Ted Cruz is Rand Paul's most dangerous foreign policy critic

Washington Examiner ^ | MARCH 11, 2014 AT 2:07 PM | Philip Klein

[SoConPubbie]

If Sen. Rand Paul has any hope of capturing the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, he'll have to convince the conservative base he can be trusted on foreign policy -- which is exactly why Sen. Ted Cruz is his most dangerous critic.

Though they have often been allies on domestic policy, anybody paying close attention knew that there was always a big gulf on foreign policy issues between Cruz, R-Texas, and Paul, R-Ky.

Whereas Cruz has a much more traditional Reaganite view of a strong role for America in the world, Paul seeks to advance his father's brand of non-interventionism, which advocates a more restrained U.S. role on the world stage. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that these disagreements have spilled into the open over the past week, with Cruz emphatically stating that he doesn't agree with Paul on foreign policy and Paul insisting Cruz mischaracterized his views.

It's important to keep in mind the broader historical context here. Though there has always been a subset of conservatives who have supported a more restrained, non-interventionist foreign policy, that generally hasn't been a mainstream view within the Republican Party. Over the course of two presidential campaigns, Rand's father, Ron Paul, raised his profile, but was never an actual threat to win the nomination, in no small part because his foreign policy views were out of sync with much of the party.

After winning his Senate seat in the 2010 Tea Party wave, Rand's challenge was to try to make his father's views more acceptable within the party and mount a more credible presidential campaign. To accomplish this, he's tried (with mixed success) to avoid the type of outrageous statements and controversies that doomed his father. At the same time, he's built up a following on fighting for limited government on domestic issues.

His best chance of making headway in a presidential race is to leverage the trust conservatives have for him on domestic issues to make his foreign policy views easier for conservatives to accept. If it's him debating foreign policy with the likes of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or other figures favored by the party's establishment, it would be much easier for Paul to muddy the waters. He could essentially argue, "Of course, big government establishment RINOs would smear my foreign policy views, because they're frightened of having a true conservative win."

That's much harder to do with Cruz in the picture. Cruz has at least as much credibility as Paul with the conservative base -- if not more. Whether or not Cruz runs, having him in the media amplifying the criticism of Paul's foreign policy views would make Paul's already difficult job of trying to appeal to a wider electorate that much harder. He cannot dismiss Cruz as just another establishment RINO trying to sabotage the candidacy of a genuine conservative. Anything Paul does to assert that he really believes in a strong role for the U.S. in global affairs risks alienating his father's energetic supporters, who favor a more restrained foreign policy. Anything he does to shore up support among this core group of his father's supporters would then feed into the criticism being lobbed by Cruz.

There's been a false impression created that Paul's non-interventionist views are gaining traction within the GOP. This idea has been based on trying to find superficial areas of agreement among Republicans (on issues such as opposing U.S. military action in Syria) that obscure fundamental disagreements. As I wrote in a column in September, a lot of conservative national security hawks opposed military intervention in Syria -- not because they shared Paul's views, but because they are more skeptical than neoconservatives of making democracy promotion a key tenet of foreign policy, and feared action would benefit Islamic militants. This is why Cruz opposed intervention at the time.

My working assumption has been that Paul isn't a serious threat to be the GOP presidential nominee in 2016, and his recent dust-up with Cruz only reaffirms that view.

[cdcdawg]

Yes, I’m aware of Rand’s bio, and I think it’s great. There far too many lawyers in Congress. Senators have not generally made Presidents, much less good ones. I don’t think Rand can be the nominee because of his gay marriage comment (which I thought was hilarious), the Southern Avenger (which I don’t hold against either of them), and his desire to reign in the Fed. That last one means that he probably is barred from winning. It would be awesome for somebody else to win, then sick Rand on the Fed. Somebody needs to turn over a few tables there.

I like Cruz a lot. He is probably the most eloquent presenter of conservatism not named Rush Limbaugh. He would slaughter any possible Demo opponent in a debate. He is still something of a political newcomer on the national scene, has no executive experience, and has possible eligibility issues that the press will harp on non-stop.

Our best bet will be from the crop of governors, not including Bruce Springsteen’s BFF.

[re_nortex]

For example spending 2 Trillion dollars borrowed from China and Japan to attack Iraq was an ocean size folly.

Under the fearless leadership of President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney as well as our brave military, Iraq was vanquished in short order. And indeed "we fought them over there so we don't have to fight them here" was a winning strategy. Regardless of some of the shortcomings of the Bush/Cheney team, America was kept safe under their watch.

The fiasco of Iraq started under the obama regime and it goes without saying that the terrorism held in check by President Bush and his administration flourished once hussein bama and his corrupt pro-muzzie cronies took office.

[sickoflibs]

Cat-fight, ‘Meow’

[ansel12]

What do you have against Cruz?

[sickoflibs]

RE :”What do you have against Cruz?”

Meow,,,,

[entropy12]

The attack on Iraq would be justified if we had surplus money in the treasury. We are a bankrupt outfit by any generally accepted standard of accounting. To borrow money from China which we can not pay back and leave it on the heads of our younger generations is immoral, stupid and moronic. Trying to convert Muslim nations to democracy is a fool’s paradise.

[TBP]

Typically neocon article. Now their strategy, apparently, is to try to split the Tea Party. Cruz and Paul aren’t that far apart on foreign policy. They’re both advocates of a national-interest based foreign policy. There are some degrees of difference on where you draw the line over involvement, but not much difference even on that.

[ansel12]

You think he’s a cat?

I see you denigrate Cruz on many threads, there must be more to it than that.

[ansel12]

Our GIs will be thrilled to know that you want them to fight our battles inside the cities of countries that we aren’t war with, without near support, and in small teams of 10 and 20 men.

They’ll really respect you for thinking of their survival.

[re_nortex]

Well, of course it was hussein obama who ruined the plans in place with regard to Iraq. Notably, had Sarah Palin (and the guy she ran with back in 2008) won, the Bush/Cheney program would have continued and we'd be doing "drill baby drill" over there and reaping the rewards from the Iraq oil fields.

But obama ruthlessly and illegally seized power and then did a cut and run operation undoing the longterm Iraq strategy.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I see you denigrate Cruz on many threads, there must be more to it than that.”

Oh you do do you?

Meow, catfight.

I got butter on my popcorn.

[Ron H.]

The GOP-e and many libertarians share this belief and that's why's so many are falling out of favor with the conservative-right base, IMO.

[entropy12]

Our GI team of just a dozen men did just great in killing the head serpent hiding in Abotabad, Pakistan. Very quick,
deadly effective and very cost effective.

[re_nortex]

[ansel12]

All it took was 10 years of searching killing and hunting and defeating nations and establishing bases and staging areas and keeping Pakistan scared.

It was just like the movies, put on some face paint and dozen man teams can carry all the international weight of our military needs, and travel the world taking out Saddam Husseins and dictators and their command staffs, and their naval forces, and nuclear assets, and armies.

War is over, we have commando teams, we should have sent in a team to keep Iran from going nuke, maybe we can use them to prevent Chinese military expansion.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Well we all knew Rand and Ted would have to square off at some point.. They both want to be President and there is only one vacancy.

[entropy12]

China is killing us economically. We import much more than export to them. Then we borrow more from them to protect oil supplies to them through the straits of Hormuz. They are our new masters because of money, not weapons. But financially not very astute people will not understand this.

[entropy12]

Well, they can form the ticket together.

[zerosix]

I also don't trust the Paul's, on Israel, as some conservative Christians took Rand along on a trip to the Holy Land to introduce him to the people, the leaders, everything that believers want to protect because that's what the scriptures tell us, but never heard him utter a word in favor of defending the only democracy in the Middle East.

Ron Paul is especially untrustworthy on Israel and I've yet to hear anything from Rand that makes me feel he doesn't fall from the same tree.

[zerosix]

The audience seemed very interested in legalizing drugs, which the Paul’s favor or rather having no war on drugs or even treating drugs as alcohol, which definitely pleased the CPAC attendees.