Rand introduces bill to defund Palestinian foreign aid

[francisco]

Actually it is quite a gutsy move. The establishment including AIPAC fought against this the last go around, no doubt they will do the same this go around. He's forcing them to go on record as being against this bill, which is going against AIPAC. You have to see farther down the road which is what Rand is fighting for. Now he'll have two different bills with two different names to use at his disposal to counter the "you hate Israel" attack that will be used against him. This comes at the perfect time as well because I'm sure he's aware of who was behind the recent round of media attacks against him. He's going to now expose their politicians for something that should be a no brainer. Well, at least amongst their constituency. So lets take a count. He's introduced a declaration of war against isis, and has also introduced a bill to cut off funding to Israel's enemy, yet there were no takers. Rand is simply laying the groundwork for the anti semite smear that will no doubt be used against him. Let the man play his game of chess. While many may not understand his strategy, others can see it quite clearly. He's just got to hope his most hardcore/fathers supporters don't cut him off before the real game gets started...

Well said. +rep

[Galileo Galilei]

I stand with Rand. I stand with the United States. I do not stand with AIPAC.

[cajuncocoa]

That'd make a helluva game show.

The one who loves Isreal most wins a seat in the Oval Office for 4 years

[Warlord]

The one who loves Isreal most wins a seat in the Oval Office for 4 years

Sheldon Adelson wants to bomb Iran. He'll stick with the most hawkish

[jjdoyle]

Its purpose is not to be gutsy, but to rather expose the truth of foreign aid. Don't blind yourself to the motives behind this.

AFAIK, he has never wavered on his position of ending ALL foreign aid (including Israel); just not singling them out to end it or them first. But since he can't get that through, he is trying to prove that the only truth about foreign aid is that it NEVER ends, to ANYBODY.

Rand voted in FAVOR of MORE foreign aid to Israel, so not only did he waiver, he is 100% the opposite direction of where Ron Paul would be. Rand Paul voted to continue to borrow money from China, to give to Israel, so that we can remain unsafe. He shouldn't even run for President if he isn't going to at least see what causes US to be hated around the world, and more likely to be attacked.

[Krugminator2]

Foreign aid is a tiny non-issue that gets people riled up. It counts for 0% of the budget. It should get phased out because it stunts the development of the countries receiving it. But Rand only talks about it because the average voter thinks foreign aid makes up 30% of the budget.

I don't get the loyalty Americans have toward Israel. Israel is a Marxist, foreign country. But just as puzzling are Ron Paul supporters who support Palestine and hate Israel. The Palestinians are much worse. Supporting the Palestinians is one of those things along with liking Dennis Kucinich, Glenn Greenwald, Jesse Ventura, and Elizabeth Warren that I will never understand.

[Danke]

Rand voted in FAVOR of MORE foreign aid to Israel, so not only did he waiver, he is 100% the opposite direction of where Ron Paul would be. Rand Paul voted to continue to borrow money from China, to give to Israel, so that we can remain unsafe. He shouldn't even run for President if he isn't going to at least see what causes US to be hated around the world, and more likely to be attacked.

We must Stand with Rand.

[rich34]

I would like to see aid ended to all countries. But attempting to end aid to any country is good as far as I'm concerned.

If you can achieve it for one then perhaps the political dominoes will start to fall for the others as well. You'd think the best place to start would be cutting off aid to those countries that hate Israel. Perhaps not.. Hell, apparently you gotta love Israel AND it's enemies...

[rich34]

Rand voted in FAVOR of MORE foreign aid to Israel, so not only did he waiver, he is 100% the opposite direction of where Ron Paul would be. Rand Paul voted to continue to borrow money from China, to give to Israel, so that we can remain unsafe. He shouldn't even run for President if he isn't going to at least see what causes US to be hated around the world, and more likely to be attacked.

Once again, Rand is taking calculated risks to minimize the affects they will have against him in his run for president. I don't understand many of the supporters of Ron Paul. As educated as they are on policy that however doesn't seem to equate to strategy and winning the presidency. I suppose I can understand why, however, still yet have a hard time with it because I reckon I expect more from the lot of supporters that backed Ron. I thought we simply all just "knew" that Rand couldn't follow the same path as his father or else it would produce the same results. By taking the route that Rand has taken this gives him the possibility of actually winning the presidency instead of simply being a "pure senator" that will never win the presidency. Again, I just hope Rand can hang onto his father's most hardcore supporters before the MSM can squash it before it's of any affect. Hang on guy's, don't fall for their divide and conquer tactics.

[Influenza]

Rand is nothing like his dad. Will that help him get elected? Probably. Will it do any good for "us?" To be determined...

[DFF]

It's official: Rand's completely sold out.

His transition from Libertarian to Neocon shill is complete.

[Brett85]

It's official: Rand's completely sold out.

His transition from Libertarian to Neocon shill is complete.

Is that satire?

[DFF]

Is that satire?

Is this?



"I will do whatever you want...just let me get elected, pulease....."

[jjdoyle]

We must Stand with Rand.

By "Stand" you mean make donations? Donate harder. Vote harder. These will accomplish much.

Foreign aid is a tiny non-issue that gets people riled up. It counts for 0% of the budget. It should get phased out because it stunts the development of the countries receiving it.

I don't get the loyalty Americans have toward Israel. Israel is a Marxist, foreign country. But just as puzzling are Ron Paul supporters who support Palestine and hate Israel. The Palestinians are much worse. Supporting the Palestinians is one of those things along with liking Dennis Kucinich, Glenn Greenwald, Jesse Ventura, and Elizabeth Warren that I will never understand.

I don't support the Palestinians, or Israel. If you (or, anybody else) want to give to those countries (or, people groups) through a charity, or volunteer on your own, do so. But any politician that is voting to borrow from China, to give to Israel (or, Palestine, or any other country) is beyond ridiculous. Especially if they are ever going to try to claim "fiscal responsibility".

Rand Paul is giving up solid, constitutional, common sense positions...because he can't put them into words the voters will understand? I mean, I guess we are going to be told to "just wait and see, continue to donate, we have the master plan" all over again? When he/his office aren't listening to simple advice, and he is taking positions completely the opposite of his father...to simply pander?

Once again, Rand is taking calculated risks to minimize the affects they will have against him in his run for president. I don't understand many of the supporters of Ron Paul. As educated as they are on policy that however doesn't seem to equate to strategy and winning the presidency. I suppose I can understand why, however, still yet have a hard time with it because I reckon I expect more from the lot of supporters that backed Ron. I thought we simply all just "knew" that Rand couldn't follow the same path as his father or else it would produce the same results. By taking the route that Rand has taken this gives him the possibility of actually winning the presidency instead of simply being a "pure senator" that will never win the presidency. Again, I just hope Rand can hang onto his father's most hardcore supporters before the MSM can squash it before it's of any affect. Hang on guy's, don't fall for their divide and conquer tactics.

I'm sorry, Rand is taking stupid, non-fiscally conservative, Rick Santorum type positions. He is going to get DESTROYED with attack ads in 2016, no matter what positions he takes, especially if he is a legitimate threat. I have seen the Ron Paul 2012 attack ad template Romney's campaign was going to use. It will lose Rand the southern states. I don't understand Rand Paul supporters that think that Rand becoming a liar and taking positions he doesn't really believe (maybe?), is a good thing.

Rand Paul is trying to become President, through positions of deceit and double-speak? Just vote for Mitt Romney. I was one that said Ron Paul needed a speech coach, as some others around here did. I emailed one of his advisers with suggestions, and some got through and were used by the adviser and Ron Paul in one of the debates. Rand Paul needs a speech coach, but instead of using constitutional, fiscally conservative, common sense positions, he is taking positions that won't matter when the attacks start rolling in against him. He will lose those voters, no matter what positions he takes.

Ron Paul's weakness to the stupid, ignorant, dumb as bricks GOP base was foreign policy, because they hated the truth and didn't want to hear it. And, they wouldn't listen if it wasn't from their puppets on TV or radio. If Rand Paul has no/little differing foreign policy than Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, or Jeb Bush...why does Rand Paul need your vote? Many of the GOP base will keep Rand as a "2nd choice", and that's before they see the attack ads roll out.

So please, don't blame the MSM on divide and conquer, when that is exactly what Rand Paul is doing himself with his own stupid words and actions. And it is exactly what Ron Paul 2012 did, when they told/suggested people shouldn't attend PaulFest.

[Brett85]

Is this?

"I will do whatever you want...just let me get elected, pulease....."

So cutting foreign aid is a neocon position? Why are all of the actual neocons opposed to Rand's bill then? Why is AIPAC opposed to Rand's bill?

[Brett85]

If Rand Paul has no/little differing foreign policy than Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, or Jeb Bush...why does Rand Paul need your vote? Many of the GOP base will keep Rand as a "2nd choice", and that's before they see the attack ads roll out.

Because most people are smart enough to realize that even though Rand's foreign policy isn't exactly the same as Ron's, it's not anywhere close to Jeb Bush's foreign policy. Rand has done some things and taken some foreign policy positions that he should be criticized for, but at least use reasonable arguments when making those criticisms.

[Krugminator2]

I don't support the Palestinians, or Israel. If you (or, anybody else) want to give to those countries (or, people groups) through a charity, or volunteer on your own, do so. But any politician that is voting to borrow from China, to give to Israel (or, Palestine, or any other country) is beyond ridiculous. Especially if they are ever going to try to claim "fiscal responsibility".

Rand Paul is giving up solid, constitutional, common sense positions...because he can't put them into words the voters will understand? I mean, I guess we are going to be told to "just wait and see, continue to donate, we have the master plan" all over again? When he/his office aren't listening to simple advice, and he is taking positions completely the opposite of his father...to simply pander?

I don't support foreign aid.

Rand is moving the ball forward on eliminating foreign aid. He has been very clear that he wants to eliminate all foreign aid. Rand is not king. Having a pure ideological position and getting things done through the political process are two separate things.

Ron Paul was excellent but he had no problem pandering when he thought it would move the ball forward for his causes.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand voted in FAVOR of MORE foreign aid to Israel, so not only did he waiver, he is 100% the opposite direction of where Ron Paul would be. Rand Paul voted to continue to borrow money from China, to give to Israel, so that we can remain unsafe. He shouldn't even run for President if he isn't going to at least see what causes US to be hated around the world, and more likely to be attacked.

I'm sort of meh on Rand and I've been so for a long time. I'll vote for him on the chance that he substantially improves things but not expecting much.

But cutting aid to Palestine is good despite the fact that increasing aid to Israel is bad.

[NOVALibertarian]

Some of y'all need to stop being so dogmatic. Do you want to win? Be pragmatic.

That picture of Rand at the Western Wall is ridiculously overblown. Just because he put on a hat and touched a wall doesn't mean he "sold out." Hell, whilst pretending to pray, he could instead be thinking about what he's having to eat when he gets back to the hotel. But I digress.

Being labeled "Anti-Israel" is the kiss of death in the Republican Primary. Doing something like what Rand is doing doesn't give opponents a leg to stand on, especially when they'll lose their other leg by going on the record as against cutting off aid to Palestine. In a fight, Rand isn't losing to a double amputee.

[jjdoyle]

Because most people are smart enough to realize that even though Rand's foreign policy isn't exactly the same as Ron's, it's not anywhere close to Jeb Bush's foreign policy. Rand has done some things and taken some foreign policy positions that he should be criticized for, but at least use reasonable arguments when making those criticisms.

Actually, I doubt most people are smart enough to realize it, because their TVs and radio won't tell them that when the time is necessary. So, Ron Paul's constitutional, common sense, fiscally conservative foreign policy is what Rand has abandoned, for what? Moving the ball sideways on the field? Which accomplishes nothing.

I don't support foreign aid.

Rand is moving the ball forward on eliminating foreign aid. He has been very clear that he wants to eliminate all foreign aid. Rand is not king. Having a pure ideological position and getting things done through the political process are two separate things.

Ron Paul was excellent but he had no problem pandering when he thought it would move the ball forward for his causes.

Rand is moving the ball sideways, but not forward. If you vote for MORE foreign aid to a "special" country, while saying you want to end all foreign aid, that is stupidity at its finest really. It's exactly why anything is rarely accomplished in the trash pit that is Washington D.C. toward reducing the size and scope of the government. Both sides pander to each other, and they both get what they want in the end. More MONEY and SPENDING!

Rand Paul might be playing the game, but on this, his position is running the ball laterally.

[jjdoyle]

Some of y'all need to stop being so dogmatic. Do you want to win? Be pragmatic.

That picture of Rand at the Western Wall is ridiculously overblown. Just because he put on a hat and touched a wall doesn't mean he "sold out." Hell, whilst pretending to pray, he could instead be thinking about what he's having to eat when he gets back to the hotel. But I digress.

Being labeled "Anti-Israel" is the kiss of death in the Republican Primary. Doing something like what Rand is doing doesn't give opponents a leg to stand on, especially when they'll lose their other leg by going on the record as against cutting off aid to Palestine. In a fight, Rand isn't losing to a double amputee.

I don't care about the picture, I care about his votes and positions. If going to Israel caused Rand to give Israel more foreign aid, as he voted for last year, that is 100% wrong IMO. Picture, or no picture.

And, what do you think is going to stop Rand from being labeled that in attack ads? You haven't seen anything yet.

[Brian4Liberty]

Interesting. Gathering some metrics on this issue...

[Brett85]

Actually, I doubt most people are smart enough to realize it, because their TVs and radio won't tell them that when the time is necessary. So, Ron Paul's constitutional, common sense, fiscally conservative foreign policy is what Rand has abandoned, for what? Moving the ball sideways on the field? Which accomplishes nothing.

I don't think he's abandoned it. I just don't think he was ever as non interventionist on foreign policy as Ron is. But just to use one example, he's still the only Republican in the Senate other than Jeff Flake who supports the current negotiations with Iran and isn't advocating placing additional sanctions on them immediately. Rand is taking that position despite the fact that it will be unpopular in the Republican primary and may hurt his chances to win the GOP primary. So I think to say that Rand has "completely abandoned a fiscally conservative common sense foreign policy" is quite a stretch. He's watered down the foreign policy message to some extent, and he was never as non interventionist as Ron to begin with, but I certainly don't think that he's just sold out on those issues and taken the same positions as the neocons.

[Brett85]

And, what do you think is going to stop Rand from being labeled that in attack ads? You haven't seen anything yet.

He'll be able to counter that narrative by responding with ads of his own that he fought to cut off aid to the PA, and all of the other candidates running opposed his effort and took an anti Israel position.

[jjdoyle]

He'll be able to counter that narrative by responding with ads of his own that he fought to cut off aid to the PA, and all of the other candidates running opposed his effort and took an anti Israel position.

His current position won't matter a hill of beans when the attack ads start rolling 24/7 like what Mitt Romney's campaign and Ron Paul 2012 did to Newt in Iowa in 2012. 24/7 negative attack ads, for a month, along with the media repeating those things? Ron Paul tanked in Iowa with 2 weeks of heavy negative press, on something that shouldn't of even been an issue.

I understand 100% WHY he is doing these things, but I 100% don't believe they will work. And instead of having a 100% solid record to stand on, he is pandering on issues to try and appease some, that won't matter. As 100% evidenced at the Value Voters Summit he spoke at.

[Todd]

Are we ending aid to Israel too?



Silly question, I know.

Nope not a silly question at all. that was my question to

[Rudeman]

Some of you guys [don't get it (mod edit)], how many times do you have to see Rand do the same/similar thing and still not get what he's trying to do.

If the goal is to cut foreign aid, which it is, and Rand knows it is politically unfeasible to do it all at once. So what does he do? He targets the low hanging fruit, he did the same thing with Egypt. If you eliminate all the other nations you'll be left with only Israel and maybe then people will wonder wtf are we giving them money. That is why the neocons oppose it because they know if Rand ever got the ball rolling it would be hard for them to make it stop.


BUT NOPE ISRAEL ISRAEL ISRAEL!

[jjdoyle]

Some of you guys (mod edit ), how many times do you have to see Rand do the same/similar thing and still not get what he's trying to do.

If the goal is to cut foreign aid, which it is, and Rand knows it is politically unfeasible to do it all at once. So what does he do? He targets the low hanging fruit, he did the same thing with Egypt. If you eliminate all the other nations you'll be left with only Israel and maybe then people will wonder wtf are we giving them money. That is why the neocons oppose it because they know if Rand ever got the ball rolling it would be hard for them to make it stop.


BUT NOPE ISRAEL ISRAEL ISRAEL!

So, Rand Paul's goal is to cut foreign aid to Palestine, so he can give more to Israel? If Rand had voted against that aid to Israel, this would be awesome. But instead, because of his own actions, he appears as nothing more than a panderer and weak.

Sorry you find those of us that expect politicians to have consistent positions, dense.

[JJ2]

Absolutely. Let's name some names. Who in the Senate that you would consider an "Israel defender" do you think will support this bill.

Even better would be if you would start with members of the foreign relations committee, since it would have to get passed through that committee first.

Here is the new list of members of that committee:
GOP
Bob Corker, Tenn.
Jim Risch, Idaho
Marco Rubio, Fla.
Ron Johnson, Wis.
Jeff Flake, Ariz.
Cory Gardner, Colo.**
David Perdue, Ga.**
Johnny Isakson, Ga.*
Rand Paul, Ky.
John Barrasso, Wyo.

DEM
Robert Menendez, N.J., ranking member
Barbara Boxer, Calif.
Benjamin L. Cardin, Md.
Jeanne Shaheen, N.H.
Chris Coons, Del.
Tom Udall, N.M.
Christopher S. Murphy, Conn.
Tim Kaine, Va.
Edward J. Markey, Mass.

http://innovation.cq.com/pub/table/index.php?id=240

Rubio and Menendez are both Israel firsters and I predict they will oppose.

Wait...McCain is no longer on the committee?

[Brett85]

So, Rand Paul's goal is to cut foreign aid to Palestine, so he can give more to Israel? If Rand had voted against that aid to Israel, this would be awesome. But instead, because of his own actions, he appears as nothing more than a panderer and weak.

Sorry you find those of us that expect politicians to have consistent positions, dense.

Can you link to the roll call vote where Rand voted for foreign aid to Israel?