Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Rand Paul Thinks We Should Simultaneously Attack and Not Attack ISIS

Posted by on Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Which Rand Paul is in this picture?

Rand Paul is transcending flip-flopping; he's becoming Schrödinger's candidate. Bob Cesca at the Daily Banter has put all of Paul's statements on ISIS together, and it's really something to see. In June, Paul was against bombing ISIS, asking "What would airstrikes accomplish?" Then earlier this week, Paul said that if he was president, he would "seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily." Yesterday, Paul said that if he was president, he would seek congressional authorization to "give technological as well as air support" to military forces from Iraq and Turkey in pursuit of ISIS.

This is typical of Rand Paul, who's trying to seduce three or four disparate political demographics simultaneously: He takes a stand on an issue and then blurs that stand in and out of focus, depending on who he's talking to. In one room, he's criticizing Hillary Clinton for being a hawk. In another room, he's banging the drums of war. This is a tactic that used to work, but with an entire internet full of people eager to pounce on the slightest inconsistency of any politician, it feels like a recipe for failure. Can Paul keep his positions vague and insubstantial enough to last through the 2016 Republican primary? I guess we'll find out.

 

Comments (19) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
The orthogonal Libertarian stance just won't fit into the current mainstream slot of being a Presidential candidate.

Or rather, it could, if Paul dug his heels in. There is a really strong case that could be made right now for isolationism. For one, we've become energy independent. For another, many of the regional conflicts have no clear ally that we should support. And lastly, the one foreign policy issue that the majority of people care about -- immigration and border security -- is not being addressed in a serious way by any candidate.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on September 4, 2014 at 4:48 PM · Report this
2
The "take every possible position on every issue" strategy? Why not, it worked like a charm for President Romney.
Posted by Pope Buck I on September 4, 2014 at 7:28 PM · Report this
raindrop 3
It is appropriate for politicians to change their dispositions on world events, since world events keep changing.
Posted by raindrop on September 4, 2014 at 9:22 PM · Report this
McBomber 4
...and Obama does nothing. I'm not a hawk by any stretch, but c'mon! We're being taunted by ISIS, Russia and even Israel. I love "diplomacy first," but I feel like we're losing ground here.
Posted by McBomber on September 4, 2014 at 9:37 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 5
And THIS is why real Libertarians hardly want shit to do with Rand Paul. He ain't his dad (who himself wasn't the best Libertarian, especially on gay rights and abortion) ISIS wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the US invasion.
If we just leave ISIS alone they will end up fighting another enemy: al quaida and/or Iran. Why not just sit back, buy some pop corn, and watch the Islamists destroy each other?
Only one thing can unite these different Islamists groups who hate each other: a common enemy. And if America gets involved, they have just that.
That, and the little detail that WE AS A NATION ARE BROKE! We can't afford the billions it will take to fight another war.

Don't Stand with Rand.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on September 4, 2014 at 9:41 PM · Report this
6
The only people really interested in Paul are the media and nutty old libertarians. He might be trying to attract different demographics but he is failing miserably.

Paul is currently polling at 7% in the latest poll of the republican primary. And that's after being in the news more than any of the other contenders. He is not doing any better with young voters than Romney did and his growing name recognition has not at all translated into more support. If anything it's the opposite.

His only real electoral success is winning a seat in Kentucky during a historic wave. While he won by 12 points, Romney beat Obama by 22% there. His current approval rating in the state is below 50% and while he's favored to win reelection, it won't happen without a fight. Hell he only bests Clinton by 4 points there.

I bet he chickens out and defends his senate seat instead of risking it all on a fools run at the presidency. Either that or he crashes and burns, the Dems pick up a seat, and he goes on to the lecture and talk show circuit.
Posted by giffy on September 4, 2014 at 10:20 PM · Report this
7
@1 We've become energy independent? Wow, that's great news.
Posted by pemulis on September 5, 2014 at 6:24 AM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 8
McBomber dear, is it such a bad thing that we are "losing ground"? Why do we have to be the world's thug?

And Pemulis, I think what Supreme Ruler is referring to is that we are now an exporter of coal, oil and natural gas. Of course, we are still importing it as well, so who knows what the real story is.

As for Paul, you know how chronic stoners are. Absolutely no long-term memory left...
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on September 5, 2014 at 6:43 AM · Report this
9
#7

U.S. Seen as Biggest Oil Producer After Overtaking Saudi Arabia

U.S. production of crude oil, along with liquids separated from natural gas, surpassed all other countries this year with daily output exceeding 11 million barrels in the first quarter, the bank said in a report today. The country became the world’s largest natural gas producer in 2010. The International Energy Agency said in June that the U.S. was the biggest producer of oil and natural gas liquids.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04…
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on September 5, 2014 at 7:17 AM · Report this
fletc3her 10
Can we put him in a box with a poison vial that has a fifty/fifty chance of being broken? For science!
Posted by fletc3her on September 5, 2014 at 8:20 AM · Report this
originalcinner 11
He can't run for Senate and President on the same ballot. He's never going to give up his senate seat, knowing he hasn't a cat in hell's chance of being Prez. Sucks to be a on the ballot in Kentucky, but that's his choice.
Posted by originalcinner on September 5, 2014 at 8:41 AM · Report this
venomlash 12
@9: Just because we produce more oil than anyone else doesn't mean that we don't consume more than we produce. Good God Almighty, you are unperceptive.
JBITSMFOTP
Posted by venomlash on September 5, 2014 at 9:08 AM · Report this
13
@ 12 Thank you. I didn't have the energy earlier to point out that we imported $300 billion worth of oil last year, or that BP and other oil producers are optimistically predicting that we might become energy independent as early as 2035 (and that's only a sales pitch for why they should get to drill whatever the fuck they want).
Posted by pemulis on September 5, 2014 at 10:40 AM · Report this
14
"[D]idn't have the energy." I am accidentally hilarious.
Posted by pemulis on September 5, 2014 at 10:41 AM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 15
He's typically only partially Libertarian. Libertarians aren't what they claim to be as long as they oppose a women's right to choose. It's fundamental. And now he's all war hawk because he thinks it's popular. Well, it's not. It may be popular with neocons and certain media types that want revenge for the act of killing journalists, but it's not popular with the people who will lose loved family members. And we're still paying a very high price for the last bungled attempt at world domination.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on September 5, 2014 at 12:46 PM · Report this
16
Orville Redenbacher's is on sale!
Posted by CPN on September 5, 2014 at 1:44 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 17
@15
"Libertarians aren't what they claim to be as long as they oppose a women's right to choose. It's fundamental."
THANK YOU!
If a "progressive" was running on an anti-gay, anti-choice platform and claimed that he was progressive just because of his economics, no one would buy it. But Rand Paul claims to be a Libertarian when he doesn't follow Libertarian principals when it comes to social issues, and the media buys it.

Self-ownership is one of the core principals of Libertarianism. Your body? Your choice. In all matters, be they drugs, sex or abortion. In the words of REAL Libertarian Michael Badnarik, "if you don't own your own body, you are a slave."
Posted by collectivism_sucks on September 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM · Report this
venomlash 18
@17: Onay Uetray Otsmanscay. I'm fine with libertarians, but Libertarians piss me off no end.
Posted by venomlash on September 5, 2014 at 4:13 PM · Report this
19
@18 IDK I'm beginning to like Libertarians who start off their comments with "I'm a Libertarian and..."
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on September 6, 2014 at 12:39 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy