Which way on foreign policy for the GOP?
Of the 2016 GOP prospects, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is among the most vocal in advocating a robust flexing of American muscle — which has long been the dominant strain of thought within the GOP but one that has faced stiffening resistance from small-government proponents in the Tea Party era…
“Aside from [Sen.] Rand Paul — who has a clear vision and strategy, even if it’s one I disagree with — too often, the Republican Party is reactionary when it comes to foreign policy,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser and scholar on American diplomacy. “I think it’s instincts that matter. With the exception of Rand Paul, no one fits a specific mold. Ayatollah Khamenei and Kim Jong-un are going to have a much greater influence on which candidate becomes a neocon and which candidate becomes a realist than any adviser here in Washington.”…
“A lot of so-called libertarians who supported Ron Paul didn’t necessarily agree with his foreign policy views,” said Jamie Fly, a former official in George W. Bush’s administration and currently executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative. “It was actually Ron Paul’s foreign policy views that made it difficult to get beyond a certain level of support in the GOP primaries, so my guess is that if Rand Paul has presidential ambitions, he will have to be very careful about what sort of foreign policy views he advocates.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Who cares?
I’m seriously done with this Party. Not a threat, just a fact. Too bad, I was just getting to know it.
The Republican response to the calls of Bachmann and the others, to look into Huma Abedin’s links to the Muslim Brotherhood is evidence enough that the GOP is rotten to the core.
We’ll realize later that working through the GOP is hopeless and that they will grow to be more of a real impediment to patriots trying to bring this country back in line with what the Founders intended- so why not realize it sooner and let’s get to work.
Tea Party Now!
sartana on December 12, 2012 at 8:55 PM
Feel lucky, I lived with it from Reagan and Newt Gingrich’s two revolutions, and actually thought it found its way back into relevancy. Then Bush and company destroyed everything. Thought there was a new awakening with the Tea party, but the party chose instead to sideline conservatism and go with progressive, starting in the lame duck session after the 2010 elections.
astonerii on December 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM
John McCain and Marco Rubio were in the forefront on attacking Bachmann and in effect supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and Islam. Patton would kick them both into Kingdom Come.
VorDaj on December 12, 2012 at 9:06 PM
“Of the 2016 GOP prospects, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is among the most vocal in advocating a robust flexing of American muscle — which has long been the dominant strain of thought within the GOP but one that has faced stiffening resistance from small-government proponents in the Tea Party era.”
Marco Rubio is the anti-Reagan. In fact, Rubio is another Wilson and LBJ. He even tried to push Obama into doing more, and doing it faster, for the anti-American and anti-Western Civilization Libyan Shariah “rebels”. When it comes to foreign policy, Rubio is a dangerous chickenhawk idiot who must hate American troops with an absolute passion.
1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.
4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
- Ronald Reagan
VorDaj on December 12, 2012 at 9:06 PM
When we advocated Neoconservatism, we won. Just sayin’.
thebrokenrattle on December 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM
The GOP won, but did the people who vote for the GOP win? GOP voters are losing no matter who wins.
Neoconservatism won in the 80s as a reaction to 1) Iran 2) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Despite Bush 41 being a “realist”, the 1992 election could be seen as a reaction against that era. Same with the last activities of the last decade.
ninjapirate on December 12, 2012 at 9:42 PM
Looks like I’m voting for Rand Paul in the 2016 primary.
Punchenko on December 12, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Sorry, I wouldn’t call the Bush administration “a win”.
letoile du nord on December 12, 2012 at 10:16 PM
All I know is Rubio and Jeb Bush can’t be let anywhere near the GOP nomination in four years.
letoile du nord on December 12, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Pwned.
Take a look at all the stuff Obama’s using to destroy freedom that directly came from Bush’s term in office. Especially all the stuff about spying on Americans.
MelonCollie on December 12, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Bush ran on non-intervention and a humble foreign policy in 2000 and won. In ’04, the Iraq disaster hadn’t revealed itself completely. By ’06, Bush’s nation-building wars were proven to be utter failures, so of course the GOP nominated neoconservative extraordinaire BSC! McCain in ’08 for a war-weary-nation to vote against, and then nominated another neoconservative in ’12 (who sounded like he couldn’t start another war fast enough, and who so ill-advisedly thought painting Obama as some anti-war type would hurt him).
If that’s winning, I’d hate to see losing.
Rae on December 12, 2012 at 11:31 PM