We were arming their allies who in return armed ISIS. We allied ourselves with those who considered themselves allied and/or built coalitions with ISIS. ISIS reaped the benefits just as much as our "allies" in Syria. And given ISIS' advancement within the last year, I'd say ISIS has taken advantage of the rewards we inadvertently gave them. Many said this would happen, the loudest voice being Rand Paul. Not sure how that sounds as inexperienced or naive.

 

And yes, Hillary Clinton is a war hawk. She has virtually the same positions as you when it comes to the Middle East.

You said that those who wanted to intervene in Syria allied themselves with ISIS and that is simply untrue. Your inability to admit as much and the fact that you believe Clinton's tough talk on defense, despite Bill Clinton's anemic foreign policy and her own weak, disengaged performance as Secretary of State illustrates one of the problems facing Ron Paul's, and now Rand Paul's campaign. Branding everybody else war mongers is not a national security platform.

A year ago it was that he was too extreme and couldn't win the general. Now he's going too far to the left.

 

He's a principled politician who holds his ground on key policy issues. Some policies are attractive to both progressives and hardcore limited government conservatives. NSA Spying and interventionist policies are some of them.

 

Your post shows why he will do just fine in both, should he win the primary.

It is his desire to appeal to progressives that makes him a long shot to win the GOP nomination. He has not given conservatives any good reason to support him over more conservative likely candidates like Rick Perry or Ted Cruz.

 

Rand certainly appeals to me more than Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, but there are no circumstances that I can foresee in which I would vote for another Bush or a liberal like Christie.

You cannot be a small government minded individual and argue for more war, more intervention abroad. The two are incompatible.

 

Ronald Reagan was ridiculed by the "conservatives" of his time for showing restraint. He was the anaomly.

 

Restraint does not equal pacifism.

Who argued for more war? Not me. You can be for a strong military capable of deterring attacks on U.S. interests and also support a smaller federal government and a country in which rights that the U.S. Constitution reserved for states are restored to the states.

 

Conservatives was not ridiculed by most conservatives of his time. He was ridiculed by liberals like John Kerry who believed that if the U.S. reduced its nuclear weapons arsenal, then the Soviets would do the same. He was also opposed within his won administration by those who did not believe that dramatically increasing spending on national defense and a missile defense program would damage the Soviets' military capability.

 

There were Republicans during Reagan's time who made the same kind of political isolationist arguments that you are making, but Reagan wisely ignored them. Reagan was right and even though Democrats of the time ridicules missile defense as "Star Wars" the Soviet Union took the proposal seriously and its economy was unable to allow it to match the U.S. military might.

While I don't agree with everything in the column linked below, the author does draw some very good parallels between Rand Paul's positions on national security and those of Obama. I don't think that Rand would be guilty of Obama's empty rhetoric and proclamation of imaginary red lines, but the absence of a credible threat of force, which is necessary for effective diplomacy would be just as lacking. At least that is my interpretation of the foreign policy statements that Sen. Paul has been making on the campaign trail.

 

Like it or not, perception is reality in politics, and as the presidential campaign heats up, Rand Paul's political adversaries will have him stuck between defending much of Obama's foreign policy and trying to portray himself as the second coming of Ronald Reagan, and that is a silly position to find oneself and it is a position that his father, Congressman Ron Paul, found himself.

 

THE OBAMA-LITE SIDE OF RAND PAUL

Remaking the GOP as a left-leaning party?

While I don't agree with everything in the column linked below, the author does draw some very good parallels between Rand Paul's positions on national security and those of Obama. I don't think that Rand would be guilty of Obama's empty rhetoric and proclamation of imaginary red lines, but the absence of a credible threat of force, which is necessary for effective diplomacy would be just as lacking. At least that is my interpretation of the foreign policy statements that Sen. Paul has been making on the campaign trail.

 

Like it or not, perception is reality in politics, and as the presidential campaign heats up, Rand Paul's political adversaries will have him stuck between defending much of Obama's foreign policy and trying to portray himself as the second coming of Ronald Reagan, and that is a silly position to find oneself and it is a position that his father, Congressman Ron Paul, found himself.

 

 

The Republican party is moving in the direction of Rand Paul when it comes to war and showing restraint. The McCains and Grahams are a dying breed in the party. Including positions like an interventionist foreign policy.

 

Do you feel as Rand is being Obama-lite when it comes to civil liberties? After all, Obama campaigned on privacy issues, against the NSA spying, Patriot Act, NDAA etc.

 

Rand Paul seems to have become a champion on these issues.

 

Why can't a restrained foreign policy work on a war-weary nation?

The Republican party is moving in the direction of Rand Paul when it comes to war and showing restraint. The McCains and Grahams are a dying breed in the party. Including positions like an interventionist foreign policy.

 

Do you feel as Rand is being Obama-lite when it comes to civil liberties? After all, Obama campaigned on privacy issues, against the NSA spying, Patriot Act, NDAA etc.

 

Rand Paul seems to have become a champion on these issues.

 

Why can't a restrained foreign policy work on a war-weary nation?

Obama is in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in two separate wars. Is that not the kind of "restraint" that Rand Paul wants? Obama mostly runs his mouth with little or no follow through (speaking loudly with a small stick), but countries around the world recognize that the U.S. is not going to engage in any major military action over the next two years.

 

All we have to base the Hillary Clinton is a "war hawk" narrative are her own words as she tries to appeal to moderate Republicans and Democrats. Nothing in the Clintons' past actions indicate that she is any more of a war hawk than Rand Paul or Obama. She is just trying to disown her own weak record of serial failures as Obama's Sec. of State.

 

I normally do not pay much attention to candidates' words when they have a record, but some of Rand's words are troubling to me.

 

I hope that this is the last time that I need to repeat that many of Rand Paul's positions are very appealing to me, and you mentioned some of them. I am not anti-Rand Paul, I am just not convinced that he is presidential material. There have been many great statesmen in American history who either never ran or ran unsuccessfully for president. This country needs great statesmen who stick to their principles but they do not all need to be in the White House.

 

Rand's supporters are beginning to remind me of the "Paulistas" that seem to take personal offense when anybody did not agree with all of his positions and stuffed the ballot box of every online poll.

 

For the record, I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul. I thought the way that several other candidates, particularly John McCain, treated him during the 2008 Republican presidential debates was shameful. I hate to admit that I held my nose and voted for McCain, but I am tired of settling for the lesser of two evils. When McCain is the best that the Republican Party has to offer, this nation is in serious trouble - and the past 5 years have proven that to be true.

From yesterday's Washington Examiner...

 

Is Rand Paul's moment already over?

 

Polls are showing Republicans, including Tea Partiers, moving away from isolationism toward a more pragmatic position on foreign policy.

 

Most of the coverage from today's Americans for Prosperity’s Defending the Dream summit in Dallas was focused on Ted Cruz's performance.