DNC response to Rand Paul's op-ed
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:02:05 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  DNC response to Rand Paul's op-ed
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: DNC response to Rand Paul's op-ed  (Read 2808 times)
Kevin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,424
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 30, 2014, 12:31:22 AM »

While I am not entirely in line with what the DNC is saying here, it needs to be understood that there are different philosophies on the left for foreign policy, and one can remain consistent in opposing Bush's militarism while also thinking Rand Paul's approach is wrong.

I don't think anyone's debating that. It's the rhetoric they use, it's the exact same rhetoric as the Bush people used to smear the Democrats.

Hence why it's perfectly fine for hypocrites like Lief to tow the line on this one.

Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with what the DNC stated.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 30, 2014, 11:57:18 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://factivists.democrats.org/dnc-response-to-rand-pauls-troubling-wsj-op-ed/

This might piss some leftists off.

If you take out all the references to Rand Paul, it's absolutely impossible to not mistake this for what the Neo-cons said during the Bush years.





Disgusting, although not as awful as the Democrats who opposed the Iraq War, but will suddenly discover their inner neo-con if Hillary is nominated.

Biden, Reid, Harkin, Kerry, Edwards, Dorgan, Cantwell, and Kohl all voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Are they all neocons as well? It's not as though Hillary is the only one (either in terms of politicians or regular citizens) who flip flopped on this issue, as it used to have overwhelming support.

She's not a neo-con just because she supported the Iraq War (and still refuses to acknowledge it was a mistake).  I'm talking about her entire foreign policy record.  Also, I'm not sure that John Edwards is someone who want to be comparing Hillary to when you defend her Tongue  As for the Senators you mentioned, obviously most of them aren't (although Biden is definitely a liberal interventionist which has some significant overlap with neo-conservatism).  However, Lieberman, Schumer, Feinstein, and Bayh arguably are to varying degrees (especially the first two) and they also voted for the Iraq War.  Additionally, many of the Democrats who supported it were conservaDems like Landrieu, Breaux, Nelson (NE), Miller, Lincoln, Carper, etc.  I can't imagine why you left them out.  Surely you weren't cherry-picking names Roll Eyes

That is incorrect.  In her book Clinton says:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-wrong-article-1.1819012



Fair enough, she finally acknowledged it was a mistake, but doesn't seem to have learned anything from it and remains as much neo-con today as she was then.  
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 30, 2014, 12:11:40 PM »

Glad to see the Democrats, while en route to political suicide under President Clinton II and the subsequent impeachment, are not pandering to their own far-left tea party and becoming America First Lindberghites. One of the worst domestic effects of the heinous Bush years was to make some Democrats isolationists as a reaction to the Bush disaster.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 30, 2014, 12:38:48 PM »

American progressives/liberals have never supported isolationism. I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this response to Rand Paul's insane foreign policy views.

Because of Iraq? IDK either.


He just talks like one and said should end all foreign aid.
no he doesn't lmao

Great argument.
When exactly has Rand Paul ever spoken like an isolationist?
Logged
CJK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 671
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 30, 2014, 03:23:08 PM »
« Edited: August 30, 2014, 06:23:03 PM by Mr. Morden »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://factivists.democrats.org/dnc-response-to-rand-pauls-troubling-wsj-op-ed/

This might piss some leftists off.

If you take out all the references to Rand Paul, it's absolutely impossible to not mistake this for what the Neo-cons said during the Bush years.




Disgusting, although not as awful as the Democrats who opposed the Iraq War, but will suddenly discover their inner neo-con if Hillary is nominated.

Biden, Reid, Harkin, Kerry, Edwards, Dorgan, Cantwell, and Kohl all voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Are they all neocons as well? It's not as though Hillary is the only one (either in terms of politicians or regular citizens) who flip flopped on this issue, as it used to have overwhelming support.

She's not a neo-con just because she supported the Iraq War (and still refuses to acknowledge it was a mistake).  I'm talking about her entire foreign policy record.  Also, I'm not sure that John Edwards is someone who want to be comparing Hillary to when you defend her Tongue  As for the Senators you mentioned, obviously most of them aren't (although Biden is definitely a liberal interventionist which has some significant overlap with neo-conservatism).  However, Lieberman, Schumer, Feinstein, and Bayh arguably are to varying degrees (especially the first two) and they also voted for the Iraq War.  Additionally, many of the Democrats who supported it were conservaDems like Landrieu, Breaux, Nelson (NE), Miller, Lincoln, Carper, etc.  I can't imagine why you left them out.  Surely you weren't cherry-picking names Roll Eyes

That is incorrect.  In her book Clinton says:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-wrong-article-1.1819012



Fair enough, she finally acknowledged it was a mistake, but doesn't seem to have learned anything from it and remains as much neo-con today as she was then.  

The myth that "neocons" caused the war lives on. Here is an interesting counterfactual on what would have happened if Gore was president.

link
Logged
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,367


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: September 02, 2014, 02:59:06 PM »

Not surprising. The Democrats have been adopting Bush policies over the entire Obama administration, why not adopt the tactics?

The great difference: President Obama reacts cautiously to real dangers to America -- like ISIS. Dubya reacted rashly to fabricated dangers to America.

ISIS is about as much of a "threat to America" as Saddam Hussein was.

I see this as Rand Paul once again hitting that centrist, populist chord that everyone else in the 2016 elections will likely miss. (Save for maybe Elizabeth Warren on the economy.) Whether he can ride that to the nomination or the presidency, even if he avoids his other problems (including a tendency to put his foot in his mouth), I don't know.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: September 02, 2014, 03:08:21 PM »

Biden, Reid, Harkin, Kerry, Edwards, Dorgan, Cantwell, and Kohl all voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Are they all neocons as well? It's not as though Hillary is the only one (either in terms of politicians or regular citizens) who flip flopped on this issue, as it used to have overwhelming support.

She's not a neo-con just because she supported the Iraq War (and still refuses to acknowledge it was a mistake).  I'm talking about her entire foreign policy record.  Also, I'm not sure that John Edwards is someone who want to be comparing Hillary to when you defend her Tongue

Well, I mostly included him just because many people who endlessly criticize Hillary for the Iraq War vote were Edwards supporters in 2008.

I'd assume the difference was that Clinton voted for the war, refused to endorse a timetable to end it, and saw a "remaining military mission" in Iraq with no deadline for withdrawal, while Edwards said total withdrawal within one year.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: September 02, 2014, 03:48:48 PM »

Not surprising. The Democrats have been adopting Bush policies over the entire Obama administration, why not adopt the tactics?

The great difference: President Obama reacts cautiously to real dangers to America -- like ISIS. Dubya reacted rashly to fabricated dangers to America.

ISIS is about as much of a "threat to America" as Saddam Hussein was.

I see this as Rand Paul once again hitting that centrist, populist chord that everyone else in the 2016 elections will likely miss. (Save for maybe Elizabeth Warren on the economy.) Whether he can ride that to the nomination or the presidency, even if he avoids his other problems (including a tendency to put his foot in his mouth), I don't know.

I'm sorry, but did you really just call Rand Paul a populist? Tongue  He's like the polar opposite of a populist on economic issues.  Btw, as much as I like Warren's views on most economic issues she's not a populist either (too much of an intellectual, non-demagogic speaking style).  If you want examples of Populists, look at Huey Long, William Jennings Bryan, Brian Schweitzer, etc.  Folks like Warren, Sanders, Sherrod Brown, etc are among the few speaking to the economic concerns of blue-collar workers and the poor/middle-class, but that doesn't make them populists.
Logged
New_Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: September 06, 2014, 12:45:52 PM »

It's not everyday that I agree with the DNC.
Logged
GOON
Rookie
**
Posts: 68
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.48, S: 7.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: September 06, 2014, 07:01:24 PM »
« Edited: September 06, 2014, 07:07:00 PM by GOON »

Some people really need to learn the difference between isolationism and non-interventionsm.  They're absolutely not the same thing.  Rand Paul is the latter, and is even in favor of air-strikes on ISIS with Congressional approval.  I'm p. sure that's not isolationist rhetoric, but don't let partisan talking-points get in the way of that.

Plus, there is nothing wrong with "blaming America" if it deserves blame.  The United States and George W. Bush created the vacuum of power in Iraq that ISIS is now taking advantage of by overthrowing Saddam, and Obama didn't help matters by arming them in Syria.  Had Obama gone through with his desire to directly intervene in Syria, Assad more than likely would have been overthrown by now, and ISIS would have seized power in Syria.  Even if the United States had gotten involved earlier--as Hillary Clinton misguidedly suggested we should have-- a "moderate" government MIGHT have formed in Post-Assad Syria, but ISIS still would have attempted to overthrow that government, much like they're attempting to do in Iraq right now.

For what it's worth, Syria reached out to the United States in 2010 and essentially asked us to help them take out groups like ISIS.  Obama rejected this, since he was hell-bent on removing Assad--a man who would never pose a threat to the United States--from power.  Had the United States taken Syria up on their offer, ISIS probably wouldn't even exist in their present-form, if at all.  (Wikileaks posted this about a month (or so) ago.  I'd link it, but I cannot do that until I reach twenty posts).

That's what Rand Paul was getting at in his op-ed.  Rand Paul isn't "blaming America" just because it's an easy target.  Paul is "blaming America" by pointing out that the misguided foreign policies of the previous regimes have led to and created this situation, dating back to 2003.  There is really no hope for the United States if one is so blinded by patriotism that reality is dubbed "A foreign policy of blaming America first."
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: September 06, 2014, 07:18:41 PM »

Not surprising. The Democrats have been adopting Bush policies over the entire Obama administration, why not adopt the tactics?

The great difference: President Obama reacts cautiously to real dangers to America -- like ISIS. Dubya reacted rashly to fabricated dangers to America.

ISIS is about as much of a "threat to America" as Saddam Hussein was.

I see this as Rand Paul once again hitting that centrist, populist chord that everyone else in the 2016 elections will likely miss. (Save for maybe Elizabeth Warren on the economy.) Whether he can ride that to the nomination or the presidency, even if he avoids his other problems (including a tendency to put his foot in his mouth), I don't know.

I'm sorry, but did you really just call Rand Paul a populist? Tongue  He's like the polar opposite of a populist on economic issues.  Btw, as much as I like Warren's views on most economic issues she's not a populist either (too much of an intellectual, non-demagogic speaking style).  If you want examples of Populists, look at Huey Long, William Jennings Bryan, Brian Schweitzer, etc.  Folks like Warren, Sanders, Sherrod Brown, etc are among the few speaking to the economic concerns of blue-collar workers and the poor/middle-class, but that doesn't make them populists.
There isn't really a "populist" position on any issue.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 14 queries.