-
Tebowing and ‘Polarizing’
June 11, 2013 | 7 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The Republican primary fight to succeed Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) has heated up, with Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson hitting GOP frontrunner Rand Paul hard on the causes of 9/11. Grayson has come out with an ad splicing together comments by Paul, his father Ron Paul, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright about blowback, U.S. foreign policy, and 9/11. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza notes that whatever else can be said for the theory, blowback is “a stone-cold loser in a Republican primary anywhere in the country but particularly in a state as conservative-leaning as Kentucky.”
Rand Paul immediately struck back with an ad of his own recalling where he was on 9/11, placing the blame for the attacks squarely at the feet of the terrorists “who killed 3,000 innocents,” and blasting a “desperate Trey Grayson.” Paul concludes the ad by looking at the camera and saying, “Trey Grayson, your shameful TV ad is a lie and it dishonors you.”
I profiled Rand Paul in the May issue of Reason and have written about him for the main site. He has been extremely careful during this Senate campaign to use a different tone in discussing foreign policy than his father (even when the substance is the same, though it is sometimes different). The comments in Grayson’s ad all appear to be taken from when the younger Paul was a surrogate for his father during the 2008 presidential race. It is clear that Grayson views foreign policy and 9/11 as the best ways to score what would now be an upset in the Republican primary, with hawks nationally taking notice that they have six weeks to keep a savvy Ron Paul Republican from winning a senatorial nomination.
View all comments (54) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/30/trey-grayson-hits-rand-paul-on
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Sweet Home, Alabama
- There’s Something About Cambridge
- The Lehrman Standard
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Tim| 3.30.10 @ 1:53PM
"Some times you feel like a nut,
some times you don't..."
S.L. Toddard| 3.30.10 @ 2:35PM
I will be stunned if Rand wins this one. The forces arranged against him (Big Government/Big Business) are indomitable. Somehow the forces of Big Government will prevail. Already Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney, perhaps the most discredited foreign policy mind in a generation, is attacking Rand Paul for not being wrong on Iraq, as Cheney was.
Chad | 3.30.10 @ 3:24PM
"Somehow the forces of Big Government will prevail."
They think so to. In fact, they are so confident that it has made them complacent.
Unsinkable ships sink, my friend.
They can lose.
Ben| 3.30.10 @ 4:19PM
Trey Greyson should have used literature quotes on "blowback" from the CIA too.
Brian | 3.30.10 @ 4:27PM
Have to +1 on Ben's comments. The elder Paul's references to blowback come straight from the CIA as well as the 9/11 commision report. Regardless, this is an act of desperation from the Gray camp who is 20+ points behind a race they led by that margin mere months ago.
AngelaTC | 3.30.10 @ 10:44PM
Yes, and I think that the blogger's assertion that Grayson views foreign policy as the Achilles heel is misguided. Grayson didn't come out with that line of thought until after meeting with the Beltway boys. He's taking his marching orders from McConnell and Rove.
Idaho| 3.30.10 @ 4:41PM
I think the stone-cold loser Grayson may experience a bit of blowback himself for embracing neo-con ideals.
ml| 3.30.10 @ 5:04PM
If Rand Paul does win the Kentucky primary election, the Democrat will win the US Senate in November. Paul is not conservative. He is just like his father, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.
William R| 3.30.10 @ 5:07PM
Of course Rand Paul is a conservative. If elected he will be the most conservative member of the Senate.
Sean| 3.30.10 @ 5:20PM
Ron Paul isn't a conservative? I guess you have to vote for government spending now to be considered a conservative by some.
jp| 3.30.10 @ 5:31PM
far from it, he's a Rothbardian/Bircher crank Paleo-"libertarian". The only reason he runs as an "R" is to get a platform.
So far he's been lucky, he is largely ignored by the mainstream. If that ever changes he will be creamed and ran out of polite society like his bircher friends were along time ago.
SImple question: How Many Republican Politicians can publish for over a Decade RACIST AND CONSPIRATORIALY looney Newsletters(The Ron Paul Newsletter) and get away with it by the Dems and MSM?????
They let him get away with it because he aides their cause. Paul is an "MSNBC Conservative", a deceitful loon at that.
ejp| 3.30.10 @ 6:27PM
Amen to the lunacy of Ron Paul and his phony brand of "conservatism" which tries to make the same kind of foreign policy George McGovern would have loved seem respectable somehow. The last thing the GOP needs is another Chuck Hegel (another phony MSNBC conservative) in the Senate again.
Red Phillips | 3.30.10 @ 11:05PM
Sorry to bust your bubble ejp, but the movement "conservative" gurus have been lying to you. Gallivanting all over the world playing globocop is not conservative. It is fundamentally radical. Non-interventionism IS THE ONLY conservative foreign policy. BTW, Hagel was not a non-interventionist. He was a foreign policy realist. At least get your foreign policy schools of though straight.
ejp| 3.31.10 @ 2:25AM
Yeah, I guess Ronald Reagan all through the Cold War was such a non-conservative, right? (Sarcasm mode now disengaged). Paul and Hagel both amount to the same philosophy that would have made George McGovern proud, not Ronald Reagan. Trying to cast McGovernism as "conservative" is the ultimate definition of phoniness.
tkk| 3.31.10 @ 12:36PM
Ronald Reagan said, “In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.” Imagine if we would have this kind of “rethinking” today. We would not have needlessly lost thousands of U.S. soldiers in an unconstitutional and immoral war in Iraq (not to mention the over $1,000,000,000,000 we have spent on it.) We would not be on our way to national bankruptcy and insolvency by trying to police the world. We would be safer due to the fact we would not be unnecessarily stirring up a hornets’ nest in the Middle East. We would be more respected throughout the rest of the world for not playing the role of global police officer.
Reagan did have some “blunders” in his presidency. Iran-Contra and the 11.2% increase in our national debt over his eight years in office come immediately to mind. Yet, on the Lebanon crisis, he handled it correctly. He realized that was not our fight, it did not concern us, and we were interjecting ourselves into a religious war that had been going on for millennia. During his administration we did not have any interventionist/preemptive wars, but we still were able to stand up to the Soviet Union and watch with enthusiasm as their empire collapsed (which ironically collapsed because of their gallivanting policies in the Middle East, the same type of cavalier, interventionist attitude you and the rest of the neo-cons have with respect to Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Israel, etc.) In other words, we outlasted and overcame a Soviet Empire that had anywhere between 20,000 and 50,000 active nuclear warheads, thousands more chemical/biological weapons, technology on par with our own, and a military as large, or larger than the U.S., without firing a single shot. Nowadays we start wars against third world countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) that have no nukes (even though we were lied to about that), no navy, no air force, and an army that our National Guard defeated in under a week. Unfortunately, in these academically depressed times, we seem to not be heeding histories’ warning that empires will inevitably fall, not necessarily from defeat on the battlefield, but defeat on the balance sheet.
For those of you out there thinking that these Islamic extremists hate us for who we are, as opposed to what we do, consider the following; we have been an independent nation since 1776 and the first Islamic terror attack on American soil did not occur until the early 1970’s. We had the same principles of freedom from 1776 until the 1970’s (it could be argued we had more freedom then) and they did not attack us. So why has Islamic terrorism become a problem in the last 40 years but was not a problem for our first 200 years? Could it be because our presence there has increased exponentially since the Cold War era? Could it be because we send billions of dollars in aid to Israel each year which they then use to occupy Palestine? Could it be because our CIA actively participated in an overthrow of a freely elected government of Iran in 1953 and then set up a government run by a military dictator? Could it be because we have military bases in their homelands, including their holy lands on the Arabian Peninsula?
And before you go off on a neo-conservative rant about how much I, and others who share my views on foreign policy, hate America or am some kooky conspiracy theorist, please consider, for you edification, the advice and philosophy of our founders regarding foreign policy.
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none should be our motto.” Thomas Jefferson - First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
“If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.” Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Letter to William Short, 1791
“"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..." –George Washington in his farewell address
“There was never a good war, or a bad peace.” –Benjamin Franklin
I could go on to ad nauseam with quotes from our founders, Abe Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, Thomas Paine, and so on but I think you get the point and I do not have the time. These men were noninterventionists in the absolute purist sense and I would not label them leftist or un-American.
Trying to “spin” interventionism as conservatism, and painting non-interventionism as “McGovernism” not only is the epitome of phoniness, it is devoid of any understanding of the advice of the founders, the history of the country, the current geopolitical atmosphere, and, above all, the Constitution of the United States of America.
tkk| 3.31.10 @ 1:01PM
Oh, a few more things. Reagan was a liberal democrat that admired FDR and his New Deal. He also actively participated in Harry Truman's 1948 presidential campaign by giving a few speeches and endorsing President Truman and other prominent democrats. At one point, Ronald Reagan even tried to join the Communist Party but was rejected because they thought he was not smart enough. It wasn't until the 1950's that Reagan started to lean to the right, and eventually became a Republican and a champion of the conservative cause. However, even then he did do some "liberal" things like grant amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants. So, ejp, to answer your question, no Ronald Reagan was not a non-conservative throughout the entire Cold War, only the first few years.
Red Phillips | 3.31.10 @ 1:07PM
tkk, very excellent post. I agree with it entirely except for the reference to Lincoln. I am not sure how Lincoln, who invaded the duly seceded South, could ever credibly be quoted on the subject of war and peace, and he most certainly could be described as a leftist (in his day) and un-American.
tkk| 3.31.10 @ 1:58PM
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” –Abe Lincoln
Red, what I was referring to was this Lincoln quote. Neoconservatives will have us believe our freedom is under attack from this Islamic boogeyman that hardly has an army at all. They also argue that we have to start preemptive wars to stop this. Lincoln was referring to that mindset in this quote by saying that outside enemies will never bring down this great country, it will be more than likely that, if we should lose our freedoms, it will be born out of complacency to an overreaching government.
With regards to Lincoln being un-American, I disagree. Lincoln was bringing to fruition the final step in bringing about freedom for all. Our founders realized this glaring contradiction of having a free society with slaves, but in order to gain ratification of the constitution they needed the southern states on board.
I also disagree that southern secession was warranted. The founders did believe in nullification of the constitution, or secession, if the federal government broke the rule of law and started usurping power from the state governments illegally. That was a point of contention with Patrick Henry when ratification was being debated in Virginia and he, and the other anti-federalists, were told that Virginia could leave the union if the Federal government broke the rule of law. However, Lincoln did not do anything unconstitutional at the time of the southern secession (he later unjustly suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the war). In fact I wish politicians of today would learn from him. IF YOU WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO HAVE MORE POWER, YOU MUST GO THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS. That’s what Lincoln, and the other “radical” Republicans that came to power as a result of the 1860 election, wanted; a constitutional amendment banning slavery. It is constitutional to ask for an amendment and go through the process to obtain one (which requires three quarters of the state legislatures to give their blessing). This Republican goal was realized with the passage of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is not constitutional to bypass this and give the Federal Government powers it does not have (Social Security, Medicare, the new health care bill, Department of Education, War Powers Act, Federal Reserve,…). While the founders did recognize that secession could and should be used if the government breaks the rule of law (the Revolutionary War could be viewed as an act of secession from the British Crown because the King was breaking the rule of law), it is important to note that Lincoln was operating within the limits of the constitution by proposing an amendment to end slavery. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes,” slavery is not a light or transient cause, it was/is serious and needed to be abolished. Lincoln did so with an amendment. The South abolished the constitution for, what I see as, the light and transient reason of not getting their way.
Red Phillips | 3.31.10 @ 2:43PM
tkk, I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but Lincoln actually favored a constitutional amendment to forever enshrine slavery, not the opposite. (Look up the Corwin Amendment on wiki.)
“Lincoln was bringing to fruition the final step in bringing about freedom for all. Our founders realized this glaring contradiction of having a free society with slaves”
This is dangerously close to the Jaffaesque notion of Lincoln as the “perfecter” of the Union. It is hindsight projection onto the Founders of what moderns want them to have believed. As much as some want to believe that America was founded as some sort of proto-egalitarian Utopia, it simply isn’t true. The Founders were like all the men of their day, appallingly un-PC by modern standards. Ideological egalitarianism should be anathema to conservatives. Read Jaffa’s debate with M. E. Bradford on equality. Bradford, a real conservative, buries him.
And whether or not Southern secession was "warranted," while important, is beside the point. The question is whether it was permitted? Can unwarranted secession be suppressed but warranted secession not? Who gets to decide that? Want to guess on which side the cent gov will ALWAYS fall?
tkk| 3.31.10 @ 5:21PM
Red, I always get a little upset whenever I read a thread that loses focus. However, intellectual debate such as this is hard to find nowadays, especially on the internet. Therefore I think a little digression and debate is appropriate here. Plus, I think it will go a long way in debunking the myth that many seem to have of Rand Paul (and Ron Paul) supporters being loons or simpletons (of course I am assuming you are a Rand Paul supporter).
First of all, I would like to thank you for bringing to my attention the Corwin Amendment. While I was aware of this amendment, I always thought that it was an amendment supported by President Buchanan alone, which brought some embarrassment to me as a Pennsylvanian, and not by President Lincoln. It appears that I was wrong. President Lincoln did seem to support it early in his presidency. Even though I don’t agree with the Corwin Amendment, it was not an unconstitutional act. Yet, I think the ultimate outcome of Lincoln’s presidency, mainly the 13th amendment, highlights Lincoln’s shift in thinking.
It is interesting that you brought up Bradford and Jaffa because I recently read an article in the April edition of “The American Conservative” concerning Bradford and the attack on him by the neoconservatives after President Reagan thought about nominating him for chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Although I understand Bradford’s main arguments, I disagree that equality of opportunity will eventually lead to more radical utopian egalitarianism policies, so long as we keep the Constitution as our guiding light. The Constitution spells out, in no uncertain terms, the rights we have as individuals, and the responsibility of our government. If we interpret the Constitution strictly and abide by the process for which the Federal Government may, with the consent of three quarters of the state legislatures, increase its power, no further egalitarian policies would arise. As I mentioned in an early post, the founders did reassure the individual states that they could secede from the union if the Federal Government went outside the rule of law. I ask you, where did Lincoln or the Federal Government go outside the rule of law?
To answer the question of what kind of secession is permitted, we should once again defer to the Constitution to see if Federal authorities overstep their bounds. In the case of Lincoln, I would say no, secession was not permitted. He did not cite the commerce clause or the general welfare clause to justify actions of abolition. He and, more accurately, the Republicans in Congress proposed an amendment that eventually was ratified. The states, including those below the Mason-Dixon, knew that by ratifying the Constitution they were committing themselves to a Federal Government that they could only break away from if, and only if, the Federal Government was violating the Constitution. In other words, whether or not southern secession was warranted is not “beside the point”, it is the point because they agreed to the union in the first place.
As for the claim that I am projecting hindsight of modern society onto our founders, I disagree. I think I’m reflecting their realization of the contradiction of a free society that allows slavery. Thomas Jefferson spoke publicly numerous times of abolition. He was a regular correspondent with William Wilberforce, the British Member of Parliament and avid abolitionist. Although, he does look like a hypocrite since he owned several slaves. Adams was also an abolitionist. Yet, they were also human and, in this case, put politics before principle. They needed southern support for the Constitution, thus they tolerated slavery.
I believe this very argument is the essence of the difference between Northern conservatives and Southern conservatives.
Red Phillips | 3.31.10 @ 12:58PM
"Paul and Hagel both amount to the same philosophy"
No not at all. Get your facts straight. Realists are firmly in the internationalist camp. They value diplomacy and multilateralism and have a more realistic idea of what can be achieved, but they share the same internationalist assumptions as do interventionist neocons and the rest of the foreign policy establishment. (Do realist want us to end foreign aid? To withdraw from the UN? No. They prize such international cooperation.)
The policy of non-intervention that Ron Paul advocates rejects the typical internationalist assumptions that dominate the foreign policy establishment. It is the only policy that is consistent with constitutionally limited small government and the particularistic and parochial mindset that partially defines authentic conservatism. If you want to advocate internationalist crusading be my guest, but please don’t fool yourself into believing it is any kind of conservatism. It is not. Universalistic internationalism is rank liberalism.
Vigilant Satyr| 3.31.10 @ 8:54PM
Ignoring and refusing to guide world events to the benefit of American interests is an invitation for disaster. Non-interventionism is a Utopian ideal that only naive fools and children believe would keep America safer.
tkk| 4.1.10 @ 10:29AM
American interests are best served when we respect the Constitution. Non-intervention is not Utopian, it was a reality in this country until the Spanish-American War. It is also not an ideal that only "naive fools and children believe". If you had taken the time to read earlier posts, I demonstrated that non-intervention was the advice and foreign policy of our founders, men who I would hardly consider "naive fools".
Do tell, how is bankrupting the country in order to fight preemptive wars serving American interests?
William R| 3.30.10 @ 6:43PM
The old Newsletter story. As John Derbyshire of National Review wrote" there wasn't anything in those newsletters you couldn't find it mainstream conservative publications." It was a story about nothing.
Face it jp, you're clueless and a troll
jp| 3.30.10 @ 5:29PM
Paul's leftist views on the cause of 9/11 are extremely ignorant. he cites for his thesis, leftist professor Robert Pape of Univ. of Chicago(whose thesis has been throughly debunked).
Paul should try reading a history book of the last 1300 yrs of Islamic Conquest, what their worldview actually is(Global Caliphate, Global Sharia Law) and why the Islamic parts of the world became Islamic(it wasn't Self-Determiantion, it was Jihad conquering).
Incidently, Walter Russel Mead wrote an excellent blog not long ago highlighting the Short Sightedness/ignorance of the "blowback" theory.
a larger problem with Paul is that he openly lies and deceives on this issues and others.
William R| 3.30.10 @ 6:46PM
Lets see what our CIA says about blow back and 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA
DG| 3.31.10 @ 1:37AM
1300 years of islamic conquest against 200 years of US conquest. It doesn't take long to create the empire, but it takes a great amount of money and blood to keep the empire. I am not willing to give either money or blood to keep an empire in the middle east. Most people willing to give blood haven't done so themselves. (Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Obama).
Red Phillips | 3.30.10 @ 5:55PM
"blowback, U.S. foreign policy, and 9/11. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza notes that whatever else can be said for the theory, blowback is "a stone-cold loser in a Republican primary anywhere in the country but particularly in a state as conservative-leaning as Kentucky.""
Unfortunately for the neocon hyper-interventionists, it also happens to be true. JP you can not credibly deny that American foreign policy is one cause of Islamic resentment against us. It unarguably is. OBL says so himself. Who is more credible on the causes of terrorism than the ones carrying it out? What, does OBL have his fingers crossed behind his back? "I'm going to say we are mad at them because they had troops stationed in Sauidi Arabia and because they support Israel, but we really don't like them because of all the dirty movies they produce."
You can argue that blowback is not a sufficient explanation. That it requires the milieu of radical Islam. Or you can argue that we should proceed as we were despite potential blowback. But you CAN NOT credibly deny blowback. To do so is like denying that the grass is green.
American| 3.30.10 @ 7:57PM
"Who is more credible on the causes of terrorism than the ones carrying it out?"
You're out of you're mind, man! Do you hear yourself?
Red Phillips | 3.30.10 @ 10:55PM
American, think with the brains God gave you instead of your emotions. This is really quite simple. Who understands the motives of any criminal better than the criminal themselves? Does the cop or the DA understand their motive better than they do? So if they told you their motive would you ignore it? So who better understands the motives of OBL than OBL? He is trying to effect some change. How does it benefit him to lie about what it is he wants changed? Again, this is simple. Only emotion would blind you to this obvious truth.
American| 3.30.10 @ 11:51PM
Wow, you're such a genius. You actually believe a terrorist if he tells you something. Unfreaking believable dude.
Emotion? Obviously that's what you go by if you actually believe what a poor little terrorist would tell you.
And besides oh intelligent one, who the hell cares what a murderous terrorist's motive is? Quit sympathizing with the enemy.
Red Phillips | 3.31.10 @ 1:15PM
"Quit sympathizing with the enemy."
I am, as Sun Tsz instructs us, trying to understand the enemy.
The CIA believes the terrorists. See William R's link. The guy in the video was in the Bin Laden division. But what the hell does he know? Some keyboard warrior pounding away in the comments section of an interventionist leaning magazine surely knows more than he does.
Chris| 4.8.10 @ 1:28AM
You think of a terrorist as the devil, lying and manipulating for no reason, and that he just hates the U.S. for no reason. This is foolish. I know its easy to fall into this trap because you actually have to admit to yourself that the U.S. is not perfect and our actions have consequences. I am willing to listen to why he acts as he does because all men have motives. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
And don't feed me lines about how their religion tells them to do it. They may use their religion as an excuse to some degree but the CIA has admitted terrorism is mostly created because of meddling.
We understand why they hate us. Its our occupation of their lands.
Terrorism is a tactic, not a country. It is the symptom of meddling in the affairs of other peoples. Every time you kill one terrorist you create 10 more. The best way to end terrorism is not to stick our nose in the affairs of other countries and worry about ourselves. We can't afford to be the policeman of the world.
You can't bring peace with a gun.
AngelaTC| 3.30.10 @ 10:49PM
Like it or not, rhe GOP's foreign policy was the reason we lost the 2006 elections. Reagan pulled us out of the Middle East after out Marines were attacked. We were safe until Clinton started the strafing again.
Eric Dondero | 3.31.10 @ 8:07AM
Wow. What a truly bizarre point of view. Let me get this straight. You're actually applauding surrender to Islamic Terrorism? You're actually calling Reagan's Lebanon blunder in pulling out the Troops after we were attacked, a good thing?
Those 250 Marines who died in Lebanon, do you think they would have been in favor of pulling out? Or more likely, fighting back and avenging their deaths?
Surrender to the forces of evil is never a good thing. Never!
Red Phillips | 3.30.10 @ 5:56PM
Oops... Saudi
CANDO| 3.30.10 @ 6:01PM
One Word & Only One Word
ELIZABETH DOLE/KAY HAGAN
GRAYSON IS FINISHED
KAPEESH
American| 3.30.10 @ 9:33PM
Our online shop sales GHD range of GHD Hair Straighteners products. If you are buying GHD Straighteners and Ghd flat iron online through the internet, then we will give you more discounts.In addition, free postage.
Joe Carpenter| 3.30.10 @ 9:50PM
"Neo-Con hyper-interventionists." Wow. That's an even newer one! Hahaha.
Just listen to this guy. "OSL (osama bin laden) SAYS" American foreign policy is why the Islamists are mad at us. Oh boy, we should really really listen to that murderer, he might be telling the truth. You never know!
Red Phillips | 3.30.10 @ 10:57PM
Joe, as I told American, if you would think with your brain instead of your emotions it would help. Why would OBL lie? To what end? He is the one trying to get something. How does it help him get what he wants to lie about his motives?
Terrorism is by definition violence for the purpose of bringing about some political end. If it isn't intended to change something then it isn't terrorism. It is just random violence. So if OBL wasn't trying to get us to change our foreign policy what was he really trying to do?
solo| 3.31.10 @ 11:08AM
I would suggest the same, Red: Think with your brain- not your emotions.
OGL objects to our presence in the Middle East. In particular, he doesn't like the idea of the footprints of the "infidel" marring the sands of the 'Holy Land".
So...shall we listen to him?
Do we now make our alliances and determine our trading partners according to the desires of the most radical among our detractors?
Remember...the Barbary Pirates was an example of "blowback", as well. I guess Jefferson and Adams should have practiced "non-interventionism", eh?
No,,,the entire RuPaul narrative is a thinly veiled appeal to foreign policy isolationism. The world has long since been too dangerous and too complicated for such a simple-minded approach.
And you don't let your enemies pick your trading partners or your allies. And THAT is as a conservative view as you can get.
Red Phillips | 3.31.10 @ 3:07PM
And whether or not Southern secession was "warranted," while important, is beside the point. The question is whether it was permitted? Can unwarranted secession be suppressed but warranted secession not? Who gets to decide that? Want to guess on which side the cent gov will ALWAYS fall?
solo, thanks. At least you admit the obvious that OBL is motivated by our policy in the Middle East. Your know-nothing, blustering, fellow interventionists are unwilling to even admit that. Read their comments. Why should we listen to the terrorists they say?
Non-interventionists do not say we should become non-interventionists in reaction to the terrorists’ wishes. They say that non-intervention is the wise foreign policy we should start out from, and resentment of our interventionism is avoided because of this.
Does the wise person not poke the hornet's nest because the last time he did it he got stung, or does he not poke it to begin with so he doesn't get stung the first time?
And the Barbary Pirates, a favorite red herring of the interventionists, has nothing to do with this. I don't know of any non-interventionist who would object to the use of our navy to protect us against systematic state sponsored piracy. Although many would probably argue that we should have had a formal declaration of war when it became a land war against North Africa.
“The world has long since been too dangerous and too complicated for such a simple-minded approach.”
This is a non-falsifiable presupposition on your part. Every adverse event confirms it, and every imagined event that is avoided does also. I could just as easily say, “The world has long since been too dangerous and too complicated for us to think we can improve things by intervening all over the world.”
Red Phillips | 3.31.10 @ 3:10PM
Ignore the first paragraph. I accidently cut and pasted part of my comment to tkk in my reply to you.
Joey | 3.30.10 @ 10:14PM
This one will get uglier. It's more than just Grayson vs. Paul. McConnell is in this deep, too. If Grayson loses then McConnell is vulnerable. He can't chase a second senator out of office nor can he survive with another senator who won't ally to him. If Rand wins; what McConnell did to Bunning just may very well be what Rand does to him. Mitch won't won't fare well when Rand teams up with Demint and leaves Mitch on the outside looking in. It will be worth it just to see McConnell go down in flames.
joe| 3.31.10 @ 1:20AM
Treg Gayson = Bailouts, Wall St criminals, Taxes, Fees, More Taxes, More Gov't, Obama LOVER
Rand Paul = Less Taxes, Less Regulation, Less Gov't Control, More Free Market, No Bailouts, Repeal of Obama Care
Pretty Easy choice to me.
berferd| 3.31.10 @ 6:46AM
Polls, schmolls: The smart money says Grayson is toast. It's not even close. Intrade.com has Paul at 80-90 and Grayson at 10-25.
Eric Dondero | 3.31.10 @ 8:03AM
I can vouch that Rand is way different from his father on foreign policy. I can remember in the 1988 Libertarian Presidential campaign Rand wouldn't join the Libertarian Party cause of his differences over foreign policy. This as he was criss-crossing the country campaigning for his Dad as the LP Presidential candidate.
As travel aide for that campaign, I can remember trucking through North Carolina, driving Rand and Ron, and they'd be having verbal fights the whole way on how to effectively fight Communism.
Rand was an absolute conservative on foreign policy (libertarian on domestic issues). So, for Greyson and even some of the diehard Ron Paulists to paint him as a non-interventionist, is just patently wrong.
Eric Dondero, Personal Aide, Ron Paul, Libertarian for President 1987/88
Senior Aide, Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003
Dondero's Agenda| 3.31.10 @ 8:56AM
Just a heads-up, everyone: Eric Dondero has long had a personal axe to grind with Dr. Paul after being fired by him.
Ignore him.
marybeth| 3.31.10 @ 2:29PM
I live in KY and am a registered Republican. Grayson's TV ads make him look desperate and, to me, gives off a "loser" feel. I don't know the source of the sound clips of Paul that Grayson uses but I get the feeling (from the tone and just from how it's edited - clipped off sounding) that it could all be very different if heard in context.
Paul's TV ad in response sounded calm and thoughtful.
I haven't researched either candidate much yet and don't want to base my decision on their ads, but if I were going to it wouldn't be any contest at this point.
Joseph Zrnchik | 4.2.10 @ 5:40AM
Rand Paul is an American patriot who is strong on defense issues, and like his father is a favorite among military personnel.
He is a fiscal conservative who is against socialized medicine but has also been a strong advocate of the doctor/patient relationship.
He is against the insurance and medical industries' attempts to control the marketplace through government rules enacted by the lobbiests for those interests.
Grayson is controlled by the medical and insurance industries and should not be considered for office.
Cheney stumping for Greyson is not due to any War on Terror as much as it is a preemptive strike by the corporate interests Cheney has represented so well throughout his entire political career and which turned into an orgy while Cheny was VP. It was an orgy in which the people on the receiving end of Cheny were the American middle class.
As a retired military officer who served 28 years, I whole-heartedly support Rand Paul.
Lisa Graas | 4.2.10 @ 1:02PM
Rand Paul agrees with his father on 9/11. There is nothing on the record saying otherwise. Why you want to believe otherwise escapes me. Did you not learn anything from the Obama campaign? You can't go with your warm fuzzies. Show me where Rand Paul comes out against the blowback theory -- ANYWHERE. Do that and you might have a reason to believe that he doesn't agree with what he's been preaching for his father all these years. If you can't show him campaigning against the blowback theory, then your credibility is about on the same level as an Obamanot. Why is this important to me? Because I live here. I am a Kentuckian and a Republican. I respectfully ask you to report factually on my Senate race. It's my Senate seat.