Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll

[Mojo2]

Sanctions are an interventionist policy that only ever harms innocent civilians, and not the governments they target.

They tend to hurt both, but certainly, they hurt the former more than the latter. The idea is to bring pressure on the people of the nation that the people of the nation bring pressure on their rogue government. Throughout history a people's government is what the people have allowed or encouraged it to be. They're not blameless.

On the other hand, what's the point? Sanctions rarely, if ever, achieve the desired results against totalitarian or authoritarian states. They have a much better chance to work against governments like Russia's, though, and the people of Russia.

But the best way to handle these kinds of problems is to understand the history and the imperatives of geopolitics and conduct foreign policy accordingly in the first place.

Obama is a disaster--either out of ignorance or by design.

I'm at a bit of a loss in understanding how pounding foreign civilians with sanctions that impoverish them, or worse, is supposed to empower them to pressure their governments.

The real truth is that we don't give a **** how it affects the civilians. They're just casualties and nothing more.

In government smaller numbers of people are routinely inconvenienced, made to pay money, hurt or worse to serve the larger numbers of people in the area being governed.

Get used to it.

 

[JWBooth]

Sanctions are an interventionist policy that only ever harms innocent civilians, and not the governments they target.

They tend to hurt both, but certainly, they hurt the former more than the latter. The idea is to bring pressure on the people of the nation that the people of the nation bring pressure on their rogue government. Throughout history a people's government is what the people have allowed or encouraged it to be. They're not blameless.

On the other hand, what's the point? Sanctions rarely, if ever, achieve the desired results against totalitarian or authoritarian states. They have a much better chance to work against governments like Russia's, though, and the people of Russia.

But the best way to handle these kinds of problems is to understand the history and the imperatives of geopolitics and conduct foreign policy accordingly in the first place.

Obama is a disaster--either out of ignorance or by design.

I'm at a bit of a loss in understanding how pounding foreign civilians with sanctions that impoverish them, or worse, is supposed to empower them to pressure their governments.

The real truth is that we don't give a **** how it affects the civilians. They're just casualties and nothing more.

Actual results, as opposed to theoretical, have been that the target governments have seen their power and local prestige bolstered by sanctions. Nations imposing sanctions become more hated than their tyrant of the moment for adding to their suffering.

 

[Votto]

Someone has to take up the mantle of his father. You know, the guy that the GOP loves to hate.

 

[Sarah G]

Wondering why what the GOP thinks about Rand Paul is important to anyone else?

I want him to run and win their primaries, btw.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If the Republicans ever want to win a presidential election again they better get used to Libertarians like Rand Paul as opposed to the McCains and Huckabees of the party.

I disagree. I applaud Rand Paul and consider him a valuable asset for Republicans, especially his ability to speak to young people. However, Rand Paul, or anyone like him, will never get elected to the presidency. Most older voters know that his foreign policy principles no longer fit the modern world.

The current problem with Republicanism is not the message, but the messengers. Few of our current leaders, the Washington establishment, attempt to sell the message, and when they do, they do so only half-heartedly. Many of them don't really believe in it themselves.

Reagan proved that the message resonates with voters, when related in terms that they understand and can support. Rand Paul is right that the way the message is presented makes a difference in how it is perceived.

IMHO - Good post. Well articulated points, but I have to respectfully disagree with the conclusions.

I believe the problem with the Republican Party today in not just cosmetic - it's the message AND the messengers imho. Today's GOP is not championing Reagan's brand of conservatism (and if that means not huge deficits as Reagan embraced, then I favor that shift.)

But Reagan didn't dig his heels in on unpopular wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, voting rights, immigration, and equal pay for women. He was smarter than that. Today's GOP platform insists on digging in on the wrong (unpopular) side of those issues. In this regard it is the message that is falling short.

Yes, the messengers are falling short too. Today's GOP leaders lack the skills to galvanize support for these issues. There is no intellectual foundation for conservatism that folks like William F. Buckley provided. What is today's equivalent? Charles Krauthammer????? Sorry, that's not anywhere near good enough.

IMHO what the GOP desperately needs to do is nominate a grandfatherly, elder statesman type with the message "We are done squabbling about petty things and experimenting with socialism - kids, it's time to get our fiscal and economic house in order."

THAT would be a sure winner imho.

 

[American4Americ]

Rand Paul wins much-watched CPAC presidential poll

2000+ respondents

Rand Paul is the greatest Patriot.

 

[Paulie]

Wondering why what the GOP thinks about Rand Paul is important to anyone else?

I want him to run and win their primaries, btw.

Why? Explain to me why the republican that would appeal most to the center and fence sitting dems, would be the one you would want to face?

You will have much in common with him on foreign policy, liberty, etc.

 

[mamooth]

If you don't like any of Rand Paul's positions, just wait a bit. He'll soon flipflop to whatever position he thinks appeals most to the conservative base. The man hasn't got a principle he won't adjust for political convenience.

For example, Russia invades Georgia, Bush doesn't make threats, Rand Paul talks about how smart isolationism is, and how a US missile defense system in Poland would be too aggressive. Russia invades Crimea, Obama doesn't make threats, Rand Paul talks about how the USA needs to intervene, and how Obama is a wimp for not putting missile defense in Poland.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you don't like any of Rand Paul's positions, just wait a bit. He'll soon flipflop to whatever position he thinks appeals most to the conservative base. The man hasn't got a principle he won't adjust for political convenience.

For example, Russia invades Georgia, Bush doesn't make threats, Rand Paul talks about how smart isolationism is, and how a US missile defense system in Poland would be too aggressive. Russia invades Crimea, Obama doesn't make threats, Rand Paul talks about how the USA needs to intervene, and how Obama is a wimp for not putting missile defense in Poland.

Can you find Rand Paul's statement on Georgia for us and link to it then?

 

[mamooth]

Can you find Rand Paul's statement on Georgia for us and link to it then?

Not a problem.

---
For example, we have to ask ourselves, "Who needs to be part of NATO? What does NATO need to be at this point?" One of the big things [for] the neocons—the people in the Republican Party sort of on the other side from where I come from—is they want Georgia to be part of NATO. Well, Georgia sits right on the border of Russia. Do you think that might be provocative to put them in NATO? NATO's treaty actually says that if they're attacked, we will defend them. So, if the treaty means something, that means all of a sudden we're at war with Russia. If Georgia would had become, Bush wanted Georgia to become part of NATO, had they been part of NATO, we'd be at war with Russia right now. That's kinda a scary thing. We have to decide whether putting missiles in Poland is gonna provoke the Russians. Maybe not to war, but whether it's worth provoking them, or whether we have the money to do it.
---

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsC4Cl69zEk&list=PL0AA18ACF362A80DB&feature=player_embedded]Rand Paul speaks at WKU Part 3 of 5, 4-7-09 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

He won? That's great news, for the Democrats.

You wish it was.. Every one of you pansy liberals are shitting your panties..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Can you find Rand Paul's statement on Georgia for us and link to it then?

Not a problem.

---
For example, we have to ask ourselves, "Who needs to be part of NATO? What does NATO need to be at this point?" One of the big things [for] the neocons—the people in the Republican Party sort of on the other side from where I come from—is they want Georgia to be part of NATO. Well, Georgia sits right on the border of Russia. Do you think that might be provocative to put them in NATO? NATO's treaty actually says that if they're attacked, we will defend them. So, if the treaty means something, that means all of a sudden we're at war with Russia. If Georgia would had become, Bush wanted Georgia to become part of NATO, had they been part of NATO, we'd be at war with Russia right now. That's kinda a scary thing. We have to decide whether putting missiles in Poland is gonna provoke the Russians. Maybe not to war, but whether it's worth provoking them, or whether we have the money to do it.
---

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsC4Cl69zEk&list=PL0AA18ACF362A80DB&feature=player_embedded]Rand Paul speaks at WKU Part 3 of 5, 4-7-09 - YouTube[/ame]

Certainly more non-interventionist than any of his current statements. Good find.

 

[JoeB131]

The Inmates have taken over the Asylum...

 

[Avatar4321]

Rand Paul doesn't sound like Vladamir Putin. Are you sure you read it right? Because there are a bunch of left wingers seriously mistaken if you are reading it right.

 

[Lakhota]

So, Ayn Rand Paul, aka Aqua Buddha, is the favorite.

 

[Sarah G]

Great. Any one of them are fine. They may bray their plans to win against Hillary but it isn't going to happen.

 

[Avorysuds]

He won? That's great news, for the Democrats.

I agree, because they might have an option in 2016 to vote for someone other than Hillary, someone they just might like. Or you can vote for the Iraq war supporting, bail out happy, accomplishment lacking divisive political mouth peise who has never held a real job and book flops due to being boring as ****.

 

[JoeB131]

I think it's disconcerting that someone who is so far out of the mainstream is going to get a boost by this phony event. It should make the GOP wonder why the tail wags the dog.

 

[Kondor3]

Both Daddy Paul and Junior Paul are non-starters... I wish they'd stop wasting our time.

 

[Desperado]

Rand is not his Dad but he is still better than the rest of the field,