Rand Paul to outline ‘constitutional conservative’ foreign policy

[klamath]

+rep. I agree. The problem with a "stealth strategy" is that your supporters can never be 100% sure if you're with them or not. 90% or even 99% perhaps. And if Rand is (as I suspect) operating in "stealth mode" it's up to people outside his campaign to continue the educational agenda.

I am actually dismissing the steath theory. I think Rand is speaking the truth about his strategy. He will be 99% less interventionist than the rest but not a complete noninterventionist.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I guess that is what we are going to have to watch for. I suspect all of our defense treaty partners plus Israel. Not real happy with it.

So should I assume that publically declaring that we should withdraw from the UN and NATO is out of the question? I feel like the opposite of those who did not like Ron Paul. "I like a lot of his positions, but he's just not 'radical' enough for me."

 

[klamath]

So should I assume that publically declaring that we should withdraw from the UN and NATO is out of the question? I feel like the opposite of those who did not like Ron Paul. "I like a lot of his positions, but he's just not 'radical' enough for me."

Only in my opinion but I think he won't withdraw from treaties but he could very well drawn down troops stationed in the treaty countries.

 

[musicmax]

I'll send him a donation if he quotes Netanyahu telling Congress "We (Israel) don't need American soldiers defending us, we defend ourselves." That donation will be legal maximum if he plays it on a large video screen.

 

[Brett85]

So should I assume that publically declaring that we should withdraw from the UN and NATO is out of the question?

It doesn't seem like there's any chance he'll do that at this point.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Rand is nuts if he thinks he can win without firing up the anti-war movement. I cannot understand this strategy at all.

 

[klamath]

Rand is nuts if he thinks he can win without firing up the anti-war movement. I cannot understand this strategy at all.

It depends on how much more antiwar he is than the Democrat and how badly the democratic wars are going.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Frankly, none of these sound very good. Even the one that kind of sounds good:

has to be qualified with this:

Why qualify it?

Emotions are good -in the time of the Pauls not everyone has yet been educated.

The 'right' and its media dog will be using emotion, best to get the best emotional bits and claim them as your own.

I don't like that at all. Since when is it our obligation to defend 50 other countries overseas, rather than just defending our own country? I wouldn't rule out intervention in every single situation, but we should not be obligated or required to defend anyone but ourselves.

I think this pretty much sets it. Rand is Not a noninterventist like a Ron, but just for a reduction in our foreign policy footprint in a constitutional way, so it is now up to people to determine whether they can support that or move on to another candidate. I will be watching and waiting to see how Rand pans out. At this point he appears to be at the same as Lee, Demint, Flake, etc. I would support a reduced war constitutional republican but Lee, Demint or Flake might just come out on top as far as electibility so I could switch to them.

I should point out that I wrote that. It was my prediction, or what potentially could come out of it. It is aimed at the majority of GOP voters, those who do not follow politics closely and do not know anything about underlying philosophies or agendas.

My original post has been updated.

Rand's actual speech does not occur until next Tuesday (February 6).

We'll find out then what he has to say.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand is nuts if he thinks he can win without firing up the anti-war movement. I cannot understand this strategy at all.

In traditional political reality, those who advocate for strong foreign policy tend to not go to war. Those who claim to be anti-war or for a humble policy tend to go to war. The examples are endless, but we can start with Obama, Bush and Clinton.

The Democrats never run on the platform that they are modern, "evolved" Marxists/Leninists, but that is exactly what they are. They will deny it as they openly practice it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I should point out that I wrote that. It was my prediction, or what potentially could come out of it. It is aimed at the majority of GOP voters, those who do not follow politics closely and do not know anything about underlying philosophies or agendas.

My original post has been updated.

Rand's actual speech does not occur until next Tuesday (February 6).

We'll find out then what he has to say.

OH!!!! Ok...I thought that you were copying the bullet points or something

 

[klamath]

I should point out that I wrote that. It was my prediction, or what potentially could come out of it. It is aimed at the majority of GOP voters, those who do not follow politics closely and do not know anything about underlying philosophies or agendas.

My original post has been updated.

Rand's actual speech does not occur until next Tuesday (February 6).

We'll find out then what he has to say.

Please don't do that. I am on limited bandwidth so I didn't follow links and took your word for it. There is too much wild confusion now

 

[bunklocoempire]

Rand is nuts if he thinks he can win without firing up the anti-war movement. I cannot understand this strategy at all.

I figure he's got to dodge all the crap his own party throws at him first. Get past the GOP shenanigans and then he can really open up some whoop ass.

 

[Matt Collins]

From a press release:

Sen. Paul to Present Major Foreign Policy Speech at Heritage Foundation
​

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Wednesday, Feb. 6, Sen. Rand Paul will present a major foreign policy speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.

Sen. Paul’s speech, “Restoring the Founders’ Vision of Foreign Policy,” will discuss his vision of a foreign policy that respects the plain language of our Constitution, the legal powers of Congress and the proper duties of the Commander-in-Chief, as well as outline a platform for which America can better avoid never-ending conflict and protracted commitments.

Note: Space is limited, and RSVP via the Heritage Foundation is required, located HERE.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2013

SEN. PAUL ON ‘RESTORING THE FOUNDERS’ VISION OF FOREIGN POLICY’

TIME: 11:00.m. ET

LOCATION: The Heritage Foundation
Alison Auditorium – 7[SUP]th[/SUP] floor
214 Massachusetts Ave. NE
Washington DC 20002

RSVP: REQUIRED FOR ATTENDANCE via Heritage Foundation event page HERE.

 

[radiofriendly]

Rand is nuts if he thinks he can win without firing up the anti-war movement. I cannot understand this strategy at all.

Sadly, I just don't see it. Foreign policy is my number one issue...or used to be, before Dr. Paul opened my eyes about monetary policy. I just don't see hardly any sizable group that cares about foreign policy. I used to make the mistake of believing that many other people felt exactly like I did about things...before I went on the road campaigning. We can't continue to make the mistake of believing that people resonate with the same issues that we, personally, care about.

*Of course that doesn't mean you don't lead on issues--but you must pick your battles. The leftists, by in large, don't give a rip about war.

 

[itshappening]

Matt, that PR needs to go to the media (not RPF) so they can RSVP and provide coverage.

 

[Matt Collins]

Matt, that PR needs to go to the media (not RPF) so they can RSVP and provide coverage.

It already has

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, I didn't.

However regardless, Ron didn't do the attacking.

And if Ron got more than his district's share that just makes him good at his job. IF he couldn't stop the money from being spent at all, and by voting against every bill, he tried to stop it, he represented his district as the Constitution anticipates, competing for funds with others from the 'going to be spent anyway' pot.

I'm sure none of it was wasteful.

I doubt you'll find any pig stink studies.

Sailing, my understanding is that he submitted ALL requests from his constituents.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Sadly, I just don't see it. Foreign policy is my number one issue...or used to be, before Dr. Paul opened my eyes about monetary policy. I just don't see hardly any sizable group that cares about foreign policy. I used to make the mistake of believing that many other people felt exactly like I did about things...before I went on the road campaigning. We can't continue to make the mistake of believing that people resonate with the same issues that we, personally, care about.

*Of course that doesn't mean you don't lead on issues--but you must pick your battles. The leftists, by in large, don't give a rip about war.

Not if "one of their own" is in office, they don't. And it's the same way the Republicans go blind when "one of their own" is in office growing the size of government.