Michael Reagan: Rand Paul “gets” my dad

Rare ^ | 03-11-2014 | Matt Naham

[PaulCruz2016]

In the midst of the war of words between Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) over who best represents Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy, the late president’s son Michael Reagan has weighed in on Twitter.

“Rand Paul Gets it” Reagan wrote Tuesday, Tweeting the link to Paul’s Breitbart op-ed, “Exclusive–Rand Paul: Stop Warping Reagan’s Foreign Policy.”

Reagan is an author, talk host and adopted son of our 40th president.

[Mariner]

"That would be the Democrats that did that, not Cruz"

Same goes for Kosovo.

Still, they did so under the pretension that they were defending our values.

I'd like to see these talk a lot more about defending our hard, critical INTERESTS.

If they are going to speak of defending our values then they need to say what those values are, how they would defend them and how that relates to our interests.

For instance, one could easily make the case that defending our values of open and free elections and constitutional democracy would dictate that we were right to depose Mubarak in Egypt. He was a dictator that did not tolerate dissent.

But it was in our best INTERESTS to support him. Same with the Serbs.

I want to know how the GOP primary candidates see that mix. For some reason none want to get specific on this life, and death matter.

It's up to all of us as the primaries approach, or the pre-primaries we're in now, to insist they address the mix.

At least in the abstract.

[stanne]

I posted it twice.

You’re not selling your deal here. Continuing your original out of context post is quite reminiscent of taking care of four year olds who want to manipulate attention over some unrelated cause. And it truly annoys people who can see it for what it is

And it is a continued ad hominem attack against Ted Cruz

I speak for many when I say that those who, like Michael Reagan, Rand Paul and others who attack Cruz and steadfastly quote him out of context with some vague chicken hearted attempt to demoralize his supporters will only succeed in placing themselves into a permanent category of paid political hacks with no wisdom and foresight and out of his camp forever as untrustworthy followers or worse enemies and detractors

There is no true reason to detract from Cruz. Anyone who tries ends up stepping in it terribly before quitting

[Zenjitsuman]

I also don’t understand

I’m still struggling with Cruz’s “Defend our values” nonsense.

Gope, is for big amnesty not the 1.5 million small amnesty Reagan got hoodwinked into by the lying Democrats.

Gope candidates like Christie are against 2nd amendment and for abortions. Christie’s state has the highest property tax and high state taxes.

Actually Reagan didn’t get us involved in big wars, and he won the cold war, thru strength and letting people know we would not be pushed around.

Paul endorsed McConnell who wants to bury the Tea Party.
Paul was backed by the Tea Party, Nice payback for their endorsement Rand.

Also, Rand is for gradual amnesty and make no mistake about it.

Cruz is direct, isn’t backing GOPe weaklings like McConnell.

I like Ted

[Mariner]

It's a bit early to be drinking the kool-aide isn't it?

Your accusation of me undertaking an ad hominem attack on Cruz is hyperbolic, at best.

I like Ted Cruz and believe him to be the best of the potential candidates for 2016, but unlike you I am not blind to politicians who say things that are not clear.

But it appears you have all the clarity you need when it comes to him. That's OK, everyone gets to pick a horse whenever they want to.

[stanne]

What kool aid is that, exactly? That sounds like a personal attack on me, but I know your very against that. Alert the moderator

You have not yet cited Ted Cruz in context. You cannot do so and maintain that he is unclear

You’re digging deeper. It will only get worse

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

"Defend our interests" is perfectly appropriate and I would support that 100%.

"Defend our values" is a potential recipe for getting trapped in all sorts of local quagmires where US interests are not at stake.

[Mariner]

You're right, that was uncalled for and I apologize.

But you provided the full statement twice. I didn't think a 3rd was warranted.

I'd also like to know what the hell Paul means when he says that our allies need to do more to defend themselves.

These platitudes have meaning in the speakers mind and when it comes to issues of war and peace I would like to know what they mean when they say such things.

I'm certain there are Cruz operatives, Paul operatives, Clinton operatives etc. on this board and perhaps, just maybe, a Cruz operative will see this thread and suggest clarity to their boss.

[stanne]

Twice or not, you still haven’t cited the ststement yourself. I certainly won’t cite it again

Ill know where you’re coming from a a later date when the anti Cruz faction comes out as they/ you all do every chanc

[itsahoot]

then they need to say what those values are

There in lies the rub.

On this forum it appears to be...Libertarianism/Humanism vs Conservationism/Christianity. I choose the latter.

I don't see any other way to pair these philosophies though some may argue the case for a Conservative Humanist but I think a true marriage of the two would be extremely rare and highly vulnerable to divorce.

[stanne]

Ok. But Cruz did say what the values were

This is just a verbal trap

But it’s easy. Read the statement in context. If that doesn’t state the values then there is no one who can state values

This is simply propaganda and poorly executed

Anti Cruz. It’s all over every Cruz thread. They don’t want what they ask for/demand. They want demoralization

It’s easy. Just look at Cruz’ original statement and forget convincing the antis they’re gone

[stanne]

Read the original statement. Put it in context. Then put it into context of what Ted Cruz is about, unless you can’t judge character and behaviors, and are victim to propaganda such as this.

If you come away with Ted Cruz doing anything above and beyond what the Constitution allows for and stands for, then there’s nothing to be done. You’re one of them by virtue of propaganda prone, brainwashable.

Look at the statement.

Why people believe some troll over what the candidates actually say, do and mean is something I cannot fix, crazy as it is.

[PapaNew]

I hate the way in which the media keeps framing this as some kind of 'war'.

The Left has and will do anything to split the Right and keep the focus off of the ONE thing that is by far the MAJOR issue of today and in 2016: REPLACING the $4 TRILLION FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEAST with the FREE MARKET ECONOMY. That, not Ronald Reagan or Donald Duck, is THE issue. I personally think Rand gets that better that Cruz, but either way, the Right needs to unite around America's common enemy: BIG GOVERNMENT. Unfortunately, here and elsewhere, the Right is helping the Left in dividing up those that can defeat this multitrillion dollar monster that threatens to destroy our freedoms and our country.

[ex-snook]

Which of the two would have pulled out of Lebanon in 1983 after about 300 Americans were killed?

[dowcaet]

It looks like we’re doing the Dems and the media’s work for them by starting a shooting war in our own ranks. Haven’t we been down this road before and aren’t all of you tired of this?