Articles

Monday, February 01, 2010

Rand Paul, Anti-War, Anti-Gitmo and Anti-American

He's for shutting down Guantanamo Bay and banning the forceful interrogation of Al Queda terrorists. Not only that he would like to see the dangerous terrorists currently held in Guantanamo Bay deported back to their countries of origin, where in his own words, "It’d take them a while to get back over here."

He wants to cut the deficit by cutting defense spending and boasts that if he had been in the Senate, he would have held up the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He flirts with pro abortion and drug legalization rhetoric. His main spokesman was caught penning satanic anti-Christian lyrics and blaming America for 9/11. In response to this, his campaign manager, suggested there was "truth on both sides".

Barack Obama? Nancy Pelosi? No, Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul who has been a freelance Al Queda spokesman in Congress, currently running in the Republican Senate primary in Kentucky. The mainstream Republican establishment has thrown its support behind Trey Grayson. The local tea party movement has Bill Johnson. Meanwhile the same league of 9/11 Truthers, anti-war radicals and online gambling companies is busy astroturfing for Rand Paul, and filling up his war chest. They're already creating fake websites targeting his opponents.

Rand Paul has been cleverer than his father, dressing up the same message in more ambiguity, and redirecting questions with formulaic and deliberately vague answers. For example on the 9/11 Truther Alex Jones show, Rand Paul explained that his technique when answering questions about the War on Terror differs from his father, in that he emphasizes that there is a constitutional right to declare war. Which is his disingenuous way of attempting to seem pro-national defense, while avoiding talking about his real views on the War on Terror.

Paul confirmed to Jones that he offers the same message as his father does, but with a more appealing "presentation".

"You're basically what I would call a chip off the old block. Your policies are basically identical to your father, correct?"

"I'd say we'd be very very similar. We might present the message sometimes differently.. I think in some ways the message has to be broadened and made more appealing to the entire Republican electorate because you have to win a primary."

Rand Paul on Alex Jones, 5/21/09

Do Republicans really want a candidate who admits to hiding his real message in order to win a Republican primary?

Rand Paul's routine is a gussied up version of his old man. There's still the same old Paul army behind him, often shipped in from out of state. And there's the man himself, talking about the Military Industrial Complex, closing Gitmo, freeing the terrorists, blaming the War on Terror for the economic crisis and discussing a left-right coalition for rolling back the American Empire. And the old slips like Rand Paul comparing the US military to Hitler. No wonder he fails the conservative litmus test for Republican candidates.

Rand Paul has been a little quicker to distance himself from people like Chris Hightower, mainly because he understands the media better than his father does. And he understands that his message has to be massaged for the masses. But the message hasn't changed, just the presentation has.

Rand Paul “couldn’t agree more” with those who believe Guantanamo has “significantly damaged the reputation of the United States” and who want to “see it shut down.” – (Rand Paul official campaign web site post, posted by the site Administrator, 5/25/09)

"It's unclear whether these people are guilty or not guilty... So I really think deportation or sending them back to their country of origin might be the best way to go. And none of it’s fair, because some of them have been held years and years without trial... and you deport them to the countries where they were captured..."

Rand Paul on Gitmo prisoners on Alex Jones, 5/21/09

Yes deport them to where they can kill American troops. If you think that's not what he meant, try again;

“I think they should mostly be sent back to their country of origin or to tell you the truth I’d drop them back off into battle … you’re unclear, drop ‘em off back into Afghanistan. It’d take them a while to get back over here.”

Rand Paul speaking in Paducah, KY, 5/8/09

And what will they possibly do in battle over there? But don't worry, even if they do kill a few American soldiers, it will probably take them a week or so to back over here.

Rand Paul blames the War on Terror for the economic problems America is suffering today.

“Traditional conservatives who want the same sort of aggressive foreign policy probably cannot balance the budget… Unless you cut some of what we’re doing militarily, you cannot balance the budget - Rand Paul

"Part of the reason we've bankrupted the country is fighting so many foreign wars and having so many military bases around the world." AntiWar Radio interview may 17, 2009

Rand Paul is of course opposed to the kind of waterboarding that broke 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He is for repealing the Patriot Act and for building a left-right coalition to roll back the "American Empire".

"Is rolling back the empire not the first order of business for shoring up the economy?"

"Yes I think they're interrelated, and they've become the politicial coalition you need to win a race basically. Because here are people on the left who acknowledge the vast expenditures of the military industrial complex, and there are people on the right who are beginning to understand that. There's a sort of left-right paradigm that you bring these groups together in order to try to win an election. I think it's coming."

AntiWar Radio interview may 17, 2009

Do you really want to be part of a left-right coalition to roll back the "American Empire"? Because that's the strategy of the Pauls.

Finally Rand Paul stated that if he had been in the Senate he would have held up the US attack on Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I tell people in my speeches that the most important vote that any congressman or Senator ever has is on war and peace... and had I been in the Senate during the debate over Iraq or Afghanistan, I would have forced a vote on a declaration of war... had I been in the Senate I would have held things up."

AntiWar Radio interview may 17, 2009

And of course like his pop, Rand Paul is a big believer in seeing the enemy's view of things.

"Iran feels threatened because we have troops in Iraq and troops in Afghanistan... we have to understand their perspective, that they feel threatened."

Rand Paul, 2008

I'll close this article by quoting what Alan Keyes has said about Rand Paul, but his entire message is worth reading;

"Ron Paul’s son is mounting a well funded effort to exploit the rising tide of voters who identify with the conservative name. But like his father, he rejects Ronald Reagan’s ‘Peace through strength’ acceptance of America’s leadership for freedom in the world. Like his father, he echoes Barack Obama’s illogical willingness to pretend that America is to blame for the hateful attacks directed against us by Middle East terrorists.

Like his father, he seeks the support of those who understand that the Constitution cannot survive unless its foundation of respect for unalienable rights is preserved. But, again like his father, he asserts that it can somehow be just and lawful for State governments to violate the unalienable rights of human offspring in the womb or the research laboratory. It’s only wrong when the Federal government does so."

After Sarah Palin's unfortunate and misguided endorsement of Rand Paul, some have fallen into line and insist on repeating over and over again that Rand Paul is a mainstream conservative. He is not. No more than Lyndsey "Amnesty" Graham whom Palin also endorsed is (Debbie Schlussel). And his own words are the best argument against his candidacy.

Do Republicans really want a Senate candidate in Kentucky that a Democrat can run against on national security issues? Do they want a Senate candidate who will is so far off the map that some Republicans will wind up crossing party lines? Because that's exactly what we'll be getting with Rand Paul.

There's a mainstream establishment candidate and a tea party candidate in the race already. Rand Paul is neither, though by trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement while kissing up to Mitch McConnell, he's trying to be both at the same time. What Rand Paul is, is his old man in a new package, trying to market himself to conservative voters and hoping they don't learn about his real views.

46 comments:

Lemon said...

Another nut on the long list.

Keli Ata said...

Oh boy.


This guy Rand Paul sounds like a real piece of work. He's all over the place.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

it's ron paul in a shinier box, and people are being fooled by it

urbanadder22 said...

Either Sarah Palin hasn't informed herself fully about this guy (I never had any use for his father--reminds me of the old pre-WWII Republican isolationists and antisemites) or she supports that stance.

In either case, she is not fit to replace Obama.

When she struck out in her campaign-trail TV interviews, I gave her the benefit of the doubt--she was unprepared, restrained by her handlers, whatever--now, after her support for this Rand Paul, I conclude that she is only partially informed about him (unlikely), is not as bright as had been hoped she is, or supports only some of Rand Paul's agenda.

In all three of the aforementioned probabilities, she shows less than the hoped-for competence and outsider newness for the 2012 presidency.

Although, after the enthronement of Obama, all is possible in this the most suicidal country in the world.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

It really doesn't look good. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt that this decision was made in a bubble, or out of political convenience in the hopes of allying with the Paultards, who hate her anyway, it smacks of bad judgment. And while I supported her nomination, since the loss, she's failed to show that she could turn her image around. And this is just making matters worse.

aileen said...

When asked for his policy re Israel, he replied that Israel is an ally of the U.S. and he supports our allies. Period. That statement is so terse as to send a clear message that Rand Paul is no friend of Israel's. Palin, a strong supporter of Israel, couldn't have done much research into his thinking when she endorsed him. She thereby showed her inexperience as a politician on the national stage.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

I've listened to an hour's worth of him yesterday, and it's very clear that he uses generic statements like that to reassure voters, while avoiding the details of what his views actually entail.

What's even less excusable, is that she's also backing Lyndsey Graham and there's no way she can't know what he stands for.

So she seems to have abandoned her principles and is backing anyone she thinks can help her build influence.

What a waste.

Keli Ata said...

I clicked on the link to the Debbie Schlussel article about Palin supporting anti-Israel Lyndsey Graham.

Debbie doesn't seem to have much use for Palin. I get the impression that she sees her as rather vacuous, not a game player in the Republican Party but...not all that bright.

I'm starting to wonder if the anti-Israel factions of the party are using her as bait. She claims to be pro-Israel and is a fundamentalist Xtian. Are the anti-Israel candidates using her as bait to draw in fundamentalist Xtians?

Or do the majority of so-called Xtian Zionists actually harbor anti-Israel sentiments? Each trying to hurt Israel but in different ways--one through missionary activities and the other through anti-Israel policies.

I don't have a good feeling about this at all:

"That might still happen, as Palin also gave $1,000 to the Susan B. Anthony List, which is headed by anti-Israel, pan-Islamist Jane Hershey Abraham, and which also runs Team Sarah. Will be writing more about Palin and Abraham in the near future.

For now, read the complete list of Sarah PAC’s donations, thus far."

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

I think it's mainly about building alliances to her (palin) and principles be damned. Which is unfortunate.

Anonymous said...

Hi SK,

1) Sarah Palin never issued any formal endorsment of Graham for anything. This donation was only sent as a payback to Team Graham for their donation to SarahPAC when it was getting started (other donations were sent by SarahPAC for the same reason, i.e. to McCain and Lisa Murkowski, whom SarahPAC each reimbursed 5.000$ on 06/23/2009 and 06/07/2009 respectively, but there are more - IOW, a donation is NOT necessarily an endorsment). Moreover, Graham is not running for anything until 2014. What would be the point of an endorsment NOW?

2) The WaPo reports today:

Her spokeswoman just sent over this statement from the former Alaska governor: "I'm proud to support great grassroots candidates like Dr. Paul. While there are issues we disagree on, he and I are both in agreement that it's time to shake up the status quo in Washington and stand up for common sense ideas."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/02/palin-endorses-paul-in-kentuck.html

"While there are issues we disagree on...". Kind of an understatement, right? Palin will remain a straunch friend of Israel and a Defense hawk, whatever anyone thinks or writes over the net.

3) So why is she endorsing him if she disagrees with him on some issues (and says so right away)? Simple: Grayson is the "political machine" candidate, and Johnson, while a "better" conservative candidate, hasn't got a chance to win (no name recognition, polling poorly).

She wants ELECTABLE conservatives in both Houses for 2010, period. And if she can't get one, she will always prefer a RINO (like McCain) over any Dem (Hayworth will lose the general in AZ, even if he beats McCain in the primary - unless SHE endorses him after the primary).

4) With all due respect, dear SK, Debbie S. is NOT a reliable source for anything Palin (hating one's living guts never helped objectivity - let alone honest research).

Regards,

Avigail

PS: sorry to post as anon, pwd not accepted

yammi333 said...

aileen said.She thereby showed her inexperience as a politician on the national stage.

I agree with Knish, that she is attempting building alliances to her (palin) and principles be damned.

You say,"She thereby showed her inexperience as a politician on the national stage" True but it also shows bad judgment. Her poor judgment at this stage in abandoning moral principles in favor of potential political gain should be an early wakeup call for those who have supported her till now.

I still back Mike Huckabee(AKA Gomer Pyle) over any other potential candidate I can see for now. Certainly from what would be best for Israel perspective.

yammi333 said...

Lemon said...

Another nut on the long list.

This guy is a COCONUT!

yammi333 said...

Keli Ata said...

Debbie doesn't seem to have much use for Palin. I get the impression that she sees her as rather vacuous, not a game player in the Republican Party but...not all that bright.

That speaks for me as well. If you must support a woman try Michelle Backmann. She srrms to be everything Palin isn't.

urbanadder22 said...

Better she showed more of how her mind works now than later.

She is tained by her association--no matter how tenuous--with that Nazi-like segment of the population.

She has neither kept pounding on a resistance to Moslem influences on our government nor emphasized that she stands with Israel (not with any allies, the government sees fit to have).

She has damaged herself, and we have no need of a damaged candidate to run against the fraudulent election machine of the Obamaites.

Her re-association with the weak McCain does not stand in her favor either.

People wanted her because she appeared to be another "chosen one" (albeit female instead of black and male). But she fades, she fades as she is incapable of a firm stand for an un-Islamic United States.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Avigail,

if all she wants is an electable candidate, then let the primaries decide that. If she wants a candidate who is genuinely conservative and shares her beliefs, Bill Johnson is that.

Rand Paul is neither.

This is a guy that the Democrats are going to be able to run against on national security issues. And not just those either.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Yammi,

Huckabee in reality is fairly liberal, he just talks a good game.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

This certainly damages her credibility on the War on Terror, because she has demonstrated that they are expendable to her in the pursuit of other political goals.

Which raises the question of what she would do in the White House?

Anonymous said...

To yammi333
If you must support a woman try Michelle Backmann. She srrms to be everything Palin isn't.
Michelle Bachmann respectfully disagrees ;) see:
http://www.michelebachmann.com/news.php?cid=66

To urbanadder22
nor emphasized that she stands with Israel
This statement is inaccurate. Please do a research.

To SK:
This is a guy that the Democrats are going to be able to run against on national security issues. And not just those either.

You are right. But given the fact that the Dems have zero credibility on this subject, I wouldn't worry much about it. But you've got a point ;)

This certainly damages her credibility on the War on Terror, because she has demonstrated that they are expendable to her in the pursuit of other political goals.

Though I fully respect that POV, I do not share it because, IMHO, "endorsment" doesn't mean "ideological fusion". People may endorse candidates for a wide variety of reasons in which ideology may or may not play a part. Cheney has endorsed Hutchison (super-RINO) in Texas out of friendship (and nobody made a fuss, btw). Palin endorsed McCain out of friendship and loyalty. Now who can say with a straight face that Cheney has become a RINO over this? Or that Palin is now against drilling in ANWR, or pro-amnesty? Honestly, that doesn't make sense.

Sorry if I wasn't clear about what I meant by "ELECTABLE conservatives". I wasn't only talking about the general against the Dem but also about the Rep. primary. Clearly, Palin doesn't want Grayson to win and as far as I know Johnson is way behind in the polls (of course it may change, the primary is still a few months away). Quite frankly, I really think that the reason why she immediately stated that she didn't agree on everything with Rand Paul (an unusual thing to say at the beginning of an endorsment!) is precisely because she suspected that, on Defense and foreign policy matters, there was a possibility that the apple hasn't fall far from the tree. And there's no doubt in my mind that she is appalled by Ron Paul's positions, especially on Israel (nothwithstanding the fact that he and his supporters positively hate her).

That said thanks a lot for your very informative post (I find both Pauls repulsive). I just wanted to say that this intense scrutiny over Palin (overblowing out of proportion everything she does or says, and I'm not specifically talking about you, SK, of course) is a little bit unsound. If I was voting in Kentucky, I would just shrug it off and vote for whomever I want. Same thing if I was in AZ or TX. And if anyone wants to know where she stands on any subject, just go and read her Facebook posts. Nobody goes for Obama's jugular like that :).

All the best,

Avigail

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Endorsement doesn't mean ideological fusion, but it does mean that you are showing what you are willing to support. Endorsing a man who called for freeing terrorists back into battle shows that she's comfortable enough with the idea to come out for a candidate who supports it. If it was truly unacceptable for her, she wouldn't be able to do that.

Now she may not be aware of Rand Paul's actual views, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

This isn't a final thing, Palin will go on to do other things, good or bad, but this does unavoidably raise a red flag. And while I like her positions, it opens the question of just how deeply held those positions are.

urbanadder22 said...

DG (aka S. Knish) sums it up in his comment:

"Which raises the question of what she would do in the White House?"

Who needs it? Who wants to guess what an uncertain occupant of "our house" would do or not do, depending on whom she owes?

At least we know where the present occupant of the White House is going and trying to go with all the might of those backing him and those he owes (same people).

As for Huckabee, he has soft spots (including for illegal aliens) that are unnecessary in a leader who could bring the country out of the muck generated by Obama & Co.

I'm not looking for a person (gender-neutral) on a white horse--that is the last thing we need--but someone who clearly declares boldly how she/he feels about the threatened Islamization of the country and the obliteration of Israel by these same abyssmal forces would be preferable to someone who is learning how to navigate in dangerous waters.

Warbler said...

Alan Keyes is a backstabbing, glory-seeking, do-anything-to-get-ahead type of person. When he lost the Constitution Party nomination (after trying to pack the audience with his people and other not-exactly-subtle tricks) he decided to claim California as his own, and by malicious maneuvering claimed himself to be the CP nominee so that all Conservative CA (Tea Party) voters voted for him whether they meant to or not (unless they wrote in).

I respect some of the work he has done and his past conservative stand, but he has really gone were the cameras are rolling instead of sticking to conservatism. Anything he has to say about other conservatives should be thrown right back at him.

I personally do not see how (as Americans) Israel is the first condition when it comes to an election. America is in enough bad digs itself, and how has any policy in the past 30 years helped it. Forcing it to give and give, etc. Wouldn't leaving it alone and letting the PEOPLE there decide what they want and how they want to live?!?! If Americans really cared about freedom and helping Israel they would get the government entirely off it's back and say "If you are being attacked, beat the whatever you want out of your enemies!! Stand up for yourself and be a free and independent nation!!"

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Yes Allan Keyes, like everyone who has been critical of Ron Paul, is an evil evil man.

But Keyes was talking about defending America. Which is what Rand Paul is opposed to doing. Israel was never mentioned in this post.

So please do stick to the issues.

Oldironsides said...

I posted several objections about this endorsement on the TeamSarah web site which I belonged to for many months and it started a firestorm. I was surprised how many agreed that Ron Paul was a flaky Libertarian and many thought his son might be one, too. It was after I announced that I was supporting Bill Johnson in the Republican Senate primary in Kentucky that TeamSarah suspended me. Your article is top notch writing. Many thanks.

Sue said...

Wow Daniel, this is one GREAT article! I saw it link on sister-blogger's site Mommy.

I posted an article on this subject a few weeks back, and titled it..."Rand Paul, "The Cloaked Candidate". I did the best I could with what I could quickly learn about his father's policies. I was amazed to say the least, as I am sure many would be if they took the time to look beneath the cloak!

Would love to link to this article. Maybe reference another great section than Lisa did in her link.

Visit me at http://conservativekygal.blogspot.com

Sue said...

I meant to leave the URL to my blog post on Palin's endorsement, which also came with a $2,000 gift to his campaign.

http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/it-turns-out-that-sarahs-not

Thanks again for this wonderful article!

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

thank you, it's a shame that Bill Johnson is being aggressively shut out of the process this way

yammi333 said...

Anonymous said...

To yammi333
If you must support a woman try Michelle Backmann. She srrms to be everything Palin isn't.
Michelle Bachmann respectfully disagrees ;) see:
http://www.michelebachmann.com/news.php?cid=66



Thanks for the link! IMHO: I am not endorsing Bachmann, at least not yet. I was only trying in light of the many opinions offered here for and against Palin to provide what I thought to he a credible counterbalance to some of the opinions stated re: Palin.


Again IMHO, and in line with DS's, apparent animus towards Palin and that of SK,I sought to offer Bachmann as an example of a potential candidate who seems to have all the attributes critics of Palin claim she lacks.

That said, three years is a long time. In any event I think it much too early to commit to anyone this early in Americas political cycle.

I suspect there will be so many changes in the next 2-3 years, rendering our current positions and opinions as irrelevant.

It's fun to speculate though.

My POV Unlike almost all of the others commenting here, is that I take a very narrow and parochial position politically.

As a Jew and Israeli, my positions are determined by what I believe is good for the Jews and what is good for Israel over all other considerations.

That's my overriding principle.

Oh, I hold American citizenship as well.

yammi333 said...

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Yammi,

Huckabee in reality is fairly liberal, he just talks a good game.
___________________________________
Maybe but a strict constructionist conservative will be rejected by most independents. I think he is conservative enough to keep the conservative wing of the Republican party happy and liberal enough to not alienate enough independents thereby denying him an election win.

His positions on Israel are better than Likuds and certainly better than BB's.

Huckabee would be for us a breath of fresh air.

Question: Which republican candidate can raise at least 3/4 of a billion dollars in order to compete on a level playing field with Obama, without being totally corrupted?

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Some Huckabee quotes

"And we have to understand that while educated Muslims in Europe may not be materially deprived, many of them feel socially and emotionally deprived by a lack of acceptance."

"Besides the threat of small groups of educated people launching isolated attacks, we face the danger of mass movements of the dispossessed and discontented rising up in the Islamic world and overthrowing their governments, movements like those that led to the current government in Iran, when the shah was overthrown, and the Palestinians’ election of Hamas, and then their takeover of Gaza."

"The administration has quite properly said that it will not take the military option for Iran off the table. Neither would I. But if we don’t put some other options on the table, eventually the military option becomes the only viable one. Right now, we’re proceeding down only one track with Iran: armed confrontation. Nothing would make Osama bin Laden happier. He would welcome war between the United States and Iran, his two biggest enemies. I’d try to do anything that would avoid brightening bin Laden’s day."

"Normally we speak to Iran only indirectly, through the Swiss embassy in Tehran. Our recent direct negotiations about Iraq have been very narrowly focused, not very productive because we really weren’t exploring the full range of issues. We have valuable incentives to offer Iran in exchange for helping us to stabilize Iraq, not supporting the Taliban, Hamas, and Hezbollah, and abandoning their nuclear ambitions: trade and economic assistance, full diplomatic relations, and security guarantees."

"When we first invaded Afghanistan, Iran helped us, especially in dealings with their allies, the northern alliance. They wanted to join us in fighting al Qaeda, hoping this would lead to better U.S.-Iranian relationships. The CIA and the State Department supported the partnership, but some in the White House and the Pentagon did not. And when President Bush included Iran in the axis of evil, everything went downhill pretty fast"

"Now, Musharraf claims that he agreed to our demands on September 12th 2001 under Richard Armitage’s threat to “bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age.” Instead of making such a threat, I’d rather promise to help build them into the 21st century. If we can help meet the needs of Pakistan’s poor, they have less reason to support the religious parties."

"As the only presidential candidate with a theology degree, along with several years of political experience, I know that theology is black and white. Politics is not."

yamit33 said...

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Some Huckabee quotes

____________________________________

Thanks knish!

Looks like I may not have a horse in this race after all. Were these quotes taken before, during or after the Republican primaries?

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

you can see the whole speech here

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/events/070928_huckabee.pdf

Keli Ata said...

TY for posting the link and Huckabee quotes. During the campaigns I really didn't pay too much attention to his views--aside from him being conservative and a pastor.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Huckabee talks a good game, but on a lot of issues, he's really only a little further right than Bill Clinton.

That tends to surprise people who catch his routine.

Keli Ata said...

IMHO a candidate's position on Israel could be critical in determining what his or her ultimate views on American security will be. If he/she is moderate on Israel more than likely he or she will be lax on US security issues.


The majority of Americans who don't follow politics (like me) and zone out on foreign affairs will probably be watching for the candidate's stance on Israel--either because they are anti-Semites and hate Israel or they're pro-Israel.


And with the exception of Iran, Israel is the one nation whose politics a US presidential candidate can't dodge. There's not a lot of wiggle room when it comes to issues like abortion. Dem-Pro choice, Rep. Pro-life.

However, to appeal to liberals and conservatives Israel is an issue a candidate would be tempted to lie about or give conflicting views on.

That's what I'll be looking for during the campaigns, espcially when I watch the presidential debates.

Israel is a hot topic even for people who don't follow politics. Anti-Semites will be looking for the candidate to be 100-percent anti-Israel. Pro-Israel voters will be looking for unequivocal support of Israel as Rudy Guiliani gave during the convention.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Yes indeed, that's a good point. Candidates who are weak on terrorism, tend to be weak whether it's America or Israel.

Anonymous said...

So let me get this right... because a candidate thinks ALL foreign aid is unconstitutional and opposes the transfer of taxpayer dollars to foreign socialist govenrments, that man is an enemy of America, and an enemy of Israel?

Get real.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

No, because a candidate supports freeing captured terrorists and opposes forcefully interogating them, he is an enemy of America.

This article is not about Israel, it's about America.

But nice try repeating the same robotic Paultard meme about Israel.

You people might want to actually try thinking for yourselves, instead of repeating talking points like robots. Especially when they don't even involve the topic of this article.

Oh I know, if you thought for yourselves, you wouldn't be Paultards.

Keli Ata said...

TY for understanding what I was trying to get at--that a candidate who claims to be tough on terrorism but supports a two-state solution for Israel or negotiating with Hamas is most likely soft on terrorism and definitely not man or woman who should be president.

It's a tip off.


Didn't mean to inject Israel to heavily into this aside from the point I made:) Yes, this is about America.

Anonymous said...

I am a friend of Bill Johnson's in Kentucky www.kentuckybill.com . I'm also a former Naval Officer.
I've vigorously supported him in multiple capacities throughout his campaign, including representing him at events.
Bill is pulling 110% of his weight. His message is resonating as we approach the first in a series of candidate debates on Feb. 13.
Campaigns cannot run on good intentions alone. Bill is incredibly responsible fiscally but is up against a 20:1 combined opposition treasury.
Some form of on-line fundraising would help. He won't take "strings attached" special interst money. We're in a very poor state in hard hard times (I know so many out there are). As much as an anticipated $4 million will be thrown into this primary by Rand Paul and Trey Grayson, with approximately 90% from out of state sources.
Bill would appreciate your readers' financial help.

Dr. David M. Duncan
Lexington, KY

Warbler said...

I did not vote for Ron Paul, I voted for a political party.
Alan Keyes is a hypocrite by works, not by association or lack of it.

Also, (almost)everyone who commented discussed something about Israel. And the article had a certain quote (if you haven't edited) about Israel and "supporting allies"....etc.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

The article had and has nothing in it about Israel. Paul supporters just find it convenient to avoid discussing Rand Paul's willingness to free terrorists who are at war with America.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

David,

I'll mention his campaign specifically in my roundup of the weekend. I hope it will attract some donations.

Sue said...

Daniel, God bless you for your offer to mention Bill Johnson on your roundup!

Shaalu Shalom Yerushalayim

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Daniel. Fair, accurate, even representation is all Bill asks.
Why? Of course it's an election cycle. It's more than that though. It's a critical election we face nationally.
The MSM picking their choice of candidates vastly undermines the process. Of course we've known that before but this time it needs to be confronted.
Far more than the libertarian infiltration of the GOP is at risk here.
Including the US and Israel there are serious risks presented to the future security of freedom loving countries world-wide.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

It does seem as if the MSM is working together with Rand and Grayson to lock Bill Johnson out of the process.

J.W. Kingsley said...

I can't thank you enough, Daniel, for giving Bill Johnson a fair shake by getting his message out to the public. As you know, he has "skin" in the game by self-financing his own campaign. Bill is a man of strong character, integrity, confidence and sincerity. His message resonates with the people of Kentucky. It would be nice if he were on a level playing field but he is doing extremely well considering. He is definitely the right man for Kentucky and the right man for the Country.

Post a Comment