There are many things I like about Texas Gov. Rick Perry, including his stance on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. But apparently his new glasses haven’t altered his perception of the world, or allowed him to see it any more clearly.

There are obviously many important events going on in the world right now, but with 60,000 foreign children streaming across the Texas border, I am surprised Governor Perry has apparently still found time to mischaracterize and attack my foreign policy.

Governor Perry writes a fictionalized account of my foreign policy so mischaracterizing my views that I wonder if he’s even really read any of my policy papers.

Read more:

(Excerpt) Read more at http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...z37cVzvgfI

Somewhere, Ted Cruz is laughing.

This has been the first bit of shots fired in the Republican 2016 primary...

Rand should have ignored it. He doesn't need to be having this fight right now, Perry does. As far as Perry is concerned, I like him, but the neoconservative foreign policy argument is going to be a loser this time around if foreign policy becomes a central issue.

(07-16-2014 07:49 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Rand should have ignored it. He doesn't need to be having this fight right now, Perry does. As far as Perry is concerned, I like him, but the neoconservative foreign policy argument is going to be a loser this time around if foreign policy becomes a central issue.

blah. as opposed to dr. nutz foreign policy argument, which has been rejected nationally every time the nation has has had the opportunity.

it's sheer political opportunism. rand is trying to cobble together an impossible coalition of imaginary groups; libertarian millennials and shattered progressives that have become exhausted by the sheer incompetence of the obamite comedy skit.

won't work. he'll come away with isolationists and single issue pot voters.

(07-16-2014 08:06 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 07:49 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Rand should have ignored it. He doesn't need to be having this fight right now, Perry does. As far as Perry is concerned, I like him, but the neoconservative foreign policy argument is going to be a loser this time around if foreign policy becomes a central issue.

blah. as opposed to dr. nutz foreign policy argument, which has been rejected nationally every time the nation has has had the opportunity.

it's sheer political opportunism. rand is trying to cobble together an impossible coalition of imaginary groups; libertarian millennials and shattered progressives that have become exhausted by the sheer incompetence of the obamite comedy skit.

won't work. he'll come away with isolationists and single issue pot voters.

Interesting how you and many others don’t appear to have actually read the article...

Rand is essentially saying that in Iraq, doing the same thing over and over again is stupid and wasteful.

He’s right.

Nor is he advocating an “isolationist” or even non-interventionist policy.

I’m a “smash your enemies flat and leave” kind of guy, so I don’t agree with his policy. But it still isn’t what folks, including Rick Perry, are saying it is.

You need to realize that this is a battle between the NeoCons and Rand Paul. Perry's shot at Paul was a NeoCon shot.

This battle broke out spring 2013 when Paul(on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) joined the two antiwar dems and voted against arming the Syrian Rebels. Then those three were joined by isolationist Mike Lee to introduce legislation opposing the arming of the rebels.

After that, it was the NeoCons who fired the first shot at Paul. They published that story about Paul's campaign aide being a NeoConfederate racist, which would imply that Paul is a racist.

Rand Paul responded by attacking Liz Cheney running for the Wyoming senate seat. And the battle has continued since. Perry's shot is just the latest.

Paul's campaign strategy is to run against the NeoCons, and because of Iraq and Afghanistan he is getting traction, he has the highest poll numbers. And most recently, many of the NeoCons(especially Cheney) have gone on TV calling for the re-invasion of Iraq and Paul has used that as ammo.

Hillary is watching this. She has hired the prominent NeoCon Fred Kagan has an advisor. No doubt if Paul gets the GOP nomination she will run heavy as an interventionist hawk. Like Joe Lieberman.

(07-16-2014 08:13 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 08:06 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 07:49 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Rand should have ignored it. He doesn't need to be having this fight right now, Perry does. As far as Perry is concerned, I like him, but the neoconservative foreign policy argument is going to be a loser this time around if foreign policy becomes a central issue.

blah. as opposed to dr. nutz foreign policy argument, which has been rejected nationally every time the nation has has had the opportunity.

it's sheer political opportunism. rand is trying to cobble together an impossible coalition of imaginary groups; libertarian millennials and shattered progressives that have become exhausted by the sheer incompetence of the obamite comedy skit.

won't work. he'll come away with isolationists and single issue pot voters.

Interesting how you and many others don’t appear to have actually read the article...

Rand is essentially saying that in Iraq, doing the same thing over and over again is stupid and wasteful.

He’s right.

Nor is he advocating an “isolationist” or even non-interventionist policy.

I’m a “smash your enemies flat and leave” kind of guy, so I don’t agree with his policy. But it still isn’t what folks, including Rick Perry, are saying it is.

You need to realize that this is a battle between the NeoCons and Rand Paul. Perry's shot at Paul was a NeoCon shot.

This battle broke out spring 2013 when Paul(on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) joined the two antiwar dems and voted against arming the Syrian Rebels. Then those three were joined by isolationist Mike Lee to introduce legislation opposing the arming of the rebels.

After that, it was the NeoCons who fired the first shot at Paul. They published that story about Paul's campaign aide being a NeoConfederate racist, which would imply that Paul is a racist.

Rand Paul responded by attacking Liz Cheney running for the Wyoming senate seat. And the battle has continued since. Perry's shot is just the latest.

Paul's campaign strategy is to run against the NeoCons, and because of Iraq and Afghanistan he is getting traction, he has the highest poll numbers. And most recently, many of the NeoCons(especially Cheney) have gone on TV calling for the re-invasion of Iraq and Paul has used that as ammo.

Hillary is watching this. She has hired the prominent NeoCon Fred Kagan has an advisor. No doubt if Paul gets the GOP nomination she will run heavy as an interventionist hawk. Like Joe Lieberman.

blah. I read the brain damaged little oped piece the day it came out -- two days ago.

neocons!neocons!neocons! run! it's the neocons! rand paul isn't running on issues, he's running against a the same imaginary beast barack obama has been running against since history stooped to recognize him -- the story book caricature that the doctrinaire leftists have created of george bush. it's a loser. and it's empty. and it appears that he will learn this the hard way.

Quote:Unlike Perry, I oppose sending American troops back into Iraq. After a decade of the United States training the Iraq’s military, when confronted by the enemy, the Iraqis dropped their weapons, shed their uniforms and hid. Our soldiers’ hard work and sacrifice should be worth more than that. Our military is too good for that.
I ask Governor Perry: How many Americans should send their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country—a nation the Iraqis won’t defend for themselves? How many Texan mothers and fathers will Governor Perry ask to send their children to fight in Iraq?


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...z37dbndUn5

(07-16-2014 08:29 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

Quote:Unlike Perry, I oppose sending American troops back into Iraq. After a decade of the United States training the Iraq’s military, when confronted by the enemy, the Iraqis dropped their weapons, shed their uniforms and hid. Our soldiers’ hard work and sacrifice should be worth more than that. Our military is too good for that.
I ask Governor Perry: How many Americans should send their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country—a nation the Iraqis won’t defend for themselves? How many Texan mothers and fathers will Governor Perry ask to send their children to fight in Iraq?


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...z37dbndUn5

^^^^^
proving my point about exhausted progressives.

(07-16-2014 08:22 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 08:13 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 08:06 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 07:49 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Rand should have ignored it. He doesn't need to be having this fight right now, Perry does. As far as Perry is concerned, I like him, but the neoconservative foreign policy argument is going to be a loser this time around if foreign policy becomes a central issue.

blah. as opposed to dr. nutz foreign policy argument, which has been rejected nationally every time the nation has has had the opportunity.

it's sheer political opportunism. rand is trying to cobble together an impossible coalition of imaginary groups; libertarian millennials and shattered progressives that have become exhausted by the sheer incompetence of the obamite comedy skit.

won't work. he'll come away with isolationists and single issue pot voters.

Interesting how you and many others don’t appear to have actually read the article...

Rand is essentially saying that in Iraq, doing the same thing over and over again is stupid and wasteful.

He’s right.

Nor is he advocating an “isolationist” or even non-interventionist policy.

I’m a “smash your enemies flat and leave” kind of guy, so I don’t agree with his policy. But it still isn’t what folks, including Rick Perry, are saying it is.

You need to realize that this is a battle between the NeoCons and Rand Paul. Perry's shot at Paul was a NeoCon shot.

This battle broke out spring 2013 when Paul(on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) joined the two antiwar dems and voted against arming the Syrian Rebels. Then those three were joined by isolationist Mike Lee to introduce legislation opposing the arming of the rebels.

After that, it was the NeoCons who fired the first shot at Paul. They published that story about Paul's campaign aide being a NeoConfederate racist, which would imply that Paul is a racist.

Rand Paul responded by attacking Liz Cheney running for the Wyoming senate seat. And the battle has continued since. Perry's shot is just the latest.

Paul's campaign strategy is to run against the NeoCons, and because of Iraq and Afghanistan he is getting traction, he has the highest poll numbers. And most recently, many of the NeoCons(especially Cheney) have gone on TV calling for the re-invasion of Iraq and Paul has used that as ammo.

Hillary is watching this. She has hired the prominent NeoCon Fred Kagan has an advisor. No doubt if Paul gets the GOP nomination she will run heavy as an interventionist hawk. Like Joe Lieberman.

blah. I read the brain damaged little oped piece the day it came out -- two days ago.

neocons!neocons!neocons! run! it's the neocons! rand paul isn't running on issues, he's running against a the same imaginary beast barack obama has been running against since history stooped to recognize him -- the story book caricature that the doctrinaire leftists have created of george bush. it's a loser. and it's empty. and it appears that he will learn this the hard way.

The spreading democracy theory was worth a try in the face of 9/11. I supported Bush/Cheney and their efforts, despite the campaign promises against nation building. It didn't work, unfortunately, and it is time to give it up. I support going back to the original Bush policy against nation building and minding our own business unless there is an immediate existential threat, and then flatten the threat and leave. Neoconservatism is not a bogey man term, it is a real foreign policy philosophy. Rand is not going after the same group as Obama. He has the 3rd most conservative record in the senate. Rand is a conservative and Obama is a leftist. You are correct in that, if he runs a single issue campaign on marijuana, he has no chance. I don't see that happening being that he has been in the senate for awhile now and hasn't even brought it up as an issue. Someone like Gary Johnson will run on that niche.

(07-16-2014 08:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 08:22 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 08:13 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 08:06 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 07:49 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Rand should have ignored it. He doesn't need to be having this fight right now, Perry does. As far as Perry is concerned, I like him, but the neoconservative foreign policy argument is going to be a loser this time around if foreign policy becomes a central issue.

blah. as opposed to dr. nutz foreign policy argument, which has been rejected nationally every time the nation has has had the opportunity.

it's sheer political opportunism. rand is trying to cobble together an impossible coalition of imaginary groups; libertarian millennials and shattered progressives that have become exhausted by the sheer incompetence of the obamite comedy skit.

won't work. he'll come away with isolationists and single issue pot voters.

Interesting how you and many others don’t appear to have actually read the article...

Rand is essentially saying that in Iraq, doing the same thing over and over again is stupid and wasteful.

He’s right.

Nor is he advocating an “isolationist” or even non-interventionist policy.

I’m a “smash your enemies flat and leave” kind of guy, so I don’t agree with his policy. But it still isn’t what folks, including Rick Perry, are saying it is.

You need to realize that this is a battle between the NeoCons and Rand Paul. Perry's shot at Paul was a NeoCon shot.

This battle broke out spring 2013 when Paul(on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) joined the two antiwar dems and voted against arming the Syrian Rebels. Then those three were joined by isolationist Mike Lee to introduce legislation opposing the arming of the rebels.

After that, it was the NeoCons who fired the first shot at Paul. They published that story about Paul's campaign aide being a NeoConfederate racist, which would imply that Paul is a racist.

Rand Paul responded by attacking Liz Cheney running for the Wyoming senate seat. And the battle has continued since. Perry's shot is just the latest.

Paul's campaign strategy is to run against the NeoCons, and because of Iraq and Afghanistan he is getting traction, he has the highest poll numbers. And most recently, many of the NeoCons(especially Cheney) have gone on TV calling for the re-invasion of Iraq and Paul has used that as ammo.

Hillary is watching this. She has hired the prominent NeoCon Fred Kagan has an advisor. No doubt if Paul gets the GOP nomination she will run heavy as an interventionist hawk. Like Joe Lieberman.

blah. I read the brain damaged little oped piece the day it came out -- two days ago.

neocons!neocons!neocons! run! it's the neocons! rand paul isn't running on issues, he's running against a the same imaginary beast barack obama has been running against since history stooped to recognize him -- the story book caricature that the doctrinaire leftists have created of george bush. it's a loser. and it's empty. and it appears that he will learn this the hard way.

The spreading democracy theory was worth a try in the face of 9/11. I supported Bush/Cheney and their efforts, despite the campaign promises against nation building. It didn't work, unfortunately, and it is time to give it up. I support going back to the original Bush policy against nation building and minding our own business unless there is an immediate existential threat, and then flatten the threat and leave. Neoconservatism is not a bogey man term, it is a real foreign policy philosophy. Rand is not going after the same group as Obama. He has the 3rd most conservative record in the senate. Rand is a conservative and Obama is a leftist. You are correct in that, if he runs a single issue campaign on marijuana, he has no chance. I don't see that happening being that he has been in the senate for awhile now and hasn't even brought it up as an issue. Someone like Gary Johnson will run on that niche.

blah. alleged conservatives that have been deceived into railing against the mythical "neocons" have drank the koolaid.

I could script the next 50 replies in this thread, but you already aren't listening.

This is exactly why I don't like Rand Paul. He needs to shut his mouth.

Quote:proving my point about exhausted progressives.

I'm a pacifist by nature so I don't support sending troops in. Battle with books and support not bombs and bullets.

(07-16-2014 08:55 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  This is exactly why I don't like Rand Paul. He needs to shut his mouth.

Why, because he brings up some really good points?

(07-16-2014 10:27 AM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 08:55 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  This is exactly why I don't like Rand Paul. He needs to shut his mouth.

Why, because he brings up some really good points?

No Krieger. It's because he still thinks Blind Melon is quality modern music.

I like Rand Paul. I'm a staunch believer in pulling much of the U.S. military currently abroad and bringing them back to the U.S. Granted the majority of them will have to find new employment opportunities - given time and retraining programs to gradually transition them out of the military and into private life - a number of them can be redeployed along our own borders and solve the illegal immigration problem once and for all.

Especially with the infantry/armor/artillery stationed in western Europe, tell me why we CAN'T bring those troops home to patrol our borders?

Rand Paul is a poor candidate.

(07-16-2014 11:06 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I like Rand Paul. I'm a staunch believer in pulling much of the U.S. military currently abroad and bringing them back to the U.S. Granted the majority of them will have to find new employment opportunities - given time and retraining programs to gradually transition them out of the military and into private life - a number of them can be redeployed along our own borders and solve the illegal immigration problem once and for all.

Especially with the infantry/armor/artillery stationed in western Europe, tell me why we CAN'T bring those troops home to patrol our borders?

Why would they have to find employment opportunities? It seems to me that closing bases overseas would free up money in the budget and we'd be able to keep everyone in the force.

(07-16-2014 11:12 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 11:06 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I like Rand Paul. I'm a staunch believer in pulling much of the U.S. military currently abroad and bringing them back to the U.S. Granted the majority of them will have to find new employment opportunities - given time and retraining programs to gradually transition them out of the military and into private life - a number of them can be redeployed along our own borders and solve the illegal immigration problem once and for all.

Especially with the infantry/armor/artillery stationed in western Europe, tell me why we CAN'T bring those troops home to patrol our borders?

Why would they have to find employment opportunities? It seems to me that closing bases overseas would free up money in the budget and we'd be able to keep everyone in the force.

I see your point, but why would you want to keep the high volume of troops if you will no longer have the forward presence? Also, it would still cost money to run bases in the U.S. with the extra personnel plus would result in closed down bases having to reopen. Maybe keeping them all in the military is still desirable from an economic standpoint for local communities with military bases. However, I think the best prospect overall for the nation is to save the money that you spend protecting other nations and pay our own debts - or at least balance the current spending deficit better.

I see Rick Perry has gained popularity since he started doing the Rachel Maddow look.

That's a couple of homely dudes.