Rand Paul Supports Hagel Filibuster: The Sell Out is Complete

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.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

19 thoughts on “Rand Paul Supports Hagel Filibuster: The Sell Out is Complete

  1. JDP

    maybe his “non-interventionist supporters” are more invested in his tendency to see every policy he disagrees with through the prism of Israeli influence, as opposed to whether he’s the reincarnation of Robert Taft

    would certainly be true for McConnell, who’s extracted the anti-Israeli/anti-interventionist aspect of Buchananism and absolutely nothing else (see: his endorsement of Obama not on anti-Romney terms, but expressing agreement with his policies)

    and TAC wonders why people who, whether they’re rah-rah Israel or maybe more mixed on the subject, don’t care about their magazine when this is the extent of its conservatism

  2. countenance

    1. Rand didn’t sell out, and never has sold out, because it was never his aim merely to be his father’s son. His goal all along was to triangulate between Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh. Ergo, absolutely nothing he has done has been out of political character.

    2. However, trying to build a halfway house ideology halfway between his father and lamestream conservatism is a fool’s errand in the long run. Too many irreconcilable differences between the two camps for a halfway house ideology to last very long. And forget about it being a fund raising dynamo for any Presidential campaign. Ron’s people hate Rand for getting too far away from Ron, lamestream conservatives are still suspicious of Rand for having the last name “Paul.” Ron’s people won’t fund Rand’s Presidential campaign in 2016, and lamer cons will have plenty of “true blue” lamer cons to choose from in 2016.

    3. While Rand’s immigration proposal is underpowered and totally unfit for resisting our own racial dispossession and for reversing the economic malaise of native born white Americans, ironically, in triangulating away from his father, he is actually closer to me/us on immigration, because his plan does have a moratorium. But even counting the moratorium, it’s not good enough.

    4. Here’s the unfortunate thing about the whole set of affairs, though: We all know that Ron Paul fundamentally denies race, like most libertarians or libertarian-ish people do in general. Lamestream conservatives also deny race, (or when they don’t, they blame racial problems on the place not having enough lamestream conservatives in positions of governing authorities.) When you build a halfway house ideology between one race-denying worldview and another, guess what you’re going to get? Yep, another race denying worldview.

    5. I oppose Hagel. I must be the only person in America analyzing this issue of whether he should or should not be the American Def Sec based on American issues. And my answer is no, because on whole, Chuck Hagel’s political career has been bad for America, especially on immigration. (NUSA Lifetime D-Minus, on H-xB issues F-minus). I’m not considering Israel at all. There are three camps out there that need to lump it hard: A. Mainstream left-liberal/Jewish that was mostly supportive of Hagel being DefSec, B. Neo-cons who opposed Hagel because of supposed “statements” that apparently didn’t bother 12 out of 12 Jewish U.S. Senators who will vote to confirm him, and C. The “far right” (of which I am usually part) that read the “severe weather” website and others that support Hagel because he is supposedly against Israel (which he is not). All three camps are full of it, precisely because their decision making process on whether Hagel should be Def Sec or not revolves around Israel. Meanwhile, I’m stuck here in only man’s land thinking about America.

    6. However, I am not naive: I highly doubt the Senate is filibustering Hagel because they love America all of a sudden. Yes, if I was in the Senate right now, (or if my ex-boss, Todd Akin, was in the Senate), I would be filibustering (or I would talk Todd into doing so), because of American issues. However, I would be doing it with eyes wide open, knowing that virtually everyone else trying to talk the Hagel nomination to death was doing so for the wrong reasons.

  3. RonL

    I don’t see why this is a shibboleth. Hagel is a liberal internationalist. He is supported by the Communist Party USA. He is a Panda Hugger. He has been dishonest about his paid speeches which tie him to supporters of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. He gets paid by the Atlantic Council to sit on its Iran Task Force, which may as well be one of Iran’s lobbies in America.
    His testimony showed a man in over his head and lacking some basic knowledge of the military and laws he voted on.

    Aside from hating neoconservatives, give me one good reason to support Hagel.

  4. RedPhillips Post author

    countenance, what does being the Secretary of Defense have to do with immigration?

    RonL, as I said, I’m not crazy about Hagel. He is a globalist. If Rand was smart he could oppose Hagel on the grounds that he is a globalist and his leadership of the globalist Atlantic Council is disqualifying. That way he could vote right (per the neocons) but for the right reason (per the non-interventionists). But Rand hasn’t staked out an anti-globalist position. In fact, he takes for granted American “leadership.” As countenance said, I really don’t think there is a middle ground philosophy here. Either America should act like a regular country or we should act special. You can’t act sorta maybe special.

  5. Matt Weber

    Not much positive spin to add. It’s a terrible move and Paul can’t even claim that the vote was a foregone conclusion–he could have actually swung it. I don’t mind him compromising on things and find the general drumbeat for him to be Ron Paul part 2 to be tiresome, but this Hagel thing is one of the stupidest Republican freakouts in history and he should have refused to go along with it.

  6. countenance

    RedPhillips writes:

    countenance, what does being the Secretary of Defense have to do with immigration?

    I respond:

    The military is full of Hispanics, immigrants and “DREAMers.” One word: Gibbon.

    I think there can be a middle ground between ordinary and special that Rand could stalk about, in that we act special our ourselves while not bullying everyone else to act the same kind of special. They used to call it leading by example.

  7. Savrola

    There is no middle-ground in electoral politics.

    Conservative Americans like Red just want to have their cake and eat it, and eat it, and eat it, and eat it, too.

  8. countenance

    Expounding just a bit.

    On some issues, you can have a functioning halfway house between Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh where Rand Paul and others can comfortably live, and construct a nice long Senate career. But there is no natural constituency for a complete and consummate halfway house ideology like this to sustain a serious Presidential candidate, because you can’t just “average out” Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh on every issue.

    One thing that disappoints me about Rand on a personal level is how quickly he “kissed and made up” with Mark Levin after a mere 13 months ago, that Levin was promising to cut Rand’s knees off if Ron ran third party for President and got at least a million votes. Yeah, you can try whatever political tricks you want, maybe they’ll work, maybe they won’t, maybe they’ll matter, maybe they won’t, but it’s a fundamental act of family disloyalty on Rand’s part ever to speak to Mark Levin again after that.

  9. Savrola

    One word: Cicero.

    Of course the Paleo saint of Ancient did a lot of knuckling under before Marcus Antony’s strumpet called for his ears.

    Death with dignity is a concept not often considered by most paleoconservatives, even though they usually live hours ahead of another gastric-bypass surgery.

  10. RedPhillips Post author

    Sav, the link on your name is a dud. I got excited there for a minute because I thought maybe you had taken my advice and started your own blog.

  11. C Bowen

    Red;

    I have to say, as a Rand skeptic, I am surprised. He is getting bad advice as supporting Hagel would be a harmless way (because Hagel is a globalist) to signal bipartisan leadership.

    We are talking about a body that approved the wise Latina woman, so it’s not like the Senate has any standards.

    RonL can try to cheer us up, and he has a very real point which we happily concede. What RonL won’t concede is why the Senate would exhaust itself on Hagel.

  12. Pingback: Rand Paul Votes Against Cloture for Hagel but then Votes for Hagel’s Confirmation | Conservative Heritage Times

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>