Saturday, March 9, 2013

Neocons Reel In The Ron Paulians

By, Chris Rossini

What can be better for The Republican Party (in general) and Neocons (specifically) than to get those Ron Paul supporters....without Ron Paul?

Now that would be something.

Neocons hate being out of power. Their writings are filled with gibberish on how Obama is gutting the military, how he's weak in The Middle East, not nice enough to Israel, and just not doing this Empire thing right.

Neocons can't fathom not being in control come 2016.

Hillary is coming (a 3rd Super PAC has just been formed) and you're gonna need every edge you can get to beat her. She's going to have the massive media apparatus at her back. If you think Hope & Change was intoxicating, wait till the Hillary propaganda kicks in.

The elephant in the room for the Republicans/Neocons is the large number of Ron Paul supporters. If I were a neocon, my first thought would be: "How can we get these votes, with as little damage to our agenda as possible?"

The doors swung open immediately after Obama was re-elected.

Despite the relentless blackouts and censorship of Ron Paul just weeks before, the RNC Chairman was now standing with open arms:
“We would be fools not to welcome in the liberty movement in this party.”
Of course it's ok to welcome Ron Paul supporters now...Ron Paul is no longer a political threat. Having him in power would've been a huge problem. But his supporters are not him. They are just numbers...and numbers you'll need to win the election game in 2016.

After control is achieved, you can throw those gullible Ron Paul supporters overboard and get back to running the world the right way.

Who could possibly be better than Rand Paul to deliver the votes needed for the Neocons. What a fortunate situation. Rand, over time, has consistently proved to the Neocons that he's not his Dad and can be trusted. When it comes to foreign policy, he's as flexible as silly putty.

That's like music to Neocon ears.

Then comes the "spontaneous" filibuster.

National Stage...everyone watching for hours on end. 

In action (i.e., the only thing that counts) the filibuster accomplished absolutely nothing. But the Neocons we're all cheers (Rubin, Krauthammer, Limbaugh, Beck). Buzzfeed even put together a list of just about every other bad guy that got on board.

Sadly, a large number of Ron Paul supporters took the bait...It proved too hard to resist. You'd have to be for Obama droning you to resist, right?

Yet nothing was done. Brennan was sworn in swiftly the very next day, and The White House gave itself enough leeway to drive a Homeland Security tank through with its "letter". 

In other words, the ship is still on course. It just now has a bunch of Ron Paul passengers on board! Talk about a unified Republican Party is everywhere.

But I'm going to repeat Jennifer Rubin:
He wasn’t attacking the war on terror. He wasn’t attacking drone use overseas. He surely wasn’t attacking indefinite detention at Guantanamo for enemy combatants.
Max Boot echoed:
"...he was clever enough not to make his filibuster about drone strikes per se."
Yes Max...very clever of Rand (who had the stage, and all eyes and ears on him) to not denounce this:

Droves of Ron Paul supporters hopped onto the the wrong ship. They felt comfortable because a man with the last name "Paul" was greeting them as they climbed aboard.

The filibuster was a BIG score and the answer to my Neocon question was answered: "How can we get these votes, with as little damage to our agenda as possible?"

In this battle, the Neocons won.

Follow @ChrisRossini on Twitter


  1. I think your right Chris, it was a victory for the Neo-Cons in policy even if a loss in mindshare.

    Here's the problem as I see it. None of the assumptions about Islam have been challenged. None of the assumptions about 9-11 have been challenged. Only drones operating in America has been challenged. The foundation of orthodox thinking has not been challenged. Rand made a clever argument that appealed to all Americans based on their current intellectual framework without changing that framework.

    The big problem with that is all it would take for the American public to be swept away back into the arms of the Neo-Cons is one more 9-11 real or imagined.

    The entire point of Rand's different strategy was to obtain substantive policy change where Ron has failed. Not only has Rand failed too but he also failed to convert people's frameworks. That is something Ron excelled at.

    Once a man has been turned into a freeman such a person who reads Lew, the states lies no longer work on him. Rand's approach has managed to stop that conversation process and also not obtain substantive policy victories.

    That is how I see it.

    Think of it like the broken window fallacy only in politics. We don't miss what we don't see. We do not see what would have been produced if the time and energy had continued to go into creating freemen as opposed to what were SUPPOSE to be substantive political victories.

    In other words, we've not only lost out on substantive victories but due to the freeman conservation process stopping have ruled out ever obtaining substantive victories.

    Joshua Byers

  2. There is only one small problem with this very nice hypothesis: it is destroyed by the ugly fact of Ron Paul supporting whatever Rand is doing, every step of the way! Remember, even when Rand Paul supported Romney before Ron's campaign was formally over, apparently stubbing his father in the back, Ron justified this on his Facebook page. He linked to an article praising Rand's and Ron's newly found "pragmatism". Was not that weird? Nothing to say about Ron going ecstatic about Rand's filibuster.

    All this fuss is about finding desperately a way of protecting Ron from responsibility for what Rand is doing with his legacy. But, Ron is fully in control, fully aware of what is going on and supporting Rand-neocon combinations 100%. After all, whose campaign manager was Jesse Benton, Ron's or Rand's?

    1. Geez, it's his SON! What's he gonna do, disown him over policy differences? Some father he would then.

  3. Because I respect him so much I'd like to hear or read a quick interview with Justin Raimondo on Rand b/c he took the bait hook, line and sinker. He even went as far as apologizing to Rand in a column.

    Chris, I know you had him on the youtube show recently but could you do a print interview or something with Justin about this?

  4. I think the filibuster was a failure as well, but I don't blame Rand as much as you do for this. True, Rand focused mainly on just drone strikes against US citizens on American soil. But if you listened to the filibuster, he also tried to sneak in criticisms of US foreign policy and drone policy on numerous occasions. He even brought up criticisms of signature strikes and the death of Awlaki's son, which the neocons don't want to bring up. Did he spend a ton of time talking about that? No, not very much. But he did bring it up. I think he was trying to do something good, but it didn't work exactly as planned. he certainly got a ton of publicity, but the discussion outside of his remarks in the Republican party didnt extend to anything apart form drone strikes on American soil. But I don't blame Rand for that. Rand, from what I heard in the filibuster, tried to sneak those things in, and for that I give him credit. I don't think he failed intentionally.

  5. I agree with everything said here. However, Rand did get the American people thinking about the subject and they apparently do not want the president killing Americans in the USA on his whim. Maybe that is as much of a "victory" as could be expected. And it might make people think that there two kinds of Republicans (even if that isn't really true) and Lindsey Graham and McCain are the wrong kind.

  6. Chris Rossini is confusing Ron Paul's liberty "Tell it like it is" advancing strategy: i.e. Speak up and Vote for Liberty, even if it makes you outside the GOP tent as the lone voter.....vs......Rand Paul's Zig-Zag strategy for advancing Liberty: i.e. Zig out for Liberty, but when the votes are not going your way, Zag back under the GOP tent for safety as a "team player". You should expect Rand Paul to do this his entire career. If you've been watching closely, you should see that is exactly how he's behaved. Finally, its not about bringing us into the NeoCon fold, its about us outing the NeoCons and infiltrating the 2-party duopoly. You can expect that all us PCs are busy too using this Zig-Zag strategy to advance ourselves up the DNC/GOP apparatus. It is an excellent strategy when you don't have the numbers and most of all it works; just look at that other small minority group who has infiltrated both the DNC & GOP, the Neocons.

  7. Chris Rossini is confusing Ron Paul's liberty "Tell it like it is" advancing strategy: i.e. Speak up and Vote for Liberty, even if it makes you outside the GOP tent as the lone voter.....vs......Rand Paul's Zig-Zag strategy for advancing Liberty: i.e. Zig out for Liberty, but when the votes are not going your way, Zag back under the GOP tent for safety as a "team player". You should expect Rand Paul to do this his entire career. If you've been watching closely, you should see that is exactly how he's behaved. Finally, its not about bringing us into the NeoCon fold, its about us outing the NeoCons and infiltrating the 2-party duopoly. You can expect that all us PCs are busy too using this Zig-Zag strategy to advance ourselves up the DNC/GOP apparatus. It is an excellent strategy when you don't have the numbers and most of all it works; just look at that other ideologically small minority group who has infiltrated both the DNC & GOP some 40 years ago, the Neocons.

  8. I, along with Justin Raimondo, and some other heavy Libertarian hitters, enthusiastically endorsed Rand's filibuster. OK, so what?

    BTW, I don't mean that I'M a heavy hitter.

    It was great that there was SOME recognition of the awfulness of the War Party.

    OK, a few days later, if Rand comes out with some cockamamie policy, I'll denounce it. Hate the policy, not the person.
    I still hate the GOP and won't vote for ANY of it's puppets, Rand Paul or whoever.

    1. The confusing part about Raimondo's position (besides "The libertarian moment has arrived – thanks to Rand Paul") is his conclusion:

      "In a terse, guarded letter in response to Sen. Paul, Holder has – finally – given a clear "no" to the original question that started this whole brouhaha: does the US government have the legal right to kill Americans on American soil without trial or due process? Clearly a victory for the Kentucky Kid – and perhaps an augury of victories to come."

      Holder wrote no such thing, and it is not clear why Raimondo portrays that he did. Is there a different Holder memo? This is the one I have seen from Holder:

      "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.

      Eric H. Holder, Jr."

      Raimondo is normally very detailed and thorough. This, to me, is inexplicable...unless I am missing something.

    2. Yeah, I mean of course I get your point. Hey maybe we just WANT TO BELIEVE SO BAD!!
      I mean, it's all so depressing, just give something to hang my hopes on.

  9. I disagree. When playing politics you don't come charging into a room full of china like a bull.

    He played it very well, appealing to a broader base which we like to see.

    I am concerned that the GOP is sticking it's tentacles into our movement. Karl Rove is particularly disturbing.

    Do not count out Rand so easily.

    He is his father's son after all and I see a game plan here that is gaining momentum.

  10. Chris, I respectfully do not agree with your conclusion. (BTW:Is Lou Dobbs,one of the media people who supported him, also one of the "bad" media people. Laura Ingraham also?Is it not good tomake some inroad and persuadepeoplestep by step?) Interesting also that you did not point out that a filibuster is about raising an issue to the public, well knowing that the majority will get its will. Rand Paul himself said during his filibuster that Brennan would most probably be confirmed. Interesting that you did not mention that Rand voted NO on Brennan, after the second Holder letter to him (while he voted yes to Kerry and Hagel) and as Rand explained during a politico interview this was because of concerns over the use of drones by Brennan outside the US.
    Just like with guns, with drones the evil does not exist with their existence, but with the people who uses them indiscriminately.

    He also critisized "targeted killings" and actually the whole issue of an interventionist foreign policy,as Justin Raimondo pointed out.

    IMHO he has achieved great success,a watershed moment in the national discourse as well as in the GOP. I think he himself and McCain/Graham thought he would probably be a mostly alone on this, yet he has succeeded in building a coalition - just like his father (who received support ranging from the Constitution to the Green party and in between) - ranging from Code Pink and the ACLU to Mitch McConnel and Ted Cruz. For liberty to take holdyou have to persuade some of the establishment people also, and even if they are not really persuaded, but vote and act (because of pressure they feel and issue of re-election) towards more liberty, you are winning.

    If the neocons were winning this, why would McCain and Graham attack Rand so strongly? One could argue that some of the people you mention are not really neocons in the true sens eof the word,but rather "inconsistent conservatives",like Rush Limbaugh who is arguably a GOP partisan. And if you would definite him as a neocons,well then Rand has managed to divide or split the neocons,as people like John Yoo,Michael Medved etc.etc.still take the McCain-Holder view on this all. would such a division not be seen as a weakening? IMHO McCain, Graham,(Ayotte) & Co.see the real threat of their establishment being challenged and Rand has now the sympathy of the most of the GOP, which would be unheard of a few years ago.

    He is making progress.I personally think this would not be visible for some of the anarchists (like yourself), but to the minarchists and constitutional libertarians we are seeing progress in the right direction. On FP I have listened also to Rand's first interview with Alex Jones when he showed interest in the senate seat, that he thought many mainline GOP could be persuaded to his dad's and his own FP by framing it differently, e.g.a difference of strategy.

    One last question: is Ron Paul himself then also mislead into the neocon camp when he tweeted he is so proud of his son's filibuster? Also: when Ron Paul would endorse Rand for president, would he then be leading his whole moment into the neocons's hands? Common be real. Also, to describe most Ron Paul supporters as gullible and naive is simply dead WRONG.Nothing can be further from the truth. Infighting is a much greater danger to the liberty movement than neocons or statists IMHO.

  11. I think Rand is definitely more of politician than any of us would probably like; yet there were far more positives to come out of this than negatives; and I sincerely doubt the neo-cons would have espoused the idea of his filibuster for the following reasons:

    1) It was as much about checking the power of the executive as it was about drones. I do not believe that the neocons relish other branches asserting or even assuming that they have any power over that of the president.

    2) It put a shadow issue front-and-center of the national debate. The public debates about the economy (though not monetary policy), which country should we go after now, gun control, and abortion. Drones are not something neocons or the establishment would wish to become a political issue come election time.

    3) As an extension of my previous point; it united seemingly disparate pundits and politicians in common cause. The ACLU, Van Jones, and Maddow supported Paul while Yoo (maybe the ultimate neocon villain) McCain, and Graham supported Obama. That says a lot. The left and right are defined by the issues mentioned in my previous point; bringing up issues of liberty weaken both parties.

    The neocons and establishment would much rather lose than have Rand Paul debating Hillary on drones in the national spotlight.

  12. Economic Policy Journal is the only website where the writers understand how cynical you have to be to grasp what Rand Paul and the Neocons are trying to achieve: A Republican Party that is unified under the banner of Jeb Bush, while cloaking it's Neocon soul under a cataract of Christian Zionism, Police State Security, Glenn Beck Libertarianism, caste system citizenship, and an avalanche of military worship. But make no mistake, fools and their freedom are soon parted.

    Speaking of fools, Alex Jones has been shoving Rand Paul down his listener's throats, along with Tea Party patriots, Michael Savage, Ted Nugent, Dick Armey, and Freedomworks, of late.

  13. I don't consider Senator Paul's filibuster a failure. It opened a dialogue and shed light on a subject that needs much more transparency. The idea that a President can order the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens on American soil (or anywhere else for that matter) is something that needs to be discussed. In fact the entire Drone program needs to be reassessed. It has NOT made us safer, instead it has created 10x more enemies than ever we've had before.

  14. "In action (i.e., the only thing that counts) the filibuster accomplished absolutely nothing."

    You could say the same thing about Ron Paul's years in Congress (remember, you said "the only thing that counts").

  15. Well he didn't reel me in. I was on the fence about him in the past but when he repeatedly voted for sanctions, then a bloated military budget and then kissed the ring of the Zionists over in Israel that was it for me.

  16. How much of Rand's filibuster did you actually *watch*? The central question was, indeed, limited specifically to the matter of the legality of pre-emptive domestic drone strikes against citizens, but Rand also very loudly and explicitly spoke against war without borders, the assassinations of Al-Awlaki and his son, etc. Rand may only have put his foot down to the point of staging a 13-hour filibuster over the impending domestic drone program, but this does not by any reasonable stretch of the mind constitute an endorsement of the administration's other brutal and oppressive policies. Watch here, especially the part starting at 35:18 : . Starting at about 45:15, he reiterates his disgust at the killing of Al-Awlaki's son, and then attacks the secret "kill list" the Obama administration has been keeping. He repeatedly quotes Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic-- not exactly a kosher writer for neoconservatives-- and specifically Friedersdorf's generalized criticisms of the drone program, not just the idea of domestic drone strikes. At other times in the speech, Rand quoted Glenn Greenwald, the civil-libertarian leftist whose writings are devoted mostly to broad criticisms of the government's violations of the Bill of Rights. To anyone who actually watched a significant portion of Rand Paul's filibuster, it should be obvious that this was a very pointedly libertarian and actively un-neoconservative display, even though some neocons got on board with it because it was directed against the president (who they bitterly hate, even though his policies are almost indistinguishable from their own).

    Having closely followed his career from the time he kicked off his Senate campaign right up through the present day, I can say that the notion that Rand Paul is a neocon is just absurd; since taking office, Rand has vigorously opposed neoconservative-style policies from the Libyan incursion to the PATRIOT Act to the NDAA to SOPA. It is certainly true that he hasn't been *as* principled and uncompromising as his father was, but to call him a neocon on those grounds is akin to calling a lighthouse beacon "black" because it isn't as bright as the sun. Rand has voted against the majority of his own party more often than virtually any other member of the US legislature in that time-- observe:
    Although he played ball with the Republican party and endorsed Romney after it became mathematically impossible for his father to win the nomination last year, Rand still actively critiqued Romney's foreign policy statements during the campaign-- observe this editorial written after the infamous endorsement:

    As for the claim that the filibuster "accomplished absolutely nothing" "in action (i.e., the only thing that counts)," as was noted above, you must then think that Ron Paul's entire career, more or less, does not count. Of course, I think that both Ron's career and Rand's recent filibuster most certainly did accomplish something: they inspired people, infused them with the spirit of liberty, and changed the conversation in a real and meaningful way. Why do we always hear about what the Federal Reserve is up to these days? Why is it in vogue to critique Bernanke and question the power of the Fed to pull strings however it likes, so much so that it perhaps actually has backed off to some extent? Because Ron Paul changed the conversation. Why is the secrecy and questionable legality of the Obama administration drone program now a major hot-button issue-- to the point at which the House has just passed a bill demanding Pentagon disclosure on the matter-- where there had barely been a mainstream peep about it until days ago? Because Rand Paul has changed the conversation.

  17. Who would they "PUT IN OFFICE" if NO ONE VOTED? I don't believe the polls or any of the crap in the primaries. Never again believe their lies. Whomever gets elected does so because of predetermined selection by TPTB.

  18. Never again believe their lies AGAIN. The "ELECTED" are but SELECTED by TPTB. I do not believe the polls nor the primaries. WHO would take office IF NOBODY VOTED?

  19. You are absolutely right, Chris. Your article link has -56 votes at THE DAILY PAUL. I stopped posting there when the idiots took over. I hear the same nonsense out of them I used to hear from GOP regulars about "being overly concerned with ideological purity." My gosh, this is an INTEGRITY issue with me. Rand "enthusiastically" endorsed Romney at the very same time Romney people were brutalizing and defrauding Ron Paul delegates. That whole filibuster was great political theater. However, Rand does NOT condemn the use of government drones over US soil, only that they might be used to kill some of us. Where is the outrage that government is using borrowed money to buy drones, ammo and build FEMA camps while cutting useful services?