Skip to comments.Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Ted Cruz and Ronald Reagan
Posted on 03/10/2014 8:18:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Rand Paul has a piece at Breitbart which Drew at Ace views as a slam against Ted Cruz. The dispute is once again over what Reagan would have done.
Reagan clearly believed in a strong national defense and in Peace through Strength. He stood up to the Soviet Union, and he led a world that pushed back against Communism.
But Reagan also believed in diplomacy and demonstrated a reasoned approach to our nuclear negotiations with the Soviets. Reagans shrewd diplomacy would eventually lessen the nuclear arsenals of both countries.
Perhaps Rand Paul can explain what the point of lessening the nuclear arsenals was, aside from the cost savings, considering the overwhelming destructive power on both sides.
Reagan certainly wasnt deluded on the subject, but he understood that such negotiations helped keep American liberals and Europe on the right side. It was more about image than substance.
Rand Paul emphasizes that some Republicans accused Reagan of appeasement for meeting with Gorbachev. He forgets however that his father blasted Reagan as a warmonger in his resignation letter from the Republican Party.
Knowing this administrations record, I wasnt surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras, Ron Paul wrote, while blasting Reagan for indiscriminate military spending and an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy.
While theres always someone to the right of you, Rand Paul might acknowledge that Reagan was largely criticized for being too aggressive, not for not being aggressive enough.
Rand Paul writes, in a likely dig at Cruz, I will remind anyone who thinks we will win elections by trashing previous Republican nominees or holding oneself out as some paragon in the mold of Reagan, that splintering the party is not the route to victory.
Thats funny considering that minus the Reagan part, this was his fathers entire election campaign. Over and over again.
There is a time for military action, such as after 9/11. There is a time for diplomacy and the strategic use of soft power, such as now with Russia. Diplomacy requires resolve but also thoughtfulness and intelligence.
This is something Reagan always knew
I also greatly admire that Reagan was not rash or reckless with regard to war. Reagan advised potential foreign adversaries not to mistake our reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.
Reagan was willing to negotiate, but he was also willing to use force. As a little reminder of that, Ron Paul criticized Reagan on Libya
The U.S. policy toward Libya further confirms our irrational foreign policy. Under Reagan we have been determined to pick a fight with Khadafi, defying him with naval and air maneuvers in the Gulf of Sidra. As we try to emphasize our right to navigate in international waters near Libya, we totally reject the territorial waters of Nicaragua by mining their harbors. The World Court rulings against the U.S. were ignored by the Reagan Administration
And on Grenada
The invasion of Grenada is hardly the victory the American people were led to believe.
Not to mention Cuba
Actually, I believe were at a time where we even ought to talk to Cuba and trade and travel to Cuba.
Suffice it to say, Reagan did not agree.
After Reagans death, the Paul camp tried to reinvent him as a new Reagan. Considering Ron Pauls foreign policy, the results were awkward at best.
Just about every Republican and Democrat, even Obama, has tried to claim the Reagan mantle, but Reagans foreign policy was deemed aggressive, interventionist and unconstitutional based on the political stands of the Pauls.
Salt and butter on my popcorn!
Ron Paul stood lockstep with the Kerrys and Kennedys and leftist Democrats.
I recall when the GOP insiders club was comparing Bush to Reagan.
Another good one from DG. Thanks for posting 2nd.
President Reagan fully understood that one only achieves diplomatic goals when starting from a position of strength. Hence the rebuilding of the military in his Administration.
Otherwise, one may as well be a jug-eared, 98-pound weakling who throws like a girl, wears mom jeans, and cringes at judo demonstrations.
As I just posted recently to another thread on the matter “I dont much care for Rand Paul, and primarily it IS because IMO he doesnt fall that far from the tree.
I lack trust in his word.”
Seems to me Rand is making excuses for Putin.
Sure some don't think we should invite Ukraine into NATO, and that's okay to make that argument, but why does he need to set up a strawman fallacy about pro NATO folks wanting "to sick Russia's nose in it."
Sure Ukraine has a history with the Soviet Union but that includes Stalin's starvation of 7 million Ukrainians followed by decades of communism.
Sure Ukraine was in the Soviet Sphere of Influence but of course what does a Sphere of Influence have to do with self determination and individual rights.
Rand Paul behooves Ukrainians not to forget their Soviet past never mind that most polls show that Ukrainians want to do just that.
Lets see, two partial term Senators whose biggest accomplishment is losing filibusters,
Did this guy just write an entire article whereby the vast majority of his criticism was directed at the guys father?
How is that rational, or fair?
Maybe because the other guy is using his father’s alleged relationship with President Reagan to attack the first guy?
But I sure do wish these guys, all of them...pundits included...would get on task.
Maybe Cruz will be the bigger man and break the cycle.
Save it for the debates.
eagan believed in and used Diplomacy when he held all the best cards and knew it- when he was ready to use whatever force was required. He did not view diplomacy as the art of caving gracefully.
The k.enyan views Diplomacy as the art of negotiated surrender to whichever enemy seems interested.