National Conservatives Worried About Paul

The possibility that Rand Paul might win the Republican primary has alarmed conservatives who focus on national security, foreign policy and Israel, according to Politico:

Recognizing the threat, a well-connected former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney convened a conference call last week between Grayson and a group of leading national security conservatives to sound the alarm about Paul.

“On foreign policy, [global war on terror], Gitmo, Afghanistan, Rand Paul is NOT one of us,” Cesar Conda wrote in an e-mail to figures such as Liz Cheney, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Dan Senor and Marc Thiessen.

With an attached memo on Paul’s noninterventionist positions, Conda concluded: “It is our hope that you can help us get the word out about Rand Paul’s troubling and dangerous views on foreign policy.”

Foreign Policy Rift Hurts the Pauls

Tea Partiers are not fungible. And some of them are beginning to speak up and criticize career politician Ron Paul for policies that cannot keep America safe from terrorists. This criticism has direct implications for the Kentucky Senate race, where Ron's son Dr. Rand Paul has lured his father's national contributor base by aping his father's policies.

Ron Paul -- who mainstream media paint as the Grand-daddy of the Tea Parties --now has his own opposition in Texas, three primary challenges from, you guessed it, other Tea Partiers.

Take this criticism of Paul from the Dana Show via Hot Air:

I love Ron Paul immensely with one exception: I vehemently disagree with his foreign policy. A nation alone in a world of enemies is a nation that does not last long. It’s part of a strategy in protecting American citizens. Big difference from “nation building,” a broad, sweeping term tossed at anyone who dares look to protect America from outside her borders – that and “neoconservatism” which just, ugh, gag me.

I disagree with Allahpundit:

The only sin Paul’s clearly guilty of in tea-party eyes isearmarking; his foreign policy is obviously a major issue, but unless I missed a memo, there’s no concrete foreign policy (i.e. isolationist vs. interventionist) that’s been settled on by a majority of tea partiers.

I don’t speak for all tea partiers, but having been involved in politics most of my life, this movement for a year, and having met thousands of tea partiers, I’ve yet to met one who thinks that eradicating terrorism, beyond our borders if need be, isn’t a good idea. There isn’t a concrete policy on anything but limited government power, low taxes, and devotion to the American government’s first (and only, really) priority which is protecting its people.

In Kentucky, Rand Paul acts as if the Tea Partiers have annointed him with Holy Oil. He begins every stump speech with the line that that He (and by implication, only He) has "message from the Tea Parties: we've come to take our government back."

Rand Paul, however, has his own opposition from Tea Partier and veteran Bill Johnson. To be sure, Bill Johnson's father didn't run for president last term; he has no national email list for dropping "money bombs" and not much name identification. In short, Bill Johnson is running as an outsider against the son of career politician Ron Paul.

The chastening lesson for both Pauls is that a movement as decentralized as the Tea Parties is by nature heterogeneous. And while many within in it may agree that Gitmo should be closed and the like, not all do. There are similar differences on abortion.

The Tea Partiers are united by fiscal conservatism, an abhorrence of deficits and a respect for the constitution -- principles upon which most Republicans agree. On foreign policy and abortion, there is a range of disagreement and a willingness to vet every candidate, regardless of Who's Your Daddy.

Rand Paul's Campaign Responds

Dr. Rand Paul's campaign has responded to my inquiry regarding Paul's position on U.S. support of Israel and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Christopher Hightower writes:

Our site received thousands of emails on August 20th, please forgive me for not quickly responding to yours. Dr. Paul looks forward to articulating his positions as the campaign develops.

Question number 1:

What is Dr. Paul's view on American support for Israel?

Answer:

Israel is a friend of America, he supports all allies with the United States.

Question number 2:

How about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Dr. Paul supports and would have voted for war against those responsible for the attacks on 9-11. The Taliban would not cooperate with us and turn over those responsible. Actions were taken that Dr. Paul would have supported. Looking back Dr. Paul feels we should have taken smaller strike forces in much faster to deal with the terrorist camps. It took so long to amass our forces many had time to escape.

Dr. Paul supports all troops serving in our Armed Forces, however, he would not have voted for the war in Iraq.

Hightower states that the campaign is in the process of developing the issues section of its website and asserts that it is more informative than other candidates' websites.

He is correct with respect to Grayson, who does not have an issues section on his website. However, Grayson just kicked off his campaign yesterday. We will check back to see Grayson's position on foreign policy and if the website does not so state or is unclear, we will ask, as we did for Paul.

Dr. Dan Mongiardo, who has been running for U.S. Senate for quite a while, has an issues section on his website but it only includes a video of Mongiardo talking about how his family's poverty inspired him to bring health care to Eastern Kentucky. There are a few platitudes about coal and economic development, but no specifics, and nothing about foreign policy.

Likewise, the campaign website of Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway includes an issues section that at this point is limited to a video of Conway. His video has its own share of platitudes: now is the time for "a belief that a brighter tomorrow is just over the horizon." (Seriously, yick.) Conway's video at least attempts to list what he sees as the issues, though with little or no detail on how he would solve the problems he identifies. For example, Conway calls for a foreign policy that shows that "strength and wisdom are not opposing values." I'm not sure what that means; perhaps it translates into something along the lines of appeasement is not wimpy.

The Paul campaign therefore is correct that at this juncture its campaign website offers the most specificity on where its candidate stands on the issues. The Paul campaign's format of listing the issues and Paul's position works much better than a video of the candidate. It allowed me to focus on the positions without the distractions of Hair and Eyebrows.

The election is 14 months away. Lots of time to fine tune these websites so they do not insult the voters of Kentucky with cliches but rather give us an informed basis to choose our next U.S. Senator.

Where Does Rand Paul Stand On Foreign Policy?

I wrote Dr. Rand Paul last week via his website to ask his position on U.S. support for Israel and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So far, no reply.

Perhaps he is too busy counting dollars from his "money bomb." Still, for a campaign geared to fundraising from the Internet, it seems odd that he would not respond to an inquiry to his campaign website. That's my punishment for not including a credit card number.

Paul has energized a group of Americans who are outraged -- and frightened -- about government spending and its effect of ballooning the deficit and diminishing our liberty. He's passionate and articulate about the cause of limited government, and I agree with him on that issue.

What is less clear is where Paul stands on foreign policy. Is he an extreme isolationist from the Pat Buchanan wing of the party? His campaign website says he opposes surrendering U.S. sovereignty:

Rand Paul proposes that America can engage the world in free trade, develop lucrative commercial relationships with other nations, and defend its national interests without funding or joining international organizations.

To the extent that he means that U.S. courts should not apply foreign law and the like, I agree. Americans should only subject themselves to laws written by those whom we have elected.

But Paul doesn't go into great detail, and that worries me because I wonder if he is speaking in code. I agree that the U.N. has soaked America for every dollar we will give it. The U.N.'s lack of accountabilty has allowed it to use our taxdollars to fund corrupt schemes, like the oil-for-food scandal. I don't want to surrender sovereignty to the United Nations, but I am not at this point prepared to withdraw from it either, given the good work it does on disaster relief. Is he actually proposing that we stop funding the U.N. altogether?

Paul does indicate on his website that he supports free trade, which distinguishes him from Buchanan on at least that issue. It will be interesting to see if Paul hits the issue hard. He should -- free trade is a vital component of prosperity not just for America but for the world's poor.

Paul's position on foreign policy is of the utmost importance for a candidate who aspires to serve in the U.S. Senate, where he would be called upon to ratify treaties with foreign countries, confirm the appointments of ambassadors and maybe even declare war. So it is not enough for him to rest on his domestic platform.

Moreover, Paul's outlook on foreign policy may be the factor that distinguishes him in the Republican primary from Secretary of State Trey Grayson. I don't doubt that Grayson opposes government spending every bit as much as Paul, though he has been much less forceful in so stating. (Trey, you need to kick it up a notch here).

Grayson needs to watch how Paul discusses international relations and look for a way to distinguish himself. To that end, Grayson needs to make clear his unequivocal support for Israel and his opposition to appeasing an Iran bent on acquiring nuclear war heads to go with those missiles it has pointed at Israel. And he needs to opposes protectionism forcefully.

Grayson needs to state that Islamofascism is dangerous and immoral. Gitmo should remain open. Defense attorneys who "out" CIA operatives should be prosecuted, not the CIA agents who did the job they were instructed to do.

Grayson's website doesn't give any more guidance on where he stands on foreign policy than does Paul's. Nonetheless, I don't wonder if a Senator Grayson would introduce legislation to stop funding the U.N.

Because Grayson has a track record of elected service and has campaigned around the state, he is known and liked by many. For Grayson, the good news is that no one expects him to take any positions that will shock us. The bad news is that he probably won't take any positions that will awe us. For Paul, the expectations may be just the opposite.

That's why Paul must be explicit about where he stands on all issues including foreign policy, not just the issues that captivate him.

Dems React

In his typical passive aggressive fashion, Sen. Barack Obama was gracious to congratulate Gov. Sarah Palin on her selection to the GOP ticket -- but let his minions attack her.

Team Obama made fun of Palin for having been mayor of a small town. They did not know at the time that she also clings to God and guns, but that soon became apparent and made the Obama hacks look like the elitists they are.

Also curious was the Obama team's complaint that the 44-year-old Palin lacks experience to be McCain's running mate. Let's see, exactly how does the 47-year-old Obama's three additional years make him so uniquely qualified to be number one on a ticket? As best as we can tell, those three years roughly add up to the time Barry spent with his Chicago radical pals as a "community organizer" between college and law school -- one of those times in his life not worthy of much mention in his puff piece video played at the convention.

Palin has more executive experience than Obama, who has zero, while also juggling the demands of another job he never could master: carrying and giving birth to and raising five children.

The Obama campaign also complained that Palin lacks foreign policy experience. This from a party who has only elected two presidents since 1964 -- both of whom were governors with no foreign policy experience.

And last I checked, Russia never laid claimed to Arkansas or Georgia, in the United States, at least.