Rand Paul to outline ‘constitutional conservative’ foreign policy

[Confederate]

Rand Paul to outline ‘constitutional conservative’ foreign policy

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul will deliver a wide-ranging foreign policy address at the Heritage Foundation next Tuesday, marking the tea party lawmaker’s latest foray into international affairs.

“At this lecture, Senator Rand Paul will discuss his vision of a foreign policy that respects the plain language of our Constitution, the legal powers of Congress and the important role of a strong presidency,” the invitation says. “It will stress the need for maintaining the strongest national defense among nations while also questioning what constitutes actual ‘defense.’”

Paul acknowledges the United States “presently faces national security challenges from hostile nations throughout the world,” but argues that “overextending our military forces by engaging in prolonged conflict throughout the Middle East and around the globe has not been an effective foreign policy. ”

“Sen. Paul will ask what qualifies as America’s genuine national interest,” according to the invitation. “He will also ask what aspects of our current policies do not.”

Paul recently returned from a trip to Israel, in which he expressed his strong support for the Jewish state as a democratic ally while reiterating his skepticism of foreign aid and interventionism abroad. The Heritage speech is likely to continue this trend. (RELATED — Rand Paul: An attack on Israel is an attack on the U.S.)

The senator’s foreign policy views have become the topic of increasing speculation, after Paul was assigned to the Senate foreign relations committee and reportedly held meetings with “neoconservative pro-Israel foreign policy hands.” He was also hard-hitting in his questioning of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her testimony about Benghazi.

Paul has given one previous extended talk on foreign affairs, a speech to Johns Hopkins University a few months after he took office in 2011.

“There are times, such as existed in Afghanistan with the bin Laden terrorist camps, that do require intervention,” Paul said. “Maybe, we could be somewhere, some of the time and do so while respecting our Constitution and the legal powers of Congress and the presidency.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/29/ra...#ixzz2JMpn0Wz4

[jbauer]

I'd say this is what we'd like to hear. Rand Paul is doing the things its going to take to figure out if you stand with him or not. The man is clearly running for president in 2016.

[FSP-Rebel]

It's a pretty big thing to be able to unveil his constitutional foreign policy at the Heritage Foundation and I'm sure his buddy Jim had a hand in that. Think about it, presuming it gets rave reviews it could effectively become policy at Heritage which is highly influential in conservative circles or dare I say the gold standard.

[DrHendricks]

This is Rand's big opportunity to lay out his foreign policy in a concise and non-muddled way. I am hoping that this clears up any confusion over some of his statements in the last couple of weeks. We need to get everybody back on board and this could be the moment that does so. And yes if you are wondering, I have extremely high expectations for this speech

[Brett85]

This is Rand's big opportunity to lay out his foreign policy in a concise and non-muddled way. I am hoping that this clears up any confusion over some of his statements in the last couple of weeks. We need to get everybody back on board and this could be the moment that does so. And yes if you are wondering, I have extremely high expectations for this speech

I'm afraid it probably won't be concise. Rand always seems to discuss foreign policy issues as vaguely as he possibly can.

[phill4paul]

This will be interesting. And if forums history is correct highly contested.

[FSP-Rebel]

This will be interesting. And if forums history is correct highly contested.

Why that didn't pop up in my mind is a mystery of epic proportions. I know a special someone who will have her microscope handy.

[phill4paul]

Why that didn't pop up in my mind is a mystery of epic proportions. I know a special someone who will have her microscope handy.

Equally valid is the belief that "slings and arrows" will be hurled. Not only on the issue but on the motives of those posting. I would give it a 20% issue vs. 80% personal attack ratio.

[FSP-Rebel]

Equally valid is the belief that "slings and arrows" will be hurled. Not only on the issue but on the motives of those posting. I would give it a 20% issue vs. 80% personal attack ratio.

I advise taking an executive day.

[ProvincialPeasant]

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul will deliver a wide-ranging foreign policy address at the Heritage Foundation next Wednesday, marking the tea party lawmaker’s latest foray into international affairs.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/29/ra...#ixzz2JQ23LUGc

At the end of the article, it brings up that DeMint has taken over and implies that there may be a connection, since Heritage is traditionally very hawkish on defense.

Even though a lot of people here would like a left-wing foreign policy, I am happy to see intervention as long as it is constitutional and in our interests, so I am very happy that Rand is doing this.

[JoshLowry]

I am happy to see intervention as long as it is constitutional and in our interests, so I am very happy that Rand is doing this.

What is a constitutional intervention?

[Agorism]

I suppose congress declaring war would be constitutional, but I still don't think getting involved with entangling alliances makes good foreign policy even if it is "constitutional"

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm waiting until the speech to start saying anything, but that strong presidency line has me on the wrong foot.

[LibertyEagle]

Even though a lot of people here would like a left-wing foreign policy, I am happy to see intervention as long as it is constitutional and in our interests, so I am very happy that Rand is doing this.

"Spreading democracy around the world" at the end of a gun is from Woodrow Wilson. It is this view that is leftist.

I am happy to see intervention as long as it is constitutional and in our interests

Why?

[Brett85]

Even though a lot of people here would like a left-wing foreign policy, I am happy to see intervention as long as it is constitutional and in our interests, so I am very happy that Rand is doing this.

Opposing overseas intervention is not "left wing." The left has traditionally supported overseas intervention, more so than the right.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Even though a lot of people here would like a left-wing foreign policy, I am happy to see intervention as long as it is constitutional and in our interests, so I am very happy that Rand is doing this.

I'm never happy with intervention. I don't see it as something to do for fun.

I have discussed different scenarios where I would support it, unlike most on here, however it would be based on a utilitarian defensive posture. And generally, we wouldn't be intervening hardly any, if at all.

[supermario21]

I think what Rand means by strong president is one who respects the constitutional authority of Congress, as well as the responsibilities of the job. Rand doesn't want to be a dictator.

[klamath]

Opposing overseas intervention is not "left wing." The left has traditionally supported overseas intervention, more so than the right.

Yes. Pretty much.

[TheTexan]

Why that didn't pop up in my mind is a mystery of epic proportions. I know a special someone who will have her microscope handy.

Criticizing Rand for promoting the idea that an attack on Israel is an attack on the US isn't a microscope. It's fair criticism.

Even if you agree with Rand, or his ostensibly Leninist strategy, such criticisms on this issue of war and peace should not be dismissed so easily.

[Sola_Fide]

If I was advising Rand, I would let him know that taking a bold non-interventionist position will not be as detrimental to 2016 as some may think it would be. If Rand doesn't radically differentiate himself from Rubio, he is not going to inspire the kind of grassroots activism that he needs to win these early states.

[alucard13mmfmj]

If I was advising Rand, I would let him know that taking a bold non-interventionist position will not be as detrimental to 2016 as some may think it would be. If Rand doesn't radically differentiate himself from Rubio, he is not going to inspire the kind of grassroots activism that he needs to win these early states.

Problem is the bulk of the voters will still support interventions, especially for Israel. Sure, some people would have converted since 2012, but I doubt it would be enough to win 2016. Maybe in 2020 or 2024. Non-intervention will have to be gradual change. Elect a less hawkish president. Then the next less hawkish and then the next less hawkish.

Do we really want "I agree with Rand Paul on everything, but not his foreign policy.. so I won't vote for him" kind of a stigma if his FP is EXACTLY like Ron or if the media spins it that way (which we know they will).

[lx43]

Rand's statement lately has caused me pause with his assertion the US would go in to defend Israel in an all out invasion of that country and his statement on govt responsibility or role in helping with the Sandy disaster. Either Rand is playing the rhetoric game or he actually believes and would vote for those actions. Of course I could be just extra sensitive being used to his father's more blunt statements and the way he educated the public in this manner. I don't know I'm just really confused about all this right now.

[klamath]

I think there is a strong feeling to get out of the middle east, with the exception of cutting Israel completely lose. I actually think Romney would have won if in that last debate would have been less warlike than obama. The republicans were not going to desert him but I think he could have pulled in indies.

[phill4paul]

I think there is a strong feeling to get out of the middle east, with the exception of cutting Israel completely lose. I actually think Romney would have won if in that last debate would have been less warlike than obama. The republicans were not going to desert him but I think he could have pulled in indies.

Romney pull Indies? Your integrity is now approaching teh Collins level. Seriously. ROFLMAO.

[dinosaur]

Romney pull Indies? Your integrity is now approaching teh Collins level. Seriously. ROFLMAO.

Romney was very liberal, why couldn't he have pulled in indies with a more liberal-sounding foreign policy?

[phill4paul]

If I was advising Rand, I would let him know that taking a bold non-interventionist position will not be as detrimental to 2016 as some may think it would be. If Rand doesn't radically differentiate himself from Rubio, he is not going to inspire the kind of grassroots activism that he needs to win these early states.

I would do the same. Doesn't matter though. The Rand movement stealth strategy doesn't need the grassroots. In fact there are certain greassroots they feel they can make jetsam out of and make up for it with stalwart GOP voters.

[klamath]

Romney pull Indies? Your integrity is now approaching teh Collins level. Seriously. ROFLMAO.

Not nearly as bad as yours. Growing by leaps and bounds libertarians.

[phill4paul]

Romney was very liberal, why couldn't he have pulled in indies with a more liberal-sounding foreign policy?

Because we has been all over the political spectrum and tried to appeal to every one. He was seen as a phony. There was not an ounce of sincerity in anything he said when it was easily proven that he had, at one time or another, a differing view.

[twomp]

I would do the same. Doesn't matter though. The Rand movement stealth strategy doesn't need the grassroots. In fact there are certain greassroots they feel they can make jetsam out of and make up for it with stalwart GOP voters.

I believe that's the trade he is making as well. Some grassroots for some rank and file GOP voters. We shall see if it works.

[phill4paul]

Not nearly as bad as yours. Growing by leaps and bounds libertarians.

No problem. I get you. You don't like libertarians. Fine. Have fun with your 1/2 +1 or +2 percent of american voters. I think it is pretty sure Reps are gonna win big this next cycle. Because it is a cycle. And until you think outside the box and create a new reality, like Ron did, your short term gain is as assured as your eventual loss.