Skip to comments.Michael Reagan: Rand Paul “gets” my dad
Posted on 03/12/2014 11:03:28 AM PDT by PaulCruz2016
In the midst of the war of words between Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) over who best represents Ronald Reagans foreign policy, the late presidents son Michael Reagan has weighed in on Twitter.
Rand Paul Gets it Reagan wrote Tuesday, Tweeting the link to Pauls Breitbart op-ed, ExclusiveRand Paul: Stop Warping Reagans Foreign Policy.
Reagan is an author, talk host and adopted son of our 40th president.
(Excerpt) Read more at rare.us ...
What do you expect. Its the media. They want to destroy conservatives leading up to 2016, knowing they’re about to get shellacked again this year
When Michael Reagan first saw Sara Palin speak at the PUBBIES
convention his exact quote was “ she is RONALD REAGAN in a skirt” now
that I could agree with I will NEVER forget the first time seeing her I had
goose bumps! I STILL can not believe how this GOOD woman has been
TRASHED by the MSM and DEMS!!!
But he does have the name, so this lifts Paul a notch.
I'm still struggling with Cruz's "Defend our values" nonsense.
Yep. Conservative pundits need to stop feeding the frenzy.
Your Dad was NOT a libertarian!!!!!!
Do you “get” that?!?!
What part of “Defend our values”, do you not understand?
Either you stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.
Michael Reagan has always done this, everybody gets the column from him that they want.
He even had a Romney article that the romneybots like.
Paul was wrong about Reagan, Reagan was incredibly aggressive, all over the world, things were really high speed under President Reagan and the build up was massive, from weapons systems in Europe and hundreds of thousands of us stationed there, to invasion, to global mercenary operations.
Reagan squeezed the Communists like no one we have ever seen.
Are you going to explain that childish crack, or are you one of these drive by trolls?
I like Michael Reagan and Rand Paul, but I believe Cruz would better because of Paul’s views on foreign policy, illegals and drugs.
I LOVE Sarah Palin. If she ran, I would support her above anyone else, but don’t believe she is running.
What part of Egypt do you not understand? Libya anyone?
The role of the US Government is to defend our INTEREST and promote our values.
We could even discuss Afghanistan in this context.
Bush had that "war" won in the first 90 days. Taliban disposed. Major training camps destroyed.
Yet we're there over a dozen years later "promoting democracy".
How would "our values" dictate our response to the Syrian civil war?
Should we have troops and material in the Central African Republic? Wouldn't that be a good place to defend our values?
Free Republic was founded with honest discussion of ideas and events. Historically, personal attacks are not tolerated.
“Let’s you and him fight”: the ol’ reliable meme.
But you aren’t struggling with Paul’s ‘politicians can’t comment on foreign policy if they haven’t served’ liberal nonsense?
While I haven't heard this comment from Paul, I have to say I think he's fatally flawed as a GOP candidate for several reasons, most notably his support for "permanent residency" for illegals.
I think the rest of us call that amnesty.
So you aren't going to explain that childish crack, and are confirming you are a drive by troll?
I paraphrased. Below is what he actually said.
“What we dont need right now is politicians who have never seen war talking tough for the sake of their political careers.”
First off, although he doesn’t name Cruz, we all know who he was talking about. Secondly, I didn’t take what Cruz said as ‘talking tough’. Finally, the ‘if you’ve never seen war, you can’t talk’ meme is a liberal, hollow tactic. And that’s where I think Paul fails. When push comes to shove, like his father, he will say liberal things like that, essentially using the left’s own retarded diction.
Another thing, there is nothing wrong with being a libertarian. I’m fairly libertarian myself. Don’t hide from it, don’t run from it, don’t try to outconservative someone. Just be honest. Tough thing to ask of a politician, but it works.
Here’s a hint:
The U.S. is capable of exercising it’s foreign policy initiatives with having troops on the ground.
First, the administration has to have a coherrant foreign policy.
That typically doesn’t include using the Muslim Brotherhood as an ally.
American “interests” are NOT best protected by sticking our head in the sand, waiting for problems to land on our shores.
Just propaganda. All the way. Here’s the context, which, BTW, elegantly portrays Cruz’ position in this ‘war of words’ into which Mr. Reagan has, it will turn out, unwisely, decided to foray:
From WABC News (NYC) three days ago, Quote from Ted Cruz:
Im a big fan of Rand Paul. He and I are good friends. But I dont agree with him on foreign policy, Cruz said. I think U.S. leadership is critical in the world. And I agree with him that we should be very reluctant to deploy military force abroad. But I think there is a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did The United States has a responsibility to defend our values.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Since the invasion of Georgia in the last 3 months of the Bush presidency there are several things we could have and should have done:
Energy independence should be our principal strategic goal. Surplus even. We need to be able to supply our allies at crunch time.
Increased military procurement. We have less than 300 warships (thankfully many are nearly new), WORN OUT aircraft and ground equipment.
Sane fiscal discipline. It takes money to be a credible deterrent to those who lust after territory and people.
Get the hell out of Afghanistan. Give it to anybody who wants it as long as it doesn't host terror camps.
We should have STAYED in Iraq. Our INTERESTS there are to ensure the free flow of oil onto the world market and to ensure it doesn't become a client state to Iran.
Squeeze Iran, not lift sanctions. Follow with air strikes against both the civilian and military leadership. If necessary, roll the tanks. Iran cannot, must not become a nuclear armed state.
Sell our allies any weapon they want to buy and give them surplus from our replenishment procurement.
Yeah, Michael stepped in it, but he kind of makes his living having to fight for attention, doesn’t he?
I know that many years ago he was a local talk show host, and I quit listening when it became obvious that he just talks and plays a role, he isn’t particularly conservative although that is where he chose to operate from, and most importantly, he isn’t honest, he will massage truth to make points, or out of mere indifference.
Michael Reagan isn’t a guy that you want to quote, without double checking the information.
I would hope both would agree having someone in the White House promising more “flexibility” to the Soviets, I mean Russians, certainly does not deter aggression. If you are a dictator hoping to invade your neighbor, or a revolutionary wanting regime change, now is a pretty good time to make your move - our leader may even help you.
If I had to choose between Cruz and Paul, I would prefer Ted Cruz. I simply trust him more not to compromise from his core values, and make the right decision in an emergency.
Having said that, I would clearly prefer Paul over the majority of Senators and Representatives in DC, including the other Senator from Texas. A chicken fried steak would have done a better job than him.
In other words, do exactly the opposite of what Obama has done.
You’re right. my guess is the RNC will drag out anyone looking for attention and also unwise enough not to realize what’s about to go on, here, to jump in and trash Cruz, who, way above Reidbamalosi, is their biggest nightmare, and out of nowhere like a fast horse (a white one).
Oh. Pretty sure Cruz was the one being quoted. Out of context.
What is the contrast between Paul’s projection and defense of American values and “Cruz’s “Defend our values” nonsense”?
Exactly, there was nothing wrong with what Cruz said. There is a distinction between their 2 positions, and IMHO Cruz was accurate.
This does seem like propaganda, and Paul foolishly has been lead by the nose.
At this point I'm not sure and I want to know more from both.
But when I hear "defend our values" it reminds me of the actions of Democrats in the foreign arena...Kosovo...Egypt...Libya...Syria.
Maybe that's not what Cruz meant. I hope it was not as he seems to be the best we have right now, articulate, centered on principal. Right on every issue he cares to elaborate on.
I just want him to elaborate on this one.
Pshaw! No sale:
Cruz said. I think U.S. leadership is critical in the world. And I agree with him that we should be very reluctant to deploy military force abroad. But I think there is a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did The United States has a responsibility to defend our values.
The obvious answer is in your post 21. OUR values are being attacked with this administration.
Sorry, I meant post 24.
I just want to know what that means to Ted Cruz.
I've already eliminated Paul from my potential primary choices (though I would vote for him over ANY Democrat). Therefore I'm far less interested in what Paul says than what Cruz says.
I don't want us to be killing, dying and spending to bring democracy to a bunch of goat herders who don't like us anyway...or worse, destroying good allies like what we once had in Egypt.
Paul or Cruz, or any combination of both. That’s a strong ticket.
The kindest thing you can say about Michael is the he is not Ronnie.
We have not made war since Harry dropped the Big One, we have only engaged in police actions where the enemy always has a King's X line to hide behind.
Wars can only truly end with unconditional surrender by one side or the other.
Except that you jumped on the thread to post a conclusion on Ted Cruz, that his wanting to defend our values is "nonsense" or else that our values are "Nonsense", or both.
That would be the Democrats that did that, not Cruz. Same for Iran, good old Jimmuh.
Michael Reagan does best when he keeps his mouth shut closed.
On most issues related to foreign policy, Rand Paul is like his father, dangerous and naive.
It isn’t that he is evil or a liberal or anything, but without the name, he would not have a career in radio, he would not be a successful pundit, and his views would not be seen as original, meaningful, or of interest.
He is just a guy who is in a field that he doesn’t belong in, living a life that doesn’t fit him, because of his family connection to a great man.
Same goes for Kosovo.
Still, they did so under the pretension that they were defending our values.
I'd like to see these talk a lot more about defending our hard, critical INTERESTS.
If they are going to speak of defending our values then they need to say what those values are, how they would defend them and how that relates to our interests.
For instance, one could easily make the case that defending our values of open and free elections and constitutional democracy would dictate that we were right to depose Mubarak in Egypt. He was a dictator that did not tolerate dissent.
But it was in our best INTERESTS to support him. Same with the Serbs.
I want to know how the GOP primary candidates see that mix. For some reason none want to get specific on this life, and death matter.
It's up to all of us as the primaries approach, or the pre-primaries we're in now, to insist they address the mix.
At least in the abstract.
I posted it twice.
You’re not selling your deal here. Continuing your original out of context post is quite reminiscent of taking care of four year olds who want to manipulate attention over some unrelated cause. And it truly annoys people who can see it for what it is
And it is a continued ad hominem attack against Ted Cruz
I speak for many when I say that those who, like Michael Reagan, Rand Paul and others who attack Cruz and steadfastly quote him out of context with some vague chicken hearted attempt to demoralize his supporters will only succeed in placing themselves into a permanent category of paid political hacks with no wisdom and foresight and out of his camp forever as untrustworthy followers or worse enemies and detractors
There is no true reason to detract from Cruz. Anyone who tries ends up stepping in it terribly before quitting
I also don’t understand
I’m still struggling with Cruz’s “Defend our values” nonsense.
Gope, is for big amnesty not the 1.5 million small amnesty Reagan got hoodwinked into by the lying Democrats.
Gope candidates like Christie are against 2nd amendment and for abortions. Christie’s state has the highest property tax and high state taxes.
Actually Reagan didn’t get us involved in big wars, and he won the cold war, thru strength and letting people know we would not be pushed around.
Paul endorsed McConnell who wants to bury the Tea Party.
Paul was backed by the Tea Party, Nice payback for their endorsement Rand.
Also, Rand is for gradual amnesty and make no mistake about it.
Cruz is direct, isn’t backing GOPe weaklings like McConnell.
I like Ted
Your accusation of me undertaking an ad hominem attack on Cruz is hyperbolic, at best.
I like Ted Cruz and believe him to be the best of the potential candidates for 2016, but unlike you I am not blind to politicians who say things that are not clear.
But it appears you have all the clarity you need when it comes to him. That's OK, everyone gets to pick a horse whenever they want to.
What kool aid is that, exactly? That sounds like a personal attack on me, but I know your very against that. Alert the moderator
You have not yet cited Ted Cruz in context. You cannot do so and maintain that he is unclear
You’re digging deeper. It will only get worse
"Defend our values" is a potential recipe for getting trapped in all sorts of local quagmires where US interests are not at stake.
But you provided the full statement twice. I didn't think a 3rd was warranted.
I'd also like to know what the hell Paul means when he says that our allies need to do more to defend themselves.
These platitudes have meaning in the speakers mind and when it comes to issues of war and peace I would like to know what they mean when they say such things.
I'm certain there are Cruz operatives, Paul operatives, Clinton operatives etc. on this board and perhaps, just maybe, a Cruz operative will see this thread and suggest clarity to their boss.
Twice or not, you still haven’t cited the ststement yourself. I certainly won’t cite it again
Ill know where you’re coming from a a later date when the anti Cruz faction comes out as they/ you all do every chanc
There in lies the rub.
On this forum it appears to be...Libertarianism/Humanism vs Conservationism/Christianity. I choose the latter.
I don't see any other way to pair these philosophies though some may argue the case for a Conservative Humanist but I think a true marriage of the two would be extremely rare and highly vulnerable to divorce.
Ok. But Cruz did say what the values were
This is just a verbal trap
But it’s easy. Read the statement in context. If that doesn’t state the values then there is no one who can state values
This is simply propaganda and poorly executed
Anti Cruz. It’s all over every Cruz thread. They don’t want what they ask for/demand. They want demoralization
It’s easy. Just look at Cruz’ original statement and forget convincing the antis they’re gone
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.