Posted on 03/11/2014 7:11:13 PM PDT by 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.
The Libertopians are trying to persuade us Conservatives (again) that they are the same as us.. and it is getting annoying :p
Michael Reagan @ReaganWorld
Rand Paul Gets it.#Rand Paul.Exclusive–Rand Paul: Stop Warping Reagan’s Foreign Policy http://shar.es/RcTrX via @BreitbartNews
Senator Rand Paul @SenRandPaul
Thank you! RT-@ReaganWorld:Paul Gets it.#Rand Paul.Exclusive–Stop Warping Reagan’s Foreign Policy http://shar.es/RcTrX via @BreitbartNews
Happens every two years and goes all out in Presidential election years. They for the most part are easy to spot and discount.
In his mind, that was "siding with liberals," and he stated it very clearly.
I have to wonder how much money Free Republic doesn't get from limited government conservatives who come here and are then viciously libeled by the likes of low information "conservatives" like the Church Lady "libertarian=libertine no matter what you say" continent? It's so ironic -- in claiming the moral high ground, these folks have to bear false witness!!!
I know for certain that they have turned off at least a few, because I've read their posts, of decent, moral, Christian conservatives who write on FR after being libeled by emotional shrill pigheaded proud nimrods, "That's why I hardly come here anymore. Everytime I stand up for limited government somebody tells me I'm a drug-pushing homosexual-loving child molestor."
I donate regularly to FR, as generously as I can, and have for more than a decade; the only time I pulled out was when Jim changed his mind about Romney during 2012; I came back when the dust settled and Romney (thank God) lost. It really pisses me off that guys like the one who made up lies about you AND ME, Brother FReeper, along with heaven only knows how many other decent, God-fearing Christian limited government (therefore by definition "small l" libertarian) conservatives, are NEVER chastised by the management, their ugly, foul libelous posts are never deleted, and in fact, when they (the Church Lady all-small-l-libertarians-are-homo-loving-pro-abortion-liberals contingent) tattle to the management when I repost links PROVING that such people lie -- I get a warning from the management to knock it off.
I still send in my money because it's the right thing to do. But I suspect I am subsidizing a lot of fellow Christian limited government conservatives who don't return to FR because they've been soured by the likes of the guy who lied about you -- and me, and countless others.
They have been responsible for souring a lot of good people on FR, and hence have been responsible for losing it a lot of potential donations that folks like you and me have to make up for.
Re 2012, I kinda liked Newt until he went soft on illegal immigration. Dumb move by Newt he was doing great until then. Perry also self destructed after his "you don't have a heart" comment. Throw in his "I don't remember" and he's toast. So with Newt gone and Perry gone what was left? Santorium? A Bush clone? No thank you. He pizza man was not a serious candidate, he was really just trying to sell a few books. All in all the entire field was piss poor except for Newt, but I am almost a single issue voter on illegal immigration so with Newt going soft on that issue I was left without a candidate. Ergo I had very little to said, and very little to post about in 2012. Since you seem to enjoy researching my posting history I am confident you will discover the same.
Yep. The very person I'm thinking of (won't name or ping because I know the drill, it's an exercise in futility) is someone mostly on THE SAME PAGE with me in political philosophy, except in his inexplicably blind insistence that a label/title represents the opposite of reality. It's like a sickness among this small but LOUD contingent, their absolute inability to admit that they are like Emily Latella, insisting that "violins" is the same as "violence," except Miss Latella has the sense to cop to her misidentification and say, "Never mind!"
I'm all for states that would outlaw any drug you like including alcohol. I'm all for states that would outlaw abortion -- Roe v Wade MUST be at least overturned; I could even get behind a Federal prohibition against abortion, but wonder how it would be enforced -- would ever over-the-counter pregnancy test have to be monitored? Would every miscarriage carry with it the necessary legal follow-up to confirm that it was indeed a natural miscarriage and not intentional murder?
How far does the Federal government go in regulating moral failings and repentance that will in any case be dealt with by the Almighty, government or not?
Conservative use of government in American society is the same as conservative use of salt in cooking -- sparing. Good morality, socially conservative values, are advanced in conservative use of government; LIBERAL use of government, the same as liberal use of salt in cooking, works against socially conservative values.
ONLY government could force the majority to legalize abortion nation-wide and to honor pretend "marriage" of homosexuals. Conservative -- that is, SPARING -- use of government would stop those two agendas in their tracks and render them dead in the water. Liberal -- that is, COPIOUS -- use of government is the only thing that makes those two agendas currently override the majority will and majority's decent morality.
Classic liberalism, small-l libertarianism, is the BEST WAY to make America a more moral place.
Yeh he stuck his nose in a Georgia thread and I just had to tweak it. LOL! He is accusing me and and another poster of being trolls. Talk about lack of insight. :-)
Small government (state as well as federal) puts local government back in charge of our schools. Once local government takes back the schools we can once again teach moral behavior and civics in those communities that value moral behavior and civics. I suspect that would be a sizable majority of communities.
Mega-AMEN, Brother FReeper. BUMP TO THE TOP.
That is another of your canned responses, you loved Ron Paul and have promoted him, sold him, fought for him since at least 2007, you brought up that perhaps he could work out a veep slot for Rand, back in 2011.
You even talk about how you handle freerepublic and conservatives, various posts describe how you have to work within the confines of spreading your anti-conservative message while not getting banned.
It doesn’t always work, as you pointed out when you were selling Ron Paul and saying that you had to be guarded, because you had already been zotted for it once.
Reading your posting history explains everything, it is a man with an agenda that is against conservatism, and is trying to infiltrate and work against the movement, yet survive under the radar of the mods, it sure explains all the mystery and evasion and lack of honesty in your posting and personality.
You are incredible.
Now you go to Ted Cruz threads and drag in a Georgia fast lane law thread.
Incredible, but on this thread my defending Cruz seemed to set you off, too bad you wouldn’t address me directly as freepublic tries to insist posters do.
I have never be Zotted, in fact I have never even been reprimanded by management. I follow the rules, sometimes I do not like the rules, but I follow the rules.
Sorry, you are correct, late last night I read it as you being zotted, but it wasn’t you.
“”I like Ron Paul, but I’ve seen many zotted here promoting Paul so I try to just defend him and not promote him. I wish I could promote his ideas without getting zotted. But I will obey the rules, just saying””
One of the primary purposes of the constitution is to charge the central government with the responsibility of defending our God-given unalienable rights. It has failed miserably in this regard. In fact, it has wrongly led in the destruction of these rights. It is the right and duty of we the people to right these wrongs.
You're either with us in these endeavors or you're not.
Jim, there's a virulent minority of folks here -- and I believe wholly they are costing you hard, cold cash in donations from fellow conservatives less tolerant of being libeled than I -- who lie about and libel me and folks like me, saying that we're "against" you in those endeavors because we're loathe to support equal-but-opposite un-Constitutional ideas of government that would outlaw what the Constitution didn't.
The only reason the Constitution has "failed miserably" in protecting the rights of the unborn, is because OF a Federal government that overrode 2/3rds of the states with Roe v Wade, not the lack of government. Just the same, a Federal declaration that abortion should be outlawed nation-wide on the grounds that it deprives the unborn of their right to life, seems reasonable. That I would nonetheless be satisfied with the overthrow of Roe v Wade, which seems to me to be a crucial step in defending the Constitution, others BROADCAST ON YOUR FORUM as being the equivalent of being pro abortion, which is obviously nonsense! How is such wrong-headedness on their part going to have anything but a wrong-headed outcome?
Like you, Jim, I am against abortion and forced acceptance of homosexual "marriage" that is pretend by definition. It's just that I realize that passing laws against something that is pretend in the first place, is crazy -- what we need is to JETTISON un-Constitutional government that punishes people for NOT recognizing pretend "homosexual" marriages, and to JETTISON un-Constitutional government that punishes states for outlawing abortion.
Anti-abortion, anti-homosexual FReepers who seek INCREASED government as the solution instead of perceiving government (as did Reagan) as the problem, and then willfully, deceitfully, knowingly misrepresenting me as being "against" you, Jim -- that is what this is about.
I think it's crystal clear that I stand with you in these endeavors. Do you?
He played the same pathetic act back in 2011 :
“Why do you hate Sarah?”
Talk about braindead predictability.
Same comments with just a name change.
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.