support of the American people and you go to annihilate the enemy. They are wrong. Make no mistake, if there is a declaration of war from Congress, I will redefine shock and awe. My approach guarantees the job is done swiftly and I won't have to skirt legal lines to bring the full effect of the commander in chief onto the battlefield, something we haven't done effectively since WWII.

No more arming our enemies. No more financial aid to those who burn our flag. No more overthrowing governments for geopolitical gain.

I think Rand could say this confidently without breaking principle. If the threat is real, then Congress will declare and an aggressive Rand Paul is necessary as commander in chief. I do want non-interventionists to highlight how they would deal with a real threat, because non-intervention has that connotation that they would be passive to such threats. Americans do need to hear that just because they are non-interventionists doesn't mean they will be weak if war should be necessary. A non-interventionist should highlight that if an enemy dares poke a peaceful bear, they will get mauled.

[Matthanuf06]

I think it is easy.

What Paul needs to do is convince American's that his opinion on foreign policy and military spending will make them safer. That his policies will produce the strongest most powerful military on the planet, moreso than any other candidate.

I think he needs to stay away from blowback. It is too abstract and difficult for the average American to understand.

He needs to hammer this equality:

A self funded, very large (still bigger than everyone else, just not bigger than everyone else combined) military is more powerful than a Chinese financed uber large military.

Americans right now only think in terms of size. Bigger is better. But they are smart enough to get ownership finance. Pound it in their heads that a Chinese funded massive military is weaker than a self funded very big military.

Any republican can say these things to get big applause lines:

- This is the most dangerous time and we face the greatest threats in American history
- They are beheading Christians in the middle east
- Our military needs to be second to none
- America needs to be the world's leader
...etc

Rand did very well for himself at the debate, but this is not over. The same lines will be used over and over again against Rand, on top of calling him an isolationist.

What are the best ways to rip these people to shreds and expose their arguments as giant straw men? He needs to somehow get it through people's skulls that he doesn't even disagree with those points, but it doesn't mean we should give the military a blank check.

The point about spending more than the next 10 countries is good. Rand has also mentioned outside of the debate, the televised cricket league and the multimillion dollar gas station in Afghanistan. Anything else he can bring in to show what happens when you give the government a blank check for anything? Why not talk about the F-35 program. 1.3 TRILLION dollars spent on it since 2006, only 162 planes have been built and the project still isn't even out of the testing stage. How can anyone say there is not massive waste in that, and that's just one program. With 1.3 trillion dollars you could give every US citizen a check for $4000 and still have money leftover. That's how much the big government and establishment republicans are taking away from us just from that. And Marco wants yet another 1 trillion added?

We need as much ammo as possible to wreck these arguments using fearmongering to justify unlimited irresponsible spending. The fear mongering straw man arguments against Rand are very powerful. Rand took some steps last night but we need even more effective ways of dismantling them.

[Valli6]

Rand didn't bring this up last night, but remember this from last spring:

In March, Rubio's amendment - S.Amdt.423 - increased defense spending to $611 billion by borrowing more money.
Rand voted No, while Cruz and Rubio voted Yes.
YEAs - 32
NAYs - 68
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00096

In April, Rand Paul wrote an amendment to increase defense spending to $697 billion, offsetting the increase by cutting spending to;

1. Dept of Housing & Urban Development,
2. foreign aid to middle eastern countries that hate us
3. the EPA and
4. climate change research

Only 3 other Republican senators voted in favor of Paul's amendment. Both Cruz and Rubio voted No.
Why all the No votes? It increased defense spending more than Rubio's ammendment, but disallowed further borrowing, instead paying for the increase by cutting spending elsewhere. It appears Rubio and Cruz insist on being able to borrow more money - which is not the behavior of fiscal conservatives.
YEAs 4
NAY 96
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00097

[ds21089]

Rubio is the new McCain, but throws in some "family values" bull$#@!.

[65fastback2+2]

this should do it: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/24/politi...lare-war-isis/

[ds21089]

I think one thing Rand could say is, "Instead of the methods we are using of constantly giving out weapons which ends up in the hands of ISIS and we keep making them stronger. If we decide as a nation through Congress to tackle ISIS, we go in with overwhelming force and end it quickly. If Russia wants to join in, then we keep communication lines open and we work together to get rid of ISIS once and for all. The longer it takes for ISIS to be defeated, the more havoc they will cause, the more Christians they will murder. Our past strategies haven't done anything to stop them; we've only made it even easier for them to kill people. Everyone else running wants to continue the same failed methods which will inevitably only get more people killed. It's time for change."

[Aquinas]

The point about spending more than the next 10 countries is good. Rand has also mentioned outside of the debate, the televised cricket league and the multimillion dollar gas station in Afghanistan. Anything else he can bring in to show what happens when you give the government a blank check for anything? Why not talk about the F-35 program. 1.3 TRILLION dollars spent on it since 2006, only 162 planes have been built and the project still isn't even out of the testing stage. How can anyone say there is not massive waste in that, and that's just one program.

This.

Rubio's argument that more money directly equates a better military is naive (and the very same justification that liberals use for their pet programs). Rand touched on this, but I really think he should also direct the conversation to intelligent defense spending as a means to combat the demagoguery. He needs to be ready with a litany of very large defense spending fiascos. What about the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer? It was planned with 32 ships, but skyrocketing costs forced them to cut the ships to 24, then 7, and then to 3. Each ship was several billion dollars over the original estimate.

Basically, he should frame the military as any other bureaucracy that can't handle its money intelligently. He should absolutely stress it has nothing to do with the brave men and women admirably performing their duty, but everything to do with pork and politics and foolish contracts.

Commenting on the troops can also be a springboard into a discussion on family values, as CaptUSA describes.

[Aquinas]

Just saw this.

BRIAN KILMEADE: So where you going to get the trillion dollars from that Rand Paul says you shouldn't be spending?

MARCO RUBIO: First of all, before we fund anything, the government should be funding national security. It is the most important obligation of the federal government, without it none of the other things matter.

Rubio seemed irritated at the question, which he never really answered. When Kilmeade pressed him on specific needs, he simply replies, "In everything."

I was surprised to see Kilmeade press Rubio a bit. Rand scored some points last night, and I am eager to see how he builds off this performance.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...p_us_safe.html

[milgram]

I'd like to see a youtube video which goes down the list of all of the reckless foreign policy positions Rubio and his advisers have taken. Maybe one already exists?

[CPUd]

Rand just needs to hold up cat pictures when they ask him about Rubio

[helmuth_hubener]

Any republican can say these things to get big applause lines:

- This is the most dangerous time and we face the greatest threats in American history
- They are beheading Christians in the middle east
- Our military needs to be second to none
- America needs to be the world's leader
...etc

Frankly, what is stopping Rand Paul from saying these things? Are any of them incompatible with his foreign policy? Are any of them factually incorrect?

[georgiaboy]

Just saw this.

---video---

Rubio seemed irritated at the question, which he never really answered. When Kilmeade pressed him on specific needs, he simply replies, "In everything."

I was surprised to see Kilmeade press Rubio a bit. Rand scored some points last night, and I am eager to see how he builds off this performance.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...p_us_safe.html

I don't have a link, but you're right about points scored by Rand. I just heard "conservative" talk show host Michael Medved try and defend Rubio's tax plan, specifically the 'refundable tax credit', that Rand skewered as a $1T redistribution plan, not a real tax cut. Medved stated that Rubio's contention that the credit was a refunding of the payroll tax that 'everyone pays' was correct, and Rand was wrong.

The second caller into his show let Medved know he had it wrong, and that Rand was correct. Medved tried re-explaining, then changed the subject, without allowing the caller any followup.

As an aside, several callers into Michael's show said they were impressed with Rand. More points scored.

[Crashland]

Frankly, what is stopping Rand Paul from saying these things? Are any of them incompatible with his foreign policy? Are any of them factually incorrect?

Yes, they always say it in response in order to make it seem like Rand doesn't agree with those things. If Rand says it first (not just that we need a "strong" military, but with all the butter in it too), that can help diffuse it. Something like, we need a military so strong that no one will even think of opposing us. And that means using the money we spend on defense effectively. But throwing more money at something doesn't always make it better. Just ask the Democrats! This is why we should never allow virtually unlimited spending on anything, and it's why we need to audit the Pentagon.

[jmdrake]

Any republican can say these things to get big applause lines:

- This is the most dangerous time and we face the greatest threats in American history
- They are beheading Christians in the middle east
- Our military needs to be second to none
- America needs to be the world's leader
...etc

Rand did very well for himself at the debate, but this is not over. The same lines will be used over and over again against Rand, on top of calling him an isolationist.

What are the best ways to rip these people to shreds and expose their arguments as giant straw men? He needs to somehow get it through people's skulls that he doesn't even disagree with those points, but it doesn't mean we should give the military a blank check.

The point about spending more than the next 10 countries is good. Rand has also mentioned outside of the debate, the televised cricket league and the multimillion dollar gas station in Afghanistan. Anything else he can bring in to show what happens when you give the government a blank check for anything? Why not talk about the F-35 program. 1.3 TRILLION dollars spent on it since 2006, only 162 planes have been built and the project still isn't even out of the testing stage. How can anyone say there is not massive waste in that, and that's just one program. With 1.3 trillion dollars you could give every US citizen a check for $4000 and still have money leftover. That's how much the big government and establishment republicans are taking away from us just from that. And Marco wants yet another 1 trillion added?

We need as much ammo as possible to wreck these arguments using fearmongering to justify unlimited irresponsible spending. The fear mongering straw man arguments against Rand are very powerful. Rand took some steps last night but we need even more effective ways of dismantling them.

I already dealt with the "they are beheading Christians" argument. I called into a fake conservative talk show host. My argument went as follows.

Marco Rubio said we need to spend more money on the military because they are beheading Christians. But Franklin Graham recently said that Putin is protecting Christians by supporting Assad. That's because Assad, as bad as he is, protects Christians. Khaddafi in Libya protected Christians. Even Saddam, as bad as he was, protected Christians. In fact his second in command, Tariq Aziz, was a Christian. Secular dictators are bad people but they are good for Christians because they keep their feet on the necks of the Islamists who are just plain crazy. So Marco Rubio's foreign policy hurts Middle East Christians.

And you know what Mr. fake conservative talk show host said? "You're right." So we beat Rubio and Graham and McCain by pointing out that the Islamists they are supporting are...well...Islamists. Seriously I don't know why nobody thought of this before.

Now the rest of my argument was a bit more tricky. I pointed out that some of our proposed military spending, like the F35 joint strike fighter, is much more expensive than needed. The much cheaper A10 Warthog is much cheaper and more effective. The A10 is a flying tank. A pilot once landed one after a wing was shot off. The talk show host said I was raising some interesting points but he was up against a break and he had someone from the Heritage Foundation coming on to ask if we needed to spend more on the military or not. Uggggggg!!

Well Heritage warmonger basically said 1 trillion more in spending over 10 years is not enough. We need more ships, marine platoons, airplanes etc. He contradicted himself by saying that Russia and China were "expanding their influence" because we were "withdrawing" but that the same time talked about how much more equipment and manpower the military needed because of all of the deployments. So are we "withdrawing" or aren't we? The truth is most of the deployments are not needed. Then he went back to the Cold War and said "Imagine what would have happened if we weren't so deployed in Europe." Well....imagine what would have happened if we hadn't gotten involved in WW I. Germany wouldn't have been so badly treated in the treaty of Versailles, Hitler wouldn't have risen to power, the Russian revolution might never have happened and there wouldn't have been world war 2 or the cold war. That said, what happened to our "peace dividend?"

Oh yeah, and on the F35, Heritage warmonger used that for an excuse as to why we need to spend more! Most of the air fleet is at over 90% of it's projected life cycle, according to him, and the fact that it's taken a while for the "problematic" F35 to come online we need to spend more money. SMH!

Anyway, recap. We can easily win the soundbite war by pointing out that Rubio's foreign policy puts middle east Christians in danger. Beating back against the bigger argument that we just "need" a bigger military will be more difficult.

[dusman]

Rand didn't bring this up last night, but remember this from last spring:

In March, Rubio's amendment - S.Amdt.423 - increased defense spending to $611 billion by borrowing more money.
Rand voted No, while Cruz and Rubio voted Yes.
YEAs - 32
NAYs - 68
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00096

In April, Rand Paul wrote an amendment to increase defense spending to $697 billion, offsetting the increase by cutting spending to;

1. Dept of Housing & Urban Development,
2. foreign aid to middle eastern countries that hate us
3. the EPA and
4. climate change research

Only 3 other Republican senators voted in favor of Paul's amendment. Both Cruz and Rubio voted No.
Why all the No votes? It increased defense spending more than Rubio's ammendment, but disallowed further borrowing, instead paying for the increase by cutting spending elsewhere. It appears Rubio and Cruz insist on being able to borrow more money - which is not the behavior of fiscal conservatives.
YEAs 4
NAY 96
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00097

There's actually an interesting narrative that can be drawn from this. Rand's bill could help argue against the idea defense spending isn't a priority for him.

Might be useful to demonstrating a fiscal conservative approach vs. blanket increases to spending. Interesting that Cruz and Rubio voted to borrow the money.

[jmdrake]

"I will give you a military that is stronger than the next 5 countries combined - and it will be sustainable."

Add to that "I will impress upon our allies the need for them to step up to the plate and fund their own defense." Heritage Foundation shill was making the argument today that sure the U.S. military is much much better than Russia's or China's but it has to be because we "have to go halfway around the world to fight threats and they just have to go to their backyard." Well...let the people who are in their backyard and worried about them spend their own money. Japan should rearm. (Emperor Hirohito and his ideology are long dead). Taiwan should build up. South Korea should start building more of its own weapons. Western Europe should quit bailing out Greece and build its own military. It shouldn't be on us to go bankrupt by bankrolling the defense of the entire so called "free world."

[jmdrake]

Rand didn't bring this up last night, but remember this from last spring:

In March, Rubio's amendment - S.Amdt.423 - increased defense spending to $611 billion by borrowing more money.
Rand voted No, while Cruz and Rubio voted Yes.
YEAs - 32
NAYs - 68
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00096

In April, Rand Paul wrote an amendment to increase defense spending to $697 billion, offsetting the increase by cutting spending to;

1. Dept of Housing & Urban Development,
2. foreign aid to middle eastern countries that hate us
3. the EPA and
4. climate change research

Only 3 other Republican senators voted in favor of Paul's amendment. Both Cruz and Rubio voted No.
Why all the No votes? It increased defense spending more than Rubio's ammendment, but disallowed further borrowing, instead paying for the increase by cutting spending elsewhere. It appears Rubio and Cruz insist on being able to borrow more money - which is not the behavior of fiscal conservatives.
YEAs 4
NAY 96
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00097

I forgot about this. Rand should turn those votes into a TV commercial.

[jmdrake]

Rubio is the new McCain, but throws in some "family values" bull$#@!.

I have a problem with your graphic. Rand Paul's position isn't one of isolationism and neither is Ron's. Non-interventionism is not isolationism. In fact I heard Rand (I think) make the position that Rubio, Cruz and others were diplomatic isolationists in that they don't want to talk to Putin or Iran. Also Trump and Carson both spoke out against the Iran and Afghanistan wars. I know folks here don't want to talk about that. Everybody likes to be in "hate the opposition" mode. But the fact that candidates who have spoken out against Iraq and Afghanistan can lead in the GOP means something. It means rank and file republicans are ready to hear from someone that at least realizes those two wars were wrong. In fact that goes further than the Pauls because Ron voted for Afghanistan and Rand has never, to my knowledge, spoken against that war. I would make Carson explain why he was against the Iraq war but now wants to send troops back into Iraq and why he wants to confront Putin in Syria instead of working with Putin and Assad to defeat all the Islamists.

[invisible]

- This is the most dangerous time and we face the greatest threats in American history

The biggest threat to our country is internal, not external. The biggest threat is the destruction of our Constitution and loss of our freedom, which needs to be reversed as quickly as possible.

- They are beheading Christians in the middle east

Unless it's happening here, it's outside of our jurisdiction and we cannot prosecute those responsible, we can only condemn those actions. We are not responsible for criminals in other countries. If something like this is going on, then the State Dept needs to issue a travel advisory and examine incoming visas a bit more closely from that country.

- Our military needs to be second to none

It already is, and has been for decades. We already have the ability to blow up the planet 40 times over, we don't need to be able to do it 50 times over to provide for a proper defense of our country.

- America needs to be the world's leader

That is done by setting the example for the rest of the world to follow, the example of freedom and peace. Restore our Constitution, give us our freedom back, and stop interfering in other countries' internal affairs.

[ds21089]

I have a problem with your graphic. Rand Paul's position isn't one of isolationism and neither is Ron's. Non-interventionism is not isolationism. In fact I heard Rand (I think) make the position that Rubio, Cruz and others were diplomatic isolationists in that they don't want to talk to Putin or Iran. Also Trump and Carson both spoke out against the Iran and Afghanistan wars. I know folks here don't want to talk about that. Everybody likes to be in "hate the opposition" mode. But the fact that candidates who have spoken out against Iraq and Afghanistan can lead in the GOP means something. It means rank and file republicans are ready to hear from someone that at least realizes those two wars were wrong. In fact that goes further than the Pauls because Ron voted for Afghanistan and Rand has never, to my knowledge, spoken against that war. I would make Carson explain why he was against the Iraq war but now wants to send troops back into Iraq and why he wants to confront Putin in Syria instead of working with Putin and Assad to defeat all the Islamists.

Correct. The term isolationism is definitely misused. I was just utilizing their own words against them because it's easier to do that than to have people completely change what they think the word means. I didnt make the pic btw I just added the names to it. In the pic though it just shows he's in the middle; he's not for isolation nor for mass interventionism.

[JohnGalt23g]

From Jim Talent's NRO piece today, and my response:

***The gist of Paul’s critique was not that the armed forces are fully ready to meet the threats facing America; they clearly are not. ***

What three nations, allied together, could go to war with the US and have a hope of winning?

If there is no such combination, we are fully ready, and then some...