Rand Paul = Moving toward neoconservative Foreign Policy?

[syntaxmachine]

Rand Paul has been touted as a potential 2016 presidential candidate for the Republican Party. As the stylized narrative of his foreign policy views indicate, he is generally considered an isolationist and skeptic of foreign interventions.

Yet Rand has just added Lorne Craner, former head of the International Republican Institute -- an organization dedicated to democracy promotion abroad and generally associated with war hawks -- former Bush Administration official, and John McCain staffer to his ranks of advisers. Lorne has a long-standing relationship with McCain, who has been chairman of IRI for 20 years. Most recently, the Lorne-McCain style of foreign policy has been demonstrated by McCain's insistence that the US militarily intervene in the Syrian Civil War.

Is this a move by Rand to seem legitimate in the eyes of the establishment (unlike his father), or is he genuinely adopting the neoconservative brand? Will he stick to his espoused anti-interventionist principles, or become yet another mainstream, neoconservative-influenced Republican candidate?

[240 is Back]

Rand supports amnesty now.  That spits in the eye of the tea party.

Now he's getting on board with the neocons for intervening all over the world.  Predictable.  he wants to be president.  This is how one does it. 

Ron paul was a man of serious principles.  Rand paul is a politician.

[JOHN MATRIX]

Rand supports amnesty now.  That spits in the eye of the tea party.

Now he's getting on board with the neocons for intervening all over the world.  Predictable.  he wants to be president.  This is how one does it. 

Ron paul was a man of serious principles.  Rand paul is a politician.

Its certainly starting to look this way   

He seems to be trying to be Captain Israel lately..

[Purge_WTF]

Ron Paul single-handedly restored my faith in America after the termites in the W. administration trampled on her for eight long years. Even so, there's a small part of me that doesn't want either of them to be President because it seems that anyone who walks through the doors of the Oval Office get "tainted" somehow.

Another part of me pities the Obama zombies as well. They really thought he'd be different from the rest of them.

[syntaxmachine]

Rand supports amnesty now.  That spits in the eye of the tea party.

Now he's getting on board with the neocons for intervening all over the world.  Predictable.  he wants to be president.  This is how one does it. 

Ron paul was a man of serious principles.  Rand paul is a politician.

And the presumptive Democratic nominee is as hawkish as they come: (in chronological order) Hilary advocated for intervening in Bosnia and Kosovo, voted for intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, advocated for the Libyan bombing campaign, advocated for the 40K increase in troop presence in Afghanistan, and advocated for military intervention against Assad's Syria.

So a little under two years in advance of the 2016 presidential election, and already interventionism and hawkishness has been filtered for on either side. Somehow, alternative voices are being kept from the halls of power. Is it group think? Is there a set of gatekeepers that disallows alternative opinions? Are there entrenched interests who would suffer if America's overseas presence were curtailed? Or maybe all of the above?

[240 is Back]

And the presumptive Democratic nominee is as hawkish as they come: (in chronological order) Hilary advocated for intervening in Bosnia and Kosovo, voted for intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, advocated for the Libyan bombing campaign, advocated for the 40K increase in troop presence in Afghanistan, and advocated for military intervention against Assad's Syria.

So a little under two years in advance of the 2016 presidential election, and already interventionism and hawkishness has been filtered for on either side. Somehow, alternative voices are being kept from the halls of power. Is it group think? Is there a set of gatekeepers that disallows alternative opinions? Are there entrenched interests who would suffer if America's overseas presence were curtailed? Or maybe all of the above?

great post

[Jack T. Cross]

And the presumptive Democratic nominee is as hawkish as they come: (in chronological order) Hilary advocated for intervening in Bosnia and Kosovo, voted for intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, advocated for the Libyan bombing campaign, advocated for the 40K increase in troop presence in Afghanistan, and advocated for military intervention against Assad's Syria.

So a little under two years in advance of the 2016 presidential election, and already interventionism and hawkishness has been filtered for on either side. Somehow, alternative voices are being kept from the halls of power. Is it group think? Is there a set of gatekeepers that disallows alternative opinions? Are there entrenched interests who would suffer if America's overseas presence were curtailed? Or maybe all of the above?

Myself, I'd say the third uses the second in their very sneakiest effort to create a perception that an honest, good version of the first is in play. I'd say that's it, exactly.

[240 is Back]

Rand knows.  He knows the party completely mocked his father during the campaign and snubbed at the convention.  He knows that 'conservatives' were okay with this, because it "united" the party and was supposedly good for romney.  Then they saw romney lose in a bad way to a candidate that was supposedly an inept illegal.

He probably spent years saying "just tell them what they want to hear dad, just go along with the neocons and you'll be president!" and was all-too willing to adopt positions like supporting amnesty and agreeing to invade for oil like th neocons wanted. 

Rand isn't trying to be his "own" man, because he's abandoning everything he said in 2010.  He just wants to be president.

[240 is Back]

Rand isn't trying to be his "own" man[b/], because he's abandoning everything he said in 2010. 

THIS quote is what I totally expect getbiggers to say in 2015/2016 if Rand runs. "Rand isn't going to be like his dad, it doesn't make him a sellout!"

No, it makes him a tea partier that moved from loving the constitution, to opening the borders and being the world police, in about 3 years... coincidentally, just as the political landscape changed and the party decided to move back rino/neocon. 

Is that what is really happening now?   tea party/constitution candidates are all sloooowly shifting to RINO/Neocon positions once again?

[2Thick]

They need to do whatever it takes to win some damn elections. If nothing else, they're the lesser of two evils in the last half century or so as far as I'm concerned.

If Rand Paul needs to roll into Compton on some 30" spinnahs, smoking blunts and sherms, wearing FUBU, Jordans, and a grill, and speaking in ebonics to swing enough votes to win - he needs to do it. And that goes for every other Repub candidate in '14 and '16.

[Roger Bacon]

Hopefully he's just a realist (unlike his fasher) whose doing what it takes to be a viable candidate.

[240 is Back]

If Rand Paul needs to roll into Compton on some 30" spinnahs, smoking blunts and sherms, wearing FUBU, Jordans, and a grill, and speaking in ebonics to swing enough votes to win - he needs to do it. And that goes for every other Repub candidate in '14 and '16.

I dont think that will work though.  Cause mccain flipflopped and tried everything.  Romney was all 'who let the dogs out" and wearing spray tan on Uivision and every other trick in the book.  The reason these 2 lost is that the BASE didn't bother to show up to vote.  They're not going to show up for RandLite either.  Mccain was about as respected as a man can be, in america, and they didnt bother to show up to vote.  It's about positions on issues - romney and mccain were RINOS.  And Rand is quickly becoming one too.

I'm starting to think Cruz is the best hope for 2012.  He just has to hit the weights and get on some cardio asap.

[JOHN MATRIX]

U cannot get elected president unless u support, without qualification, Israel. Rand will have no choice but to fall in line and do AIPAC's bidding if he wants the nomination. If he takes his father's position towards Israel, which was perceived as supportive of Israel, but with reservations, he will never get anywhere. It's as simple as that.

Sadly this is true

[2Thick]

I dont think that will work though.  Cause mccain flipflopped and tried everything.  Romney was all 'who let the dogs out" and wearing spray tan on Uivision and every other trick in the book.  The reason these 2 lost is that the BASE didn't bother to show up to vote.  They're not going to show up for RandLite either.  Mccain was about as respected as a man can be, in america, and they didnt bother to show up to vote.  It's about positions on issues - romney and mccain were RINOS.  And Rand is quickly becoming one too.

I'm starting to think Cruz is the best hope for 2012.  He just has to hit the weights and get on some cardio asap.

I actually agree with Cruz the most of any I've come across these days, and I think he's smart enough to destroy any and all Dems in debates on the relevant issues. As long as he ducks and dodges on the social wedge issues and gives vague answers such as "I'm evolving" on gay marriage and abortion, he'll destroy any Dem put in front of him.

Unfortunately, I don't think enough Americans care enough any longer about the important things Cruz cares more about than the RINOs and of course the Dems - such as the Constitution, a smaller govt, free market capitalism, job creation, a booming economy, strong foreign policy, energy independence, etc. Like you've said and I also say, it seems as though the majority of the country wants "free stuff", and a president who is "cool" and a pop culture icon. 

I think any of the other Repubs will blow it, just like others before them have done in the last 6 years.

I am inclined to believe that it's those behind the scenes running the campaigns for the Repubs who are blowing it. They told Palin not to go after Obama's lack of experience and radical past in '08. And they obviously told Romney to go easy on Obama after destroying him in '12 in the first debate. Sometimes I can't help but wonder if they're not working for the other side.

And of course the RINOs inevitably have to put foot to mouth and actually bring the wedge issues up themselves - they'll open up a can of worms on religion, gay marriage, or abortion out of nowhere after killing a Dem on everything else, and we'll see the audience start moving away from the RINO to the big govt socialist Dem again literally before our eyes.

[240 is Back]

It just doesn't make sense to choose a RINO again.

Mccain was a war hero RINO, up against a no-experience idiot named obama.

Romney was a business genius with presidential hair RINO, against an obamacare evil illegal.

BOTH LOST.  Put on a true conservative.  he could win! 

They're begging to put up another moderate rino like christie or romney or jeb.  makes no sense.  "he's electable" lol.  doesn't work if the base stays home - and they will, once again.  If obamacare can't motivate the base to show up in 2012...

[2Thick]

It just doesn't make sense to choose a RINO again.

Mccain was a war hero RINO, up against a no-experience idiot named obama.

Romney was a business genius with presidential hair RINO, against an obamacare evil illegal.

BOTH LOST.  Put on a true conservative.  he could win! 

They're begging to put up another moderate rino like christie or romney or jeb.  makes no sense.  "he's electable" lol.  doesn't work if the base stays home - and they will, once again.  If obamacare can't motivate the base to show up in 2012...

It almost seems as though the country as a whole has moved hopelessly in a direction that will at best make us European-like, if not outright bankrupt and eventually destroy us. I think those on the right who don't bother to show up and vote for the lesser of 2 evils or against the greater of 2 evils are as much to blame as anyone. Then of course there's the matter of dead people voting, hoodrats voting 10 times, voting machines doing very strange things in half a dozen states, etc.

It's looking more and more like the only solution for those of us who believe in those things such as small govt, personal freedom and liberty, the accumulation and preservation of wealth, low taxes, low crime rates, etc will need to take a cue from big corps and move ourselves overseas.

[240 is Back]

It almost seems as though the country as a whole has moved hopelessly in a direction that will at best make us European-like,

Yes!  Agreed!  Yet getbiggers still cling to the belief that 51% of the country are "conservatives".

I just don't see it.  I see liberals and moderate libs everywhere I go

[syntaxmachine]

It just doesn't make sense to choose a RINO again.

I don't know. When has the Republican party successfully elected a non-RINO to the White House? I can't think of a single example -- but I can think of plenty of RINO presidents. Therefore, if history is any guide, RINOhood is seemingly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for Republican candidates seeking the presidency -- for those who are actually interested in winning, anyway.

Establishment, "RINO" Republicans have won their primary contests against Tea Party rivals throughout this primary season -- a few random examples: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky defeated his opponent, and mainstream (pro-immigration reform) Republicans in North Carolina's 2nd and 7th districts soundly defeated tea partiers as well.

So, it seems that both in the presidential and Congressional contests, RINOhood is here to stay as a function of voter preference. I think that this lends credence to your claim that there might not be as many genuine conservatives around as is commonly supposed.

[240 is Back]

I don't know. When has the Republican party successfully elected a non-RINO to the White House? I can't think of a single example

2000 Bush was a "compassionate conservative", but he was very much "We will NOT be the worlds police!" before he got elected.  He was a down south TX conservative.  Definitely closer to far-right than moderate RINO.

Going back to 1980... Moderate repubs feared Reagan was too extreme in many positions:
http://millercenter.org/president/reagan/essays/biography/3

And Bush1, he just won because he'd already been running things with a senile reagan, and he was up against Dukakis, who just loved self-destructing.  And bush had great ads.  And he was pretty conservative too.

So yeah - RINOS haven't won in a long, long time.  But they'll try it again.  They never learn

[syntaxmachine]

So yeah - RINOS haven't won in a long, long time.  But they'll try it again.  They never learn

I'm asking you to consider previous Republican administrations' behavior, not the marketing slogans that get applied to them. There has been a steady growth in government, virtually unchanged from Republican to Democratic administrations, for decades. That to me evinces that those Republicans were RINOs -- in addition to specific evidence from any given administration (e.g., Bush II's significant expansion of the welfare state in the form of Medicare D, Bush I's tax increases, Reagan's expansion of the federal workforce and tripling of the national debt, Nixon's expansion of government oversight in the form of the war on drugs and the EPA, among other things).

Are these behaviors indicative of "true" conservatives or aren't they? If true conservatives should be what the Republican party offers the public in order to acquire power, why are tea partiers -- paradigmatic conservatives by most peoples' definition -- losing left and right (I gave 3 examples in my last post)?

[Roger Bacon]

I'm speaking to these Republican politicians' actual behavior, not the marketing slogans they apply to themselves. There has been a steady growth in government, virtually unchanged from Republican to Democratic administrations, for decades. That to me evinces that those Republicans were RINOs -- in addition to specific evidence from any given administration (e.g., Bush II's significant expansion of the welfare state in the form of Medicare D, Bush I's tax increases, Reagan's expansion of the federal workforce and tripling of the national debt, Nixon's expansion of government oversight in the form of the war on drugs and the EPA, among other things).

Are these behaviors indicative of "true" conservatives or aren't they? If true conservatives should be what the Republican party offers the public in order to acquire power, why are tea partiers -- paradigmatic conservatives by most peoples' definition -- losing left and right (I gave 3 examples in my last post)?

This, Regan was almost as "big government" as they get.

It feels good to act like he was our conservative hero though.