Posted on 01/05/2016 10:19:14 AM PST by conservativejoy
Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97% ratcheted up his attack on fellow contender Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79% Monday by comparing his foreign policy worldview to that of President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. During a speech in New Hampshire Monday, Rubio slammed Cruz as an "isolationist" and mocked the loquacious Texas senator by noting that ISIS could not "be filibustered."
Cruz told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview on his campaign bus in Iowa that he wasn't surprised by Rubio's assault.
"It's not surprising that Senator Rubio, and others in the Republican field, are launching more and more desperate attacks," he said. "We should protect the United States of America first. That means we shouldn't engage in the kind of military adventurism that has characterized Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and sadly, far too many establishment Republicans including Marco Rubio."
Cruz specifically pointed to Rubio's support for intervening in Libya in 2011 as being in line with Obama and Clinton's foreign policy.
"In Libya, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton led NATO in toppling the government there," Cruz said. "Senator Rubio enthusiastically supported Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in toppling the government in Libya. The result was Libya became a lawless war zone governed by radical Islamic terrorists and that has profoundly endangered our national security."
In his foreign policy address Monday, Rubio stood by his support for intervening in Libya, but he blamed the Obama administration for engaging in only "half-measures in Libya instead of doing what it would take to prevent terrorists from taking hold - terrorists who ultimately took the lives of four Americans in Benghazi."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Cruz has a very different foreign policy approach than Bush did. Cruz says we should not engage in nation building and regime change and should only engage militarily when it is clearly in the interest of protecting the U.S. This is what Reagan believed, as well.
We should lay waste to everything as we leave or at least what we built.
CRUZ: All across this country, Republicans campaigned, saying: if you elect a Republican Senate, we will stop President Obama's illegal amnesty. We need to honor what we said. We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have to rein in the abuse of power of the executive. Step #1 is if the president implements this lawless amnesty, that the Senate will not confirm any executive or judicial nominees.
CRUZ: We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have to rein in the abuse of power of the executive. Step #1 that I have called for is the incoming majority leader should announce if the president implements this lawless amnesty, that the Senate will not confirm any executive or judicial nominees, other than vital national security positions, for the next two years, unless and until the president ends this lawless amnesty. That is an explicit authority given to the Senate.
Q: Are you saying the Senate should refuse to confirm the president's new nominee for attorney general?
CRUZ: We have to rein in the executive. In the Federalist Papers, our Framers talked about a president who would behave like a monarch. And step #2, we've got is the power of the purse, and we should fund one at a time the critical priorities of the federal government, but also use the power of the purse to attach riders.
Source: WFAA-TV Dallas-Fort Worth on 2012 Texas Senate debate , Oct 2, 2012
Both agreed that the US has failed to secure its border with Mexico, and said they oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants and the Obama administration's new directive allowing many young illegal immigrants brought to the US as children to be exempted from deportation.
Source: BurntOrangeReport.com on 2012 Texas Senate Debate, Apr 18, 2012
Dewhurst: I have always been against an amnesty program. "If they want to be a citizen, they ought to go home and reapply."
Dewhurst says he was against tuition for children of illegal immigrants.
Ted authored a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 10 states in Lopez v. Gonzales, urging the strictest enforcement of laws punishing those with prior felony convictions who entered the country illegally.
___________________________________________________________
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Ted_Cruz_Immigration.htm
Good analysis. My guess is it will be clear that anyone left after South Carolina is running for Trump’s VP slot, and Cruz will have the clear lead in that race.
That is so Cruz, says one thing and then votes another. That is exactly what the GOPe has been doing to us for decades. It’s also why the GOPe is funding Cruz’s campaign.
I would have said “take their oil” but its not worth the expense of staying and we have plenty here if we open the much needed Keystone pipeline. Nope just come on home and start paying off our children’s debt that they don’t want.
Yes. Cruz seems to be positioning himself as 1/2 way between Rand and Rubio.
Rubio is at the extreme full neocon side, Rand is at the other extreme isolationist. You saw this come out in the debates, Rubio (and presumably Jeb) wants big defense budgets, lots of projection of force.
Cruz and Trump are the two candidates who have articulated something in between, which I think is where not only most GOP primary voters but most Americans are.
Still there is reason for some caution with Cruz. His positions seem to have evolved during the campaign, perhaps reacting to the success of Trump's. Critics of Cruz have noted the prevalence of neocons on Cruz's foreign policy team: Ted Cruz's closest counsellors are neocon VIPs. Highlighted in that article are his lead foreign policy advisor, Chad Sweet:
Victoria Cortes:
A couple others are James Woolsey and Elliot Abrams. Both are real leaders in the neocon movement.
Of course the source of this particular article is from the John Birch Society newspaper, who are notoriously concerned with the CFR as well as some Conservative groups that don't adhere to their positions.
Caroline Glick, writing at Real Clear Politics praises Cruz for a new foreign policy vision. As one would expect her focus is on Israel. It's a good article: Ted Cruz: A Fresh Approach to Foreign Policy but it actually sort of reinforces the idea of Cruz is kind of a NeoCon.
Here is another breakdown: Ted Cruz's NeoCon Problem
.
I think there is complete agreement in GOP circles that Obama and Hillary (and Kerry's) foreign policy has been a complete failure.
There is still a lot of difference of opinion on how much of a failure Bush's foreign policy was. This was highlighted early in the race when Jeb was asked if, knowing what he knows now, would have still support his brother's decision to invade Iraq.
How would Ted Cruz answer that question?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.