Discussion for article #225098
The Gop/baggers are more of a threat to this nation than any Al Quaeda, Saddam, North Korea, has ever beenâŚthis is now a fight for survival of the United StatesâŚand the gop/baggers are more than willing to divide us, as a nation, than to govern responsiblyâŚI know that the corporations call the shots in the gop, that is why this is even happeningâŚthe corruption of our political system by the very same groups, Wall Street, K street etc. that has been allowed to run wild, while the rest of us shoulder the loadâŚPerry, Paul, Cruz are all corrupt puppets of the oligarchyâŚthat is all we need to know about these guysâŚ
11 Likes
âOne big question is whether Paulâs clever repositioning will make him invulnerable to the kind of generalized âisolationistâ name-callingâ
What is going to make Paul relatively invulnerable is that the vast majority of the GOP base, as well as the American public, is firmly against returning to Iraq.
The more telling question, which has yet to be answered, is Paul an isolationist or just against military interventions? Because so far, I havenât heard Paul offering up much diplomatic advice for dealing with any of the worldâs problems.
7 Likes
Appreciate the analysis in this piece.
But neither of the two âcandidatesâ has the strategic depth intellectually to match.
As for Paulâs invulnerability on this issue?
If BHO doesnât re-enter Iraq with boots on the ground in the next 27 months-- the electorate can most likely assume the next POTUS, almost certainly a (D)-- wonât be tempted to either.
Thus rendering Paulâs position moot-- leaving him with rocks in his pockets-- and a bag full of nutty ideas that will not coalesce any more than just slivers of several fractured demographics.
And my Gov Goodhair is a f^cking idiot.
Which is why the Paul vs Perry spat is unimportant.
jw1
9 Likes
Consistent historical experience says that, no, it really is the case that heightened GOP anti-interventionist sentiment is a function of there being a Democrat in charge of the military. Anti-interventionist sentiment among Republicans was very high during the Clinton years and George W. Bush ran his 2000 campaign on a 'humbler' foreign policy, one that was less interventionist, where the US wouldn't be 'the world's sherriff'.
We've seen this movie before. Conservatives are xenophobic, racist, right-wing authoritarians who outsource most of their thinking to corporate America. When a Democrat is in office they try to impede every single aspect of their governance, including howls of condemnation of military and diplomatic actions. But the second a fellow right-wing authoritarian gets in office and the corporations that support him need an interventionist foreign action we're going to see a return to the preferred policy for dealing with foreigners. Hell, most conservatives would support another major military engagement just to anger liberals. Let us not kid ourselves. only a small fringe of Republicans are genuinely against 'interventionism' for even a second. It's actually impossible for conservatives to be anti-interventionist for long if they are in control of the military. That's just not how their brains work.
21 Likes
Excellent âŚ
/C. Montgomery Burns
Perry, desperately trying to get Cheneyâs endorsementâŚ
3 Likes
TPM & the media may be ready to claim R. Paul as some break-out from the right. But since R. Paul been in the senate, he tow the line of every crazy repub. bill, he support the repub. s/d, (cost $24B), (MIA when they tried to blame the Pres. & dems.), MIA VRA bill, heâs was against drones then he was for it, heâs fell in line with getting rid of UE benefits, min. wage hike, etc⌠Heâs talk NO ACTION⌠All heâs done is follow the public sympathy.
Hereâs a test for R. Paul, the Iran & P5+1 Nuclear deal is coming up Jul. 20⌠Weâre see where Paul ballz areâŚ
4 Likes
Iâd like to hear his honest opinion about what we should have done in WWII.
4 Likes
This is a very interesting analysis. I find it even more striking that a portion of the GOP has âbuyersâ remorseâ - without even acknowledging the âbuyâ part of the phrase. That is, the GOP has never acknowledged the cost in dollars of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
7 Likes
One sentence really needs rewritten to make the historical references clear and to reflect correct grammar.
The original: "The Donkey Party, after all, experienced major ruptures over Vietnam in the 1960s and early 1970s, and over Iraq in the early aughts, and less traumatic but significant bouts of dissension over the Nicaraguan contras and nuclear policy in the 1980s, and over the First Gulf War in 1991. "
The list of prior ruptures should be in chronological order, particularly with the used of the word âaughtsâ. Phonetically, âaughtsâ sounds a lot like âeightsâ (and looks like it). Now, everyone knows that âAughtsâ has become common reference for the 2000s decade, but since the previous two items in the list one rupture in the 1960s, then one in the 1970s, the human brain expects the next item to be chronological which makes it easy to then confuse the brain of a reader. Thatâs exactly what my brain did. My brain âheardâ âeightsâ; assumed in a microsecond it was a reference to the 1980s and then said âHuh, what was the controversy over Iraq in the 1980s?â I didnât even finish the sentence I was thrown so off. It was only when I re-read the sentence and finished it that I saw "nuclear policy in the 1980s. Then, I realized what had happened.
I am sure that MOST readers didnât have the same brain hiccup that I did. The point is that if it had been written more properly, there wouldnât have been the opportunity for confusion. Here is a rewrite:
âThe Donkey Party, after all, experienced major ruptures over Vietnam in the 1960s and early 1970s, less traumatic but significant bouts of dissension over the Nicaraguan contras and nuclear policy in the 1980s, strong debate over the First Gulf War in 1991, and fierce rupture over Iraq in the early Aughts.â
(Iâm pretty sure that regardless of the order, Aughts used in this manner ought to be capitalized just as we would say, âBack in the Eighties.â)
The only thing I can add to your statements is this:
Unlike December, 1941, when the United States was well aware of the dangers it faced (during that time, many young men committed suicide upon finding that they were not fit for the Armed Forces), most people in this country do not even follow the politics you so ably describe.
LeBronâs new Cleveland contract trumps Climate Change (or any other grown-up concern).
By a long shot.
1 Like
Paul is a hack. Heâs smoother than the average hillbilly, but still a hack. And ambitious enough to use that glibness to attain more than he could ever gain by working for a living.
6 Likes
The invulnerability is referring to him being protected from being called an isolationist by other republican candidates. And as long as the base is so strongly against putting soldiers back in Iraq, he is safe.
I agree that IF (and thatâs a big if for me right now) Obama doesnât escalate our involvement, then it becomes a moot point for him in the general. Strategically speaking, it is very dangerous to hang your hat, particularly this early, upon an external event like Iraq. Things can shift dramatically either way, and you have no ability to influence those outcomes.
1 Like
He most certainly is not at all protected from being labeled âisolationistâ (aka âanti-Israelâ) by other Republican candidates. Quite the opposite, this is the main (though not the only) reason he is not going to last long once the campaign season heats up and why we have known for years now that he cannot be the Republican nominee for president anymore than his father could have won it. Agreeing more with liberals than with your own party is not a problem you can recover from. Having opposed Israelâs sole right to violently dominate the entire region, even if it was in the past, is also a disqualification that canât be overcome.
5 Likes
Republicans are polling around 65% against about returning to Iraq. About the same percentage also donât think it was worth it the first time around.
His stance, however, does get problematic regarding Israel. And on foreign policy, that is where he gets demolished.
Perry just isnât bright enough to start putting him through those moves.
4 Likes
Hear, Hear!
Democrats and Republicans both lean to Rand Paulâs way of thinking on Iraq. Rand Paul is the biggest threat to democrats since Reagan. Anyone who dismisses Paul does so stupdily. There is a segment of the population that agrees with Paul on many issues because of his libertarian views. There are democrats that lean towards libertarian views. But Randâs undoing as a GE candidate is that he doesnât believe in SS or Medicare programs. If he and republicans had their way both programs would be dismantled.
1 Like
tl;dr - derpfest.
I canât imagine the defense industry will let Rand Paul get nominated, let alone elected.
7 Likes