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.

[ansel12]

Go start a thread on that.

[ansel12]

Here, you can see how meaningless it is.

1976 Ronald Reagan
1980 Ronald Reagan
1984 Ronald Reagan
1986 Jack Kemp
1987 Jack Kemp
1993 Jack Kemp
1995 Phil Gramm
1998 Steve Forbes
1999 Gary Bauer
2000 George W. Bush
2005 Rudy Giuliani
2006 George Allen
2007 Mitt Romney
2008 Mitt Romney
2009 Mitt Romney
2010 Ron Paul
2011 Ron Paul
2012 Mitt Romney
2013 Rand Paul
2014 Rand Paul

[Georgia Girl 2]

Would’nt that be great? It will never happen but a good thought.

[jpsb]

I see the neo-cons are out gunning for Paul again.

[ansel12]

I didn’t think that Jim Robinson was a neo-con, I thought he was a conservative, and you are a libertarian.

[jpsb]

You might want to read What’s a Neoconservative?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/whats-a-neoconservative/

And for your information I am a Constitutional Conservative aka classical liberal not a libertarian. And you are a liar for calling me one.

[ansel12]

So Jim is a neo-con according to you, and I wasn’t lying about you being libertarian, I just can’t keep up with all the ways you guys make up things and titles and descriptions for yourselves to fight conservatism.

Flowery descriptions and grand titles to push liberalism.

[Pelham]

“I don’t trust the Pauls. Weak on foreign policy, weak on the borders, weak on defending marriage.”

And IIRC Paul senior was a bitter critic of Ronald Reagan.

[jpsb]

The only person making stuff up is you. I can’t help it if you are to dense to read and comprehend the meaning of words.

[matthew fuller]

"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."

I concur.

[jpsb]

And one other thing, has soon as the neocons aka GOPe take out Paul they will turn their guns on Cruz. Count on it.

[ansel12]

“”And for your information I am a Constitutional Conservative aka classical liberal not a libertarian. And you are a liar for calling me one.””

Sure.

To: ansel12
That would be the LP, not the libertarian or classical liberal position.
251 posted on 9/19/2013 11:43:29 PM by jpsb

Here is the best definition I’ve found.
The libertarian or “classical liberal” perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by “as much liberty as possible” and “as little government as necessary.”
In the late 1800’s we learned that child labor laws were necessary to protect children. So I am cool with (non farm) child labor laws.
278 posted on 09/20/2013 12:48:49 AM PDT by jpsb

There is not much point in arguing with the so called “conservatives” on this tread, they lack the ability to differentiate between members of the LP and someone adhering to a libertarian philosophy (Classical Liberal). I have tried to point out the difference a few times but they are to dense to get it.
135 posted on 09/19/2013 7:45:40 PM PDT by jpsb

To: ansel12
I posted a definition of classical liberalism (libertarianism),

There are countless such posts.

[ansel12]

And one other thing, has soon as the neocons aka GOPe take out Paul they will turn their guns on Cruz. Count on it.

Jim Robinson, the man you would brand neo-con is a big supporter of Cruz, it is the libertarians (Classical liberals, Constitutional, blah blah blah, etc, etc, small l--big l, no ls, some ls, etc.) who are going after Cruz on threads throughout FR.

[Georgia Girl 2]

LOL!

[sickoflibs]

RE :”LOL!”

Thanks

Brain-dead personality cult idiots are like flies.

I filed his comments, if you can call them that, under irrelevant.

[sickoflibs]

Don't miss this fun one :#31

[matthew fuller]

"Romney or somebody like him is going to rise like a vampire again in 2016. The primaries will make sure of it"

I have said almost the same things myself. The RNC will ensure that a northeastern RINO is the nominee, along with the idiotic primary schedule of allowing liberal dimmacrat states with open primaries to elect our candidate. The very definition of stupid. The reason that the Republican Party needs to go silently into the abyss.

[jpsb]

I have read very few comments bashing Cruz here on FR. Very very few. BTW I voted for Cruz three times here in Texas. Once in the primary, again in the runoff and lastly in the general. What have you done?

[dennisw]

Rand tends to throw up less than honest proposals because he is trying to keep his base, Libertarians, close to his side while trying to maintain the illusion he is also a conservative.

Rand is always walking that tightrope balancing act.   I like Ted Cruz a lot better but I think Rand Paul would be a better candidate against Hillary or whoever/ Rand has a good chance of doing an Obama on the Democrats and becoming President.  A young upstart candidate with a cadre of young volunteers

[ansel12]

I’m glad that you will vote for a conservative when desperate enough, it would be even better if you encouraged conservatism and voting conservative and weren’t trying to make the GOP less conservative, and more liberal.

I have been surprised this week to see how early the libertarians are coming out against Cruz, and going all Ron Paul on Rand.

I think you were a big Ron Paul supporter and said something along the lines of how you were learning how to defend him without appearing to be openly promoting him, you know, the ole libertarian subterfuge in their war against conservatism here at freerepublic, fight conservatism, but stay slippery and elusive, like a back stabbing spy.