The rise of the Islamic State doomed Rand Paul’s presidential chances

[jpak]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by one_voice (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Washington Post

For much of 2014, I told anyone who would listen — so not that many people — that Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) was a strong dark horse to be the Republican presidential nominee and may even wind up in the top tier when the 2016 race actually started in earnest after the midterm elections.

Then the Islamic State emerged on the world stage. And Paul went from real contender to fringe player.

Paul formally ended his campaign for president Wednesday, saying in a statement that despite the fact that "thousands upon thousands of young people flocked to our message of limited government, privacy, criminal justice reform and a reasonable foreign policy," the time had come to step aside.

But the truth of the matter is that Paul's campaign was effectively over the minute the Islamic State began beheading Westerners, lighting people on fire and seizing towns in the Middle East in the summer and fall of 2014. (Time magazine has an excellent timeline of the rise of the Islamic State.)

<more>

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/03/how-the-rise-of-isis-killed-rand-pauls-presidential-chances/

[randys1]

1. One of the few things he was right about, so of course it doomed him in the GOP

One thing is certain, if you want votes from the right you must promise to kill millions of Brown people

[Quantess]

2. Good or bad, it's true.

Trump's comments about Mexican "illegal" immigrants were risky and made a bad impression, but the anti-muslim comments increased his popularity. Like it or not.

[groundloop]

3. Rand Paul's campaign was effectively over the instant he declared

Despite the ramblings of the Washington Post, Rand Paul was NEVER a contender for the nomination.

[TwilightGardener]

4. I doubt that. Any such analysis from WaPo is tainted by their neocon leanings.

Paul was just a lightweight goofball who couldn't find traction.

[PersonNumber503602]

5. Yet the chances of ISIS being what is today would be much smaller if the US followed a foreign

policy similar to what him and his father put out there. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of them with most things. But if the US stayed out of Iraq and didn't meddle in the background with Syria, then chances are good that ISIS would not exist, or at least be much smaller. While I don't think it's fair to say 100% it's all the US' fault. As I don't think Assad dropping barrel bombs on civilians areas to kill a few possible militants did much to help. And if Saddam was left in power, it's hard to say if there would have been a similar civil war like the one in Syria and now that would have played out. But the US destabilizing Iraq, and thus giving rise to the ISIS precursors, and then continuing to either unintentionally or intentionally support Islamist extremist in Syria is why ISIS is as large as they are now.

If the US had the more hand-off approach that people like the Paul's advocate, then this wouldn't be an issue.


At least that's my dummy on the internet view of things. Feel free to call me and idiot and tell me why I am stupid.

[graegoyle]

6. Stop giving the Pauls so much credit:

Their xenophobically isolationist stance is intended to avoid helping ANYONE. Their attitude just HAPPENS to have aligned with many, many people who yelled that invading Iraq was not just wrong, but stupid.

Those two should not be praised for this.

[one_voice]

7. Locking...

Doesn't meet SoP for LBN. Better suited for GD. Feel free to re-post there.

Statement of Purpose

Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.