Posted on 09/29/2014 7:22:44 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I’m blown away. Not because McCain is saying he’d back Paul in 2016 as the nominee; of course he’s going to say that while he’s thinking of running again for Senate in Arizona. What blows me away is his reasons for saying so. The great fear among hawks is that, for all of Rand’s posturing lately about destroying ISIS and standing up to Russia, there’s little daylight on foreign policy between him and Ron Paul. No matter how hawkish Rand gets during the primaries, that’s the trump card that rivals like Rubio and Cruz can and will play on him: He’s lying. He’s his father’s son.
Now here comes the super-hawk of all hawks to say … nope. His transformation is genuine. If I were Rand’s ad team, I’d beg Ryan Lizza to post the audio of this interview and then cut the McCain bit for an ad.
John McCain, one of Paul’s longtime critics, told me in August, “I see him evolving with experience, with travel, with hearings on the Foreign Relations Committee. I see him having a better grasp of many of the challenges we face than when he first got here. That doesn’t mean he is now a John McCain, but it certainly does mean that he has a greater appreciation and has been articulating that.” He compared him with Ron Paul. “His father is a person who really believes that the United States should not be engaged in foreign events and foreign countries. I think that Rand Paul is seeing a very unsettled world, one in significant turmoil, and I see him understanding and articulating what in my view is a realistic view of the United States and the importance of its leadership and role in the world.”
McCain cited as an example Paul’s shift on aid to Israel between 2011 and today. “Look at the Rand Paul alternative budget,” he said. “Have you heard of that? It cut aid to Israel; it cut defense in half.” More recently, Paul has said that he would cut foreign aid to five billion dollars per year, with most of that reserved for the Jewish state. “He made a trip to Israel about a year or so ago, and he came back a little bit different,” McCain said…
McCain told me that, if Rand Paul is the Republican nominee for President in 2016, he will support him. “I’ve seen him grow and I’ve seen him mature and I’ve seen him become more centrist. I know that if he were President or a nominee I could influence him, particularly some of his views and positions on national security. He trusts me particularly on the military side of things, so I could easily work with him. It wouldn’t be a problem.”
“It wouldn’t be a problem.” Coming from McCain, given Paul’s vulnerability among the GOP’s interventionists, that may be the single most valuable quasi-endorsement he’s received for his candidacy to date. Which is … baffling. Remember, a little more than a year ago, McCain was telling reporters that he didn’t know who he’d support if the 2016 election came down to Paul and his old friend Hillary Clinton. If memory serves, he later tried to play that off as a joke. But there’s nothing jokey about it; it would make all kinds of sense for Maverick, whose political brand these days is more about interventionism than Republicanism, to endorse a true blue hawk like Hillary than the “wacko bird” libertarian Paul. As recently as this past summer, former McCain right-hand-man Mark Salter said flat out that GOP hawks would have no choice but to back Hillary if forced to choose between her and Paul. And now here’s Maverick himself, in a splashy piece for the New Yorker, giving Rand the interventionist seal of approval. What happened?
No, seriously. What happened? I’m intrigued by what McCain says at the end of the excerpt about how Paul “trusts me” on military affairs and how he’s confident he could influence Paul behind the scenes. That almost makes it sound like the two have been huddling on foreign policy — which isn’t as crazy as it sounds, given how eager Rand is to remove the roadblocks to the nomination that hawks are putting up for him. If he’s willing to make a trip to Israel and drop his idea of cutting foreign aid to woo hawks, he’s probably willing to make nice with Maverick to try to show his good faith. Maybe there’s been some rapprochement behind the scenes. Except … how to explain, then, Rand accusing McCain recently (and baselessly) of having met with ISIS in Syria? The last thing Paul should want to do right now if he’s trying to earn brownie points with Maverick is accuse him of reaching out to jihadis. In fact, note that McCain’s comments quoted above were made in August; Lizza reached out to McCain more recently, after Rand started pointing fingers at him about ISIS, and asked him if his view of Paul had soured any. Guess what? It had:
Last week, I talked to John McCain again, and he was in a less generous mood. In an interview with the Daily Beast on September 17th, Rand Paul, apparently referring to a widely discredited Internet conspiracy theory, said that McCain had met with ISIS. “They had a doctored picture of me with Baghdadi!” McCain said, speaking of the leader of ISIS: “It is disappointing that he would pick up and legitimatize what was clearly information that was being pushed by people who are enemies of the United States.” McCain now dismissed Rand’s hawkish rhetoric about ISIS: “He said we have to destroy ISIS, and yet he has not described a strategy in order to achieve that goal.”
Baffling. Why would Paul work to move McCain from the “enemy” column into “neutral,” only to move him back into “enemy”?
Baffling. Why would Paul work to move McCain from the “enemy” column into “neutral,” only to move him back into “enemy”?
Oh, and for all the Rubio/Cruz/everyone else fans out there wondering if there’s any soundbite material from all this for their own campaign ads, there sure is. Here’s Rand’s mother, Carol Paul, explaining why Ron doesn’t like doing interviews about Rand. Exit quotation: “Everybody that calls him wants to argue about their differences. They don’t really have differences. They might have fractional differences about how to do things, but the press always want to make it into some kind of story that isn’t there.” Rand Paul 2016: “Fractional differences” from a guy who finished way out of the running twice.
Allah Pundit and McCain praising Paul is all you need to know.
Allah Pundit and McCain praising Paul is all you need to know.
Darn, he has snagged that all important McCain endorsement.
Except for Ted Cruz, what a disgusting, disappointing bunch of 2016 Republican wannabes. A rogues gallery of GOPe-RINO-Libertarian losers: Bush, Christie, Huckabee, Santorum, Paul, Romney (again!?), Kasich, Pence, Daniels, Jindal, Ryan, Martinez, Walker, etc. All will sprint to the left to show how “moderate” they are, exactly the wrong strategy to defeat Hillary Clinton.
Why I don’t give anything to the ‘Pubs any more.
Yep, Twister, I agree fully.
The funny thing is that his foreign policy hasn’t changed. It’s been remarkably coherent and consistent.
Two wacko birds in a pod.
Why so many good conservatives lose elections all if you need to win is to be a strong conservative?
Most primaries this year were won by centrist republicans. If conservatives can’t even win primaries with only republicans voting, how do you expect them to win in general election with democrats also voting?
What good is losing elections? How does that help move the conservative agenda? Losers of elections have zero power to change anything. If you don’t believe me, ask:
Ken Cuccinelli, good conservative, running for governor
Richard Mourdock, good conservative, running for Senate
Sharron Angle, good conservative, running for Senate
Christine O’Donnell, good conservative, running for Senate
George Allen, good conservative, running for Senate
Joe Miller, good conservative, running for Senate
Ken Buck, good conservative, running for Senate
Todd Akin, good conservative, running for Senate
Alan West, good conservative, running for House
Doug Hoffman, good conservative, running for House
JD Hayworth, good conservative, running for Primary
Barry Goldwater, good conservative, running for president
1. Many states now have open primaries, in which ‘RATS can and do create mischief by voting for weak “centrist” ‘Pubs.
2. Other states have have open, “top two” primaries, in which the two candidates with the greatest number of votes, regardless of party affiliation, win the primary and face off in the general. There is no direct, intraparty contest among Republicans.
3. Your list are not all “good conservatives” — some crullers in there.
4. The media make sure you hear about “good conservatives” losing primaries and some generals, but GOPe RINO Rovian losses, while more numerous, are downplayed. There are a number of successes against GOPe money and RAT party organization, including Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Dave Bratt. Marco Rubio, too, although he's becoming pliable in his views.
5. Ronald Reagan. If you were too young / not yet born in 1980, the GOPe did their worst to defeat him. They succeeded narrowly in 1976 with Ford, but couldn't do it four years later with GHWB. Reagan won by a landslide, attracting ‘Pubs, Reagan Democrats, and independents. He won by a bigger landslide in 1984.
When John McCain endorses something it's best to see what he's selling us out on next before BOHICA time comes. McCain's endorsements IMO are warnings to do just the opposite by reflex.
OK Now how many where Centrist won primaries had open primaries? It's bad enough dealing with the likes of Rove trying to pick the party choice but the stuck on stupid GOP refuses to close it's primaries in many states including mine. The end result is in what should be easy Conservative win primaries the DEMs not running a challenger to the RINO vote in GOP primaries. For example the re-election of Lamoderate Alexander the Liberal newspapers beloved and See Saw Corker. Now whom do you think they vote for?
On the other hand in the General election Conservative DEMs {yes they are out there} will often cross the fence for such but will stay in their party for RINO's. A good principled conservative would have likely had landslide wins over Gore and Kerry. A good principled Conservative would have won against Obama. Instead the media beloved McCain waved a white flag. The GOP Establishment Hierarchy has become as bad if not worse than the most radical of DEMs because they are ENABLERS to the DEMs Agendas. I'd like to see a 1994 pissed off mad and not going to take it anymore GOP. That was the last time it happened. Then Boehner took over the party. If you need proof do a search on the name Bill Paxon. There you will see just what happened starting back before the 1996 elections. Boehner engineered a hostile GOP-E takeover and he was the one who got Newt booted out. Most Freepers don't even know that. Paxon was Bohners go to man. He was a congressman from NY state. Remember former NY Congresswoman Susan Malanari the keynote speaker who with Christie Todd Whittman-RINO LIBERAL liberalized the 1996 GOP Convention? Malanari is Paxon's wife. Both are now lobbyist and Boehner is SOH..
The Conservatives need to establish a good media outlet and no FAUX News is not such. One man actually did do it years ago. Paul Weyrich had one going back in the mid 1990's. The GOP-E quickly did a hostile takeover and the sellout began within the party.
Before a person drinks the party Kool Aid it's best to know who mixed it up. At some point it's like a turd in a punch bowl obvious.
You make some good points. The biggest advantage Reagan had was Jimmy Carter. If Carter had not created 15% interest rates and 12% inflation, the 1980 election would have been lot closer.
At the end of day, we can agree that Rino’s lose elections and conservatives lose elections. So why some candidates from each type win and others lose?
I became US citizen in 1970 and voted in 1972 election for the first time. So I have seen a lot of elections and lot of candidates. My take is that candidates win because they are very good politicians, have charisma which makes them likable, have the skills to set up good campaign organizations, look good on TV, and seldom get stymied with gotcha questions. Reagan had almost all of those qualities. McCain was just the opposite. McCain was old, pudgy, short, face disfigured by surgery, bad teeth, balding, and very mediocre in debates. Did not have a chance against a tall, youthful, seasoned community organizer from south side of Chicago.
I do not like Mitt, Jeb, Pence, Jindal etc. because they are not good counter punchers. Hillary will eat them alive. I prefer Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Susana Martinez, and gov Walker because they are all quite good facing media. There is nothing common between my agenda and gov Christy, but I would rather have NJ fats facing Hillary than a mild mannered Mitt or Jeb in debates.
And also, I could not agree more with you that open primaries are very bad for republicans. Not sure if they have a choice in states where legislatures are controlled by demo-rats.
rule of thumb: never trust Juan McCain.
I dislike open primaries also. Who allows them? Is it state legislatures or parties in each state? Do you recall Limbaugh asking republicans to vote for Obama in open primaries to stop Hillary? Hillary was very bad. Obama is much worse than Hillary, if that is possible.
I agree with all your points; good analysis of the situation.
It varies state to state. Some states don't even hold them which IMO makes matters worse. For office of POTUS the primaries need to be held same day and closed primary. Anyone even thinking about switching parties before a primary should be locked out of the upcoming primary {one primary election cycle} from voting. That would stop a lot of this and make cleaning up both parties of tyrants possible again through the voting process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.