A large bulk of the Democratic and liberal commentariat - led, as usual, by the highly-paid DNC spokesmen called "MSNBC hosts" and echoed, as usual, by various liberal blogs, which still amusingly fancy themselves as edgy and insurgent checks on political power rather than faithful servants to it [...] avoided full-throated defenses of drones and the power of the president to secretly order US citizens executed without due process or transparency. They prefer to ignore the fact that the politician they most deeply admire is a devoted defender of those policies.In other words, most lefties are standing by their man, Obama, and are simply ignoring his policies.
But what about the libertarian Rand Paul cheerleading faction? Are they just going to ignore the below Rand comments made just a few short weeks ago, during Rand's "foreign policy" speech?
McCain’s call for a hundred year occupation does capture some truth: that the West is in for a long, irregular confrontation not with terrorism, which is simply a tactic, but with Radical Islam.[...]Radical Islam is no fleeting fad but a relentless force. Though at times stateless, Radical Islam is also supported by radicalized nations such as Iran.And what about this comment from Rand:
I have voted for Iranian sanctions in the hope of preventing war and allowing for diplomacy.
Strategic ambiguity is still of value.
What would a foreign policy look like that tried to strike a balance? first, it would have less soldiers stationed overseas and less bases. Instead of large, limitless land wars in multiple theaters, we would target our enemy; strike with lethal force.
Well absolutely we stand with Israel but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.Let's hope the Rand cheerleaders don't forget what Justin Raimondo wrote just last month:
Let Sen. Paul’s desperate efforts to merge libertarianism with Glenn Beck-ism serve as an example of what it means to throw one’s principles to the wind. Let him serve as a negative model in the textbook of practical libertarian politics, which yet remains to be written.Has Rand reversed the views he informed us of in his foreign policy speech that Raimondo correctly called "an example of what it means to throw one’s principles to the wind"? Or are the Rand cheerleaders ignoring the real Rand? Have the Randettes simply become the mirror image of the denial of reality crowd on the left that supports Obama despite his policies? Are all these people that desperate for a leader that they will ignore reality? If so, we are likely to get one.