Rand’s secret rendezvous

By Sean Scallon • September 30, 2010, 10:41 PM

According to Jason Zengerle’s recent GQ profile of Rand Paul, the U.S. Senate candidate had a private meeting on a recent trip to Washington:

“At a private office in Dupont Circle, he talked foreign policy with Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, and Tom Donnelly, three prominent neocons who’d been part of an effort to defeat him during the primary.”

Like Justin Raimondo, I am curious as to why Rand would bother to meet such people. They currently hold no office government. Kristol’s Weekly Standard magazine was worth peanuts on the open media market and all of their views and knowledge of foreign policy should have been utterly discredited after the debacle in Iraq. Why would a man presumably on a victory lap in his election feel the need to meet with people who have no discernible power, have been made to look like fools and who tried to keep him from getting nominated during the primary last spring? What’s next, a meeting with the leadership of the Kentucky chapter of the AFL-CIO in a Louisville parking garage?

Actually it’s not curiosity that’s the feeling, it’s dismay. Running as Tea Party candidate, presumably against politics as usual, Rand has engaged in the usual politics to the point where he’s becoming indistinguishable from his primary opponent Trey Grayson. This isn’t a question of running to the right and then back to the center for a general election, this is running as a populist and becoming an establishment tool in less than a half-year’s time. There’s no reason to meet with Kristol or Senor, especially after beating their efforts to defeat him, or reportedly say things like “I’m more reasonable than my father,” unless Rand is planning on ingratiating himself among the Powers that Be as he prepares for his new career. If that’s the case, it raises this question: If the Republican leadership in Congress or a Republican president really, really wanted something from Rand, would he give in even if it ran counter to his views? Judging by the conduct of his campaign, it’s a question Rand Paul supporters may not want to ask or know the answer to.

Posted in Uncategorized.

24 Responses to Rand’s secret rendezvous

JKR says:

September 30, 2010 at 11:02 pm

That wasn’t on a recent trip, that was the ‘party unity’ trip he made at the end of May after the primary. I’m sure he was pressed to speak to all of the people who had been opposed to him in the party primary, and we know the neocons were, to a man. He has discussed his positions many times since that trip and has come out with a summary of his platform, since that trip, which platform you can find here:

■I will never, ever vote for a taxpayer bailout of a private industry. Whether it’s big banks, automakers, or any other industry — you succeed or fail on your own.
■I will not vote for an unbalanced budget. I will not vote for a tax increase. Ever.
■I will fight for new rules like a Balanced Budget Amendment and Term Limits.
■I will not take ANYTHING off the table in the fight to balance the budget. Anyone who says something like they will “freeze non-defense discretionary spending” is blowing smoke at you and hoping you won’t notice. That would balance the budget — MAYBE — in about 80 years.
■We have to keep our promises to seniors and keep our country strong, but every area has things that can be cut. Every agency has things that are duplicative or that could be done better or cheaper.
■I will propose and force a vote on an Enumerated Powers Act, to force Congress to point to the part of the Constitution that justifies their bills.
■I will fight for the Bill of Rights. Democrats often love the 4th amendment. Republicans the 2nd. I will fight for them all, which means fighting for your free speech, gun rights, and civil liberties. Laws that infringe on ANY of these make the federal government more powerful, and we cannot continue to allow that.
■I will not allow our troops to be the world’s policeman, and I will force a vote on a Declaration of War if any President seeks to commit our military to battle.
What you’ve just read above is an agenda unlike any politician in the country. While solidly conservative, it also shows first, a great loyalty to the Constitution and to our freedom. You cannot fight for liberty while voting for bills that embolden the state. You cannot fight for some of our founding rights without others. And you cannot enable change in Washington by sending the same old people there.
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/08/not-your-typical-politician-rands-plan/

What is VERY clear is that people opposed to Rand want to divide him from his supporters. Personally, I’m going to wait to see how he votes before I trust those on the other side over Ron Paul’s son. But that is just me.
Libertea says:

September 30, 2010 at 11:06 pm

I’d try to avoid a million dollar ad campaign “from the right” from Kristol and Co if I could too.

What I find interesting is that you and Raimondo trust the author of the piece to faithfully transcribe words, actions, and intentions without question yet are willing to trash Paul at the slightest hint of betrayal.

Do you and Raimondo even realize that Zengerle is a senior writer at The New Republic? That’s quite telling that you’d attack someone like Rand Paul who has a lifelong record of speaking out on conservative issues whether they be foreign or domestic policy and yet are willing to give a blank check to lifelong ideological hacks like Zengerle, Dan Senor, and Kristol to faithfully present the truth without any intent of “stirring the pot”. Apparently all Zengerle had to do was publish the piece for GQ to throw you off the scent. What brilliance we have in our movement!

Perhaps if you looked into Zengerle you’d find he’s fabricated emails out of thin air and has many other such instances with those he’s done stories on to further his “narrative”.

Most importantly he’s been on an agenda driven crusade that has even lead him to track down Rand Paul’s college friends and publish stories about his “kidnapping” of a co-ed and pot use nearly 30 years ago! The story before that was entitled “Paleo-Wacko”. This piece is only his latest smear.

Since it’s easy to predict the likes of American Conservative and Antiwar.com are only too willing to indulge in the “urge to purge” I don’t blame Kristol & Co for making use of the Useful Idiots eagerly at their disposal!
Justin Raimondo says:

September 30, 2010 at 11:55 pm

Ad hominem attacks on the source of the news that Rand Paul met with Kristok, et al, and AIPAC, will not suffice. Zengerle, whatever his political views, was very specific: it wasn’t just a meeting, it was a meeting of minds. Never very solid on foreign policy issues, Rand is obviously willing to throw overboard the “baggage” of non-interventionism in order to ensure himself a Senate seat: if his supporters think that’s a wise decision, they should simply say so. Instead, they’re in denial.

It is one thing to say that one will not permit America to become the world’s policeman, and quite another to call for an end to the occupation of Afghanistan — Rand claims to believe the former while carefully avoiding saying the latter. He’s slippery when it comes to foreign policy issues, athough I have to say I’m encouraged by his vow not to take “defense” spending off the table. So what would he cut– NATO? A new generation of nukes? Well we know he wouldn’t cut aid to Israel — not after kissing AIPAC’s … ring.)
JKR says:

October 1, 2010 at 12:22 am

To Justin Raimondo, it wasn’t specific, it never mentioned a meeting of minds nor said Rand was willing to throw over anything at all. At very most it said Rand was in absorbtion mode, which differs from stonewalling in what iota of facial expression, exactly?
Robert says:

October 1, 2010 at 12:39 am

I guess I’m a one issue voter, but the fact that the younger Paul seems to think Mountain Top Removal Coal Mining is just grand, should in my opinion, be enough to disqualify him from ever holding any political office.

Yes, I know he runs his mouth about how it’s an issue of property rights, but he fails to mention that the vast majority of the mineral rights claims the coal companies hold were obtained by–well there’s no other word for it–fraud.
A.C. says:

October 1, 2010 at 1:46 am

Fascinating stuff. Even before he whipped Grayson, however, I knew he wasn’t as good as his father. I was disappointed in his running away from the potential teachable moment on the unconstitutionality of “public accomodation”, but let’s see how he does. If i lived in KY, I would vote for him with my eyes wide open, and be willing to give him six years to see how genuine or phony he really is.
daddysteve says:

October 1, 2010 at 1:48 am

If property rights were enforced then trashing a mountaintop would probably get you sued by your neighbors. Unless you were really careful.This gossiping should be beneath the standards at Amcon.
Dean Grindle says:

October 1, 2010 at 7:07 am

You don’t need to guess anymore, Robert . . . you are a one issue voter.
Supporter says:

October 1, 2010 at 7:14 am

All you doubting Thomas’ just wait and see.

Kristol and Senor will have little to celebrate once Rand Paul is elected into office.

Rand won’t be getting invitations to the AIPAC or IDF galas anytime soon.
Richard says:

October 1, 2010 at 7:36 am

“Rand is obviously willing to throw overboard the “baggage” of non-interventionism in order to ensure himself a Senate seat: if his supporters think that’s a wise decision, they should simply say so. Instead, they’re in denial.”

While I have problems with your characterization of Rand, I think that’s a good point. I for one have no problem with him putting his less popular views in his pocket in order to get elected. However, the question becomes – will he continue to do so while in the senate in order to get re-elected?

From the private encounters and reassurances I have received, I don’t think that will happen. I know Rand is a libertarian at heart, and I am very confident this will become apparent once he gets through this brutal election.

I don’t know if you’ve been following it, but his Democrat opponent is attacking him for being weak on drugs and weak on terror.

The Kristol meeting, as mentioned earlier, was part of his “unity” meeting in DC, where he collected money and support from people who opposed him in the primary, but want to rally behind the GOP nominee.

Rand has been open about meeting with AIPAC. He talks about it some time in this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sraDsvEb8jQ) and says he told them that he opposes foreign aid.
Greg Panfile says:

October 1, 2010 at 9:44 am

Once and for all this scam should be exposed for what it is. ‘Neocon’ is short for a simple con, based on loyalty to a foreign government at the expense of the United States. Both parties are guilty, of course, because immense amounts of cash and power are involved. Israel is not even formally our ally, since it does not have internationally recognized borders… and it is unlikely to in any foreseeable future. The move on Iraq was for Israel, as will any ridiculous attack on Iran be. Our ‘security’ will be invoked again, but Iran is no threat to the US, as Iraq was not.

However, defense contracts, campaign contributions, and easy votes appear almost magically for anyone of either party who quaffs the neocon potion. ‘Christian’ rapturist rubes who donate to and support such candidates, who often mouth social conservative platitudes to keep themselves covered, do not realize that the monied likes of the neocon cult will never allow any of their daughters to give birth to an unwanted child, for example.

Reality is that these are affluent, corrupt people who are essentially traitors, and whose raison d’etre is in violation of first American principles… that we should not have permanent sentimental attachments to any foreign country, that we should have interests and not allies. They advocate for the interests of a religiously based state, which is inherently not Constitutional, and for one that is in violation of many UN resolutions, and has weapons of mass destruction yet purports to have the moral high ground in advocating violence to prevent the Persians from having same. Israel is, therefore, in essentially the position that Iraq was in, but rather than anyone advocating that we attack *them*, we are being prodded to wreck our and the world’s economy and squander yet more blood and treasure in Asia against a country (Iran) that is absolutely no threat to us.

It is reasonable that Jews have sovereign territory and the ability to defend it. That was accomplished decades ago. For the US to engage in any further foreign adventures, to squander a single cent of our defense budget or a drop of our native sons’ and daughters’ blood based on what these people say, is absurd and unpatriotic.
Jim Evans says:

October 1, 2010 at 9:54 am

Reading the article, but perhaps more important, the comments, this seems to be blown out of proportion.

It almost seems (although, admittedly, I don’t know the players) that Democratic operatives are at work, here.

(Perhaps, a commenter could give a little background on the author and Mr. Raimondo.)

You see, my theory is that Democrats are truly worried about the center/right anti-empire movement because many people vote Democratic to further their anti-war, anti-empire political beliefs.

But right now the Democrats, personified by Obama, are pro-war and pro-empire (actions speak louder than words).

And, right now, these folks are disillusioned — they are looking around — they aren’t naturally hostile to the Tea Party, in fact, they may even see Obama’s internal security apparatus (a continuity of Bush policies) and think it’s a threat to their personal liberty — it is a threat.

They may even question the Democratic Party leadership’s solution to the economic morass — throw money at the problem and hope it sticks.

So, if these folks, more anti-war and anti-empire (both external and internal) than socialist in their ranking of issues, see a genuine anti-war, anti-empire, movement in the Tea Party, they could be persuaded to leave the Democratic Party and vote with the Tea Party if they are convinced the Tea Party isn’t just the same old, same old Republican Party pro-war act.

For Democratic Party leadership (and the hard-core socialists) this is a disaster — they can’t let it happen — it could extinguish the Democratic Party on the national level.

I’ve read a consistent theme from many commenters, here on American Conservative: You can’t trust those Tea Partiers (I wonder if those are Democratic operatives).

What better way to keep anti-war, anti-empire constituents of the Democratic Party coalition on the reservation than to cast aspersions on a potential leader of the anti-war, anti empire Republicans?

Because if the Tea Party did end up taking a Rand Paul cast and was solidly anti-war, anti-empire, I think you could see mass defections from the Democratic Party base.

For obviouse reasons, that is the last thing the Democratic Party leadership wants to see.
Jeremy says:

October 1, 2010 at 12:56 pm

This blog post is exactly the sort of irritating self-righteous “purity test” that ruins an otherwise excellent conservative magazine. You’re so busy building your moral superiority to anyone who would compromise that you become irrelevant to the debate.

Ron Paul is great, and I strongly supported his presidential campaign, but, except as a “public political philosopher” he’s totally ineffective, largely because he has not done anything to avoid pissing off his opponents needlessly. Rand meeting with Senor and Kristol is just good sense. Like it or not, they have a constituency with access to both power and money, even if they do not have a large popular following. With Rand running in a tight race, he needs to unify the Republican party behind him. Taking a meeting costs him little, but potentially does much to get folks currently hostile to him to decide that they have more important things to be doing than working to undermine him,

When he is in office as an incumbent, he will be in a much better position to deal with Senor and Kristol et. al. I have absolutely no worries that Rand will go neocon– but by not needlessly making enemies, he will be in a much better position to develop a more non-interventionist Republican voting bloc that can actually pass legislation and affect policy– which is ultimately all that matters. Ron Paul’s dissent in Iraq was brave but it didn’t keep us out of thew war, or get us out even 10 years later. Having 10 realist Republican Senators of a generally non-interventionist bent would have accomplished that years ago.

Meanwhile. Sean Justin, et. al. can bleat all they want from the outside as they lose time after time.
Red Phillips says:

October 1, 2010 at 1:47 pm

Sean, I think you may be attaching meaning to this meeting which is not warranted. You know I was critical of his heavily parsed statement regarding Israel, not so much for what it did or didn’t say as for not avoiding the appearance of pandering.

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=5157

And this meeting could be criticized on the same grounds. It potentially gives the appearance of pandering. But then again, I’m not sure I begrudge him meeting with them. A low key meeting is not the same as a very public press release. Heck, I would love to meet with them too and give them a basic lecture in non-interventionism 101. While it is fair to raise concerns as you and Justin have, I think it is a leap to conclude that this means Rand Paul has made any actual concessions.
tz says:

October 1, 2010 at 2:11 pm

Would that some brave anti-war soul could meet with that group – wearing a suicide vest and rid us of the neo-con plague. Is there such a thing as private rendition?

I did and do not support Rand because of his incomplete statement on Gitmo – he believes in trying “terrorists” (accused? probable cause? convicted?) captured on the battle field (isn’t Bagram a more convenient torture chamber?) in military tribunals at Gitmo.

Which side IS he on?
Young Geezer says:

October 1, 2010 at 2:53 pm

@ Jeremy:

“Like it or not, they have a constituency with access to both power and money, even if they do not have a large popular following. With Rand running in a tight race, he needs to unify the Republican party behind him.”

Do you think there are a lot of Kentucky voters sitting around and waiting for Bill Kristol to endorse Rand Paul? The neo-con “constituency” wasn’t big enough to come close in the primary, with all their money and power in Washington and NYC. It seems like they need Paul more than he needs them. And yet: he goes to meet them in Washington during a “tight race”.

As far as “winning”, I’m willing to fight the long (electoral) war and stay home rather than vote for neocons. Anyone who believes the permanent things are permanent ought to be willing to ride it out, as it were.
Libertea says:

October 1, 2010 at 7:04 pm

Unfortunately I didn’t see Mr. Raimondo’s response until earlier today. I only would like to add that it’s also telling that he and others are attacking Rand Paul because of *perceived* collusion with war hawks but leave his opponent, Jack Conway, unscrutinized. Is Raimondo aware that Conway is not only having meetings with “Pro-Israel” interests but is fund-raising from them (http://bit.ly/aom0UQ). Conway viewed this as an avenue of attack even before the primary was over (http://bit.ly/dlN5nQ). He’s already begun attacking Rand Paul as being weak on Iran (http://bit.ly/b8bJvf).

Mr. Raimondo accuses Rand Paul of compromising out of self-interest but isn’t interesting that he refuses to mention his opponent the cause celebre of the left, a Joe Lieberman Democrat, in any of his pieces slamming Paul? Could it have anything to do with alienating his liberal audience and losing donations and personal income?
Kyle K says:

October 1, 2010 at 8:08 pm

It’s good to see Rand Paul moderating his isolationist foreign policy views an d meeting with realist foreign policy experts like Bill Kristol and Dan Senor. Hopefully Rand Paul will embrace the time tested and proven success of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy that has kept us safe since 9/11.
Jeremy says:

October 1, 2010 at 8:31 pm

Young Geezer– Rand is only taking 75-82% of Republicans in recent polling. He’s not going to lose a huge percentage of the vote but in a close race he can’t even afford to drop a significant faction.

People interested in political purity tests are not practicing politics but political philosophy. For every action, merits and demerits must be assessed and weighed. Merely taking a meeting with one’s in-party opponents does not qualify to me as some unredeemable sellout of conservative values.
Publius Cato says:

October 2, 2010 at 9:43 am

I think I can summarize most conservative thoughts on Rand Paul and his senate race:

I will support Rand Paul because I think he is a step in the right direction and certain better than the Democrat superhawk running against him. But I am worried that he will be a sellout because Kristol et al will act like they are realists and people like Raimondo and his father, Ron Paul, are isolationists quacks or because he is afraid of losing a re-election or just the sheer influence of the Republican machine.

In short, Rand Paul has one term to show his bona fides or I’ll denounce him as a bum and look for a replacement.
Javier R. says:

October 2, 2010 at 4:04 pm

@ Kyle K.

Your comments were obvioulsy meant as the punchline to a bad comedy routine. Bush/Cheney’s views have done nothing to keep us safe but instead good local law enforcement has kept us safe. I dont think you believe in your own comments.

I hate to disagree with Raimondo but speaking with the enemy means nothing other than that, they’re speaking. This is political strategy. He is positioning himself to get the most support. Thats good political strategy. Absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as he doesnt compromise or surrender his principles. I take him at his word until he votes differently.
Nate Weinstein says:

October 3, 2010 at 9:48 pm

Hopefully Rand Paul took a nickels worth of free advice on foreign policy from patriotic American hero Bill Kristol. If Rand rejects his father’s isolationist views of terrorist appeasement I might consider supporting him and possibly even donating to his campaign. It would be nice to see Rand come out and publicly disown his nutty father.
Sean Scallon says:

October 4, 2010 at 9:46 am

I want to thank all those who wrote in over the weekend with their thoughts and comments. Always appreciated.

I apologize too if I got the timing of the meeting wrong. Yet given the meeting was in May, its even more dismaying. Rand was on top of the political world at the time. Why he felt he needed to meet with a bunch of jackels, who again, are discredited, proven wrong, and politically impotent is beyond me. Rand didn’t feel the need to meet with Communists while in D.C, so why meet with neocons?

I’m sure Kristol et.al. must laugh at every article proclaiming their demise because the fact Rand felt it necessary to meet with them despite the their true nature and status only shows how powerful and influential they still are no matter who is in the White House or controls Congress, because people still believe they are powerful and influential (the fear of Fox News among some Paul supporters is hysterical). I didn’t know Bill Kristol controlled large blocs of votes in Kentucky. I don’t think many Kentuckians know who Bill Kristol is but for some reason Rand made it a point to meet with him and a few other neocons.

If you want to talk about politics, then it should be pointed out that Rand finds himself in a competitive race that should never have been. So even meeting with the neocons really has not benefited him politically. It has only served to confuse people and divide his followers. Rand may well win in month’s time, but its hard to see what such a victory represents other than, sadly, what Matt Tabbi recently wrote in Rolling Stone as Tea Party sellout. The art of politics is to make your rhetoric supportable by broad number of voters without either significantly altering your views or core principals. Rand has not done this and it leaves one fearing the Freedom movement will ultimately die out because those who would be its most successful spokespersons either never understood it or never thought it could win anything on its own so they engaged in subterfuge in order to win personally. No movement I know of triumphs when it trims its sails and changes its direction on the eternal sea that much.
Andy says:

October 4, 2010 at 12:39 pm

For certain we are not sure what one will get with with Rand Paul.Will many of Rand’s supporters vote for his opponent Jack Conway as a result of learning about this meeting. It seems to me that Jeremy is on the mark whe he states “Rand meeting with Senor and Kristol is just good sense. Like it or not, they have a constituency with access to both power and money, even if they do not have a large popular following. With Rand running in a tight race, he needs to unify the Republican party behind him. Taking a meeting costs him little, but potentially does much to get folks currently hostile to him to decide that they have more important things to be doing than working to undermine him”