Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:07 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:38 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:35 am
Posts: 993
Likes: 0
Liked: 24
Quote:
Marco Rubio’s liberal foreign policy
By Jack Hunter

During what was advertised as a “major foreign policy speech” at the Brookings Institution on Wednesday, Sen. Marco Rubio said: “I am always cautious about generalizations but until very recently, the general perception was that American conservatism believed in a robust and muscular foreign policy.”

Rubio is correct that conservatives have always believed in a strong national defense. What conservatives have never believed in is an irrational offense — policing the world, nation-building and global welfare. Today, America has a $15 trillion and rising national debt. Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen has called our debt America’s greatest security threat. Said Rubio:


Faced with historic deficits and a dangerous national debt, there has been increasing talk of reducing our foreign aid budget. But we need to remember that these international coalitions we have the opportunity to lead are not just economic or military ones. They can also be humanitarian ones as well.

How is spending America’s children into debt slavery for “humanitarian missions” conservative?

Historically, liberals have agreed with President Woodrow Wilson that it is America’s mission “to make the world safe for democracy.” It was the Republican Party led by Sen. Robert Taft in the early to mid-twentieth century that formed the conservative opposition to what was considered Wilson’s utopian notion. Yes, President Ronald Reagan built up America’s defenses substantially during the Cold War. But he was still extremely reluctant to use them. As George Mason University Professor Colin Dueck has noted: “The United States did not embark on any large-scale or lasting military interventions under Reagan. He used force in a way that was brief, small-scale and popular domestically, and when these conditions did not obtain, he extricated the U.S. from the possibility of protracted military entanglements.”

Unlike Reagan, Rubio eagerly encourages protracted military engagements. As Rubio put it on Wednesday:


I always start by reminding people that what happens all over the world is our business. Every aspect of [our] lives is directly impacted by global events. The security of our cities is connected to the security of small hamlets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Our cost of living, the safety of our food and the value of the things we invent, make and sell are just a few examples of everyday aspects of our lives that are directly related to events abroad and make it impossible for us to focus only on our issues here are home.

Business Insider’s Michael Brendan Dougherty noted of this passage from Rubio:


This is a prescription for endless war. It is also patently untrue. Not even the Soviets could bring peace to all the small hamlets of Afghanistan, and we haven’t been able to do it either, despite being vastly more sophisticated, wealthier, and spending much longer in that nation. … Rubio’s speech lists almost a half dozen nations that have to dramatically change so that the world order can reflect “the interests and beliefs of its strongest power,” us.

Rubio’s foreign policy is quintessentially liberal — that the U.S. government not only can solve the world’s problems, but that it should as a moral imperative. The conservative deals with the world as it is, necessarily recognizing practical limits. The liberal tries to reshape the world as he would like to see it, at any cost.

There is no question where Rubio falls in this right-left tension.

Rubio conflates Reagan’s foreign policy with that of George W. Bush as “muscular” and “robust” and declares both conservative, a disservice not only to Reagan but a dishonest assessment of American conservatism. In 2005, columnist George Will asked William F. Buckley his opinion of Bush’s foreign policy:


WILL: Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in nation-building. This is conservative or not?

BUCKLEY: It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …

Rubio was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010 as a tea party champion, but he has subsequently done very little in the way of trying to cut spending. Instead, Rubio has talked much about the dire need to continue with the same overextended foreign policies of Bush and Obama, even as our debt mounts. Tea party senators like Rand Paul, Jim DeMint and Mike Lee have voted for big cuts and balanced budgets on multiple occasions, but not Rubio. When big-government hawk senators like John McCain, Joe Lieberman or Lindsey Graham insist that the U.S. take action in Libya, Syria and God-knows-where-else, there’s Rubio right beside them.

The reason Rubio has been reluctant to join tea party senators in making big cuts is that it is extremely hard to arrive at substantive reductions without addressing out-of-control Pentagon spending. Making government smaller will require Americans to re-examine the role of government in their lives and settle for less of it. That’s true for domestic spending and for military spending, where conservatives — and most Americans — now find our current overseas commitments continue to come at too high a cost.

Still, Rubio continues to believe these commitments should be maintained at any cost. The senator has a philosophical ally in President Obama, who also believes domestic programs and government commitments must be maintained at any cost. True conservatives understand that the current status quo cannot be maintained and apply cost/benefit analyses accordingly.

Protecting the United States and her interests is conservative. Protecting every nation on earth to the detriment of the United States is not. Sen. Marco Rubio can describe his grandiose foreign policy vision using most any term he likes — but “conservative” is not one of them.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/marco ... z1tCFd6NR7


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/marco ... z1tCEwdSMj





Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:32 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:46 pm
Posts: 1563
Location: Texas
Likes: 178
Liked: 374
FWIW, Jack Hunter is a Paulestinian (in case it wasn't clear from the article).


http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/17/the-d ... evolution/

But to address the substance of the article,
Quote:
Protecting every nation on earth to the detriment of the United States is not.


Really? Rubio said he wants to protect every nation on earth? No. Here's Rubio's speech to Brookings.
Video here:
http://republicanredefined.com/2012/04/ ... ing-video/

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2012/0425_rubio.aspx

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:05 am 
Offline
Corporal

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:22 pm
Posts: 46
Likes: 2
Liked: 8
Rubio needs to exchange some of his war rhetoric for a uniform.
When it comes down to his own hinney, he'd rather run than fight.
I could maybe vote for Romney, but with that little coward riding on his coat tails I'd have no choice but to vote for Obama.

_________________
The courage to speak up.
Rick Santorum On Libertarian influence in the Conservative movement:

“They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.”


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:35 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:35 am
Posts: 993
Likes: 0
Liked: 24
Miserere wrote:
FWIW, Jack Hunter is a Paulestinian (in case it wasn't clear from the article).


http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/17/the-d ... evolution/

But to address the substance of the article,
Quote:
Protecting every nation on earth to the detriment of the United States is not.


Really? Rubio said he wants to protect every nation on earth? No. Here's Rubio's speech to Brookings.
Video here:
http://republicanredefined.com/2012/04/ ... ing-video/

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2012/0425_rubio.aspx


Yes, the author does follow Paul and I happen to agree with his points in this article. I also do not believe someone with dual citizenship should be the next in line to POTUS.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:23 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:46 pm
Posts: 1563
Location: Texas
Likes: 178
Liked: 374
conservativevoter wrote:
Miserere wrote:
FWIW, Jack Hunter is a Paulestinian (in case it wasn't clear from the article).


http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/17/the-d ... evolution/

But to address the substance of the article,
Quote:
Protecting every nation on earth to the detriment of the United States is not.


Really? Rubio said he wants to protect every nation on earth? No. Here's Rubio's speech to Brookings.
Video here:
http://republicanredefined.com/2012/04/ ... ing-video/

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2012/0425_rubio.aspx


Yes, the author does follow Paul and I happen to agree with his points in this article. I also do not believe someone with dual citizenship should be the next in line to POTUS.


It more than strains credulity to suggest Marco Rubio somehow sympathizes with communist Cuba. The man is an American, and there's no legitimate basis for thinking he has any other loyalties.

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:59 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:35 am
Posts: 993
Likes: 0
Liked: 24
Miserere wrote:
conservativevoter wrote:
Miserere wrote:
FWIW, Jack Hunter is a Paulestinian (in case it wasn't clear from the article).


/


Yes, the author does follow Paul and I happen to agree with his points in this article. I also do not believe someone with dual citizenship should be the next in line to POTUS.


It more than strains credulity to suggest Marco Rubio somehow sympathizes with communist Cuba. The man is an American, and there's no legitimate basis for thinking he has any other loyalties.


Rubio this time. Who will be next? Are we going to accept dual citizens as POTUS or aren't we? I have no doubt Rubio is loyal to the U.S. but will the next person be? Are you willing to take that chance just because you like Rubio? Are we setting dangerous precedents for our country? Do other countries accept dual citizens for the highest office in their lands?



Post by conservativevoter Liked by: FL4Huck
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:14 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:46 pm
Posts: 1563
Location: Texas
Likes: 178
Liked: 374
conservativevoter wrote:

Rubio this time. Who will be next? Are we going to accept dual citizens as POTUS or aren't we? I have no doubt Rubio is loyal to the U.S. but will the next person be? Are you willing to take that chance just because you like Rubio? Are we setting dangerous precedents for our country? Do other countries accept dual citizens for the highest office in their lands?


First of all, just because according to Cuba law Rubio might be a citizen, this doesn't mean he's a dual citizen in the ordinary sense. Has he ever been to Cuba? No. Has he ever claimed he is a citizen of Cuba? I certainly doubt it. So this notion that he's a dual citizen in the ordinary sense is misleading. In fact, your test would effectively give foreign countries a veto over who our leaders could be. If Iran didn't want a President Huckabee, they could simply declare him a citizen, which is their right, and then, bam, the Huck is disqualified.

Second,
Who will be next? The test for candidates is first of all the extraordinarily low bar of the constitutional requirements. Rubio meets them.

Beyond that, people are tested based on all the usual factors, experience, issue positions, leadership capacity, etc.

People feel comfortable with Rubio because no one doubts his patriotism. If there were a genuine dual citizen who came along and his allegiance to the United States was dubious, he wouldn't be elected.

If someone were really malicious and was a foreign plant conspiring to ascend to the presidency to subvert our sovereignty, then the first thing that person/country would do was insure he didn't have dual citizenship so as to not attract attention.

Can we all admit that these ridiculous birther concerns are a waste of time? There are plenty of American citizens who would make terrible presidents, so at the end of the day it's a big sideshow to pretend like we can constitutionally filter out bad presidents in this way.

The constitutional requirements are limited in scope and purpose. They were meant to protect against foreign aristocrats from seizing the presidency. Is Obama or Rubio or Jindal a foreign aristocrat? No. They're Americans. Let's talk about things that actually matter.

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.



Post by Miserere has received Likes: 2 Grant, juditupp
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:38 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:37 am
Posts: 2017
Likes: 71
Liked: 66
That author sounded like someone with a chip on their shoulder who was hearing what they wanted to hear.

_________________
Brett

--Attention Guests--
Join the Discussion!
Click the graphic to join!
Image

:army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:02 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Posts: 1044
Likes: 8
Liked: 208
I am in agreement that we have become too militaristic and that we need to stop trying to police the world. I'm also in agreement that we need to scale back our military bases overseas and invest the savings into national defense. However it is extremely misleading to label Rubio or any other Republican who follows the Bush agenda as being liberal.

Prior to the war in Iraq I was as guilty as anyone in beating the war drums to get Saddam. A lot of us had bought into the notion of pre-emptive war even if we had to do a lot of straining to prove that we were actually pre-empting anything. We do need to revisit a lot of what we have thought about our interactions with different nations and what constitutes a good reason to go to war. However that does not mean we need to adopt the Ron Paul Philosophy in its totality.



Post by WalterCan has received Likes: 3 FL4Huck, juditupp, TheValuesVoter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY