There are 158 comments.

1. Member
   Franco

   @Franco

   9:55 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   Klaatu: Unfair??  Asking a politician to explain his positions is unfair? The fact is Rand Paul has clearly inherited many of his father’s supporters, it is not applying a higher standard to ask him to lay out where he differs from his father.  

    No. Read the words. Requiring a politician to go on record with specific foriegn policy reccomendations at this point is unfair. Name any potential candidate, Republican or Democrat, who is being hectored to go on record at this point. 

   Let’s ask potential candidate Jeb Bush if he’s going to follow in his brother’s footsteps and invade another Middle Eastern country, yes or no. Shall we?  Well I don’t know, he hasn’t said one way or the other. I don’t know what his foriegn policy is going to be. He’s inherited many of his fathers’ and brother’s supporters….

   Get my point?

2. Inactive
   Klaatu

   @Klaatu

   10:03 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   Franco:

   Klaatu: Unfair?? Asking a politician to explain his positions is unfair? The fact is Rand Paul has clearly inherited many of his father’s supporters, it is not applying a higher standard to ask him to lay out where he differs from his father.

   No. Read the words. Requiring a politician to go on record with specific foriegn policy reccomendations at this point is unfair. Name any potential candidate, Republican or Democrat, who is being hectored to go on record at this point.
   Let’s ask potential candidate Jeb Bush if he’s going to follow in his brother’s footsteps and invade another Middle Eastern country, yes or no. Shall we? Well I don’t know, he hasn’t said one way or the other. I don’t know what his foriegn policy is going to be. He’s inherited many of his fathers’ and brother’s supporters….
   Get my point?

    The question is not about about specifics but about principles.  Saying we need a middle path is pointless if the principles informing that middle path are undefined.  Laying out where his views differ from his father’s would help define those principles.

   I am not at all averse to asking Jeb or anyone else what foreign policy decisions made by GHW Bush, GW Bush, or Clinton for that matter they disagreed with and why.

3. Member
   Franco

   @Franco

   10:18 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   Klaatu,

   So why isn’t Troy or you or anyone asking, demanding, they give specifics? Why the double-standard? If Jeb or Christie or Santorum fail to give actual specifics (and they will refuse), will you also cast aspersions onto them, claiming they are not leaders or courageous and unworthy of your vote?

   It’s fine if you are okay with asking the question(s) but you are saying here that Paul’s refusal to go into specifics at this point is a reflection of his character and that is unfair because you aren’t applying that standard to other candidates.

4. Inactive
   DocJay

   @DocJay

   10:21 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   Sniper means I mentioned economic success, referenced one area (energy independence) and you attacked that area as “nothing special”.  It will take a wrecking ball to fix our country, not a big government manager.  

   Klaatu, as far as accomplishments, Duke school of medicine and 15 years of private practice including plenty of charity is far more worthy than uselessly spending taxpayers money and lining one’s own pockets.   I trust Rand a lot more than career D.C. criminals.   He is a man of vision and honor.

5. Inactive
   DocJay

   @DocJay

   10:24 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   Franco:
   Klaatu,
   So why isn’t Troy or you or anyone asking, demanding, they give specifics? Why the double-standard? If Jeb or Christie or Santorum fail to give actual specifics (and they will refuse), will you also cast aspersions onto them, claiming they are not leaders or courageous and unworthy of your vote?
   It’s fine if you are okay with asking the question(s) but you are saying here that Paul’s refusal to go into specifics at this point is a reflection of his character and that is unfair because you aren’t applying that standard to other candidates.

    Rand Paul gets the “gay marriage” “war on women” , and exactly when did you stop beating your wife approach from the Rico staff.  

6. Inactive
   Klaatu

   @Klaatu

   10:26 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   Franco:
   Klaatu,
   So why isn’t Troy or you or anyone asking, demanding, they give specifics? Why the double-standard? If Jeb or Christie or Santorum fail to give actual specifics (and they will refuse), will you also cast aspersions onto them, claiming they are not leaders or courageous and unworthy of your vote?
   It’s fine if you are okay with asking the question(s) but you are saying here that Paul’s refusal to go into specifics at this point is a reflection of his character and that is unfair because you aren’t applying that standard to other candidates.

    I am not asking for specifics, I am interested in principles.  Santorum, Christie, and Bush have records and accomplishments to run on.  Their principles are generally understood on the basis of those records.  Paul has no such record or accomplishments and his appeal is largely derived from his father’s record.  Stating where he differs from his father is therefore essential.    

7. Inactive
   AR

   @AR

   10:29 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   Klaatu:

   AR:

   Then this is where we disagree. I do not think it is possible for a good man to enter politics and then fully state his positions. Whether that is courageous or not is besides the point because that courageous man will not get elected….They certainly are bold when it comes to speaking the truth and their mind and that is their weakness. If politics was about ideas (like Ricochet is), the best ideas might win. Unfortunately politics isn’t and good politicians shouldn’t elaborate fully if they intend to get elected.

   Maybe that is why I prefer politicians with records and accomplishments. They do not need to lay out their positions, they have demonstrated them.

    
   That’s the type of politician I prefer too; Rand isn’t my first choice and he might serve the Republic best from the Senate. I’m sure we all remember that sinking feeling we collectively experienced when Chief Justice Roberts revealed his true colors. None of us want a repeat of that day.

8. Inactive
   DocJay

   @DocJay

   10:31 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   Santorum/Christie/Bush are not capable of winning the presidency.  We will never have another overtly religious Social Conservative president.

9. Inactive
   Klaatu

   @Klaatu

   10:33 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   DocJay:
   Sniper means I mentioned economic success, referenced one area (energy independence) and you attacked that area as “nothing special”. It will take a wrecking ball to fix our country, not a big government manager.
   Klaatu, as far as accomplishments, Duke school of medicine and 15 years of private practice including plenty of charity is far more worthy than uselessly spending taxpayers money and lining one’s own pockets. I trust Rand a lot more than career D.C. criminals. He is a man of vision and honor.

   I asked you to specify those existential threats Paul would act upon and the others would ignore.  If it is not energy policy, what is it?  Saying ‘the economy’ means nothing as no potential candidate has ignored the economy.

   Presidents cannot act as wrecking balls, they do not have the power.  A president’s job is to lead and manage the executive branch.

   Graduating medical school and practicing medicine is no more relevant experience for the presidency than is graduating law school and being a community organizer and law lecturer.

10. Inactive
    user_653084

    @SalvatorePadula

    10:34 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    DocJay:
     
    Klaatu, as far as accomplishments, Duke school of medicine and 15 years of private practice including plenty of charity is far more worthy than uselessly spending taxpayers money and lining one’s own pockets. I trust Rand a lot more than career D.C. criminals. He is a man of vision and honor.

     I think you’re being a bit uncharitable in your characterization of Klaatu’s argument on this particular point. Rand Paul is undoubtedly an accomplished man. That said, his accomplishments in the field of public policy and governance are less than manifest, and at this point are mostly rhetorical and symbolic. I think he has a great deal of potential and I’m optimistic about his prospects, but I don’t think it inaccurate to state that his tangible accomplishments are in the field of medicine while his political potential has yet to result in much that is concrete beyond his own election. This is not a criticism of Paul. It is simply a function of the fact that he is a first term senator with no previous experience in government.

11. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    10:38 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    AR:

    Klaatu:

    AR:

    Then this is where we disagree. I do not think it is possible for a good man to enter politics and then fully state his positions. Whether that is courageous or not is besides the point because that courageous man will not get elected….They certainly are bold when it comes to speaking the truth and their mind and that is their weakness. If politics was about ideas (like Ricochet is), the best ideas might win. Unfortunately politics isn’t and good politicians shouldn’t elaborate fully if they intend to get elected.

    Maybe that is why I prefer politicians with records and accomplishments. They do not need to lay out their positions, they have demonstrated them.

    That’s the type of politician I prefer too; Rand isn’t my first choice and he might serve the Republic best from the Senate. I’m sure we all remember that sinking feeling we collectively experienced when Chief Justice Roberts revealed his true colors. None of us want a repeat of that day.

    When did Roberts do that?  Obamacare?  You can disagree with his opinion on that but from what I understand it was completely justifiable in the law.  He is a judge not a politician and I for one am very happy he is there.  I also appreciated his comment that the court is not there to stop elected officials from making bad decisions.  As Ed Koch said upon his reelection defeat, the voters have spoken and now they must be punished.

12. Inactive
    DocJay

    @DocJay

    10:47 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Being part of government for a long time is not an accomplishment even if you accomplish things.   It means they existed is a cesspool and are likely infected with many of the slimy diseases which caress their skin.   

    Our world would be better if every politician in it spontaneously combusted.  

    I’m done conversing.  It is a waste of energy.

13. Inactive
    AR

    @AR

    10:50 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Klaatu:

    Presidents cannot act as wrecking balls, they do not have the power. A president’s job is to lead and manage the executive branch.

     

    Oh yes they can in this stage of our country’s history. The past few years and the remainder of his term proves it.

14. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    10:55 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    DocJay:
    Being part of government for a long time is not an accomplishment even if you accomplish things. It means they existed is a cesspool and are likely infected with many of the slimy diseases which caress their skin.
    Our world would be better if every politician in it spontaneously combusted.
    I’m done conversing. It is a waste of energy.

     My, what a broad brush you paint with.

15. Member
    Franco

    @Franco

    10:58 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Klaatu:  I am not asking for specifics, I am interested in principles.  Santorum, Christie, and Bush have records and accomplishments to run on.  Their principles are generally understood on the basis of those records.  Paul has no such record or accomplishments and his appeal is largely derived from his father’s record.  Stating where he differs from his father is therefore essential.    

     Really? Name Christie’s stand(s) on foreign policy? Name an accomplishment other than getting elected twice in a blue state. Oh, I hear he lost 100 pounds recently with the aid of surgery. Jeb Bush was a governor and I have no idea what his foriegn policy is, I just know he was competent (huzzah!) and that he’s wants to reform education (who doesn’t) and is for granting permits to visa-overstays and border-crossers to remain in the USA legally. But as to his foreign policy I have no idea. No I have an idea, it will be based on his familial bonds and past administrations. Of this I’m quite sure, but I could be wrong. As Troy says, maybe we would all benefit if he were to be more specific as to his theories.

    As well none of these men can win. So it’s moot. Rand Paul can win. Would you vote for him if he were the nominee? Probably not is my guess. Hillary would carry out your preferred foriegn policy better I’d guess.

16. Member
    FloppyDisk90

    @FloppyDisk90

    11:06 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Salvatore Padula:

    This is not a criticism of Paul. It is simply a function of the fact that he is a first term senator with no previous experience in government.

     I think this is an asset and not a liability.

17. Inactive
    user_653084

    @SalvatorePadula

    11:13 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    FloppyDisk90:

    Salvatore Padula:

    This is not a criticism of Paul. It is simply a function of the fact that he is a first term senator with no previous experience in government.

    I think this is an asset and not a liability.

     I tend to view it as neither. There are pros and cons to political inexperience. I personally prefer candidates with some sort of executive experience, but I don’t think it needs to be in government.

18. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    11:27 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Franco:

    Klaatu: I am not asking for specifics, I am interested in principles. Santorum, Christie, and Bush have records and accomplishments to run on. Their principles are generally understood on the basis of those records. Paul has no such record or accomplishments and his appeal is largely derived from his father’s record. Stating where he differs from his father is therefore essential.

    Really? Name Christie’s stand(s) on foreign policy? Name an accomplishment other than getting elected twice in a blue state. Oh, I hear he lost 100 pounds recently with the aid of surgery. Jeb Bush was a governor and I have no idea what his foriegn policy is, I just know he was competent (huzzah!) and that he’s wants to reform education (who doesn’t) and is for granting permits to visa-overstays and border-crossers to remain in the USA legally. But as to his foreign policy I have no idea. No I have an idea, it will be based on his familial bonds and past administrations. Of this I’m quite sure, but I could be wrong. As Troy says, maybe we would all benefit if he were to be more specific as to his theories.
    As well none of these men can win. So it’s moot. Rand Paul can win. Would you vote for him if he were the nominee? Probably not is my guess. Hillary would carry out your preferred foriegn policy better I’d guess.

    From Jonathan Tobin in the 26 July 13 issue of Commentary,

    (S)peaking at the Aspen Institute, NJ Governor Chris Christie denounced the effort to pull back on anti-terror measures as “dangerous” and warned that those–like Paul–who are attempting to craft an American retreat from the world are playing with fire. In speaking in this manner, Christie put himself on record as endorsing the policies of President George W. Bush that have been largely continued by President Obama as necessary, and served notice that Paul will be strongly opposed by Republicans who don’t want their party to be hijacked by isolationists. In doing so, Christie not only indicated that he is prepared to run in part on foreign policy issues but may embolden other possible candidates with similar views to his on this question.
    Jeb is a signatory to the Project for a New American Century Statement of Principles along with Dick Cheney, Bill Bennet, Don Rumsfeld, et al.

    I fell I have a good grasp of both these men’s foreign policy principles.

    Forgive me if I do not place much credence in your crystal ball.  The idea Rand Paul has a better chance of winning than either of the others you mention makes me laugh though.  I would be willing to bet he would win no more delegates than his father ever did.

19. Inactive
    user_653084

    @SalvatorePadula

    11:31 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Klaatu:

     

     

     

    From Jonathan Tobin in the 26 July 13 issue of Commentary,
    (S)peaking at the Aspen Institute, NJ Governor Chris Christie denounced the effort to pull back on anti-terror measures as “dangerous” and warned that those–like Paul–who are attempting to craft an American retreat from the world are playing with fire. In speaking in this manner, Christie put himself on record as endorsing the policies of President George W. Bush that have been largely continued by President Obama as necessary, and served notice that Paul will be strongly opposed by Republicans who don’t want their party to be hijacked by isolationists. In doing so, Christie not only indicated that he is prepared to run in part on foreign policy issues but may embolden other possible candidates with similar views to his on this question.
     

    Setting aside the substance of Christie’s foreign policy and national security views,  I do have to say that I found Christie’s comment about “say that to the families of 9/11” to be demagogic and distasteful.

20. Listener
    Fricosis Guy

    @FricosisGuy

    11:49 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    The problem is Bushism included allowing the Norks to get nukes, becoming bewitched by Putin after looking into his soul, and invading Iraq, then ignoring it for years. Bush also signed on to a massive new federal national security bureaucracy.

    Does he really swallow the Bush 43 agenda whole? If not, which Bush policies does Christie buy into and which parts does Christie reject?

    Klaatu

    :From Jonathan Tobin in the 26 July 13 issue of Commentary,
    (S)peaking at the Aspen Institute, NJ Governor Chris Christie denounced the effort to pull back on anti-terror measures as “dangerous” and warned that those–like Paul–who are attempting to craft an American retreat from the world are playing with fire. In speaking in this manner, Christie put himself on record as endorsing the policies of President George W. Bush that have been largely continued by President Obama as necessary, and served notice that Paul will be strongly opposed by Republicans who don’t want their party to be hijacked by isolationists.  

21. Member
    DrewInWisconsin

    @DrewInWisconsin

    11:54 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Chris Christie might win. He might even win running against Hillary. But he won’t get my vote.

    I’m angry enough at the GOP establishment that if it comes down to Christie vs. Hillary, I might just vote for Hillary out of spite. I’ll bet I wouldn’t be alone.

22. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    11:55 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Fricosis Guy:
    The problem is Bushism included allowing the Norks to get nukes, becoming bewitched by Putin after looking into his soul, and invading Iraq, then ignoring it for years. Bush also signed on to a massive new federal national security bureaucracy.
    Does he really swallow the Bush 43 agenda whole? If not, which Bush policies does Christie buy into and which parts does Christie reject?
    
    Klaatu

    :From Jonathan Tobin in the 26 July 13 issue of Commentary, (S)peaking at the Aspen Institute, NJ Governor Chris Christie denounced the effort to pull back on anti-terror measures as “dangerous” and warned that those–like Paul–who are attempting to craft an American retreat from the world are playing with fire. In speaking in this manner, Christie put himself on record as endorsing the policies of President George W. Bush that have been largely continued by President Obama as necessary, and served notice that Paul will be strongly opposed by Republicans who don’t want their party to be hijacked by isolationists.

     The principles are at issue, I believe I understand the principles what would guide his foreign policy.  Can you say the same for Paul?  I can’t he seems to want to keep that info to himself.

23. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    11:56 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    DrewInWisconsin:
    Chris Christie might win. He might even win running against Hillary. But he won’t get my vote.
    I’m angry enough at the GOP establishment that if it comes down to Christie vs. Hillary, I might just vote for Hillary out of spite. I’ll bet I wouldn’t be alone.

     Can you please provide me a list of members of the Republican establishment?  An identifying feature?

24. Member
    DrewInWisconsin

    @DrewInWisconsin

    11:59 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    So, I just noticed that the URL reads “Vladimir Putin Loves Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy.”

    Wow.

25. Member
    Franco

    @Franco

    12:02 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Klaatu: Forgive me if I do not place much credence in your crystal ball.  The idea Rand Paul has a better chance of winning than either of the others you mention makes me laugh though.  I would be willing to bet he would win no more delegates than his father ever did.

     
    Yes his hurdle will be with Republicans. But he could win the general. Christie could win the nomination but he’d lose the general. So go ahead push Christie or Jeb.

    “As Ed Koch said upon his reelection defeat, the voters have spoken and now they must be punished.”

    Just as you are being punished by Obama because no-doubt you supported McCain.

    Brilliant!

26. Inactive
    user_653084

    @SalvatorePadula

    12:03 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    DrewInWisconsin:
    So, I just noticed that the URL reads “Vladimir Putin Loves Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy.”
    Wow.

     Is your point that that is not true, or that it is bad form to state that truth openly?

27. Inactive
    user_653084

    @SalvatorePadula

    12:07 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Franco:

    Klaatu: Forgive me if I do not place much credence in your crystal ball. The idea Rand Paul has a better chance of winning than either of the others you mention makes me laugh though. I would be willing to bet he would win no more delegates than his father ever did.

    Yes his hurdle will be with Republicans. But he could win the general. Christie could win the nomination but he’d lose the general. So go ahead push Christie or Jeb.
    “As Ed Koch said upon his reelection defeat, the voters have spoken and now they must be punished.”
    Just as you are being punished by Obama because no-doubt you supported McCain.
    Brilliant!

     I think Paul’s appeal to the general electorate is overstated at this point. I watched his Berkeley speech and, while it is true that Rand received enthusiastic applause when he talked about the NSA, when he talked about otherwise limiting government he was mostly met with silence. He is to be applauded for his efforts to reach a broad audience, but it has yet to be shown that he is actually convincing anyone about the merits of limited government generally.

28. Member
    user_240173

    @FrankSoto

    12:08 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Salvatore Padula:

    DrewInWisconsin: So, I just noticed that the URL reads “Vladimir Putin Loves Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy.” Wow.

    Is your point that that is not true, or that it is bad form to state that truth openly?

     Harsh, yet fair.

    I like Rand Paul, but his foreign policy is a problem, and his Republican primary opponents will rightly hammer him for it.  Similarly, he will trash most of them on domestic policy.  My suspicion is that his attacks will stick more effectively than theirs.

    Similar to Sal, I don’t see a need to reflexively defend him from these criticisms.

29. Member
    DrewInWisconsin

    @DrewInWisconsin

    12:13 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Salvatore Padula:

    DrewInWisconsin: So, I just noticed that the URL reads “Vladimir Putin Loves Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy.” Wow.

    Is your point that that is not true, or that it is bad form to state that truth openly?

     It tells me what this post was originally titled; and as I said earlier I thought the bit about the RT network pushing Ron Paul as a viable candidate was an interesting enough point to be a post on its own. But the fact that this post then devolved into something about Rand Paul tells me that conflating the views of Ron and Rand is going to be a common tactic.

    That we’ve had two such contributor posts in two days gives me some insight into what we can expect over the next two years.

30. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    12:16 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Franco:

    Klaatu: Forgive me if I do not place much credence in your crystal ball. The idea Rand Paul has a better chance of winning than either of the others you mention makes me laugh though. I would be willing to bet he would win no more delegates than his father ever did.

    Yes his hurdle will be with Republicans. But he could win the general. Christie could win the nomination but he’d lose the general. So go ahead push Christie or Jeb.
    “As Ed Koch said upon his reelection defeat, the voters have spoken and now they must be punished.”
    Just as you are being punished by Obama because no-doubt you supported McCain.
    Brilliant!

     If he can’t win among Republicans, what makes you think he could win the general?  Sorry but that is nonsense.

    We are being punished with Obama and I did vote for McCain, did you vote for Obama?