Posted on 03/10/2013 8:04:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last year, for the first time in decades, Republicans lost the advantage on foreign policy in a presidential campaign. Exit polls showed that voters trusted Barack Obama more than Mitt Romney to handle an international crisis (57 percent trusted Obama, 50 percent trusted Romney). And of the small number of voters who put foreign policy as their top issue, Obama won by a margin of 56 percent to 33 percent. Part of this, of course, is due to the incumbent’s advantage. But Republicans, following the setbacks in the Iraq War and Afghanistan, will have a tough job restoring their advantage on foreign policy and national security issues.
Their current actions aren’t helping. Senator Rand Paul has won accolades from many on the right for his “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” filibuster. But however impressive his stamina, we must not forget what he was protesting against–the use of drone strikes which, when directed overseas, are supported by 83 percent of Americans and when directed against American citizens overseas are supported by 65 percent.
Admittedly, Paul focused on the use of drone strikes on American soil against American citizens who are not combatants–he was clever enough not to make his filibuster about drone strikes per se. But in the process he came across as a bit of a nut. No one imagines that this administration or any other is about to start launching Hellfire missiles in New York or Washington. In fact Attorney General Eric Holder finally issued a letter stating the obvious–that the administration cannot use drones or other weapons against American citizens on U.S. soil as long as they are not engaged in hostilities against the United States.
However, the administration is absolutely right to note that it has the right in extreme circumstances to use military force on American soil. If Rand Paul thinks otherwise, he should come out and explain his objections to Abraham Lincoln’s use of force to fight the Confederacy–or the use of troops to escort African-American kids to school in Little Rock in 1957. Instead of addressing the issue squarely, Paul came up with far-fetched scenarios such as the U.S. government killing Jane Fonda because she was protesting the Vietnam War.
It is all too easy for the nuances of the debate to get lost and for voters to gain the impression that Republicans are against drone strikes in general.
Republicans are only reinforcing this impression of weakness on national security by enthusiastically supporting the sequester that is keeping Navy ships from sailing and Army troops from training. Republican strategists are right that most Americans support the sequester overall by a margin of 61 percent-33 percent, but they should note that by almost that same margin they oppose cuts to military spending.
By indiscriminately embracing sequestration and by making anti-drone noises Republicans are making it increasingly hard to recover the advantage on national security issues that they maintained ever since the 1960s.
The Neocons are out in full force, showing their true stripes.
What do you say to this little factoid in the article:
“the use of drone strikes which, when directed overseas, are supported by 83 percent of Americans and when directed against American citizens overseas are supported by 65 percent.”
I say that polls that tell us what we want to hear are always correct. LOL
I would say that those instances are not what Senator Paul was talking about, and that you and Commentary know it.
>> The Neocons are out in full force, showing their true stripes.
That’s because they’re #ing, statist scumbags.
I despise these “smarter-than-everyone else” snarks.
Oh, how “clever” Rand Paul would have been if he’d come out against the use of drone generally....yep youbetcha the leftis would just have loved him then wouldn’t they?
I looked at the article only enough to get his dopes bio. Russian born, Berkley and Yale “edumacated”, and now works for (fanfare please) the Council on Foreign Relations.
In other news, the sun rose in the east.
This author, and most of the GOP, are guilty of the same things: taking a poll, and then obsessing about how to “get in front” of that poll. In other words, if the American people believe a bunch of bullshit, we must pretend to believe that bullshit too.....
What Rand Paul did was called “leadership.” He was not happy to sit around and just be a thermometer....he was instead trying to be a thermostat....setting the proper temperature to bring the “polls” to him. This is how Reagan did it. This is how Newt did it with the CWA election of 1994. This is what the Tea Party did in 2010.
Our consultant driven political parties have totally lost this concept.....
I was thinking that too. The neocon minions of Karl Rove, and the country club republican set are loose!
Here comes the circular firing squad and more losses for freedom.
Bill Clinton perfected the art of looking tough using the cruise missile and bombs from Angels 15. The drone has given Obama and Dems a foolproof way to appear concerned about nat’l security without risking the unpopularity of flag draped caskets at Dover AFB. The fact that drones are more precise and Hellfires have less collateral damage than Tomahawks is a plus for the Dems. Of course the Dems won’t say this but the fact that we’re only killing ragheads is a big plus for the policy’s popularity. I also expect, in the near future if Rand’s dissent spreads, that an admin spokesman will say if Janet Reno had had a Predator at Waco she could have targeted David Koresh and saved the children. And the public will nod in agreement.
You got that right! They are in desperate need of a purging from the Republican party. They can join back up with the big .gov dems. There needs to be legislation and a vote that prohibits the use of 'weaponized' drones in the United States. Would be interesting to see how that one turns out.
We’re not talking about overseas.
We’re talking about right here at home.
Yup seeing more and more anti-Paul articles. Rand is going to get the Palin/Newt treatment.
A modification without change.
"No, I don't officer." If he had said yes, they would have come in and taken them from "an unstable veteran."
This author, and most of the GOP, are guilty of the same things: taking a poll, and then obsessing about how to “get in front” of that poll. In other words, if the American people believe a bunch of bullshit, we must pretend to believe that bullshit too.....
What Rand Paul did was called “leadership.” He was not happy to sit around and just be a thermometer....he was instead trying to be a thermostat....setting the proper temperature to bring the “polls” to him. This is how Reagan did it. This is how Newt did it with the CWA election of 1994. This is what the Tea Party did in 2010.
Our consultant driven political parties have totally lost this concept.....
If the House GOP yield on gun control, particularly banning so called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines, you can stick a fork in them, because they will be DONE! Seriously!
They would sure as hell lose me.
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.