Paul and Clinton blur partisan lines on foreign policy

[jct74]

Paul and Clinton blur partisan lines on foreign policy

By Benjy Sarlin
08/30/14 09:41 AM

Things might get weird in 2016 when it comes to foreign policy.

After a decade in which Republicans championed an aggressive unilateral foreign policy under President Bush and Democrats rallied behind a more measured international approach under President Obama, the battle lines are getting blurry as presidential season approaches.

On the Republican side, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has long been out of step with the party’s hawkish wing, favoring a policy of “non-interventionism” that includes, with some hedging, ending all foreign aid and aggressively scaling back American military involvement abroad. While he’s smoothed some of the harsher edges of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s, policy vision (which is less friendly to Israel and a lot more friendly to dictators), it still would represent a massive shift from the more active approach favored by every modern president.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has been distancing herself from the White House. Almost every break with the administration so far puts her further to Obama’s right, alarming some liberal doves who fear she hasn’t learned from a 2008 primary loss fueled by anger over her vote to authorize the Iraq War.

...

read more:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/paul-and-...foreign-policy

[Wren]

While he’s smoothed some of the harsher edges of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s, policy vision (which is less friendly to Israel and a lot more friendly to dictators)

wat

[Inkblots]

^
Not actively using sanctions, covet ops or open warfare to replace unfriendly dictators with puppet regimes is the same as being friendly to dictators. Oh, and declining to prop up and provide military and economic aid to pliable dictators is also being more friendly to dictators, because, um, reasons.

Yes, this is what passes for "foreign policy expertise" in the nation's capital.

[Superfly]

wat

The fact that his foreign policy would be a lot more friendly to human beings is a point totally lost on those that don't properly value human life.

[CaptUSA]

Almost every break with the administration so far puts her further to Obama’s right, alarming some liberal doves who fear she hasn’t learned from a 2008 primary loss fueled by anger over her vote to authorize the Iraq War.

You can learn so much from Hillary's political calculus. Remember, she has no deeply held convictions or beliefs, she is simply a political animal.

The fact that she is portraying a more hawkish position than Obama can be taken in a couple of ways.

1. She thinks Paul will take the nomination and thinks that their media can keep her base in line in a general election and a more hawkish foreign policy will help offset any losses with neoconservatives afraid of the dark-skinned boogeymen.
2. She thinks someone else will win the GOP nomination and is worried that foreign policy will be a big issue in 2016. She wouldn't want to be the woman who is soft on the enemy.

Either way, her more aggressive stance is understandable. She is couching her bets.

[Brian4Liberty]

You can learn so much from Hillary's political calculus. Remember, she has no deeply held convictions or beliefs, she is simply a political animal.

The fact that she is portraying a more hawkish position than Obama can be taken in a couple of ways.

1. She thinks Paul will take the nomination and thinks that their media can keep her base in line in a general election and a more hawkish foreign policy will help offset any losses with neoconservatives afraid of the dark-skinned boogeymen.
2. She thinks someone else will win the GOP nomination and is worried that foreign policy will be a big issue in 2016. She wouldn't want to be the woman who is soft on the enemy.

Either way, her more aggressive stance is understandable. She is couching her bets.

No doubt she has been assured in the backrooms that the decision has been made that her General Election opponent will be either Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, and that all of their foreign policies must be aligned.

The only real difference, and the planned theme for 2016, is Man vs. Woman.