Skip to comments.Cheney vs. Paul-Liz Cheney’s bid for the Senate is widening the GOP’s foreign policy rifts.
Posted on 07/19/2013 11:54:01 PM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Near the end of March 2010, as Republicans outside Kentucky realized that Rand Paul might actually become a senator, Pauls opponent received an unexpected and important-looking endorsement.
Im a lifelong conservative, and I can tell the real thing when I see it, announced Dick Cheney. I have looked at the records of both candidates in the race, and it is clear to me that Trey Grayson is right on the issues that matterboth on fiscal responsibility and on national security.
Pauls campaign was half-unsurprised, half-amused. Theyd seen this coming a week before, when former Cheney policy adviser Cesar Conda emailed some fellow neoconservatives and asked them to help us get the word out about Rand Pauls troubling and dangerous views on foreign policy.* Fun on its own, but by weighing in personally, Cheney had confirmed a white-knuckle panic among their least favorite Republicans. The Louisville Courier-Journal ran a cartoon about the news, in which two Kentuckians learned that Cheney (represented by Darth Vader) had endorsed Pauls opponent. On purpose? asked one of the cartoon characters.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Yikes, I don’t know where I’ll land in regards to Paul in time, but Trey Grayson was a no-go, and I was willing to take the mess that might come from Rand and try to deal with it, rather than have Trey Grayson.
Paul might turn out to be an ugly mixed bag, but Grayson was a cinder block of dependable rinoism.
WY can do much better than these 2
Grayson had the makings of being a RINO superstar, a worthy understudy to McCain and Graham.
I think you are right, not just a rino, but an important, enduring one.
Exactly. That’s why Dick Cheney endorsed him.
He wants to eliminate foreign aid, or at the very least only give it to our real allies.
He would rather that our troops guard our southern border instead of the 38th parallel.
He wants to avoid foreign unless OUR national security is at stake, and then get in and WIN IT.
Very strange indeed.
Good, let’s really SPLIT. FURNC. Time for a third party for Conservatives, way past time. Let’s get started. “If you build it they will come.”
Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Here's the passage at issue: In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out. Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president. Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. The mujaheddin did much to help bleed the Soviets dry, at a comparatively negligible cost to the United States (for smuggled military hardware and some intelligence). "We all know how well that worked out," said Sen. Paul, dismissively, of the work of our "war caucus" to support the mujaheddin. Yes, we do: It played a key role in helping us win the Cold War. Anybody who doesn't understand that is either foolish or invincibly ignorant. Second, it is a myth that the United States "armed bin Laden." False, false, false. It is also a falsehood to say that bin Laden was a major player within the mujeheddin or in the anti-Soviet war effort at all. Finally, it is false even to say that the Afghani effort against the Soviets was primarily, or even largely, about "jihad." It was a defensive effort against armed invaders, not an offensive effort by "radicals" in the name of Allah.[Posted on 02/09/2013 7:33:41 AM PST by LSUfan]
If Ron Paul supporters wish to spam attack FR, our members, our Commander-in-Chief, our war effort, etc, please feel free to do it elsewhere. Antiwar activism is no more welcome on FR than is abortion activism, gay rights activism, gun control activism or any other leftist/socialist cause.[Posted on 10/23/2007 10:41:04 PM PDT Jim Robinson]
The difference between Orwell's "1984" and the Land of the Free in 2013? Not very much.
Of the two, Cheney does not give a rat'sass about the Constitution.
The GOP would win elections, easily, if they dropped the Free Trade Communist Globalism nonsense.
Most of the Democratic Leadership...including Obama...are Free Trade Communist Globalist....there is nothing conservative about Globalism
Heck, even Rand Paul still supports the Free Trade aspect of Globalism...which still is filed with way too much Internationalism, and not enough Americanism
Paul much better than the Cheney’s though
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.