Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Paul Attacks Fiorina on Putin, Foreign Policy

Paul Attacks Fiorina on Putin, Foreign Policy

“Man, are we lucky she wasn’t president during the Cold War!”

Rand Paul is in trouble.

The Real Clear Politics average has him at just 2.3% in the polls, putting him well behind outliers like John Kasich (3.2%), Mike Huckabee (2.9%), and Chris Christie (2.6%). Substantive comments in last month’s CNN debate didn’t help him much—but Carly Fiorina’s popularity spiked.

Enter a golden opportunity for Paul to hitch a ride on Fiorina’s media wave. During an interview yesterday with Wolf Blitzer, he lashed out against Fiorina’s hardline stance against dealing with Putin and tolerating Assad’s regime in Syria:

From Mediaite:

When Wolf Blitzer asked Paul how he would deal with Russia in Syria, Paul brought up Fiorina’s previous remarks that she wouldn’t want to talk to Putin and said, “Man, are we lucky she wasn’t president during the Cold War.”

At one point Blitzer noted how Paul himself has a noninterventionist policy and that he doesn’t consider to be “isolationist.” Paul then said that it’s people like Fiorina who want to “isolate us” and cut off channels of communication to engage in international diplomacy.

This whole line of attack was indeed set up during last month’s CNN debate, when Paul slammed Fiorina’s line of thinking on Putin and diplomatic relations with Russia:

This could be a good pivot for Paul, who has spent a great deal of time criticizing Donald Trump on both matters of policy, and on Trump’s approach to handling his fellow candidates:

As I said above, this is a good play for Paul—or at least it will be, if his team can pull off a corresponding media push and connect it to current events.

Judging by those polling numbers, though, that might be a lot to ask.

Follow Amy on Twitter @ThatAmyMiller

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I think one reason he’s not doing very well in the polls is because all the Ronulans who supported his father, and might have been counted on to go for him if only because of the “Paul” brand, have flocked to Trump instead.

    DaMav in reply to Amy in FL. | October 7, 2015 at 11:03 am

    Interesting thought. In a brief search I can’t find anything saying where the Romulans migrated, can you?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Amy in FL. | October 7, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    The following from Reason acknowledges the migration, but splits it between Cruz and Trump, though it is Cruz picking up Libertarian endorsements, and Cruz whose politics better align with small government Libertarians. Trump won’t get many Libertarians by declaring, as he did today, that he not only accepts eminent domain, he loves it, that the victims aren’t victims, just people ‘holding out for the money’ (unlike billionaire businessmen, lol), and further, that it’s fine with Trump to use the government to leverage those people out of his and other developers’ way.

    https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/29/trump-cruz-make-play-for-paul-supporters

    That Paul polls at 1% suggests there aren’t enough libertarians to matter, statistically speaking, of course. (#LIBERTARIANLIVESMATTER)

Oh what a thrill! Amnesty Annie Fiorina BURSTS into double digits in Ohio! Another couple months of this full court press and she might break 11, if Rubio and Bush and Kasich all drop out.

Gotta love the objectivity of an article headlined “A attacks B” when the article is actually an attack on A.

———————————————————
The Quinnipiac Poll in Ohio puts Trump first at 23%, with Carson second at 18%. Kasich, the sitting governor of Ohio, is third at 13%, followed by Cruz (11%), Fiorina (10%), Rubio (7%), and Bush (4%).

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/10/07/poll-trump-leads-swing-states-of-florida-ohio-pennsylvania/

    Ragspierre in reply to DaMav. | October 7, 2015 at 11:16 am

    I wonder if you’re still even trying to maintain the lie that you are a Cruz supporter?

    Because that’s really such a waste of time. You turn every post possible into a T-rump fest. You’re a T-rump hack. The only open question is whether you are a paid T-rump hack or you just do it for free.

    As time passes, so will the myth that T-rump has a conservative notion in his highly coiffed noggin. He doesn’t.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/07/trump-hey-conservatives-eminent-domain-is-wonderful/

    He’s Mr. Establishment, and a BIG GOVERNMENT guy all the way. That’s all he is, was, or will be tomorrow.

      I was watching Netflix last night and stumbled across a documentary about the USFL. Lo and behold, a young Donald Trump was featured prominently… I had forgotten his ownership of the NJ Generals.

      The gist of the story was that Trump, ever the arrogant, self-aggrandizing blow-hard, destroyed the league by over-playing his hand against the NFL. He didn’t go bankrupt and screw his partners/shareholders/debt-holders on this one, but it’s another example of how he is far from conservative.

      Imagine an ego-maniacal blow-hard like that with the nuclear football in reach 24X7. No thanks.

      DaMav in reply to Ragspierre. | October 7, 2015 at 1:19 pm

      You’ll be thrilled to discover that Lou Farrakhan is now nearly as obsessed with bashing Trump as you are!

      Maybe you two can start a PAC together? 🙂 Watch out for those Plagues now

      ————————————————————
      Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam said that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wanting to make America great again and the success of ISIS are both signs God is judging the Untied States and, “The battle is on and the plagues are coming down on America.”

      http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/10/06/farrakhan-trump-isis-are-signs-god-is-sending-plagues-down-on-america/

        That Quinnipac poll you just gleefully linked also contains the following factoid: That most Republicans in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania see Trump as “not honest and trustworthy”. (Q. 48)

          DaMav in reply to Amy in FL. | October 7, 2015 at 1:33 pm

          That’s why he’s winning,right?

          He’s only “winning” a general election if he can convince a majority of Americans to vote for him. The fact that more than half of the Americans in that poll you’re waving around have strongly unfavorable feelings towards him casts that prospective into doubt.

        Ragspierre in reply to DaMav. | October 7, 2015 at 1:37 pm

        Just curious…

        How does trying to slime me with Farrakhan make you NOT a T-rump hack?

        I know that is too logical for your despicable ass, so you don’t really have to answer, hack-man.

    That’s an interesting poll — thanks for that.

    …but Vice President Joseph Biden and Dr. Ben Carson are the best general election candidates in these key swing states, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today.

    Clinton and Trump continue to have the worst overall favorability ratings among all voters of any of the leading candidates, and the lowest scores for being honest and trustworthy, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.

    Trump, despite his strong showing in mock Republican primaries, fares worst among the GOP candidates matched against the three Democratic aspirants – giving some credence to pundits who say the billionaire could be every Democrats’ favorite GOP nominee.

I’m sorry? Hardline stance against dealing with Putin and tolerating Assad’s regime in Syria?

Fiorina said the US should create and enforce a no-fly zone in Syria over “US-backed” rebels (poorly defined, since some of these rebels, the more succcessful ones, are open Al Qaeda affiliates, even if ISIS itself has split from Al Qaeda), up to and including shooting down Russian military aircraft piloted by Russian air force pilots.

I don’t mind that Amy Miller is a huge Fiorina supporter, but for goodness sakes, don’t downplay the severity and gravity of the issue two candidates for no less than President of the United States are at odds about.

    Paul correctly thinks that Fiorina and Hillary are idiots for wanting to start world war 3, at this time when Obama has decimated our military capabilities and moral and the country is demoralized by Bush’s and Obama’s failures in the middle east, by instituting a crazy no fly zone to protect al qaeda affiliates that will be worse for both Syria and the USA than was Assad. Assad never wanted to attack the USA homeland, both Al Qaeda and ISIS want to attack the USA homeland.

    It is also amazing to see all the “chickenhawks” here and on the news all railing about how terrible it will be if Russia bombs al qaeda and ISIS in Syria.

    Trump is absolutely right. This is not 1961 or 1984 no matter how much the chickenhawks here want it to be. Our military is not where it needs to be to fight yet more wars. Trump after he is elected will make both our military and America great again. That is what needs to be done first.

    Let Russia go at it for now, and we can mop up the rest for much less cost later when both our country and military are great again. Russia will over time undoubtedly overplay its hand and ultimately help galvanize a western coalition that will finally be ready to oppose Putin, if necessary. He is already helping to bring Turkey back into the NATO fold from where it has been wandering a bit under Erdogan.

    So Putin getting bogged down in Syria will ultimately be a good thing for the USA and we don’t need a stinking no fly zone and world war 3 to do it.

    Trump gets it and the chickenhawks, Fiorina, Hillary, and Rubio don’t.

    Its just that simple.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 7, 2015 at 1:51 pm

      Two or three things, CHICKENSHIT…

      1. human nature does not change. “Trump is absolutely right. This is not 1961 or 1984 no matter how much the chickenhawks here want it to be.” That just shows your complete historical ignorance. It DOES NOT MATTER if its 1939, 1961, 1984, or today. Allowing a pug like Putin to play power games unopposed has ALWAYS been the wrong thing to do.

      2. you show your own Collectivist inclinations in using the “chickenhawk” bullshit you do here. YOU never served in the military. Many of us here…including ME…served in the military, and we understand that FORCE HAS to be projected, and that the Putins of the world WILL back down when they’re show force.

      3. as noted before, you need to stop squirting in your pants about “WWIII”. There are SEVERAL options besides sucking your thumb and full-tilt war, INCLUDING making the Russians back the FLUCK off, which they have a HISTORY of doing when met with resolve.

      You lying SOS II.

        Ragzini, the thought of thermal nuclear war with a crazy dictator like Putin may be just the thing to get your juices flowing, but fortunately for me and the vast majority of America and the world it will take a hell of a lot more than Putin doing the world a favor and killing some crazies in Syria to make us join with the chickenhawks and idiots like Fiorina, Hillary, and Rubio to egg one on presently.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 7, 2015 at 3:43 pm

        Yep. You’ve got that ol’ thirmo nukcula bullshit on your brain.

        How often every day do you duck and cover? Do you flee from your own image in the mirror?

        When did you realize you were wearing tin foil during office hours, as well as at home?

        Whadda moron…

          There’s resolve and then there’s shooting a few planes down “pour encouragez les autres”. It is my opinion the latter position is not a well thought out one. At least, it’s not well thought out to put it in those terms in the middle of a presidential campaign as if it bears no cost and no consequences whatsoever.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 7, 2015 at 5:26 pm

          Except nobody has suggested shooting down a few planes.

          Have they? (If you say they have, you’d best post links.)

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | October 7, 2015 at 7:34 pm

          “Fiorina said the US should create and enforce a no-fly zone in Syria”

          I do believe enforcing a “no fly zone” would require shooting down the planes that enter said zone. Perhaps you have another method of enforcement in mind? Or, is it that the precise wording of “shoot down the planes” must be used in order to qualify?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 8, 2015 at 8:46 am

          There’s resolve and then there’s shooting a few planes down “pour encouragez les autres”.
          ———————————————
          But in the REAL world of REAL stuff, you don’t have to shoot planes down to enforce a no-fly zone.

          And we have ‘no-fly’ zones all over the world. We have moving ones over every carrier group operating at sea. If Russian or Chinese planes penetrate those MANY zones, “a few planes” BETTER get shot down if they persist. But the won’t unless THEY have decided to provoke a hot war.

          Why would the Russians feel they had to push us in the sky over Syria? But if they DID, would their command structure continue pushing after their pilots reported they were painted and targeted?

          I rather doubt it. I doubt it very, very much.

          I was responding to this:

          “Except nobody has suggested shooting down a few planes.”

          I believe creating a no fly zone is exactly that. There is no comparison to a no fly zone around a carrier force.

          Do the ruuskie pilots turn and fly off when hit with the hard exclamation point of radar? Quite possibly. But creating a no fly zone without the intention of shooting down violaters is worthless, kinda like a red line.

Interesting that Fiorina, Clinton and Rubio all want a no fly zone. I even heard Ryan Crocker advocate for that.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to PhillyGuy. | October 7, 2015 at 3:15 pm

    It’s maybe a little bit too late now for a no-fly zone.

    Now, you’d have to shoot down Russian planes. (and hope Russia didn’t try shoooting down NATO planes in Turkey.)

    If a no-fly zone had been declared before, Russia would probably honor it.

    The United States and Russia don’t want to get into direct conflict. They didn’t during the Cold War.

    This is like the situation with kings in chess. A king can’t move to a space where it could capture or be captured by the other king on the next nove. Russia has now occupied Syrian air space where you would have the no-fly zone.

“Russia today is a troublemaker, not ideologically as in the Cold War sense, but as a swaggering, international bully boy. Increasingly reverting to authoritarianism domestically, Vladimir Putin’s Russia is, among other things, seeking to re-establish hegemony within the former Soviet Union; meddling in the Middle East; and flying political cover for Iran’s nuclear-weapons program. Ironically, Russia’s international assertiveness cannot be sustained, given its aging, unhealthy and shrinking population and an economy resting on little more than oil and natural gas exports.

Strategically, the United States should be squeezing and disciplining Moscow, not caressing it. Instead, the Obama Administration’s “reset” policy has smacked of appeasement, backing down on missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, abandoning efforts to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO, and signing the New START arms control treaty, an unforced error that will give Russia time and cover to rebuild its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities under limits that constrain Washington far more than Moscow.”
—John Bolton

Bernie Sanders, T-rump, and Barracula are all in favor of sitting on their thumbs and watching.

Impressive…

    PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | October 7, 2015 at 1:36 pm

    Bolton is not advocating for a no fly zone either.

      The wide range of opinions on this issue reflects the fact that the US, finding itself in retreat, is lost. What’s problematic here is not Russia — they simply filled a power void. Do we really believe that the US has the stamina reassert itself in the Middle East?
      I am very much against starting a nuclear war either over Syria or over Estonia, but Fiorina’s or Rubio’s hardline position might be a good starting point for negotiations. I don’t trust boy Rubio with foreign policy and Fiorina is unacceptable to me for other reasons.
      Considering that Russia is in a horrible demographic predicament, is it necessary to risk nuclear war with them? Granted, Russia might yet remain an imperial power once ethnic Russians become a minority; the chances of them being that are greater than democratic Germany remaining a European nation with German minority.
      Putin might be a lot of things, but he’s no madman. As pointed out on an earlier thread, he’s very calculated. Here’s a good read, I think:
      http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/03/the-accidental-autocrat/303725/
      Right kind of people might strike the right kind of agreement with him.

Instead of another free advert for Fiorina why don’t you cover the brilliant questioning of the Sierra Club head flunky by an actual conservative? Cruz at his best on Gorebull Warming.

This is why I want to see Cruz on the SCOTUS. Awesome!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

Sammy Finkelman | October 7, 2015 at 3:09 pm

Rand Paul’s policy is more like that of Henry A. Wallace during the Cold War, except that I don’t think he posits that Russia has good will and good intentions.

Obama – he’s so slow to believe that Putin is really doing what he’s doing. Of course, Putin tried to hide things, sayinbg he was onl;y deleivering arms.

Now Obama says what Putin is doing won’t work – of course he’s assuming Putin wants a unitary, peaceful, Syria ruled by Assad, and Obama isis saying he won’t get it.

A unitary Syria not in the grip of a civil war may be less important to Putin than the Assad government keeping control of the central bank, passport issuance, key locations in or near Damascus including its airport, the Lebanese border, and a coastal strip where Russia has bases.

May as well pack it in, Rand. There was a time when you had my support, but your recent switch to petty attacks on the other Republican candidates shows that you’ve sold out to the GOPe. Just what did McConnell promise you, anyway?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to IrateNate. | October 7, 2015 at 9:06 pm

    Rand’s mix of libertarian and GOP moderate politics is not an easy or platable blend.

    There’s something about his presentation of self in public that is off-putting to me. Too often, when he is asked a question in an interview or debate, the look on his face seems like he’s thinking, “I can’t believe I’ve got to explain this shit to these morons…” Unfair, but that’s the impression I got.

Erudite Mavin | October 7, 2015 at 10:43 pm

Rand Paul and Donald Trump have the same isolationist foreign policy.
Just walk away from the middle east and let Iran and Russia take over.

Paul and Trump have no idea what is going on.

Many here do not know Putin’s background and especially how Russia functions with their Byzantine and Potemkin Government and system.

Putin was KGB trained. Today an admirer of Stalin.
Putin stated, the worst event of the 20th century was the breakup of the Soviet Union.

When Putin took over Russia, he created the new KGB, the FSB, Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti,
Putin’s FSB draws a direct line of inheritance from the Cheka set up by Lenin.
In the 1990s one of the persons who trained in the FSB Russia was al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s right hand man and now the head of al Qaeda.

No, Putin is NOT the Free world’s friend.

Since I can’t directly reply it seems, this is for Ragspierre, and others as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXUSBwYqcS8

Here’s exactly what Carly Fiorina said, on video. If you have any doubt this means up to and including shooting Russian Federation jets piloted by Russian Federation pilots, watch and get back to me.

That’s why I’m unhappy about characterizing what she said as “Fiorina’s hardline stance against dealing with Putin and tolerating Assad’s regime in Syria”. It’s a little bit more than that!

    Ragspierre in reply to JBourque. | October 8, 2015 at 8:36 am

    Wul, DUH! What? You suggest we have a policy where we set out a no-fly zone with the provision that WE back down if tested?

    Cripes! I seriously wonder…

      No, I suggest the US think better of establishing a no-fly zone over a country it has no right to establish a no-fly zone over on its own authority for the defense of rebels with which we are “aligned” but not actually allied, for the benefit of sponsoring attacks on a UN member national government. One of those things ought to change before pulling a stunt like this.

      In the meantime, thanks for actually defending the posture of shooting down Russian jets.

      “Ragspierre | October 7, 2015 at 5:26 pm
      Except nobody has suggested shooting down a few planes.

      Have they? (If you say they have, you’d best post links.)”

      Since I have you dead to rights on your last build version. Now we can proceed on more honest terms.

    It helps to appear slightly unhinged.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend