The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison writes about “the awful State of Republican foreign policy debate” and bemoans the loss of Rand Paul from the field. Writers at The American Conservative, along with the Cato Institute and regular posts from Pat Buchanan and Michael Scheuer, are among a handful of sources you can turn to for foreign policy and national security intelligence based on prudence and restraint.
Daniel tells readers that none of the Republican candidates gives the slightest sign of valuing prudence or restraint. I unfortunately agree 100% with Daniel. Given my bad feelings there are two potential openings from the remaining group of Republican candidates.
Number one regards Jeb Bush. And yes, I recognize that to date Jeb has been the biggest disappointment of all the Republican pretenders. In fact, I believed from the start of the campaign season that Jeb would make the best president by a wide margin, which I still believe. I am convinced that Jeb has learned from the errors of his brother that the Iraq invasion was a disaster from the start and that the Paul Wolfowitz/Bill Kristol-led neocon crowd steered George W. wrong from the start. As such, I think Jeb has been blowing a lot of foreign policy smoke and that if elected could be counted upon to tack toward a Brent Scowcroft sort of foreign policy realism. Moreover, I think Jeb Bush is a good guy who would really have the best interests of Americans at heart.
Next Ted Cruz. To date Ted has made a complete hash of his foreign policy position. Cruz has absolutely astonished me with the stupidity of his remarks. Ted Cruz is just too smart to actually believe the nonsense he has been putting forth. I say this even though the group of foreign policy advisors surrounding Cruz has an all too obvious neocon slant. If elected, I think that Cruz, like Jeb Bush, could be counted on to take a foreign policy approach based upon prudence and restraint.
FLASHBACK VIDEO: Some foreign policy common sense from Rand Paul:
