Posted under Constitution Party & Election 2016
This info is from the Constitution Party’s Spring National Committee Meeting:
Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party’s 2008 vice-presidential candidate, announced he is interested in seeking the CP’s presidential nomination in 2016, but that nothing is yet set in stone. (Here is a draft page on Facebook for that effort: https://www.facebook.com/DarrellCastle2016).
Posted under Election 2016 & Immigration & Rand Paul & Republican Party
Sorry this is a little delinquent, but I’ve been busy and haven’t been able to get this post up. Most of you probably already know that Rand Paul stirred up a bit of a hornests’ nest when he spoke to a Hispanic organization on Tuesday where he endorsed a path to legal residence. The speech was typical pro-immigration cliches and platitudes. Intially it was reported that he had endorsed a path to citizenship, but Rand protested and said he hadn’t. What he had actually endorsed was a path to legal residence which is only marginally better. So this generation of illegals won’t get to vote for bigger government, but their birthright citizen children will. Great, we get to put off our electoral irrelevance for a few more years.
I really do not believe that Rand Paul is the master political operator many seem to think he is. The filibuster was a masterstroke of political theater, but I’m not convinced he didn’t just bumble into it. There is no way he could have anticipated what happened. I think he was primarily trying to throw a bone to his libertarian base that he had pissed off with his hamhanded handling of the Hagel nomination.
On immigration, Rand doesn’t seem to know what he has gotten himself into. The best thing he could have done politically would have been to either keep his mouth shut on the issue and let his past campaign statements stand or repeat simple secure the borders boilerplate. He should have let Rubio and the rest of his potential rivals step out in front on amnesty, then in the end (2016) he could have said he was the only one still holding the line. It seems to me that he didn’t want Rubio and company to get too far out in front of him, but at the same time wanted to split the difference. Hence, a path to legal residence vs. a path to citizenship. (A path to legal residence was actually the position that Jeb Bush endorsed in his book then fell all over himself to reject once it was published.)
There are a bunch of articles I could link to since his flip-flop has been so much discussed. VDARE in particular is ripping into him. Here are a few of the better ones.
Michael Thompson at WND documents that this is, in fact, a flip-flop for Rand.
John Derbyshire takes Rand to task, and praises Ann Coulter.
Washington Watcher isn’t pleased either.
Posted under Conservatism & Election 2016 & Paleoconservatism & Rand Paul & Republican Party
Senator Rand Paul won the “C”PAC vote, which is both impressive, and a reminder that the bad guys are onto him.
Back in the day, Ron Paul folks had to actually travel and buy tickets–but then they got to boo Dick Cheney and Rummy, so I can see how it would be worth the price for a little political theater.
Senator Rubio came in second, and must be feeling concerned about the whole Amnesty Bill he is promoting with Lindsey Graham and John McCain.
The paleo simply notes that without a dog in the fight, there is only one potential free agent, Rand Paul, who might take some tactical advice.
Posted under Conservatism & Election 2016 & Immigration & Paleoconservatism & Political Correctness & Political Philosophy & Politics
Below I mention Judge Nap’s libertarian immigration problem. In another thread C Bowen praised James Kirkpatrick for having a “plan.” Here is a new VDARE article from James Kirkpatrick (Is that his real name?) called “CPAC 2013: Conservatism Inc. vs. Libertarianism Inc.?” It is a very insightful article. I am growing fond of Mr. Kirkpatrick’s writing. Here is the makings of a paleo ”plan.”
While neoconservatives lectured us that the national interest consisted of becoming a “universal nation” and spreading democracy overseas, the new left-libertarianism tells us the national interest doesn’t even exist.
The good news: the American people simply don’t support root-canal libertarianism.
Which provides an opportunity. There is no reason that immigration patriots should go down with U.S.S. Conservatism Inc. As elite opinion solidifies behind amnesty, immigration patriots gain a political opening for a populist movement that can be anti-corporate, economically nationalist, racially realist—and politically dangerous to “conservatives,” progressives, and libertarians alike.
Immigration patriots can build a new movement that can stand up for the historic American nation that the Beltway Right—libertarian and “conservative”—has utterly betrayed.
Posted under Election 2016
Apparently the Draft Judge Andrew Napolitano movement has a presence at CPAC. (The only link I have is to a Facebook page, which may not work if you’re not friends with the Judge. I’m not sure.) I don’t know how it is being received at CPAC, but it is being received favorably on Facebook. At the time of this posting, the above linked to picture has 6,288 likes and 1,203 comments.
We have discussed the Judge Nap for Prez meme here before. The problem I have with the Judge is that he is an ideological open borders advocate, as are many libertarians. If he was an immigration restrictionist, or even just more mainstream on immigration, I would be supportive of a Judge Nap run. Who else is going to represent non-interventionism except maybe Rand, but that is a discussion for a different thread.
Update: Here is a Blaze story about the CPAC booth. “Political Media, a web developer that focuses on libertarian organizations and political candidates, wants Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano to run for president. The company has an entire booth set up at CPAC to draft him as a candidate…” The fact that it is being run by a company, not an ad hoc group of activists, concerns me. I hope they don’t see a Judge Nap run as just another opportunity to hit up Ron Paul supporters for money.
Posted under Conservatism & Election 2016 & Immigration & Political Correctness & Republican Party
Apparently Jeb Bush is another one of those Republicans who either has a death wish for his party or can’t do simple math. As I have said before and will say again and again until it sinks in, immigration restrictionism is the only position that is compatible with the future existence of the Republican Party as a viable force at the national level.
But this spectacle is too pathetic for words. Jeb’s book, which went to press in Dec., was supposed to move the debate in the GOP in the direction of liberalization by proposing legalized residence for illegal aliens but without a path to citizenship. Now that the innumerate* caucus of the GOP (McAmnesty, Grahamesty, Rubio, etc.) have gotten out in front on a path to citizenship, Jeb’s position seems downright reactionary. Hence the groveling apologies.
Would somebody please implant these mathmatical illiterates with a pair of testicles. They are both IQ and testosterone deficient, and their humiliating public attempts to court favor with the PC Thought Police is shameful.
* unfamiliar with mathematical concepts and methods (courtesy of the Yahoo dictionary)
Posted under Election 2016 & Foreign affairs & Interventionism & Rand Paul
OK Rand apologists, spin this.
Earlier today Scott McConnell reported that Rand Paul opposed the Hagel nomination and even supported a filibuster.
But now Rand is doubling down in support of Cruz, in favor of a filibuster of Hagel on grounds that are both bogus and demagogic. (Hagel of course has answered the financial disclosure questions required for any nominee for Secretary of Defense, and in today’s Washington these are by no means perfunctory.)
So let’s be clear. If Rand Paul persists on going demagogic on Hagel, he will have established beyond any serious doubt that regardless of who his father is, he is Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin’s boy. It saddens me to conclude that because I like to be optimistic. But it’s a truth that must be faced.
A lot of non-interventionists were looking to the Hagel vote as a litmus test of where Rand is eventually going to settle out on foreign policy. Needless to say, he failed.
Jim Antle has a run down on the reaction of some Paul supporters here. They are not happy campers.
For the record, I’m not crazy about Hagel. Hagel is a less bellicose globalist than the hyper-bellicose globalist neocons, but he’s no non-interventionist, a distinction his non-interventionist supporters have failed to adequately make, IMO.
Posted under Conservatism & Election 2016 & Republican Party & RINOs & TEA Parties
Tell me again why “conservatives” love this guy?
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) gave a strong defense of GOP strategist Karl Rove’s Conservative Victory Project in a recent interview, arguing that the super PAC offshoot, designed to quash conservative Senate candidates who might be too extreme to win general elections, was sensible.
Rubio may end up regretting this. Karl Rove is fast becoming a bete noire of conservatives and Rubio may not be helping himself by publicly siding with him.
If 2016 comes down to Rubio and Rand (more on him in my next post) I may gouge out an eye.
Posted under Election 2016 & Foreign affairs & Interventionism & Rand Paul & Republican Party
The Weekly Standard, via the Kagan Brothers, is not impressed. I’m sure that shocks you.
FrontPageMag is not impressed either. Again a shocker.
It is no surprise that the interventionist fanatics aren’t fond of Paul the Lesser’s speech, but I actually think they are not being very strategically wise here. The interventionist jihadists are so eager to stamp out even the slightest dissent that they don’t seem to realize that Rand has given away the store. If I was a hard core interventionist I would be dancing an obnoxious victory dance right now because I would know that we just made the best hope of the other side very publicly repudiate his father and genuflect to our side. Publicly I would be saying, “Way to come around to our side Rand.” Privately I would be thinking, “We made you blink.”
Update: Justin Raimondo isn’t impressed either, although obviously for other reasons.
The Daily Beast recognizes the speech for what it was, Rand’s way of saying “I’m not my Dad.”
Posted under Election 2016 & Rand Paul & Republican Party & Ron Paul
In a thread below, I said that I thought Rand Paul had disqualified himself from carrying the Paul mantle and that any Paulite candidate in 2016 was likely to come from the activist and/or punditry ranks because there are so few if any Paulite elected officials at the national level. I also said that the name I heard tossed around most often was Judge Andrew Napolitano who has really hitched his wagon to the Paulite “Revolution.” Well whaddaya know, a Judge Nap for President ad has been popping up on my Facebook page recently.
The site is “Paid for by The Committee to Draft Judge Andrew Napolitano for President. Not authorized by any candidate or candidates committee.” And supporters are urged to go here to sign a petition to draft the Judge.
Judge Napolitano would be a good candidate IMO except for one thing, he is horrible on immigration. He has swallowed the ideological libertarian line that immigration is a “right.” This appeals to some purist libertarians who can’t see past their ideological noses, but it is a suicidal position. Current demographic trends already doom the GOP at the national level. Any libertarian who thinks we are going to have a country that is politically favorable to the “liberty movement” if those demographic trends accelerate is living in ideological la la land.
Posted under Election 2016 & Foreign affairs & Interventionism & Rand Paul & Ron Paul
Rand Paul gave a speech on foreign policy today at the Heritage Foundation. He is clearly trying to split the difference. He isn’t going to please the neocon faithful. He isn’t going to please the hard-core non-interventionists. Can he please GOP primary voters? That remains to be seen. I”ll have more to say later, but I’m not impressed.
Here is Jim Antle’s article on the speech. Note the tweets from Justin Raimondo he cites. Justin is clearly not impressed.
Reason says Rand is clearly trying to distance himself from his father on foreign policy.
Neocon hawk Jennifer Rubin didn’t like it.
Update: Philip Giraldi is not impressed.
This is pre-speech, but Matt Welch at Reason is impressed.
Posted under Election 2016 & Interventionism & Israel & Rand Paul
Apparently Rand has felt enough heat for his recent statement that he felt compelled to have his team do some damage control. The clarification helps a little.
Doug Stafford, Sen. Paul’s Chief of Staff, recently clarified the remarks in an e-mailed statement.
“The questions asked of Senator Paul in recent days were regarding an unprovoked attack on Israel. In one case the question was regarding a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv from another state,” explained Stafford. “Senator Paul believes that if another country launched an all out war with Israel that the United States should and would assist them in some way.”
Stafford notes that Sen. Paul’s views on the matter are consistent with the approach he has taken during his tenure in the Senate, noting, “He was not discussing any offensive or preemptive war, nor was he describing the skirmishes that come up from time to time in that region. He was discussing a hypothetical all-out attack on Israel by her neighbors.”
He explained that Sen. Paul believes that approval to go to declare or engage in war only “lies with Congress,” noting that making such a strong statement “is likely to lead to a smaller chance of such attack ever taking place.” Stafford also noted that Sen. Paul “never has war as a goal or a preferred policy, only as a last resort.”
First of all, the best part of this is that he felt the need to clarify his statement at all. That means there is at least a small counter balance developing. If you’re someone in the Paulist orbit you can’t just make shameless pledges of fidelity to Israel without there being some pushback. (Hopefully Ted Cruz will get some pushback for his shameless grandstanding at the Hagel hearing.)
That said, this clarification is only slightly helpful. I don’t think anyone believed that Paul was pledging US help if Israel is attacked by Hezbollah. So clarifying that he was only talking about a major attack doesn’t really help. The problem of the security guarantee still remains. Ideally, America would consider Israel a friendly nation, no less “special” but no more “special” than any other. We shouldn’t offer Israel a security guarantee unless we offer every friendly country a security guarantee, which would be a bad idea and totally unworkable. We must change the presumption of the “special relationship.” This doesn’t do that.
Posted under Conservatism & Election 2016 & Rand Paul & Republican Party & Ron Paul
This is outrageous. Rand is now officially off the list of potentially acceptable 2016 candidates. His dad needs to put that boy over his knee and give him a good whipping and send him to his room.
“…absolutely, we stand with Israel, but what I think we should do is announce to the world, and I think it is well-known, that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United Sta tes.”
We really need to start to identify potential candidates who can carry the non-interventionist banner in 2016, because Rand Paul is not one of them.
Posted under Economics & Election 2016 & Rand Paul & Republican Party
Not every Republican is wussing out on the debt limit. Rand Paul isn’t.
Senator Rand Paul says he plans to vote against raising the nation’s debt limit as leverage to force the White House into budget reform…
“I’m not in favor of raising the debt ceiling unless we have significant budgetary reform which shows we have changed our ways and we’re going to begin to balance the budget,” Paul said.
Rand Paul says President Obama’s refusal to negotiate over the debt ceiling simply means he’s not going to reduce spending or the government.
“I don’t think the President is accurate when he says, ‘Oh, we have to pay our bills’ because raising the debt ceiling doesn’t pay your bills. It pays the interest on your bills and you keep accumulating more,” Paul said.
Posted under Election 2016 & Israel & NeoCons & Rand Paul
The confirmation of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense maybe the toughest vote Rand Paul will have taken so far as a U.S. Senator.
Paul has made no secret of his Presidential ambitions and in case there was any doubt his recent trip to Israel with several Christian Zionists in tow. He’s also been having private, unpublicized meeting with prominent neocons like Dan Senor. The reason for this is transparently political. Paul wants to, at the very least, reduce the intensity of opposition to him, such groups showed his father Ron Paul when he ran for President in 2008 and 2012.
But will Rand’s new friends influence the way he will ultimately vote on Hagel? Someone who his father probably would not have had trouble voting for if he was a Senator given the similarity of their foreign policy views and their views on the defense budget. Indeed, Rand himself has called for similar reductions in the Pentagon budget,
Some necons are calling this vote a “litmus test”. It will be interesting to see if Rand Paul feels the same way as far as 2016 is concern.
Posted under Conservatism & Election 2016 & Gun Control & Republican Party
Chris “Christie Endorses National Discussion on Gun Control” (NewsMax)
And Chris Christie endorses not winning the GOP nomination in 2016.