Rand Paul & Marco Rubio - two opposite sides in GOP foreign policy debate

[pampango]

Rubio and Paul Embody Conservative Debate Over Foreign Policy

Both were propelled into the Senate in 2010 by the passion of the Tea Party movement. Both are possible contenders for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. And both are now trying to develop their commander in chief credentials through their seats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where they had high-profile opportunities this week to engage on the big issues of the moment.

Mr. Rubio is challenging the strain of isolationism emanating from some grass-roots conservatives and building a reputation as an internationalist willing to deploy American power – he has advocated greater American support for the anti-Assad forces in Syria, criticized President Obama for not sustaining a sufficient American commitment in Libya and suggested that the only way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might be military action.

But echoing his posture on issues like immigration, he acknowledges that he is as likely to have differences of opinion on foreign policy with his conservative supporters at home and his fellow Republicans in Congress as with Mr. Obama. He sees a valuable role for global institutions like the United Nations, supports operating when possible alongside allies, and sees foreign aid as generally delivering a solid return on investment for the United States.

Mr. Paul eschews the isolationist label attached to him by his association with his father, former Representative Ron Paul of Texas, whose inward-turning stances defined his national reputation. But Senator Paul nonetheless reflects the deep suspicion about global entanglements evident among libertarians and some Tea Party adherents, and in some ways is a perfect foil for Mr. Rubio’s efforts to position himself as a moderate, mainstream leader of a new generation of Republican leaders on foreign policy.

Mr. Paul questions the value of foreign aid and the need for permanent overseas military bases. He is calling for more restrictions on presidential power to wage war, opposes American involvement in Syria and is noticeably less hawkish toward Iran than many of his fellow Republicans. As the lone member of the Senate to vote against a resolution last fall declaring that Iran could never acquire a nuclear weapon, he said, “A vote for this resolution is a vote for the concept of pre-emptive war.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/rubio-and-paul-embody-conservative-debate-over-foreign-policy/

These two guys (both of them tea party favorites in their own way) don't agree on much with regards to foreign policy or immigration. Since they both have presidential ambitions for 2016 it will be interesting to see how the contrast plays out. If one or the other's foreign policy proves to be broadly unpopular with republican primary voters, it is likely that that one will change his views to become more acceptable to the base.

[brucefan]

1. "Passion of the Tea Party"?

More like"lunacy of the Tea party".