46 votes

Sen. Rand Paul Explains His Vote In Favor Of Sanctions On Iran

Today I attended a town hall in Alexandria, KY and was able to finally ask Rand Paul a question many have wondered about, namely why he voted in favor of sanctions on Iran.

As far as I know this question hadn't been posed to him yet...


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Something tells me...

...he has a method to the "madness". Ron must be 100% honest all of the time. I believe Rand is too, but I also believe he may be a little more shrewd against the establishment than people think. For some reason, I think he knows what he's doing. Ron is very peaceful & well seasoned. Rand is fairly young and has fire in him, in a sort of clever sneaky way...cannot explain it...just feel it. Good man, raised well, we will just have to see!

"been here longer than me"

"been here longer than me" What are you, in high school? Your argument is ridiculous. So because Rand's vote wasn't deciding the outcome it was okay?

"smart and calculating" you mean Ron does what he says, but Rand doens't because Rand has some long term scheme to fool everyone? Get real. BTW, it is thoughts that dictate emotions, not the other way around.

But go sign up to go to Iran... they need people like you...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

You may have been here

You may have been here longer, yet your posts are not so accurate:
Ron Paul: Iran Sanctions = Act of War: http://youtu.be/vIO-4v8qpYc

I don't like arguing with stupid people

What's "not so accurate" about my posts? Trust this - you will never "teach" me anything about Ron Paul or the philosophy of liberty that I don't know already.

"you will never "teach" me

"you will never "teach" me anything about Ron Paul or the philosophy of liberty"

You know why? Because your head is so thick nothing else will get in there. You can't teach anyone anything if they have already made up their mind and refuse to listen to others...

BTW< what is inaccurate is your statement that Rand is voting one way, but really feeling another just to fool everyone... RIDICULOUS!!

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Learn to read

A part of your post above:
""Sanctions are an act of war" is something that you tell noobs and neocons. I've been here a lot longer than you..."

Good luck with this attitude, by the way, calling other members stupid because they don't agree with you does not make you look smart.

Evening gentlemen.

Sorry, folks. Ron is THE LAST

Sorry, folks. Ron is THE LAST person that gives me hope. Rand just blows my hope with answers like that. He will never be his dad with political correct answers like this...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Mr. Middleton

you are a very shortsighted person, very down and pessimistic. If you were in my foxhole, I would kick you out of it. You have no vision, you just seem to be on here disabling any last glimmer of hope anyone has. You are no benefit to saving this country except for pissing people off. Why are you such a coward? Why do you see things as so shallow? You don't dig for answers, you peel your own skin off.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Sorry, I don't want compromisers in my foxhole with me.

They might shoot me because their enemy tells them they get to live if they do so.

I'd rather we both shoot the enemy and both survive.

Traitors never make good friends.

That's why I support Ron Paul

That's why I support Ron Paul and not Rand. I stand with principles, you stand with Santorum and the "team" of politics..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I have spent about $10,000 supporting Ron Paul

I have went to bootcamp got the uniform and was willing and able to die for my country. I have canvassed, I have phone banked, I have stood at the voting location in sub zero temperatures last time around. I went to the Revolution March in Wahsington DC in 2008, I have participated in the DVD's for Delegates back in 08, and have been on Dailypaul for over 4 years. I let Rand be Rand because I am not a congressman, nor a senator, I question what matters, and what I have control of, you question Dailypaul members to create some form of drama and entertainment in your life because you can not question your own life and the reality around you. I will not reply to your reply because I will not be your Viagra, good day sir.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

And how much success has his

And how much success has his dad had at getting his agenda passed? I know it's not his fault that Washington is filled with establishment clowns, and he has done a lot to wake people up, but I would hope that Rand would want to accomplish more than his dad has (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I like Rand better than Ron)

Is war with Iran worth whatever he manages to accomplish in

other areas?

Is decades of suicide bombers blowing up our shopping malls and transit stations worth whatever measly crumbs the establishment throws Rand's way?

Are you serious?

NEVER EVER NEVER compromise your principles. It never works out in your favor - ever.

What if preventing war with

What if preventing war with Iran (a full on hot war/preemptive air strike, which would very likely drag China and Russia into the mix) is what he's trying to build political capital for? I can see how someone might come to that conclusion, and his office has implied it. The bill would have passed anyway. But in order to force a vote or filibuster to stop a strike later on, he'll need allies in the Senate. These sanctions had overwhelming majority support, and it's probably unlikely he would be able to convince anyone on his side to oppose had he simply abstained or voted no on this, so he made a tough call hoping he can get people to back off from escalating this further. We don't really know. But given his actions on the Georgia/NATO issue and other foreign policy actions, I think it's possible.

I can't say what his calculations were or his intent. And I

doubt he ever will make them public because that's part of the strategy. If he used this to hold any cards, announcing that fact would be exposing and rendering those cards useless.

I remain steadfast though in my assessment, you NEVER compromise your principles, it will NEVER work out in your favor.

He might have some calculation in place that justified his action. In short, it was nothing but an excuse to do something he didn't want to do. (or to explain away something he DID want to do)

That excuse doesn't make that action, that vote, correct. And it comes with no guarantees.

I'd rather the guarantee of doing the right thing, then doing the wrong one and hoping to somehow make that pan out for me later. You never have anything to apologize for, least of which to yourself, and you can always use that as a position of strength down the road to show that you had it right from the beginning.

This is exactly what his father has done.

Would Ron have the respect and perception of integrity he has now had he voted the way Rand does? Would he even be running for President?

Would RAND have gotten within even a hair's breath of the Senate had it not been for the groundwork laid by Ron with his consistent and principled voting?

Maybe. But then would it matter if he were in the Senate at all?

The fact that he has voted this way, exposes this flaw - you are only as strong as your weakest vote. There is no one that can tell me that somehow, by selling out your principles, even if that is what everyone else is doing, that this will magically gain you "respect" even amongst those who do it for a living.

You can't deny human nature. Sellouts are hated everywhere. And they are trusted by NO ONE. Least of all, by other sellouts.

This vote will come to bite him in the butt. Mark my words.

Ron has always understood

Ron has always understood that in order to bring about change, it had to start with the moral and intellectual understanding of the people first. If people don't understand or know what liberty is, they won't desire it or vote for it. If people don't know what a constitutional government looks like, they won't vote for it...and they won't miss it when it's gone. That is really what Ron has set out to change--the hearts and minds of people. Now the tide is starting to turn to the point where people are more willing to vote for liberty oriented candidates...and there's growing support for the ideas. Ron is running to win.

I think Rand is trying to be more of a politician, because he believes the time has come to start acting on that foundation to bring about policy change. That's why he is always talking about how the GOP is an empty vessel and asking us to join our local GOP, get involved, move up the ranks, run for office, etc. The party is ours for the taking.

Now I agree that no one should compromise on principles, and if Rand does this too much, he risks muddying up the message and losing himself in the process... but I just think that comparing him to someone like Rick Santorum, as some people here are, is a bit extreme. I don't think this one vote makes him a sellout, or neocon. Not yet, anyway. Even Ron has made compromises before and has changed his positions (on the death penalty)...but of course Ron has been overwhelmingly consistent, so I rather judge by the whole picture. Taken as a whole, I think Rand's record is promising so far, and he is light years ahead of any other Senator...but it still remains to be seen how his career will turn out in the long run.

On that I agree. Any judgement is merely based on the

history up to that point. So far, his voting history is quite small.

Perhaps after a time, this will become insignificant.

I too hope it doesn't become a trend.

I'll leave with one parting note: if the tide is turning, then there is not even an excuse for compromising. One should only feel the need to compromise if they don't have support behind them to get something done on its own merits. Perhaps there are other problems in the internal workings of the House and Senate that need to be resolved? (I would suggest there are and we've had those problems since at least the 1870s)

My comment was not meant to

My comment was not meant to be a defense of Rand's vote in this case (though I think whether or not we go to war with Iran is not dependent on sanctions) just a statement that I hope Rand wants to get more done (by which I mean stop the abuses of our government) than his dad as (and I'm not blaming Ron for that fact). I do not think Rand would start a war with Iran if he were president btw.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I hope better of Rand as well.

However, I don't see Ron's votes as meaning he is less wanting to stop the abuses of government. Maybe there is more Ron could have done while still not compromising his principles. We'll never know.

But compromising them sure won't make it happen either.

I agree and I won't excuse

I agree and I won't excuse him for this vote, but I do feel that he receives too much criticism on (for example) his willingness to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for real, significant spending cuts. He realizes the problem and wants to fix it just like we do, but also sees that it politically cannot be solved overnight. Even Ron has shown some willingness to compromise on this issue, as his budget plan doesn't call for a balanced budget until year 3 (if I recall correctly)

I understand but on that I disagree with Ron too.

Such long transitions leave too much in place and entrenched and they will be that much harder to fix down the road.

Incrementalism only works if you are trying to be underhanded and grow federal power. When you are cutting it out in the open, you have to do it drastically, otherwise, you receive no benefit you can point to in order to get support to continue cutting.

If anything, you might do more damage with an attempt at phasing something out and then the blame falls on the cuts rather than on the failed policy.

No, you have to do it all at once. That doesn't mean Jan 21, 2013. It means you announce a timetable. Say, Jan 20, 2014 (1 year from inauguration date) that there will be ZERO continuance of any unconstitutional policy. Everyone has one year to make personal adjustments so when that day comes, it isn't a catastrophe. The States will have to do the same.

That doesn't mean you eliminate "pain." But it does mean the difference between getting it done, or never getting it done.

This was done in New Zealand when they scaled back their welfare state and their bureaucracy. This method works. (now, their government hasn't stuck with it, but that's a different matter)

Cold turkey (with a warning) is the only way as I see it. Anything less than that and the forces that keep the bad policies in place now, will double their efforts to prevent further cuts and reverse the trend back to more growth of government.

The even bigger problem with the incremental reform approach is maintaining and sustaining the public pressure to do the reforms. That just isn't the nature of things. Such support comes in fits and starts and can easily wither. We should push for doing it 100% the right way, the Constitutional way, and get as close to that as we can all in one shot.

There's also the not so small problem that ANY unconstitutional federal action causes unintended consequences in many areas. Thus, you will only cause massive pain trying to say balance the budget in 3 years if you don't also abolish the Fed and restore sound money. It all has to happen as a package because it is all interrelated.

Think of how we got into this mess in the first place. Each bad policy is the result of trying to address a problem with government on the wrong level, or with government at all. If you only reverse some bad policies, the others remain to 'f up your day and we're right back where we started that got us into the mess.

I would like to agree with

I would like to agree with you, but I realize that it is not politically possible to do so. You've seen what's happened in Greece and Britain when cuts were proposed, and compared to what the cuts you're proposing would dwarf that. Ron is not running to be dictator of the United States, nor does he want to be. By ideal goals by the end of a Ron Paul presidency would be 1) drastically scaled back presence overseas 2) restoration of civil liberties 3) an end to the short-term welfare programs 4) An approved plan to eliminate the retirement programs over the next few decades

The empirical example I presented shows it can work.

Greece and Britain are not instituting system wide reforms. They are merely scaling back, precisely the course Ron is proposing, albeit not nearly as drastic as him.

Greece and Britain are the present day proof that such incremental changes - such nipping at the edges - does NOT work. It creates strife and backlash.

True, Paul will propose more substantive and systemic changes, but he errs on the side of transition. That error will cost him the intended result, and likely produce a world of hurt on the order of what Greece is experiencing now. (at least in some parts of the country)

I'd even hedge that not insisting on real and fundamental changes as a package are going to ensure that there is a socialist takeover in 2016. One so pervasive and decisive, that liberty will be lost forever save a bloody revolution, and even that doesn't come with guarantees.

The unfortunate reality, at least as I see it, is that the adherence to "political reality" IS the problem.

Perception is reality. Ron has made major strides in changing perception.

He exposed Rick Santorum in the debate the other night, bringing a clear contrast and articulating well enough - "political reality" IS the problem. (or at least the adherence to some perception of it)

If we continue the false perception that systemic, structural, widespread, and comprehensive reform cannot be achieved all at once, or if we even ignore or push aside that it MUST be achieved all at once to be successful, then we are continuing the very perception - which serves as reality - to make sure we FAIL.

Ron still has a lot of time as long as his path is to the White House. Given the remaining 11 months or so before inauguration day, he has plenty of time to advance his efforts to change the debate, to change the discussion, to change the perception, and make the point that all of the bad policies are interrelated, that in many cases, one or more produce a problem yet others were designed to correct, and that the only successful solution is a 100% complete return to a real Federal system with shared sovereignty and limited 'national' jurisdiction.

Perhaps it might actually take 2-3 years to pass all the legislation necessary to make it happen, but unless the core and bulk of it is handled in the first 100 days of his term, then whatever he does accomplish is doomed to failure, and may very likely sound the death knell of any similar reforms - ever.

This isn't about being dictator - far from it. It is about a lack of tolerance for unlawful behavior, treating unconstitutional policies as non-starters, a clear and concise policy approach to first "do no harm."

President Paul can accomplish this as a leader, without any dictatorial aspirations (which we know he has none) and BY reason and discourse and educating the people (most especially those who work for the government) on what needs to happen and more importantly WHY.

Paul doesn't want the President to have excessive power not granted to him in the Constitution, but he certainly should be willing and able to exercise the rightful power he DOES have, and that is to uphold his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."

He can prohibit Federal employees from carrying out unconstitutional laws. He can impound funds appropriated to unconstitutional agencies and for unconstitutional purposes, etc.

Without being a dictator, but simply by doing his job, to see that the laws (those that are constitutional) are FAITHFULLY executed.

He not only has no obligation to execute any unconstitutional law (since it never was a law, from its inception) but he is oath bound to PROHIBIT the execution thereof.

In summary, if he chooses to let false perceptions get in the way of upholding his oath, then he will fail. He explained as much in the last debate.

The US is not New Zealand,

The US is not New Zealand, and I'm pretty sure they didn't completely eliminate all welfare. Also, most people don't perceive the situation to be as bad as you and I believe it is. I also don't see how incremental cuts will create backlash, as in Greece and Britain, but massive instantaneous cuts will not. The fact is that a majority of Congress is never going to approve a plan that immediately eliminates all the unconstitutional programs. The congressional Democrats and Republicans would come to some sort of compromise and override Ron Paul's veto. Also, do you really think Ron Paul could win an election if he promised to immediately cut off all the seniors on SS and Medicare, all the people on Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, unemployment, etc? Do you really see someone proposing that platform getting elected?

No, of course not, not this cycle at least.

And I'm not talking instantaneous, but not drawn out either.

The issue isn't so much how long between announcement and implementation, as it is between what you push for and what you leave in place.

With sufficient notice, as I mentioned, one year as a postulate, people have time to adjust to a new inevitable reality. How often do we get that chance? Hardly ever. People manage to adjust anyway. In this case, the time period for adjustment means it CAN work.

True, NZ did not enact the level of reforms we need or even that Paul is suggesting in some areas. But their example shows the idea is doable. It just needs to be tailored and scaled for our situation.

The British and Greece example - the incremental and more importantly INCOMPLETE reform - is a total failure.

Remember too, SS etc. will not "end" entirely even if announced one year out. States have that year to "take over" the program in their own methods of transition either permanently or towards ending them entirely on their OWN time schedules. At the same time, you are eliminating most all federal taxes. Thus the States can tap a source of revenue they couldn't before because the Feds were sucking it all up. And the States will be VASTLY more efficient with it both in spending AND in taxation than the Feds ever could dream of being.

Truly, if you want to move away from a centralized system, this is the only way to achieve it.

Piecemeal just will not happen. Any slight movement that way will be countered with a backlash that will be worse, AND you won't have removed the underlying OTHER bad federal policies that hamper your beneficial results.

Liberty is an all or nothing proposition. You can't have just a "little" tyranny as Dr. Paul says any more than you can have a "touch of pregnancy."

I think he is making, for the times, the best case he can. But once elected, he should shoot for the stars. If he lands on the moon only, so be it. But only shooting for low earth orbit means we won't stay airborne for long.

I don't necessarily disagree

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think you could end the non-elderly targeted welfare programs within four years(his first term) without too much social upheavel. I just don't think you could end SS or Medicare in that time period, even transferring them to the states. The incremental approach is the only somewhat politically feasible approach. I wish it were different, but it isn't.

Then I guess on that point, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I see it as just the opposite.

Are you measuring success by

Are you measuring success by the amount that is passed? Let me use the example of a robber that Ron gave. If a robber is successful, does that make his actions right?

The fact that Ron hasn't been able to be more successful is the fault of the people and the politicians who support the same as usual politics.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

No. I'm saying Ron hasn't

No. I'm saying Ron hasn't been able to stop a whole lot of the stuff going on. As I said, that's not his fault. But I would hope that Rand hopes to stop more than his Dad has

It is sad to say

but as it stands I do not support Rand. He is making the same votes as the 'conservatives' who are the problem.

I don't mind if he votes for a debt ceiling increase, as long as it comes with serious spending cuts. He does appear to be 'ficscally conservative'. Though perhaps not as devout as his father.

There is absolutely no reason to vote for sanctions, none whatsoever. We don't need sanctions on Iran to go to war, if we end up doing it. It just encourages the leaders and the populace to rally against our positions, regardless of what those positions are. Food prices in Iran have inflated massively since our sanctions really kicked up. That should help us win the hearts and minds...dumbasses