Here’s Hoping The Wacko Birds Get the Worm
If the “Whacko Birds” have taken over the GOP it comes as a great relief to me. Why would this come as a relief to somebody who supports the GOP you ask? Because the “Whacko Birds” as McCain called them (Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and possibly Marco Rubio) are actually here to save the party.
Gone are the days where Republicans are ready to give up freedoms and liberties at the drop of a hat. In are the new Republicans who question the TSA, Homeland Security, NDAA, endless wars and domestic drone strikes on US citizens.
Why would Republicans opposing excess and boondoggles be a good thing? Because every poll you can possibly find shows a majority of Americans in opposition to all of them. And for good reason! This is why it is a good time to be alive and a proud supporter of these “Whacko Birds.” Or what they actually are, Tea Party candidates sticking to their principles.
Rand Paul winning the coveted CPAC straw poll this year brings new challenges. Not just having to deal with the constant attacks from the Republican establishment media, but having to deal with “Republican leaders” like Lindsey Graham. Graham questioned Paul after his 13 hour filibuster asking why he didn’t speak about drones when Bush was in office. A question too stupid to be worthy of an answer from Paul who had a real job at the time as an Opthamologist.
Now as of three days ago Graham is calling for boots on the ground in Syria. Everybody who wants boots on the ground in Syria raise your hand! These are the forces that the “Whacko birds” are up against in the Senate. Graham’s position on this isn’t even an outlier, it is pretty much him and McCain and, well who the hell knows.
The good news is people are strongly in favor of everything the new “Whacko Bird” GOP represents. The bad news is we have the same old faces (McCain and Graham) getting on every Sunday show and pushing their own pathetic agenda that large percentages of the voting public despises. They stand for too much politics as usual — which people have grown to hate. They are the antithesis of liberty and freedom. That is why the “Whacko Birds” have to take over the GOP. We won’t be fooled again. WM
You, me and everyone connected to this blog,supported the Republican nominee, especially given the alternative. Indeed we have worked overtime to expose the Obamanation. We can argue about what our defense and foreign policy and security interests are, but on something as fundamental as attack drones on American citizens in America . . . no trial . . . no eminent threat . . . well those icons of the Republican establishment exposed themselves as part of the problem. Eventually Obama “clarified” himself but in the mean time Senators Bluster and Blather could not bring themselves to appreciate an opportunity taken to shame Obama and his supporters. Pathetic.
I am interested in your comment about our defense and foreign policy. It doesn’t sound like you are totally on board with Rand and the other whacko birds. I was curious to why that is and where you stand.
Fair question. Perhaps scatological answer. If Rand Paul is fairly described as less “our borders only” on foreign policy than Ron Pau,l from the impression I get of Rand’s (it seems not well fleshed out or I am confused or ignorant of it) I would be probably still more in support of force projection in defense of clear interests than Rand. Call me a neo-con in that respect but I think I would be compatible with Reagan. I think someone like Bolton has a lot to say and I would at least want to listen. As currently constituted I would be inclined to not only get out of the UN but tell them to get the hell out of Dodge. A cancer as constituted, inimical to sovereignty. International forums have a place but that one is corrupt. We have made mistakes in our foreign policy, but saying we can do better is not the same as saying we should retreat or that in perspective our sins were lesser sin then other likely outcomes including our supposed gun-boat diplomacy in South America. On war fighting I supported Viet Nam, Gulf 1 and Gulf 2. The executions of the wars had errors and blunders but the causes were just. Were they “our ” responsibility. Well I suppose neighbors do not have to help another neighbor or fellow nation but from a standpoint of not wanting the fire (totalitarian Marxism) to engulf our or our friends it can be practical to do so. Nukes and missiles won’t keep us safe alone and are arguably the wrong instruments to keep criminal regimes in line. Maybe to some extent the world needs a Rome. We are more benign even if too often foolish. Better our motivations than that of Marxist one world dictatorial power. Necessity / economics dictates retrenchment in some areas. Our foreign aid can be foolish but I would not end it if it can help prevent war or in support of humanitarian efforts. We need to be smarter about it. Well that might give you a flavor of where I am coming from.
Thanks for the reply. I agree with you on foreign aid, but in recent cases like Egypt for example I think we need to cut it off asap. The Muslim Brotherhood nutjob regime shouldn’t be getting a penny from the USA. Especially not after this stroy-
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/26/egyptian-mosque-turned-into-house-torture-for-christians-after-muslim/
Roy, I’d be curious as to what your understanding of Rand’ s “foreign policy” is. I might also question your apparent assumption that whatever it is, that all the “other whacko birds” share it. I consider myself a Tea Party supporter and if that is the definition of a “Whacko bird”, I guess I am one. My concern about Sen. Paul’s foreign policy is I’m not sure that he is an advocate of a strong military and American Superpower status. Perhaps more troubling, is where he stands in support of Israel.
My understanding of Rand’ s foreign policy is basically GW’s foreign policy from the 2000 campaign, when he said the US shouldn’t be in the business of nation building. This is more true today especially since when we are $17 Trillion in debt now. Also not jumping at every opportunity to put boots on the ground (like Lindsey and McCain want to do in Syria for some reason now).
I think the reason the rest of the new whacko bird GOP are following this approach is because it is only common sense. We don’t have money for any new wars, people are sick of them, and the old gurad (McCain & Graham) are killing the party. Rand, Cruz, Lee and Rubio all agree on this. Also domestically the old guard is on the wrong side of the Homeland Security, NDAA, TSA and domestic drone strikes on US citizens. Are you happy with Big Sis saying she won’t tell Congress why she needs 3 billion bullets?? I’m hoping this is Rand’s next stand.
Also I’m not sure why Rand’s stance on Israel is the most troubling for you? A quick google pulls up him on a Sunday show last month saying-
Rand Paul: “Attack On Israel Will Be Treated As An Attack On US”
Not sure what else you want him to say. Personally, I could care less about Israel anymore when we have Obama winning the Jewish vote here by 75-80% the last two elections.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/25/rand_paul_us_should_make_clear_any_attack_on_israel_will_be_treated_as_an_attack_on_the_united_states.html
Good reply Roy. I don’t think there was any suggestion of support for the views of the “Old Guard” or of “happiness” with anything “Big Sis” does. Rand Paul is certainly worthy of support, and applause, for his courage and his positions on a number of issues. As to “no money for any new wars”, it begs the question of maintaining a strong military as an effective deterrent to war. That is probably a useful debate because my sense is that Senator Paul believes the opposite…that the existence of a muscular military policy surely leads to a desire to use it. And, while you and I may not like the political position of American Jews for their admittedly curious affection for Obama, Israel is the only real ally the US has in the Middle East and every President has affirmed our commitment to its defense. Mr. Paul’s “Sunday show” affirmation is welcome but squaring it with his overall posture on foreign policy, I still feel is problematic (to use a favorite Sec. Kerry term). One thing you missed, however, was another irrelevant reference to Sarah Palin (which would, of course, exclude any mention of Ted Cruz saying that he would not have won election without her support).
Hey I also believe in having and maintaining a strong military. Hell after 5 years it is obvious Obama even subscribes to this doctrine. But like Paul, I am a Conservative who holds no sacred cows. And knowing how much money is completely pissed away by the military and defense every day I think it could use some cutting.