Tag Archives: standwithrand
Rand Paul won the presidential straw poll at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), but he appears to have won the debate on drones by an even larger margin.
A poll of CPAC attendees found that 86% opposed the use of drones to “kill US citizens,” while 70% were against using them to “spy on U.S. citizens”. More strikingly, 50% of respondents at America’s largest gathering of conservative activists agreed with the following statement: “Nearly 70 years after the end of World War II, it’s time for our European, Asian, and other allies to provide for their own defense.”
Only 34% agreed with this statement: “As the world’s only superpower, the US needs to bear the responsibility of protecting our allies in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world.” Another 17% didn’t know, weren’t sure or preferred not to say.
The wording of the questions certainly made conservatives more likely to give non-interventionist responses. One simple edit in the drone questions –changing “US citizens” to “terrorists” – might have elicited a somewhat different answer. Nevertheless, the momentum definitely appears to have shifted. Gone are the days of Americans supporting anything in the name of US security.
Chicago, March 14, 2013- Senator Paul’s speech before CPAC was a call to reason and conservatism to the Republican Party. The future of conservatism does not have to be aligned with the GOP and were it to ignore Senator Paul’s admonishments and listen to the other speakers who may like Senator Rubio, invite the Republican Party, which has lost four of the six last Presidential elections, to feel proud of itself, it stands to lose the next Presidential election as well. Repeating the same statements in an echo chamber is not a winning strategy-Senator Paul is right to call for a re-assessment. One place to start is the oft-repeated if mythical notion that the GOP wants or stands for smaller government.
GOP candidates talk about being distinguishable from the Democratic Party because they prefer small government. The facts do not bear this out to be true. Take for example, Paul Ryan’s budget. During the 2012 Presidential campaign, Paul Ryan and Governor Romney asked for an additional $2 trillion for defense spending, on top of the increases in defense spending that already existed, but refused to say where the $2 trillion extra would go. A lot of Ryan’s cuts were in toto relatively speaking – small, but they disproportionately benefited corporate interests and wealthier Americans. This presents an optics problem not necessarily erased by the mantra of the rich being job creators, others takers and lower tax rates for the wealthiest Americans leading to economic prosperity-the latter a subject onto itself and deservedly outside the scope of this post.
I stumbled upon an article in The New York Post last week titled “Rand Paul’s Triumph”and was surprised to see something positive about the libertarian senator from Kentucky in a neo-conservative newspaper. The headline gave me hope that perhaps after the last election, the Republican establishment might give up on its egregious trade-your-rights-for-security “core principle.”
I should have known better than to hope when the name of the article’s author, John Podhoretz, rang a bell.
Neo-conservatism was the brainchild of Norman Podhoretz and his protégé Irving Kristol decades ago, and Irving Kristol’s son Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard continues his father’s tradition today. So I suspected that John Podhoretz might be Norman’s son, similarly carrying on his father’s tradition and indeed he is. As a matter of fact, I quickly discovered that Podhoretz is part of the neo-conservative inner sanctum and was actually a co-founder of The Weekly Standard.
Hope does spring eternal, however, so I read on. After gushing with praise over Senator Paul’s intelligence, courage and determination (I was really hooked by then!), Podhoretz delivers his punch:
The logic of Paul’s view is that the United States is the aggressor in the war on Islamist terror rather than a bystander unwillingly drawn into a battle that has not yet been won.
Rand Paul, who turned 50 this year, is one of the most talented politicians of his generation. And one of the most dangerous.
While in my mind nothing justifies a massive attack on civilians like 9/11, I must sadly differ with the view that the United States was targeted for no reason whatsoever.
On March 6th, 2013 Senator Rand Paul began a 13 hour filibuster forcing the Obama Administration to clearly explain their stance regarding drone strikes. Paul demanded they answer the question does the President think he has the authority to kill non-combatant Americans on US soil with drones? Meanwhile, Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham were eating dinner with President Obama.
The next morning both McCain and Graham demonstrated their disdain for the filibuster, speaking on the Senate floor. Of Senator Paul’s filibuster Graham said “cheapens the debate” and ”I find the question offensive,” and “I do not believe that question deserves an answer”.
For many Tea Party and Liberty movement conservatives Sen. Graham went too far and they are ready to do whatever they can to end his political career.
Dustin Stockton of WesternPac and national organizer of Day of Resistance Rallies tweeted ‘considering catching a plane to SC and not leaving until we have a candidate to defeat
There is a Primary Lindsey facebook page dedicated to replacing the Senator in 2014 primary. Their mission statement on the about page it simply says “Stop Lindsey” . A google search revealed that the domain called PrimaryGraham.com was purchased on March, 8th 2013.
Video of John McCain and Lindsey Graham on the Senate floor:
Has Senator John McCain become out of touch with a fast changing more conservative GOP? Are we seeing a changing of the guard with more constitutionally focused congressmen like Paul, Cruz and Amash? Is the former 2008 Republican challenger to President Obama confused about which party he should belong?
What exactly is a ‘Wacko Bird‘?
According to thefreedictionary.com it is - A person who is regarded as eccentric or mad - having forelimbs modified to form wings
not to be confused with - an eccentric or mad person – having an American Citizen Killing Drone airplane.