Tea Party-Backed Candidates Diverge on Foreign Policy

[tpfkaw]

link

I just changed my WV endorsement to Raese.

[Sewer]

"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"

It's shame that you are fooled.

[tpfkaw]

"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"

It's shame that you are fooled.

Well, I'm considering writing Obama's campaign and asking for my $50 back, but I certainly won't be fooled again.

[Free Palestine]

I just added Raese to my endorsements.

[Sewer]

My god are you guys blind??

[tpfkaw]

My god are you guys blind??

My eyesight is functioning well enough to notice that Barack Obama has taken positions on Iraq and Afghanistan not only to the right (left?) of 2008 John McCain, but also George W. Bush, and that the supposedly "antiwar" Democrats are marching in lockstep with him.  I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to individuals who are not yet voting in congress, and to one (Tom Coburn) who has voted against every war funding bill since March of 2008.

[King]

"I'm more of a Ronald Reagan Republican than I am a Bush Republican..."

LOL.  Mods, please invite Libertas to this thread to explain why this is an illogical statement.

You know who else was a true blooded conservative who promised to be non-interventionalist?  George Walker Bush: Compassionate Conservative 2000.

[tpfkaw]

Ronald Reagan was quite the dove, actually.  The only foreign interventions of note in his 8 years as president were the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which he pulled out of immediately as soon as things got too hot, and invading the tiny, practically-uninhabited island of Grenada.  In private, he liked to talk about how much he wanted world peace and nuclear disarmament - he almost agreed to get rid of the entire US nuclear stockpile in his 1986 summit with Gorbachev.

His foreign policy was hardly good, just, or moral, but it was certainly above-average for 20th/21st century presidents.

[Smash255]

Ronald Reagan was quite the dove, actually.  The only foreign interventions of note in his 8 years as president were the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which he pulled out of immediately as soon as things got too hot, and invading the tiny, practically-uninhabited island of Grenada.  In private, he liked to talk about how much he wanted world peace and nuclear disarmament - he almost agreed to get rid of the entire US nuclear stockpile in his 1986 summit with Gorbachev.

His foreign policy was hardly good, just, or moral, but it was certainly above-average for 20th/21st century presidents.

Ahh yes quite the Dove indeed.  he only just decided to arm Saddam, arm the Iranian's, so he could fund the Contra's, whose funding was made illegal since they were raping and killing women and children.....

[King]

The point still remains that Dubya was channeling these same waves in 2000 and ended up not following through.

This is typical of a party out of power.  The Democrats did this all throughout the 2000s decade and the Republicans did it in the 90s.  Lobby for powerful, radical and meaningful change, but settle back into status quo of government when they get back on top.  You can already see signs of it as candidates like Angle, Rubio, O'Donnell, etc., etc. start hiding most of their views come general election time.  They care only about getting elected.  They have no convictions.

And John Raese is just another opportunist cut from the same cloth as Rick Scott.

[Vepres]

The point still remains that Dubya was channeling these same waves in 2000 and ended up not following through.

This is typical of a party out of power.  The Democrats did this all throughout the 2000s decade and the Republicans did it in the 90s.  Lobby for powerful, radical and meaningful change, but settle back into status quo of government when they get back on top.  You can already see signs of it as candidates like Angle, Rubio, O'Donnell, etc., etc. start hiding most of their views come general election time.  They care only about getting elected.  They have no convictions.

Indeed, the most dovish party is almost always the one who doesn't control the Presidency. Same goes for fiscal conservatism, in fact.

[SvenssonRS]

The point still remains that Dubya was channeling these same waves in 2000 and ended up not following through.

This is typical of a party out of power.  The Democrats did this all throughout the 2000s decade and the Republicans did it in the 90s.  Lobby for powerful, radical and meaningful change, but settle back into status quo of government when they get back on top.  You can already see signs of it as candidates like Angle, Rubio, O'Donnell, etc., etc. start hiding most of their views come general election time.  They care only about getting elected.  They have no convictions.

Indeed, the most dovish party is almost always the one who doesn't control the Presidency. Same goes for fiscal conservatism, in fact.

If that's the case, then we will never win no matter who we elect.

[King]

The path to a dovish America right now is to just let the bureaucracy finish their Iraq/Afghanistan mess and then, when the inevitable new war proposals come about, actually protest them like it was some sort of gay marriage or health care reform bill (as in major rallies that cross liberal/conservative ideologies and good ol flooding of Congressional phone lines) instead of being blind followers who call anti-war anti-American.

[tpfkaw]

Ronald Reagan was quite the dove, actually.  The only foreign interventions of note in his 8 years as president were the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which he pulled out of immediately as soon as things got too hot, and invading the tiny, practically-uninhabited island of Grenada.  In private, he liked to talk about how much he wanted world peace and nuclear disarmament - he almost agreed to get rid of the entire US nuclear stockpile in his 1986 summit with Gorbachev.

His foreign policy was hardly good, just, or moral, but it was certainly above-average for 20th/21st century presidents.

Ahh yes quite the Dove indeed.  he only just decided to arm Saddam, arm the Iranian's, so he could fund the Contra's, whose funding was made illegal since they were raping and killing women and children.....

Well, as I said, his wasn't the most pleasant foreign policy ever, but in terms of actually involving US troops in combat (and in signing arms limitations treaties), he's among the most dovish of 20th-century US presidents.  He was also hardly the first president under which the State Department authorized unpleasant things - the recently-revealed surreptitious infection of Guatemalans with STDs under Truman being one example.  Whatever the case, he certainly was far more of a noninterventionist than Obama (or Clinton, or Johnson, or Kennedy, or Truman, or Roosevelt, or Wilson).

[King]

Jimmy Carter was the most dovish of recent era Presidents.  He wasn't particularly effective at being dovish, but he certainly tried more than Reagan.  Though I guess I would say Reagan would be #2 on that list.  Still, it's low ratings overall.

[Vepres]

The point still remains that Dubya was channeling these same waves in 2000 and ended up not following through.

This is typical of a party out of power.  The Democrats did this all throughout the 2000s decade and the Republicans did it in the 90s.  Lobby for powerful, radical and meaningful change, but settle back into status quo of government when they get back on top.  You can already see signs of it as candidates like Angle, Rubio, O'Donnell, etc., etc. start hiding most of their views come general election time.  They care only about getting elected.  They have no convictions.

Indeed, the most dovish party is almost always the one who doesn't control the Presidency. Same goes for fiscal conservatism, in fact.

If that's the case, then we will never win no matter who we elect.

I said party. I think there are many dovish candidates, but it will be hard to get them in the majority.