Starting to get the picture as to why republicans like me didn't vote for McCain? Believe me, Sarah the Dunce wasn't the only reason.
On Nov 22, 11:38 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > The War Party vs. Rand PaulbyJustin Raimondo, November 22, 2010 > A couple of years ago, I complained to my old friend, thelateBurtBlumert, > that some libertarian or other was getting a bit too hot under the collar and > needed to cool down a bit: I forget the exact personalities or circumstances > involved, but basically I was arguing that we had to police ourselves so as > not to give our enemies ammunition. Relax, he told me, it doesn’t matter what > you say or do: they’re going to smear you with the same old epithets anyway! > I was skeptical, but, as in so many other instances in which Burt gave me > advice, I’ve since discovered he was absolutely correct. Example number > one:the attackon Rand Paul launched by Sen. John McCain at a recent gathering > of the neocons’ “Foreign Policy Initiative.” “I worry a lot,” McCain > said,“Because throughout the history of the Republican Party in modern times, > there’s been, obviously, as we know, two wings: The isolationist wing, > manifested before World War II and at other times; and the internationalist > side. And so I think there are going to be some tensions within our > party.”McCain then singled newly-elected libertarian Republican Senator-elect > Rand Paulas the focus of his worry. While McCain said he “respects” Paul, he > criticized him foropenly callingfor cuts in the defense budget:“Already he > has talked about withdrawals from, or cuts in defense, et cetera. And a > number of others are… So I worry a lot about the rise of protectionism and > isolationism in the Republican Party.”Coming fromMcCain, the charge of > “isolationism” bears less weight than it otherwise might: after all, the > Arizona Senator, known for his fiery temper, has called for the deployment of > “boots on the ground” in every conflict and potential conflict since the end > of the cold war. Hewanted to send US troopsinto the former Yugoslavia,back > whenBill Clinton was bombing Belgrade, was keen to send US troops into > Darfur, and openly called for the deployment of US troops tothe former Soviet > republic of Georgiawhen that countryrashly invadedtwo breakaway provinces, > South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Naturally, “Hair Trigger” McCain wasone of the > firstto call for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and as a measure of > McCainiac madness all you have to do is Google “McCain ‘boots on the ground’” > – andthe resultis over 277,000 hits. > Now Rand Paul has hardly been a vocal advocate of either cutting the military > or withdrawing our troops from overseas: indeed, during the campaign, after > beingattackedby his Republican primary opponent for doingan interviewwith > Antiwar.com, in which he expressed mildly anti-interventionist views, Rand > pulled back and said almost nothing about foreign policy issues for the > duration, and what he did say was decidedly ambiguous. None of this mattered > to Rand’s opponents, who were determined to tag him as “weak” on defense, > thus confirming Blumert’s prediction, which, in this case, can be boiled down > to the dictum that the War Party will smear you no matterwhatyou say or do – > unless, of course, you pledge allegiance totheir program of perpetual war. > I can’t find any record of Rand Paul’s reply, if any, to this criticism, but > what’s significant is that another Republican Senator rose in Rand’s defense. > Sen. Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma,shot backwith:“It’s not hard to cut the defense > budget and keep our defense exactly where it is. That’s how much waste is > over there. Nothing is sacrosanct, it can’t be.” > Coburn,no anti-interventionist, is nevertheless a deficit hawk and he’s taken > a special interest in cutting the tremendously wasteful “defense” budget. The > neocons over at the Foreign Policy Initiative, however, aren’t interested in > balancing the budget – not if it means cutting back on the purchase of their > favorite toys, and cutting out some of the subsidies that go to enrichtheir > friends–and funders– among the military-industrial complex. If Paul is an > “isolationist” – and, oddly, a “protectionist” – for stating theobvious > factthat spending on the military is out of control – then Coburn, too, is > part of the dreaded “isolationist-protectionist” axis, even though his votes > in Congress on foreign policy issuesclosely parallelMcCain’s. > McCain’s preemptive strike on Rand Paul is an indication of just how nervous > the War Party is about its increasingly tenuous position: in the GOP, at > least, it can’t allow any deviation from the party line of perpetual war and > skyrocketing “defense” expenditures, especially with a budget crisis looming > on the horizon. For the logic of the “tea party” revolt against spending and > big government requires, as Sen. Coburn put it, that “nothing is sacrosanct” > – no, notLockheed’s profit margin, nor even thehegemonicfantasies of Bill > Kristol and theKagan Clan. > The logic of the anti-spending, anti-big government sentiment that swept over > a hundred congressional Democratic incumbents out of office, and spawned a > national grassroots activist movement, leads inevitably to > anti-interventionism. Because the fact of the matter, simply put, is that our > overseas wars areunsustainable. We can return to fiscal sanity, or we can > continue our rampage through Central Asia,slaughtering innocentsandcreating > more terroristsin our wake – but we cannot do both. > A few days after his slam-dunk election victory, Senator-elect Paulappeared > onThis Weekwith Christiane Amanpour and not only came out for cuts in the > military, but also made the case that a decade of war and occupation in > Afghanistan may indeed be enough. For that he is being attacked by the War > Party, as well as the administration loyalists among the liberals, and you > can bet the smears have just begun. He has so far shown that he is every inch > his father’s son, and I very much regret implying – or, rather,openly > stating– otherwise. Rand Paul proved me wrong, and I have never been happier > to make a public contrition. > The movement of which Rand Paul is a leader has the potential to turn > American politics – and American conservatism – upside down, and pull off a > fundamental political realignment in this country. No amount of smears and > jeers from the upholders of the status quo is going to stop them, at this > point: only they can stop themselves, by failing to follow through on the > bright promise of their pledge to cut the American State down to its proper > and constitutionally-mandated size – both at home, and > abroad.http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/11/21/the-war-party-vs-rand-paul/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
