Rand Paul, Hawk or Dove?

[twomp]

Since his election to the Senate in 2010 it’s barely been an exaggeration to say that the Republican foreign-policy debate has been Rand Paul versus everyone else. While he has some likeminded colleagues, especially in the House, he is the single figure most associated with a break from the GOP’s Bush-Cheney national-security legacy.

The debate was kicked off by his father, former Texas congressman and two-time GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul. Many hoped that the son would expand the electoral base for what his father started.

In the early stages of his own 2016 presidential campaign, however, Rand Paul has edged closer to the Republican foreign-policy consensus. He has become more hawkish against the Islamic State—even while pushing what is substantively the least hawkish authorization of military force against the jihadists. Although still tentatively supportive of nuclear negotiations with Iran, he preferred signing Sen. Tom Cotton’s undiplomatic letter to Tehran to seeming joined at the hip with Barack Obama. While other Republican White House aspirants in the Senate voted to increase defense spending even if it meant also increasing the deficit, Paul proposed offsetting extra Pentagon money with cuts elsewhere in the budget. Some of his supporters were nevertheless dismayed that the Kentucky lawmaker’s amendment increased defense spending at all—by $190 billion over the next two years, to be precise.

But if Paul is eager to avoid a 2016 foreign-policy debate that pits him against everyone else in the Republican Party, his hawkish detractors are not. No fewer than three prominent Republicans—Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rep. Peter King and former UN ambassador John Bolton—appear to be entertaining presidential bids mainly for the opportunity to argue with Paul in the primary debates.

The most prominent conservative moderator of those upcoming debates, commentator and law professor Hugh Hewitt, has announced that voting for higher defense spending should be a litmus test for Republicans. Hewitt writes that any Republican incumbent who opposes breaking the sequestration spending caps on defense—caps that contribute to short-term deficit reduction and a key part of the only major spending concession Republicans have won from the Obama administration—“should be fired.”

On the day Paul declared his candidacy, the man behind the anti-John Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth television ads in 2004 launched a new seven-figure ad campaign attacking Paul’s foreign policy. The spots are set to run in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, three states Paul visited during his launch and the first three contests of the GOP nomination fight.

Long read: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/rand-paul-hawk-or-dove/

[presence]

voting for higher defense spending

should be a litmus test

for Republicans

//

[PaleoPaul]

He's a dawk.

[BuddyRey]

Just a note on the title of the article: I'm getting to a point now where I bristle at the use of the "hawk vs. dove" analogy. It's much too simplistic a binary to try and stuff the full continuum of geopolitical thought into; especially since it means that those of us who are non-interventionists will get lumped in with out-and-out pacifists. We need some kind of new imagery to describe a Paulian foreign policy. Maybe porcupine? Or bumblebee? But whatever it is, we've got to find a way to reframe and revise this popular but erroneous narrative that you either have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth American nationalist who supports all wars at all times, or some kind of naive, disarmed bootlicker who believes that diplomacy can solve everything.

[rich34]

Just a note on the title of the article: I'm getting to a point now where I bristle at the use of the "hawk vs. dove" analogy. It's much too simplistic a binary to try and stuff the full continuum of geopolitical thought into; especially since it means that those of us who are non-interventionists will get lumped in with out-and-out pacifists. We at least need a third option to describe a Paulian foreign policy. Maybe porcupine? Or hornet? But whatever it is, we've got to find a way to seize on some kind of new imagery and rewrite this popular narrative that you either have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth American nationalist who supports all wars at all times, or some kind of naive, disarmed bootlicker who believes that diplomacy can solve everything.

Thats actually an excellent idea. The only problem is being able to implement it more so than they able saturate the dove meme into the minds of voters. Its little buzz word/phrases like this that can decide an election. I'd also get a jump on Bush using the word integrity to describe Rand. Hell his brother won an election, due to the fact his team was able to convince people he had so much integrity the man was simply a straight up honest man. I can remember one of his speaches went "you can question my policies, and you can question my experience, but dont question my integrity." I know its corny but Rand needs something like this to say during speaches. That way when they say oulandish things about Rand people wont believe them or will have a harder time doing so. I think coming up with that 3rd label on foreign policy to go with this would be of immense value. Again great idea.

[RabbitMan]

Just a note on the title of the article: I'm getting to a point now where I bristle at the use of the "hawk vs. dove" analogy. It's much too simplistic a binary to try and stuff the full continuum of geopolitical thought into; especially since it means that those of us who are non-interventionists will get lumped in with out-and-out pacifists. We need some kind of new imagery to describe a Paulian foreign policy. Maybe porcupine? Or bumblebee? But whatever it is, we've got to find a way to reframe and revise this popular but erroneous narrative that you either have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth American nationalist who supports all wars at all times, or some kind of naive, disarmed bootlicker who believes that diplomacy can solve everything.

I think someone coined the term 'Owl' or something last year to describe it?

Edit: Nope. Don't know where I heard that one.

[Virgil]

Someone on here said owl, which I like.

-Virgil

[francisco]

Someone on here said owl, which I like.

-Virgil

Somebody get that the official campaign, STAT

[BuddyRey]

Owl is great! Not only is the owl vigilant, but it also has symbolic connotations of wisdom and prudence. Great job, y'all!

Alright, I'll stop derailing this thread now. Sorry, Twomp!

[CaptUSA]

I think someone coined the term 'Owl' or something last year to describe it?

Edit: Nope. Don't know where I heard that one.

Yeah, that was me. I can't find the posts, but I've been trying to push that one for a while now. + rep to anyone who can find the old thread.

Remember, the owl only attacks when it has a high chance for success and is sure that it will be safe in doing so. Thus, the reason for its "wise" reputation.

[otherone]

Owl is great! Not only is the owl vigilant, but it also has symbolic connotations of wisdom and prudence. Great job, y'all!



I prefer "constitutionalist".

[JohnCifelli1]

Owl is great, Eagles also are associated with being cerebral. Eagles are also, of course, bigger and badder than all other birds.

[alucard13mm]

I dont mind increasing defense spending if we cut overseas military spending. Close down a base in germany and either build the base in us or build a new submarine.

[JohnGalt1225]

I think the "dove" and "hawk" thing is overly simplistic. The world is very complex and I don't think you can just cover anyone's foreign policy views with a blanket term.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

He's a wren

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/ULEegzZ.gif

[luctor-et-emergo]

Someone on here said owl, which I like.

-Virgil

Definitely.

[VIDEODROME]

If someone could be the opposite of a "ChickenHawk" that would fit.

[francisco]

http://i.imgur.com/ULEegzZ.gif

lol, out of rep, someone please cover!

[presence]

I think someone coined the term 'Owl' or something last year to describe it?

Edit: Nope. Don't know where I heard that one.

funny I just came back to this thread to say something about using "owl"





Somebody get that the official campaign, STAT




yes! this!

http://i.imgur.com/LTYMMUr.jpg

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

pretty sure that the owl is an illuminati symbol

http://www.illuminatirex.com/wp-content/uploads/owl.jpg

[GunnyFreedom]

Just a note on the title of the article: I'm getting to a point now where I bristle at the use of the "hawk vs. dove" analogy. It's much too simplistic a binary to try and stuff the full continuum of geopolitical thought into; especially since it means that those of us who are non-interventionists will get lumped in with out-and-out pacifists. We need some kind of new imagery to describe a Paulian foreign policy. Maybe porcupine? Or bumblebee? But whatever it is, we've got to find a way to reframe and revise this popular but erroneous narrative that you either have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth American nationalist who supports all wars at all times, or some kind of naive, disarmed bootlicker who believes that diplomacy can solve everything.

Rattlesnakeish

[William Tell]

Yeah, that was me. I can't find the posts, but I've been trying to push that one for a while now. + rep to anyone who can find the old thread.

Remember, the owl only attacks when it has a high chance for success and is sure that it will be safe in doing so. Thus, the reason for its "wise" reputation.

I can find lots of things when there's rep on the line.:D
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?458594-Chris-Matthews-Next-presidential-election-may-be-between-a-Democrat-hawk-and-Republican-dove

[francisco]

I can find lots of things when there's rep on the line.:D
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?458594-Chris-Matthews-Next-presidential-election-may-be-between-a-Democrat-hawk-and-Republican-dove

...


This is actually a brilliant idea for messaging. The news story goes like this:

When asked whether he considers himself a hawk or a dove when it comes to foreign policy, President-elect Paul said, "I like to think of myself as a the wise owl. Carefully examining each situation and only intervening when it is in our best interests. Part of that Constitutional examination process includes Congress so that the public can make their opinions known through their elected representation."



"Carefully examining each situation so when know when and where to swoop in and tear the enemy apart. It is irresponsible to go to war at the wrong time, and it is irresponsible to no go in hard when it is time to go to war."





...Remember, the owl only attacks when it has a high chance for success and is sure that it will be safe in doing so. Thus, the reason for its "wise" reputation.

[georgiaboy]

Owl is great, Eagles also are associated with being cerebral. Eagles are also, of course, bigger and badder than all other birds.

I like eagle better than owl.

[georgiaboy]

funny I just came back to this thread to say something about using "owl"

yes! this!

http://i.imgur.com/LTYMMUr.jpg

looks like a raccoon.

[BuddyRey]

pretty sure that the owl is an illuminati symbol

http://www.illuminatirex.com/wp-content/uploads/owl.jpg

Well then, why don't we appropriate one of their symbols to be our own? Lord knows they've done the same to us countless times before. The elephant, the donkey, and the statue of liberty spring immediately to mind.

[asurfaholic]

Porcupine?

[otherone]

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac92/meanderthal/randpenguin3.jpg