I wanted to associate myself with Jonathan’s insightful post on the response by Senators McCain and Graham to Rand Paul’s filibuster.
Although my views on national security are much closer to those of McCain and Graham, their sneering, bitter attacks on Senator Paul were not only misguided; they have done a great deal to help the Paul-ian cause.
Senators McCain and Graham could have–should have–offered a careful, measured response to Rand Paul’s argument. Instead, McCain in particular has gone on a petty, mocking rant, including referring to Paul and some who supported him as “wacko birds.” Perhaps this is what happens when a maverick is out-mavericked.
Rand Paul, in a single stroke, has catapulted himself to near folk-hero status among large segments of the conservative movement and, in the process, two of his main substantive critics have sustained damaging, self-inflicted wounds.
That is, from my vantage point, something of a problem, since Rand Paul’s view of the world is substantially different than mine. But he showed what a skilled, alert, and creative politician could do to rearrange the political landscape.
The libertarian wing of the Republican Party has found its leader. It will be quite interesting to see who among the internationalist wing emerges as a counterweight. And rather than fear these kinds of debates, Republicans and conservatives should welcome them. A party that is off balance and out of power doesn’t need conformity; it needs the benefits of “iron sharpening iron.” Whether we like it or not, a serious intra-Republican and intra-conservative foreign policy debate is about to begin.
I'll say it again: McCain would have driven us conservatives nuts if he were elected. Clearly, he's a man with the vices of his virtues.
McShame and Grahamnesty, as they are sometimes known, should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be. I didn't particularly like Rand Paul's brand of libertarianism, and I think his father really IS a "wacky bird"…but after that filibuster I have a lot of respect for him. for the two oldsters to scold Rand Paul for taking a principled stand on freedom is really disgusting. n nbtw aroundthetrack: McCain might have driven conservatives crazy had he won, but he would have been a zillion times better than Obama.
It doesn't take a genius to suspect that what's really bugging Rand Paul is not the hypothetical domestic use of armed drones against Americans, but rather their continued use against overseas terrorists. Like his father, he may consider that to be an unnecessary provocation that invites retaliation. Nevertheless, however misguided his views may reveal themselves to be, this is still a debate that needs thrashing out. In the years to come, I'm afraid we will see more and more American citizens — some even native-born — taking up arms against their country in acts of war on behalf of Islamic radicals. It is conceivable these acts may occur on American soil. Just how we arm our government in order to respond effectively needs to be determined. So, whatever Sen. Paul's ultimate aims, he has helped advance that debate and should be congratulated rather than ridiculed. John McCain, a man I respect and admire, is acting more like a crank than a maverick. Let him join the argument and state his views instead of calling names.
Grandpa: This never would've happened when I was a boy! You kids these days and your Millennium Items and your card games and your loud music and your hula hoops and your hopscotch and your dungarees and your lollipops and your Sony Playstations and your voice-activated light switches and your leather pants and your artificial insemination— nYugi: That's enough, Grandpa. It's time for the big message. nGrandpa: Hey, I'm not finished ranting!
The old guard stands helpless and impotent in the face of the Alinsky/Soros juggernaut of the Left. n"Oh we have to get our message out" they mew but they walk wide eyed into the same trap again and again and again. Filibustering is messaging. The Tea Party is messaging. Staying on the same point and hammering the nail home is messaging. McCain and Graham seem oblivious to the point of "useful idiots" on the Neo- Marxist War on America.
We have been fighting the War on Terror for 12 years now, with less than an unqualified success. That's the longest war in American history by far. And we conservatives shouldn't just continue unconditional support for all the Bush war policies. Nor should we lash out reflexively when anyone else raises questions. n nAfter 12 years, it's long past time to take stock of what policies have worked well and which have not. None of the top Bush Administration officials is running for office anymore, and we don't have to keep circling the wagons around them.
" It will be quite interesting to see who among the internationalist wing emerges as a counterweight." n nI don't know what or even who comprises the "internationalist wing" or who cares very much about WFM and its ilk. Pure libertarians, at least of the "Big L" variety, are not often found among our politicians, so Rand Paul has had leadership of that political faction in his hip pocket since his Dad retired. n nPerhaps your "internationalist wing" is really the neoconservative wing with its free trade and world policeman bent. Neocons have dominated Republican politics up until the Tea Party got a foothold in 2010 – but who really knows what the new Republican party will turn out to be? n nI hope that the party will concentrate solely on fixing the size of government as a means of reigning in out-of-control spending. We simply cannot continue to attempt to maintain the world's economy with foreign aid and an overseas military presence. Borrowing 46 cents of every dollar we spend is insane.
"Perhaps your 'internationalist wing' is really the neoconservative wing with its free trade and world policeman bent. Neocons have dominated Republican politics up until the Tea Party got a foothold in 2010 – but who really knows what the new Republican party will turn out to be?" I don't understand the rationale for the use of the term "internationalist wing" by Wehner, and he of course means neoconservatives–but I don't think your facts are correct. Before even getting to those those, I don't see how ANYTHING labeled "free trade" could be found so objectionable.
I'm at a loss as to where the iron is here. Is it in the grumpy old men on the other side? Is it in the promising young buck for the internationalist position, Marco Rubio, who spoke up so forcefully in opposition? Or is it in Rand Paul, Mr. Smith channelling Ann Rand's Superman? n nIt is a self-evident truism that the state will abuse its monopoly on force. Whether it's the local cops with choke-holds, car chases, or tasers, or the army with drones, these agents of the state will, for good reasons and bad, commit regrettable excesses in the heat of battle from time to time. There have been and always will be instances of excessive force and disproportionate collateral damages. n nThis is so in part because balancing the competing interests of security and liberty in these contexts is perhaps the most excruciatingly difficult policy question faced by a republican government. Think about the line-drawing and rule-making process for a moment: you must, on the one hand, extrapolate with sufficient nuance from past instances so that you can meet unforeseen and often unforeseeable contingencies; but, on the other hand, do so with sufficient clarity so that your rules can be applied in situations of extreme duress? It's not child's play. n nTo simplify this complex problem to a clash between the friends of liberty and the defenders of the constitution against creeping tyranny is not to engage in responsible, much less reasoned, debate. It is rather propaganda. Nor is it how the friends of liberty talk. The friends of liberty only engage in such incendiary and extreme language in times of crisis; it is the enemies of liberty and reasoned debate who talk this way when there is no crisis. Their object is to manufacture a crises that will allow them to upset the old order and gain personal power. The end result is not reasoned debate but rather some rash, extreme measure. n nLike they say, history repeats itself; first as tragedy, and then as farce. It remains to be seen whether this second iteration of the Tea Party will be tragic or merely farcical. As for me, I can't tell whether I should fear or simply laugh at their comical, inflammatory excesses.
Yes, the maverick was out mavericked. Senator Paul did the nation and himself great credit for his stand which was supported by Senator McConnell. This is like CPAC not inviting the Republican Governors of New Jesey and Virginnia due to purity issues. Conservative and reactionary should not mean the same thing.