PDA

View Full Version : Tea Party-Backed Candidates Diverge on Foreign Policy




MRoCkEd
10-21-2010, 06:54 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/10/21/tea_party-backed_candidates_diverge_on_foreign_policy_107669 .html

I hadn't heard anything from Raese yet:


Raese is a strong advocate for missile defense and for easing the rules of engagement for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but when it comes to his broader philosophy, he is decidedly noninterventionist.

"If you study Great Britain, which was one of the greatest countries in the world for a long time, they lost most of their monetary-most of their superpower-because they kept chasing things throughout the world," Raese said. "I'm more of a Ronald Reagan Republican than I am a Bush Republican to be up front with you. I think we have to take care of our nation, and we have to make our nation strong, and you build that nation from within."

The article also covers Angle, Rubio, Paul, Buck, and Miller. They left out Mike Lee, who has also questioned our foreign policy.

malkusm
10-21-2010, 06:59 AM
Interesting. Do we like Raese's other positions? Looks like RCP rates the race as a toss-up....it would be good to have another somewhat non-interventionist Republican win!

MRoCkEd
10-21-2010, 07:03 AM
Interesting. Do we like Raese's other positions? Looks like RCP rates the race as a toss-up....it would be good to have another somewhat non-interventionist Republican win!
Rasmussen had Raese up 7 the other day. He's got a real good shot.

I don't know much about his positions, but he recently said we should "absolutely" abolish the minimum wage, which got some people upset.

Stary Hickory
10-21-2010, 07:56 AM
He seems a lot better than most. Hs foreign policy seems decent. Understanding that military operations and wars impoverish and destroy is a major step.

malkusm
10-21-2010, 07:57 AM
Rasmussen had Raese up 7 the other day. He's got a real good shot.

I don't know much about his positions, but he recently said we should "absolutely" abolish the minimum wage, which got some people upset.

Interesting. Maybe, when I get around to updating that candidate thread, I'll add Raese. :)

Brett85
10-21-2010, 09:27 AM
Rasmussen had Raese up 7 the other day. He's got a real good shot.

I don't know much about his positions, but he recently said we should "absolutely" abolish the minimum wage, which got some people upset.

He also said he would abolish the Department of Education and I believe the Department of Energy.

Epic
10-21-2010, 09:40 AM
Raese is a total badass - he's running on abolishing the minimum wage - something that most economists agree would be a good thing, but the general public is too stupid to understand.

Brett85
10-21-2010, 09:42 AM
Raese is a total badass - he's running on abolishing the minimum wage - something that most economists agree would be a good thing, but the general public is too stupid to understand.

Apparently it hasn't hurt him too much since he's still ahead by 7 in the most recent poll. Sometimes people want to vote for a candidate who's honest.

Fozz
10-21-2010, 10:24 AM
Abolishing minimum wage should help the unemployed in America's poorest state.

But Raese is not a non-interventionist, he is a Reagan Republican. There is a lot of middle ground between non-interventionist and neocon, and to be honest, strict non-interventionism is not a good idea.

Kotin
10-21-2010, 10:26 AM
Abolishing minimum wage should help the unemployed in America's poorest state.

But Raese is not a non-interventionist, he is a Reagan Republican. There is a lot of middle ground between non-interventionist and neocon, and to be honest, strict non-interventionism is not a good idea.


meaning what?

Brett85
10-21-2010, 10:26 AM
There is a lot of middle ground between non-interventionist and neocon, and to be honest, strict non-interventionism is not a good idea.

Those are fighting words on this forum. Lol.

Fozz
10-21-2010, 10:29 AM
Those are fighting words on this forum. Lol.

Rand Paul is not a strict non-interventionist either. The US cannot immediately withdraw from the rest of the world, and pull out of the UN, without adverse consequences.

LibertyEagle
10-21-2010, 10:31 AM
Rand Paul is not a strict non-interventionist either. The US cannot immediately withdraw from the rest of the world, and pull out of the UN, without adverse consequences.

Who said we should IMMEDIATELY pull our troops from everywhere around the world? Because I haven't seen anyone saying that.

By the way, Ronald Reagan was not a lover of the UN, either. And yes, we should get the hell out of that traitorous, POS, organization and kick it the hell out of the U.S.

Fozz
10-21-2010, 10:33 AM
Who said we should IMMEDIATELY pull our troops from everywhere around the world? Because I haven't seen anyone saying that.

I believe Ron Paul said it is the first thing he would do to cut spending. And he has sponsored bills to pull us out of the UN. The UN may be wrong in principle, but to pull out now would be a very bad move.

Brett85
10-21-2010, 10:33 AM
Rand Paul is not a strict non-interventionist either. The US cannot immediately withdraw from the rest of the world, and pull out of the UN, without adverse consequences.

I agree that we can't immediately do it. But we should phase out our foreign military bases over time, and we should eventually get to the point where we don't have any foreign military bases. We should only have troops overseas when we're fighting in a declared war with a clear objective.

Fozz
10-21-2010, 10:36 AM
I agree that we can't immediately do it. But we should phase out our foreign military bases over time, and we should eventually get to the point where we don't have any foreign military bases. We should only have troops overseas when we're fighting in a declared war with a clear objective.

Some of our bases prevent conflicts from happening (like the ones in Japan and South Korea). Pulling out would raise tensions between Japan and China, who are historical rivals who still hate each other. Pulling out of South Korea would be dangerous because North Korea has nukes, and I think China is on their side. We may not like it, but leaving a vacuum would give the opportunity for some countries to act aggressively.

There are probably other places where we should pull out.

MRoCkEd
10-21-2010, 10:39 AM
The point is, there will be a handful of GOP candidates at least willing to question the current foreign policy status quo.

Brett85
10-21-2010, 10:40 AM
Some of our bases prevent conflicts from happening (like the ones in Japan and South Korea). Pulling out would raise tensions between Japan and China, who are historical rivals who still hate each other. Pulling out of South Korea would be dangerous because North Korea has nukes, and I think China is on their side. We may not like it, but leaving a vacuum would give the opportunity for some countries to act aggressively.

There are probably other places where we should pull out.

It all comes down to whether the United States has a responsibility to protect the entire world and keep the world safe, or if our objective should simply be to keep our own country safe. I believe that our objective should be to provide for the national defense of our own country and not to "defend the world." Also, I don't believe that our foreign military bases make the world more safe. A lot of our bases have actually been targets for attacks, creating more violence than there would have been had we not had those bases in place.

LibertyEagle
10-21-2010, 10:41 AM
I believe Ron Paul said it is the first thing he would do to cut spending.

Cutting does not equal ENDING. And the other thing you are not keeping in mind is that he also talked about the large amount of money that had already been approved and that was in the pipeline, so to speak.


And he has sponsored bills to pull us out of the UN.

Yes, I know. :)


The UN may be wrong in principle, but to pull out now would be a very bad move.

Why so? What positive things do you believe the UN has done? What do you believe we have gained from being a part of it and having it in our country?

I'm all for getting out of it and they can take the IMF, World Bank, Agenda 21, etc. with them.

It doesn't however mean that we stop talking to nations around the world. Quite the contrary.

LibertyEagle
10-21-2010, 10:46 AM
Some of our bases prevent conflicts from happening (like the ones in Japan and South Korea). Pulling out would raise tensions between Japan and China, who are historical rivals who still hate each other. Pulling out of South Korea would be dangerous because North Korea has nukes, and I think China is on their side. We may not like it, but leaving a vacuum would give the opportunity for some countries to act aggressively.

There are probably other places where we should pull out.

It's time these countries stepped up and learned to protect themselves. For example, I agree that we shouldn't pull out of South Korea immediately. There has to be a transition period.

Why is it our job to police the world? We have become the world's biggest busybody. It costs us a lot of money and it creates a lot of enemies for our country. Our military should be used to defend our own country. Not be the policeman of the world and certainly not be the UN's henchmen.

wormyguy
10-21-2010, 10:46 AM
States in which GOP candidates have taken non-interventionist (even slightly) positions on foreign policy:

Alaska (Joe Miller)
Colorado (Ken Buck)
Kentucky (Rand Paul)
Maryland (Eric Wargotz)
New York - Special (Joe DioGuardi)
Oklahoma (Tom Coburn - incumbent)
Utah (Mike Lee)
Vermont (Len Britton)
West Virginia (John Raese)

States where I suspect the GOP candidates might be closet non-interventionists, given their other positions:

Nevada (Sharron Angle)
Oregon (Jim Huffman)

I think we did good this year.

Sola_Fide
10-21-2010, 10:47 AM
Why can't we come home quickly? We invaded their land quickly, right?

Brett85
10-21-2010, 10:49 AM
States in which GOP candidates have taken non-interventionist (even slightly) positions on foreign policy:

Alaska (Joe Miller)
Colorado (Ken Buck)
Kentucky (Rand Paul)
Maryland (Eric Wargotz)
New York - Special (Joe DioGuardi)
Oklahoma (Tom Coburn - incumbent)
Utah (Mike Lee)
Vermont (Len Britton)
West Virginia (John Raese)

States where I suspect the GOP candidates might be closet non-interventionists, given their other positions:

Nevada (Sharron Angle)
Oregon (Jim Huffman)

I think we did good this year.

The work isn't done yet. We still need to get as many of those people elected as possible.

LibertyEagle
10-21-2010, 10:51 AM
Why can't we come home quickly? We invaded their land quickly, right?

I think he's talking about those places where we have been for a very long time. In some of those cases, we have been those countries' national defense. Some have little to none of their own. We made them dependent on us, so in my opinion, we have to allow a transition period for them to train their own people to assume that role.

Fozz
10-21-2010, 10:52 AM
It all comes down to whether the United States has a responsibility to protect the entire world and keep the world safe, or if our objective should simply be to keep our own country safe. I believe that our objective should be to provide for the national defense of our own country and not to "defend the world." Also, I don't believe that our foreign military bases make the world more safe. A lot of our bases have actually been targets for attacks, creating more violence than there would have been had we not had those bases in place.

I think we should keep the world safe, because otherwise if a major conflict arises, chances are that we could get pulled into it, and it would be much more costly than spending 4% of our GDP on defense. And if there is ever a nuclear war, it could do great damage to the entire world, not just to the places that get nuked, but also to the environment and atmosphere. The last thing that I want is another World War.

In some parts of the world, such as the Middle East, military bases are indeed bad for stability, and we should always be wary of blowback. But it doesn't mean that we should risk leaving a vacuum in other parts of the world, and allow rising powers to fill the void.

Fozz
10-21-2010, 10:58 AM
Why so? What positive things do you believe the UN has done? What do you believe we have gained from being a part of it and having it in our country?

I'm all for getting out of it and they can take the IMF, World Bank, Agenda 21, etc. with them.

It doesn't however mean that we stop talking to nations around the world. Quite the contrary.

The UN is not perfect and it should be reformed so it does not interfere with the sovereignty of other countries. But to simply pull out would be a rash move.

dannno
10-21-2010, 11:36 AM
I can't think of a better time to drop out of the UN, personally.. except for maybe yesterday.. and the day before that... and the day before that.... and the day before that.... and the day before that.... and the day before that.... and the day before that.... and the day before that.... and the day before that.... and the day before that.... and the day before that.... and the day before that.... and the day before that....

Brett85
10-21-2010, 12:01 PM
I think we should keep the world safe, because otherwise if a major conflict arises, chances are that we could get pulled into it, and it would be much more costly than spending 4% of our GDP on defense. And if there is ever a nuclear war, it could do great damage to the entire world, not just to the places that get nuked, but also to the environment and atmosphere. The last thing that I want is another World War.

In some parts of the world, such as the Middle East, military bases are indeed bad for stability, and we should always be wary of blowback. But it doesn't mean that we should risk leaving a vacuum in other parts of the world, and allow rising powers to fill the void.

Well we'll agree to disagree. But it's funny that I'm regularly called a "statist" and an "authoritarian" on these forums, and here I am taking a much more libertarian view than somebody else.

Fozz
10-21-2010, 12:15 PM
Well we'll agree to disagree. But it's funny that I'm regularly called a "statist" and an "authoritarian" on these forums, and here I am taking a much more libertarian view than somebody else.

Oh no, I hope nobody here calls me a neocon :eek:

1000-points-of-fright
10-21-2010, 01:36 PM
Pulling out of South Korea would be dangerous because North Korea has nukes, and I think China is on their side.

Explain how 30,000 troops can stop a nuclear missile. Form a human pyramid and catch it while it's in the air?

Imperial
10-21-2010, 01:40 PM
Apparently it hasn't hurt him too much since he's still ahead by 7 in the most recent poll. Sometimes people want to vote for a candidate who's honest.

Rasmussen is the only polster i can think of that still pegs him to a lead. Which isn't the best of signs.

acptulsa
10-21-2010, 01:44 PM
Why can't we come home quickly? We invaded their land quickly, right?

Two rash wrongs don't make a right.

Too bad we weren't quicker still. Then when we yanked the rug out from under them, they might have actually remained on their feet. As it stands, however, I don't have a problem with helping them rebuild what we gratuitously destroyed for the benefit of CNN ratings--just as long as we don't hang around until we can 'get them to vote right'--and refuse to go before we do.

Just because Cheney's a psycho and Dubya's an idiot doesn't mean everything we do in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan needs to be psychotic and idiotic.

Sola_Fide
10-21-2010, 01:51 PM
They don't want us there though.

We would want China to leave as quickly as they came in if they invaded us 70 years ago and carried out asassinations and terror campaigns on us.

Brett85
10-21-2010, 02:19 PM
Rasmussen is the only polster i can think of that still pegs him to a lead. Which isn't the best of signs.

They're the only pollster who's even polled the race recently. And you believe a week old CNN poll and a Democrat poll over Rasmussen? Rasmussen has consistently been the most consistent polling organization out there. Only liberals don't like Rasmussen.

Daamien
10-21-2010, 02:28 PM
You can't be truly for limited government while simultaneously supporting massive military expenditures on overseas intervention.

Imperial
10-21-2010, 02:37 PM
They're the only pollster who's even polled the race recently. And you believe a week old CNN poll and a Democrat poll over Rasmussen? Rasmussen has consistently been the most consistent polling organization out there. Only liberals don't like Rasmussen.

I didn't say I believe one over the other.

Every pollster's turnout model is a little bit different this cycle. Quinnipiac and PPP been all over the map, SUSA has been even more Republican than Ras, etc. It is naive to trust just one pollster and hope their model is right. If you see trends in several polls, that tells you alot more.

Fozz
10-21-2010, 06:16 PM
You can't be truly for limited government while simultaneously supporting massive military expenditures on overseas intervention.

We need to make cuts, but we don't need isolationism.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-21-2010, 08:30 PM
Ronald Reagan was not a non-interventionist so it seems to me they are attributing a label that doesn't describe Rease. Now, if he said he was a 30's Taft Republican, then sure I would agree with the labeling, but this is just outright trash and I am surprised many here actually believe it.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-21-2010, 08:33 PM
We need to make cuts, but we don't need isolationism.

The only isolationists are the Buchananites. Cobdenites (Free-Marketeers, Free-Traders, Non-interventionists/Neutral), were the original Mr. International because we believe that people have a right to contract with anyone they please, and that Governments should not restrict movement of goods and services across imaginery lines in the sand that has no property owner (E.g. we do not accept Government property as legitimate claim of property). So, you would be correct calling the border stazi, protectionist, Buchananites isolationists, but us Misesian/Cobdenites are anything, but. I favor neutrality and non-intervention in all foreign affairs and free-trade with all countries and persons. How am I an isolationist?

We don't need a standing army. If you want your liberty crushed then support a standing army, but all it does is create wars, fosters massive corruption, huge corporate subsidies, the power mechanism for DC, etc. It neither keeps us "safe", or "protects" our liberties. In fact, Standing Armies do the exact opposite. I am still waiting on when Costa Rica is going to get attacked, and I am still waiting on who is going to attack a Nuclear Power (With a heavily armed population of 300,000,000) with conventional warfare. Why do we need a Standing Army again? Pride? Nationalism? Propaganda? The true answer lies with the propaganda peddled by the corporate interests who profit massively off death and destruction, who seek it out to increase profits, and who use the blood and sweat of Americans for their own scheming purposes. NO MORE.

Brett85
10-21-2010, 08:39 PM
We need to make cuts, but we don't need isolationism.

Isolationism would be if we didn't trade with other countries or have diplomacy with other countries. Closing down our foreign military bases wouldn't make us an "isolationist" country. It would just mean that we would act the same way that every other country acts.

LibertyEagle
10-22-2010, 05:42 PM
The UN is not perfect and it should be reformed so it does not interfere with the sovereignty of other countries. But to simply pull out would be a rash move.

Why? What do you think would happen?

JK/SEA
10-22-2010, 05:52 PM
There is a lot of middle ground between non-interventionist and neocon, and to be honest, strict non-interventionism is not a good idea.

Flip that coin over. How's is that NEOCON ideology working for us in regards to a MILITARY foreign policy. Last time i looked, the economy in the U.S. is floundering. How long do you think we can keep playing this gung-ho G.I. Joe game?...

In reality, this NEOCON agenda is killing us...ooooh, the irony.