Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Rand Paul's Foreign Policy Speech May Go Down as the Most Incoherent FP Speech Ever

I have already criticized the speech for being sing-song, but I thought the neocons would like it. Apparently not. They don't like its wishy-washy tone either, even if it was probably meant as a way to somehow endorse neocon views without explicitly coming out and doing so:

Neocon Jennifer Rubin writes:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delivered a foreign policy speech at the Heritage Foundation today. He tried to posture himself on the middle ground between hyper-isolation and hyper-intervention.[...]The major problem with the speech is that, on one hand, Paul sounds like he fully appreciates the dangers of radical Islam, but on the other, he insists we can deploy Cold War containment, a strategy entirely unsuited to the threat he acknowledges.
His speech, in other words, is getting bad reviews from all who listened. In attempting to appease everyone, he appeased no one. It came off to all as the incoherent speech that it was.  Instead of expanding his base, the tone deaf Rand, who once called for the playing on a bus the song Knockin' on Heaven's Door, to bond with evangelicals, has blown his base apart.

Rand will have to work hard to get the neocons back in his corner. Expect more over-the-top sound bites from Rand on the importance of protecting the 51st state. Right now, the neocons don't seem that impressed with Rand.


  1. In his attempt to appease neocons, he has alienated libertarians. And in his attempt to appease libertarians, he alienates neocons.

    Poor poor Rand. Thinking he was so smart.
    Trying to take both sides for fools, and only fooling himself.

    Neither libertarians nor neocons like a spineless, wishy washy opportunist that refuses to commit to an ideal.

    For libertarians it is freedom and peace; for neocons it is the warfare state.
    Poor Rand is turning himself into an political orphan. How about turning Democrat?

  2. He's traded a priceless diamond for a bag of coal. It should have been clear to him from the outset that the neocons have an endless line of politicians singing Israel's praises and competing for their affections. Why would they pick Randolph?

    And most of the hardcore Ron Paul supporters will either avoid him or give him lukewarm support at best.

    In Iowa 2016, I can see him pulling a Giuliani and finish behind Ron's 2008 10%

  3. Rand should listen to the wisdom of Jesus (and his dad too!) on at least these two points: (1) Blessed are the peacemakers; and (2) A man cannot serve two masters.

  4. If I read her tweets correctly, the only person who liked it was Julie Borowski. WTF is that about?

    To me, it's plain to see that Rand is being as wishy washy as possible to capture the most amount of the wishy washy "conservatives" out there. Purely a least common denominator game.

    1. She's angling for a job on the 2016 staff, like Jack Hunter before her.

    2. That explains it. Some of her other tweets have been as wishy washy and geared to being offensive to nobody as Rand's speeches lately.

    3. I get the suspicion Borowski is just a conservative being confused and thinking she's a libertarian.

      She also works for Freedomworks. Which seems to be full of "make the state fairer" verbiage.

  5. The Neocons conveniently have a Straussian perspective, that is, they consider natural right and natural law as their guiding principles. To give you an idea how a Straussians or Neocon might view the world, consider that warfare in their eyes is a legitimate means to an end as long as that end is in line with, in their minds, natural law or divine intervention (revelation). Positive Law (man made law) is fallible. Killing a million people to save a million is ok if saving that million is in keeping with their reasoned approach. There is no such thing as country sovereignty to a Straussian, those who act in accordance with human reason and nature should prosper and those antagonistic to this should perish. Neocons have god on their side and Rand does not appreciate this.

    Libertarians on the other hand are directed by a different set of principles. That is, of the empowerment of the individual devoid of the state's overriding authority. To the Straussian, the state is where virtue starts and ends, not the individual as Libertarians assert. There are virtuous and un virtuous states. It is the un virtuous states that Straussians (neocons) have no philosophical reservation against overthrowing.

    Rand's appeal to the Neocon side comes across as no more than skin deep. Not only that, to Libertarians he seems to repeat this very same flaw. He's just a bullshitter.

  6. It's all part of his Secret Plan to Restore Our Freedom(TM)! Quit being mean to Rand!

  7. So your evidence that his speech is getting, "bad reviews from all who listened" is to quote one person?