Skip to comments.Rand Paul seeks distance from Ron Paulís foreign policy ó in tone, at least
Posted on 02/06/2013 4:48:32 PM PST by Mozilla
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who looks more and more like he will pick up where his father left off and run for president in 2016, tried to create some separation between himself and his famous dad in a speech Wednesday.
I am a realist, not a neoconservative, nor an isolationist, Paul began in his opening remarks at the Heritage Foundation.
Paul called for a balanced approach to foreign policy that includes both significant action against radical Islam but also shunned the neoconservative and interventionist strains that dominated the Republican Party for the past decade and which his father, Ron Paul, campaigned vehemently against.
But even as he charted his own course on foreign policy, the differences between he and his father were much more about tone and emphasis than about substance. And indeed, he echoed much of what his father has espoused in recent years.
While many people think of Ron Paul as an isolationist, its important to note that he identified more as a non-interventionalist i.e. getting involved only in limited circumstances in which American interests were clearly at stake. For example, even as he was a vocal critic of the war in Iraq, he initially voted the authorize the use of force in Afghanistan.
Rand Paul embraced much of his fathers policy of limited intervention on Wednesday, calling for the closure of overseas bases, reluctance to use force, avoidance of nation-building, and the approval of Congress in order to declare war.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Video of the Rand Paul Speech:
Normally I am against sons rebelling against their fathers, but in this case I will take what I can get.
hum? Will “Rand” be different than “Ron” time will tell, however haven’t seen much difference so far.
Unfortunately, “Ron” is ignorant of the federal role in protection of the USA and our history fighting islam.
IMHO Dr. Rand Paul sounds pretty good.
Neo Consevatism also leaves much to be desired because not all peoples desire democracy or use the democracy they get for salutory ends; e.g., Egypt and Syria. Not all people desire freedom -- especialy in the Middle East.
Realism -- authentic realism not appeasement of Arabs -- sounds pretty good to me.
Don’t go in search of monsters, but don’t pretend that they don’t exist, neither.
...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. [Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST]
Containment is a start. Paul does not explain how to contain Islamism. He repeats the Paulite and communist lie that the US armed Bin Laden. He forgets that Reagan supported ROLLBACK, not containment. He forgets that arming native Afghans (not MAK) was part of this. Still, this is a worthy debate.
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.