Posted on 05/03/2011 2:14:07 PM PDT by Mozilla
The Tea Party scored its two biggest triumphs last year with the election of Sens. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Both were discouraged from running by leaders of their own party. Both had to overcome the determined opposition of the Republican establishment.
[snip]
Their similarities stop at the water's edge. True, when Obama decided to wage "kinetic military action" against Libya, both senators recognized it for what it was -- war -- and demanded that Congress authorize the intervention. But Paul and Rubio diverged sharply from there.
In April, Paul introduced a sense of the Senate resolution affirming the following 2007 quote from then-candidate Barack Obama: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." The move so flummoxed Democrats that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid abruptly adjourned the Senate for the weekend rather than have his colleagues vote on the amendment. Senator Paul also insisted that Congress vote to formally declare war against Libya and made fairly clear he intended to vote against any such declaration. Neither of Paul's Libya proposals went anywhere.
Rubio also proposed a resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya. But his idea was to make regime change the official policy of the U.S. government, and unlike Paul he fully intended to vote in favor.
Libya is just one specific example of a broader disagreement between the two Tea Party favorites over U.S. foreign policy. Paul, the son of the noninterventionist presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul, believes restraint in the resort to arms is an integral part of limited government. Rubio, the son of Cuban exiles, sees a robust foreign policy as indispensable to American world leadership.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Does a robust foreign policy have to mean multiple, interventionist wars?
But those differences pale when compared to what to do about the so-called “Republican Establishment.” The oldest 21 Senators (that’s everyone 70 or older) have a combined total of 518 years in the Senate. Nine of them are Republicans. From my perspective these guys all need to go, because they are old enough to be immune from anything that they may do as Senators. They have no skin in the game except to “be Senators.” They should be gone on that score alone. In that group are the “sorry assed twins,” Hatch and Lugar who were sworn in on the same day in January of 1977! Of course, the oldest are the RATs like Inouye, Akaka and the Lautencorpse, but my guess is that their voters will keep putting them back until they die, or when the country folds, whichever comes first.
If anyone ever payed attention to Rubio, he was never a Tea Party guy. He is a straight up Reagan Conservative who appealed to the Tea Party. He never was out their openly claiming membership to the TP like Paul is. Rubio made this point at least once on a Hannity interview. Both great guys, but there is a bit of a difference. The fact that the Spectator wrote this shows that many are not paying attention to what is going on with the different elected officials.
I’ll go with Rand Paul.
I also liked his proposal to cut $500 billion from the budget now. (Compare Boehner’s fake “cuts”.)
Marco Rubio is the future of the Republican Party.
He is a conservative, and will attract Latino voters.
I would bet that any republican presidential candidate would give his eye teeth to have Rubio as his running mate.
I am not for nation building around the world.
How about for an island just 90 miles from our shores?
Rubio gets that, and he probably remembers how John Kennedy allowed the slaughter of the Cuban freedom fighters by not providing the promised air cover.
I don’t give a damn how old are any of them.
I care only about their positions and their votes
If I appreciate their positions and their votes, nothing says replacing them in the next elections will obtain a GOP candidate that will win in their stead. So, in that case, I have no benefit by assuming a younger GOP candidate will get me someone whose votes I will appreciate. It might just result in that seat going to someone’s whose vote I won’t like. If it ain’t broke, don’t try to “fix” it.
Then again, if I don’t like how they vote, I don’t care if they were first elected to their seat thirty years ago, or just in the last election. If I were in a position to vote against them in their next GOP primary I would; period.
Age and length of service are not relevant issues. How they vote is.
bttt
I do live in Florida, and I know a little bit about Marco Rubio. Rubio is a career politician, an establishment Republican who tried (and mostly succeeded) in attracting the TEA Party vote down here in Florida. He is first and foremost a politician. Before running for the Senate, Rubio was speaker of the Florida House and has a long career in Politics. He will, for the most part, do what the leadership asks. He will be a Republican first and conservative if that fits the situation. He will align himself more with Mitch McConnell and the establishment leaders than with Jim DeMint and the TEA Party constitutional conservatives. After a term or two, Rubio will be a major part of the problem in Washington DC.
I cite Thomas Jefferson, who dispatched the entire fleet to have "regime change" in Tripoli, WITHOUT A DECLARATION OF WAR but with only a joint resolution (which he then used to declare war, not only on Tripoli, but on all states aligned with Tripoli---can you say "with us or with the terrorists?")
Jefferson's war was highly effective. We had to go back one more time, under Jimmy Madison, but both were brief, to the point, resulted in "regime change," and pretty much that was it until the 1970s from that region.
Interventionist does not mean permanent, nor does it mean costly. In the entire Tripolitan Wars, we lost, I think, two ships (one of which we burned ourselves) and sent a grand total of 8 Marines.
No, some wars are defensive without any intention of intervening in another countries affairs save to stop any aggression
I cite Thomas Jefferson, who dispatched the entire fleet to have "regime change" in Tripoli
Jefferson certainly did not dispatch the fleet to have regime change. The fleet was dispatched to protect US shipping and when war had been declared on the U.S.. There appears to have been a plan to reestablish the previous ruler of Tripoli, but this plan was abandoned.
Interventionist does not mean permanent, nor does it mean costly.
In the 21st century, it means both.
You are only partially right in my opinion. The Founders envisioned a Congress of transients. Being a Senator was not seen as a life’s work. Can you honestly say that Hatch and Lugar have anything to contribute to resolving our problems? They’ve been there for more that forty years and look where we are today! The Tea Party in Utah kicked Bennett out before the primary and they elected Mike Lee. Lee is a star. Bennett, larded up his friends with our tax dollars last year as he left office. What a class act! Closer to home here in California we now have Harry Reid over in Nevada for another six years! This is the guy who wants to close down the whore houses in Nevada after “taping” them for money to start his sorry assed career. My fear is the Hatches and the Lugars (and the Boehners as well) will co-opt the new fresh faces who don’t know that it can’t be done another way before they get their bearings and some measure of control. But you are entitled to your opinion.
BTW, Jefferson sought an "international coalition," and no one would pony up, not even the Brits.
Iraq was entirely a "defensive" war so that we didn't have to get nuked. Great concept by Bush: get rid of the little rattlers before they become big snakes.
I will take Paul. Rubio is in the neocon pocket and I believe he would be a problem on immigration too.
Using that logic, it would be easy to justify perpetual war...and I'm not sure that isn't where we are.
I can justify any war that keeps me and my family safe. Whether it’s “perpetual” or not, I don’t care. Iraq, though not deliberately so, was brilliant: suck every middle eastern nutjob into one place where you can kill them.
Rubio is NOT a natural born Citizen.
Yeah, that worked great. There are no more middle eastern nutjobs left to fight.....Oh wait......
By my calculations, about 250,000 KIA/wounded/captured. Phenomenal record.
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.