Rubio vs. Paul: The conservative debate over foreign policy
Mr. Rubio is challenging the strain of isolationism emanating from some grass-roots conservatives and building a reputation as an internationalist willing to deploy American power – he has advocated greater American support for the anti-Assad forces in Syria, criticized President Obama for not sustaining a sufficient American commitment in Libya and suggested that the only way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might be military action. …
Mr. Paul eschews the isolationist label attached to him by his association with his father, former Representative Ron Paul of Texas, whose antiwar, inward-turning stances defined his national reputation. But Senator Paul nonetheless reflects the deep suspicion about global entanglements evident among libertarians and some Tea Party adherents, and in some ways is a perfect foil for Mr. Rubio’s efforts to position himself as a moderate, mainstream leader of a new generation of Republican leaders on foreign policy. …
Both are grappling with how to reconcile the aggressiveness of the neoconservatives, the fervor of the evangelicals, the warnings of overextension by fiscal conservatives and the efforts by traditional Republican “realists” to impose a more pragmatic, less ideological lens onto the party’s approach. And with seats on the Foreign Relations Committee alongside advocates of assertive American foreign policy like Senator John McCain of Arizona, they have a platform to air their views, as they did this week in hearings on the security failures that led to the deaths of Americans at the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, and on the nomination of Senator John Kerry to be secretary of state.
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
firzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
BoxHead1 on January 26, 2013 at 9:05 PM
Meh. Rand isn’t the isolationist of his father. And I think just about everyone is tired of all these wars.
Look, Obama just finished a war in Libya (how’d that turn out?) only to get into another an Mali. There’s room on the right for someone to say when enough is enough.
Nessuno on January 26, 2013 at 9:06 PM
We need to get our house in order. I like Rand for now.
BoxHead1 on January 26, 2013 at 9:09 PM
Rubio for the most part sides with the Establishment on foreign policy….. Yet more proof he isn’t who people think he is
journeymike on January 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM
So Rubio is of the opinion that Americaland needs to spend more treasure and blood wrecking a third-world sh~thole, only to spend 10 years wasting treasure and blood not rebuilding it?
BUSH NEO-PALEO-WARIO-CONS 4 RUBIO~~~~
Jeddite on January 26, 2013 at 9:16 PM
I’m much more inclined to Paul’s position, than I am to Rubio’s, if for no other reason than to realize it’s absurd to think we can “control” situations in manner that we can achieve outcomes we desire or are worth our blood and treasure.
And from what I’ve seen since both have entered the Senate, I much prefer Paul’s libertarian/conservative principles tempered by pragmatism, than Rubio’s pragmatism tempered by conservative/libertarian principles.
Dusty on January 26, 2013 at 9:27 PM
Ron attracted a vibrant youth following in part because of his non-interventionist views. Rand can hold onto those voters who have not interest in going to war to police the world, spread “democracy” (that turns into anything but), etc. America is sick of the neocons. I for one hope Rubio doubles down, because it will present a stark choice for independents, who will go with Rand.
Firefly_76 on January 26, 2013 at 9:28 PM
Always remember, Rubio voted for higher taxes…
Panther on January 26, 2013 at 9:30 PM
As much as I dislike Paul’s occasional obvious grandstanding, I trust him MUCH more than I do Rubio.
ddrintn on January 26, 2013 at 9:38 PM
And internet censorship, and amnesty. He is not a conservative.
Armin Tamzarian on January 26, 2013 at 9:42 PM
The more I learn about Rubio the less I like him. The more I learn about Paul the more I like him.
single stack on January 26, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Wario? Like the anti-villain from the Mario games?
thebrokenrattle on January 26, 2013 at 9:47 PM
+100
Panther on January 26, 2013 at 9:48 PM
Jeez, an incipient Charlie Crist.
Dusty on January 26, 2013 at 10:19 PM
As of now I favor Paul over Rubio. Paul’s blunt dismissal of Clinton as the incompetent she is was very impressive.
Basilsbest on January 26, 2013 at 10:30 PM
While other people freak over immigration in relation to Rubio, this is what freaks me out about Rubio. I am all for military intervention and bombing our enemies into the stone age, but trying to nation build the Islamic world is madness. It is stupid from a strategic point of view and from a financial point of view. Anyone who thinks we should get involved in Syria is insane. Also, as much as I like his father, Donald Kagan, his son is neoconservative dimwit. He is like a super villain too…he just keeps coming back to infect another hopeful Republican presidential nominee.
Can we find a conservative who is willing to the use the U.S. military to protect American interest and help our best allies, but at the same time not become obsessed with the notion that we must do all good things on this earth. Last but not least the Islamic world is a bunch of backward barbarians. They are only a threat to U.S. national security if they one get an atomic bomb or we let them into the country. Stop wasting lives, money and time on them unless we have to punish (not save them) them for something.
China is the possible threat of the 21st century. They actually have a real military and real ambition to become something more than a 7th century hell hole. They might actually do some real damage to the U.S. if we don’t watch out. Any military strategy that takes our eyes off China is idiotic and if Reagan was around he would agree. Reagan, unlike Neoconservatives, had one major foreign policy objective: Contain and beat the Soviet Union. It was NOT march around the world saving everyone from themselves.
William Eaton on January 26, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Don’t forget his NDAA vote.
RedRobin145 on January 26, 2013 at 10:47 PM
Bushio 3.0.
profitsbeard on January 26, 2013 at 11:30 PM
We face a number of foreign threats.
However the greatest threats we face are domestic:
- Our national debt and the unsustainable fiscal path that we are presently on.
The Federal Government’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook
Spring 2012 Update
http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589835.pdf
Financial Audit: U.S. Government’s Fiscal Years 2012 and 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651357.pdf
If we do not make the needed choices now, within the very near term we will not have any meaningful foreign policy because the Federal Government will have collapsed due to the interest on the national debt.
- The foreign policy of the Obama administration
The Obama administration continues to follow a set of policy choices that will lead to more Americans being killed:
What Difference Does It Make that Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Care Why Terrorists Killed Americans in Libya?
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2013/01/25/what-difference-does-it-make-that-hillary-clinton-doesnt-care-why-terrorists-killed-american-officials-in-libya/
On a broader scale:
The Obama Doctrine: Is he an Imperialist With a Little Foot, or Just an Old-Fashioned Appeaser?
http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2013/01/25/the-obama-doctrine/?singlepage=true
john.frank on January 27, 2013 at 1:54 AM
And he joined the piling on against Michelle Bachman who simply asked if Hillary’s girlfriend had been properly vetted over her ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
As for Rand Paul(or Ron either for that matter) being an isolationist, it doesn’t really matter at this point. Rand and Rubio are both for amnesty. If no one is willing to defend this country against the greatest threat it faces(the invasion from the south), what’s the point of being aggressive abroad? May as well ignore those threats too.
xblade on January 27, 2013 at 2:17 AM
And it turns out that in the mean time the matter of their disagreement has played out and in now hindsight we know that Michelle Bachmann was indeed correct and Marco Rubio and McCain were disastrously wrong.
For more info:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338122/mccain-s-mideast-blunders-andrew-c-mccarthy?pg=1
Rubio was even more bombastic supporter of arming the Libyan Jihadists than McCain.
FloatingRock on January 27, 2013 at 3:06 AM
I like Rubio for recognizing that the only way to stop Iran from getting the bomb is military action. With respect to Syria, however, there are no heroes there. You have an oppressive dictator in Assad who’s in charge, and the rebels are by-and-large al Qaeda sympathizers. To the extent that we intervene at all there, it should be to ensure a continuing stalemate. Let our enemies focus on (and kill) each other.
Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2013 at 7:39 AM