Hotair: Rand Paul differentiates foreign policy from his father’s brand

[twomp]

Anyone else get the feeling the Ron Paul rEVOLution is about to get co-opted? They did it to the Goldwater movement. They did it to the evangelicals. They did it to the Tea-Party. The formula is always the same. They let you think you can "take over" the GOP. Then next thing you know, it's more of the same. It's been going on for quite some time now....

 

[sailingaway]

Anyone else get the feeling the Ron Paul rEVOLution is about to get co-opted? They did it to the Goldwater movement. They did it to the evangelicals. They did it to the Tea-Party. The formula is always the same. They let you think you can "take over" the GOP. Then next thing you know, it's more of the same. It's been going on for quite some time now....

Isn't that up to us each as individuals?

I don't feel coopted.

 

[twomp]

I don't think he has and any libertarian who votes LP in the general because they don't like Rand trying to broaden their appeal are idiots on a par with the LP voters in Justin Amash's district.

Sorry broadening your appeal does not = becoming a neo-con. There's a line. If a Rand Paul presidency means he backs Israel no matter how they treat their neighbors then nothing changes. There will be no difference between Bush/Obama. This love affair with Israel has caused us loss of money and loss of life.

 

[itshappening]

Yeah, he's still probably the best we have in the Senate on foreign policy issues, but that's not saying much. I would simply like for him to be more specific. He's basically said that he would close down some foreign military bases as President. Well, that could mean that he would close down 2 foreign military bases, or he could close down 800 and leave 100. What does he think our presence in the world should actually be? I'd like him to explain that. And no, I don't believe he needs to keep his views on that a secret in order to "slide under the radar."

I dont think he needs to come out and be specific about that, the point of the media operation is to come out and appeal to broader base of typical GOP voters.

He should not do anything to wreck that by scaring them about how many bases he's going to close if he's ever Commander in Chief, my guess is he would close a lot but we'd never know until he's Commander in Chief and orders the necessary Pentagon review with the view to significant cuts. I would hope he would end all the subsidies to Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon too but we never know, do we ? we just have to trust his broader limited govt philosophy because he's never going to come out and say it

Ron would but he couldn't win a GOP primary

 

[itshappening]

Sorry broadening your appeal does not = becoming a neo-con. There's a line. If a Rand Paul presidency means he backs Israel no matter how they treat their neighbors then nothing changes. There will be no difference between Bush/Obama. This love affair with Israel has caused us loss of money and loss of life.

Rand is not a neocon though, expressing fidelity to Israel does not make you a neocon. Demanding pre-emptive war with Iran and a number of other countries does. There's a difference.

 

[twomp]

Isn't that up to us each as individuals?

I don't feel coopted.

It depends now doesn't it. If you decide to vote Rand Paul for president in 2016 because he's "the best we have" or he's "the lesser of two evils." Doesn't that mean the establishment has successfully achieved it's goal? If a President Rand Paul allows Israel to continue to bully it's neighbors with USA protection. Then the hatred towards our country and the necessary "War on Terror" remains does it not?

 

[twomp]

Rand is not a neocon though, expressing fidelity to Israel does not make you a neocon. Demanding pre-emptive war with Iran and umpteen other countries does. There's a difference.

What difference is it if Israel demands per-emptive war and President Rand Paul declares anyone who attacks back will have to face the might of the USA military?

 

[pcosmar]

So? To me that means that those people are not listening to what Rand has said and done any better than you have.

He said.
"an attack on Israel is an attack of the US"

Fuck that, and him.

That is Traitorous.
Israel is instigating shit all on their own and should have been cut off long ago.

 

[Brett85]

I dont think he needs to come out and be specific about that, the point of the media operation is to come out and appeal to broader base of typical GOP voters.

He should not do anything to wreck that by scaring them about how many bases he's going to close if he's ever Commander in Chief, my guess is he would close a lot but we'd never know until he's Commander in Chief and orders the necessary Pentagon review with the view to significant cuts. I would hope he would end all the subsidies to Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon too but we never know, do we ? we just have to trust his broader limited govt philosophy because he's never going to come out and say it

Ron would but he couldn't win a GOP primary

Well, then he shouldn't necessarily expect to receive a lot of support and money from Ron Paul supporters if he won't advocate anything close to the foreign policy that Ron Paul supports.

 

[dinosaur]

It does give me pause and I hope Rand doesn't expand his base appeal right into the typical republican stance on the middle east. It will be sad because that will be two Pauls that have let me down. I wouldn't vote for Ron anymore after watching his last two campaigns.

There is no way he is going to morph into an interventionist. If he does, I will no longer support him. But so far, all I've seen from Rand, is Rand using their own rhetoric and re-defining it. It is actually very clever of him to use their own rhetoric against them...and to give it an honest meaning. For example, supporting Israel now means that we support ther right to be independent of the US and to defend themselves. It also now means that we shouldn't undermine their efforts to protect themselves by occupying, arming, and training their enemies in the middle east. When the neocons say that they support Israel, they are really saying that they support the endless stupid wars in the middle east that benefit neither Amercia, nor Great Britain, nor Israel...but that is not Rand's definition of supporting Israel. When neocons say that we must defend Israel, what they really mean is that we should attack Iran to finish the bankster wars...not Rand's definition either.

 

[Brett85]

And Ron couldn't win a GOP primary because he took things to an extreme, opposing the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden and so forth. Closing down foreign military bases is not extreme. A large number of conservatives agree with that now. I don't see any reason why Rand can't advocate bringing our troops home from countries like Germany and Japan. I don't think the average American has any clue why we still have troops in those countries 70 years after the end of WWII.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, he's still probably the best we have in the Senate on foreign policy issues, but that's not saying much. I would simply like for him to be more specific. He's basically said that he would close down some foreign military bases as President. Well, that could mean that he would close down 2 foreign military bases, or he could close down 800 and leave 100. What does he think our presence in the world should actually be? I'd like him to explain that. And no, I don't believe he needs to keep his views on that a secret in order to "slide under the radar."

Before he could do that, he would have to make sure he fully explained how our nation would still be defended without some of the bases we have now. Back when, we needed some of those for refueling purposes, to name one thing. Ron didn't do this and it hurt him badly. Things like this and tossing out quips like getting rid of the CIA, without further explanation came back to bite Ron in the ass.

I hope to God that Rand does not repeat Ron's mistakes, or his chances of turning any of the crap back via government will be sunk.

 

[sailingaway]

It depends now doesn't it. If you decide to vote Rand Paul for president in 2016 because he's "the best we have" or he's "the lesser of two evils." Doesn't that mean the establishment has successfully achieved it's goal? If a President Rand Paul allows Israel to continue to bully it's neighbors with USA protection. Then the hatred towards our country and the necessary "War on Terror" remains does it not?

The R3VOLution ongoing doesn't require absolute victory in 2016, and if none of the candidates would offer that, it won't be possible. WHat it requires, imho, is bringing more and more people into the R3VOLution proper that ultimately victory of our principles is inevitable. My vote in 2016, which will be as good as I can make it, according to my lights, at that time, doesn't say whether the Ron Paul R3VOLution has been coopted. It is only if I am deluded into believing less than good is good enough that I stop fighting for more, that it has been coopted.

 

[itshappening]

What difference is it if Israel demands per-emptive war and President Rand Paul declares anyone who attacks back will have to face the might of the USA military?

You have no idea what he will do as president.

Bush said he would run a humble foreign policy and not be a policeman of the world.

Look how that turned out.

If Rand does that in reverse, then you'll be pleased.

 

[klamath]

There is no way he is going to morph into an interventionist. If he does, I will no longer support him. But so far, all I've seen from Rand, is Rand using their own rhetoric and re-defining it. It is actually very clever of him to use their own rhetoric against them...and to give it an honest meaning. For example, supporting Israel now means that we support ther right to be independent of the US and to defend themselves. It also now means that we shouldn't undermine their efforts to protect themselves by occupying, arming, and training their enemies in the middle east. When the neocons say that they support Israel, they are really saying that they support the endless stupid wars in the middle east that benefit neither Amercia, nor Great Britain, nor Israel...but that is not Rand's definition of supporting Israel. When neocons say that we must defend Israel, what they really mean is that we should attack Iran to finish the bankster wars...not Rand's definition either.

well I will be watching.

 

[dinosaur]

The R3VOLution ongoing doesn't require absolute victory in 2016, and if none of the candidates would offer that, it won't be possible. WHat it requires, imho, is bringing more and more people into the R3VOLution proper that ultimately victory of our principles is inevitable. My vote in 2016, which will be as good as I can make it, according to my lights, at that time, doesn't say whether the Ron Paul R3VOLution has been coopted. It is only if I am deluded into believing less than good is good enough that I stop fighting for more, that it has been coopted.

Very true.

 

[sailingaway]

You have no idea what he will do as president.

Bush said he would run a humble foreign policy and not be a policeman of the world.

Look how that turned out.

If Rand does that in reverse, then you'll be pleased.

I would seriously rather have someone I could trust to do what they said they would.

 

[twomp]

You have no idea what he will do as president.

Bush said he would run a humble foreign policy and not be a policeman of the world.

Look how that turned out.

If Rand does that in reverse, then you'll be pleased.

Yes! I would be very pleased if he did that. And yes I don't have any idea what he would do but as of right now, I am not too confident based on what he's been saying.

 

[itshappening]

Well, then he shouldn't necessarily expect to receive a lot of support and money from Ron Paul supporters if he won't advocate anything close to the foreign policy that Ron Paul supports.

He will receive a lot of money from former Ron Paul backers and a lot of money from the new fans too who by the way are more older and wealthier.

He should do fine in terms of raising money. I certainly expect him to. I have no idea what he expects. Ron never expected 6 million in one day but he got it. I expect Rand could do better.

 

[Brett85]

Before he could do that, he would have to make sure he fully explained how our nation would still be defended without some of the bases we have now. Back when, we needed some of those for refueling purposes, to name one thing. Ron didn't do this and it hurt him badly. Things like this and tossing out quips like getting rid of the CIA, without further explanation came back to bite Ron in the ass.

I hope to God that Rand does not repeat Ron's mistakes, or his chances of turning any of the crap back via government will be sunk.

I agree. He should outline a specific policy that shows that he supports a strong national defense. We could close down foreign military bases overseas and build them along the Mexico border, for example. But, no one is ever going to convince me that foreign military bases have anything to do with legitimate defense.