Skip to comments.Rand Paul: No more 'bomb everybody' (Sees Aggressive GOP Foreign Policy as Political Detriment)
Posted on 09/10/2012 10:58:51 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Monday that Republicans can win in New England and on the West Coast if theyre willing to drop a we need to bomb everybody tomorrow foreign policy.
I think one of the problems we face, as a Republican party, is that were behind the eight-ball to begin with, Paul said on CBS This Morning. Were not winning the West Coast. Were not winning New England. Maybe we need to embrace more Ron Paul Republicans, more libertarian Republicans. It means people who are little bit less aggressive on foreign policy. They believe in defending the country, but they dont believe we need to be everywhere all the time.
There are only four GOP senators from the six New England states, and none from the three states on the Pacific coast.
We should have a more defensive foreign policy, a less aggressive foreign policy, Paul said. I think that would go over much better in New England than the typical we need to bomb everybody tomorrow policy you hear from some Republicans.
Pauls advice doesnt necessarily mesh with recent Republicans wins in New England. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), elected in 2010, has joined with some of the most hawkish members of the upper chamber. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), elected nine months earlier, has emphasized his service in the Massachusetts Army National Guard. Both sit on the Armed Services Committee. Another New England Senator, Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman, won as a third-party candidate in 2006 after his support for the Iraq War cost him the Democratic primary.
Paul, who broke with his father, libertarian icon and Texas Rep. Ron Paul, to endorse Mitt Romneys presidential bid, said his family isnt holding it against him.
It makes it kind of contentious at Thanksgiving, the younger Paul said. But so far, theyre still letting me eat at the adult table.
Let’s drop the Big One and see what happens (they all hate us anyhow!)
No halt on bombing until we bomb the Dems. After they surrender we can talk about it.
As the article notes. Some of the most hawkish Senators are the two newbs from New England, and McCain proteges - Ayotte and Brown. So that sort of defeats that Paul meme.
Agree, let’s bomb da Dems + Mccain and his little bro Lindsey.
Very well put, jboot.
Only until the Dems are bombed in the next election
and with a Republican majority in the House and Senate,
can ANY kind of real dialogue on this issue begin.
I assume you meant that “bombing” figuratively, right?
What’s endlessly interesting to me now is that there is more
“diversity of opinion” WITHIN a single Republican, than there is ON ANY ISSUE with 99% of Democrats, who think in lock-step. At least they have until right NOW, as it becomes clearer to lots of them that there is no future in backing Obama.
Is Rand turning into a Paulbot?
The Clinton/Bush foreign policy, now continued by Obama, was really only a revival of the Dean Rusk foreign policy of the 1960s (See Democracy In The Third World.) It has been an expensive disaster, squandering our wealth, while breeding enemies like cock-roaches. Enough is enough!
less aggressive - good lord
He sounds more like his dad everyday.
We’re two decades overdue for a return to Taft’s principles and an end for our bipartisan Wilsonian meddling and empire building.
All we are saaaying, is give [total] war a chance. It’s worked every time it’s been tried. No nibbling around the edges. The longer we wait the more costly it will be. See WWII in history books.
Can we pass a federal law stating that 3 generations of political descendants not be allowed to participate in politics or in any governmental jobs?
I think Paul is right on in his very general outline calling for a paradigm shift in thinking, and I hope his candidate of choice, Mitt Romney, is open to it. We have been in a VERY different mindset since 9-11,though, and the people we always assumed we’d be fighting ad infinitum, the “Communists”, have morphed into the new enemy of worldwide Islamic Jihad.
It’s naive to think the Muzzies will leave us alone if we become isolationist.
The failure to realize that world for what it is was my main problem with Ron Paul. You can't be the lone pacifist in a rabidly unpacific world. If you are, you certainly won't be one for very long!
Ten years ago, “total war” seemed like a feasible idea, and if it was going to become policy, it should have happened then. But it wasn’t even tried by Bush, who is the one who had 9-11 fall into his lap. There is simply no scenario for total war against terrorist Islamic Jihad in ANYONE’s bag of tricks. It becomes something of a pipe dream, much like the pipe dream that informs the Islamic fantasies occupying the minds of people like Ahmadinejad.They’re both totally unworkable , and the smaller battles will be fought piecemeal, over time, like, for example, what Israel will eventually find it necessary to do in regard to Iran.
They won’t leave you alone now and are taking over.
In todays world, not submitting to islam is to be a dissident.
To be a dissident is becoming as dangerous as in the old Soviet Union; it is to go against the State and they *will* kill you one way or another.
The way to deal with this is the way we deal with families of idiots ~ STERILIZE THEM.
We’ll save Australia. Don’ wanna hurt no kangaroo.
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.