There must be some way to install a mirror on the way into the Senate chambers.
Paul walks a tight line on this issue. I agree with much of what he says in broad terms, but he edges into Ron Paul territory from time to time. The Reagan model works best, which has been our policy though much of our history...have the unquestionably biggest, most advanced presence and use it to force other’s hands. Restraint....Peace through strength.
If Rand runs,I might pay attention to the next election....otherwise, fogetaboutit.
THANKS FOR POSTING THIS.
Its the Constitution, stupid.
Rand and Cruz are busy trying to distinguish themselves from one another, and thats fine.
I hope they don’t get too bitter, though, because at the end of it they may be running mates. The only question between now and then is, who leads the ticket. Cruz/Paul. Cruz/Palin?
Cruz/Anyone would suit me.
Breaking news? Seriously?
(Must be a slow news day)
Ever notice how Democrats, no matter what, stick by each other?
Here we go again, two solid conservative nipping at each other when they SHOULD be presenting a united front.
What are we going to see in 2016, Republican’s running for president ripping into each other to the point they render each other unelectable???
Cruz needs to think more before he opens his mouth. Back in the Reagan years his beloved Nelson Mandela was in the state department’s terrorist watch list.
The problem with the Republican Party is that Paul feels he needs to use "almost" as a qualifier in the above sentence.
The Republican party sure is a mess.
Those two had better stop the pissing match. There will be time after this coming election to air this all out.
They all agree with Reagan, except, the 11th commandment.
Randy Paul supports amnesty for illegal aliens that would turn America into a one party Democrat Socialist state.
Ted Cruz opposes amnesty.
Ya mean Paul listens to the people while Cruz listens to McCain. Maybe the people will win this time.
There is no need for this pissing contest between Paul and Cruz. Childish. They should handle this personal stuff offline.
These two guys should be on the same side, as they are our only hope to stop the marxist liberals in their tracks and begin the process of bringing conservative change to Washington.
It’s WAR then.
Ted did Rand a big favor in my opinion.
WE NEED TERM LIMITS!
Odd that numerous people see Rand and Ted as so similar. Rand is libertarianish on social issues and foreign policy, while Ted consistently lines up with neoconservatives on foreign policy and hardboiled social conservatives on social issues when libertarians diverge.
Cruz has every right to be a neoconservative and a social conservative; I just don’t cotton to seeing him misidentified as a libertarian.
As for who has the more Reaganesque foreign policy, I reckon that may be Rand. Old Dutch only chose to fight one ground campaign, and that was in small and readily-pacified Grenada, not some majority-Muslim Mideast loony bin. In fact, he withdrew US forces from Lebanon after Hezbollah bombed our base there, obviously a dovish act, but probably the wiser course, since the only way to pacify that godforsaken land was to resort to methods so harsh that no civilized country could use them in the late 20th century. Fair to say Rand is more chary of military spending than was Reagan, but even 0bama’s cuts leave us with more than enough military to deter Russia attacking Western Europe, China Japan, etc. Meantime, we can’t really deter our deadliest present-day allies, namely Islamaniacs, since they’re pleased as punch to die as long as they kill some of us too. Our fight against them will be heavily waged by special forces, which we have and need anyway, not with Reaganesque big ticket items like the MX or Pershing II missiles. Oh, for the “good” old days when the Soviets were our main adversaries. Those atheists valued this life and didn’t fancy getting killed killing us!